EDUCATION

The Revolt Against Bush's School Rules

The reddest of all states is leading the charge against No Child Left Behind

By Amanda Ripley and Sonja Steptoe

Utah, the state that backed president George W. Bush more resolutely than any other in the 2004 election, became the first to formally defy his proudest domestic achievement—the No Child Left Behind education law. The legislature passed a bill that lets Utah schools ignore the 2002 law if its mandates conflict with state priorities or require state money to meet them. "They didn't bring tea to drop overboard, but that's about all that was missing," says Patti Harrington, state superintendent of public instruction.

Just one day after the Utah bill passed, the National Education Association (NEA), the nation's largest teachers' union, with school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont, filed suit against the Federal Government, claiming that No Child is severely underfunded. Maine is considering joining the suit. Connecticut is crafting its own suit, and other states may sign on. And then there's Texas: Bush's home state was fined $444,282 in March (out of a $1.1 billion federal allowance) by the U.S. Department of Education for missing a deadline to report school rankings. Texas continues to violate the law in other ways.

For three years, teachers and politicians have wailed about No Child, which requires rigid reform and testing in exchange for federal money for low-income students. Critics say the policy is unfair, underfunded and overbearing. Now they are taking action. Despite the Administration's vow to fight to the end, the law may not survive intact.

The timing is ironic. Currently 6,000 schools (13% of those receiving federal money) have been deemed "in need of improvement" under No Child. But recent studies suggest that the No Child reforms may actually be working. Of the 49 states surveyed by the independent Center on Education Policy last year, 36 reported that student achievement was improving. Virtually all the 314 school districts surveyed said they were providing more instruction to low-achieving students, as well as more professional development for teachers.

In 2001, George W. Bush came into office determined to follow through on a campaign promise to get serious about education accountability. Emboldened by his experience as Governor of Texas, he introduced an ambitious testing plan (which borrowed heavily from Democratic proposals made during the Clinton Administration). The proposal churned through grueling negotiations in Congress. But with surprisingly little debate, the final version included a provision promising that states would not have to spend their own funds.

It's tricky, though, to nail down how much states are spending because of No Child—and what they would have spent anyway to meet their own laws. School districts don't break down the costs that way—and many of them are prone to exaggeration. In any case, the testing required by No Child is not all that pricey, but other requirements—to increase teacher training and offer after-school tutoring to children who are struggling—do add up.

Utah's children get average scores on national tests, but an embarrassing gap separates white and minority children (as is also the case in Connecticut, another leader of the rebellion). Utah spends less money per student ($4,900 a year) than any other state. New York and New Jersey spend twice as much, even after adjusting for regional cost differences, according to Education Week. This year, Education Week gave Utah a D+ for its efforts to improve teacher quality.

But the agitation over No Child is not just about money. The Federal Government pays only about 8% of schooling costs. So changing the federal contribution has only so much impact. In fact, money—from any source—is not a magic solution. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. has tripled per-pupil spending in constant dollars, to roughly $10,800 a child, more than almost any other nation. Yet it gets average or below-average results compared with other First World countries.

The uproar is also about pride. No one likes to be labeled failing. Teachers "are focused on making sure that their school doesn't make the watch list ... so that their communities aren't shamed," says Linda Nelson, president of the Iowa State Education Association.

In Utah, one catalyst for the rebellion was the shaming of Amelia Earhart Elementary School in Provo. Last year, the school failed to meet No Child benchmarks because of low scores by just three students with disabilities. Principal Rosemarie Smith remembers the day she got the news. "When principals get the results, they automatically look at the upper-righthand corner to see whether their school made adequate yearly progress. I looked at that space and about died." There were no significant financial consequences, but the failure hurt deeply. "We're in an upper-middle-class area. We have 95% attendance at parent-teacher conferences," Smith says. "Parents were flabbergasted." She took her story to a state representative, who ultimately introduced Utah's protest bill.

President Bush defended the law at a recent press conference. "I will do everything I can to prevent people from unwinding it," he said. But the defection of the reddest of red states must be disconcerting. "Utah follows President Bush on his espoused values regarding family and religion," says Harrington, the state superintendent. "But you, Federal Government, are not going to point to our schools and call them failing or say they need improvement. We won't allow it." —from TIME, May 2, 2005

Questions

1. Why is the National Education Association, along with school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont, suing the federal government over the No Child Left Behind education law?

2. Why did the Amelia Earhart Elementary School in Provo, Utah, fail to meet No Child benchmarks?