"Equal Treatment of Students"

I know that No Child Left Behind is a lot more complex than this, but it was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this:

"Let us imagine Mrs. Andrews has a child in her class who is a very slow reader but who nevertheless makes marginal progress if given a great deal of attention by Mrs. Andrews. How much time would Mrs. Andrews be justified in withdrawing from the rest of the class in order to spend it with this one child? If our duty is to maximize the welfare of the least advantaged child, there is virtually no limit on the time Mrs. Andrews should spend with this child. As long as this one child continues to progress and as long as the rest of the class does not fall behind this child, he will have a virtually unlimited claim on Mrs. Andrew's time to the exclusion of the other children. Such an outcome is surely unfair" (pp. 64).

This really makes NCLB an ethical issue, if we try to reason it out based on nonconsequentialist or consequentialist thinking. It isn't fair to the class if Mrs. Andrews is primarily devoted to one student, but it also isn't fair for the one student to not receive the attention needed in order to meet the standards the entire class is expected to meet. Do we lower the standards, therefore not creating a challenging environment for the students as a whole, or do we acknowledge that some students are just not going to meet the standards? With all the pressure on teachers to make sure their students are successful with the high stakes tests they will encounter, it really feels like a lose-lose situation. Is it better for the majority of the class to succeed, or to make sure there is no child left behind?

(Humorous story: I attended Ohio University as both an undergrad and a grad student. When I didn't apply for the honors college when I was an undergrad, and I really didn't think it made a difference. We all took the same classes. When I returned as a grad student, I taught some students who were in the honors college or had friends in the honors college. They told me that during orientation for these students the person leading it takes a big bag of candy and holds it up, saying, "These are the resources available for students at OU." He dumps the bag of candy on the table and takes two pieces out of the pile, placing them to the side. He points to the two pieces and says, "These are the resources available to regular students," then points to the pile and finishes, "These are the resources available to you." It was true, though. When I was an undergrad the honors kids had their own dorm: every room was air conditioned and they had 24 hour study hours. Honors kids scheduled before everyone and weren't required to meet pre-reqs for upper level classes. They were rarely, if ever, busted for having drugs and alcohol in their dorm rooms. This bothers me, because students who are just as bright as the honors kids (like myself) get the short end of the stick. It sure is easier to get your work done and sleep when no one is playing music or banging around drunk at 3:00 in the morning. When the temperature got into the 90s in September and you couldn't study for the sweat in your eyes, and the library was equally uncomfortable (a/c from the 1970s; didn't really work), the honors kids were cool and comfortable while preparing for tests and papers. Maybe those kids will grow up to be the leaders of society, and maybe it's necessary to give them air conditioning so they will be the best leaders of society they could be, but it sure would be nice if the wealth was spread around a little. Or at least the candy.)