Minnesota is sharing the pain over how to comply with the new federal No Child Left Behind law.

Throughout the nation, states are grappling with the major new federal initiative, which is designed to raise student achievement, guarantee school safety and teacher quality, and provide students with opportunities to escape bad schools, at public expense.

But, like Minnesota with its projected $4.6 billion deficit, many states are in financial straits and fear No Child Left Behind represents another costly federal program they'll have to pay for. They also fear that the law could unfairly tag many schools as failures.

On Wednesday, a task force of Minnesota educators approved the basic elements of a school accountability plan to comply with the federal law. But many of them have been sharply critical of the law.

They say it holds schools responsible for improving student achievement to a degree almost impossible to reach.

Still, new Gov. Tim Pawlenty views No Child Left Behind as an important element of school reform.

"At this point the governor feels very comfortable that we can meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind act," said Pawlenty press secretary Leslie Kupchella. "He is very supportive."

Supporters of the law say it's a long-overdue means of holding schools responsible for the solid academic performance of every student.

But school districts nationwide are wringing their hands over the penalties the law will impose on schools that don't show significant academic progress. When schools are labeled as needing improvement for two years in a row, districts will have to provide transportation for students to other schools, offer more tutoring for students who remain, and, if progress isn't made in later years, reorganize the schools or face state takeover.

The federal law also takes a stricter approach to test results. Unlike current testing, schools not only will have to show progress for their whole student body, but also for smaller groups of students within the schools, including racial minorities, special education students and poor students.

That could lead to a situation in which many schools praised as successes by states wind up on the federal government's failure list, said Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators.

"Our estimates are that a lot of schools in America will be labeled as failing, many of which are not failing," Houston said.

Deadlines coming up

Houston termed No Child Left Behind "the biggest federal intrusion in education that's ever been."

States have until Jan. 31 to submit preliminary plans on how they will comply with the program's regulations. The final drafts of the state plans are due in May.

According to officials with the U.S. Department of Education, five states -- Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Colorado and Ohio -- have already submitted plans that have been accepted. But in other states, uncertainty and resistance run high.

Idaho, for instance, had labeled 88 schools as needing improvement under the current federal guidelines for schools that get federal poverty funds. But the new law will require them to use a different test, forcing state officials to scramble to figure out how to compare the old test results with the new ones. That makes it difficult to determine how many schools will be on the next list of underperforming schools.

North Dakota frets

Rural states with small, widely spaced schools worry about provisions of the law that allow kids to move to other schools that could be many miles away. They also worry that teachers who must teach several subject areas in small schools will be forced to show mastery of subject areas that they can't possibly attain.

"For heaven's sake, there's no realistic way [we can do that] for every teacher," said Wayne Sanstead, North Dakota superintendent of public instruction. "Many of those teachers are doing three and four and five [subject-area] preparations a day because they cover the entire spectrum of learning."

According to Houston, some states have balked at following through on the program. Nebraska has indicated it can't comply with some of the provisions of the law, and Vermont at one point threatened to bag the whole thing and face the risk of losing federal funding as a result.

Does this mean a national revolt could be brewing?

More states might be tempted to defy the federal government, Houston said, even though the current administration "is very tough to say no to."

"The question is how much backbone [the states] have," he said.

And, certainly, states will bend whatever rules they can.

"We will comply where compliance is required, and seek waivers and amendments where that latitude is allowed," Sanstead said at a conference of North Dakota school administrators last fall.

Mary Fulton, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States, said California tried to allow a number of exceptions to the teacher training rule, but the U.S. Education Department objected.

Fulton said talk that states would set student performance measures so low as to be meaningless to keep their schools out of trouble has yet to become a reality.

"California and New York have said that they want to adhere to more rigorous standards despite the fact that it will add a lot of schools to the 'needs improvement' list," she said.

Ultimately, Fulton said, all the worrying about the program boils down to one overarching concern: lots more work.

"There are lots of requirements attached to it, and it came down very fast," she said. "I think that's very overwhelming for a lot of folks."

-- Norman Draper is at ndraper@startribune.com .