• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A-PLUS Act: A Conservative Approach to No Child Left Behind

    Educating students is no easy task, so the last thing schools need is Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do. Unfortunately, federal red tape has increased with every passing decade since the enactment of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 (today known as No Child Left Behind).

    That’s why Senators Jim DeMint (R–SC) and John Cornyn (R–TX) introduced the A–PLUS Act: a conservative approach to No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This new legislation, introduced April 14, would allow states to opt out of the notorious compliance burden inherent in NCLB and give them greater freedom to decide how their education dollars are spent to meet their students’ needs.

    Instead of creating additional federal education programs (today there are more than 150 operated by the federal government) with their additional regulatory burdens and associated costs, A–PLUS allows states to opt out of ineffective and costly programs and set a course that they deem best for the specific education challenges they face.

    In recent years and even in the last few weeks, states across the nation have proved that when it comes to innovative reforms, they—not federal bureaucrats—know best. Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Oklahoma, and New Jersey, among others, have set in place reforms to promote practices such as private school choice, increased school accountability to parents rather than bureaucrats, and merit pay to reward teachers for their efforts. Yet, regardless of state successes, NCLB superimposes its own top-down federal reform philosophy.

    For example, Oklahoma Superintendent Janet Barresi noted at a recent hearing of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that NCLB distracts from state reform priorities. She stated:

    “…the U.S. Department of Education has issued guidelines that on the surface seem to offer states more flexibility to meet local needs. But there seems to be a disconnect between good intentions at the top level and what actually occurs in practice.”

    And beyond limited flexibility, “what actually occurs in practice” also means hefty time and money constraints. The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall, testifying at a hearing last month, reported that NCLB cost states an additional seven million hours in paperwork at a cost of $141 million, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

    Approaches that limit schools’ ability to innovate, while taking resources of time and money away from students, don’t help improve education. Thus, it’s little wonder that academic achievement in the U.S. has basically flatlined since the 1970s, despite the ever-growing number of federal programs.

    Fortunately, instead of continuing down the path of greater federal control, conservative policies like A–PLUS allows state and local leaders to decide what works best for children. It gives power to those closest to the students to make reforms based on those students’ needs, while lightening the load of compliance burdens on schools. Additionally, it allows states to opt out of ineffective programs.

    With greater flexibility, more states will have the freedom to implement innovative educational approaches, just like those taking root in several pioneering states. Most importantly, it means that more children will have greater opportunity for academic success and promising futures.

    Posted in Education [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to A-PLUS Act: A Conservative Approach to No Child Left Behind

    1. Bobbie says:

      Great Write! There is no positive reason for conflict! Keep the feds out and constraint to THEIR DUTY, without interference to the duty of the states. SAVE OUR KIDS! …discipline the feds.

    2. Linda, California says:

      Great article; however, instead of messing around, why not just dump the Department of Education and leave education to state and local entities. That would save billions of dollars and increase accountability. The Federal government has no business being involved. They simply want our tax dollars to control us. I guess no one will put a bill like that forward because they figure it would be too much of an uphill battle.

    3. Pingback: Democratic Senate Candidate Ricardo Sanchez Comes Out for Illegal Alien Amnesty, Teacher’s Unions, and…Tax Cuts??? « Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

    4. shannon says:

      And what programs that burden the states would be eligible on this opt out? Sex education? Maybe the teaching of scientific principles like the theory of evolution? "Ineffective programs" is very vague. I smell a lie of omission somewhere….

    5. Leo says:

      Vote for Ron Paul 2012!
      A steadfast supporter of natural gas in your drinking water, teenage mothers, and homeless people being homeless. He argues points that had been settled years ago, but is too great to be irrelevant. Now let us melt those ice caps, poison our water, and eliminate the middle class! Place Your Vote!!!

    6. somethinganything says:

      has this act been passed?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×