I received a reply from IlliniPundit to a recent post about NCLB. IP (whose blog is essential reading for local politics) asked a series of questions, one of which focused on the federal funding of schools:

If you had a choice between
1. Accepting Federal Education money for your school district, but having it tied to NCLB
2. removing the Federal Government's Education Funding (and lowering Federal Taxes by that exact amount) but having the same revenue come from local and state sources, without the NCLB requirements

Which would you choose?

It’s a fair question, and one that is beginning to be addressed by school districts around the country this week. Michigan, Vermont, and even Texas are now in the process of suing the Department of Education over NCLB’s unfunded mandates. Utah’s State Legislature voted this week to reject parts of NCLB on the State level. Connecticut is also in the process of suing, and was recently compliment by Margaret Spellings, the new Secretary of Education who called the state “unamerican.” These developments are exciting, and seem quite promising.

But what of this idea of withdrawing federal funding altogether? It is not a great leap to see that this may be the Republican's ultimate goal. You know the story: create impossible, intrusive legislation that creates State’s Rights advocates out of typical Federalists, in this case America’s educators. Is my union walking into this snare? Will the end result of these lawsuits be a withdrawal of federal funding for schools? As Utah Representative Steven R. Mascaro put it:

"I don't like to be threatened. I wish they'd take the stinking money and go back to Washington."

I’d be a liar if I said the same notion hadn’t passed through my head more than once over the last couple of years. What is the point of federal intervention in schools anyway? Obviously they cause more harm than good. Right?

It is easy to feel that way these days. Fortunately I am exposed on a daily basis to the positive results of federal action. My two students in wheelchairs, for example, who would not have been allowed in our school without the Disability Act. The two aides that I have during a class filled with learning disabled and behaviorally disabled children, funded by a federal mandate. Black students working at the same table with white students, and Asian students for that matter. Impossible without Brown v. Board. The list goes on.

Federal intervention in the schools is often a messy, annoying thing. No question about it. But in the long run it can be for the best. The important distinction to make here is the difference between legislation like NCLB, which is designed to dismantle publicly funded education, and legislation that is designed to advance the cause of public education.

So no, I do not think a removal of federal monies for public education is a good idea. Just imagining what someone like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour would do without federal constraints scares the hell out of me.