Re: Michigan School Wins Against No Child Left Behind

[aburke5054@aol.com]

The Appeals Court said that NCLB is impermissibly vague on who pays for 
what.  The dissenting Justice said that to accept that is to argue that 
states don't know how their schools are funded.  Beyond this, there is 
a cruel irony in the Pontiac school district arguing that it and 
Michigan should not have to enforce the letter and spirit of NCLB 
because NCLB is an unfunded mandate.  In the early 70s, right wing 
terrorists resisted integration of the Pontiac schools by blowing up 
school buses.  The federal government did not pay the costs of 
intergrating the Pontiac schools and it is obscene to argue that 
Pontiac and Michigan should not integrate their schools unless the 
federal government paid all the bills.  It is just as osbcene to argue 
this in the context of NCLB.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Horace B Lucido <hbl04@csufresno.edu>
To: ARN Main List <arn-l@interversity.org>; 
ca-resisters@interversity.org <ca-resisters@interversity.org>
Sent: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 9:29 pm
Subject: [arn-l] Michigan School Wins Against No Child Left Behind


Michigan School Wins Against No Child Left Behind
Category:
Posted on: January 10, 2008 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

A lawsuit brought by the city of Pontiac's public schools against the 
Federal
government has found favor with the 6th circuit court of appeals. They
challenged the law based on unfunded mandates, arguing that the federal 
law
requires states and local school districts to comply with the law but 
does not
provide the funding required to do so. The NCLB included a section 
called the
Unfunded Mandates Provision, which said:

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 
educational
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.


Here's how the court posed and answered the legal question:

Plaintiffs filed suit in district court against the Secretary of 
Education
seeking, among other relief, a judgment declaring that they need not 
comply with
the Act's requirements where federal funds do not cover the increased 
costs of
compliance. The district court concluded, however, that Plaintiffs must 
comply
with the Act's requirements regardless of any federal-funding shortfall 
and
accordingly granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss the complaint for 
failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because statutes 
enacted
under the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution must 
provide clear
notice to the States of their liabilities should they decide to accept 
federal
funding under those statutes, and because we conclude that NCLB fails 
to provide
clear notice as to who bears the additional costs of compliance, we 
REVERSE the
judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for further 
proceedings
consistent with this opinion.


The federal government will likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/michigan_school_wins_against_n.php?utm_source=mostemailed&utm_medium=link


Here is a link to the ruling
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0006p-06.pdf


Rog ( Horace ) Lucido, Physics Instructor, Ret.
Program Evaluator
Adjunct Faculty, Fresno Pacific University
Educational Consultant
Educators and Parents Against Testing Abuse ( EPATA )
Assessment Reform Network Central Valley Coordinator
Phone: 559-277-1312
Cell: 559-355-4215
email: lucid4@cvip.net
-----------------------------------------------
Report list problems to listmom@interversity.net






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com