NCLB Waivers: The Means to Another End

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have requested waivers from the Federal government for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. The waivers free the states from changes required of schools and states who fail to meet the goals outlined in NCLB.  Nearly all states have failed to meet the goals outlined in the legislation.

Don’t be fooled. This is not an innocent exercise in helping struggling states and schools. The Obama administration is using the waivers as a strategic tool to get the states to federalize the curriculum and give Washington greater control over education policy. Because President Obama stands little chance of passing legislation to do so, the administration is seeking to impose policy preferences through bureaucratic control by the Department of Education.

In a recent column on the subject in CNN, Lindsay Burke, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, describes the details of the proposed waivers on policy when she writes:

Nearly everyone agrees that No Child Left Behind is broken. But President Obama has decided to circumvent Congress and issue waivers to states that agree to his administration’s preferred education policies – a move that will not provide genuine relief to states and schools. The waivers are conditions-based, and states will only have access to the “relief” they offer if they agree to reforms such as adopting common standards and tests – a huge step toward nationalizing curriculum. So while states might feel some temporary relief from NCLB as a result of the waivers, they’ll be binding their hands in the long run by ceding more control to Washington.  . . .

Do states need relief from NCLB?  The Bush administration’s signature education program had lofty goals and controversial mechanisms for measuring progress. The nearly decade-old law was supposed to end the achievement gap and ensure that all students were proficient in math and reading by 2014. Disappointingly, the achievement gap still persists, and our students are far from proficient in either subject. States are now facing the punishment of failing to reach the goals articulated in NCLB.

Instead of offering states the opportunity to opt out of the 2014 NCLB legislation, the Obama administration said it will grant waivers to those states that did what they wanted in terms of school reform. Translation: do it our way and jump through more hoops. In order to get waivers states have to promise to implement college and career ready standards for students , set new student achievement targets and create evaluation systems for principals and teachers that include standardized test scores as at least one of the measures, find ways to reward top- performing schools and how best to intervene with struggling schools.

Why should this concern Americans? The practice of granting waivers raises new legal and constitutional questions. The Obama administration is willing to grant waivers if states agree to principles outlined in Blueprint for Reform, the administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, NCLB’s parent legislation. Many conservatives contend the waivers will allow the administration in essence to craft a whole new law even if it is only “principles” that are agreed upon.

Although government-by-waiver has been around for a while the evolution of far-ranging legislation like No Child Left Behind is a crapshoot. Execution and implementation matter as much as what is actually in the legislation. It looks like the Obama administration is thinking that the landscape and the education politics have changed sufficiently to make a legislative defeat unlikely.

Those who believe questions regarding public education ought to be decided locally should be alarmed at these developments.  Legal prohibitions against federal control of the curriculum (e.g. common core standards) have failed to stop growing federal power over public education.

A total lack of academic progress in spite of billions in spending and forty years of federal involvement in public education has also failed to curb federal reach into local schools. That states would still willingly trade away control of public education in exchange for federal funds and agreement to a set of new principles is a decision void of logic and evidence.

This article was posted in Education by Bob Luebke on March 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM.

© 2011 The Civitas Institute. Visit us on the web at
This article can be found at

Comments on this article

  • 1

    noGOPnNC Mar 13, 2012 at 16:47

    I find it amusing that you take Obama to task for trying to improve our schools with a common curriculum but Bush gets a pass for the most intrusive and destructive bill ever. good thing you guys don’t practice hypocrisy because it is apparent you have mastered denial.

  • 2

    Bob Luebke
    Bob Luebke Mar 13, 2012 at 18:16

    Once again big accusation, but no facts. If you think Bush and Obama educational efforts are comparable, you fail to grasp a fundamental difference. No Child Left Behind Legislation, George Bush’s signature education legislation —which I called a mixed big of educational initiatives — was introduced in Congress, passed the House and Senate and and was signed by the President. Obama’s education efforts are in large part outside the legislative process. He’s used Race to the Top funds as a carrot to get cash-strapped states to adopt common core standards. In addition, the Department of Education is tying NCLB waivers to state’s acceptance of common core standards – and raising a host of constitutional issues in the process. None of this is done through normal legislative channels, but through the Department of Education. Obama bypasses the Congress because he lacks the legislative support to pass common core standards. If the legislation would truly benefit our schools, why do so few others think so? Local or state officials don’t believe Washington can improve schools. Forty years of evidence supports that claim. However, I guess you can’t force people to accept reality.

  • 3

    Mark Sheppard
    Mark Sheppard Mar 16, 2012 at 12:16

    I think it is so sad that Americans have been lulled into such a dull state that they don’t or won’t see the implications of Federal imposition into education. Our very wise founding fathers expressly left education to the states. Yes there were regional differences and opinions as to what would and should be taught in schools, but the main concern was that if the central (Federal) government had control of the schools, they could control the minds of the public-really in the course of a generation. Is that what people want? How quickly we forget the lessons of history. Wur founders still had in their memories the tyranny of an oppressive government, controlling people’s lives even down to religious expression. We need each state to be able to decide how to educate their children.
    And yes, you can believe there are those who would love to indoctrinate the students of America. They would love to be able to have access to the minds of the entirety of America’s youth so that they could instill THEIR worldview into them. Please wake up. Please resist federal intrusion into our schools. The best thing the US gov’t can do is to make sure small town kids have access to the same benefits and access to opportunity that big city (Spelled large tax base) students do. Otherwise, all education $ needs to stay at the state level. Think how much more $ would be available if all the money wasted to run the Dept. Of Ed. were put in the classroom. Thanks for listening.

Leave a Reply

Sorry, due to spammers you must have Javascript enabled to make comments.

Raleigh Web Design, WordPress & Web Development