The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) imposes new requirements on state education systems and provides additional education funding. This article estimates education cost functions, predicts the spending required to support NCLB standards, and compares this spending with the funding available through NCLB. This analysis is conducted for Kansas and Missouri, which have similar education environments but very different standards. We find that new federal funding is sufficient to support very low standards for student performance, but cannot come close to funding high standards without implausibly large increases in school-district efficiency. Because of the limited federal funding and the severe penalties in NCLB when a school does not meet its state's standards, states have a strong incentive to keep their standards low. NCLB needs to be reformed so that it will encourage high standards.
Baker, Bruce D.2006. Evaluating the reliability, validity and usefulness of education cost studies. Paper prepared for the O'Leary Symposium, Chicago, IL. February 17.
3.
Bound, John, David A. Jaeger, and Regina M. Baker .1995. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variables is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association90 (430): 443-450.
4.
Center on Education Policy.2006. From the capital to the classroom. Washington DC. September.
5.
Cullen, Julie Berry.2003. The impact of fiscal incentives on student disability rates. Journal of Public Economics87 (7/8): 1557-1589.
6.
Davis, Michelle.2006. Study: NCLB leads to cuts in some subjects. Education Week25 (30): 5-14.
7.
Downes, Thomas A., and Thomas F. Pogue .1994. Adjusting school aid formulas for the higher cost of educating disadvantaged students. National Tax Journal47 (1): 89-110.
8.
Driscoll, William, and Howard Fleeter.2003. Projected cost of implementing the federal ``No Child Left Behind Act'' in Ohio. Report prepared for the Ohio Department of Education, December.
9.
Duncombe, William.2006. Responding to the charge of alchemy: Strategies for evaluating the reliability and validity of costing-out research. Paper prepared for the O'Leary Symposium, Chicago, IL. February 17.
10.
Duncombe, William, Anna Lukemeyer, and John Yinger.2003. Financing an adequate education: A case study of New York. In Developments in school finance: 2001-02 , William Fowler ed., Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics .
11.
Duncombe, William, and John Yinger.2000. Financing higher student performance standards: The case of New York State. Economics of Education Review19 (October): 363-386.
12.
---. 2005a. How much more does a disadvantaged student cost? Economics of Education Review24 (5): 513-532.
13.
---. 2005b. Estimating the cost of meeting student performance outcomes adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education. A study prepared for the Kansas Division of Legislative Post Audit.
14.
Erpenbach, William J., Ellen Forte-Fast, and Abigal Potts.2003. Statewide educational accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
15.
Governmental Accounting Office (GAO).2003 . Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help states realize efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, DC.
16.
Gronberg, Timothy J., Dennis W. Jansen, Lori L. Taylor, and Kevin Booker.2004. School outcomes and school costs: The cost function approach. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
17.
Hanushek, Eric.2005. The alchemy of ``costing out'' an adequate education. Paper presented at the conference Adequate lawsuits: Their growing impact on American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. October.
18.
Hanushek, Eric, and Margaret E. Raymond .2001. The confusing world of educational accountability. National Tax Journal54 (2): 365-384.
19.
Hendrie, Caroline.2005. NCLB cases face hurdles in the courts. Education Week24 (34): 1.
20.
Hoff, David J.2005. The bottom line. Quality Counts 2000. Education Week24 (17): 29-36.
21.
Hoxby, Caroline M.2002. The cost of accountability. NBER Working Papers, No. 8855, Cambridge, MA.
22.
---. 2005. Inadequate yearly progress: Unlocking the secrets of NCLB . Education Next5 (3): 46-51.
23.
Imazeki, Jennifer, and Andrew Reschovsky .2004a. Estimating the costs of meeting the Texas Educational accountability standards. Unpublished Manuscript.
24.
---. 2004b. Is No Child Left Behind an un (or under) funded federal mandate? Evidence from Texas. National Tax Journal57 (3): 571-588.
25.
---. 2006. Does No Child Left Behind place a fiscal burden on states? Evidence from Texas. Education Finance and Policy1:27-246.
26.
Jacob, Brian A., and Steven D. Levitt .2003. Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics118 (3): 843-877.
27.
Kim, Jimmy, and Gail L. Sunderman .2004. Large Mandates and Limited Resources: State Response to the No Child Left Behind Act and Implications for Accountability. (Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project).
28.
Koretz, Daniel M.1996. Using student assessments for educational accountability . In Improving America's schools: The role of incentives, ed. Eric Hanushek and Dale W. Jorgenson.Washington DC: National Academy Press.
29.
Ladd, Helen F.2001. School-based educational accountability systems: The promise and pitfalls. National Tax Journal54 (2): 385-400.
30.
Mathis, William.2003. No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan84 (9) 679-686.
31.
Meyer, Lori, Greg F. Orlofsky, Ronald A. Skinner, and Scott Spicer.2002. The state of the states. Quality Counts 2002. Building blocks for success: state efforts in early childhood education . Education Week21 (17): 68-70.
32.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MDESE).2006. State Board of Education revises scoring standards for MAP exams. News Release. January 13.
33.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).2006. Digest of Education Statistics, 2005. Washington, DC: NCES.
34.
No Child Left Behind Act. 2001. § 1001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301.
35.
Office of Management and Budget.2007. Budget of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.
Olson, Lynn, and Craig D. Jerald .1998. Barriers to success. Education Week17 (17): 9.
37.
Peyser, James, and Robert Costrell .2004. Exploring the costs of accountability . Education Next (2): 22-29.
38.
Reschovsky, Andrew, and Jennifer Imazeki .1998. The development of school finance formulas to guarantee provision of adequate education to low-income students. In Developments in School Finance 1997: Does Money Matter?, ed. W. J. Fowler, Jr., 121-148. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
39.
Robelen, Erik W.2005. Uncertain costs. Education Week24 (17): 34.
40.
Ryan, James E.2003. The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. 2003 Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers. No. 03-17.
41.
Sack, Joetta L.2005. Utah passes bill to trump ``No Child Left Behind.''Education Week24 (33): 22-25.
42.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.2003. Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. 2nd edition. Mason, OH: South-Western, Thomson Learning.
