state-level nclb resistance

["Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>]

Here is the latest on state-level resistance to NCLB from the National School Boards Association - http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_sbn_issue.asp?TRACKID=&VID=55&CID=682&DID=33124

     More states take action to challenge NCLB 
           
                  02/24/04 -- When Utah's House of Delegates passed a bill Feb. 10 to opt out of the underfunded portions of the No Child Left Behind Act, it joined a chorus of states taking action against what they see as an onerous law and an unfunded mandate. 

                  So far, at least l5 states have taken or are considering some kind of resolution or law to address the underfunding or federal intrusion of NCLB. Many of these bills have bipartisan support. 

                  Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has stepped up its promotion of NCLB. During visits to schools in Des Moines, Iowa, Feb. 17, U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige said the law is adequately funded, stating "Never has any president put as much resources to create schools that educate all children." 

                  President Bush countered the mounting criticism of NCLB in a speech at Central Dauphin High School outside Harrisburg, Pa., Feb. 12, saying "the business of shuffling kids through the system has got to end." Bush says states should contribute more money to pay for implementing NCLB. 

                  Scott Young, an education policy adviser at the National Conference of State Legislatures, says there are three trends among state measures challenging NCLB: 

                  . Hawaii passed a bill to opt out of NCLB. Similar bills have been introduced in Arizona and New Mexico. 

                  . Virginia's House of Delegates passed a resolution in January calling NCLB an unfunded mandate and seeking waivers from NCLB's accountability provisions. The Vermont legislature also has passed a resolution expressing concern over the lack of funding. 

                  Young says similar measures are being considered in Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Minnesota, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. 

                  . Vermont passed a bill last June prohibiting the state from spending money on unfunded portions of NCLB. Utah, Maine, and New Hampshire are considering similar bills 

                  The Vermont bill, which did not get much attention -- "It flew under the radar screen," Young says -- bars the state and school districts from being "required to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under [NCLB] in order to comply with the provisions of the Act." 

                  Young hopes these proposals will "put enough pressure on the U.S. Education Department to work with the states to offer more money and additional waivers." 

                  In addition, several school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have refused federal Title I funds so they don't have to comply with NCLB, and the Reading, Pa., school district is suing the state over several aspects of the way it is implementing NCLB. 

                  The Utah House of Delegates passed a bill in January to opt out of NCLB, then later amended it to state that it would only comply with portions of the law that are funded. 

                  While a decision to opt out would have cost Utah up to $106 million in federal funds, lawmakers were mainly concerned with the federal intrusion threatened by NCLB. 

                  The original bill "raised a flag that didn't set well with the Bush Administration," says Gary Cameron, executive director of the Utah School Superintendents Association, who also serves as a lobbyist for the Utah School Boards Association. 

                  Ron Tomalis, counselor to Education Secretary Rod Paige, and other Administration officials came to Salt Lake City to meet with state officials, local school board leaders, and superintendents. 

                  According to Cameron, it is the U.S. Education Department's contention that NCLB is not so much a new law, but a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and builds on an accumulation of laws from 1994. If Utah school districts are having problems, Tomalis advised them to complain to the state education department, which developed the plan for implementing NCLB. 

                  The Utah House then passed a revised bill Feb. 10 by a vote of 64-8 to keep the state involved with NCLB, but only to the extent that sufficient federal funding is available. 

                  If the measure is enacted, Utah will continue to receive Title I money and will continue to carry out Title I activities and the state's standardized testing program, Cameron says. But it won't carry out underfunded parts of NCLB, such as the provisions involving adequate yearly progress, including disaggregating test scores by subgroup and annual report cards. 

                  The rationale for the bill is Section 9527 of NCLB, which states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the federal government to mandate, direct, or control a state, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state or local resources, or mandate a state or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act." 

                  Cameron says it's the state education department's position that "the state can't put money into things that are not our highest priorities." He says Utah has the lowest per-pupil expenditure of any state, about $4,600, and "can't generate additional tax increases." 

                  "It's hard to predict how [the bill] will be received in the Senate," Cameron says. "Since it won't cost [the state] anything, there's no reason to oppose it. "There's a very good chance of it passing and becoming law." 

                  In Arizona, state representatives have introduced legislation calling for the state to opt out of NCLB, risking the loss of at least $327 million in federal money. Bipartisan supporters of the bill, however, say the state's cost of complying with NCLB would far outstrip the federal funding. 

                  "The money that has to be expended is so horrendous that there's no way the state can afford it," the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Karen Johnson (R-Mesa), told the Arizona Daily Sun. 

                  Janice Palmer, associate director of governmental relations and public affairs at the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), says it would be difficult for local school districts to give up the federal funding, even though the money they receive is insufficient to carry out the requirements of NCLB. 

                  The increased mandates imposed by NCLB are "incredibly difficult" for Arizona school districts, particularly the additional reporting requirements and the provisions on highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, Palmer says. 

                  While ASBA has not taken a stand on the issue, she suggests if the state opts out of NCLB, "it could be detrimental to local schools." She says local districts should be allowed to make the decision of whether or not to opt out. 

                  In Minnesota, the Senate Education Committee gave preliminary approval Feb. 18 to a bill to have the state opt out of NCLB. 

                  The bill's sponsor, Sen. Michele Backmann, a Republican, told the Pioneer Press, "the message this sends is that the people of Minnesota don't want the federal government making decisions about what goes on in the local classrooms." 


                  Top of Page
                        Reproduced with permission from the 2003 issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2003, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. 

                 
           
     

Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Executive Director
FairTest
342 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-864-4810    fax 617-497-2224
monty@fairtest.org
http://www.fairtest.org