In Day 2 of the National School Boards Association annual conference, the first session I attended today was on NCLB, IDEA, and the law of unfunded federal mandates. Moderated by Ron Wenkart, who serves as General Counsel for Orange County, it was a lot of information that all of us already knew (unfunded mandates are wrecking our budgets), but some key information about the details that I, for one, didn’t know.
The big one for us is IDEA — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It’s pretty easy to agree that individuals with disabilities should be educated, and that accommodations must be made for some students. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the law is so far-reaching in terms of what public school systems must pay for — nursing care for a student with a feeding tube, occupational therapy for students with motor skills issues, even the cost of a residential treatment facility for students with severe emotional disturbances.
I’ve asked more than once in our Board meetings, "where is the line between educational services and medical services, and at what point is the family or their insurance company responsible for these costs?" The answer I received today was that the courts have held that all services except those of a physician are the responsibility of the school system. When the IDEA originally passed (in the 1970’s, I think), the intent was for the federal government to cover 40% of the cost. But they don’t. For many years, they covered only 8%, and today it’s up to about 16%. While that sounds like progress, the problem is that the number of students identified as special ed has skyrocketed — and local school districts are stuck with taking money out of general education to pay for special education services.
Wenkart got into the details of the "spending clause" in the US Constitution — Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 — under which the IDEA and NCLB were enacted. In short, that means that Congress can require states (and local governments) to do things not specifically enumerated in the powers of the federal government when those requirements are in the form of strings attached to money allocated. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supremes broadly interpreted the spending clause and upheld Congress’ conditioning of federal highway funds on a state’s enactment of a minimum drinking age of 21.
In South Dakota v. Dole, Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, holding that the clause was too broadly interpreted, and that there should be a more direct and immediate correlation between the mandated action and the purpose of the funding, but it was the minority opinion, so the ruling held and has been subsequently used as precedent for other, similar cases.
As an example, it would make sense if a school system simply said "we’re not going to accept any NCLB grants (which we don’t get anyway), and we’re not going to abide by the mandates." Unfortunately, that would mean the system would lose ALL federal funding, not just the NCLB funding that they already don’t receive. Worse, it’s likely that they would also lose all State funding.
Although Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995, the gaping loophole is that it does not apply to legislation or grant programs which were a condition of federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal program — funding with strings attached. IDEA does not take into account the growing and heavy burden placed upon local school systems to comply, nor the impact on general education from dollars being sucked out of it every year to cover special services for a few students.
The State seems fixated on the schools’ role in solving the obesity epidemic, when the incidence of autism is skyrocketing (costing an average of $40,000 per student, as opposed to a rate of about $9,000 per student otherwise). How much more positive it would be to identify the causes and cures of disabling factors, than to simply keep bullying local school districts into solutions we are not equipped to provide.
* * *
Today’s general session featured Bill Clinton as the headline speaker, whose primary message was that schools must play a greater role in preventing childhood obesity. Once again, trying to foist upon us a responsibility that does not fit well with our primary mission.
I realize that his motives are noble, but the whole nutrition and lack of exercise problem is a problem at home, not at school. Our job is to educate — yes, even educate about proper diet and exercise within the confines of wellness classes — but the school system cannot take over the raising of every child.
You really don’t want that.
I also happened across