Congress has begun hearings on the reauthorization of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). Created in 2002, No Child Left Behind
increased federal funding for K-12 education and established
new requirements for state and local school systems across the
country.
As part of the NCLB reauthorization, Congress should consider
various proposed reforms. In March, Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and
John Cornyn (R-TX) and five other sponsors introduced the Academic
Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act (S. 893). In the House
of Representatives, Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and 60
cosponsors are sponsoring another version of the A-PLUS Act
(H.R. 1539).
Both versions of the A-PLUS Act are geared to addressing
problems that have become apparent during the implementation
of No Child Left Behind as well as systemic problems that have
persisted in federal education policy for decades.
Specifically, the proposals would promote greater state and
local control in education while maintaining true accountability
through state-level testing and information reporting to parents to
ensure transparency.
NCLB After Five Years
For more than four decades, Congress has sought to improve public
education in America by creating new federal programs and
increasing federal spending on education. In fiscal year (FY) 2007,
the federal government will spend $23.5 billion on programs
that fall under the original Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, which is now called No Child Left
Behind.[1]
Five years have passed since President Bush signed the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. The Bush Administration's original
blueprint for NCLB included some valuable reform principles, such
as reducing bureaucracy, promoting state flexibility, and expanding
parental choice in education. However, those valuable reform
ideas were either watered down or eliminated during the legislative
process on Capitol Hill in 2001. The bill that emerged from
Congress greatly expanded federal power in education while doing
little to eliminate bureaucracy, restore state and local control of
education, or empower parents.
The Federal Burden on Education. No Child Left
Behind significantly increased federal spending on and authority
over public education in America. According to the U.S. Department
of Education, the Bush Administration's budget request for FY 2008
would increase NCLB spending to $24.4 billion-a 41 percent increase
over FY 2001 spending.[2] This
budget request also includes a 59 percent increase in Title I
grants to local education agencies.[3]
Yet these funding increases have also increased the
administrative burden on state and local authorities. No Child
Left Behind created new rules and regulations for schools and
significantly increased compliance costs for state and local
governments. According to the Office of Management and Budget, NCLB
increased state and local governments' annual paperwork burden by
6,680,334 hours at an estimated cost of $141 million.[4] Moreover, the federal
government now has authority over issues that once were reserved to
the local level, such as student testing policies.
Unintended Consequences. The centerpiece of the
No Child Left Behind Act is a requirement for annual state-level
student testing, information reporting to the public, and a series
of mandated sanctions for schools that fail to demonstrate
adequate yearly progress toward state achievement benchmarks.
The purpose of this provision was to shift the focus of federal
education policy from inputs to outputs and student achievement.
However, five years of experience implementing NCLB has
exposed structural problems in the requirement.
Under NCLB, states must test students in every grade between 3rd
grade through 8th grade and once in high school. The law requires
states to report on the performance of various subgroups of student
populations, such as ethnic minorities, those from low-income
families, and those with limited English skills. Students and
student subgroups are required to show increasing gains in
student proficiency scores. The law sets a goal that all
children will score proficient by 2014.[5]
While the Department of Education sets the broad framework of
this accountability system, the states maintain control of
state-level tests and performance measures. This means that
states have the responsibility for defining "proficiency" and
setting performance levels on state tests. As a result, some states
have lowered standards on state tests to avoid federal sanctions.[6]
Ironically, while No Child Left Behind has sought to improve public
school accountability and strengthen standards-based reform across
the nation, the law's perverse incentives are threatening to
eliminate transparency by encouraging all states to lower standards
to avoid federal sanctions.
Funds Wasted on Ineffective Programs. One of
the problems in President Bush's original No Child Left Behind
proposal was that it continued to fund ineffective programs. "This 'program for every problem' solution
has begun to add up-so much so that there are hundreds of education
programs spread across 39 federal agencies at a cost of $120
billion a year," wrote the White House in February 2001.[7]
Regrettably, this problem persists.
For FY 2008, the Bush Administration has proposed
eliminating 44 Education Department programs that cost
taxpayers a total of approximately $2.2 billion annually. Yet the
White House has unsuccessfully proposed terminating many of these
same programs in previous years. These are programs that the
Bush Administration states "have achieved their original purpose,
duplicate other programs, are narrowly focused, or unable to
demonstrate effectiveness."[8] For example, the $2.2
million Women's Educational Equity Act promotes educational
equality for women and girls, yet female students generally
outperform male students on test scores and other performance
measures.[9]
In addition, Members of Congress earmark hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal education spending for specific
projects. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the FY
2005 Department of Education budget includes 1,199 earmarks
totaling $483 million.[10] The department's Office of Innovation and
Improvement budget included $289 million in earmarks, including
$198,000 for the Akron Zoological Park and $248,000 for the Alaska
Sea life Center in Seward, Alaska, for its Marine Ecosystems
Education Program.[11] Education earmarks divert scarce taxpayer
resources to Members' pet projects, which they create outside
of the traditional legislative process.
Limited Flexibility and Bureaucracy. One of the
four pillars of the White House's original No Child Left Behind
proposal was to reduce bureaucracy and increase flexibility:
"Additional flexibility will be provided to states and school
districts, and flexible funding will be increased at the local
level."[12] The proposal called for a charter state
option to allow states and districts with quality accountability
systems to enter into performance agreements with the U.S.
Secretary of Education. Under these agreements, states would be
freed from categorical program requirements and could use funding
on new state-directed initiatives.
However, this proposal to improve state-level autonomy and
flexibility was not included in the No Child Left Behind Act that
emerged from Congress. Instead, the law included a modest "ed-flex"
provision to allow states to apply for the limited ability to
redirect funding between existing federal programs.[13]
This is very limited flexibility compared to the original state
charter option that would have substantially altered the
relationship between the states and the federal government.
Restoring State and Local Control of
Education
Senators DeMint and Cornyn and Representative Hoekstra have
introduced similar versions of the A-PLUS Act in the Senate and
House of Representatives. Both versions would fundamentally
reform the relationship between the states and the federal
government in K-12 education. Both versions would restore state and
local control in education while maintaining the focus on improving
academic achievement by protecting state-level academic standards
and testing.
The Senate Version. The stated purpose of the
Senate version of the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act
(S. 893) is:
- "To give States and local communities maximum freedom to
determine how to boost academic achievement and implement
education reforms."
- "To reduce the administrative costs and compliance burden
of Federal education programs to focus Federal resources on
improving academic achievement."
- "To ensure that States and communities are accountable to the
public for advancing the academic achievement of all students,
especially disadvantaged children."[14]
Under this act, each state (and the District of Columbia and
each U.S. territory) would have the opportunity to enter into a
five-year performance agreement with the U.S. Secretary of
Education. Under the terms of the performance agreement, the state
would have the opportunity to be exempt from all federal program
requirements under No Child Left Behind if it supplied certain
information and maintained the terms of the agreement.
Specifically, the state would be required to identify which
programs and funding streams it will consolidate and to outline how
it will use the funds to further state education priorities,
improve student achievement, and narrow achievement gaps. The
performance agreement would require approval from two of three
state authorities: the governor, the state legislature, and the
state education agency. If these terms were met, the Secretary
of Education would be required to approve the performance
agreement.
In exchange for this freedom, states would be required to
maintain state-level accountability systems, maintain the same
academic achievement goals and standards throughout the term of the
agreement, and continue to report information about student
achievement to parents and the public to maintain academic
transparency. States would also be required to continue to
disaggregate student testing data. These testing requirements would
ensure that states continue to focus on improving academic
achievement.
In addition, participating states would be required to continue
improving educational opportunities for disadvantaged children
and to meet all federal civil rights laws, as well as to maintain
the equitable participation of private schools, maintain relative
funding levels of at least 90 percent of the previous year's, and
limit funds allocated for administration.
If the state meets these terms, the Secretary of Education must
continue the performance agreement. If the state does not, the
secretary must inform the state and give it an opportunity to
submit a revised performance agreement proposal. Once both
sides enter into a performance agreement, states must submit
annual reports to the Secretary of Education showing how the
funds were used and showing the progress (or lack of progress)
toward meeting the established goals. The secretary has the power
to terminate the performance agreement if the state fails to
comply with the agreement or misses its goals for three consecutive
years.
The House Version. The purpose of the House
version of the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act (H.R.
1539) is to give state and local communities the maximum freedom
and flexibility to improve academic achievement and implement
education reforms. The bill frees the state from the federal
requirements that are often tied to federal education funding and
allows the states to implement innovative initiatives to meet
the unique needs of their students. By submitting a declaration of
intent to the Secretary of Education, a state would be exempted
from federal requirements and could use its federal funding for
programs under Section 1001 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act for any educational purpose allowed under state
law.
The declaration of intent must include a list of eligible
programs to be included and a description of the plan for
maintaining direct accountability to parents and other citizens of
the state. The declaration must also include assurances that a
designated state official submitted the declaration, the state will
use fiscal controls, the state will comply with federal civil
rights laws, and the state will seek to advance educational
opportunities for the disadvantaged. The declaration of intent may
last for no more than five years. The Secretary of Education must
honor the declaration of intent within 60 days of receipt if it
meets these requirements.
Under A-PLUS, a participating state must maintain
transparency of public education. Participating states must "inform
parents and the general public regardless of the student
achievement system, demonstrating student progress relative to
the State's determination of student proficiency, for the
purpose of public accountability to parents and
taxpayers." States have the freedom to determine their own
accountability system.
Within one year, a participating state must widely
disseminate-to parents and the general public-a report describing
student performance, including disaggregated data (as required
under current law) and a description of how the state used the
funds to improve academic achievement, address the achievement gap,
and improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged
students. The legislation also requires the state to maintain
funding levels of at least 90 percent of previous year funding, to
limit the amount of funds spent on administration, and to ensure
the equitable participation of private schools.
The Benefits of the A-PLUS Act
While there are differences between the Senate and House versions
of the A-PLUS Act, they share common benefits. Both versions
would:
- Return control of education policymaking authority to
the state and local levels. Both versions of the
A-PLUS Act would allow states to take responsibility for education
policymaking. Governors, state legislators, and state secretaries
of education would make policy decisions about local schools,
moving the decision-making process closer to school leaders,
teachers, parents, and taxpayers. This would give states and local
communities the opportunity to take full responsibility for
improving educational opportunities in local schools. Citizens
would no longer have to look to the federal government for
solutions to improve America's schools.
- Free state and local governments from
the administrative and compliance burden of federal education
programs. Because participating states could opt out of
many federal program requirements, the A-PLUS Act would
significantly reduce the federal administrative and compliance
burden on states and local education agencies. Under the current
system, scarce resources are expended just to complete the
paperwork for federal programs. Under A-PLUS, this compliance
burden would be lifted, freeing state leaders to redirect funds
toward programs that more directly improve student learning.
- Allow states to consolidate wasteful or
inefficient programs. A-PLUS would allow states to
consolidate programs under the "performance agreement" or
"declaration of intent." This would enable state leaders to
identify and eliminate ineffective programs. Policymakers have
already identified a number of ineffective or unnecessary education
programs in the U.S. Department of Education. A-PLUS would give
states the opportunity to end these programs and redirect
resources toward others that show greater promise.
- Protect transparency and accountability for
results. Both versions of the A-PLUS Act would protect
state-level testing, academic transparency, and accountability
to the public. As noted, the current No Child Left Behind testing
requirements have created a troublesome incentive for states
to lower state standards to avoid federal sanctions. The A-PLUS Act
would allow states to maintain state-level testing and information
reporting to parents and the public. It also would ensure that
states maintain transparency for results while allowing for greater
state flexibility to design a testing system that serves local
needs. States would have the freedom to implement new testing
models without strict oversight from the federal government.
- Restore federalism. Giving states greater
freedom to control funding and establish education policies
would foster an education reform environment that is conducive
to innovation, experimentation, and improvement. Many of the
most promising education reforms have been implemented at the
state level and have spread across the country with innovative
states leading the way. The proliferation of charter schools,
school vouchers, and education tax credits is one example of
the innovative education reform ideas that have spread through
federalism. The development and proliferation of state
standards and testing policies in the 1990s is another. Allowing
states to exercise greater control over education funds and to
establish policies could well facilitate new improvements and
innovations throughout the country.>
Conclusion
As Congress considers reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, it should recognize the need for fundamental reform of
federal K-12 education policy. Both versions of the A-PLUS Act
would change the course of federal education policy, which
since 1965 has followed a path of greater federal control of
education, the proliferation of bureaucracy, higher administrative
costs, and new federal programs.
Rather than continuing to expand the federal government's role
in education, the A-PLUS Act would return authority to the state
level by allowing states to opt out of No Child Left Behind. States
and local policymakers would have greater ability to use federal
education funds on local priorities. States could end ineffective
or inefficient federal programs and target resources toward more
pressing needs. Fewer resources would be consumed by
administrative costs and the level of bureaucracy needed to
comply with existing federal rules and regulations. States, rather
than the federal government, would direct state standards and
assessments and maintain transparency for results through public
reporting.
After more than four decades of unsuccessful federal
intervention, it is time for Congress to consider a new
approach. Returning greater authority to the states would empower
parents, local school leaders, state policymakers, and governors to
take responsibility for local schools and implement reforms to
strengthen public education.
Dan Lips is Education
Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage
Foundation.
[4]
Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 202 (October 19, 2006), p.
61,730.
[6]
Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., and Eugene Hickok, Ph.D., "The
Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind: A Time for Choosing
Between Federal Management and Citizen Ownership of American
Education," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder,
forthcoming.
[9]
Krista Kafer, "Taking the Boy Crisis in Education Seriously: How
School Choice Can Boost Achievement Among Boys and Girls,"
Independent Women's Forum Position Paper No. 604, April
2007, at www.iwf.org/pdf/IWFPolicyPaper604_web.pdf
(June 12, 2007).
[12]
Bush, "No Child Left Behind."
[13]
Wayne Clifton Riddle, "K-12 Education: Special Forms of Flexibility
in the Administration of Federal Aid Programs," Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress, August 9, 2005.