Compiled by: Kim Geyer, Mars Area School Director (Contact info. To follow)
May 24th, 2004

According to Section 305 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, a federal mandate is interpreted as “any provision or statute or regulation or any federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or tribal governments including a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a “voluntary” federal program.” Under NCLB, the word “voluntary” or “voluntarily” is really to be interpreted by the reader, in this case, the states, to be “mandatory”, in lieu of “at one’s discretion.” The following article will contain examples as an attempt to clarify the difference.

Public school districts across the nation struggle with the biggest obstacle of public understanding in emphasizing NCLB costs “X” amount of dollars to implement and administer, but, the government only gives “Y” amount of dollars to states and school districts. Likewise, districts statewide struggle in an attempt to justify raising taxes to sustain programs and services created, as well as, implemented as a result of the Act’s passage but not clearly funded by the state or federal government. At the same time, schools must practice restraint in utilizing NCLB funds and condonable attitudes in asserting excessive federal funding in an effort to meet 100% proficiency of all students by 2014 as required by the Act itself. NCLB has clearly become a point of contention for schools to go after the money currently being made available by the states.

To fully understand the point in which we find ourselves now, we have to understand the process that got us to this particular point in education reform. From the inception of time, education has always been a local affair with state supervision. In fact, “local control” was a phrase Pennsylvania schools at one time prided themselves of possessing.
Local control was interpreted as decisions made by the people (local level) closest to the students and schools within one’s respective district. Our constitution even states that “all powers not enumerated by the constitution are reserved to the state.” However, in the late 1980’s education moved from this nation of a local affair with state supervision to a federal affair. Up until that time, the only federal intrusion on the part of the federal level had been with the federal passage based on the laudable idea in 1965 entitled Title 1, under President Lyndon Johnson. Title 1, federally recognized that there are areas and pockets of concentration where there are high levels of poverty with students who do not have the support and funding that well funded kids in suburban school districts possess, therefore creating a climate unequal in opportunity for students in receiving an equal and appropriate education. In an effort to level the playing field, the government funded and directed money into the lower socio-economic areas to address the student achievement gaps racially and academically. However, $120 billion later and no results, the nation has discovered the widening achievement gap still exists despite Title 1 monies provided.

In 1989, President George Bush signed the “Educate America Act” which became the precursor to lay the groundwork for the federal government to come into the states and take over education. Also, in 1989 at the Governor’s Conference on Education in Wichita, Kansas, Governor Bill Clinton led the conference advocating transformation to systems governance. The following March of 1990, delegates from more than 156 countries met in Thailand at the “United Nations World Conference on Education for All” to achieve a worldwide consensus on education. They produced ten global educational goals. In July of 1990, the National Education Goals panel was formed in America to produce national education goals. President George Bush selected Governor Bill Clinton to lead the panel.

In Bill Clinton’s administration, the massive education bill “Goals 2000” was passed by Congress on March 31, 1994, making the goals law. Goals 2000 has eight of the ten National Education Goals (based on the global goals decided upon at the March 1990 United Nations Conference) as contained in Title 1 of Goals 2000. (Not to be confused with Title 1 of 1965 or the ESEA) These goals outline provisions for restructuring all of America’s public schools, whether they want it or not. The eight present goals grew directly out of six earlier national education goals contained in America 2000, the Bush administration predecessor to the Clinton administration. Those six goals, in turn, parallel six international education goals adopted at the U.N. sponsored conference in Jomtein, Thailand within months of the Bush launching of America 2000. It is important to note that only two of the eight goals (goals three and five) deal directly with academics, the others do not.

In 1994 when Goals 2000 (also known as Outcome Based Education) was passed, it was offered to the states as “VOLUNTARY” money as an inducement. However, there were two conditions, the states had to give up control over their state academic standards and the state had to give up control over the content areas within the local classrooms. No state had to take the money. However, that same year, another pivotal piece of legislation was passed entitled “HR6” or the (Title 1 Bill of 1965 which is reauthorized every five years). HR6 told the states “No Title 1 money unless you take the Goals 2000 money.” Up until that time, not all fifty of the states had accepted the Goals 2000 money for various reasons including those battling to maintain local control within their respective states. What happened as a result of this so called “VOLUNTARY” money inducement was the fact that all fifty states signed up to implement Goals 2000. In an effort to receive their Title 1 money, they surrendered their local control of state standards and classroom content. States thinking they could devise their own standards, were wrong in their initial assumptions, soon after receiving a federal contract telling the states “ this is what we want your standards to look like”…as a result the states soon learned the hard way that the federal government required state standards to mirror the national standards. So, in essence, in 1994…. “Local control”…as we knew it…. was totally usurped…authority was given up over classroom content (curriculum) and state standards to the federal government.

In 1994, the federal School To Work Act was passed by Congress, and what this legislation basically does is set up a framework that changes the mission and purpose of public schools away from academic purposes (knowledge, facts, and information) in exchange for restructuring schools as job training centers focused on preparing students for job entry level jobs that are based on the needs of the local and state economy. As a result of the 1994 STW passage, what was given up was a K-12 education system based on academics. (knowledge, facts, and information).

Currently, in 2004, it’s important to note, that no state can get or receive NCLB money or funding, unless they have Goals 2000 and School to Work in Place. Many people believe that Goals 2000 (OBE) and School to Work are sunsetted….both are not. The School to Work framework is now known under the No Child Left Behind Act as SLC grants ….which is the abbreviation of Smaller Learning Communities….it is still School to Work, just the name has changed.

In the 1995 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, NCLB is considered a grant condition, in other words meaning, “States do not have to participate….it a voluntary program.” Grant conditions according to the UMRA are not considered unfunded mandates. Therefore, NCLB is considered not to be an unfunded mandate by loopholes in the UMRA of 1995 law. For example, Smaller Learning Communities (STW) program type is defined on the federal government’s website as “discretionary/competitive grants”. Despite the SLC program being a $142 million dollar competitive federal grant program to plan, implement, or expand smaller learning communities or STW in high schools with populations of 400 plus students…the program is not considered an unfunded mandate.

The same could be said of the amount of funding authorized for special education and the funding actually appropriated and seeing the difference would clearly indicate to most there’s a huge discrepancy indicative of an unfunded mandate. However, the UMRA bill does not apply to appropriation bills; so technically, the IDEA shortfall isn’t an unfunded mandate as per the UMRA. The last example would apply to the low-income subsidy program as contained in the new Medicare law that requires states to conduct eligibility reviews and evaluations for the new low-income subsidy participants in the prescription drug program. UMRA considers this subsidy program an entitlement and entitlements in general are exempt despite administrative costs incurred for implementation and therefore are not considered an unfunded mandate.

This is a bipartisan issue that state legislators need to address with the federal members in Congress. The Unfunded Reform Act of 1995 clearly needs to reexamined and seriously modified to prevent language and interpretation from being misconstrued and misinterpreted by all policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels…it’s a trickle down effect….and would clarify miscommunication amongst schools and all levels of government. Policymakers at the state level need to frame their vocabulary differently in an attempt to prevent semantics of legislation to be circumvented through various loopholes. Exclusions and exceptions dilute the original premise of the law and are therefore ineffective in obtaining its original intention of addressing unfunded mandates. It should be recognized there is no such thing as an unfunded mandate, as all mandates are sustained over time by the local level and more specifically the local taxpayer. There is a major convergence creating a federal shift of costs and control into our states and upon local governments. This convergence is changing the climate of education reform in America’s schools as we once currently knew it capable to be.

In closing, those who oppose NCLB have their various reasons; however, the common denominator through all the state and national discussions on issues is fiscal costs to states, local districts, and ultimately local taxpayers. The various policymakers throughout Pennsylvania need to unite themselves and attack the federal UMRA of 1995, whose only genuine aspect is its title. Policymakers need to “reframe” their semantics and vocabulary, by developing a sophisticated public relations strategy throughout Pennsylvania utilizing surrogate groups and public policy advocates to exert pressure onto our federal policymakers to make the necessary modifications to the UMRA of 1995 to reflect the current climate state and local policymakers are battling over and modify it more accurately and realistically….only then, perhaps, we can see the real education reform and flexibility that NCLB hopes to provide us all in our effort to leave no child left behind…otherwise, any and all attempts to achieve that aspect will be less than genuine.

Kim Geyer
Mars School Director

>> Back to Policies