The ability to effectively regulate (or not regulate) education is one of the last bastions of states' rights. Even this last area of state control is falling victim to micromanagement by Washington, however. The federal government has once again decided to overextend its constitutional authority by dictating the terms of states' education programs. This is not done overtly, of course, as it would certainly be a violation of the 10th amendment. It is done with the old carrot-and-stick routine used so often by our federal legislators.

How does the carrot and stick routine work? Simple. The federal government takes our money in the form of taxes, then decides whether or not to give it back based on our compliance with their agenda. In the case of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), states must develop plans for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) that receive the federal stamp of approval for all schools that receive title 1 federal funding. Although title 1 funding constitutes a very small percentage of school districts income (just over 1% of the Shawnee-Mission School District's income, for example), other federal fund schedules are based on the amount of title 1 money, and could be reduced as a result of loss of title 1 monies. This amount is meager, however, compared to the cost of NCLB compliance. According to the NEA, the true costs of implementing the NCLB has been estimated for several states. Those figures are: Connecticut- $41.6 million, Hawaii- $191 million, Minnesota- $19 million, New Hampshire- $224 million, Ohio- $1.4 billion, Texas $1.18 billion, Utah- $1.19 billion, and Vermont- $106.6 million.

The predictable effects of the NCLB have been numerous. First of all, schools have experienced a tremendous increase in administrative overhead with no increase in federal funding to compensate. It is for this reason that the NCLB is often referred to as an unfunded mandate. States must achieve compliance before they are eligible for an increase in funding.

Secondly, a great deal of time is spent preparing just for AYP test itself. Resources that used to go to teaching kids on an individual level are now spent trying to get kids to pass a one-size-fits-all program that doesn't take individual needs into consideration. In addition to the time spent preparing for the test, a great deal of money is spent purchasing study materials for the test, and in some cases hiring private firms to come into the district to help kids pass.

Third, the test does not measure progress. Instead, it takes a snap shot of where students are academically, based on purely arbitrary standards. The standards are constantly in flux, and furthermore are not consistent from state to state. This leaves no reliable way to gauge a student's progress, especially if he or she has just moved into the state, or even the country. An entire school district can be punished because one of its schools fails to meet AYP. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including, as in a recent case in the Shawnee Mission School District, a subgroup of Hispanic students who did not meet AYP in math at Northwest.

Fourth, many see the NCLB as an attempt to discredit public education in an effort to advance a voucher agenda. By setting unrealistic standards, schools are set up for failure. Part of the NCLB allows districts to eventually be taken over, even by private organizations, if they fail to meet AYP. When this happens, we will in effect be funding private corporations with our tax dollars, and those corporations will then be mere puppets of the federal government just as our schools are now.

Lastly, the NCLB reduces local oversight. The yardstick for school quality has become the standards enacted by the state, as approved by the federal government, rather than local school boards working closely with the state, as it used to be in Kansas. By reducing local control, we are tying the hands of our administrators, many of whom have found better ways to measure progress through tools available on the open market.

The NCLB is extremely unpopular with our educators. Most are opposed to it; however they fear the loss of funds that their school could possibly incur should it be deemed non-compliant. As shown above, the cost of implementing NCLB could very plausibly be greater than the loss of federal funding.

Moreover, there is no guarantee of losing federal funding should the state opt out of NCLB. The state of Utah has successfully taken back control of its education by writing its own plan, independent of NCLB requirements. Thus far they have not lost any federal funds. Although it is possible that some funds could be reduced should the state of Kansas choose to opt-out, the amount of that loss would not be catastrophic, and it could be made up else ware. Legalizing all forms of gambling at the Woodlands and using a percentage of the profits for education would be a start in the right direction.

We also need to confront a disturbing but very real problem with funding of all programs. The federal government, as well as the state of Kansas' government needs to face the fact that it can no longer continue to borrow and spend money at the pace it has been.  With the national debt approaching $9 trillion, every U.S. family now owes over $500,000.00 in total government obligations. Additionally, every Kansas citizen owes over $1,400 on behalf of the State of Kansas. Kansas has gone from the least in debt state to the most in debt state in just 10 years. It is now more than twice as far in debt as its nearest competitor for this dubious distinction, Texas. Furthermore, when we consider that the Shawnee-Mission School district now charges the taxpayers of Kansas over $10,000.00 per year per pupil, but the average cost of a good private schools is less than half that, funding seems to be even less of a concern. What good is an expensive education if our graduation present to our children is enslavement to a crushing debt?

It's time we realized that the NCLB has been a dismal failure. We need to return control of school standards to the state and local school boards. In doing so, we take a risk of losing some federal funds; however the quality of our kids' education will actually improve as a result of more individual attention and more accurate measurement of performance.

Jason E. Peck
Libertarian for Kansas House,
24th district
candidate.lpks.org/jasonpeck
913-221-2657
Personal Responsibility * Individual Liberty