Money, Mandates, and Local Control in American Public Education

7. No Child Left Behind and the Power of 5 Percent

—chapter seven— No Child Left Behind and the Power of 5 Percent Q Q Q chapter 6 suggests that “unfunded” mandates such as special education and No Child Left Behind are far more harmful to local autonomy than finance centralization born out of state efforts to achieve a more equal funding distribution, but one critical question remains unanswered . If, as chapter 6 argues, local officials detest state and federal regulations that come without funding, why do local leaders comply? If mandates are “unfunded,” local governments certainly risk nothing in noncompliance. The answer to this question provides the final key to unlocking the Piper Link. This book has yet to examine whether finance centralization in the 0–20 range functions differently than finance centralization in the 20–90 range. The curved model of the Piper Link proposed in chapter 2 hypothesizes that local governments become dependent on even small amounts of funding from state and federal governments, thereby allowing centralized levels to achieve a large amount of control with relatively small funding contributions. In other words, the changes in centralized-level funding that truly compromise local autonomy are those where it moves from no contribution to even a small percentage of the total funding for a program. The best way to examine such shifts is to bring the third level of the U.S. intergovernmental system into the mix. The federal government contributes a very small share of the total U.S. K–12 public education funding, but it has 132 still tried to exercise a tremendous amount of control over education policy and in the process state and local governments. No Child Left Behind In 2001, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in what became known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).1 NCLB goes beyond all previous federal efforts to reform public education and signals that the federal government intends to play a part in every conceivable aspect of public education governance. NCLB demands that states annually test students in reading and mathematics in grades three through eight and in science once each in elementary, middle, and high school. States must also produce annual report cards with students’ academic achievements and multiple other indicators of school district quality, with districts responsible for providing the same data on each school. States must ensure that all students reach proficiency on state tests by 2013–14 and that schools meet federal benchmarks for “adequate yearly progress” (AYP). Schools must meet AYP not just for their entire population but for each demographic subgroup, including traditionally underachieving populations. To give policymakers and the public a measure by which to judge the rigor of states’ tests and student progress, a sample of each state’s students must take the National Assessment of Educational Progress every other year. If a school receiving federal funds fails to meet AYP for multiple years in a row, it is deemed a “needs improvement ” school and must face penalties of escalating severity, including offering students the ability to transfer to other schools in the district, providing supplemental educational services such as private tutoring, and ultimately being forced to “restructure” by changing the entire administration and teaching staff. Finally, states are expected to ensure that every teacher is “highly qualified,” which NCLB defines as state certification and demonstrable proficiency in both pedagogy and subject area.2 Are States Complying? Demands and Backlash NCLB goes much further in demanding that state and local governments adopt certain programs and practices than any previous ESEA reauthoNo Child Left Behind and the Power of 5 Percent • 133 rization. NCLB is rooted in both earlier federal efforts, such as 1994’s Goals 2000, and state efforts over the past twenty-five years to establish accountability systems, but NCLB is the first time the federal government has mandated accountability systems, set ambitious timetables for reaching these goals, and placed stringent guidelines on the progress of regular education students that schools must fulfill to retain a portion of their federal funding. Earlier federal efforts suggested that state governments adopt certain accountability measures; NCLB demands that state governments do so. NCLB has generated a firestorm of protest that meeting its goals and requirements lies beyond states’ and localities’ ability. In the years immediately after its passage, states struggled to meet the testing requirement, with only twenty states able to meet the...