Testing Racket Waiver Denied

http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-noflex0505.artmay05,0,845289....ry?coll


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.

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.

"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.

"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."