• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Education Waiver Would Spell Entanglement for Alabama

    Alabama is considering requesting a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to relieve the state of some of the burdensome requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). But the waivers represent a troubling pact with Washington: To get relief from federal mandates, Alabama must agree to more federal intervention. It’s a bad deal.

    Alabama is seeking a waiver in large part to avoid having to comply with the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirement in NCLB (a federal mandate requiring 100 percent student proficiency in math and reading/language arts). Under NCLB, schools that fail to make AYP are subject to “cascading sanctions” ranging from implementing a school improvement plan to a complete school restructuring.

    Those sanctions are tough indeed, and illustrate the extent to which Washington intervention in local school policy has grown.

    In order to be granted a waiver, however, Alabama must agree to the Obama Administration’s preferred education policies—essentially, what the White House believes is best for Alabama students. One of the chief concerns is that instead of pursuing reforms that Alabama board of education members, taxpayers, and parents believe are in the best interest of students, a conditions-based NCLB waiver means Alabama must further entangle itself in the push for national standards.

    A better plan for Alabama—and the rest of the country—would be to decline the NCLB waiver and instead work to improve education on its own terms, while demanding genuine relief from Washington through a complete opt-out from the law that would restore education authority to the state where it belongs.

    During the 2008-09 school year (the most recent year for which data is available), Alabama taxpayers spent $7.2 billion on education. That total includes local revenue ($2.3 billion), state revenue ($4.2 billion), and federal revenue ($778 million).

    The federal government is just a 10.7 percent stakeholder in Alabama’s education funding, yet it would gain a tremendous amount of additional control over education if an NCLB waiver is pursued and granted.

    Alabama should reject the NCLB waiver bait and demand a complete opt-out of the law. At the same time, state leaders should pursue robust school choice options for families. That would do far more to improve education in The Yellowhammer State than ceding control to Washington bureaucrats ever could.

    Posted in Education, Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Education Waiver Would Spell Entanglement for Alabama

    1. PLink says:

      Seven billion not seven million. On the chart that you linked to it says "Revenues [in thousands of dollars]".

    2. Mahuna2 says:

      I'm not sure what you "updated", but the chart clearly shows that "Federal" is "$777,591" with "dollars in thousands" which yields "$778 million", not "7.7 million". $778 million USD is then correctly 10.7% of the $7.2 billion total from all sources.

      Also, Table 1 is page 14 in a 33 page document. So linking to the whole document without any attempt to identify the specific table you intended is the same as saying "find it yourself".

    3. Just Gene says:

      I love it – regs requiring over 50 mpg without understanding technology – 100% capability in science,math,etc without realizing it's impossible for some students – why not a reg demanding the AMA have a cure for cancer – rules will make it so !

    4. debra says:


    5. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Congress should provide an opt-out for all states by repealing NCLB. This is just another fed-state partnership, like Medicaid and EPA-state environmental agencies (TCEQ in Texas), that gradually transfer sovereignty from the states to the fed.

    6. Beth Richardson says:

      Alabama is not the only state expected to apply soon and possibly by the end of this year, all but a handful of states would have waivers. There are 6 others that said they'll apply: Alaska, New Hampshire, Maine, North Dakota and West Virginia. Then also throw in Puerto Rico and Bureau of Indian Ed. The only states not applying: Montana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont (applied but withdrew), and Wyoming. So, what happens to waivers if Romney is elected? How do you pull back this train that is roaring out of the station with all these states enacting separate plans that are hundreds of pages in length and meanwhile no ESEA reauth? I'm not arguing either for or against waivers, just commenting on how messy it all is.

    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.