Unfunded Education Mandates and Their Non-Market Failures - Research Paper Example

Unfunded Education Man s and their Non-Market Failures Introduction to Education Man s In broad terms, a man is a regulation, decree or bill requiring the state or local government to take appropriate actions. As reiterated by Posner (1998) it “covers several distinctly different tools used to regulate states and localities” (p. 4). In the United States, mandates are generally viewed as “direct orders imposed by the federal government on the states of local governments to carry out federal policies or programs” (Ibid). Posner (1998) adds that it includes grant conditions awarded to states or localities, as well as preemptions of states, local governments and programs. Over the years, significant mandates have been put forth in relation to employment, persons with disabilities, water and air pollution, and equal opportunities in education. The debate on mandates have been long-standing historically primarily due to the implied fiscal responsibilities impinged on local districts. Redistribution of state funds becomes necessary to allocate budget for federal mandates. There are other non-fiscal consequences of mandates as well. With federal mandates, a generic solution is provided for highly sensitive issues underplaying the diversity factor in each state or locality. “The initiative of state and local governments to pioneer innovative approaches is undermined as a result” (Posner, 1998, p. 6). However, despite these continuing issues, mandates have proven resilient since inception, and policy makers [i.e. Congress] remain positive on their position in creating federal mandates. The first major wave of federal mandates happened between 1960’s and 1970’s which included essential issues such as environment, civil rights, and education (Posner, 1998). Specifically, in the mid-1960’s, the state government increased its authority and intervention in education. As pointed out by Fusarelli (2009), “a crucial reason for a fundamental shift in the state education role is the widespread loss of confidence in local educators and their communities” (p. ix). In 1983, the loss of confidence in local education revolved around children with special needs. In recent times, the No Child Left Behind Policy (NCLB) became the driving force behind an increase in the state-mandated laws in education. Perhaps one of the more formidable issues emphasized by individuals advocating against state-mandated laws, especially in education, is funding. Most, if not all, mandates come with price tags that become additional budgetary burdens for local districts. Sink (2010) borrows the definition of mandates from the presidents of the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida League of Cities, “A mandate is a program or service that the state or federal government requires local governments to provide, but they do not provide funding to pay for it” (n.p.). This definition carries a strong statement about mandates as generally unfunded, education mandates included. I have highlighted on unfunded mandates related to education in the previous paragraphs as this will be the focus for this research paper. It will be also worthwhile to note that the shift in terminology from federal mandates to state mandates is due to how the authors, Posner (1998) and Fusarelli (2009), have introduced the concept of mandates. For this paper, these two terms mean the same, and refer to the mandates instituted by the central government. Unfunded mandates, with all the benefits they purport to provide to education, result in positive and negative externalities. This paper will discuss the connections of market failures of unfunded mandates with negative externalities they create in education. Specifically, it aims to answer the questions: (1) What are the costs associated with the unfunded education mandates in Florida?; (2) What are the possible implications of these costs on local districts?; (3) What alternatives can be taken to address these issues on cost? The succeeding section will provide a contextual background by providing a discussion on the unfunded education mandates in Florida. Contextual Background: Unfunded Education Mandates in Florida The research conducted by the Florida Institute of Government and the James Madison Institute revealed that 70% of city and county managers believe that unfunded mandates is the biggest problem they encounter with state agencies (Marshall, 1999). Florida statutes define mandate as: “any state action that imposes a cost upon local government by: (1) requiring local government to provide a service or facility without commensurate funding; (2) reducing local government fiscal powers without a corresponding reduction in responsibilities; or (3) requiring a local government to perform an activity that directly or indirectly proves costly” (Marshall, 1999, p. 2) As a result, unfunded mandates cost Florida counties and their tax payers millions of dollars each year for the benefit of certain interest groups. The implementation of these mandates places school districts in economic difficulties as they are often not considered when creating educational reforms. Unfunded mandates in Florida have been a controversial issue that led to the amendments of the state constitution in Atricle VIII. Section 18 (a) and 18 (b) states that “local governments may reject laws that are in effect unfunded mandates unless certain requirements are met. It also limits the power of the legislature to reduce local governments’ revenue-generating authority and the level of revenues shared with the state” (Marshall, 1999, p. 2). Passing unfunded mandates on an annual business is one of the persistent complaints of the public schools in Florida. The Florida Statute 1003.42 already includes a lengthy coverage for subjects in history, health, politics, economics, and personal well-being. The list goes on to include topics such as “the principles of agriculture; the ‘true effects’ of alcohol and narcotics; kindness to animals; and character development instruction that ‘stress[es] the qualities of patriotism; responsibility; citizenship; kindness; respect for authority, life, liberty and personal property; honesty; charity; self-control; racial, ethnic and religious tolerance; and cooperation’ ” (The Ledger, 2010, p. 2). In 2010, lawmakers added suicide prevention and teen-age dating on the list. All of these topics have been justified, and have been situated properly against their value to society. The topic on teen-age dating, for instance, has been largely supported by the National Foundation of Women Legislators to bring to light acts of violence which women may go unreported until they are badly injured. I have provided a picture of how education mandates are translated back to the curriculum, and how adjustments are made to accommodate these initiatives. However, there are particular mandates that affect primarily school personnel and have implications on restructuring of school systems. Sink (2010) was one of those who argued that Senate Bill 6 (SB6) is an unfunded mandate. The bill proposed by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Jacksonville, states that: “teachers hired after July 2010 would work under one-year contracts instead of the current multi-year contracts awarded to teachers after three years of service, which is informally known as tenure. School districts would have to create base salaries and set aside a pool of money for performance bonuses that would be based on test scores and other guidelines developed by 2014. The legislation would cause a major shift from current pay scales, which base salaries on degrees and years of experience” (Sink, 2010, n.p.). The hidden costs to the bill includes, among others, creating systems to asses student learning gains; revising teacher-appraisal and compensation systems; revising teacher contracts; and training personnel for implementation of revised systems (Sink, 2010). In addition, additional assessments have to be given to students that are not covered by current standardized testing. The new system also calls for increase in teacher pay bases on the performance-assessment compensation scheme. All these initiatives, Sink (2010) explains, will be carved out from the existing budget without an additional source of budget. Although money is set aside for this initiative, it is not “new money” because it is essentially “taken out from the existing school budget and spent in a different way” (Ibid). Although what I have presented thus far are the unfunded mandates specifically affecting Florida, these are legitimate concerns that proliferate across federal states. There are overarching laws from which branches of unfunded mandates stem from. Currently, there are two laws that have grown in popularity as being an unfunded mandates: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the No Child Left Behind Policy (NCLB). The IDEA has been considered as the “mother” of unfunded mandates. Hier (2008) however, argues that although the Bush administration has “increased the federal funding of IDEA by 68 percent, it has not been enough to keep up with massive state and local spending increases” (n.p.). Expenditure is the only basis of the actual costs for special education, yet it does not determine what the true costs for IDEA are. Hier (2008) hinted on too much spending on the part of states and local schools. Another unfunded mandate myth that Hier (2008) explained is the NCLB. The federal budgets grew by 36% during the Bush administration, however “legislation authorized spending of up to higher levels than have ever been met” (Hier, 2008, n.p.). A similar case to IDEA, the funds were made available, but overspending made the situation complicated. From the lenses of the National Education Association, it will always remain unfunded. The arguments of Hier (2008) however, raise a significant question on the nature of mandates as funded or unfunded. While this study does not aim to resolve the issue on whether mandates sit on the funded or unfunded sites of policy-making, I have found it essential to portray alternating views of mandates. In relation to this paper however, I will focus on unfunded mandates in the state Florida as previously exemplified in this section of the paper. The Pros and Cons of Unfunded Education Mandates Unfunded mandates have always been created with the interest of the society, or in simple terms “for the sake of common good.” However, its economic implications cannot be neglected as it impinges difficulties for local authorities and districts, which may later on translate to higher taxes among citizens or school budget cuts. Although special interest groups, such as advocates for special education and women’s liberty, believe that they are creating positive externalities [i.e. the benefit of an educated society through the use of government intervention], the mandates often end up producing negative externalities by not providing for the economic costs associated with the implementation of the mandates. This is not to say that mandates are not beneficial. In fact, I shall elaborate more on the benefits of mandates in the succeeding paragraph. Education mandates are borne out of a response of society’s needs more often on issues on equal opportunities and inclusion. Within the framework of equal opportunity, the following goals have been articulated: “(1) Horizontal equity, or the equal treatment of equals. For example, insuring that education revenues per pupil are comparable across school districts of similar types, serving students with similar needs; (2) Fiscal neutrality, or the absence of a systematic relationship between resources or opportunities and local district fiscal capacity; or (3) Vertical equity, or the unequal treatment of unequals. For example, insuring that students with different needs, and different costs associated with those needs, are able to access adequately differentiated opportunities” (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004, p. 39). The increase in “required instruction” falls under the goal of comprehensively equipping the students with skills in a globalised market. School indeed has a shared responsibility of preparing students to handle issues in the real world, may it be suicidal issues or those associated with teenage dating. It is clear that education mandates have been created for good intentions, but the costs it entails becomes a formidable force that hinders proper implementation. The costs associated with these types of mandates have local school districts scrambling on how to fund the new programs with budgets that have been slashed to all-time lows. The introduction of new programs annually [as has been observed] continues to threaten upcoming fiscal years of local districts. The introduction, for instance, of a national curriculum is synonymous to a system overhaul which would require investment in teacher training and professional development that has not been initially part of the budget plan. Moreover, there is a question in terms of assessment of students. As I have previously emphasized, questioning unfunded mandates is highly related to the costs it entails which leaves local districts volatile in terms of addressing the needs of the citizens. With increasing unfunded education mandates, there will be a need to shift budgets and priorities. This is a painstaking route that might leave schools more vulnerable rather than establishing stability in terms of systems and structures. What I propose therefore, is a re-examination of these policies and determine if there are alternative routes that may be taken. Recommendations: Alternative to Policy Kelly (1994) offers an important perspective with regard to costs associated with unfunded mandates. Her contention is primarily hinged on the fact that cost and impact of unfunded mandates are challenging to determine. Kelly (1994) proposed that the reason for managing mandates is that there has been a lack of estimation of impact before enactment of the mandate, and if indeed there was an estimate, it was at the wrong level of government (Kelly, 1994). “More than half of the states report that the fiscal noting process has been bypassed at some time and a quarter reported that fiscal note requirements are routinely ignored by the legislature” (Kelly, 1994, p. 405). In the education field, impact is even more difficult to establish. There is always of question of when can we measure education’s success. Do we base it on test results or do we measure it on the success of the student as becoming a productive output in society? If we take the latter route, then clearly it becomes burdensome to operationalize the variables that will allow for measures of cost and impact. Another interesting point that Kelly (1994) makes is that no one or groups of mandate will entail significant cost, but the cumulative effect of hundreds of mandates will surely do. Furthermore, mandates are most procedural which tell authorities how to do things, instead of what to do. In the context of education, this scenario leaves little amount of creativity for local authorities that will allow them to tap on cost-effective resources. Furthermore, the accumulation of mandate on an annual basis will have long-term effects, both on costs and the product of education. Education is an institution that can be measured best through certain durations, and with a semblance of consistency in programs and curriculum. Radical changes make it more challenging to measure the effectiveness of particular programs. An alternative view with regard to the resistance against unfunded mandates came from a study in Virginia which “concluded that concerns about mandates were not substantiated by fact” (Kelly, 1994, p. 406). They suggested that discontent about state aid at the level of local governments fuelled the critical discussions against unfunded mandates. There were still issues raised related to fiscal problems, yet these findings offer an alternative view with regard to the politics of unfunded mandates. Needless to say, crafting creative solutions to the challenge of unfunded mandates is becoming the best alternative for local authorities. In North Carolina, “localities formed regional and departmental cooperatives to control service delivery costs” (Kelly, 1994, p. 407). Other states have devised means to inform citizens by posting notices on their bills of increased costs related to unfunded mandates. Periodic reviews of unfunded mandates have also been initiated in several states. “Local governments catalogue unfunded mandates, locate those that have outlived their usefulness or need updating, and present the legislature with a set of recommendations for reform or repeal” (Ibid). This step is indeed an active role that local authorities have taken to influence legislation, but it has also been an effective way to legitimize concerns on the impact of unfunded mandates. As Kelly (1994) notes, perhaps the most ambitious way of handling unfunded mandates is the clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the state and local districts. Different states have place different factors as a priority to address the issue on unfunded mandates. Vermont pushes for clear statement of objectives, and a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the state; Wisconsin called for mandates management policy as highly necessary; North Carolina put forth criteria to determine the level at which responsibilities rest; New York emphasized the need more for a mandate policy than reimbursement (Kelly, 1994). Florida, in 1990, instituted its reactionary measures by amending its article VIII of its state constitution. It became the most popular amendment that was adopted. The recommendations on mandates have been mostly stated in general terms, but highly applicable in the context of education. Clearly, there is a need for active participation among local authorities, and in my opinion, for stakeholders, as well. As Kelly (1994) points out, establishing the costs of mandates has been tricky, and while there are necessary triggers for resistance, data is not sufficient. Providing empirical data measuring cost and impact will strengthen the need to review policy on mandates, and the responsibilities associated with their implementation. Conclusion The beginning of this paper gives a historical overview of the development of mandates. It serves as a strong justification for the existence of mandates, and builds up my personal stance that mandates are beneficial and necessary, especially at this critical time in the United States. I have followed this discussion with an illustration of unfunded mandates in Florida to contextualize my argument on the market failures associated with education mandates. To create a balanced perspective on the issue, I have as well provided a discussion on the myth of unfunded mandates. Nonetheless, I have asserted through other articles cited, the economic costs of unfunded mandates on local districts. The previous section discussed the alternatives taken to address the problem of unfunded mandates. Clearly, there is a political gap between state and local governance. Mandates are passed on with little, if any, consideration on the states. From the previous discussions, I highlight two important insights that may facilitate the implementation of unfunded education mandates. First, there is a need for better communication between state decision makers and local governments to be able to improve planning and create better solutions for the problems associated with unfunded mandates. Second, local authorities must continue to take more active roles in evaluation and creating feedback to state government. The need for proper monitoring and evaluation is necessary to build their arguments and ligitimatize their concerns. References: Baker, B.D. & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State Policies and Equal Opportunity: The Example of Gifted Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 39-64. Fusarelli, B.C. & Cooper, B.S. (Eds). (2009). The rising state: how state power is transforming our nation’s school. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hier, C. (2008). Preserving the unfunded mandate myth. American Thinker. Retrieved from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/preserving_the_unfunded_mandat.html Kelly, J. (1994). Unfunded mandates: The view from the states. Public Administration Review, 54 (4), 405-408. Marshall, J.S. (1999). Unfunded mandates: The Florida Experience. Policy Report No. 25. U.S.: The James Madison Institute. National Conference on Citizenship. 2009 Florida Civic Health Index. Retrieved from http://www.ncoc.net/index.php?tray=series&tid=top57&cid=2kc29 Posner, P.L. (1998) The politics of unfunded mandates: Whither federalism? Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Required Instruction: Trim Floridas Long List. (2010). The Ledger. Retrieved from http://www.theledger.com/article/20100712/EDIT01/7125006/1001/BUSINESS?p=1&tc=pg Sink, A. (2010). Alex Sink says controversial education bill is unfunded mandate for local schools. Politifact Florida. Retrieved from http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/apr/05/alex-sink/alex-sink-education-bill-unfunded-mandate/ Wolf, Charles Jr. (1993). Markets or Governments: Choosing between imperfect alternatives. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Read More