UNFUNDED MANDATES

Why unfunded mandates from the Federal government are a burden on State governments?

WHY ARE UNFUNDED MANDATES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE A BURDEN ON STATE GOVERNMENTS?

Unfunded Mandates

In the U.S. federal scheme of government, the states have legal administration over education. Historically, states have left the provision of education up to local school districts. However, in recent decades, for both political and financial reasons, the power of states has increased, while autonomy of school districts has shrunk. Most experts believe this trend will continue, although choice schools may signal a movement toward greater autonomy at the building level, and the No Child Left behind Act has increased federal authority over state school policy.

Educational Reforms

Education policy has departed so far from informed, collaborative decision making among educators and politicians that it has become the vehicle for creating wedge issues in political life and a means for manipulating the public treasury for the benefit of publishing houses and other campaign donors with no professional responsibility to students and society. The statistically questionable thresholds of annual yearly progress have made NCLB a fool's game for public education in which there are countless ways to be deemed a “failed school” and the paths to success are few and improbable. This high-stakes scenario extended the federal tradition of unfunded mandates by setting high standards without providing the additional funding known to be necessary for meaningful reforms to take place. NCLB also has not addressed what are recognized as the chronic and “savage inequalities” of the U.S. school funding system that distributes per student support in a highly inequitable fashion that is particularly disadvantageous to urban, minority schoolchildren. (Nicol, 1998)

Federal Impetus

In recent decades, the federal government has provided impetus for states to take more control of schooling. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 brought a great deal of federal money into states and local districts, while giving states a large role in implementing and monitoring the programs. State education departments grew, thanks to federal dollars. Subsequent federal laws and programs for education also increased the state role and the size of the state bureaucracy. The Presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) began the trend of “new federalism” or “devolution” of power, in which the federal government took away many of its programmatic restrictions and made block grants to the states for governmental services, including education. This movement gave states more authority over the uses of federal funds. (Nelson, 1991)

The Reagan administration's A Nation at Risk report was an impetus for change that prompted state leaders to develop school reform plans. President George H. W. Bush's 1989 Education Summit with the governors resulted in the adoption of national goals for education that all states pursued. The reauthorization of ESEA during the administration of President George W. Bush, the No Child Left behind Act, increased federal involvement in schooling, but it also increased the state role relative to the local one.

State Capacity and Competition

Institutional capacity at the state level increased in the twentieth century, thanks in ...