Mandates and the Governments That Impose Them

NCLB

Mandates And The Governments That Impose Them

No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The fiscal and budgetary impact on public organizations

Traditionally, public education has been left to the governance of state and local authorities. However, in creating the mandate of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal government extended unprecedented authority over the ability of states to set minimal standards for student achievement and what was considered a failing school. Although not specifically fiscal in nature, NCLB affected both how schools were funded by determining how to 'grade' a school as failing or passing as well as the curriculum. "NCLB requires states to implement a wide range of annual student assessments including reading and math assessments for each grade level between 3rd and 8th and once during the high school grades" (Chapter 3: NCLB costs, n.d., Legislative audit: 1).

Tests cost money to operate, as do the materials to prepare for the test. Additionally, there are often many 'hidden' costs, such as the cost of additional personnel and the opportunity costs of money and time. A recent review by South Dakota of the impact of NCLB found that "time spent to develop, prepare for and administer the tests took away time from other purposes" (Chapter 3: NCLB costs, n.d., Legislative audit: 2). Because of NCLB's focus on students meeting state standards for writing and math, schools have become increasingly focused on these disciplines, limiting the funding for everything from art programs to school sports. NCLB also required teachers to be 'highly qualified,' although most states had already developed standards for teachers pertaining to certification (Chapter 3: NCLB costs, n.d., Legislative audit: 3).

After a second year of failing to meet progress standards, a Title I school is "identified for improvement" under NCLB and many states are subject to increased expenditure requirements (Chapter 3: NCLB costs, n.d., Legislative audit: 3). "NCLB requires the school district to take 'corrective action,' including at least one of the following: (1) replacement of staff, (2) implementation of a new curriculum, (3) reduction of school-level management authority, (4) appointment of an outside expert to advise the school, (5) extending the school year or school day, and/or (6) restructuring the school" (Chapter 3: NCLB costs, n.d., Legislative audit: 4). All of these create costs for the school, local governments, and states. Additionally, under federal law, parents now have the option of transferring students out of the failing school at no cost. Reducing the number of students at the school reduces the available funds for the school.

NCLB was relatively young as a piece of legislation when states began suffering revenue shortfalls due to decreased tax revenue. According to the National Education Association (NEA), "chronic and severe funding shortfalls have put states in an untenable position: They must either use state and local funds to meet costly federal regulations or they will lose federal funds for the neediest students" (The true cost of NCLB and who pays, 2012, NEA). The state of New Hampshire, for example, was forced to pay "10 times what the state received from Washington to cover costs of the regulations" and Minnesota was forced to expend $19 million a year on the testing process alone (not counting the additional revenue required for preparation) (The true cost of NCLB and who pays, 2012, NEA). "It would cost cash-strapped California at least $2 billion to meet the requirements for relief from the federal No Child Left Behind law" (Blume 2012).