Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) represents the greatest extension to date of Federal authority over public school governance. In NCLB, Congress used its conditional spending power to push states and localities into enacting particular kinds of testing and accountability policies. This article places NCLB in the context of Congress's generally increasing willingness to exert itself via conditions attached to federal financial aid. It also analyzes the implications of NCLB for federalism and intergovernmental relationships in education governance.

[1]  D. B. Walker.  The Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching Toward Washington , 1995 .

[2]  Thomas D. Snyder,et al.  Digest of Education Statistics 2002 , 2001 .

[3]  Lynne Milgram,et al.  Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act , 1999 .

[4]  J. Quadagno,et al.  Welfare's End , 1999 .

[5]  M. Mccarthy,et al.  What legally constitutes an adequate public education? : a review of constitutional, legislative, and judicial mandates , 1982 .

[6]  A. Krueger,et al.  Another Look at the New York City School Voucher Experiment , 2004 .

[7]  William G. Howell,et al.  Uses of Theory in Randomized Field Trials , 2004 .

[8]  Thomas D. Snyder,et al.  Digest of Education Statistics , 1994 .

[9]  Laura S. Jensen.  Federalism, Individual Rights, and the Conditional Spending Conundrum , 2000, Polity.

[10]  Damian W. Betebenner,et al.  Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 , 2002 .

[11]  Gerald N. Rosenberg.  The hollow hope : can courts bring about social change? , 1992 .

[12]  Peter W. Airasian.  State Mandated Testing and Educational Reform: Context and Consequences , 1987, American Journal of Education.

[13]  Acsw John T. Pardeck.  Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , 1997 .

[14]  A. Krueger,et al.  Inefficiency, Subsample Selection Bias, and Nonrobustness , 2004 .

[15]  William G. Howell,et al.  Efficiency, Bias, and Classification Schemes , 2004 .

[16]  I. Holloway.  The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? , 1992 .

[17]  W. Mathis.  The Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different Assumptions, Different Answers , 2005 .

[18]  C L Miller,et al.  Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 , 1992 .

[19]  L. Mcdonnell.  No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution? , 2005 .

[20]  John F. Jennings.  Why National Standards and Tests?: Politics and the Quest for Better Schools , 1998 .

[21]  Keith E. Whittington.  Dismantling the Modern State? The Changing Structural Foundations of Federalism , 1998 .

[22]  Thomas J. Kane,et al.  Randomly Accountable: Failing to Account for Natural Fluctuations in Test Scores Could Undermine the Very Idea of Holding Schools Accountable for Their Efforts-Or Lack Thereof. (Research) , 2002 .