Panel urged to probe costs of ‘No Child’

AUGUSTA – State educators and politicians urged a legislative committee Tuesday to investigate the long-term costs of the federal government’s educational reform policies before permitting the state to accept its oversight of Maine schools.

The educators appeared before an Educational and Cultural Affairs Committee public hearing on legislation that would require full accounting of the cost of the federal No Child Left Behind Act to Maine taxpayers. The emergency legislation, sponsored by Sen. Michael Brennan, D-Portland, also asks that no state money be used to implement the federal law until the study is completed.

The committee took no action on the bill and advised its supporters that work sessions on the proposal would be scheduled at a later date.

No Child Left Behind was approved by Congress in 2001 and requires states to implement standardized testing and to identify and sanction schools that fail to meet an established set of guidelines for students and teachers.

Testifying before the committee, Brennan said it was his belief that NCLB would dismantle the state’s Learning Results policy and result in additional costs to state and local education budgets that were already hard pressed to keep apace of student needs.

Brennan noted that when the federal government required states to implement policies for special-education students, it promised to fund 40 percent of the local cost. That promise was never realized, and Maine now receives only 18 percent reimbursement from the government. He warned that a similar gap between promise and reality would likely be repeated with NCLB.

“We do not have enough money in the state to implement the requirements of No Child Left Behind,” said Brennan. “We should state that we are not spending state dollars for No Child Left Behind and focus on Learning Results. … I think No Child Left Behind is unnecessary for the state of Maine.”

Brennan’s concerns were echoed by a number of educators, including Commissioner of Education Susan Gendron. While all those who testified said they understood the reasons behind the federal program, they reminded committee members that the state had worked for years to improve its education policies and to accept costly changes would defeat those efforts.

Gendron said NCLB had raised a number of philosophical, educational, and fiscal questions. She said the bill has “led to public confusion” and had “detracted” from the ongoing efforts to improve education.

Gendron said the department needed to determine the difference between the cost of implementing NCLB and the amount of funds the federal government would be willing to reimburse the state to operate the program. She said the federal government provides about one-half of what the state currently spends on education, $87 million of which is delegated to NCLB. Maine appropriated just over $732 million for general-purpose aid to education this year.

“Unless there is substantial additional dollars, our local schools and the state will be bearing the cost,” said Gendron.

Gendron said that while the federal Department of Education had been helpful and understood her concerns, “the issues we are facing as a small state are not always recognized.”

Brennan said that other states had similar concerns. He said a recent study in Ohio indicated that NCLB would cost its taxpayers $1.5 billion to put in place. Of that, the federal government would provide $44 million.

“We do not have enough money in the state to implement the requirements of No Child Left Behind,” said Brennan. “We should state that we are not spending state money for No Child Left Behind.”

Although committee members agreed with the sentiment, some said they doubted whether the federal government would be willing to allow the state to walk away from a national program.

Rep. Thomas W. Murphy, R-Kennebunk, observed that the complaints about the cost of NCLB were similar to those raised by educators when Learning Results was adopted six years ago.

“Clearly there are people in the state that believe that Learning Results has not been adequately funded and that there are problems with Learning Results,” said Murphy.

Murphy said there were provisions within NCLB that allowed states some “flexibility” on implementing the program. He said recent test results had indicated a “flattening” of indicators of progress throughout the system. He said NCLB, with its strong testing and accountability requirements, was designed to change that.

“We’re losing time and we need to deal with those problems,” said Murphy.