National Teachers' Union, 3 School Districts File 'No Child' Lawsuit
Michael Dobbs,The Washington Post
Issue date: 6/8/05 Section: News
The Education Department had no immediate response.
After meeting with Spellings earlier this month, Virginia schools superintendent Jo Lynne DeMary said she was "very encouraged" by her more flexible attitude toward No Child Left Behind, particularly over disabled students. DeMary predicted that the changes would lead to a drop in the number of schools failing to meet the "adequate yearly progress" provisions of the law, putting them on a path to eventual reorganization.
But the changes failed to satisfy several other states, including Connecticut, which is preparing a lawsuit challenging a federal requirement that students be tested annually between grades three and eight, as well as grade 10. According to calculations by state auditors, the extra testing requirement will cost the state $8 million more than the federal government provides.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal delayed filing the lawsuit to wait for the outcome of negotiations between state education officials and the federal Department of Education. But little came from a meeting this week between Spellings and Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg, and Blumenthal said he expected to file the lawsuit "imminently."
Although several school districts have mounted legal challenges to parts of the No Child Left Behind legislation, the section of the legislation on unfunded federal mandates has yet to be tested in court. The case is likely to revolve around complicated accounting arguments and conflicting estimates of the costs of the standardized tests that form the centerpiece of the accountability system promoted by the federal Department of Education.
The case also illustrates the changing nature of the rebellion against No Child Left Behind, which is shifting away from outright opposition to complaints about lack of funding. The Republican-controlled Utah legislature dropped an earlier threat to opt out of the law completely in order not to lose tens of millions of federal subsidies for some of the state's lowest-performing schools.
Instead of opposing the law outright, states are attempting to opt out of certain requirements while continuing to receive federal funds. Texas, for example, has exempted 9 percent of its students from regular state tests on the grounds that they are learning-impaired. Spellings has agreed to exempt up to 3 percent of students.
The new Utah law authorizes state officials to ignore provisions of No Child Left Behind that have not been fully funded by the federal government. Legislators from both houses voted in a special session in favor of the law, despite warnings from Spellings that they ran the risk of losing $76 million in federal funding.
"I'd just as soon they take the stinking money and go back to Washington with it," said Utah state representative Steve Mascaro, R-West Jordan.
After meeting with Spellings earlier this month, Virginia schools superintendent Jo Lynne DeMary said she was "very encouraged" by her more flexible attitude toward No Child Left Behind, particularly over disabled students. DeMary predicted that the changes would lead to a drop in the number of schools failing to meet the "adequate yearly progress" provisions of the law, putting them on a path to eventual reorganization.
But the changes failed to satisfy several other states, including Connecticut, which is preparing a lawsuit challenging a federal requirement that students be tested annually between grades three and eight, as well as grade 10. According to calculations by state auditors, the extra testing requirement will cost the state $8 million more than the federal government provides.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal delayed filing the lawsuit to wait for the outcome of negotiations between state education officials and the federal Department of Education. But little came from a meeting this week between Spellings and Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg, and Blumenthal said he expected to file the lawsuit "imminently."
Although several school districts have mounted legal challenges to parts of the No Child Left Behind legislation, the section of the legislation on unfunded federal mandates has yet to be tested in court. The case is likely to revolve around complicated accounting arguments and conflicting estimates of the costs of the standardized tests that form the centerpiece of the accountability system promoted by the federal Department of Education.
The case also illustrates the changing nature of the rebellion against No Child Left Behind, which is shifting away from outright opposition to complaints about lack of funding. The Republican-controlled Utah legislature dropped an earlier threat to opt out of the law completely in order not to lose tens of millions of federal subsidies for some of the state's lowest-performing schools.
Instead of opposing the law outright, states are attempting to opt out of certain requirements while continuing to receive federal funds. Texas, for example, has exempted 9 percent of its students from regular state tests on the grounds that they are learning-impaired. Spellings has agreed to exempt up to 3 percent of students.
The new Utah law authorizes state officials to ignore provisions of No Child Left Behind that have not been fully funded by the federal government. Legislators from both houses voted in a special session in favor of the law, despite warnings from Spellings that they ran the risk of losing $76 million in federal funding.
"I'd just as soon they take the stinking money and go back to Washington with it," said Utah state representative Steve Mascaro, R-West Jordan.
