The State of Education: States Rise Up Against No Child Left Behind

Debate over the No Child Left Behind law has accompanied President Bush throughout his term, but the issue has intensified since the National Education Association took the matter to court and a renegade state decided to make its own rules.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit is putting pressure on the Bush administration to offer states waivers from some of the No Child Left Behind requirements. And Utah’s defiance marks a shift in the Republican Party’s support of the law.

The lawsuit

The nation’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), sued the Bush administration on April 20, 2005 over the No Child Left Behind Law.

The NEA claims that schools should not have to comply with the law if the federal government does not provide adequate funding for it. This argument is based on a paragraph in the law itself that says that no school district or state must pay for No Child Left Behind expenses that the federal government has not covered.

Further, the union says that the law violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which says that states do not have to pay for programs and laws created by the federal government.

The lawsuit brings to light a remarkable shift in party philosophy. When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was one of the first laws that they passed. Now, it is Democrats that accuse Republicans of passing expensive obligations to states, causing them to squeeze their already tight budgets.

The Department of Education argues that school districts do not have to participate in No Child Left Behind, so it is not an unfunded mandate. School districts can avoid the law if they refuse federal dollars.

But states say that it’s impossible to decline federal funding altogether and have joined the NEA in the battle against Bush. School districts in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Vermont, Michigan, Utah, and even Bush’s home state of Texas are plaintiffs in the case.

Utah surprise

In addition to joining the NEA lawsuit, Utah has passed a state law in order to circumvent No Child Left Behind.

On May 2, 2005, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman signed a law that puts the state’s program above Bush’s signature education initiative. The Republican-led state legislature passed the measure unanimously, sending the message to Washington that Utah does not believe in what they call a one-size-fits-all approach to education.

Specifically, the new law allows state education officials to ignore the parts of the No Child Left Behind law that conflict with the state education program. However, the measure maintains many of the benchmarks of No Child Left Behind, including annual reports of schools’ progress towards reading and math goals as well as parental notification of schools that fail to achieve.

Dr. Patti Harrington, the Utah School Superintendent, argues in USA Today that states have authority over education according to the U.S. Constitution. She says that No Child Left Behind violates the Constitution by imposing federal regulation over state education systems. She says: "Utahans think it’s inappropriately intrusive for the federal government to insert itself into contract negotiations between locally elected school boards and individual citizens as it tries to regulate teachers under No Child Left Behind." Harrington points out that although the funding issues are a serious consequence of No Child Left Behind, the broader issue is constitutionality.

Philosophy and practice

The philosophy behind states’ rights is that local government is good government; states should have the power to govern their residents because states know what their local people want and need.

The argument over state power versus federal power dates back to the Civil War Era, when Southern states wanted to protect industries based in slavery. Southern farmers didn’t wanted Northern bureaucrats telling them what to do, so Southern legislators began to push for states to have the right to make their own decisions. Those who are opposed to federal control still make this argument today.

Although the Republican Party is traditionally in favor of states’ rights, the Bush administration is also in favor of broad standardization in education in order to demand accountability. The idea of results in return for funding is a business-based model. Implementing these two ideas causes them to bump against each other within the No Child Left Behind law.

What are the distinctions between federal and state responsibility for education? Do you believe that states know their students needs better than the federal government? Should standards be the same throughout the nation? Do you feel that we need sweeping reforms that affect every student everywhere?

State and federal must work together if we want education to improve. To learn more about education and America click here.

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Posted on: 5/17/2005