3/16/04 -- At least 21 states have passed or proposed measures to opt out of or seek changes in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It's unclear how many of these measures will actually pass, but the message is clear, says NSBA Associate Executive Director Michael A. Resnick: "Adjustments will have to be made to NCLB if it's going to enjoy the support and effectiveness it deserves."
Although the Utah legislature virtually shelved its plans to opt out of the law, several other states are moving ahead with resolutions or bills to revise the law, request more funding, or opt out. After the U.S. Education Department sent high-level officials to Utah to meet with lawmakers, the state senate voted Feb. 26 to conduct a study of the bill's impact.
In Oklahoma, the House of Representatives was debating a resolution urging Congress to make changes to NCLB when Rep. Bill Graves, a conservative Republican, proposed a measure to repeal it. That resolution passed unanimously.
The Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) doesn't have an official position on it, but Executive Director Keith Ballard says he is "really pleased" with the legislature's action.
He supports the idea of standards-based instruction and assessments, but says OSSBA has "serious problems" with NCLB, including the lack of funding and the provisions on highly qualified teachers and testing English language learners and special education students.
In Idaho, the House is considering a resolution already passed by the Senate to seek more flexibility in NCLB. The Idaho School Boards Association supports the resolution, says Executive Director Clifford Green.
The measure would call upon Congress to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) be based on individual students' progress from year to year, target options for choice and supplemental services to the subgroups that fail to make AYP, and permit states to limit the identification of schools needing improvement to those that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject and for the same subgroup.
The Connecticut Senate passed a resolution March 3 stating that the legislature "expresses its solidarity with other states seeking to challenge this unwarranted federal mandate."
It calls for the President and Congress to amend NCLB to allow waivers for Connecticut and other high-achieving states that have "implemented effective, high standards and accountability measures" and direct additional resources to poorly performing districts.
The Connecticut Association of Boards of Education supports the resolution, says Sheila McKay, senior staff associate for government relations.
The Indiana General Assembly is considering a bill calling for the federal government to grant a waiver to the state for provisions of NCLB that overlap with the state's education reform law.
The Indiana School Boards Association, the Indiana state board of education, and groups representing superintendents, principals, and teachers sent a letter to members of Congress and the U.S. Education Department to seek changes in the accountability provisions of NCLB. The groups also asked state lawmakers to take certain steps to help schools and districts comply with the law.
In Pennsylvania, a group of superintendents from several counties surrounding Philadelphia developed a position paper on NCLB and more than 120 of them came to a rally Feb. 23 to demonstrate against the law.
The Pennsylvania School Boards Association has not taken an official position on the document, but generally agrees with the principles.
PSBA believes the act needs to be changed, the goals need to be more realistic, districts need more time to implement the law, and there needs to be more funding, says PSBA Assistant Executive Director Timothy Allwein.
Twenty-one states are considering some type of measure to opt out or ease the requirements of NCLB, reports Scott Young, an education policy adviser at the National Conference of State Legislatures. So far, such measures have been passed by at least one chamber in 13 states.
According to Young:
• These six states are considering, or have considered, bills or resolutions calling for the state to opt out of NCLB and return Title I money: Arizona, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
• Maine and Utah are considering bills to prohibit the state from spending state funds to comply with NCLB or vow to only comply with provisions of NCLB that are fully funded by the federal government. Vermont passed such a measure last summer, and a similar bill was rejected in New Hampshire.
• Twenty states are considering resolutions requesting waivers or other means of flexibility or additional money.
• Ten states are conducting studies, or have completed studies, on the costs of complying with NCLB.
With this being an election year, Resnick predicts the Bush Administration will "downplay the immediacy of state and school district concerns on NCLB until next year."
"Meanwhile," Resnick says, "at the local level, school districts remain concerned that both individual schools and entire districts might be unfairly identified as needing improvement when new AYP results come out at the end of the summer. This could provide grist for political campaigns at all levels this fall."
"School systems also are concerned about the financial and practical capabilities to meet the requirements of NCLB within the prescribed deadlines," he says.
State legislatures will become battlegrounds over the fight for more education funding to help schools meet their AYP targets, Resnick notes.
For example, schools will need more money for such things as after-school and summer programs and lower student-teacher ratios to help raise the test scores of low-achieving students; alternative assessments for English language learners; and training to meet the NCLB requirements for highly qualified teachers.
Resnick says, "All of these frustrations are being reflected in state legislatures' actions to opt out of or revise NCLB."