RPC Reg Spotlight May 8, 2012

 

Regulatory Action in the Spotlight:

 

No Child Left Behind waivers granted to states by the Obama administration

 

Adverse Effects:

 

  • Waivers to be granted only to states following the administration’s strict guidelines.
  • Implements the administration’s education agenda without congressional authorization.

 

Response of the Obama Administration:

 

On February 9, 2012, President Obama announced a new policy on enforcement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.  This effectively frees states from the requirements of NCLB, giving leeway to states provided the states improve the preparation and assessment of students.  NCLB had required all U.S. students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014.  The new policy of the administration would allow a state to opt out of the requirement provided the state is granted a waiver.  Under this arrangement, states must show they will prepare students for careers and college, have set targets for improving student achievement, while offering incentives to successful schools and focusing on underperforming schools. 

 

In announcing these changes, President Obama remarked, “We’ve said, if you’re willing to set higher, more honest standards than the ones that were set by No Child Left Behind, then we’re going to give you the flexibility to meet those standards.  We want high standards, and we’ll give you flexibility in return.  We combine greater freedom with greater accountability.”

 

 

Impact on the United States:

 

The first ten states to be granted the waivers were Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee.   Of the first ten states, three – Florida, Georgia, and Oklahoma – were granted “conditional” waivers predicated on criteria to be determined by the Obama administration, while the other states did not have conditions.  New Mexico was granted a waiver on February 15.  A total of 28 additional states, and the District of Columbia, have also applied for waivers. 

 

In the lead up to the waivers being announced, school officials and school associations across the nation made clear to the administration that the granting of waivers should not be too onerous for the states.  In a joint letter signed by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the National School Boards Association (NSBA), dated August 10, 2011, it was stated:

 

State and local education agencies are not at all responsible for reauthorizing the federal statute, and as such should not have to jump through hoops to get relief from specific provisions widely recognized as broken and in need of improvement. We find the conditional nature of the waivers counterintuitive to the promise about getting relief to the nation’s schools… The types of changes required by the administration require fiscal, personnel and political capital that may be impossible for some states to pull together.

 

 

In Closing:

 

These waivers, under the veneer of offering “flexibility” to states, are actually an attempt by the Obama administration to implement, without congressional authority, President Obama’s education agenda.  In a February 10, 2012 editorial in the Washington Post entitled, “Why Obama’s NCLB waivers aren’t what he says they are,” Valerie Strauss writes, “Instead of following the law that was President George W. Bush’s signature education initiative, the states had to agree to follow the key education reforms championed by Obama’s Education Department. States are swapping one president’s education vision for another.”

 

 

Relevant Legislation:

 

The Education and the Workforce Committee has held a number of hearings on primary and secondary education in the 112th Congress, often times mentioning the problems states have in implementing certain provisions, particularly the student proficiency deadline of 2014.  Chairman John Kline, in the April 7, 2011 hearing entitled “Education Reforms: Promoting Flexibility and Innovation,” declared:

 

We have a growing consensus, I believe, in this committee that No Child Left Behind is failing in many ways and needs to be corrected… We have heard repeatedly about flexibility, and we are going to continue to explore that today, that in a variety of ways, our witnesses have said that there is too many restrictions, we have a set-aside problem, we have other restrictions on schools and districts to be able to make rational decisions and that we clearly need some system of accountability. One of the larger questions is accountable for what, to whom.