Federalism cannot spilover and there is no impact

The challenges with implementing the federal programs have raised great concerns. Bowling and Pickerill discuss the challenges faced by states as the system of federalism our nation employs becomes less distinct.5 They note that as of 2012, the state of our federalism can no longer be designated as one specific type. This can be attributed by, “challenges at the federal level-the party polarization, the budget deficit, the level of tax increases and spending cuts required, and the inability of lawmakers to compromise,” which have then trickled down to subnational governments in the process.6 This fragmented federalism is especially prominent in education policy, as Bowling and Pickerill explain. The overlapping existence of No Child Left Behind, the No Child Left Behind waivers, Race to the Top, and the end of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has led to great confusion. The lack of clarity in policy causes difficulty in determining the authority of the federal government and the states. One result of this fragmented federalism is the creation of state-specific policy. The inability of the federal government to offer more specific policy causes states to create policy catering to their needs. Recent education policies fall in line with the current period of coercive federalism, as federal policies seek to address the disparity in academic achievement amongst students of different socioeconomic backgrounds, formally known as the achievement gap. Traditionally, education has been the responsibility of state governments. However, reforms to the education system over the past two decades have placed greater authority in the hands in the federal government, largely evident through federal incentives programs and policies aimed to instate nation-wide academic standards.