The Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different Assumptions, Different Answers

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In the debate about whether the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is "fully funded," 6 different definitions are used. The purpose of this article is to explore the implications of using each of these very different definitions. The 1st definition is that the law is fully funded because of large percentage increases in the federal appropriation. However, relative increases do not address actual costs. Second, claims that "unspent" federal monies show the law is adequately funded are found to lack empirical support. The 3rd and 4th definitions of fully funded are based on actual appropriations as compared with authorized appropriations, and with the definition of fully funded in the law itself. Although carrying significant political weight, these 2 definitions do not address the actual fiscal needs of states and districts. The 5th definition is whether new appropriations cover new administrative costs. New federal appropriations add 0.9% to total education spending, whereas new administrative costs cost states between 2% and 2.5% in new spending. The federal government has supplied $4.6 billion in new funds, whereas the new requirements for administering the new law require at least $11.3 billion in new funds. Sixth is the cost of teaching children to attain the state mastery levels as required by NCLB. Based on 40 separate adequacy studies, additional new costs to give all students standards-based opportunities are conservatively estimated at 27.5% or $137.8 billion in new money. Thus, implementation of the administrative and learning opportunities aspects of the law would require a new sum of $144.5 billion or an increase of 29% in educational spending.