Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

The Eggplant


in the collection  

State Level NCLB Actions

William J. Mathis, Vermont superintendent, is keeping track of where states stand on NCLB resistance. The actions shift on a daily basis. He would appreciate your sending him updates, details, and corrections. We'll keep posting them:


State Level NCLB Actions
February 23, 2004

Arizona A bi-partisan bill, under legislative analyst evaluation, has been introduced to exempt the state from NCLB. (2-04)

Connecticut Two towns (Cheshire and Somers, opt out). State superintendents release critical resolution. The state altered the state standards.

Hawaii The Hawaii house passed a non-binding resolution urging the state department to reject NCLB funds until the federal government properly funds the law (2003). A bill to opt out is now under a comprehensive external
fiscal review (2-04).

Illinois State School Board Association passed a resolution condemning act.

Indiana Bill to opt out introduced.

Iowa Passed resolution for full funding

Maine House and Senate passed non-binding resolution requesting waivers of certain provisions. Bill to opt out and not provide any state funds. Hearings, February 2004. A funding study has been requested.

Michigan Studying a bill to reject funds. Lowered standards from 75% failure rate to 42% failure rate.

Minnesota The Senate education committee gave preliminary approval to remove Minnesota from NCLB (Feb 04) SF-1921 is sponsored by Republicans. A new auditing report lists the new mandates.

Montana Requests waivers and urges changes for rural districts. SBE resolution passed for proper funding. Governor Judy Martz (R) wrote letter to Paige asking for changes.

Nebraska Unicameral Senate passes resolution 87-10 asking for changes in NCLB and full funding. Fuzzed the standards to a local orientation (2002).
Adequacy court suit filed against the state by Omaha.

New Hampshire Cuts state testing budget to $1. Debate continues on opting out. Bill to require no state money under active consideration.(7-03)

New Jersey Passed resolution for funding. Governor McGreevy wrote letter of protest to Paige. (Oct 2003)

New Mexico Requested waivers and urges changes in the law for rural districts. Lowered standards. Governor Bill Richardson (D) wrote letter to Paige urging changes to the law. A bill has been introduced to exempt the state from NCLB.

New York Adequacy suit won. New costs equal 20%.

North Dakota U. S. Senator Kent Conrad initiates national cost impact study for rural states. Resolution for adequate funding.

Ohio Resolution against NCLB from Republicans. Uses balloon AYP to escape sanctions. New costing study says $1.5 billion needed (2-04)

Pennsylvania Reading filed a law suit against NCLB for funding (Inter-tangled with state fiscal crisis)

Tennessee Resolution for funding. Governor sent letter to feds.

Texas Lowered passing score on reading test. Tougher test but lower standards.

Utah Bill voted unanimously out of house education committee that state and locals cannot spend any funds for NCLB. Passed the House 64-8. February 2004.
Alas, Utah Senate fizzled, relegating NCLB to "summer study."

Virginia Republican controlled House of Delegates voted 98-1 urging Congress to exempt the state from the most sweeping intrusion into state and local control of education in the history of the United States.

Vermont Act 64 and H. Resolution 15 No state or local agency of government shall be obliged to fund any activities not funded by federal government. Law passed and signed. Several towns opt out by funding shifts. Marlborough
expresses possible refusal to administer tests.

Washington State Superintendent Terry Bergeson asks for waivers and law changes in a letter to Rod Paige, November 2003. Resolution.

Federal Call for revisions to law. 2-23-04 Senator Kennedy

Time Magazine February, 2004 20 states rebelling

AYP 20 states adopted a balloon AYP model to avoid sanctions.

— William J. Mathis


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.