Educational organizations are constantly looking at the establishment theory and practice. As Spivak associates conventions he states, “Rhetoric sees itself not as creating a balance between theory and practice, but rather as ‘inhabiting a kind of productive unease” (1). I feel like it is necessary that many members of our educational institutions who disagree with “The No Child Left Behind,” Act. Spivak mentions that “our student bodies change regardless of what one believes, our country is more multicultural, and some would say that the cultures have taken on a more important role in our society. The federal government’s impetus for insuring uniformity among cultures was to create NCLB. One of the positive effects of this act has been to illuminate these cultures so their needs can be more thoroughly addressed. When one considers that theory and practice depend on the culture and politics of an era. The prospect of finding a process that works in a classroom for all participants becomes an impossible task. In the scientific method, too many variables lead to inconclusive results. Even though I do not agree with all of the elements of this educational system of measurement (NCLB), I do think that it helps us to evaluate situations that we need to look at in theory and practice. In order to address our ever diversifying pool of student body participants, we must be able to revise our efforts, remain flexible in the act of diversifying cultural contributions to the curriculum of classrooms. We as educators see this in our elementary and secondary institutions as well as colleges. Spivak is making a point about university level environments; unfortunately, in this day and age all areas are becoming affected.