I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4578 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify 
Federal requirements under such Act. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 16, 2005 
Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
A BILL 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to clarify Federal requirements under such Act. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act shall be cited as the ‘‘Student Achievement 
and Successful Schools Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) Access to a high quality public education for 
all children is essential to a fully functioning democ-
racy.
(2) Primary responsibility for the operation, 
quality, and governance of the public schools of the 
United States lies with State and local governments. 
(3) Bipartisan reviews of the No Child Left Be-
hind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–110; 115 Stat. 
1425) have suggested that granting States flexibility 
to meet the goals of the law will result in better stu-
dent successes, more accountability, a stronger de-
mocracy, and a more robust economy. 
(4) More than 30 States are considering legisla-
tion requesting the Federal Government to provide 
waivers or other means of flexibility, calling for addi-
tional money to cover mandates required under the 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, prohibiting a 
State from spending State funds to comply with 
such mandates, or requiring that a State will comply 
only in areas fully funded by the Federal Govern-
ment, or fully opting-out of the mandates required 
under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 
(5) States have been financially penalized, 
amounting to a total of nearly $1,300,000, for not 
meeting the Federal requirements. These fines are 
in addition to education cuts sustained at the Fed-
eral, State, and local levels.
(6) School districts across the country have re-
jected or reallocated funding under part A of title I 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) to avoid costly sanc-
tions associated with failing to make adequate yearly 
progress under such Act. 
(7) States, school districts, education advocacy 
groups, and schools have filed lawsuits in response 
to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, including 
lawsuits filed by school districts in Michigan, 
Vermont, Texas, California, and Connecticut, the 
National Education Association, and the California 
League of United Latin American Citizens. Several 
States, school districts, education advocacy groups, 
and schools are considering joining in or filing their 
own litigation and have questioned the constitu-
tionality of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 
(8) The Department of Education has recog-
nized the flaws in the No Child Left Behind Act of 
2001 and has issued several changes to the regula-
tions promulgated pursuant to such Act. 
(9) Since being signed into law, schools have 
been consistently underfunded from what was prom-
ised by Congress in the No Child Left Behind Act 
of 2001.