Related articles:

42 schools fail fed assessment

Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

State cuts in budget slap cities, counties Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato: It's gotta hurt: Kolbe no longer helping Bee Bush to visit Tucson for Bee fundraiser in 2 weeks, invite says Move afoot to revive spring training bill Phx. session finale rocky for Sen. Bee Senate puts gay-marriage ban on ballot No Pima County vote on a tax for baseball Contention rules floor on last day of session Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Dems keep cameras on Bee, hoping for a gaffe Baseball tax plan adds local diversions to the list

Mechanical
Pioneer Landscaping
Diesel Fleet Mechanic Trades/Construction
Pioneer Landscaping
Yard Person/Loader Operator Administrative & Professional
Tucson Symphony
Teleservices Sales/Courtesy Rep Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians Trades/Construction
Jacobs Electric
Electricians & Helpers Trades/Construction
arizona portland cement
maintenance electrician Production and Manufacturing
Pioneer Landscaping
Crushing Crew

PHOENIX — Lawmakers agreed Wednesday that while it might be a good idea for Arizona to opt out of mandates required by the No Child Left Behind act, giving up more than half a billion dollars in federal funding is not a good idea.

The state House gave preliminary approval to a bill to allow a handful of schools that don't use federal funds to avoid federal mandates. But in anticipation of potential retaliation from the federal government, lawmakers added an amendment that would erase the bill if the U.S. Department of Education chose to withhold funding for other schools.

The amendment by Rep. Linda Lopez, a Tucson Democrat, received bipartisan support and would protect Arizona schools from losing an estimated $600 million in the event the federal government finds the bill conflicts with No Child Left Behind rules, she said.

The original bill — SB 1300, sponsored by Sen. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican — allows schools that do not receive federal dollars to get out of some mandates. Johnson estimates there are about 50 schools, mostly charters, that would be affected by the legislation.

If a school opted out of No Child Left Behind, students would still need to pass the AIMS test and the school would still need to meet state-mandated benchmarks for student performance.

But the school could escape more cumbersome federal benchmarks that can lead to intervention.

Johnson said she opposes Lopez's amendment on principle but realized changing the language is the only way it would pass.

"We call it gutting the bill," Johnson said. "But you know what, it's probably the only way we're going to get any kind of a statement out of (the Legislature), and the idea is that No Child Left Behind is probably one of the worst things that has ever come out of the federal government."

Educators and school administrators are concerned that letting individual schools opt out of the federal requirements would put federal funding for the entire state at risk.

Mike Smith, lobbyist for the Arizona School Administrators Association, said it's unlikely any traditional public schools could opt out since school districts all receive federal funding in some form.

But for Johnson, the bill is a symbolic statement against the landmark federal measure, which pumped more money into schools nationwide but also added mandates. The federal law is up for renewal this year.

"No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional," Johnson said. "There is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States that says the federal government is to be involved in education."

While not everyone shares Johnson's view, Democrats launched their own attacks on No Child Left Behind as the bill came up for a House vote.

In a long-shot amendment of his own, Rep. Ed Ableser, a Tempe Democrat, proposed divorcing the entire state from the federal mandates and giving up the $600 million.

Ableser called the law the "worst thing to happen to public education in decades," and proposed making up the money with state funds.

While the amendment won some Democratic support, Republicans said the move would be too costly.

Johnson's bill, with the Lopez amendment, still needs a formal vote in the House. It will then return to the Senate, where Johnson said she will concur with the changes.