NCLB’S FEDERALISM

If a hallmark of the Reagan presidency was the New Federalism, in which funds to state and local governments were cut and responsibilities shifted downward, the current administration might be credited with encouraging a bottom-up Calculated Federalism, in which states align their governing with their funding. This may be most true with No Child Left Behind, the federal school funding and reform act.

A lawsuit last month by the Reading, Pa., school district against Pennsylvania over NCLB may have seemed dramatic, but it was a relatively calm response that reflects a lot of anger at the school-district level. According to news reports, Reading sued for lack adequate technical and financial assistance that would allow it to comply with the act. Inadequate resources amount to unfunded mandates, which the government is not supposed to issue. But a lawsuit, at least, provides an impartial judge to review the records. Other states seem to have reached their conclusions before all the evidence was in, though their frustration is understandable.

Utah, Vermont, North Dakota, Indiana and Ohio have all required studies to see whether the new federal spending matches the new required costs. What is important with all these states, however, is not only whether the two sides of the ledger balance but what happens if they do not. Unlike Pennsylvania, other states will not sue, some will simply say no thanks to the federal education money, such as Title 1, and opt out of NCLB. They are doing this after the National Conference of State Legislatures met with the Bush administration and reportedly was told the administration was not willing to change the law.

This is a perilous path because NCLB’s outcome-based reporting doesn’t lead education reform; it follows what the states have been doing for several years. Maine, for instance, had its state Learning Results long before Congress passed NCLB and would have the state program even if the federal program disappeared. And because there is broad overlap in the state and federal standards, some of the federal money used for NCLB also indirectly supports Learning Results. Calculations for how much NCLB costs must also include some costs for state programs, or state taxpayers will find themselves with larger bills should they opt out of NCLB.

Far better than trying to leave the federal program is to insist that it be simplified. Congress should step in here. NCLB’s level of federal intrusion into state programs is too high, without any particular evidence that the federal government runs school systems better than the locals. The matrix for deciding whether various subgroups have made adequate yearly progress is too extensive, no matter how well intentioned, and should be simplified. Advocates for special-education students say rural states especially lack the specialists needed to comply with the standards.

These challenges can be met if the federal government learns to listen better and the states stop threatening to quit the act. Calculated Federalism is the mark of desperation; let’s hope the states aren’t pushed into it.