There is no doubt that in America and most other western countries, education opens the door to our children and leads to their lifetime success. Education has long been recognized as a "building block of a strong economy, a strong society, and a strong democracy" (Glaeser). As we entered the information age in the early 1990s, it became clear that in order for our country to maintain its global leadership role, a radical change to our education system was inevitable. The 2002 "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act was thought to be the answer to our educational woes and has since brought test-based school accountability in education across the country. The purpose of this research paper is to address the effects of the NCLB mandate in Virginia.
…show more content…
While some States were neutral or supportive, others filed suits against the federal government or passed laws to circumvent the NCLB and some prohibited spending State money for this program. As is the case with most laws forced on the States by the federal government, there is never enough money to fully support and implement such law. Because the implementation of the NCLB program across all States came with a cost, in 2003, Congress appropriated nearly $25 billion to help States comply with this law. However, that was insufficient to enable all States implement efficient and sustainable programs that complied with the law. The majority of States needed much more to finance the cost of additional assessments, training and retraining of education professionals, collecting statistical data, and providing such dada back to the federal government as a measure of compliance. But money was not the only problem. There was an even more important reason for States resistance to the NCLB and it was not related to the fact that our education system needed corrective action. Rather, the main issue was the degree to which this law has shifted the power of making education policy decisions from the State into the hand of the federal government. Many States felt the NCLB trespassed on state sovereignty over educational matters. The government "demanded, reached, and imposed a stronger role in defining quality education for public schools. The NCLB marked an unprecedented extension of federal authority over states and local schools (Rudalevige). This clearly created a strained relation between the States and the federal government. The federal government further mandated that funds would be pulled from States that did not comply. This added and worsened the pressure on the States to comply with the demands of the
While some States were neutral or supportive, others filed suits against the federal government or passed laws to circumvent the NCLB and some prohibited spending State money for this program. As is the case with most laws forced on the States by the federal government, there is never enough money to fully support and implement such law. Because the implementation of the NCLB program across all States came with a cost, in 2003, Congress appropriated nearly $25 billion to help States comply with this law. However, that was insufficient to enable all States implement efficient and sustainable programs that complied with the law. The majority of States needed much more to finance the cost of additional assessments, training and retraining of education professionals, collecting statistical data, and providing such dada back to the federal government as a measure of compliance. But money was not the only problem. There was an even more important reason for States resistance to the NCLB and it was not related to the fact that our education system needed corrective action. Rather, the main issue was the degree to which this law has shifted the power of making education policy decisions from the State into the hand of the federal government. Many States felt the NCLB trespassed on state sovereignty over educational matters. The government "demanded, reached, and imposed a stronger role in defining quality education for public schools. The NCLB marked an unprecedented extension of federal authority over states and local schools (Rudalevige). This clearly created a strained relation between the States and the federal government. The federal government further mandated that funds would be pulled from States that did not comply. This added and worsened the pressure on the States to comply with the demands of the