Menu
» Next Entry (newer): Future Teachers and SAT scores
"No Child Left Behind" backlash in Utah?
February 05, 2004An article in today's Salt Lake Tribune reports that "opposition to President Bush's No Child Left Behind education law is gaining traction, and Republicans--even in GOP strongholds such as Utah--are among those digging in deepest."
How can a state refuse the will of the Federal Government?
It's easy. Being that the feds have no business telling states how to run their schools (and they certainly lack the authority under the U.S. Constitution), all the state has to do is say "no thank you" to the millions of dollars in federal education programs.
A Utah House committee last week unanimously advanced a bill sponsored by Rep. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, to opt out of the law and forfeit at least $103 million it provides for programs and services that target disadvantaged students. House Bill 43 probably won't be debated on the floor until after a meeting Friday between lawmakers and officials from the U.S. Department of Education.The U.S. DoE folks will try to convince the Utah cadre that it's in their best interest to take the money, and comply with the regulations. We hope they politely decline.
Utah isn't alone. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republican lawmakers in Arizona, Indiana, Virginia, Wisconsin and Vermont have joined Democratic counterparts in a handful of other states in launching measures that oppose provisions of the 2-year-old law.With good reason.
While the federal "No Child Left Behind" legislation has some good points--such as the insistence that federal dollars for reading programs only go towards ones that have passed muster with scientific-method-based studies--it is still an unwelcome intrusion of the federal government into an area that clearly belongs to states' rights.
What is mildly ironic is that Utah would seem to need the money the most.
Using data from the 1999-2000 school year, rounded to the nearest hundred, schools across the U.S. spent an average of $6,900 per pupil with some areas spending far more (New Jersey: $10,000, New York: $9,800, Connecticut: $9,800, District of Columbia: $10,100). But Utah spent the least of any of the fifty states plus D.C., spending less than $4,400 per pupil!
This doesn't sit well with the feds at all.
Increased regulations, bureaucracy, and federal funding are not the solution to our educational problems. Utah--despite spending less than any other state, still matches national norms on standardized tests--may already realize this.
It's a shame that the attitude of "Let our experts tell you what to do" trumps "Show us how you do so well."
I think NCLBA is actually intended to have the exact effect we are seeing in Utah. I believe Bush wants to eliminate the DofE and federal funding so the states will have full control. Really, either way he wins politically. To keep the money, the labor union has to step up performance. To reject the money, the labor union looks as if they are avoiding stepping up performance. Of course, the states will raise taxes to replace that funding. Democratic controlled states will blame it on Bush & the NCLBA. Republican controlled states will blame it on the NEA. The newly available federal funds can pay for prescription benefits.
Eric Holcombe February 6, 2004 09:27 AMEric, thanks for your comments, you have some very interesting ideas! However to ascribe to Bush a cynical reverse psychology for political gain sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.
I believe Bush feels he's doing the right thing with No Child Left Behind.
chett February 6, 2004 05:38 PMA couple of points about Utah, which make it different from many other states:
(1) Utah has a very high percentage of its population under the age of 18, so there is less tax base to support education of more children than there is in many other states.
(2) Utah has a culture that supports supplementary education at home. This is in part due to the influence of the Mormon culture, which highly values education of all kinds. I know of many Utah parents who provide supplementary education at home (tutoring, summer instruction, extra homework, etc.), leaving the schools off the hook. Also the family-oriented culture gives tremendous support to the schools that is not enjoyed in places like Los Angeles. This somewhat makes up for lack of funds, because many of the "social services" schools provide in other localities are largely unnecessary in Utah.
(3) Utah has a history of resenting Federal involvement in state affairs. There is a strong pro-local-control sentiment when it comes to environmental issues and land use issues in Utah, and it may be spilling over into education as well. (BTW, Utah has a relatively great record when it comes to taking care of its own environment without Federal intervention; that is one reason why Governor Leavitt was selected by President Bush to head the EPA.)
Wacky Hermit February 7, 2004 10:20 AMMr. Hermit, I appreciate your input into Utah. Very interesting points, from which the rest of the country can learn.
chett February 7, 2004 12:59 PMOh, one more thing I forgot to mention: the cost of living in Utah is astronomically low compared to the cost of living in major urban areas, as are taxes. A family of four can live decently there on $30,000 a year; that same income would barely pay the rent in San Diego. Since this factors into teacher and administrator salaries, we might want to keep that in mind when comparing amounts of money spent on education.
I'd be interested to see statistics on per-pupil spending, not just by actual dollar amounts, but adjusted for cost of living. If anyone happens to come across such stats, could you post a link?
Wacky Hermit February 8, 2004 09:18 AM