Connecticut Will Sue U.S. Over NCLB Cost

On April 5, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced his intention to sue the federal government over the alleged unfunded mandates of NCLB. While other states have protested the law through state resolutions and legislation, Connecticut would be the first state to bring a legal action challenging the federal law. On April 7, Maine’s state senate majority leader submitted a proposed bill asking that state’s Attorney General to file a similar lawsuit against the federal government.

“Unfunded Mandate”

In his announcement, Attorney General Blumenthal contended that, by requiring Connecticut to comply with all the provisions of NCLB without adequate federal funding, the United States government illegally and unconscionably imposes millions of dollars in unfunded mandates on the state. Blumenthal asserted that the federal government is violating NCLB Section 7907, which states that no state will have to spend any funds not provided by the federal government in order to fulfill the mandates of NCLB. In addition, Blumenthal claimed that requiring states to spend state revenues to comply with NCLB violates Congress’ Spending Power under the United States Constitution. In a direct reference to the sanctions imposed on schools under NCLB, the Attorney General declared that “the federal government deserves a failing grade…[and] needs tutoring.”

NCLB Cost to Connecticut

Connecticut recently completed a two-part cost study on NCLB, which found that the state will face a shortfall of millions of dollars if forced to comply with the law. The first part of the study, which examined only the state-level administrative costs of NCLB and not the cost of bringing all students to the academic standards of the federal law, estimated that in administrative costs alone Connecticut would have to spend $41.6 million of its own money to comply. The second part of the study, which was released on April 6, examined local costs. Three sample school districts, representing different demographics and socio-economic conditions, were represented in the study. The results showed that, in addition to state costs, local districts will also have to commit millions of dollars in local funds to comply with the administrative costs of NCLB. New Haven, for example would have to spend an extra $10.1 million dollars by 2008.

Federal Inflexibility on NCLB

Blumenthal noted that Connecticut Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty Sternberg had asked the U.S. Department of Education for flexibility in carrying out several requirements of the law. Among other things, she asked that Connecticut be exempted from testing students in every grade three through eight, and instead be allowed to continue its twenty-year practice of testing students in grades 4, 6, and 8. Dr. Sternberg expressed her preference for spending money on improving testing to help tailor instruction and on programs, such as preschool, that have been proven to close the achievement gap.

Secretary Spellings denied Connecticut’s request and, in a March 20, 2005 op-ed in the Hartford Courant, stated that Commissioner Sternberg should “know better” than to request fewer tests. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, responded in a letter to Secretary Spellings that, as governor and as a parent, she was offended that the Secretary “disparaged the knowledge and judgment of Connecticut educators…” Attorney General Blumenthal took the argument one step further, declaring that “[r]andomly replacing successful programs is illogical, and forcing states to foot the bill is illegal.”

Legal Action Not Unprecedented

Although Connecticut is the first state to bring legal action under Section 7907, the Reading, Pennsylvania school district has already sued the Pennsylvania Department of Education over the unfunded nature of NCLB mandates. Reading, an impoverished school district, appealed the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s designation of several of its schools as “in need of improvement” under NCLB, contending that the Department did not provide adequate funds to implement the law. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected the claim and the district is now appealing that case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In addition, in May 2004, Wisconsin’s Attorney General, Peg Lautenschlager, issued a letter stating her opinion that the mandates of NCLB violate both section 7907 of the law and Congress’ Spending Power under the U.S. Constitution.

Lawsuit Justified, or Not?

Commissioner Sternberg issued a statement on April 5 that although her preference would be “to achieve our goals through substantive, thoughtful discussion with Secretary Spellings…,” the Department’s inflexibility has forced legal action. “It is sad testimony that we have been pushed to this extreme.” Governor Rell’s spokesperson echoed Dr. Sternberg’s comments, stating that she preferred to resolve the differences with the Department of Education, but expressing her understanding for the reasons behind the lawsuit.

By contrast, in a press release issued on April 5, the Department of Education criticized Connecticut's decision. The Department took issue with the Connecticut cost study, claiming it “creates inflated projections built upon questionable estimates and misallocation of costs.” The press release also declared that “[t]his is a sad day for students of Connecticut… Instead of addressing the issue at hand, the state has chosen to attack a law that is designed to assist the students most in need—and those whom these funds directly help."