BOOK
Arguably, New Federalism paved the way toward yet another phase, which has come to be referred to as the era of unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate works very similarly to Creative Federalism. The national government decides it wants to create a program and then expects the states to comply, but in this case it does not provide the states with the needed funding. The states are then forced to pay for nationally mandated programs on their own.
Another example of an unfunded mandate is No Child Left Behind, a law passed by Congress in 2002 that requires schools to meet certain educational outcomes, as usually demonstrated through standardized tests. The law expanded the federal government's role in education, which had traditionally been a state function. The law also requires states to demonstrate academic progress in their schools; provide the federal government with a range of information (a report card) on things like student achievement and performance by school districts; ensure that teachers meet minimum qualifications; and annually test students in grades three through eight in English and mathematics (with other subjects to be added later).
The issue of unfunded mandates has been a contentious one. Critics claim that it forces states to spend money they do not have. They also claim that it forces them to pursue policies they do not necessarily agree with or at least do not consider a priority. To this extent, it distorts their priorities
As an example, nowhere in the main body of the Constitution does it say that the national government will be responsible for providing public education. You may be used to getting a free education in a public school, but it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Rather, in the absence of an express power of the national government, states assume, on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, that public school education is a state issue. Because states have been providing public school education for close to 200 years, the public may have come to expect it. But that expectation is based on tradition, not the Constitution.
A categorical grant is money given for a specific function, and it can be used only for that function. As an example, if the money that the national government gives to Colorado for highway repairs is a categorical grant, it can be used only for highway repairs. What if Colorado's highway department takes this categorical grant, repairs all of its highways, and finds that it has $1 million left over? Can it then take that money and use it for its underfunded education budget? The answer is "no." There is no flexibility and discretion when it comes to categorical grants.
The national government's last resort is to send federal troops to enforce the law, especially if a court has ruled against a state. This use of force occurs very rarely. As an example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education (which is explored more in Chapter 8), the Supreme Court held that Kansas's racial segregation of the schools violated basic principles of equality and was therefore unconstitutional. A year later the Court ruled that schools nationwide would have to integrate, which meant that there could no longer be separate schools for whites and blacks.

here is a division of labor between the states and the national government. Historically, the national government was responsible for national defense, which meant securing the borders and safeguarding against foreign invasion, and maintenance of foreign policy, the national currency, and delivery of the mail. States were responsible for local law enforcement, criminal justice, education, and maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, canals, and other waterways. States principally held what has been referred to as state "police power," which is essentially the power to regulate the behavior of their citizens.

Forum | The Federal Government’s priority for educating America’s youth is one that we all share, and that is that it should become a National priority. This, however has proven to a complex and contentious subject. The “No Child Left Behind Act” was passed in 2001 under George W. Bush Administration. (Wong, 2011) |
The federal governments educational policies are centered around a performance based system. This system is designed around federal regulations that are monitored through test results. States that meet the federal requirements are given federal funding. When particular state schools do not meet the federal regulations restructuring strategies are implemented. These restructuring strategies include personnel reassignment, student relocation options, and supplemental educational or tutorial services (Wong, 2008).
These policies are proving to show no positive effectiveness on improving the quality of U.S. elementary and secondary education. A perfect example of the lack of effectiveness of these policies is in the No Child Left Behind Act (formerly known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) resigned into law by George W. Bush in 2001. NCLB mandates schools and holds them responsible for under performing poor and minority students. The NCLB regulations have been susceptible to political compromises (Hettleman, 2009). Wong (2008) states that the NCLB is the largest federal government "intrusion into state and local control of education in the history of the United States". NCLB is also proving that it does not have what it takes to solve Americas educational problems as test scores have shown its lack of effectiveness (Lips, Feinberg, & Marshall, 2007).

An effective federal education program should be one that is not full of regulations and draws state conclusions through testing alone. I personally would like to see the federal government back off and put more control back into the states hands. If a state needs federal assistance it should be considered on a case by case basis. The federal government should mandate their assistance but they shouldn’t monitor the effectiveness of their assistance with test results alone. The government must conform to the original foundation of federalism. The framers of the constitution applied federalism as a means to limit the power of the government in Washington. (Gessing, 2011). Federalisms foundation seems to have been lost through the years while the federal governments intrusion on education is proof. The federal governments forceful educational regulations and bullying states to meet their guidelines goes against everything our founding fathers set out to accomplish.

JournalEXPAND 'NO CHILD' THROUGH FEDERAL STANDARDS, FUNDING

NCLB seeks to hold schools accountable for the low performance of poor and minority students. But it has been undermined by political compromises, especially the provisions that allow state and local officials to continue to devise their own academic standards and tests.
How does it make any sense for 50 states (much less 14,000 local school systems) to have their own versions of what students need to know in reading, math, science and history? In fact, when it comes to education federalism, the U.S. is an underdeveloped country. Almost all our global competitors have national standards, tests and curricula. By contrast, we, under NCLB, have a notorious "race to the bottom" in which states dumb down their standards and tests to avoid sanctions and public embarrassment.

This picture of low standards and inadequate school funding portrays a national failure that subverts the national interest in a well-educated citizenry and work force. Stronger federal action is imperative. It requires mandated national standards and tests that set a floor, not a ceiling, on what students should learn.

bear in mind that under the New Education Federalism, the federal government only fixes national standards for what every child is entitled to: namely, a world-class education. States and local governments and departments of education would still have great leeway in how federal standards are met: how students are taught, teachers are trained and federal aid is spent.
So it can happen. But if it does, will local school systems live up to their end of the bargain?

G.O.P. Anti-Federalism Aims at Education: [News Analysis]

For a generation, there has been loose bipartisan agreement in Washington that the federal government has a necessary role to play in the nation's 13,600 school districts, primarily by using money to compel states to raise standards.
But the field of Republican presidential candidates has promised to unwind this legacy, arguing that education responsibilities should devolve to states and local districts, which will do a better job than Washington.
That 2002 law required states to show yearly progress in the number of students who were proficient in English and math, although it allowed states to measure proficiency in their own ways.

House Panel Floats Common Themes on ESEA Renewal

outlined a few specific areas where he thinks there is a smart role for the federal government. They include tracking results for student groups that are often overlooked, such as English-language learners and students in special education, and investing in programs that encourage innovation, such as charter schools. Providing incentive grants for innovation gives reformers political cover, he said.

For instance, Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind., a heart surgeon, said in an interview that he's still getting acquainted with provisions of the ESEA law, such as the requirement to test students in grades 3 through 8, and the idea of teacher effectiveness. But his bottom-line philosophy, which most of his colleagues seem to share, is that while the goals of the current version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act, are admirable, "education should be locally-driven and state-driven."

Charting a Course Toward Better Education
THE NEW DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED 110th Congress is scheduled to consider reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which will be the ninth reauthorization of the original Elementary and secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Yet, five years after its enactment, it is becoming clear that NCLB, like previous versions of the ESEA, does not have the capacity to resolve the problems that plague American public education, as growing evidence suggests that the latest Federal strategy for improving education is not accomplishing its objectives, again demonstrating Washington's inability to improve local education.

As Congress considers a ninth reauthorization of the ESEA, it should break the pattern of increasing funding for expansive Federal programs intended to steer education policy nationwide. This pattern has encouraged the proliferation of state bureaucracy and fostered a compliance mentality among state and local officials, leading them to focus primarily on following Federal regulations. Instead, lawmakers should take a step toward restoring better governance by returning policymaking authority to the state and local levels, thereby promoting an environment in which educators would be more directly responsive to those who primarily are affected by their decisions: students, parents, and local taxpayers.
Specifically, Congress should embrace a "charter state option." This would allow every state to choose between the status quo and a simplified contractual arrangement in which the state would have broad authority to consolidate and refocus its Federal funds on state-directed initiatives in exchange for monitoring and reporting academic progress. The charter state option would restore greater federalism in education, allowing state leaders to embrace innovative strategies according to their local needs, priorities, and reform philosophy while making them more directly responsible to parents and taxpayers for the results.

From website https://www.k12.wa.us/esea/NCLB.aspx No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act authorizes several federal education programs that are administered by the states. The law is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Under the 2002 law, states are required to test students in reading and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school. All students are expected to meet or exceed state standards in reading and math by 2014.
The major focus of No Child Left Behind is to close student achievement gaps by providing all children with a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. The U.S. Department of Education emphasizes four pillars within the bill: * Accountability: to ensure those students who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. * Flexibility: Allows school districts flexibility in how they use federal education funds to improve student achievement. * Research-based education: Emphasizes educational programs and practices that have been proven effective through scientific research. * Parent options: Increases the choices available to the parents of students attending Title I schools.
NCLB requires each state to establish state academic standards and a state testing system that meet federal requirements. This accountability requirement is called Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Washington received final approval of its state accountability plan from the U.S. Department of Education on August 6, 2008.
In its current iteration, NCLB formally expired on Sept. 30, 2007. The next reauthorization is expected in 2011.