Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


NCLB Outrages

They Lost!

The court's argument is that the feds did not provide clear notice to the states of the cost implications if the states accepted the money. There will be plenty of spin to follow, but in short, the Feds lost.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC, et Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-2708

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

No. 05-71535--Bernard A. Friedman, Chief District Judge.
Argued: November 28, 2006
Decided and Filed: January 7, 2008

III. CONCLUSION The No Child Left Behind Act rests on the most laudable of goals: to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.” 20 U.S.C. § 6301. Nobody challenges that aim. But a state official deciding to participate in NCLB could reasonably read § 7907(a) to mean that her State need not comply with requirements that are “not paid for under the Act” through federal funds. Thus, Congress has not “spoke[n] so clearly that we can fairly say that the State[s] could make an informed choice” to participate in the Act with the knowledge that they would have to comply with the Act’s requirements regardless of federal funding. See Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 25. Of course, if that ultimately is what Congress intended, the ball is properly left in its court to make that clear. See Arlington, 126 S. Ct. at 2465 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (“The ball, I conclude, is properly left in Congress’ court to provide, if it so elects, for consultant fees and testing expenses beyond those IDEA and its implementing regulations already authorize, along with any specifications, conditions, or limitations geared to those fees and expenses Congress may deem appropriate.”)(footnote omitted). Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

— United States District Court
Appeal Decision
2008-01-07


INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.