Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

P.L. 104-4


Before one can really begin to understand this law, one must first understand what an unfunded mandate is. The definition of an unfunded mandate is a mandate in the form of federal legislation would require a state or local municipality to perform functions but the municipality does not receive enough funds from the federal government to achieve the expected end results. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was enacted to keep the federal government from imposing mandates on municipalities that did not receive enough money from the government. Bill Clinton signed this Bill into Law on March 22, 1995. To put it in other terms, Govtrack.us, a civic minded website, defines 104-4 as this: A bill to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments; to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local and tribal governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate funding, in a manner that may displace other essential governmental priorities; and to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations; and for other purposes.
There are a lot of legal debates that have come out of this law. There are many exemptions and amendments to this law that have been developed over the years. There have been two major lawsuits under this law, and both times the plantiffs lost. They were Pontiac v. Spellings and the State of Connecticut v. The State Department of Education.

As educators, there are really two major thoughts that should be acknowledged for our purposes. The questions for us are: Does No Child Left Behind fall under the category of an unfunded mandate? and How does the legislation continue to guarantee special education benefits for disabled children?

The answer, as stated in a report by the non-partisan group known as the General Accounting Office (GAO), states that “The No Child Left Behind Act is in fact not an unfunded mandate as critics of the law have claimed. “ Rod Paige, former US Secretary of Education issued a statement concerning the NCLB as an unfunded mandate: “The non-partisan GAO found that NCLB was not an unfunded mandate as those who are opposed to accountability and education reform have portrayed it in the press.”
According to the report, NCLB did not meet the definition of a mandate because it is a basis to secure federal funding for schools. In order to receive the funds, the state and school districts must be held accountable for the education of their students. They don’t “have to” follow the rules of NCLB. They just need to know and understand that if they choose not to participate, then the funds will not be given and the children will not reap any rewards for their hard work.
The other issue, the guarantee of special education benefits, is another issue that does not fall under the definition of unfunded mandates. This is because individual states and school districts should have additional funds to help these children under IDEA. That way, the federal government does not have to pay for these students because the children are taken care of through more local means.

Overall, the discussions will continue about NCLB being an unfunded mandate. The fact of the matter is that the students need to be the focus. Getting their scores up and their reading fluency and math understanding should be the mandate, not a discussion over who should pay for it. In the end,if we don’t do something now, we will all pay for it in the end.



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s104-1
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/814160/Unfunded-Mandates-Reform-Act
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+unfunded+mandate+reform+act%3a+working+well+for+no+good+reason.-a097651028
http://www.nea.org/home/10675.htm (pontiac v. spellings)