Connecticut AG announces NCLB lawsuit v. US

[Moses]

www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/education/06child.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1112793334-uBq1z2Ll6YFfXiqvESpSUA&pagewanted=print&position=

New York Times, April 6, 2005

Connecticut to Sue U.S. Over Cost of Testing Law

By SAM DILLON


The State of Connecticut will sue the federal government over President Bush's signature education law, arguing that it forces Connecticut to spend millions on new tests without providing sufficient additional aid, the state's attorney general announced yesterday.

Although a handful of local school districts, in Illinois, Texas and other states, have filed legal challenges to the law, known as No Child Left Behind, Connecticut would be the first state to do so.

Its suit would open a new chapter in a struggle between states and the federal government that has seen legislatures lodge various protests over the law, and at least one state education commissioner, in Texas, issue an order this year that appeared to directly contradict a federal ruling.

Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, said he was announcing his plans now because he was going to be contacting attorneys general in other states, in the hope that they would join the suit. He said he expected to file within weeks.

"The federal government's approach with this law is illegal and unconstitutional," Mr. Blumenthal said in an interview. He declined to predict whether any of his colleagues in other states would join his action, but he said he was finding "fertile ground."

"There is burgeoning unhappiness among both Republicans and Democrats," Mr. Blumenthal said. "The dissatisfaction is felt across the country and is across the board, politically. So I can pretty much call any of my colleagues and get an earful."[/i]
 <br>Legal scholars said that previous lawsuits brought against the federal government over so-called unfunded mandates had had mixed success. But Connecticut's suit could gain traction because the No Child Left Behind law includes a passage, sponsored by Republicans during the Clinton administration, that forbids federal officials to require states to spend their own money to carry out the federal policies outlined in the law.

The federal law requires Connecticut to spend some $112.2 million to expand its testing program and to help local districts carry out other federal requirements over the next three years, while Washington has appropriated only $70.6 million, leaving the state with an unfunded burden of $41.6 million, Connecticut's commissioner of education, Betty J. Sternberg, said in a report issued last month. In a statement issued yesterday, D J Nordquist, a federal Department of Education spokeswoman, [ANOTHER Norquist?!] said Connecticut had based its planned suit on flawed accounting and she called Mr. Blumenthal's announcement "a sad day for students in Connecticut."

"The basis for the state's lawsuit appears to rest on a flawed cost study of the No Child Left Behind act that creates inflated projections built upon questionable estimates and misallocation of costs," Ms. Nordquist said.

She added, "It is very disappointing that officials in Connecticut are spending their time hiring lawyers while Connecticut's students are suffering from one of the largest achievement gaps in the nation."

Connecticut is not the only state to have charged that the federal government is not paying for all the requirements it is imposing on school systems under the three-year-old No Child Left Behind law. And many states also complain that the federal law interferes with states' rights and their own efforts to improve schools.

In Utah, the House of Representatives, for example, has passed a measure that would require Utah officials to give higher priority to the state's educational goals than to the federal law, and the Utah Senate is to vote on the measure at a special session this month.

Connecticut currently tests public school children in grades four, six, eight and 10, while the federal law requires all states to administer standardized tests in every school year from three through eight. Expanding Connecticut's testing program to cover grades three, five and seven will force the state's Department of Education to spend $8 million of its own money over the next three years, Dr. Sternberg said in a report to Connecticut's General Assembly last month.

In preparing the lawsuit, Mr. Blumenthal said he had relied heavily on Dr. Sternberg's educational views.

"I'm the lawyer, she's the educator, and we have a good partnership," Mr. Blumenthal said. "Our legal action will vindicate the policies that she has advocated so eloquently in recent months."

In a letter to Margaret Spellings in January after her designation as education secretary but before her confirmation, Dr. Sternberg noted Connecticut's "effective 20-year history of testing in alternate years," and requested that Connecticut be relieved of the requirement to expand the testing. Annual testing, Dr. Sternberg wrote, "will cost millions of dollars and tell us nothing that we do not already know about our students' achievement."

In a reply faxed to Dr. Sternberg on Feb. 28, Secretary Spellings refused that request, saying that "annual testing is important." The secretary followed up with a March 20 opinion article in The Hartford Courant that chided Dr. Sternberg for requesting the waiver, saying many Connecticut students "would welcome the chance to be tested only every other year, but the adults in charge of their education surely know better."

That article angered many Connecticut educators and parents, to judge from letters to the editor and e-mail messages received at the state's Department of Education, and one of those offended was Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, who wrote Secretary Spellings on Thursday.

"As Connecticut's governor, and as a parent who deeply values high-quality education for every child, I was offended by your commentary," Governor Rell's letter said. "You disparaged the knowledge and judgment of Connecticut educators who - with the full, bipartisan support of governors and legislatures over more than 20 years' time - have conducted a highly effective student testing program since 1984."

Governor Rell also said Secretary Spellings's Feb. 28 letter "included incorrect information, data stated in misleading ways and a suggestion that Connecticut might consider not adhering to federal law" and was "hardly becoming to the federal Secretary of Education."

Yesterday, the governor's spokesman, Dennis Schain, said: "On the one hand the Department of Education fails to provide states with the funds needed to implement the law and on the other, it resists requests for flexibility.

"Governor Rell understands there are reasons for bringing the lawsuit but believes the best solution for our children is for the federal government to grant states flexibility."

---

Stacy Stowe contributed reporting for this article.

 <br>

[Moses]

No Apologies At `No Child' Meeting

By ROBERT A. FRAHM
Courant Staff Writer
www.courant.com/news/education/hc-nochild0419.artapr19,0,5465106,print.story?coll=hc-headlines-education

April 19 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and state Education Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg had what was called a cordial meeting Monday, but Sternberg left without an apology or a concession on annual student testing.

The two have had sharp disagreements over the interpretation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the centerpiece of President Bush's school reform agenda. Last week, Sternberg asked for an apology from Spellings, who had accused Connecticut of trying to find a loophole in the law and implied that the state's attitude toward black children is "un-American."

After meeting for about an hour, Sternberg said "there wasn't an explicit apology" though she said both she and Spellings agreed "we are on the same playing field ... understanding that we embrace the goals of No Child Left Behind."

Many states have been watching the dispute to see if Spellings would grant Connecticut - and ultimately them - more flexibility in implementing the law. Although Sternberg expressed hope for a waiver on expanded statewide student testing - something she says will cost the state millions of dollars without any additional benefit - Spellings appeared unlikely to budge.

"The secretary hasn't changed her position on that," said Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Raymond Simon, one of the several top-level department officials who sat in on the meeting. "Annual testing is in the law. That's the bottom line."

The meeting, held at the request of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, apparently was free of the rancor that has marked the dispute.

Spellings made what many considered an insulting characterization of Connecticut during a recent TV interview. Sternberg wrote to Spellings that she was outraged by Spellings' comments in a television interview, especially her use of the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" in discussing the state's approach to educating black children in cities.

While Sternberg's description of the meeting was positive, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal gave a more blunt assessment in a statement he released after talking to Sternberg.

"Better manners, same message," said Blumenthal, who did not attend the meeting. "This meeting yielded vague, soothing happy talk, but no specific commitment to end unfunded mandates."

Connecticut's 20-year-old mastery test of fourth-, sixth- and eighth-graders is regarded as among the most rigorous in the nation, but Spellings has said it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Last month, Spellings rejected the state's request for a waiver of the law's requirement to expand testing to also include grades 3, 5 and 7.

Monday's meeting follows a pledge by Blumenthal last week to make Connecticut the first state in the nation to file a lawsuit challenging the federal law, contending that it will unfairly cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

As long as the federal government insists on imposing unfunded mandates under No Child Left Behind, Connecticut will continue to pursue legal action, Blumenthal said.

No Child Left Behind calls for a broad expansion of testing and a shake-up of schools that fail to make sufficient progress with all students, including groups such as low-income children, special education students and members of minority groups. The law is designed to close the academic gap that finds many low-income minority children lagging behind middle-class white students.[supposedly]

Monday's meeting lasted about an hour as education officials from Spellings' office and Sternberg's staff sat around a large conference table.

Participants briefly acknowledged some of the recent public rhetoric surrounding the dispute but then exchanged views on issues such as annual testing requirements and the approach to testing special education students and non-English speaking children, according to those at the meeting.

"I do think the tenor of the conversation changed, but I don't think anything else was conclusive," said Allan B. Taylor, chairman of the State Board of Education.

Sternberg said, "We had a cordial conversation. ... We both understood each other's perspective."

One key issue, Sternberg said, is the cost of testing. She said her department will have to ask the state for nearly $8 million more over the next two years to cover the cost of new tests under No Child Left Behind - despite a state law that says any additional testing costs that result from the federal act must be covered by federal funds.

"We're in a Catch-22 situation," she said, contending that federal funds do not cover the additional cost.

Sternberg also said she told Spellings that the large achievement gap in Connecticut is partly the result of exceptionally high performance by white students and that black students perform at about the same level as in several other states, where the achievement gap is smaller. [If I'm not mistaken, Connecticut has one of the largest income gaps in the country-- Extreme wealth in some pockets and extreme poverty or working poor in others-- clearly, the extremely wealthy would do well-- like Greenwich, etc. Testing regimes aren't going to solve this problem. ]

Education observers around the nation say they do not expect that Spellings will bend on annual testing requirement in grades 3-8 - a bedrock principle of the federal law.

"The law is pretty clear here. This is not an area where the secretary has much discretion," said Kati Haycock of Education Trust, an advocacy group working to close the achievement gap.[Oh geeze-- it is a front group for NCLB-- the newspapers need to start being accurate in identifying these groups, for the sake of the citzenry].

Haycock disagrees with Connecticut's request to continue testing children only in alternate grades. "If I were the parent of a fourth-grade child who got below basic [scores], I'd be very worried about my child's future and would not want to wait another two years to see if my child is making appropriate progress." [This common neocon rhetorical gimmick is extremely offensive-- for many reasons-- we need for the newspapers to examine the offensive rhetorical tricks of this regime]

Other states, too, are seeking changes in how the law is applied, but none so far has joined Connecticut's legal challenge.

"From our perspective, school boards across the nation are following this closely," said Reggie Felton, a lobbyist for the National School Boards Association. [Reggie Felton was a lousy, appointed member of the Mont. Co, Md. BoE-- he was rewarded for his loss in the election w/ this appointment--] "I think you'll see more and more requests for these changes. The concern is there simply aren't sufficient funds to fully implement the law."

In addition, he said, the law's method of singling out schools even if only one group, such as special education students, falls below standards "suggests to the community that a school's performance might be worse than it actually is."

Connecticut is also one of many states that have lodged complaints about other provisions of the law, including its requirements for testing special education students, but Spellings announced this month that the U.S. Department of Education will allow more flexibility in testing those students in states that are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act and that show academic progress. [Another Usraeli gimmick-- fake consessions. She increased the percentage allowed exemptions by a miniscule amount]

On Monday, Donald E. Williams, Connecticut's senate president pro tempore, called on other states that have effective testing systems to join forces to fight for reforms in the law.

Sternberg will remain in Washington for a few days to meet with Connecticut's congressional delegation about education issues, including No Child Left Behind.

---

Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

[Moses]

State, feds still at odds over school testing[/size]
Associated Press
www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-18201828.apds.m0937.bc-ct--nochapr18,0,3438867.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

April 18, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Connecticut education officials made little headway Monday in their dispute with the federal government over annual school testing, leaving them on course to file the first legal challenge against the new requirements.

Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg and other state officials met for one hour with U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings in Washington.

Afterward, they said there is only about a 1 percent chance that they will get a waiver for the No Child Left Behind education act's requirements for testing in grades three, five and seven. State officials had sought periodic assessments of those students instead of testing, because Connecticut already tests students in grades four, six, eight and 10.

The only progress made during the meeting, said Sternberg and state Board of Education Chairman Allan B. Taylor, was a thaw in the relationship between the two sides.

"The tenor of the conversation changed," Taylor said. "I don't think anything else was conclusive."

Federal officials agreed there is little chance they will give in on the annual testing requirement of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law.

"They left some material with us that the attorneys were going to take a look at," said Spellings spokeswoman Susan Aspey. "Alternative testing came up. But annual testing is one of the bright lines in the statute that the secretary refers to, and that's not up for negotiation."

And while Spellings did not ask the state to drop its intention file a lawsuit over the school reform law, Sternberg said "they are clearly concerned about the lawsuit."

Connecticut's planned legal challenge is expected to focus on a lack of federal funding for states to implement changes mandated by the law. No Child says states and school districts will not have to spend their own money to meet the law's requirements.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said there are no plans to drop the lawsuit.

"We are reaching out to other states that may wish to join us," he said. "But we will not be satisfied with platitudes and pleasantries. There must be more than soothing assurances. There has to be a clear binding commitment to eliminate unfunded mandates for Connecticut and its cities and towns."

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., added, "My hope is that the secretary of education will understand that one size fits all doesn't necessarily work here. And, secondly, get some money back up here. Federal mandates without resources are just wrong."

State and federal officials have been sparring over new annual testing requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act, which became law in 2002. State officials say more tests won't tell educators more than they already know from Connecticut's Mastery Test, considered one of the most rigorous in the nation.

Monday's meeting came after several requests by state officials, and a sharp exchange between Spellings and Sternberg in recent days.

Two weeks ago, on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Spellings criticized Connecticut's plans to file a legal challenge and said the state's attitude toward minority students is "un-American." She referred to Connecticut's gap in test scores between minority students in urban schools and their white peers in the suburbs, coupled with the state's opposition to the federal law.

Sternberg fired back in a blunt letter, saying the name-calling was outrageous, and "I have higher expectations of the secretary of education and would suggest that, at a minimum, an apology is in order."

But on Monday, Sternberg said, no explicit apology was offered. Instead, she said the meeting was cordial and focused on the education issues. Connecticut officials outlined the progress the state has made in testing of minority students, and told Spellings that state law will not allow them to spend more money for testing than is already approved.

Aspey said federal officials expect to respond to the state's alternative testing proposal in a few days.

[Moses]

www.courant.com/news/education/hc-noflex0505.artmay05,0,845289.story?coll=hc-headlines-education

U.S. Won't Yield On Test Waiver

Education Commissioner Also Denies More Money

By RACHEL GOTTLIEB
Courant Staff Writer

May 5 2005

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings faxed her final answer to the state Department of Education Wednesday denying the commissioner's request for a waiver on adding three additional grades to the state's testing schedule beginning next year.

She also rejected the state's quest for more money to pay for the additional Connecticut Mastery Tests, asserting that Connecticut's test goes beyond the requirements of the federal law. The federal No Child Left Behind Act, she said, does not require states to test writing, which is expensive to score because it cannot be done by computer.

The mastery tests are now administered to grades 4, 6 and 8 and the federal law requires that grades 3, 5 and 7 be added. State officials have been asking for relief for weeks, saying the additional tests will cost $8 million more over the next two years alone.

The letter arrived in Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg's office as she and the state board of education were meeting with state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal about Blumenthal's plan to sue the federal government for money to pay for the tests.

State officials scoffed at the idea of dropping the writing portion of the test.

"We will absolutely not drop writing," Sternberg said, noting that the federal law requests tests for reading and math and leaves the third subject on the test to the discretion of the states.
"We chose writing. We think writing is essential," she said. And dropping it "sends a signal that writing is not important. What you have on the test, teachers attend to. If it's not on the test, then teachers don't attend to it."

Federal officials have also suggested that the state reformulate its test to use all multiple choice questions that can be scored by a computer, said board Chairman Allan B. Taylor. "We don't want to dumb down our test. ... I don't think that's what Congress wanted."

In her letter, Spellings also suggested that the state can redirect some of its federal funds to help pay for the tests. The suggestion isn't helpful, Taylor said. "Taking from one pocket and putting it in another doesn't help us very much."

Blumenthal also took a dim view of the suggestion. "I believe that diverting dollars from other federal education programs is illogical and the unfunded mandates are illegal," he said in a statement later in the day. "I am fully committed to court action necessary to force the federal government to follow the law - an express provision that bans unfunded mandates."

Board members got their first look at Spellings' letter as they left their closed-door meeting with Blumenthal. In that private meeting, the board peppered the attorney general with questions about the legal theory that allows Connecticut to sue and what other states are doing, Taylor said. Also board members wanted to know "if we can sue the federal government for unfunded mandates, why can't all the towns sue the state for unfunded mandates?" Taylor said. [Yes-- mandates abound, as well as mandators, in public education these days-- educrats wouldn't want to lose their dictatorial powers! ]

Blumenthal told the board that the No Child Left Behind Act includes unique, specific language that prohibits mandates that are not fully funded. State legislation also prohibits complying with any mandates under the federal law that are not funded by the federal government.

In their private meeting with Blumenthal, members also asked why Blumenthal announced his intention to sue the government in a press conference before speaking with the board. Board member Patricia Luke then asked the question in public. [Edu-boards like to concoct their schemes and then impose them, without public knowledge and they clearly want to maintain total power to dictate things]

"The public had a right to know the state was contemplating this action," said Blumenthal, who has not yet filed suit.

"So you felt the need to announce it before you felt the need to discuss it" with the board, Luke asked. [He doesn't report to you, educrat!-- this is a problem w/ these boards: they are not elected and hoard all power unto themselves, and do not answer to the public]

"It would be in the public one way or another. I wanted to give the most complete explanation," said Blumenthal, who did discuss the possibility of a suit with Sternberg before making his announcement.

Blumenthal told the board that it does not have to endorse the lawsuit or agree to be named as the plaintiff for him to proceed. Still, he said, "your support sends a message. And under state statute, you have a responsibility to fight an unfunded mandate."
The board did not take any action on the proposed lawsuit, but Taylor said the board will vote on the matter at a special meeting or at its June meeting. He said he cannot predict how the vote will go. "We could vote to endorse it or we could vote to authorize a suit in our name," he said.

Taylor expressed his own inclination toward joining Blumenthal. "I don't have a visceral reaction against suing," he said. "We've reached an impasse."

Blumenthal, too, said he thought the state exhausted all options other than a lawsuit. "We are at a defining moment in this issue with the federal government."

[Moses]

Waterbury Signs On To No Child Left Behind Lawsuit

WATERBURY, Conn. -- Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's plan to sue over the federal No Child Left Behind law is getting some local support.

Waterbury's Board of Education voted 8-1 Monday to sanction the lawsuit.

Blumenthal hasn't yet filed it, but he has said he plans to challenge the federal law because it requires standardized testing and other programs without providing money to pay for them.

Though school officials in several cities and towns have said they support the lawsuit, only the Waterbury school board has held a formal vote. Blumenthal said he hopes other districts will do the same.

"If this Waterbury vote reflects a much broader, widespread groundswell of opposition to unfunded mandates, that will be very important to our legal action," Blumenthal said. "This vote may be the beginning of a real groundswell movement."

Waterbury is one of 43 state school districts that failed to make enough academic progress to meet federal standards last year.

The school board vote was a show of support, not a notice of intent to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff.

The state Board of Education has so far declined to endorse the lawsuit. Board members want a chance to negotiate with the federal government first.

The state Senate passed legislation that would have allowed Blumenthal to sue on behalf of the General Assembly, but the bill died when the House failed to take it up. The issue may come up again during a special session this summer.

Blumenthal said he's prepared to go ahead even without formal support from the legislature and the state Board of Education. He said he is soliciting support from other states and hopes to file the lawsuit within the next several months.

The National Education Association and school districts in Michigan, Vermont and Texas have already sued over the law.

In Waterbury, School Superintendent David Snead asked for a vote at the prompting of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents.

School officials believe Waterbury is the first city to take up the issue.

"I hope other towns have the courage to do this as well," said board member Kathy Flaherty.

Supporters of No Child Left Behind say testing ensures high academic standards. They contend Connecticut should be improving schools rather than fighting the federal government.

But Waterbury school board members say the law requires them to divert money from public programs to private ones.

Schools that fail to meet federal standards for three years in a row, for example, must pay outside companies to provide tutoring.

Even so, Waterbury school board member David Burgos said he believes court is the wrong place to fight federal education requirements.

"I'm leery of making policy changes using the court," he said. "I don't like the courts to be involved. Our pressure should be on the Legislature, not the courts."

---

— NBC TV
nbc30.com

www.nbc30.com/education/4606576/detail.html?rss=har&psp=news

[Moses]

Governor Backs Lawsuit by State[/color][/b]

Despite some reservations, Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a law authorizing a legal challenge to a controversial federal school reform law that is the centerpiece of President Bush's education agenda.

Until now, Rell, a Republican, had been noncommittal about signing a bill challenging the President's No Child Left Behind Act, saying that she prefers negotiating with federal officials instead of suing them.

"I know this was difficult for her to do because, after all, she's a Republican governor, and the President believes [No Child Left Behind] is the right thing," said state Education Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg.

Rell's decision to sign a bill passed by the legislature in a special session last month gives added weight to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's threat to sue the U.S. Department of Education.

Blumenthal said Monday he plans to file the suit by the time schools open next month.

Even though the proposed lawsuit has not won the endorsement of the State Board of Education, the governor took into account Blumenthal's assessment "that it was extremely and profoundly important that this bill be passed in special session," according to a statement from Rell's press office.

"While the Governor feels fighting the Act is better left in the hands of the state's congressional delegation, she fully understands the attorney general's motivation and is interested in the outcome," said spokesman Adam Liegeot.

A spokesman at the U.S. Department of Education said Monday the department would not comment on the matter.

Blumenthal continues to seek support from other states after pledging three months ago to make Connecticut the first state to file a lawsuit challenging the federal law, contending it will unfairly cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

"I am enormously pleased and thankful to the governor and the legislature for this measure strengthening our planned lawsuit against the illegal unfunded federal mandates," said Blumenthal, a Democrat.

"The stakes for Connecticut are huge."

The State Board of Education, however, last month refused to support the planned lawsuit, postponing a vote on the matter after some members said they were opposed to legal action. [educrats--NCLB increases their power.]

Connecticut is one of many states that have clashed with the U.S.
Department of Education over No Child Left Behind. The law calls for a broad expansion of testing and a shake-up of schools that fail to make sufficient progress, including low-income children, special education students and members of minority groups.

The federal government has repeatedly rejected Connecticut's requests for flexibility in interpreting the law, including Commissioner Sternberg's appeal for a waiver of a requirement to test three additional grades in the state's annual testing program next spring. She said the additional testing will cost millions of dollars but will produce little benefit.

Sternberg praised Rell's decision to sign the law authorizing a lawsuit.

"Rather than taking a political stance, I think she considers what's right for the citizens," Sternberg said.

"I, too, shared her concern about jumping in too quickly, but ... I think we have no recourse. We're really being asked to spend a tremendous amount of money on programs that ... I don't think are in the best interest of students."

Blumenthal said he plans to file the suit "before the first day of school." About half the state's public schools start on Aug. 31, according to the state Department of Education. The earliest starting date is Aug. 24 in Groton.

Blumenthal said he remains hopeful that other states will join a lawsuit and expects to get final answers from them within weeks but added, "We will stand alone, if necessary, in this fight."

One of the states contemplating similar legal action is Maine.

"I have spoken with Attorney General Blumenthal a number of times on the potential for litigation," Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe said Monday.

"We in Maine are still evaluating the extent of the unfunded mandates contained in the federal law," he said. "We hope to be in a position to file suit within the next few weeks."


— Robert A. Frahm
Hartford Courant

tinyurl.com/a5dlh