Depending on who鈥檚 talking, the Bush administration鈥檚 signature education law either imposes an onerous financial burden on schools or provides enough aid for states and schools to administer it.
The Ohio Department of Education, for example, released a study last month estimating that the state will spend about $1.5 billion a year鈥攎ore than twice as much as it now gets from the federal government under Mr. Bush鈥檚 K-12 initiative鈥攖o meet the administrative costs and achievement goals of the No Child Left Behind Act.
And while Virginia鈥檚 Republican-led House of Delegates didn鈥檛 have such a study to cite, it nearly unanimously passed a resolution Jan. 23 declaring that 鈥渢he law will cost literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have鈥� just to cover administration.
鈥淚t is significantly underfunded,鈥� argued Delegate James H. Dillard II, the Republican chairman of the chamber鈥檚 education committee. 鈥淭he problem now is that states are now just beginning to get an understanding of how much it鈥檚 going to cost,鈥� said Mr. Dillard, who is also vice chairman of the National Conference of State Legislatures鈥� education committee.
But officials of the Bush administration, along with some school finance experts, say that the Ohio report and other estimates like it overlook a pertinent fact: States themselves had committed to raising student achievement鈥攖he costliest task under the federal law鈥攅ven before President Bush signed the measure two years ago.
The Ohio study 鈥渋s overstated a good deal,鈥� Secretary of Education Rod Paige said at a news conference in Washington. 鈥淢uch of [the costs] is going to be offset by other parts of No Child Left Behind,鈥� added Mr. Paige.
For example, the Department of Education鈥檚 effort to define effective practices, he said, 鈥渋s going to produce a good deal more precision in the instructional process鈥� and lessen the need for remedial education鈥攖he biggest costs listed in the Ohio report.
Bipartisan Complaints
| Buckeye State Estimate The Ohio Department of Education asked school finance experts to respond to a study that concluded Ohio would need to spend $1.5 billion annually for the next 10 years to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Following are excerpts from the varied opinions. |
Neil Theobald, a professor of educational finance at Indiana University: James W. Guthrie, a professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University:
Meave O鈥橫arah, a consultant, and Theodor Rebarber, the president of Accountability-
SOURCE: Ohio Department of Education |
The Bush administration says it has done its part to help states. Its officials point out that annual federal funding for K-12 education has increased more than 40 percent since President Bush took office. Spending on Title I鈥攖he biggest program under the No Child Left Behind law鈥攔ose from $7.9 billion in fiscal 2000 to $12.3 billion in fiscal 2004, the current budget year.
But critics say that those levels are woefully short of supporting schools as they implement the law.
The National Education Association issued a report last month saying that in the previous fiscal year, states and schools received only $18.6 billion of the $26.8 billion in federal money authorized under the law. Moreover, the states and schools really need $41.8 billion this year to reach all children eligible for services under the law, the 2.7 million-member union said.
The debate over funding for the No Child Left Behind law鈥攐ne of Mr. Bush鈥檚 top domestic accomplishments鈥攊s heating up as states tally the costs of expanding their testing and reporting systems, and schools wrestle with requirements for providing highly qualified teachers and helping all students reach ambitious learning goals.
The questions of costs will intensify now that state legislatures are convening and addressing tight budgets for the fourth straight year鈥攁nd as the 2004 presidential race moves into high gear.
In addition to Ohio and Virginia, legislatures in North Dakota, Utah, and Vermont are considering efforts to speak out against what state officials call the No Child Left Behind Act鈥檚 unfunded mandates鈥攁 term meaning the law requires states to do things that the federal government doesn鈥檛 pay for.
And while it may not come as a surprise that the NEA, a staunch ally of the Democratic Party, faults the Bush administration on the issue, the intriguing turn in recent weeks is the bipartisan nature of the complaints about the law鈥檚 costs.
Republicans hold 61 of the 100 seats in the Virginia House, and Mr. Bush carried that state in 2000. Hence, the recent 98-1 vote by the Virginia lawmakers to decry the law鈥檚 mandates and expense demonstrates a notable level of frustration.
The Virginia lawmakers not only voiced worries about paying to carry out the requirements, but also pointed out that their state has its own demanding Standards of Learning program that predates the federal law鈥檚 student-achievement goals.
Despite lower-than-expected costs in some areas, state education department officials project it will still cost an additional $3.2 million in state money to expand data tracking and student testing to meet the law鈥檚 requirements.
鈥淲e鈥檙e not opposing the concept鈥� of raising student achievement, Mr. Dillard said, 鈥渂ut we鈥檙e saying the bill itself is unworkable, and if changes are not make, it will implode.鈥�
Moving Target
The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to test students in reading and mathematics annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school. It sets a goal that all students will reach the proficient level on their states鈥� respective standards by the end of the 2013-14 school year. The law, which passed with big bipartisan majorities in late 2001, reauthorized the Title I program for disadvantaged student and other programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
While Congress appropriated funding increases to Title I and $1.1 billion over three years to help states upgrade their testing systems, state leaders and educators have been complaining that the law creates an unfunded mandate.
A 2003 report by the General Accounting Office, Congress鈥� investigative arm, shed some light on why state and federal officials differ on the cost estimates. The report concluded that the cost for states to develop and implement tests required by the law could range from $1.9 billion to $3.9 billion by 2008, depending on the types of tests states use. (鈥淕AO Says Costs for State Tests All in How Questions Asked,鈥� May 21, 2003.)
Estimating just how much the federal law adds to schools鈥� financial burdens is difficult, according to John G. Augenblick, the president of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, a Denver firm that analyzes school finance systems.
States and schools would have incurred many of the costs often associated with the law 鈥渆ven if No Child Left Behind had never happened,鈥� said Mr. Augenblick, a respected analyst who has consulted with many states about their school financing.
Eric A. Hanushek, a senior scholar at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a critic of excessive school spending said, 鈥淭he question is: How do you separate out the added cost of No Child Left Behind from what they鈥檇 be doing anyway?鈥�
Mr. Hanushek added that legislators and educators often take the attitude of 鈥渉ow many costs can we put into this category and use that as an argument to try to get somebody else to pay what we otherwise would be doing?鈥�
Scrutiny in Ohio
While many states and some advocacy groups have produced quick estimates of the law鈥檚 costs, Ohio鈥檚 report is the most thorough analysis to date.
Ordered by the state legislature, the report estimated the price tag of compliance with the law at $1.5 billion a year in current dollars until 2014鈥攖he year all students must reach proficiency under the No Child Left Behind law. Before the enactment of the federal law, the state was aiming to have 75 percent of its students be proficient. The added $1.5 billion a year would help the remaining 25 percent reach that level.
If Ohio paid that extra amount in the current fiscal year, total K-12 spending in the state would jump 11 percent, from $13.3 billion to $14.8 billion.
The greatest expense is the 鈥渋ntervention costs鈥� that target student achievement, such as summer school and longer school days.
Republican leaders in the Ohio legislature say they will lobby Congress to pay for some of the costs related to the No Child Left Behind law.
鈥淚 think it costs more than the federal government has given us. There鈥檚 no question about that,鈥� said state Sen. Robert A. Gardner, the Republican chairman of the Senate education committee. The report, he said, 鈥済ives us ammunition to go back to Washington and say: 鈥楲isten, you鈥檙e underfunding this.鈥� 鈥�
While Mr. Gardner said the state would be pushing for increased funding, he did not endorse the $1.5 billion estimate produced by William Driscoll and Howard Fleeter, Columbus, Ohio-based consultants hired by the state education department to produce the study.
But critics say studies such as Ohio鈥檚 fail to consider ways that schools might be able to rearrange their current funding to make it more effective.
鈥淒oes that mean everything you鈥檙e doing is valuable, and you shouldn鈥檛 stop doing it?鈥� said James W. Guthrie, a professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and one of 10 policy experts the Ohio department asked to comment on the report. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know. I wonder.鈥�
And even the bill for expanding testing programs and creating new data-analysis tools, although expensive, may eventually be cost-effective, Mr. Hanushek of the Hoover Institution said.
鈥淭hey could do what they鈥檙e doing today cheaper,鈥� he argued, 鈥渋f they know where they鈥檙e wasting money.鈥�
State or Federal Standards?
Of the $1.5 billion estimate in Ohio, all but $105 million would be spent on raising student achievement. The balance would cover teacher professional development, testing expenses, and other administrative costs associated with the federal law.
While experts disagree on what expenditures should be directly attributed to the law, all agree that raising student achievement will probably be the most expensive aspect of any school improvement program鈥攁nd the hardest one to put a price on.
When school finance expert Andrew Reschovsky analyzed student-achievement data and district spending in Texas, he estimated that the state would need to double its current funding to boost student learning in the worst-performing districts. 鈥淭he results ... seem to be pretty consistent in showing that high concentrations of poverty matter a lot, and substantially more resources will be needed to achieve whatever the standard in the state is,鈥� Mr. Reschovsky, a professor of applied economics and public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview.
While other school finance analysts don鈥檛 dispute Mr. Rechovsky鈥檚 study, they say that all the costs of raising student achievement aren鈥檛 caused directly by the No Child Left Behind Act.
Most states committed to raising student test scores through standards- based initiatives in the 1990s. If those states backed away from the funding needed to raise achievement, according to one leading school finance expert, many would end up in adequacy lawsuits, which assert that a state is failing to adequately fund their promises to help students reach their standards.
鈥淭he adequacy lawsuits came about because of the marriage of taking school finance lawsuits to the next level and linking them to standards- based education reform,鈥� said Allan Odden, a professor of educational leadership and policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who also reviewed the Ohio report.
Staff Writer Alan Richard contributed to this report.
