In 2005, the Utah legislature passed a law that allowed school districts to ignore parts of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a law passed by Congress in 2001 that supported standards-based education reform. Utah did this despite the fact that it endangered losing $76 million in federal aid to Utah public schools. Which of the following statements best explains why Utah took this action

Educational policy was exempted from the Constitution, and it led to debate on the right role for the federal government in education policy

Explanation:

The U.S. Constitution offers no power over education to the federal government. Education is not listed in the Constitution of the United States, and for a known reason. The Founders seek to establish major areas of life to be guided by individuals more close to them, which can be by state or local government or by families, businesses, and different factors of civil society. Basically, they concluded on no need for the federal government to be involved in education.

It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reckon with any privilege to a taxpayer‐funded education as it view education as not part of the rights granted whole protection under the Federal Constitution.

The Founders were concerned that the dedication of power would impact negatively on a person freedom but chose to limit and divide power promoting decentralization and divided power to be of greater good to the people. They are of the notion that that it would do more good to have decisions being set up independently by 13–or 50–states, with their individual ability to create and to develop and imitate successful programs in other states, against taking a decision for the whole country.

This fully account for why it was a mistake and an error to proceed in centralization of the regulation of our local schools via the No Child Left Behind Act. And why in our case study Utah took the action notminding the fact that it would lose $76 million in federal aid to Utah public schools.

answer: that government dose not want hire eric but hire minorities and woman on affirmative action quotas.

explanation: