Re: Bill Clinton: Fix NCLB

[monty@fairtest.org]

That is a strange response: nclb/esea is a contract. If a state  
chooses not to sign that contract, it has nothing to do with any other  
contracts. Now, I have heard that if you turn down Title I $ in nclb  
you cannot other nclb $ (titles II, III etc). That has some  
plausibility. But I would not at all trust a claim that if a state  
rejects Title I other entirely separate ed (e..g IDEA) or other $  
would be at rsik. That would require some specific langauge (e.g., if  
you reject Title I, you also reject IDEA) and I don't think any such  
language exists. Bill Mathis from VT has studied this sort of thing  
more, he might have more thorough info. Heck, teacher unions should.  
Monty

Quoting 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