No Child Left Behind by Executive Overreach
States should reject the Education Department’s tainted waiver offer.


By any measure, No Child Left Behind is massive. The 2001 legislation — the eighth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — runs to a massive 600 pages. It’s massively expensive, too, dispensing $25 billion in 2010. Most significantly, it’s a massive intrusion by Washington into education policy, an area previously considered the domain of state and local leaders.

Last Monday, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that his department would begin granting waivers to states seeking relief from some of NCLB’s onerous provisions. At first blush, that might sound good. But the relief offer was conditional. State officials accepting the waivers must agree to conditions that the administration won’t even stipulate until next month.

Yet for many state officials, this is an offer they can’t refuse. They know they have no hope of meeting the high achievement benchmarks set in NCLB. Since they are facing certain failure, a waiver offers at least some breathing room — and the hope that the conditions to be named later won’t be so bad. 

Unfortunately, states will most likely find that the temporary relief is swamped by the new federal regulations they will face. Folks who suggest that the best way to rectify a failed stimulus is to enact an even greater stimulus are most likely also to believe that the best way to correct federal overreach in education is to reach even farther.

The Department of Education announced its waiver offer when Congress adjourned for August recess. President Obama had demanded that lawmakers send a rewritten NCLB to his desk before the start of this school year.

But failure to meet the presidential deadline wasn’t for lack of trying. There was a serious effort to craft thoughtful alternatives to NCLB. Both liberals and conservatives agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, but that’s where the agreement ends.

President Obama and other liberals still cling to the belief that, despite nearly half a century of failure, Washington can “fix” education. ESEA has been reformed and reauthorized eight times, with no improvement in educational outcomes. Yet somehow, they believe, the ninth time will be the charm. And they’ll do it by granting more power to the Department of Education.

Of course, not everyone shares the belief that 4,200 bureaucrats sitting in Washington are better equipped to oversee schools than state and local leaders. Conservatives like House Education and Workforce Committee chairman John Kline (R., Minn.) resisted the notion that another rushed reauthorization of a massive education bill would somehow ensure the future of American children, either academically or fiscally. Indeed, he and others on the right insist that the only way states can exercise the flexibility they need to improve educational outcomes is to get the federal government to untangle itself from the nation’s classrooms.

To that end, Kline’s committee held numerous hearings throughout the spring examining the scope and cost of federal intervention into local schools. The committee approved several major bills providing the nucleus of a serious alternative to No Child Left Behind. Together, these bills would eliminate ineffective programs and consolidate duplicative initiatives conducted under NCLB. They would also allow states more flexibility in the use of federal education funds.

In addition, the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act (A-PLUS) was introduced in both the House and Senate this year. It would let states completely opt out of No Child Left Behind and reclaim their educational authority.