| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
Update - November 2005 On November 23, 2005, Judge Bernard Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the United States Department of Education’s motion to dismiss in Pontiac, et al., v. Spellings, the first lawsuit filed to prevent the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) from imposing “unfunded mandates” on states and school districts. The National Education Association (NEA) and its co-plaintiffs will appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Filed on April 20, 2005, by NEA, several NEA affiliates, and nine school districts, the lawsuit is based on a specific provision of the NCLB—Sec. 9527(a)—which states: “Nothing in this Act [i.e., the NCLB] shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to... mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.” In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the federal government is violating this unfunded mandates provision by insisting states and school districts spend their own money to comply with the requirements of NCLB despite the fact that federal funding falls billions of dollars short of covering their costs of doing so. The court concluded, however, that Section 9527(a) does not prohibit Congress from imposing unfunded mandates. According to the court, the section only prohibits “federal officials and employees from imposing additional, unfunded requirements, beyond those provided for in the statute.” “We obviously are disappointed with the opinion,” said NEA President Reg Weaver, adding that the plaintiffs “find it particularly troubling that the court did not even address — much less provide any basis for rejecting — the arguments that we presented as to the meaning of Section 9527(a).” Weaver indicated that the plaintiffs will appeal. |
The National Education Association on Wednesday (April 20, 2005) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Bush administration's failure to fully fund the mandates of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sometimes misleadingly referred to as the "No Child Left Behind" law.
The suit, Pontiac School District v. Spellings, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and it is the first federal legal challenge to ESEA's unfunded mandates. The defendant is Margaret Spellings, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. The suit names other plaintiffs who represent nine NEA state affiliates, one local association, and nine school districts.
"We're standing up for children, whose parents are saying 'no more' to costly federal regulations that drain money from classrooms and spend it on paperwork, bureaucracy and big testing companies," NEA President Reg Weaver said. "The principle of the lawsuit is simple; if you regulate, you have to pay."
The suit echoes an opinion issued in May 2004 by Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager in which she said the ESEA is probably administered unconstitutionally and illegally in Wisconsin. Lautenschlager’s opinion was the first of its kind in the nation, finding that the federal government is requiring state governments to spend their own money to implement the law in violation of federal statutes and the Constitution.
The basis of the lawsuit is a provision of ESEA that prohibits the federal government from forcing states and school districts to spend their own resources to comply with aspects of the law that have not been funded at the federal level. That provision states:
"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 school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act."
Weaver said the Bush administration failed to keep its promise to pay for the regulations demanded by ESEA. This year, the nation's 14,000 public schools received $9.8 billion less than Congress authorized. Under Bush's budget proposal for 2006, the gap would widen to $12 billion, Weaver said.
ESEA is the main federal education law, which describes federal requirements for the nation’s public schools, most of which receive some form of aid under the statute, PL 107-110. Schools that fail to meet the federal requirements risk losing aid, including Title 1 grants, which provide support for poor students and those with significant needs like one-on-one tutoring.
With many districts nationwide facing severe funding shortfalls, ESEA has put states in an untenable position: use state and local funds to meet costly federal regulations or lose federal funds for the neediest students, Weaver said. According to the NEA, ESEA has created a $27 billion shortfall, which is being passed on to local and state taxpayers.
WEAC President Stan Johnson said it could cost Wisconsin taxpayers more than $2 billion to fully implement ESEA's unfunded mandates. "The ESEA is based on a one-size-fits-all approach and emphasizes punishment instead of providing the resources and support to address challenges," Johnson said. "It fails to provide the financial resources it was envisioned to provide when it was passed by Congress."
Resource page on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Posted April 20, 2005