Groups Push Forward with Legal Challenges to NCLB
In a climate of vocal controversy and widespread criticism of the federal No Child Left Behind law (NCLB), two lawsuits have been brought against the federal government challenging the law's implementation. The first, brought by the National Education Association (NEA), several of its local affiliates, and a number of small school districts, claims that the federal government is violating its own requirement that the law be fully funded. The second, brought by the state of Connecticut, also claims insufficient funding and goes further to charge the federal government with being “arbitrary and capricious” in its implementation of the law. The NEA lawsuit has been dismissed by a federal district court and will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Connecticut maintains that the two lawsuits make separate arguments as it works to fight off the U.S. Education Department's (ED) motion to dismiss. The fate of both suits will likely have wide-ranging repercussions, especially as the bill comes up for reauthorization in 2007.
The Lawsuits
The federal district court judge hearing the NEA claims dismissed the case, ruling that, though the plaintiffs did have standing to bring the suit, their reading of the federal law was incorrect. The judge concluded that had the federal government intended to require the law to be fully funded, the law would have stated that more explicitly. The judge did affirm the plaintiffs' standing to bring the lawsuit, which ED challenged in its motion to dismiss. The NEA has pledged to appeal the case, arguing that the judge did not address their reasons for their interpretation of the law.
The Connecticut suit, which has been repeatedly cited by the NEA as a like-minded effort, was brought on slightly different grounds. Though Connecticut also charges that the federal government has failed to fully fund its mandate, they argue that Margaret Spellings, the Commissioner of Education, as an “officer or employee” of the government (the language used in the statute), has implemented the law in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner, thereby “imposing additional unfunded requirements.” Connecticut, which already administers statewide assessments in every other grade, has repeatedly been denied permission to continue doing so rather than adhere to NCLB's requirement that it test students in every grade between third and eighth. ED has also claimed Connecticut can reduce its NCLB costs by administering less specialized, less accurate, cheaper assessments; the state has refused.
ED has once again filed a motion to dismiss, this time granting the state's standing to sue over NCLB, but rejecting their claim that the law requires full funding for state compliance. The ED brief further argues that Connecticut cannot accept any federal money without fulfilling the requirements of the law, regardless of their expense. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal countered that, given the reliance of many districts on federal money, that requirement would make it impossible for the state to challenge the implementation of federal laws. It remains to be seen whether this suit, filed in the federal District Court of Connecticut, will fare better than that of the NEA, heard in the District Court of Eastern Michigan.
Reforming NCLB
These suits are only one example of the challenges faced by NCLB. Many states have passed laws threatening the law's sovereignty over the state education system, while many lawmakers have introduced bills in Congress to amend the act [link to article]. There is also a more subtle battle being waged against the act, as many states given the freedom to set their own standards for student achievement and teacher quality have adjusted their standards downward. These reactions have prompted many supporters and opponents of the law to look for ways to fix the statute so that it can be more effective from their point of view.
Prepared by Nelly Ward, December 15, 2005 |
