With an attempt for balance, this article comes across as an apologia for the No Child Left Behind law. The reader is always pulled back to the approval side when there seems to be ample negative opinion about this topic. This is a rehash of old news. While seemingly reviewing NCLB from a student achievement angle, that seems to be more of a cover to help build Bush's legacy in a positive light. It might have been more useful to continue the student angle with interviews of students and parents, as one article. Then augment that with the perspective of the education community. This is a tough and emotional topic for many in the US. Why? What are the underlying values and motivations for the various view points?

This article offers several points of view and several voices. All-in-all it is balanced and accurate. A more in-depth article would certainly shed even more light on this critical topic but this certainly gives the reader the information they need to make decisions and act. It is well written and with each paragraph the reader wants to learn more.

The headline is enticing. The article does not deliver. This topic begs for depth because within these letters are probably the meat of Obama's leadership direction and style. While these are hinted at the article missed an opportunity to uncover, enlighten and familiarize citizens with these potentially powerful examples of a president-elect's vision of government. Or, perhaps there was no meat. Where is the analysis of what is missing from the letters. Where is the substantive opposition to these plans. The headline was promising. The article missed the mark.

In the age of short headline articles designed to reach the web audience, and the all too partisan temperaments of writers, this article stands out for quality writing, insightful summation of larger conversations, and a helpful scaling of this audacious story. While i have my own bias, this piece pulled me into the next section, sentence or phrase just as i became curious for that perspective. Excellent.

This article paints a broad picture of the EU's dilemma regarding immigration. It raises the issues in a fair and balanced manner. It lacks detail and depth. It is a start within an interesting debate.

The headline implies a different story. The chart is interesting and informative as it stands. It begs for more detail and analysis from additional organizations. I realize this is a snap-shot of statistics but a higher degree of context would be helpful. It assumes readers Economist.com are informed on the topic and this adds detail.

This is at least 4 articles in one. Each section would be highly served by its own space and, hence, more detail and follow up. This is highly charged information that begs for details. It deals with personal reputations, organizational effectiveness and legal interpretations. Not a lot of room for nuance; cries for details and supported documentation.

This seems to be primarily an opinion piece disguised as news. While it is interesting and informative, and certainly adds to the debate about Brown in general, it seems deficient in critique and depth of reporting. Solid writing with humor.

This seems to be more headline news with no substance, follow up investigation or verification. Very repetitive of past articles in other publications.

I'm no economist but how do tax payers keep paying enough taxes for these bailouts, two wars, and still run our governments (national, state and local)? And why do folks still call us a capitalist system when clearly we are being panicked socialists. I prefer honest socialism to our dishonesty about our economics.

You have captured my feelings about the debate. Thanks. As for comments about the liberal media. Get a grip. The vast majority of media in this country is conservative. In fact, what liberal media that exists needs to be more visible and more vocal to balance the conservative, unhelpful interviewers we saw last evening.