WHILE many debate the legitimacy of the rigid and expensive mandates the No Child Left Behind Act imposes on states, the extent to which the initiative is failing at the most basic level became transparent last Monday, when Connecticut sued the federal government over provisions of NCLB.
The state is arguing that "arbitrary and capricious" requirements set out by NCLB are not helping the children of Connecticut, but rather, costing the state millions of dollars to fund testing which is "unsupported by scientific research." The suit is fully endorsed by both Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) and Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R).
The Bush administration has continued to zealously advertise the goals of the program, without critically reassessing the issues raised by school districts, the National Education Association and now the state of Connecticut. Such a closed-minded and restricted approach to education reform undermines the very goals of NCLB itself.
Connecticut's decision to challenge the initiative isn't the first time the federal government has encountered intense disagreement and concern over the federal requirements of NCLB. Some states have intentionally tried to dodge some of the obligations by passing state legislation, and many school districts and teachers' unions have actively protested the stringency and time-consuming test preparation demanded by the rigorous nature of the federal standards. Last April, the federal government was sued by three school districts and the National Education Association, the America's largest teachers' union.
Connecticut currently requires students in grades four, six, eight and 10 to take state standardized tests. NCLB mandates annual testing in grades three through eight by the 2006-2007 school year.
The state has requested waivers from the annual testing, deeming their alternate-year state testing satisfactory in determining progress.
According to The New York Times, Connecticut has among the highest-ranking schools in the nation. Their request for flexibility in keeping the biannual state-sanctioned tests has repeatedly been denied by the U.S. Department of Education. The state has been warned to scrap its own system of biannual testing and replace it with tests that meet the federal guidelines.
Abandoning Connecticut's own testing initiative, which has landed Connecticut schools among the top performing schools nationally, is counter-productive to the very goals of NCLB, which include, according to the Department of Education Web site, "more freedom for states and communities" as one of the four core principles behind the federal initiative.
According to Betty J. Sternberg, Connecticut education commissioner, fulfilling the requirements of NCLB could cost Connecticut over $41 million by 2008, with cities and towns being hit with an additional $400 million in school expenses.
Without federal intervention and funding, Connecticut will be forced to begin spending its own money to abide by the unfunded federal mandate, starting this school year.
What is perhaps most alarming about the ordeal is the Department of Education's callous reaction to Connecticut's concerns over the education and welfare of the children in the state.
According to the New Haven Register, Susan Aspey, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, stated that "today's action doesn't bring the state any closer to closing its achievement gap ... We can't help students if we don't know what they need."
Connecticut's vested interest in the education of the state's children, shown by its decision to protest the lack of federal funding available to carry out the NCLB requirements, contradicts the statement in itself. Connecticut is showing concern for the welfare of its children by speaking out in the interest of best allocating education resources and funding.
Sternberg suggested alternative uses of the funding could include fewer standardized tests and more diagnostic tests, to aid teachers in pinpointing the needs of their students. According to The New York Times, such testing is of special importance in identifying the needs of low-achieving students. Sternberg argued that if "the high cost of the additional testing was justified by an added educational benefit to Connecticut's students, I would be the first to advocate the expenditure."
With teachers, schools, school districts, unions and now entire states calling for reform, the time for the federal government to give up the brazen and rigid approach to education reform is well past due.
Listening to the problems encountered by states and school districts in implementing the provisions of the program, and listening to the concerns of real teachers over the limiting approach to education required by NCLB provisions benefits both schools and states.
Sophia Brumby's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at sbrumby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 3 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 4 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
