USAToday: States Fight NCLB

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

STATES FIGHT NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, CALLING IT INTRUSIVE
         USAToday -- February 12, 2004
                 by Greg Toppo

Two years after President Bush signed his far-reaching education reform 
law, lawmakers in Virginia, Utah and seven other states are taking steps 
to opt out or block using state funds for No Child Left Behind, calling 
the law an intrusion on local control.

The Republican-controlled Utah House of Representatives on Tuesday 
approved a bill that would exempt the state from spending its own money 
on the law. The state Senate now considers it.

Virginia's House of Delegates last month approved a resolution asking 
Congress to exempt Virginia from the law's mandates.

Neither the Virginia nor the Utah effort would reject the federal law 
outright, but the state-level actions are significant because until now, 
educators have led the drumbeat. Now legislatures are willing to take a 
stand, and Republicans appear just as likely to protest as Democrats.

"Not only is it a massive federal intrusion, it's simply unworkable," 
says Jim Dillard, the Republican chairman of Virginia's House Education 
Committee. He calls the law "utopian nonsense."

Utah's House Education Committee originally approved a measure calling 
for the state to opt out. But after lawmakers met last week with federal 
officials, the House passed a compromise measure to keep Utah from 
spending state money on the law. Vermont's Republican governor already 
has signed a similar ban.

Maine and New Hampshire have proposed blocking state funds, while 
Arizona, Hawaii, Minnesota and New Mexico lawmakers have proposed 
opt-out measures.

So far, lawmakers in 20 states have asked the federal government for 
changes in the law or for more money; six are studying the law's costs.

Few think states are prepared to opt out, thereby giving up their share 
of $12.7 billion in federal funding attached to the law. But state 
protests could persuade federal officials to loosen rules such as those 
requiring disabled and non-English-speaking students to take the same 
tests as others.

Utah's protest has moved "beyond the table-pounding stage," says Jack 
Jennings of the Center on Education Policy. "They were trying to get the 
federal government's attention. They did."

But schools still must fulfill the law's requirements. "This doesn't 
really help educators," he says. "It's thumbing their nose at the 
federal government, but it doesn't help the teacher in the classroom."

Education Undersecretary Eugene Hickok, who oversees the law's 
implementation, says he "wouldn't overstate what's going on. Legislators 
have constituents, whether Republican or Democrat. This law has caused 
... anxiety because it calls for a change in the way they do business."

But protests already have prompted federal officials to reconsider rules 
for non-English-speaking students. Hickok says he's also willing to 
negotiate on teacher requirements in rural areas.

Jennings says 28% of schools risk being labeled "in need of improvement" 
under the law. That dilemma is expected to top governors' agendas when 
they meet with Bush Feb. 23.

"Governors would look forward to working cooperatively in achieving the 
goals of NCLB," says New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, a Democrat. "Yet 
when you have some of the finest school districts in the nation being 
designated 'in need of improvement' or 'failing' because of an arbitrary 
benchmark, the legislation needs an agonizing reappraisal."

Hickok says districts are not obliged to accept federal money, which 
equals 5% to 10% of their education funds.

But Jennings says losing 5% would be substantial. "It's not an easy 
dilemma for the states.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-02-11-no-child-usat_x.htm