Re: Virginia Legislature Adopts Bill Allowing NCLB Opt-Out

[aburke5054@aol.com]

It's not clear whether the thrust is to "opt out" of Title I (which 
would be odd because participation in Title I is voluntary) or whether 
they're saying that they should take Title I funds, only not go along 
with the conditions attached.  Need we remind Virginia that the federal 
government did not pay all the costs of integrating the schools, nor 
does it pay all the costs of special education -- two other areas where 
federal law imposes responsibilities.  Does this mean that Virginia is 
going to "opt out" of those responsibilities also?

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>
To: ARN Main List <arn-l@interversity.org>; arn2-strategy 
<arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>; ARN State <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 9:33 am
Subject: [arn-l] Virginia Legislature Adopts Bill Allowing NCLB Opt-Out


ASSEMBLY PASSES BILL TO ALLOW "NO CHILD" OPT-OUT

Washington Post -- March 9, 2008


Richmond -- Virginia's Board of Education would be directed to 
recommend
whether the state should pull out of a federal school accountability
system under legislation that cleared the General Assembly Saturday. It
now awaits consideration by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).


Virginia is among several states in which officials have argued that 
the
federal government has failed to provide enough funding and flexibility
to carry out the No Child Left Behind law, which requires annual 
testing
in math and reading for many children.


The measure that passed the House on Friday and the Senate on Saturday
would not have an immediate impact. If the Board of Education 
recommends
withdrawal from the federal accountability system, the bill would
require the board to present a plan to the governor and legislature by
June 30, 2009.


Congress is considering whether to amend the 6-year-old federal law.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) has said he plans to introduce a bill
this spring.


The federal law requires annual testing in grades three through eight
and once in high school. Schools and school systems must show annual
progress, and the results must include scores for subgroups of students
such as ethnic minorities, disabled students and those with limited
English skills.


The law has been credited with revealing pockets of struggling 
students.
But states and localities have complained they are stuck with too much
of the cost. Some also argue that the law is too rigid.


In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit revived a
lawsuit by the National Education Association and several school 
systems
that challenged the law as an unfunded mandate. The U.S. Education
Department is appealing.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802333_pf.html