Law & Courts

Connecticut Pledges First State Legal Challenge to NCLB Law

By Jeff Archer — April 12, 2005 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The backlash against the No Child Left Behind Act was raised to a new level last week when Connecticut’s attorney general announced that his state plans to sue the U.S. Department of Education over the testing mandates in the sweeping federal law.

In announcing his intentions, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he was inviting other states to join the legal challenge, which he said would argue that the law violates federal statute by forcing states to use their own money to carry out its testing requirements.

“I’m not making a judgment about educational policy, whether testing is a good thing or a bad thing,” he said in an interview last week. “The point is that the federal government is mandating it, and it’s doing so without funding it.”

The legal threat is one of the boldest in a growing number of challenges to the Bush administration’s hallmark education law. Last month, Utah lawmakers took up—and then delayed—a bill to have the state’s education requirements take precedence over those in the federal law. (“Utah Legislators Delay Action on NCLB Bill,” March 9, 2005.)

In addition, a handful of local districts have filed their own lawsuits challenging the No Child Left Behind Act, a 3-year-old revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The National Education Association has been encouraging states to take legal action against the law, but so far none has.

Jack Jennings, the president of the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, said a lawsuit by Connecticut would mark a significant escalation in the national debate over the law’s mandates.

“This is the first time that you have a state filing suit against the federal [law], and that’s a serious matter,” he said. “It’s not just a disgruntled school district, or a few parents. It’s the state of Connecticut saying that the federal government overstepped its bounds.”

Request Denied

The move to file a lawsuit follows a March report by the Connecticut Department of Education that claims the state would have to spend $8 million of its own money by 2008 to carry out the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The law mandates annual testing in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8, and once during high school. Connecticut assesses student performance in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10.

Mr. Blumenthal said that requiring a state to shoulder such a financial burden goes against a provision in the No Child Left Behind law that says federal officials cannot “mandate a state … to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act.” A similar argument was made last spring by Wisconsin’s attorney general in a written analysis of the federal law. (“Wis. Review Invites ‘No Child’ Lawsuit,” May 26, 2004.)

“As we thought about the potential claims, and provisions in the statute, what became crystal clear was that Congress sought to prevent exactly this kind of practice,” Mr. Blumenthal said.

In February, the U.S. Department of Education denied a request by Connecticut officials for a waiver to allow the state to continue with its current testing regime. In a letter explaining her decision, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said that testing in more grades was needed to better identify students’ needs.

Betty J. Sternberg, the Connecticut commissioner of education, said last week that the money for additional state assessments would be better spent on other improvement strategies, such as preschool programs. Also last week, she released a second analysis contending that, along with the added state costs, local districts would have to spend millions to meet the demands of the federal law.

“The real question is, will doing more statewide accountability testing really address the achievement-gap issue?” Ms. Sternberg said in an interview. “Or are there proven programs that we know we should provide to make the gap smaller?”

Although Secretary Spellings announced new flexibility in meeting the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act last week, she made clear that the requirement to test students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school would continue. (“States to Get New Options on NCLB Law.” this issue.)

Achievement Gap Cited

Officials with the federal Education Department said the state’s intention to begin legal action was “disappointing.”

Agency spokeswoman DJ Nordquist said in a statement that Connecticut’s estimates of the costs of the No Child Left Behind law were “flawed,” and that Connecticut’s students “are suffering from one of the largest achievement gaps in the nation.”

“Instead of addressing the issue at hand, the state has chosen to attack a law that is designed to assist the students most in need,” she said, adding that Connecticut has received more than $750 million in federal funding under the legislation since President Bush signed it into law in January 2002.

Ross Wiener, a principal partner at the Washington-based Education Trust, agreed that the additional testing called for in the NCLB law would help the state better pinpoint its weaknesses. He noted that while Connecticut students overall are among the top-performing in the country, the state’s minority students and those living in poverty score far below the state averages.

“Poor students and students of color are underperforming in Connecticut public schools,” said Mr. Wiener, whose research and advocacy group supports the No Child Left Behind Act. “And the leadership there needs to respond to those performance issues in more constructive ways.”

Asked when he planned to file the lawsuit, Attorney General Blumenthal said April 6 that the filing was “imminent.” The main consideration, he added, is how long to wait to allow other parties to join. “We have tried every other avenue of relief,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “We are left with no recourse except for the courts.”

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Boost Student Mental Health and Motivation With Data-Driven SEL
Improve student well-being and motivation with a personalized, data-driven SEL program.
Content provided by EmpowerU Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School Climate & Safety Webinar
Praise for Improvement: Supporting Student Behavior through Positive Feedback and Interventions
Discover how PBIS teams and educators use evidence-based practices for student success.
Content provided by Panorama Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
IT Management Webinar
Build a Digitally Responsive Educational Organization for Effective Digital-Age Learning
Chart a guided pathway to digital agility and build support for your organization’s mission and vision through dialogue and collaboration.
Content provided by Bluum

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Conservatives’ Checklist: U.S. Supreme Court Education Decisions to Overrule
The leak of a draft U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion that would overrule the landmark 1973 abortion-rights decision Roe v. Wade has prompted commentators to discuss what other high court cases might be targets for reconsideration. Here are five education issues with precedents that have been targets of conservative justices or politicians in recent years, including one that was overruled just a few years ago after a lengthy effort.
3 min read
The Supreme Court in Washington, Dec. 3, 2021. The Supreme Court has turned away a plea from parents to block a new admissions policy at a prestigious high school in northern Virginia that a lower court had found discriminates against Asian American students.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Dec. 3, 2021.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts Leaked Abortion Draft Has Supreme Court Education Cases in Political Cross-Hairs
Conservatives have taken aim at decisions on educating immigrants, race in admissions, and religion. Liberals have some cases in mind, too.
8 min read
supreme court SOC
Getty
Law & Courts 'Brown v. Board' Cited in Draft Supreme Court Opinion to Back Overturning Abortion Rights
The leaked opinion in a case still to be decided by the Supreme Court cites landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education.
7 min read
A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court, Monday night, May 2, 2022 in Washington. A draft opinion circulated among Supreme Court justices suggests that earlier this year a majority of them had thrown support behind overturning the 1973 case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a report published Monday night in Politico. It's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter. The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which if verified marks a shocking revelation of the high court's secretive deliberation process, particularly before a case is formally decided.
A crowd gathers outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night after the leak of a draft opinion suggesting the court intends to overturn the 1973 <i>Roe v. Wade</i> precedent that legalized abortion nationwide.
Alex Brandon/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Rules Against Some 'Emotional Distress' Claims. What It Means for Schools
The dissenters say the decision means students cannot recover damages for the emotional harms of race, sex, or disability bias.
5 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty