PRESS RELEASES

New GAO Report Finds That No Child Left Behind Is Not an "Unfunded Mandate"
Paige praises report, calling claims to the contrary a "red herring"

FOR RELEASE:
May 25, 2004 Contact: Susan Aspey
(202) 401-1576

The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a new report Unfunded Mandates: Analysis of Reform Act Coverage that found that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is in fact not an "unfunded mandate," as critics of the law have claimed. The following is a statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige on the report and its findings as they pertain to NCLB:

"The General Accounting Office reviewed information on close to 500 different statutes and regulations enacted in 2001 and 2002, including Congressional Budget Office reports about No Child Left Behind. The non-partisan GAO found that No Child Left Behind was in fact not an "unfunded mandate," as those who are opposed to accountability and education reform have often portrayed it in the press. The chorus of the 'unfunded mandate' has now been exposed for exactly what it is--a red herring--trying to take focus off the true subject at hand: changing the way we do things so that every child in America is provided a quality education, regardless of her or his skin color, spoken accent or street address.

"According to the report, NCLB '[d]id not meet the UMRA's [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995] definition of a mandate because the requirements were a condition of federal financial assistance' and 'any costs incurred by state, local or tribal governments would result from complying' with conditions for receiving the funds. As I have said many times before, NCLB is a radical departure from the old ways of doing things: gone are the days where taxpayers' hard-earned money was dispensed without any accountability for whether children were achieving. If states do not want federal support, they are not required to take the funds. It's that simple. But if they do, we insist that they measure student progress so that they can diagnose areas that need improvement and ensure that all students are indeed learning.

"Perhaps we should think about what this law asks: getting all children in our great nation to be reading and doing math at grade level. I do not believe that is too much to ask, particularly given the $500 billion we spend every year at the state, local and national levels on K-12 education. That should be the 'mandate' of every school in the nation anyway. It's time to put aside the excuses, roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of providing the great education that a nation such as ours is worthy of delivering."

The report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04637.pdf.

But others say that the GAO is not correct:

GAO: 'No Child' Law Is Not an
'Unfunded Mandate'
By David J. Hoff

Department of Education officials are lauding a federal report declaring that the No Child Left Behind Act is not an "unfunded mandate."

"Unfunded Mandates: Analysis of Reform Act Coverage," is available from the General Accounting Office. (Requires Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)

But the report from the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, isn't the definitive answer in the debate over the true costs for states and districts to carry out the federal school improvement law, state officials say.

The GAO report "confirms something that we have said all along: No Child Left Behind is not an unfunded mandate," Ronald J. Tomalis, a counselor to Secretary of Education Rod Paige, said in a conference call with reporters late last month. "It has put a nail in the coffin of that canard."

State leaders say the report analyzes the act under a narrow and technical federal definition of an unfunded mandate and doesn't take into account future costs of the 2½-year-old measure.
"Nobody can say whether it is an unfunded mandate," said Patricia F. Sullivan, the deputy director of advocacy and strategic alliances for the Council of Chief State School Officers. "It's too soon, and the expensive part hasn't come yet."

Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, asked that the GAO examine several recent major federal enactments in light of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. That 1995 statute establishes procedural barriers to federal bills and proposed regulations if congressional researchers determine that they would cost state and local governments more than the amount Congress appropriates for them.

In a relatively brief discussion in its 97-page analysis of the unfunded-mandates act's impact, the GAO says that the No Child Left Behind Act is not an unfunded mandate because states and districts participate as a condition of receiving federal aid, and that by definition, under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, such programs are not considered to fit that label.

But the report also notes that the education law and other measures "appeared to have potential financial impacts," even if they didn't fit the 1995 law's definition of an unfunded mandate.

The Education Department seized on the May 25 report as something that would put an end to the debate over whether the school law was an unfunded mandate.

"The chorus of the 'unfunded mandate' has now been exposed for exactly what it is-a red herring," Mr. Paige said in a statement late last month. "If states do not want federal support, they are not required to take the funds. It's that simple."

Also, increased federal funding to implement the law is enough to cover the expenses of complying with the No Child Left Behind Act, said Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the department.

Federal spending on K-12 education has increased by 37.5 percent since the 2000-01 school year, according to the Education Department. But even those increases haven't covered the new requirements facing schools, according to at least one advocate for the states.

In the past, federal programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorized, had "very few rules or strings attached," said David L. Shreve, the education committee director of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "What has happened is the rules have changed, and it has a lot more strings."


Big Dollars?
The debate over the costs of the federal law was especially intense in recent state legislative sessions. Virginia's Republican-led legislature passed a resolution declaring that the law would cost the state "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have." ("Debate Grows on True Costs of School Law," Feb. 4, 2004.) In Utah and other states, lawmakers considered opting out of the No Child Left Behind law because of the belief that compliance would cost too much. None of the bills passed, usually because the states decided that federal funding covers their costs.

But Ms. Sullivan and other state advocates said the ambitious school law's final tab is still unknown.When all of the law's requirements kick in, states will have a better idea of whether the federal government is covering all the associated costs, she said.

"We just don't know what it's going to cost to restructure hundreds of schools," she said, "and to make sure all teachers are highly qualified."