No Child Left Behind Act: Is it an Unfunded Mandate or a Promotion of Federal Educational Ideals?, The

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2008 by Umpstead, Regina R

Through all of these initiatives, the federal government has assumed the role as a promoter of educational opportunity to students with enumerated "disadvantages," such as those living in poverty, in need of special education, subject to discrimination based on race or sex, or learning English as a second language,31 To accomplish this goal, it has provided supplemental financial resources through categorical grants to states and localities to allow them to better service students' special needs in the schools.32 In this manner, the federal government has been able to support its agenda of improving the educational quality for certain groups of students by offering funding only for specific programs and limiting its use to narrowly defined activities.

Over time, however, the federal government's role has changed so that it now has a greater focus on aligning federal support with the overall national goals for the education of all students.33 These universal student goals are reflected in NCLB. NCLB is controversial because it expands coverage to all students without providing sufficient funding to pay for all costs associated with implementing its requirements.

B. The No Child Left Behind Act Controversy: Does It Expand the Federal Role in Education?

NCLB is designed to change the culture of America's schools by closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and other student groups in U.S. public schools.34 Specifically, the introduction to the Act states as follows:

[t]he purpose of this subchapter is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.35

To guide this effort, the law requires states to develop and implement academic standards,36 employ "highly qualified" teachers,37 test students annually,38 report student scores,39 define and determine whether "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) towards academic goals is being made,40 and impose consequences on schools that do not make AYP, ranging from a requirement to provide extra services to students41 to total reorganization of the school.42 To receive funds under the Act, states must submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Education that outlines their commitment to comply with the key features of NCLB.43

Many in education today argue that this latest version of the Elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA) goes beyond the traditional federal role and infringes into the field of education too deeply-in a manner that usurps states' rights.44 They see NCLB as reaching beyond the federal government's customary role of providing money for states and localities to use in schools as they see fit within the context of fairly loose guidelines. Four of the features of NCLB are especially troublesome: (1) the "highly qualified" teacher requirement; (2) its call for curriculum and teaching practices to be based on scientific research; (3) its requirement that schools produce certain levels of educational progress for all students, reported as AYP measures on state academic tests; and (4) the consequences for schools whose students do not meet their academic targets.45 In this manner, NCLB extends federal authority into areas of education such as teacher qualifications, curriculum selection, and educational assessment that have previously been state or local prerogatives. This is seen as a reordering of intergovernmental relationships that has given the federal government unprecedented control over education.46