Utah state Rep. Margaret Dayton adores President Bush. Her conservative politics line up with his, and one of her favorite memories is of being at an intimate gathering and hearing the president echo her top priorities: God, family, and country.
Yet Rep. Dayton is driving one of Mr. Bush鈥檚 biggest education-related headaches. Last year, she led a nationally watched push for Utah to opt out of the No Child Left Behind Act鈥攈is signature school reform law. That effort failed only after federal officials traveled to Utah and helped convince lawmakers here that dropping out would cost the state at least $106 million in education aid.
Mrs. Dayton hasn鈥檛 given up, though. Like legislators in several other states鈥攎any of them fellow Republicans鈥攕he sees the law鈥檚 raft of prescriptions as encroaching on state and local turf and imposing unwarranted costs. As discontent with the law simmers, Mrs. Dayton is back with a modified proposal. Unanimously approved last week by the state鈥檚 House education committee, the plan is sure to draw attention again to Utah and cause additional heartburn in Washington.
鈥淭his is very hard for me because I am very supportive of [President Bush], but I just don鈥檛 want to follow blindly,鈥� said Mrs. Dayton, who chairs the House education committee, during a recent interview. 鈥淭o me, this is an issue of states鈥� rights.鈥�
Her retooled plan calls for the federal education law to take a back seat to the state鈥檚 statutes, especially when the two levels of government conflict. Mrs. Dayton鈥檚 proposal wouldn鈥檛 reject the No Child Left Behind law outright, but it would give school districts the right to ignore federal requirements if state education money must pay for them.
This year鈥檚 bill is much more likely to pass than last year鈥檚 proposal. It already has support in the GOP-controlled House and Senate. The Utah Office of Education supports it, as does, according to Mrs. Dayton, Gov. John Huntsman Jr., a Republican who took office last month.
See the related stories:
Nationwide, states are in their fourth year of implementing the law, an overhaul of the nearly 40-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The NCLB law, signed by President Bush in January 2002, emphasizes accountability for schools鈥� performance. It calls for regular student testing and imposes penalties on schools and districts that don鈥檛 meet annual achievement goals based on the exams. It also includes mandates in areas such as teacher quality.
Utah鈥檚 effort last year to reject the federal law was closely monitored by other states mulling their options, and once again, Utah鈥檚 actions are being scrutinized.
鈥淎s this moves forward,鈥� said David Shreve, an education lobbyist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, 鈥渁 lot of people will be watching.鈥�
鈥業t Chains Us鈥�
Utah seems an unlikely place to start a revolution against the No Child Left Behind Act. An overwhelmingly Republican state in which Democrats make up just a quarter of the legislature, Utah gave President Bush his largest margin of victory in 2004.
But many Utahans have always felt鈥攄ating back to 1847, when members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints settled in this desert land hemmed in by the Rocky Mountains鈥攖hat they should be in charge of their own business.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe that having the federal government dictating to us with all their wisdom will solve anything,鈥� said Rep. David N. Cox, a Republican and a 5th grade teacher. 鈥淚鈥檇 be willing to lose all that federal money to be free. Ultimately it chains us.鈥�
Rep. Kory M. Holdaway, a Republican and a special education teacher, said that historically, education has been squarely within the purview of the states. 鈥淣o Child Left Behind is a blanket over all the country,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 an intrusion that I鈥檓 baffled by.鈥�
He voted against Rep. Dayton鈥檚 opt-out provision last year, however, concluding that the state couldn鈥檛 stand the loss of federal dollars.
Even to those who embrace the aims of the law, like Bill Boyle, the editor and publisher of the weekly San Juan Record in rural Monticello, Utah, the No Child Left Behind Act seems like something conceived miles away from real schools.
As an example, Mr. Boyle, who is a few weeks into his new post on the school board for the 2,950- student San Juan school district, points to Whitehorse High School on the Navajo reservation in San Juan County. The high-poverty school is labeled 鈥渋n need of improvement.鈥�
As a result, the school must bus the 41 students who chose to make the daily, 80-mile round-trip commute to another school. They are some of the brightest students in the school, Mr. Boyle said.
Scoffing at the mandate, he said, 鈥淪olutions to local problems need to be local solutions.鈥�
Uproar Last Year
Even in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind Act was just beginning to reach into classrooms across the country, Rep. Dayton though it was wrong. In particular, she objected to spending the millions of local dollars state officials estimated were needed to implement the new law鈥攅specially because close to 70 percent of the state鈥檚 land is federally owned and doesn鈥檛 contribute to the tax base to help fund schools.
So she introduced the opt-out bill last year. The result was a huge uproar.
鈥淎t first, my whole effort was viewed as an irritating gnat by federal officials, who thought I would just go away,鈥� said Mrs. Dayton, a vibrant 55-year-old who, along with her husband, an obstetrician, has 12 children and more than 20 grandchildren
The Orem homemaker, who loves to bake her own rolls and shuns the title of Ms. Dayton because it is too closely associated with the women鈥檚 liberation movement, pressed on.
Utah鈥檚 2004 efforts attracted national attention at a time when other legislatures, in states such as Connecticut and Virginia, were debating pulling the ripcord, too. It was also an election year, and the negative attention to one of President Bush鈥檚 most prized domestic accomplishments was hardly welcomed by Republican Party officials.
So Washington dispatched a posse from the U.S. Department of Education.
Deputy Secretary of Education Eugene W. Hickok, Ronald J. Tomalis, a counselor to then-Secretary Rod Paige, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Ken Meyer all flew in over the frosted peaks of the Wasatch Mountains to answer questions, cajole, coerce, and essentially lobby Utah lawmakers to end the revolt.
It was a full-court press. 鈥淭hey tried to strong-arm us,鈥� said Rep. Cox. 鈥淭hey tried to undermine our opposition with threats of loss of revenue.鈥�
The tense standoff riled many here. 鈥淭hey tried to let us know we didn鈥檛 understand the law as clearly as they felt we should,鈥� Rep. Holdaway recalled. 鈥淲e understood it pretty clearly.鈥�
Prior to the confrontation, the Utah Office of Education had written to the federal Education Department seeking leeway to opt out of certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind law and asking about consequences if it did so. The response was that the state could lose more than $106 million in federal funding.
The Beehive State already has the lowest per-pupil spending level in the country, $5,132, and its schools have some of the highest class sizes, leaving it scratching for every education dollar of its $2.4 billion education budget.
Still, Rep. Dayton鈥檚 bill passed unanimously out of the House education committee in January of 2004. The bill鈥檚 language was later softened to reflect lawmakers鈥� concerns about losing the federal money. It instead directed schools to stop spending money on federal requirements when the checks from Washington run out. The revised bill had significant support, but Mrs. Dayton ultimately shelved it after her actions were translated by the national media, in her view, as 鈥淏ush-bashing.鈥�
鈥淚t was very painful鈥� to put the bill on hold, Mrs. Dayton recalled, thumbing through a well-worn copy of the federal law. 鈥淏ut I didn鈥檛 want it to become a big campaign issue.鈥�
Rep. Patricia Jones, a Democrat, said the Washington pressure tactics worked. 鈥淚t has kind of forced us to be prostitutes for the federal government,鈥� she said.
Alternative Plan
Rep. Dayton鈥檚 latest bill builds on a provision in the No Child Left Behind law allowing the U.S. secretary of education to grant states waivers to help them comply. So far, federal officials have been reluctant to grant such waivers. The proposal also relies on a section of the federal law that essentially says that a state doesn鈥檛 have to carry out the law if it lacks the federal money to do so.
Mr. Holdaway introduced a companion resolution that emphasizes the goals of Mrs. Dayton鈥檚 bill. Both measures say the state鈥檚 own accountability system, the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students, or U-PASS, should serve as the basis for monitoring local schools, not the No Child Left Behind Act.
The core difference between U-PASS, which is still being fine-tuned, and the No Child Left Behind Act is how they measure student progress. While U-PASS expects every child to make a year鈥檚 worth of progress based on individual performance, the No Child Left Behind Act requires every child to reach the same benchmarks regardless of where they start.
U-PASS also requires testing in more grades than does the federal law. The state system doesn鈥檛 put as much emphasis on performance by minority groups as the federal law does. Instead, U-PASS looks at a host of factors, including test scores, attendance, and graduation rates, to determine if a school gets a passing grade.
In using U-PASS, Mrs. Dayton said, 鈥渨e are obeying the spirit of the [federal] law 鈥� though we cannot afford to live the letter of the law.鈥�
And the state seems to be doing a decent job educating its students. Last month, the College Board鈥檚 first-ever 鈥淎dvanced Placement Report to the Nation鈥� found that Utah ranked third in the country for students who took and passed AP tests, said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington.
Calling the federal law鈥檚 goals 鈥渁rbitrary,鈥� Ms. Harrington said it 鈥渁ssumes all tomatoes ripen on the vine at exactly the same time.鈥�
How federal officials will respond to Rep. Dayton鈥檚 more muted rebellion鈥攁nd similar tactics in other states鈥攊s anyone鈥檚 guess. Federal education officials declined to be interviewed for this story, though Education Department spokeswoman Susan Aspey released a statement Feb. 1.
鈥淲e鈥檝e been diligently working to provide all states with accurate information about the law and assistance with implementation issues, including Utah,鈥� it read. 鈥淲e continue to work with the governor and his staff and state officials to achieve the common goal of all children learning.鈥�
Utah lawmakers also hope that the new secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, who stressed in her Jan. 6 confirmation hearing that she wanted the law to be 鈥渟ensible and workable,鈥� will be open to their proposals. During that same hearing, U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, asked Ms. Spellings if she鈥檇 visit his state to address concerns there. She said she would.
But Utah鈥檚 legislative session lasts just 45, often frenetic, days, so a visit from Ms. Spellings may not come in time to derail Rep. Dayton鈥檚 new bill.
As for the state lawmaker, she would still prefer to rebuff the federal law altogether. 鈥淚f I were the only person making the decision,鈥� Mrs. Dayton said, 鈥淚 would still opt out.鈥�
