|
Questions & Answers about
Pontiac v. Spellings
What is this lawsuit about?
The plaintiffs, who include NEA, nine school
districts, nine NEA state affiliates, and one local affiliate, want
federal officials to keep the promise they made to states and school
districts when they enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001:
states and local communities would not be forced to pay for new federal
mandates.
The law clearly says this in Section 9527(a):
“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.” [20 U.S.C. §
7907(a).]
The federal government has not given local schools
enough money to carry out the law. Instead, parents and other taxpayers
are forced to use their own limited local tax dollars to meet requirements
dictated from Washington, D.C., and their children's schools get unfair
federal "failing" labels.
What did the Appeals Court do?
The lawsuit was initially filed in April
2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
After oral arguments in October 2005, the District Court dismissed the
complaint. NEA and the other plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. After oral arguments in November 2006, the
Court on January 7th issued its
decision overturning the districts court’s decision, finding that,
“…the Secretary’s interpretations of § 7907(a) violate the Spending
Clause.”
Who else supports the lawsuit.
In addition to the plaintiffs, supporting amicus
briefs were filed by the Attorneys General of six states and the District
of Columbia,
the Governor of Pennsylvania, the
American Association of School Administrators, and a collection of
California state officials, educators, and concerned citizens.
Is this lawsuit about stopping
No Child Left Behind?
No, we are asking the Bush administration to follow
the requirements of its own law and pay for the regulations it is imposing
on children's classrooms.
The Bush
administration claims it has increased education funding more than any
other president - how can you say they haven't provided enough for
schools?
Just take a look at the many studies
cited in our lawsuit. The truth is that the administration and
Congress have NOT provided enough funding and support for schools to
follow the testing regimen and other regulations in the law. So states
and local
school districts are cutting arts, sports and academics to make up
the difference.
Indeed, based on the
Fiscal Year 2008 education appropriations bill, the cumulative funding gap
for NCLB program is now over $70 billion:
http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/fundinggap.pdf
and
http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/percentchange.pdf
Do local schools really have
to follow so many of these regulations? Isn't the law quite flexible?
Any waivers or exceptions the administration might
allow still don't change the fact that the law requires the federal
government to pay for its education regulations.
Tell me about the school
districts that are part of the lawsuit?
A visit to any of these districts will show the wide range of issues,
concerns and struggles that local schools have with the one-size-fits-all
education law:
Laredo's students include a very high percentage of English Language
Learners.
Pontiac serves many low-income students and the districts in Vermont are
rural.
But they all share the same difficulty in trying to meet the regulations
imposed by the law: they simply can't afford it.
What will
this lawsuit and the Appeals Court decision accomplish?
This lawsuit makes
clear that it was not Congress’ intent to force states and localities to
spend their own money to comply with the many mandates of NCLB. Despite
this intention, President Bush’s budgets have never covered the costs of
the law. It’s time for the administration to stop asking states and local
school districts to foot the bill for a law it claims to believe in, but
has undermined by the refusal to fund its requirements. If states and
districts cannot fully comply with all of the law’s regulations and
mandates due to a lack of federal funds, they now cannot be penalized by
the Department of Education.
Did you
expect to win?
The language of the
law has always seemed clear to us, and we are glad the Court of Appeals
for the 6th Circuit completely agreed.
How long will this lawsuit
drag on?
That fully depends on the Department of Education
and the judicial system. It's hard to say when a final decision will be
made. The case will now go back to the
District Court for further proceedings.
Isn't this just wasting
taxpayer dollars that could be spent on schools?
Federal rules and regulations imposed on local
school districts are expensive. When parents have to pay for what
Washington will not, then it means their money is going toward paperwork,
bureaucracy and big testing companies - not to their children's
education. Education is too important to let that continue.
Does this mean
that states and local school districts no longer have to comply with NCLB?
No. It means that
the U.S. Department of Education cannot require states and local school
districts to comply with the requirements of NCLB that are not paid for by
the federal government. So, states and schools—if they choose to continue
accepting federal money—must still comply with the NCLB requirements for
which there is federal funding. We have never argued that the goals of
NCLB are flawed, nor have we argued that states should not attempt to
comply with the law. We object to this administration’s misinterpretation
of the clear language of the law in a way that attempts to absolve the
federal government of its responsibility to provide the promised
resources.
What about the other things
the government has to pay for?
If providing America's children with a high quality
education is a priority for the administration,
then that priority should be reflected in
the President’s budget. The goals of closing achievement gaps and
providing great public schools for every child cannot be realized without
a meaningful partnership between the federal government and states and
local school districts. Over the last six years, the Bush Administration
has submitted to Congress tin-cup budgets for education and yet required
massive amounts of new paperwork, rules, and regulations. As Congress
begins the debate about whether to reauthorize NCLB, we hope they will
consider re-defining the federal role in education to one that supports
equal access for all children to a 21st century, innovative
education. Public school students deserve more creativity from Washington
and less regulation and punishment.
Is there
legislation in Congress that would provide some remedy?
Yes. While Congress
works on overhauling the underlying problems with the NCLB law itself, two
bills would provide a partial remedy to the problem identified in the
lawsuit. The Keep Our Promises to America's Children and Teachers (PACT)
Act (H.R. 627), introduced by Representative Van Hollen (D-MD), would
require full funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It provides the financial
amounts necessary to fully fund the ESEA/NCLB programs though the 2014
fiscal year, and provides mandatory full funding for IDEA.
See which Representatives are
cosponsors of H.R. 627. Further, the Keeping Our Promises to
America's Children Act of 2007 (H.R. 684), introduced by Representative
Moore (D-KS), would hold the Administration and Congress accountable for
providing promised funding by allowing states or school districts to
suspend, modify or defer any of the sanctions for failing to meet AYP in
any year in which Title I is not funded at its authorized level.
See
which Representatives are cosponsors of
H.R. 684. |
