What does it cost to leave no child behind?

by Ed Muir

Funding of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has become a sore issue in state capitols. According to recent reports, 20 state legislatures have called for additional funding or other changes. Yet the Bush administration claims that funding is ample. Secretary of Education Rod Paige recently said “there is more support financially for this act than ever before in any act similar to this.” At one level he is correct. We are spending more on NCLB than was spent on its predecessor, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But funding and this administration’s support for funding are, on many levels, less than meet the eye.

Some of the criticism of the administration on this issue stems not from the final product of the budget process, but from its part in that process. Yes, the administration has supported putting some additional money into Title I. But this is only part of the story. If, over the last three years, Congress had adopted the administration’s budget proposals, less than one-fourth of the new federal dollars being spent on education would be available. Case in point: The administration consistently proposes cutting all funding for Even Start, a $247 million program that integrates early childhood education and adult education efforts for low-income families. The administration also proposes lowering funding that helps school districts defray the added costs associated with educating the children of military families. This type of budgeting is a hallmark of the Bush administration. For example, it touts the idea of a $12 billion space mission to Mars, but its budget calls for 11 billion of those dollars to come from funds diverted from other programs, such as the Hubble Space Telescope.

Rather than tout historic funding, it would be more appropriate for Secretary Paige to say “we’re giving schools four times what we really would like.” Further, the increases in support of Title I are still far less than the $20.5 billion Congress authorized for 2005 when NCLB was passed. It would take more than $7 billion more to meet that funding level. Failure to provide this level of funding is at the root of charges that the administration has broken its promises.

Every new federal dollar matters more now because NCLB requires schools to do more than any previous federal education law. For example, schools now must set aside substantial funds for supplemental educational services for struggling students as well as pay for transportation for public school choice. Schools also will bear some of the cost of new standards for teachers and paraprofessionals.

Most important, students in grades 3-8 are being tested each year, and they are tested once in high school as well. In 2007-08, schools also will be responsible for student progress in science. And schools are now responsible not only for ensuring that a school’s average progress improves but also for demonstrating that there is progress in each subgroup within the school. The goalposts on accountability for student performance on state tests have been moved substantially. As a result, the cost to school districts has increased by a far greater degree than the new money the administration and its allies in Congress have provided. None of this is a bad thing, assuming that the funding is there to make the program work.

It is the coupling of these new costs with a lack of attendant funding that has led to the rebellion among state legislators, who ultimately are charged with picking up the tab. The National Conference of State Legislatures argues—looking at federal authorizations—that funding for NCLB is at least $10 billion short of what is needed.

Meanwhile, some states have taken a closer look at what it will actually cost to meet NCLB requirements. Ohio has determined that it will take almost

$1.5 billion more per year for it to properly implement NCLB and ensure that all its students meet standards. This is for Ohio alone; the administration has proposed only $1 billion for Title I implementation nationwide. A study by New Hampshire’s school administrators finds that for every new federal dollar invested there, the state will have to spend $10.

We can quibble with the details of these estimates, but even if additional costs are half of these state estimates, the federal government’s claims about increased funding for NCLB, while real, become a bitter pill and beside the point.

Ed Muir, an assistant director of AFT research and information services, specializes in state funding and policy. This column is intended to demystify state tax structures and spotlight efforts to achieve tax reform—an activity high on the agenda of labor and our state federations. Send comments to emuir@aft.org.