Editorial: ‘No Child’ law/Another call to fix flaws

08/29/2005

Star Tribune
August 29, 2005

Put another notch in the belt of the growing movement to reform No Child Left Behind. Last week, Connecticut became the first state to file suit against the Bush administration’s signature education law, calling it a “rigid, arbitrary and capricious” mandate that is drastically underfunded.

While government-suing-government scenarios are inappropriate in many cases, this bold action shines one more critical spotlight on problems with NCLB, a law that clearly needs modification.

Connecticut is seeking relief from a requirement that it scrap its own school-testing program in favor of one that meets federal criteria. The suit argues that the state would have to spend $50 million of its own money in coming years to comply with NCLB, in violation of another federal law.

Ten years ago, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, requiring Congress to consider and vote on the cost of bills that place costly requirements on states. The No Child Left Behind bill sidestepped that law because participation is technically voluntary; states can decide not to comply. Yet doing so puts them at risk of losing their part of the $13 billion the federal government doles out for Title I programs.

Connecticut may be the only state to take legal action against NCLB, but it is far from alone in its criticisms. Utah partially opted out and has been one of the most vocal critics of the law. Legislatures in six other states passed resolutions critical of NCLB’s rules. Even more, including Minnesota, have considered legislation to bypass the law.

Last year, a Minnesota legislative auditor’s study on the impact of NCLB in this state called the rules “costly, unrealistic and punitive,” noting that state schools will have to spend millions more (beyond federal funding) on additional tests, tutoring, transportation and teacher quality adjustments.

According to a recent survey by the Civil Society Institute, all but three states are “in some stage of rebellion against NCLB,” in ways that include seeking waivers, considering lawsuits and, most dramatically, opting out and forgoing federal money.

Count Minnesota in the waivers group. During the 2005 session, lawmakers directed the Department of Education to seek changes that would allow for value-added, progress-measuring testing, among other modifications. The state is not considering a Connecticut-like lawsuit, because federal funding here is in line with the direct costs of testing. Still, local educators are worried about covering indirect costs such as school switching, transportation, tutoring and labor-intensive efforts to improve struggling students’ test scores.

What should make the administration sit up and take notice is that the concerns come from both red and blue states. Republicans far outnumber Democrats in Utah, for example. Yet despite the bipartisan outcry, the administration stubbornly defends even some of the most egregious, unrealistic details of the law.

Most Americans agree with the spirit of NCLB. Setting standards, measuring progress, testing and narrowing the achievement gap between the haves and have nots are important national goals. But to get there, the administration should work with states on reasonable compromises.