The national schoolmarm: No child left behind and the new educational federalism

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 41-68

  McGuinn, Patrick ^a  

^a DREW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944489587     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/publius/pji001     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. As quoted in Greg Toppo, "No Child Left Behind Has Teachers Singing Protest Songs," USA Today, 6 July 2004.
2. For the full text of NCLB, see Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind Act"; www.ed.gov/nclb.
3. For a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Act, see Learning First Alliance, "Major Changes to ESEA in the No Child Left Behind Art"; www.learningfirst.org.
4. For detailed analyses of the NCLB from the viewpoint of state implementers, see Education Commission of the States, "State Requirements under NCLB", January 2003; www.ecs.org,
5. and National Governors Association, "NGA Summary of the Timeline Requirements of NCLB"; www.nga.org.
6. Thirty-five states did not have such testing at the time of passage. Crucially, however, after much debate, the final bill did not require states to adopt nationally designed tests, allowing them instead to design their own as well as to set their own levels for student proficiency.
7. Title I was the centerpiece of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and remains its single largest program. It provides federal funds to communities (many of which are located in urban areas) with a high concentration of low-income families.
8. Richard Elmore, "Unwarranted Intrusion," Education Next (Spring 2002): 31-35; Andy Rotherham, interview with the author, 22 August 2002.
9. See, for example, David Broder, "Long Road to Reform: Negotiators Forge Education Legislation," The Washington Post, 7 December 2001, p. A1.
10. Kathryn McDermott, "Changing Conceptions of Federalism and Education Policy Implementation: Where Did the No Child Left Behind Act Come from and Where Is It Going?" (paper presented at the American Political Science Association, August 2003), p. 2.
11. See Paul Manna, "Federalism, Agenda Setting, and the Dynamics of Federal Education Policy" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2003).
12. Education Commission of the States, ECS Report to the Nation: State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (Denver: ECS, July 2004), p. iv.
13. Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari, "Education Reform and Accountability Issues in an Inter-governmental Context," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27 (Spring 1997): 14.
14. Timothy Conlan, From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform (Washington, B.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998), p. 313.
15. Ibid., 303.
16. For more on the concept of "policy regimes," see Carter Wilson, "Policy Regimes and Policy Change," Journal of Public Policy 20, no. 3 (2000): 247-274.
17. For more on the passage, provisions, and implementation of ESEA, see Patrick McGuinn and Frederick Hess, "Freedom from Ignorance? The Great Society and the Evolution of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," in The Great Society and the Rights Revolution, eds. Sidney Milkis and Jerome Mileur (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press), 2005.
18. The National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983).
19. Though Reagan was not successful in eliminating the federal role in education or public support for federal leadership in education reform, he was very successful in challenging the effectiveness of the equity regime at the heart of ESEA and in discrediting the New Deal/Great Society welfare state more generally.
20. For more on education reform at the state level during this period and its impact on federal deliberations, sec Manna, "Federalism."
21. For more on the evolving role of the federal government in education in the 1980s, see Richard Elmore and Susan Fuhrman, "The National Interest and the Federal Role in Education," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 20 (Summer 1990); 149-162.
22. For more on the development of the standards movement and the national education goals, see Diane Ravitch, National Standards in American Education (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995).
23. Interview with the author, 10 March 2003.
24. New Democrats laid out a comprehensive vision for federal education reform in a 1992 book by the Progressive Policy Institute of the DLC that was seen as a blueprint for the administration. Mandate for Change emphasized that increased funding alone would not solve schools' problems and called for the president to "marshal public support for a radical redesign of U.S. education." Will Marshall, ed., Mandate for Change (Berkley; Berkley Pub. Group, 1992).
25. Mintrom and Vergari, "Education Reform, 15.
26. For more on the political divisions and policy debates in Congress during the Clinton administration, see Jack Jennings, Why National Standards and Tests? (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998).
27. Interview with the author, 22 August 2002.
28. Interview with the author, 27 March 2003.
29. Interview with the author, 5 May 2003.
30. John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (New York: Longman Publishing, 2002).
31. Interview with the author, 30 April 2003.
32. The Republican "Straight A's" plan called for giving states greater discretion in the use of federal education funds in exchange for states' annual public reporting of student achievement data and their agreement to meet certain student performance targets.
33. The large increases in the late 1990s contributed to a 69 percent increase in Federal on-budget funds for elementary and secondary education in constant dollars between Fiscal Year 1990 and FY 2001. National Center for Education Statistics, Federal Support for Education: 1980-2001 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 2002-129), p. 3.
34. This was apparent in the overlap of parts of the different ESEA reauthorization proposals-Clinton's "Educational Excellence for All Children" plan, the Republican "Straight A's" plan, and the New Democrats' "Three R's" proposal-debated in Congress in 1999 and 2000.
35. "Remarks and a Question and Answer Session with the Education Writers association in Atlanta, Georgia, vol. 1, Public Papers of the President: William J. Clinton-2000 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2000).
36. Kenneth Godwin and Wenda Sheard, "Education Reform and the Politics of 2000," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31 (Summer 2001).
37. Jolin Kincaid, "The State of U.S. Federalism, 2000-2001: Continuity in Crisis," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31 (Summer 2001): 32.
38. See Melissa Marschall and Robert McKee, "From Campaign Promises to Presidential Policy: Education Reform in the 2000 Election," Educational Policy 14, no. 1, (January-March 2002): 101.
39. As Bush advisor Sandy Kress noted, "There is no question that education was central to Bush's 2000 campaign strategy, to his compassionate conservative philosophy-it was a big issue to him and to the campaign ⋯ clearly the president was mindful, as were Karl Rove and others, that the Bush approach to education was a more popular and more generally supportable position than some of the earlier Republican positions in the past." Interview with the author, 23 May 2003.
40. Interview with the author, 9 May 2003.
41. Interview with the author, 13 March 2003.
42. Dale Krane, "The State of American Federalism, 2002-2003," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33 (Summer 2003): 13.
43. Phyllis McClure, "Grassroots Resistance to NCLB," The Education Gadfly 4(11) (18 March 2004) http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly/ index.cfm#1723.
44. Education Commission of the States, ECS Report to the Nation, pp. B2-B6.
45. Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Art (Washington D.C.: Center on Education Policy, 2005); http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/nclby3/press/cepclby3_21Mar2005.pdf.
46. Title I schools" are high poverty schools that receive funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The distinction between Title I and non-Title I schools is very important because the mandatory corrective actions spelled out in the new law for failing schools apply only to Title I schools. The other provisions of the law (such as those regarding standards, testing, and school report cards) apply to Title I and non-Title I schools alike.
47. Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Art (Washington D.C.: Center on Education Policy. 2005); http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/nclby3/press/cepclby3_21Mar2005.pdf, 68-73.
48. See, for example, Bess Keller, "Michigan May Feel Full Force of Federal Law," Education Week, 11 February 2004.
49. Jo Becker and Rosalind Helderman, "Va. Seeks to Leave Bush Law Behind," The Washington Post, 24 January 2004, p. A1.
50. For more on this, see Diana Jean Schemo, "14 States Ask U.S. to Revise Some Education law Rules," Education Week, 25 March 2004.
51. Lynn Olson, "States Revive Efforts to Coax NCLB Changes," Education Week, 2 February 2005.
52. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager stated that "the states are entitled to take Congress at its word that it did not intend to require states to implement programs that will cost more than the federal government is providing" and that it was a "stark reality" that NCLB was underfunded. As quoted in Alan Borsuk, "No Child Left Behind May Not Be Enforceable, Lautenschlager Says," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online, 13 May 2004.
53. The report is available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/nclb_report. htm.
54. See, for example Erik Robelen, "Opposition to School Law Growing, Poll Says," Education Week, 7 April 2004.
55. Lisa Dotterweich and Ramona McNeal, for example, argued that state resistance to NCLB is increasing because the federal government is not perceived as having a "credible" message in the policy. They write that: "the act is being perceived as under-funded, having unrealistic goals, and represents an unwanted invasion of the federal government into a policy area that is the domain of the state and local government." Dotterweich and McNeal, "State Compliance and the No Child Left Behind Act" (paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2004), p. 26.
56. Kathryn McDermott, for example, has argued that "given that federal funds are still less than 10% of total education spending, it is unclear how long the federal 'tail' can go on using mandates to wag the state and local 'dog'. If the financial and political costs of compliance with federal mandates get high enough, some states may decide that it is no longer worth their while to receive ESEA funds." McDermott, "Changing Conceptions of Federalism, 31.
57. As quoted in Alan Borsuk, "Law's Foes Unable to Stir Change," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online, 12 July 2004.
58. David Hoff, "Chiefs Sense a New Attitude in Meeting with Bush," Education Week, 31 March 2004.
59. In December 2003, testing rules for students with disabilities were relaxed and in February 2004 the rules governing limited English proficiency students were made more flexible. In March, extra flexibility was provided for teachers in rural communities and for science teachers in meeting the highly qualified mandate and streamlined alternative means were permitted for current teachers seeking to demonstrate subject-matter mastery in multiple subjects. Also in March, the department allowed states to modify the way they calculate student test-participation rates by averaging participation over a two-or three- year period and by omitting students who miss the tests because of a medical emergency. "Changing the Rules," Education Week, 7 April 2004.
60. For a detailed list of amendments to state accountability plans under NCLB submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, see "Rule Changes Could Help More Schools Meet Test Score Targets for the No Child Left Behind Act," Center on Education Policy, 22 October 2004; http://www.ctredpol.org/ nclb/StateAccountabilityPlanAmendmentsReportOct2004.pdf.
61. Lynn Olson, "Data Show Schools Making Progress on Federal Goals," Education Week, 8 September 2004.
62. Signs of this new flexibility were displayed in early 2005 when the Department of Education approved North Dakota and Utah's requests to use their existing measure of veteran teacher quality to satisfy the NCLB requirement and indicated that transfers from failing schools might not have to be undertaken if they resulted in overcrowding. Sam Dillon, "New U.S. Secretary Showing Flexibility on 'No Child' Act," New York Times, 14 February 2005. At the same time, however, the department denied a request from Connecticut to test less frequently than NCLB demands and forced California to classify more struggling school districts as failing.
63. The new plan is available online at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/ 2005/04/04072005. html.
64. It is interesting to note in this context that observers have detected a renewed commitment to federalism in the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, beginning with the prostates' rights decision in 1995's U.S. v. Lopez.
65. A 2004 GAO report concluded that NCLB was technically not an unfunded mandate since states and districts participated voluntarily as a condition of receiving federal aid. The General Accounting Office analysis of NCLB and other federal mandates was released in June 2004 and is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04637.pdf.
66. Frederick Hess, "Refining or Retreating? High Stakes Accountability in the States," No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability, eds. Paul Peterson and Martin West (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), pp. 55-79.
67. Boehner remarked in January 2004 that "overall, the law is working very much as envisioned. There has been predictable grumbling by the education establishment as it has gradually realized that the Bush administration has no intention of watering down the law through regulatory waivers, as the Clinton administration did with its own education plan. But virtually no one has suggested we should return to the days in which achievement gaps were subsidized and hidden from view. And most important of all, disadvantaged children are finally getting the attention they're due. This is a bipartisan achievement we should build on as a nation in 2004 and beyond." Press release from 7 January 2004; http://johnboehner.house.gov.
68. As quoted in Erik Robelen, "Bush Marks School Law's 2nd Anniversary," Education Week, 14 January 2004.
69. As quoted in Erik Robelen, "Kennedy Bill Would Give States, Districts Leeway," Education Week, 22 September 2004.
70. House Committee on Education and the Workforce press release, 7 April 2005.
71. Lowell Rose and Alec (Gallup, The 36th Annual Phi Delta Kapp/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools 2004; http://www.pdkintl. org/kappan/k0309pol.pdf.
72. In a speech to the Democratic convention on 27 July, NEA president Reg Weaver called NCLB "a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that sets the wrong priorities-too much paperwork, bureaucracy, and testing." But the Democratic party platform-as well as the speeches by Kerry and Edwards-were much less hostile towards the law. The platform stated that "we will use testing to advance real learning, not undermine it, by developing high-quality assessments that measure the complex skills students need to develop. We will make sure that federal law operates with high standards and common sense, not just bureaucratic rigidity." Erik Robelen, "NEA President does Beyond Party Line in 'No Child' Critique." Education Week, 29 July 2004.
73. Rose and Gallup, 36th Annual Phi Delta Kapp/Gallup Poll. The 2004 poll indicated, however, that the public continues to have only low levels of knowledge about NCLB, with 55 percent of respondents indicating that they "don't know enough" to express an opinion about the law. There is also strong opposition (67 percent) to using students' performance on a single test to judge whether a school is in need of improvement.
74. Educational Testing Service. Equity and Adequacy: Americans Speak on Public School Funding; http://ftp.ets.org/pub/corp/2004summary.pdf.
75. "Attitudes on No Child Left Behind Law," Education Week, 21 January 2004, p. 29.
76. As cited in "State Views on No Child Left Behind Act," Education Week, 4 February 2004.
77. Fixing 'No Child Left Behind,'" The New York Times, 5 April 2005.
78. See Margaret Weir, ed., The Social Divide; Political Parties and the Future of Activist Government (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and the Russell Sage Foundation, 1998).
79. The Civic Capacity and Urban Education project's study of school reform efforts in American cities, for example, found that they have largely failed not because of a lack of knowledge, resources, or reform but because of insufficient attention to the importance of forming and sustaining proreform political coalitions over time. Clarence Stone, Jeffrey Henig, Bryan Jones, and Carol Pierannunzi, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001).
80. Paul Peterson, "The Changing Politics of Federalism," Evolving Federalism," The Intergovernmental Balance of Power in America and Europe (Syracuse: Maxwell School of Syracuse University, 2003), p. 29.
81. John Kincaid, "From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509: American Federalism: The Third Century (May 1990): 139-152.