AUGUSTA – The Maine School Boards Association this week passed a resolution expressing members’ concern about “unintended consequences” that could stem from the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government’s major new education reform effort.

School board members fear many of the provisions in the federal law “will not align” with Maine’s Learning Results, and that they were “developed to address nonachieving urban schools and thus may not be appropriate for application in Maine,” according to the resolution, which the MSBA overwhelmingly approved Thursday during a conference of local school officials at the Augusta Civic Center.

Passed by the Legislature in 1996, the Learning Results take effect for the high school graduating class of 2007. School systems are now in the process of developing ways to measure the new standards.

“The frustration is that Maine’s done so much work on implementing the Learning Results, and we’re afraid [the federal law] will have a negative impact on the work we’ve already done,” said Dale Douglass, director of the Maine School Management Association, the group that oversees the organizations representing the state’s superintendents and school board members.

Education officials still are trying to figure out the ramifications of the 1,100-page federal law, according to Douglass, who receives new regulations almost daily.

The law, which was championed by President Bush, requires that states create an assessment system for measuring student progress in math, English and science. Each state sets its own definition of “proficiency,” but the goal is that all students meet that standard by the end of 2014.

In the meantime, by testing pupils in grades three through eight annually, each school must demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” toward the goal, not just for the entire school or school district, but for students who fall within particular subgroups, including the economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, and the disabled.

Nineteen Maine elementary schools already have been identified as having failed state standards under the requirements of the federal law.

Valerie Fitzgerald of Hampden, a member of the SAD 22 (Hampden area) board of directors and a delegate to the conference, criticized the U.S. Department of Education for its insistence on assessing students through written exams rather than the variety of methods that Maine’s Learning Results would allow.

“They’re pulling us back. They’re saying, ‘Do it our way,”‘ she said. “Maine has worked hard to get ahead of the whole testing thing.”

The federal law could hamper the Learning Results because of its provision on testing, Amy Tchao, a lawyer with Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon of Portland, said Friday during a presentation at the conference.

While the Learning Results say each school would develop its own assessment, the federal law stipulates that testing must allow for “cross comparisons” throughout the state. That could be difficult if each school has its own method of testing, said Tchao.

Although it’s “too early to be certain,” federal officials likely will allow the state to use its Learning Results as a measure of academic achievement, Tchao said.

The Learning Results appear to have some requirements that contradict the federal law, Maine Commissioner of Education J. Duke Albanese said. “But I think there’s the possibility to meet both [guidelines]. “It’s our job to convince Washington that our first priority is implementing the Learning Results.”

Deputy Commissioner Judith Lucarelli said that, in theory, everyone agrees with the law, which seeks to ensure a successful learning experience for each child. “But the challenge is that people so far away decided on one cookie-cutter approach,” she said.

The one-size-fits-all formula includes penalties. While the federal government hasn’t said when or if a school would have its funding withheld, some details have been determined.

If the students as a whole or any of the subgroups fail to meet the proficiency standard set by the state, then, with some exceptions, the school will be deemed “failing to make adequate yearly progress.”

Those that have failed for two years must provide transportation for children to attend another public school in the same district, if parents request. Priority will be given to the lowest-achieving children from low-income families.

Since more than half of the school districts in Maine have only one school at every grade level, that option may not always be available.

Schools that have failed for three consecutive years must offer “supplemental educational services” such as tutoring.

After four years, schools must replace school staff “who are relevant to the continuing failure to make adequate yearly progress” and develop a new curriculum, among other things.

Five years of low performance means a school will be “identified for restructuring,” and must either convert to a public charter school, replace all or most of the staff, contract with a private management company, turn the school over to the state, or make other “fundamental reforms and changes in school staffing and governance.”

Although the draconian options elicited laughs from the audience, Eric Herlan, a lawyer with Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, issued a sobering comment. Since it takes only one subgroup of students per year to cause a school to fail, “I can’t imagine that won’t happen,” he said.