An issue that is near and dear to my heart is the “one size fits all” premise behind No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Most of my 20 years of experience in the field of education has been in Title 1 schools. I have worked with children in Kindergarten through fifth grade. Seeing a child come to school who appears to have never held a book, a pencil or a pair of scissors while in the same class having the fortunate challenge of keeping the 5 year old engaged that came to school reading speaks volumes in demonstrating that students have varied educational needs, therefore it has always been a challenge for me to embrace that a one shot deal assessment is not fair and adequate to assess a child’s growth and it is certainly not fair to judge a whole school. As we explored this topic of high-stakes testing and marginalized groups, we discussed low-income, ESL, transient populations and special education students. The common issues for all of these groups is that it is impossible to ensure that each of the students starts at the same place, receives the same resources, and is able to reach the exact same goal at the end of the year. Each child may make tremendous gains by the end of the year but it will not look just like everyone else. In fact, IDEA is at odds with NCLB to some extent. Students with disabilities are expected to have and Individual Education Plan so how is it that they are all to be assessed the same way. This line of discussion and thinking supports the idea of individual growth targets and alternative measures for assessment. Allowing each child to measure along their own growth curve seems to really put the needs of the students at the forefront of any discussion regarding accountability. Many states have chosen to pursue a growth model as a method of assessment. There appears to be growing support for this approach from educators, parents and lawmakers. It had become very apparent the NCLB is leaving behind more and more children all the time.