Spellings warns a defiant Texas
State could lose $11 million in federal funds if it doesn't grant fewer test exemptions
By JUSTIN GEST, April 9, 2005

WASHINGTON - Texas could lose $11 million in federal funding and be denied flexibility on federal No Child Left Behind rules unless the state exempts fewer special-education students from standardized testing, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings warned Friday.

Spellings' statement came a day after she offered states that ollow federal laws more leeway. She also increased the cap on testing exemptions from 1 percent to 3 percent of all students.

Texas defied the law by allowing 9 percent of public school students to take an easier exam the past two years.

"Texas is an outlier," said Spellings. "Nine percent is nearly half a million kids. No Child Left Behind does not mean 'No Fewer Than Half a Million Left Behind.' ... I intend to take a very strong approach."

State education officials said they have not been notified of the secretary's admonishment.

"We appreciate Secretary Spellings looking into this difficult area of the law," said Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe. "But if Texas, for whatever reason, isn't allowed to take advantage of this new flexibility, we'll simply keep the status quo in place."

The education secretary can withhold all or part of the $11.1 million in administrative federal funding that goes to the Texas Education Agency.

But even if Spellings takes away the entire amount, Texas still would receive the rest of its $1.1 billion federal allocation under No Child Left Behind. The state also spends $32 billion of its own funds on education.

Texas education officials said that the agency's administrative offices normally have a budget surplus that would blunt the effect of any federal cut.

"In a state as big as Texas, funding cuts have a smaller impact," said Scott Young, a policy adviser with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

State Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley says she is exempting the higher number of students with disabilities because progress by special-education children cannot be accurately measured unless the test is tailored to their capabilities.

Some students, for instance, can add and subtract numbers at the same level as their peers, but a mental disability prevents them from performing both addition and subtraction in the same math problem. Unless the students are given an appropriate test, Texas officials argue, they are apt to be retaught material they have already mastered.

Many educators think that the 3 percent cap would cover such students.

Neeley's critics accuse her of trying to inflate test scores by exempting students who might otherwise perform poorly on exams. They contend that higher scores make it look like Texas' scores have improved in recent years.

Spellings, a Houstonian who for 10 years served as President Bush's education adviser in Austin and Washington, said that she is disappointed that she is experiencing so much resistance from the state in which she helped craft the first No Child Left Behind law.

Two other states have openly challenged the 2001 federal law.

Utah's legislature is poised to pass a law declaring the No Child Left Behind Act subordinate to state education laws. This week, Connecticut sued the U.S. Department of Education for forcing the state to conduct more testing without allocating sufficient money.

Other states filed similar grievances but stopped short of defying the law.

Neeley had been quietly supported by officials in other states who also favored a higher cap. But many of them were placated by the 3 percent cap.

"Three percent is a fair compromise," said Scott Montgomery, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the organization that represents state commissioners in Washington. "I know there are places that want as much as 10 percent, but we don't think that's a realistic number."

Nancy Reder, associate executive director of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, agreed.

The American Association of School Administrators, however, is unhappy with the use of any cap. It has argued for allowing a students' teachers, parents and doctors to make a joint decision about which test the child should take.

justin.gest@chron.com