Pontiac in court to challenge No Child Left Behind requirements
as posted on Examiner.com
November 25, 2008
Pontiac is one of nine districts that will be in court on December 10th arguing that school districts should not have to comply the No Child Left Behind Act.
Every public school in the entire country will be affected by the outcome of this lawsuit, which will probably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The National Education Association (teachers’ union) has filed the lawsuit, claiming that the government is taking over control of the schools and is not providing enough funds to carry out the requirements of the law.
According to the Oakland Press, the No Child Left Behind Act requires major changes in curriculum, testing and whatever efforts it takes to bring students at all levels to a mandated level of achievement.
=======================================================================
Pontiac-led lawsuit could change school initiative
Monday, November 24, 2008 11:34 AM EST
Lead attorney Dennis Pollard in Bloomfield Hills will argue
the No Child Left Behind requirements are unconstitutional and illegal before a
16-judge appellate panel Dec. 10. Pollard maintains school districts should not
have to comply with the act because the federal government is not providing
enough funds to carry out the mandates as required in the act and the 10th
Amendment.
Pontiac is one of nine school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont named as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the National Education Association filed in
U.S. District Court three years ago.The case will likely end up at the U.S.
Supreme Court, Pollard said, and the outcome will affect every public school,
not only in Oakland County and in Michigan, but in the entire country.
“If we win it, the ball would go back in the court of Congress and Congress
would have to decide if it is going to fund it,” Pollard said. “Or they could
modify it and make it clear if the states opt in, they pay costs. “It is hard to
say what Congress would do with the change since the election. In the aftermath
of all that is going on right now, in connection with the financial bailout and
the auto industry bailout, will they have a taste for more funding? I don’t
know. I don’t want to predict.”
No Child Left Behind requires major changes in curriculum, testing and whatever
efforts it takes to bring students at all levels to a mandated level of
achievement.
Pollard said the fight is not against the requirements or the effort to improve
student achievement. The decision of the full U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth
Circuit panel will likely take a few months. Pollard is asking for a declaratory
judgment saying Congress did not intend to create an unfunded mandate. This
would mean schools would not have to comply with the federal program until
adequate funding was provided.
The U.S. Attorney General’s Office has argued requirements have been appropriate
under the law.
“Costs for local schools to implement the NCLB are quite a bit in excess of
money provided and in this economy that comes very acute right now,” Pollard
said. “Schools are required to participate in the requirements of it and don’t
have the funds to do it.”
Pontiac’s financial situation is even worse now than in 2001, when the act went into effect and in 2005 when the lawsuit was filed. The Pontiac district is restructuring schools to avoid a $10 million deficit. Many other districts are financially stressed because of the struggling economy, Pontiac school officials said.
The lawsuit was at first shot down when Chief U.S. District Judge Bernard A.
Friedman, in Detroit, ruled against the plaintiffs, saying Congress had
appropriated adequate funding. However, Pollard appealed Friedman’s ruling and
in January, a three-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in
Cincinnati, ruled 2-1 to overturn the lower court’s decision. In reaction, the
U.S. attorney general appealed the ruling to the full 16-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Federal Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said “the decision against the
requirements “could undermine efforts to improve the education of our nation’s
children, in particular those students most in need.”
One of Pollard’s two key arguments is that the No Child Left Behind Act states,
“Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of
the Federal Government to mandate, direct or contract a state or local education
agency ... to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act.’”
The U.S. attorney general has argued that the language simply implies no one can
add additional requirements to the act and expect local schools and states to
pay for it.
Pollard’s second key argument is that the 10th Amendment guarantees that,
“States have control over education of children and it has been that way since
the country was formed. “It has to be very clear that if states decide to
(follow the act) they are obligating themselves to pay out of their own
resources. The court ruled that it is in no way clear,” Pollard said.
Whichever way the appeals panel rules, Pollard and Spellings both said the case
will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest court doesn’t have to hear it,
but “it involves a real fundamental issue in funding,” Pollard said.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the school districts, “it would affect the entire country,” Pollard said, not just the districts named in the lawsuit.
Return to blitzkriegpublishing.com home page