Wednesday
December 17, 2008
by desertjim
Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit heard arguments challenging the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) as an unfunded mandate. Robert H. Chanin, general counsel for the National Education Association told judges, “States and school districts are prisoners of this law. There are obligations that are placed on them by [NCLB], but the money is not enough to implement those requirements.” The suit, Pontiac School District vs Spelling has been wending its way through the courts since April of 2005.
When President Bush vetoed the 2008 education appropriations bill it resulted in a $14.8 billion annual gap in funding for NCLB programs. That is on top of a previously underfunded gap of $56.1 billion. Section 9527(a) of NCLB states that, “Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a state, local education agency....or any political subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.” Despite the wording of the bill, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings argued, “NCLB is not an unfunded mandate. It is a voluntary compact between the States and the Federal government, which asks that in exchange for Federal tax dollars, results be demonstrated.”
The suit was originally dismissed in the US District Court for the Eastern Court of Michigan but the dismissal was reversed by a three judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The school district’s case has precedent behind it.In 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District vs Murphy that in spending-clause legislation, Congress must clearly express its intent to impose conditions on the grant of federal aid.
I was not able to find a timetable for the release of the circuit court’s decision on the case. It certainly puts an interesting twist on the reconsideration of NCLB that will take place under the incoming administration. A court judgement in favor of the school district might well place the current stress on high stakes testing in question.
Labels:
One of the things I like about Arne Duncan is his support for the principle of leaving no child behind while questioning the limited means the government has incorporated into the bill . . . limited both financially and in the narrowness of thinking that confines success to test scores and very literal definitions of highly qualified with respect to teachers. I’m remembering the letters even award winning teachers received indicating they were not highly qualified based on credit hours or whether or not they were in a discipline that was even included in the list for highly qualified . . . talk about literal interpretation of the law.
In any case, we should be seeing a much more enlightened interpretation of what it means to leave no child behind . . . and hopefully more realistic expectations and funding.
