BoardBuzz

« Is it spring break yet? | Main | Florida voucher problems grow deeper as Senate committee approves 'accountability' plan »

March 19, 2004

Paige on NCLB: "If it is not funded, it is not required."

WKYC in Cleveland, Ohio reports that Secretary of Education Rod Paige surprised Cleveland School District CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett this past Wednesday when he told her that the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act aren't required if the district can't pay for them.

"If it is not funded, it is not required," said Paige. "So there's a trigger inside the language of the law that prohibits us from requiring any of the accountability components for which the government doesn't pay for."

The much-discussed "trigger" provision, section 9527 of the act, has been the focal point of the threatened legal challenge to NCLB that the National Education Association has been encouraging states to mount. It's also the basis for one of the claims in the lawsuit Reading, Pennsylvania's school district brought against the Pennsylvania department of education over NCLB. The National Conference of State Legislators prepared a legal memorandum, summarized here, analyzing a potential challenge to NCLB's unfunded mandates under this same provision.

We're not sure whether Paige's statement was inaccurately or incompletely reported. We don't know if it was a slip of the tongue, represents just another new way of restating the old claim that NCLB imposes no unfunded mandates, or signals something very new in the federal stance. BoardBuzz has been carefully following the ever-evolving talking points on NCLB funding. Let's review. Under increasing pressure, NCLB defenders have variously tried to argue:

  • That education leaders should stop focusing so much ire on how to pay for NCLB, because "it's not about the money."
  • That education is, after all, still a state and local responsibility, so the feds can't be expected to fund all of the real costs of federal accountability mandates.
  • That critics should stop complaining about the chasm between NCLB's costs and its funding, because, well, at least overall federal education funding has increased.
  • That the lackadaisical states are just sitting on millions in unspent federal funds.
  • That NCLB provides too much money for states and local communities.
  • That NCLB won't cost as much as projected, because the law may be changed or because its goals may not be met.
  • That NCLB technically doesn't specifically require states and school districts to take all of the specific measures that will be needed to accomplish its goals, so the costs of these measures shouldn't be counted toward NCLB.
  • That it's unfair to include in NCLB cost estimates the expenses that would have been required by the pre-NCLB Elementary and Secondary Education Act or by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—technically, each unfunded mandate should be counted separately.
  • "Hey batter, batter!"
The problem for local school board members and administrators is that talking points don't pay bills. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. NCLB's goals are right, accountability for meeting the needs of all students is needed, and Secretary Paige is right to point out that noncompliance with some federal education laws has been too common. But it's become more and more clear that NCLB needs some fixing and that, at any rate, really complying with NCLB and all the other federal mandates is a very expensive proposition.

So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we'll say it again. Instead of backing off of NCLB's goals because they will be costly, the people of the richest country in the world should insist on the funding to get the job done for all of our children. That insistence should be voiced loudly to federal, state, and local leaders alike.

Meanwhile, Cleveland's CEO says she hadn't heard about section 9527 of NCLB before, but that she'll follow up with the school's attorneys and the state superintendent. The district "will be examining each line of the No Child Left Behind Act in light of Paige's comments to see if they have to implement requirements that are not fully funded." We'll be watching, too.

Posted March 19, 2004 12:00 AM