Re: Bill Clinton: Fix NCLB

[Diane Aoki <dkeikoa@hawaii.rr.com>]

This reminds me - a couple of years ago, our State Legislature was
investigating whether it was possible to bypass federal education funds to
get out of NCLB idiocy. The response was that by rejecting Ed funds, you
also turn away ALL federal funds, and there was no way we could do that. Is
there any truth to this, does anyone know?
Diane


On 2/4/08 6:41 PM, "monty@fairtest.org" <monty@fairtest.org> wrote:

> The question of whether NCLB is an unfunded mandate is also a
> technical legal question. Currently the highest court to rule on it (a
> 3 judge federal appeals panel) agrees it is an unfunded mandate of a
> sort - a different sort, clearly, than IDEA. The US Dept of Ed has
> decided to appeal to the full circuit court, which is what I expected
> them to do. Whoever loses will appeal to the Supremes.
> 
> Monty
> 
> Quoting Kenneth Bernstein <kber@earthlink.net>:
> 
>> responding to Miles
>> 
>> technically NCLB is not an unfunded mandate, it is a condition of
>> aid, just as is the federal highway money.   In neither case does a
>> state have to accept the money, but if they do they most abide by
>> the conditions imposed in the law and regs.
>> 
>> 
>> By contrast, IDEA is an unfunded mandate, because the original law
>> defined the federal share as 40% of the average additional costs,
>> but the highest the federal share has ever been was 19% in FY2005
>> (not the 17% stated by Clinton in her town hall meeting about an
>> hour ago), and in FY s007 it was 17%.
>> 
>> teacherken  aka ken bernstein
>> 
>> Kenneth J. Bernstein
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
>> 
>