• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Smart Move to Education Reform: Downsize the Federal Footprint

    On Saturday, President Obama used his weekly radio address to call for the quick reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Obama lauded the progress of Booker T. Washington High School in Memphis, Tennessee—his inaugural Race to the Top Commencement Address winner—and showcased the low-income school as an example of how to reverse course and get positive results:

    We need to encourage this kind of change all across America. We need to reward the reforms that are driven not by Washington, but by principals and teachers and parents. That’s how we’ll make progress in education—not from the top down, but from the bottom-up.… That’s why it’s so important to replace No Child Left Behind this year—so schools have that flexibility.

    But despite promoting a bottom-up approach to improving America’s schools, President Obama’s language suggests that the same Washington-centric policies can be expected moving forward. When the President says, “We need to encourage this type of change,” we likely means himself, Secretary Duncan, and certain Members of Congress.

    And if history is any guide, the President’s assurances that reform will not be driven by Washington should be taken with a large grain of salt. His Administration has already gifted a $100 billion bonus to the Department of Education and created the framework for federally backed national standards and tests. President Obama would have to do a policy 180 to overhaul the nation’s largest education law in a way that empowers local leaders and parents as opposed to Washington bureaucrats.

    Every reauthorization of NCLB since 1965 has added a litany of niche programs (with the exception of the most recent reauthorization in 2001, which attempted to reduce program growth) that have failed to improve student outcomes. While President Obama wants a rewritten NCLB “before the next school year begins,” conservatives in Congress want to end the practice of trying to reform the nation’s schools from Washington.

    To that end, Elementary and Secondary Education subcommittee chairman Duncan Hunter has introduced a bill to eliminate 43 (out of approximately 80) programs under NCLB in an attempt to streamline the Department of Education and better target resources. This morning on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America radio program, House Education and the Workforce Committee chairman John Kline championed Hunter’s Setting New Priorities in Education Spending Act:

    There are some 80 individual programs inside the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and we have a bill to eliminate 43 of those. It’s just too complicated, it’s difficult to deal with, it’s indication that we’ve got programs that somebody thought was a great idea at one time and they just don’t go away. So we waste money, we waste energy, we need to get more streamlined, more efficient, more effective and start pulling the federal government progressively out of running education.

    During the past half-century, Americans have seen eight reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—now known as No Child Left Behind. Yet student achievement languishes, our international competitiveness is stagnant, and achievement gaps stubbornly persist. Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A ninth reauthorization of NCLB—and an expectation that this time Congress will get it right—would be folly.

    In an attempt to stop the madness, conservatives in Congress have decided to try a new approach, which includes stopping the education spending spree, eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs, and empowering state and local leaders.

    Posted in Education [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to A Smart Move to Education Reform: Downsize the Federal Footprint

    1. Andrew says:

      The administration’s plan does very little to empower parents and students. It is not a bottom up approach. It simply gives school districts more control of federal tax dollars, allows the schools districts to hide what is really going on in the schools, and it forces states to compete for money. If it were a bottom up approach, why is the administration trying to eliminate SES tutoring and parent choice options in the reauthorization. Eliminating these options simply takes the control out of the hands of the parents and students. It is not a bottom up approach, it is top down approach, and the top is no longer Congress but the Department of Education and Arne Duncan’s office.

    2. George Colgrove, VA says:

      Reform: Downsize the Federal Footprint – how about eliminate it!

    3. Jackson Phillipson says:

      Stumbled across this today…interesting coming from them: http://www.fearlesscampaign.com/education-agenda

    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.