Sociology

Increasing equality in education reduces gaps in wealth and income distribution (Cordes, nd). When this is missed through unequal distribution of resources or requiring equal standards to be met by all groups of students without considering their background, inequality is introduced. This has been the phenomenon with some aspects of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. The NCLB law has been a means to extend inequality in American education and overall life status. Unfortunately, this is legal as long as the NCLB law is in effect. It is of importance to evaluate how the proposed overhaul by the Obama administration on the No Child Left Behind propagates inequality.

Continued inequality in NCLB overhaul
The NCLB law requires that all students in a given state in grade 3 to grade 8 to take the same test on writing and math assessment. This is unfair to students who may be from ethnic backgrounds that are generally left behind in the areas. For instance, the 42 percent of the Pleasantville High School students speak Spanish as their first language meaning that they may experience difficulties in reading. In fact, this is evident since it is reported that 51.7 percent of students in this school end up failing the High School Proficiency Assessment test in language (NJ Left Behind, 2010). This does not mean that they are not competent, only that their talents are assumed for a common assessment.

Even with much evidence of unfairness in the requirement of the NCLB that annual tests in reading and math be administered to all students, the current proposed overhaul by the Obama administration seems to ignore this. It is unfortunate that the changes propose a change of the name of the Act and leave the unfair part of the Act untouched (Douglass, 2010). The overhaul on the NCLB widens the gap that has been in as far as funding of schools is concerned. In the blueprint, five percent of the lowest performing schools in a state will face tough measures as punishment. These will include among other measures, closing the school. Considering the circumstances in which some of the schools have been performing, it would be discriminatory since such schools have students with poor background. It has for instance been noted that schools in rural settings perform poorly compared to urban and suburban schools. The main reason has been challenges such as inability to hire and sustain quality teachers in addition to geographical isolation all of which adversely affect the performance of the students (Zhang  Cowen, 2009). This inequality phenomenon will be extended even with the overhaul.

According to the proposed overhaul on the NCLB law by the Obama administration, the increase in federal funding on education will be distributed unfairly. The unfair distribution of resources translate to poor performance in schools with less funding since the ability to hire quality teachers among other successful learning requirements will be diminished (Cordes, nd). Inequality will thereby come in as school drop-out and poor performance will translate to low incomes. Inequality will also arise since schools will be eligible to more funding based on their performance. While this seems as an incentive, the risk of unequal distribution of resources stands as the schools have differing backgrounds. For instance, some schools like the Pleasantville High School in Atlantic County are generally challenged due to the variety of students it holds. It would be unfair to compare such a school whose greatest population is made of poor students of African-American and Hispanic backgrounds (NJ Left Behind, 2010). Such a poor background is bound to affect their performance which would automatically deny them federal funding in addition to a number of punishment measures taken as per the overhauls proposal. 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as per the NCLB law requires that public schools indicate progress every year which is determined by the scores on tests offered to student. This requirement propagates inequality as it is possible to have students being transferred to other schools of choice in addition to getting tuition after classes on a free basis. The Obama administration overhaul on NCLB is however addressing this inequality by requiring that schools make progress or be totally closed. Failure to take such strict measure leads to massive transfers thus overcrowding some well performing schools which eventually strain the resources. 

Some changes in the No Child Left Behind Law also seem to eliminate some forms of inequality. For instance, the law has checked fairness by including other subjects other than math and reading in assessing attainment of the federal goals (Douglass, 2010). As such, teachers will devote more time and efforts teaching other subjects other than the unfair devotion to math and reading.

Conclusion 
In conclusion, it is unfortunate that the inequalities in education brought about by the No Child Left Behind law may not be leveled with the proposed overhaul by the Obama administration. Unfair assessment of reading and math skills in students will be propagated in addition to inequalities in funding. With the inequalities in education unresolved, one can only expect more inequalities in all other aspects of life, more so economically.