NEA Opposes Move to Dismiss NCLB Lawsuit

NEA and the other plaintiffs have filed a legal memorandum  that explains why their lawsuit challenging the "unfunded mandates" in the so-called "No Child Left Behind Act" should not be dismissed.

The memorandum responds to the U.S. Department of Education motion filed in late July asking the court to dismiss School District for the City of Pontiac, et al. v. Spellings. The lawsuit was filed last spring by NEA, several state affiliates, and some school districts.

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, the named defendant in the case, offered two separate arguments for dismissal, claiming:

• that all of the plaintiffs lack "standing" to bring the lawsuit, and 
• that Section 9527(a) of the NCLB does not mean what NEA and the other plaintiffs say it means.

In response, the plaintiffs' memorandum argues that all of the plaintiffs have standing because the Education Department's "failure to honor the commitment made in Section 9527(a) has caused all of the plaintiffs injuries that are likely to be redressed by the relief requested."

The formal response explains that the associations involved have legal "standing" because their interests are directly impacted. For example, NCLB requirements force funds to be diverted from other purposes such as lowering class size and hiring teachers for subjects for which NCLB doesn't require testing. This adversely impacts teaching and learning conditions.

To the Education Department's second argument, the plaintiffs contend that the plain language of the Section and the relevant legislative history demonstrate that it was not the intent of Congress to require states and school districts to use their own funds to comply with the NCLB's mandates.

Section 9527(a) states:

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 education agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state or local resources, or mandate a state or any political subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

Absent an extension, the Education Department's reply memorandum was due on Aug. 12, and that will complete the briefing process. The Court has scheduled oral argument for Oct. 19.

Related links:

NEA memorandum (PDF, 1.22MB, 42 pages )

About the Lawsuit

NEA News Release  

No Child Left Behind