根据美国的政治体制，联邦政府的权力是受限制的。中小学教育基本上是地方（学区）和州政府管辖的事务。但联邦政府也提供一些教育经费来影响教育政策。1965年，联邦政府制定了中小学教育法（Elementary and Secondary Education Act），对一些项目提供经费。这个法律几经修改，在2001年在小布什总统的主导和国会的两党支持下形成了“不让一个孩子掉队”（No Child Left Behind，简称NCLB）法案，次年获得通过。到2008年，美国教育部的总经费是572亿美元【注1】，占联邦可支配支出的5%。其中NCLB中主要项目的经费是222亿美元【注2】。（2009，2010年因为经济刺激法案，有关经费大幅度增加。不过这是不持久的。）
奥巴马上任后，声称将对NCLB进行修改。2010年3月，教育部发布了名为“蓝图”的修改方案，但没有正式提交国会。奥巴马在最近的国情咨文中提出了“取代”NCLB，但没有提供任何细节。最近，奥巴马在联邦预算提案中提出了对NCLB法案的修改。主要有：把州里制定的学校标准改为全国统一的标准，把原来2014年全部学生及格的目标改成“毕业生为读大学和工作做好准备”，但具体定义尚未公布。以前奥巴马还提到，要把“进步”而不是绝对成绩作为评估标准。不知道这个是否包括进了目前的修改方案。另外，就是采用“登峰竞赛（race to the top）”的做法，改变按学区和学生人数分配经费的办法，由各州，各学区以竞争来获得经费。目前，正式的修改提案何时能提出尚未可知。唯一可以确定的是，当这个修改提案到达国会后，又会引起一场教育理念和教育政策的全国辩论。
【1】 http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/education-federal-budget 【2】 http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding 【3】 NCLB法案全文：http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html 【4】 国会研究室（CRS）对NCLB的解释：http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33960_20080108.pdf 【5】 “No Child Left Behind's 5th Anniversary Keeping Promises And Achieving Results”, US Department of Education, http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclb5anniversary.html 【6】 “What Can We Learn from the Implementation of No Child Left Behind?”, Rand Report 2010, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/2010/RAND_RB9517.pdf 【7】 R. R. Skinner, “The No Child Left Behind Act: An Overview of Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress”, Congressional Research Service, May 27, 2009. http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/The No Child Left Behind Act - An Overview of Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress.pdf 【8】 Murnane, Richard J., and John P. Papay. 2010. "Teachers' Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3): 151–66. http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.24.3.151 【9】 Jolly, J., & Makel, M.. (2010). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: The Inadvertent Costs for High-Achieving and Gifted Students. Childhood Education, 87(1), 35-40. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 2184649061) 【10】 Whitehurst, G. J., (2010), February 4, 2011, Brookings Blog, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0324_naep_whitehurst.aspx?p=1
Ouyang: 你的同事提到的这点是我想说但没有提及的-- 大学的终身授予，是要经过严格的评估的，时间一般为六年，考核的内容包括教学，科研，和其他的professional development and services，而不是满了年限就能自动获得（而中小学的终身一般只需要两三年probationary period，考核的标准也并不高）。当然,有了终身的教授，也可能从此“高枕无忧”，而不再努力工作，这种例子比比皆是，但学校也不能因为这个原因就把他们解雇，除非他们犯了非常严重的错误，比如性骚扰等。即便这样，也会是一个漫长的过程，如果有教师工会的话就更是如此。所以从这个角度来讲，说大学终身制是为了确保教授的质量，在得到终身之前大概可以这样说，但对于拿到终身的人来讲，它的真正目的其实更在于保护学术自由。
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding the primary reasons for academic tenure:
"Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole might favor "safe" lines of inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions.
"Universities also have economic rationales for adopting tenure systems. First, job security and the accompanying autonomy are significant employee benefits; without them, universities might have to pay higher salaries or take other measures to attract and retain talented or well-known scholars. Second, junior faculty are driven to establish themselves by the high stakes of the tenure decision (i.e., lifetime tenure vs. job loss), arguably helping to create a culture of excellence within the university. Finally, tenured faculty may be more likely to invest time in improving the universities where they expect to remain for life; they may also be more willing to hire, mentor and promote talented junior colleagues who could otherwise threaten their positions."
So in essence, there are three main incentives: protecting academic freedom, providing job security, and promote excellence (at least in the early, pre-tenure years).
关于德州教育作假的事件，是在NEWS WEEK上的一篇封面文章，有详细的介绍，当时曾经轰动，也造成联邦教育部长的辞职。 no child behind也被归罪于此人，因为他是夸下了海口的。一般认为德州的高毕业率的真相即便是小布什（我觉得台湾的布殊，布希的说法很有趣，不会弄混，尽管把人家弄得好像不是一家子）也是被蒙在鼓里。
