Schools Chiefs See a Path to Proposing Their Own Accountability Systems

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/education/13educ.html?ref=us
The people intened to read this article would have most likely been for states proposing thier own education accountability system. This article kinda changed my prespective on the federal laws governing public education. Should educational chiefs be able to propose and have thier own accountability systems? Before reading this article, The No Child Left Behind policy made alot of sense to me. It requires that all children must meet a certain academic requirement by a set time. with this goal, we would be working to make sure everyone would be improving and with that school can continue to rake in funds from the state. The article imbeded that law required all students to become proficient in english and math by 2014. What if all schools didn't meet the requirements? Is it fair for there to be restrictions put on educational funding because of this? The answer to my own question is no. Setting a goal on educational developement can be seen as the ambitious thing to do but at the same time unrealistic. Every student is different. We all work and develope at different paces. Each of us have diffent srengths and weaknesses. I dont think we sould be punshed because of this. If there are restrictions put on fundings, this could limit the amount of new tecnology, books, and workshops our schools (we) can recieve. The author definately challanged my intial thought on what fair educational standards actually are. The author would have most likely wanted us to think about how fair the No Child Left Behind law actually is. He or she wanted us to explore the other ways akademic growth can be measured and how little or no afect that should have on funds. The No Child Left Behind law focuses on the subjects math and english. What about social studies and science? Is that fair?