Cairo Association of Teachers - Newsletter

CAT Tracks for November 23, 2005 FEDS WIN ROUND 1

The turkeys!

Would have been a shock if it had gone the other way...but sure would have been an extra something to be "thankful" for tomorrow.

Oh, well...as the great philosopher once said..."It ain't over till it's over."

From CNN...

No Child Left Behind lawsuit thrown out

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A judge threw out a lawsuit Wednesday that sought to block the No Child Left Behind law, President Bush's signature education policy.

The National Education Association and school districts in three states had argued that schools should not have to comply with requirements that were not paid for by the federal government.

Chief U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman, based in eastern Michigan, said, "Congress has appropriated significant funding" and has the power to require states to set educational standards in exchange for federal money.

The NEA, a union of 2.7 million members and often a political adversary of the administration, had filed the suit along with districts in Michigan, Vermont and Bush's home state of Texas, plus 10 NEA chapters in those states and Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah.

A follow-up story from the New York Times...

Judge Rejects Challenge to Bush Education Law

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - A federal judge in Michigan on Wednesday dismissed a major challenge to the Bush administration's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, saying the federal government had the right to require states to spend their own money to comply with the law.

The action came in the first lawsuit that tried to block the education law on the ground that it imposed requirements on states and school districts that were not paid for by the federal government. A handful of states have complained that the law forces them to spend millions of dollars they do not have, and one, Connecticut, has sued the Department of Education in a separate federal action.

In his ruling, Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, said that if lawmakers had meant to pay for mandates in the law, they would have phrased the legislation "to say so clearly and unambiguously."

Judge Friedman said those challenging the law had offered nothing to show that Congress "intended for these requirements to be paid for solely by the federal appropriations." He made a distinction between Congress, which he said had the right to impose conditions on states, and officers or employees of the Education Department, who he said did not. While the plaintiffs in the Michigan case - the nation's largest teachers' union and school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont - said they would appeal, it remained unclear what impact the ruling might have on the Connecticut challenge, which was filed in late summer.

Lawyers for the Department of Education, who have until Dec. 2 to respond in the Connecticut case, said the department would cite the Michigan ruling in their filings.

But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut called the Michigan ruling "wrong and in no way legally binding" on his state's lawsuit, saying, "We will continue to pursue our claims vigorously."

The No Child Left Behind law requires that children in every racial and demographic group in all schools score higher on standardized tests in math and English each year. A school's overall failure to achieve annual progress can lead to sanctions, and in the most severe cases, closing.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who has spent years negotiating with states over compliance with aspects of the law, called the Michigan ruling "a victory for children and parents all across the country."

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, the teachers' union that is a plaintiff in the case, said, "We are obviously disappointed with the opinion."

Mr. Weaver accused the federal government of shortchanging the states by billions of dollars to cover the costs of testing and said: "Parents in communities where school districts are financially strained were promised that this law would close the achievement gap. Instead, their tax dollars are being used to cover unpaid bills sent from Washington for costly regulations that do not help improve education."

Mr. Blumenthal said Judge Friedman's decision was "virtually incomprehensible and completely unsupported" by citations to other cases.

The Connecticut suit is somewhat different from the Michigan case: Mr. Blumenthal is not only seeking to force the federal government to cover the state's costs for complying, but is also accusing the Education Department of acting in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" in denying state requests for flexibility.

Many states have sought exemptions from requirements of the law, and Ms. Spellings has granted several. In September, she allowed the Chicago public schools to use federally financed tutoring programs, rather than private firms, as the law requires, for students who perform poorly. New York City was granted a similar exemption this month.

Connecticut had sought a waiver to test children every other year, rather than annually, a request the department denied. That denial, Mr. Blumenthal said, is "making our case factually different."

---