Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Week 11 Findings (McGuinn (Introduction (The Origins of NCLB (The…

- - - - The Evolution of Federal Education Policy
        
        From Devolution to National Goals in Education
        
        The Conservative Backlash
        
        The Parties Converge
        
        2003-05: A Rising Tide of Opposition to NCLB
        
        Politics and the Future of the Federal Role in Education
        
        3 more items...
        
        “The past three years have been eventful ones for federalism and education as states have worked to implement No Child Left Behind and strong opposition to the law has been voiced from many different quarters” (McGuinn, 2004, p. 57).
        
        ‘"the fundamental lesson of the last seven years, it seems to me, is that education investment without accountability can be a real waste of money. But accountability without investment can be a real waste of effort. Neither will work without the other. If we want our students to learn more we should do both."(McGuinn, 2005, p. 55)
        
        “ Both candidates repeatedly argued that the federal government had a responsibility to ensure a quality education not just for those disadvantaged groups (racial minorities, disabled children) that the federal government had long assisted, but for all students.”(McGuinn, 2005, p. 56)
        
        “if they were identified with cutting aid for poor kids." In addition to the intense policy fights in Congress, this period also saw a very public battle over ideas as Republicans devoted considerable time and energy to convincing the public that federal involvement in education was harmful, that funding was not the key element in improving schools, and that vouchers were not a radical idea.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 53)
        
        During this time the government was experiencing shut downs over funding for education. The issue however became much greater when the general public became involved. Republicans attempted and failed to convince the public that federal involvement in schools was harmful rather than helpful as well as that funding would not solve the issues in the education system. This was significant as the public had been told the opposite for a long time prior to this new claim being made which would cut funding for their children’s educations.
        
        “This vision was embraced by moderates from both parties as well as many governors and business leaders—particularly in the South— who saw improving the quality of schools as essential for assimilating the country’s many new immigrants and as the best way to bring about state economic development” (McGuinn, 2004, p. 50).
        
        “Republicans began more and more to engage the issue under Bush- public opinion shifts beginning in the early 1990s showing that the issue is more and more important played a big role in this. The Reagan administration really looked at education only through a federalism perspective; Bush I began to change this. He wanted to be the education president and you began to see more proactive initiatives on education beyond school choice coming out of the Republican Party.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 51)
        
        “The policy regime in education during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the first half of the twentieth was based on a view of public schools as performing adequately and as best controlled by state and local governments.”(McGuinn, 2005, p. 48)
        
        “Social welfare programs generally, and federal education programs specifically, were attacked as being expensive, overly bureaucratic, and ineffective, and they were targeted for reduction or elimination” (McGuinn, 2004, p. 49).
      - “NCLB's significance is in mandating that all states adopt a standards and testing regime, that they conform to federal timetables for achieving student proficiency, and that they suffer real consequences for failing to do so.”(McGuinn, 2005, p. 46)
      - o “Many of the media and scholarly interpretations of the politics of NCLB, however, have painted an incomplete—and in some cases inaccurate—picture of the evolution of federal education policy, which has important consequences for our understanding of the law’s origins and future” (McGuinn, 2004, p. 44).
        
        “The Education Commission of the States summarizes the difference between the 1994 and 2002 reforms in this way: NCLB differs from past [state and federal] initiatives in two important ways. First, it represents a more systemic approach to achieving reform and improvement, tying together a variety of requirements and incentives in areas ranging from student testing, school safety and reading instruction, to professional development for teachers to technical assistance for low-performing schools. Second, it signifi- cantly raises the stakes-for states, districts, and schools-for failure to make steady, demonstrable progress toward improving student achievement.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 45)
        
        “states have always welcomed federal education funding, but they have fought vigorously to protect their policymaking autonomy over schools. Yet NCLB forces states to change their education policies in a number of major ways.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 46)
        
        “The release of the A Nation at Risk report in 1983 was a crucial focusing event as it fueled increasing public concern about the decline of public education and, in particular, its impact on the nation's economic competitiveness.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 49)
    - - “The center- piece of the new law is the requirement that states, as a condition of accepting federal funds, establish academic standards to guide their curricula and adopt a testing regime that is aligned with those standards. States will have to test all students in math and reading in grades 3-8 every year (as well as once in high school), beginning with the 2005-6 school year.” (McGuinn, 2005, p. 41)
        
        The No Child Left Behind Act is applicable to all states who accept federal funding. It establishes standards that the states must meet in their curriculum in order to gain the funding. In order to ensure that the states are abiding by these standards testing has been established that is a requirement of grades 3-8 and carries up into high school each year. This is relevant as it explains that starting in 2005, these have been the set expectations of federally funded schools, which include most public schools.