News Release

Contact: Will Potter  (202) 822-7823

January 7, 2008

Major Court Ruling on No Child Left Behind:
States and School Districts Not Required
To Spend Own Funds To Comply With Law

Victory announced on eve of controversial law's sixth anniversary

WASHINGTON -- On the same day President George W. Bush held a press conference in Chicago to defend the failing No Child Left Behind, and on the eve of NCLB's sixth anniversary, a federal appeals court delivered yet another major blow to the controversial law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today that Secretary Spellings is violating the Spending Clause of the Constitution by requiring states and school districts to spend their own funds to comply with the law.

"The court's message couldn't be more clear: If the president is sincere about continuing No Child Left Behind, he needs to put his money where his mouth is," said NEA President Reg Weaver. "The president refuses to budge on NCLB, his flagship domestic policy, but unless he takes action it is clearly a sinking ship."

Six years ago, President Bush promised to fully fund NCLB. But the president has consistently refused to make good on his promises. Due to Bush's recent veto of the FY 2008 education appropriations bill, there will be a $14.8 billion gap in funding for NCLB programs. That is on top of the previous cumulative gap of $56.1 billion.

The ruling is a major victory for the National Education Association and the other plaintiffs -- including nine school districts and nine NEA state affiliates -- which brought the lawsuit in April 2005 to oppose costly federal regulations that divert money from children and classrooms to paperwork and bureaucracy. Today's ruling by the appeals court reverses the lower court's November 2005 summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit.

At issue is Section 9527(a) of the law that says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to …. mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act."

NEA and the other plaintiffs had argued in their complaint that this section of the law prevents the federal government from requiring states and school districts to spend their own funds to comply with the law's mandates.

The lawsuit does not challenge the laudable goals of the law or call for its dismantling. Instead, it simply argues that any federal mandates in this law must come with tools and resources to get the job done. Otherwise, educators can't be expected to do more with less. The court agreed, holding that the Education Department's interpretations of NCLB, requiring that states and school districts devote their own funds to NCLB compliance, "violate the Spending Clause."

"It's time for the Secretary to comply with the law and the Constitution," Weaver said. "If the administration won't ensure that states and schools have the federal funds needed to implement the law, then they must cease with threats to punish states and districts who cannot comply due to lack of federal funds."
 
The lack of funding at issue in the lawsuit is just one aspect of NCLB that has come under increased fire recently. Parents, teachers and lawmakers have called for reform because of the law's obsessive focus on standardized testing, heavy-handed punishments and bureaucratic protocols.
 
For more information, please visit the No Child Left Behind/ESEA section of our Web site.

A copy of the complete decision is available here (PDF 122KB, 29 pages).

Questions and Answers about Pontiac v. Spellings

What is this lawsuit about?

The plaintiffs, who include NEA, nine school districts, nine NEA state affiliates, and one local affiliate, want federal officials to keep the promise they made to states and school districts when they enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: states and local communities would not be forced to pay for new federal mandates.

The law clearly says this in Section 9527(a):

"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 subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act."  [20 U.S.C. § 7907(a).]

The federal government has not given local schools enough money to carry out the law. Instead, parents and other taxpayers are forced to use their own limited local tax dollars to meet requirements dictated from Washington, D.C., and their children's schools get unfair federal "failing" labels.

What did the Appeals Court do?

The lawsuit was initially filed in April 2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. After oral arguments in October 2005, the District Court dismissed the complaint. NEA and the other plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. After oral arguments in November 2006, the Court on January 7th issued its decision (PDF, 122KB, 29 pages ) overturning the districts court's decision, finding that, "…the Secretary's interpretations of § 7907(a) violate the Spending Clause."

Who else supports the lawsuit?

In addition to the plaintiffs, supporting amicus briefs were filed by the Attorneys General of six states and the District of Columbia, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the American Association of School Administrators, and a collection of California state officials, educators, and concerned citizens.

Is this lawsuit about stopping No Child Left Behind?

No, we are asking the Bush administration to follow the requirements of its own law and pay for the regulations it is imposing on children's classrooms.

The Bush administration claims it has increased education funding more than any other president -- how can you say they haven't provided enough for schools?

Just take a look at the many studies cited in our lawsuit. The truth is that the administration and Congress have not provided enough funding and support for schools to follow the testing regimen and other regulations in the law. So states and local school districts are cutting arts, sports and academics to make up the difference.

Indeed, based on the Fiscal Year 2008 education appropriations bill, the cumulative funding gap for NCLB program is now over $70 billion:

Funding Gap: Funding Promised vs. Funding Received, FY02-08  (PDF, 27KB, 2 pages)

Percentage Change in Funding FY 02-08 (PDF, 1 page)

Do local schools really have to follow so many of these regulations? Isn't the law quite flexible?

Any waivers or exceptions the administration might allow still don't change the fact that the law requires the federal government to pay for its education regulations.

Tell me about the school districts that are part of the lawsuit?

A visit to any of these districts will show the wide range of issues, concerns and struggles that local schools have with the one-size-fits-all education law:

Laredo's students include a very high percentage of English Language Learners. Pontiac serves many low-income students and the districts in Vermont are rural. But they all share the same difficulty in trying to meet the regulations imposed by the law: they simply can't afford it.

What will this lawsuit and the Appeals Court decision accomplish?

This lawsuit makes clear that it was not Congress' intent to force states and localities to spend their own money to comply with the many mandates of NCLB. Despite this intention, President Bush's budgets have never covered the costs of the law. It's time for the administration to stop asking states and local school districts to foot the bill for a law it claims to believe in, but has undermined by the refusal to fund its requirements. If states and districts cannot fully comply with all of the law's regulations and mandates due to a lack of federal funds, they now cannot be penalized by the Department of Education.

Did you expect to win?

The language of the law has always seemed clear to us, and we are glad the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit completely agreed.

How long will this lawsuit drag on?

That fully depends on the Department of Education and the judicial system. It's hard to say when a final decision will be made. The case will now go back to the District Court for further proceedings.

Isn't this just wasting taxpayer dollars that could be spent on schools?

Federal rules and regulations imposed on local school districts are expensive. When parents have to pay for what Washington will not, then it means their money is going toward paperwork, bureaucracy and big testing companies -- not to their children's education. Education is too important to let that continue.

Does this mean that states and local school districts no longer have to comply with NCLB?

No. It means that the U.S. Department of Education cannot require states and local school districts to comply with the requirements of NCLB that are not paid for by the federal government. So, states and schools -- if they choose to continue accepting federal money -- must still comply with the NCLB requirements for which there is federal funding. We have never argued that the goals of NCLB are flawed, nor have we argued that states should not attempt to comply with the law. We object to this administration's misinterpretation of the clear language of the law in a way that attempts to absolve the federal government of its responsibility to provide the promised resources.

What about the other things the government has to pay for?

If providing America's children with a high quality education is a priority for the administration, then that priority should be reflected in the President's budget. The goals of closing achievement gaps and providing great public schools for every child cannot be  realized without a meaningful partnership between the federal government and states and local school districts. Over the last six years, the Bush Administration has submitted to Congress tin-cup budgets for education and yet required massive amounts of new paperwork, rules, and regulations. As Congress begins the debate about whether to reauthorize NCLB, we hope they will consider re-defining the federal role in education to one that supports equal access for all children to a 21st century, innovative education. Public school students deserve more creativity from Washington and less regulation and punishment.

Is there legislation in Congress that would provide some remedy?

Yes. While Congress works on overhauling the underlying problems with the NCLB law itself, two bills would provide a partial remedy to the problem identified in the lawsuit. The Keep Our Promises to America's Children and Teachers (PACT) Act (H.R. 627), introduced by Representative Van Hollen (D-MD), would require full funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It provides the financial amounts necessary to fully fund the ESEA/NCLB programs though the 2014 fiscal year, and provides mandatory full funding for IDEA. See which Representatives are cosponsors of H.R. 627. Further, the Keeping Our Promises to America's Children Act of 2007 (H.R. 684), introduced by Representative Moore (D-KS), would hold the Administration and Congress accountable for providing promised funding by allowing states or school districts to suspend, modify or defer any of the sanctions for failing to meet AYP in any year in which Title I is not funded at its authorized level. See which Representatives are cosponsors of H.R. 684.

Connecticut Attorney General's Office

Press Release

Attorney General Announces Federal
Appeals Court Decision On No Child Left Behind

January 7, 2008

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a significant ruling providing powerful new momentum to the state's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) case and congressional reform.

The federal appeals court -- in a case that is separate but parallel to Connecticut's -- has ruled that the Unfunded Mandates Provision of the NCLB Act means what it says and, if violated, runs afoul of the Spending Clause limitations of the Constitution.

The decision upholds Connecticut's fundamental arguments, Blumenthal said. His office will ask the U.S. District Court to rule on the merits of Connecticut's case.

"This decision is like a bolt of legal lightning - igniting new powerful momentum to our No Child Left Behind case and congressional reform," Blumenthal said. "The federal court has validated our legal struggle on behalf of children and taxpayers -- vastly enhancing and energizing our cause, both legally and politically. It adopts our arguments against unfunded mandates, concluding that the statute means what it says -- no unfunded mandates means no unfunded mandates. The Secretary of Education's interpretation of NCLB violates both the statute and the U.S. Constitution.

"If the Secretary of Education has any shred of respect for the law, she should now reverse course to revise and reform the federal government's misguided unfunded mandates. If she fails to heed this court of appeals ruling -- binding on her -- she is deliberately disregarding and defying federal law.

"We will immediately ask the U.S. District Court in our case to strongly consider today's decision and to rule on the merits of our claims. If necessary, we will ask for immediate permission to appeal to our U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, so that an eventual ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court may be sought as soon as possible.

"We will also urge Congress to act -- as soon as possible -- to eliminate all doubt that No Child Left Behind was explicitly and purposely framed to forbid unfunded mandates. At stake are tens of millions of dollars in costs imposed by these mandates on state and federal governments, which our taxpayers are currently bearing.

"Connecticut led a group of eight states in supporting this result through a amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit."

NEA Opposes Move to Dismiss NCLB Lawsuit

NEA and the other plaintiffs have filed a legal memorandum (PDF, 1.22MB, 42 pages ) 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.

April 26, 2005

Reg Weaver, President
National Education Association
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20036

Aloha Mr. Weaver,
 
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Native Hawaiian Education Association (NHEA), we would like to applaud and support the National Education Association and the network of schools in filing this lawsuit challenging the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

The Native Hawaiian Education Association (NHEA) is a private non-profit organization of Native Hawaiian educators.  It is the largest membership based Native Hawaiian Education organization, serving more than 1,000 members.  The organization was started in 1998 and serves more than 500 attendees at our annual conventions.  NHEA facilitates a network of Hawaiian educators who attend to the various educational issues which challenge the Hawaiian population and is designed to be a self-sustaining umbrella organization for Hawaiian education and educators.  It is a grassroots organization focused on supporting, encouraging, networking, collaborating, and furthering the work of those tasked with the responsibility of educating our Native Hawaiian children.  As an association, NHEA advocates an educational philosophy which acknowledges a Native Hawaiian perspective to teaching and learning in the 21st century.

We agree that our schools, teachers, and students should be held to high standards.  We also agree that accountability should be shared by our schools, teachers, policymakers, and parents.  Therefore, the ultimate goal for setting high standards and implementing a system of accountability is for every student to succeed.

Our Native Hawaiian population has and continues to be overrepresented in the area of special needs in the State of Hawaii Public School System.  The services required in the area of special needs, along with addressing the language and culture needs of our population require adequate resources.  We are particularly concerned that that the resources of the State of Hawaii Public School System needed to provide adequate services to our children are being significantly stretched under NCLB.  We also recognize that various goals of NCLB are unrealistic with respect to the challenges faced by our student population and their families within the timeframe of these unfunded initiatives.  Unless schools and teachers align their classrooms with the standards and expectations, it would be unrealistic to hold the students accountable for lessons they have not been taught.

Mahalo nui loa, Mr. Weaver for the courageous step you and the network of schools are taking.  

Me ke aloha pumehana,

Tamar R. P. deFries Saronitman, President
Native Hawaiian Education Association

Friday, April 22, 2005

Mr. Reg Weaver
President
National Education Association
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20036-3290

Dear President Weaver

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) stands in support of the NEA's decision to challenge the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). We are increasingly concerned with the impact that NCLB is having on Latino children across the country. The combination of increasing penalties for schools, excess burdens on states in part caused by the under-funding of NCLB, and the recent education cuts in the President's budget cause us to ask how we are going to be able reduce Latino drop-out rates? Although we feel that there are aspects of NCLB that are worth moving forward on with regards to accountability, we also feel that those being held accountable also have the resources necessary to be able to do their jobs, including programs like TRIO, Head Start, and Upward Bound.

We hope that by challenging NCLB, the NEA will be able to indeed ensure that NCLB will do what it was intended to do, raise school standards and improve student achievement.

LULAC applauds the NEA for its decision to challenge the unfunded mandates of the No Child Left Behind law and support it in its efforts to remedy the current state of imbalances that undermine the spirit of NCLB.

Sincerely,
 
Hector Flores
LULAC National President

Federal Government Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit

On June 29, the federal government filed its response to the NCLB lawsuit. Rather than respond to the facts, the government moved to dismiss the lawsuit on three separate grounds. 

The government's first two arguments are that all of the various plaintiffs lack standing to proceed with the lawsuit.  The government argues both that the NEA and its affiliates lack standing and that the various school districts have not adequately pled the basis for their standing. 

The government's third and final argument is that the complaint fails to state a claim on the theory that the unfunded mandates provision does not prevent the imposition of unfunded mandates but only prevents federal officers or employees from adding to the NCLB statutory requirements. 

Lawyers for NEA and the other plaintiffs will be filing our opposition to the government's motion at the end of July.

The need for the lawsuit is greater than ever, since the House of Representatives on June 24 passed the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill (HR 3010) which cuts funding for NCLB programs by $803 million, which would bring funding below the level set three years ago in Fiscal Year 2003.

FairTest

FairTest Statement on National Education Association Lawsuit over NCLB

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) is pleased that the National Education Association has taken the initiative to organize school districts and others to mount a legal challenge to the misnamed "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB). Sadly, because NCLB is inadequately funded and because it mandates ill-chosen solutions to the very real problems of educational inequity, the law will ensure that more, not fewer, children will be left behind. NCLB's unfunded mandates guarantee that many children, particularly low-income and minority-group students, will receive a diet of test preparation instead of a rich, high-quality education.

No doubt, die-hard supporters of the current version of NCLB will falsely claim that the NEA is siding with those who do not care about educational inequity. Yet this litigation is necessary to try to halt some of the most egregious damage caused by the law: over-testing with simplistic instruments, impossible demands of "adequate yearly progress," and destructive sanctions. It would be difficult to litigate such problems directly. But when the federal government imposes harmful requirements and then does not pay for them, it makes sense to use the courts to suspend those mandates.

The real solution to the problem of NCLB is to overhaul the law. FairTest and the NEA have joined with more than 50 other civil rights, education, child rights, civic and religious organizations to write a "Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind."  That Statement calls for Congress to change the focus of the law from testing and punishing to helping schools build the capacity to serve all their children well. It specifies that multiple measures must be used to evaluate schools, that assessments need to become educationally helpful, that sanctions must be a tool of last resort, and that the federal government must adequately fund Title I. (The statement is available at www.fairtest.org.)

We hope that policymakers and the public will not be distracted by unfounded charges against the NEA that deflect attention from the profound flaws in NCLB. Rather than defend a destructive law, those who care about the education of all children should rally around the Joint Organizational Statement and work to create an educationally beneficial federal law that truly helps to leave no child behind.

Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Co-Executive Director

342 Broadway, Cambridge Mass 02139      (617) 864-4810    FAX (617) 497-2224

Web Site:  http://www.fairtest.org               Email: FairTest@FairTest.org

Sen. Reid Supports Lawsuit Challenging NCLB

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement in response to legal challenges to the No Child Left Behind law:

 "Last year, I asked all 17 of the Superintendents in my home state of Nevada how they were faring under the mandates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. Each one of them had some sort of difficulty with it: either over-testing the kids, not having enough time to give them recess, meeting highly qualified teacher standards, and the fear that even more of their schools would fail to make adequate yearly progress.

 "No one disputes the purpose of NCLB: ensuring that no child is lost in a public school system that is not performing up to par. However, three years since it went into effect, its flaws are apparent and exemplified by the legal actions taken by the states, local school districts across the country, and the National Education Association

 "I supported NCLB, and will continue to ask, vote, and fight for funding at the levels necessary to properly implement the law. However, I also support the plaintiffs in these lawsuits. School districts should not face punitive damages or be forced to find money to pay for unfunded mandates.

 "Bottom line: if you mandate it, pay for it. That’s all these schools are asking for.

 "The fact that this law has resulted litigation is a sad commentary about our federal government’s priority on education. New Education Secretary Spellings has the opportunity to right this ship and listen to her educational constituency.

 "I will keep abreast of the court challenge and am hopeful that the people in the trenches – our superintendents, principals, administrators, and teachers – prevail."

April 22, 2005

Statements about Pontiac v. Spellings

Policymakers and education organizations alike recognize that the federal government must pay for the billions of dollars in new mandates that taxpayers are forced to cover.  Read some of these statements of support for Pontiac v. Spellings.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) 

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) stands in support of the NEA's decision to challenge the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  We are increasingly concerned with the impact that NCLB is having on Latino children across the country.  The combination of increasing penalties for schools, excess burdens on states in part caused by the under-funding of NCLB, and the recent education cuts in the President's budget cause us to ask how we are going to be able reduce Latino drop-out rates?

Native Hawaiian Education Association (NHEA) 

We are particularly concerned that that the resources of the State of Hawaii Public School System needed to provide adequate services to our children are being significantly stretched under NCLB.  We also recognize that various goals of NCLB are unrealistic with respect to the challenges faced by our student population and their families within the timeframe of these unfunded initiatives.  Unless schools and teachers align their classrooms with the standards and expectations, it would be unrealistic to hold the students accountable for lessons they have not been taught.  Mahalo nui loa, Mr. Weaver for the courageous step you and the network of schools are taking.

FairTest Statement on National Education Association Lawsuit over NCLB

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) is pleased that the National Education Association has taken the initiative to organize school districts and others to mount a legal challenge to the misnamed "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB). Sadly, because NCLB is inadequately funded and because it mandates ill-chosen solutions to the very real problems of educational inequity, the law will ensure that more, not fewer, children will be left behind...

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's statement:

"No one disputes the purpose of NCLB: ensuring that no child is lost in a public school system that is not performing up to par. However, three years since it went into effect, its flaws are apparent and exemplified by the legal actions taken by the states, local school districts across the country, and the National Education Association.

"I supported NCLB, and will continue to ask, vote, and fight for funding at the levels necessary to properly implement the law. However, I also support the plaintiffs in these lawsuits. School districts should not face punitive damages or be forced to find money to pay for unfunded mandates."

Rep. George Miller of California statement in support of adequate funding :

"It is absolutely outrageous that states and organizations should have to sue the federal government to keep its promise to help better educate America's schoolchildren, but that's what it has come down to. It could be changed overnight, with one directive from President Bush to Congress -- to fully fund No Child Left Behind. I do not believe that we should quit this important education law.  But the President has created a problem that only he can now fix.  If he would rather have results than lawsuits, then he will tell Congress to fully fund the law."

American Association of School Administrators statement:

"Now, more than ever, school districts are expected to do more with less. During the current school year, more than half of public school districts nationwide saw cuts to their Title I funding."

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro

"The Bush Administration and the Republican majority have not maintained their commitment to students or teachers by shortchanging states on the federal funding required for NCLB to be successful.  The administration's inaction has forced unfunded mandates on states and school districts that are already facing budget shortfalls.  Though it is a sad day when states and school districts have to take their case to court to get relief, this administration has left them with no other choice.   

"The No Child Left Behind Act was supposed to raise school standards and ensure student achievement.  But since NCLB became law, it has been a huge disappointment to the teachers, parents and schoolchildren who have depended on this program to improve the quality of education in this country.  Connecticut, for example, was forced to eliminate its successful out-of-level testing program - which the state administered for nineteen years - in order to comply with Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB. 

"We need to maintain our commitment to education, which is why I introduced the No Child Left Behind Reform Act last week.  This legislation will amend the law, providing states with more flexibility in measuring student achievement, allowing schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students, and ensuring that NCLB's highly qualified teacher provisions are both rigorous and reasonable."

Congressman Ted Strickland's statement:

"I strongly support the National Education Association, the local school districts and state affiliates in filing this lawsuit challenging the unfunded mandates of the No Child Left Behind law.  I hope their efforts will bring a long-needed remedy this injustice - an injustice that undermines the spirit of NCLB and does more harm than good to America's schoolchildren.

"Because the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have underfunded NCLB by $39 billion since its implementation, states and school districts have been forced to spend their own funds to comply with NCLB or risk facing harsh penalties.  Cost studies in several states, including Ohio, have shown that states and school districts have been forced to divert money from proven programs to pay for testing and other requirements under NCLB.  Forcing states and schools to abandon practices that increase students' success directly contradicts the goals of NCLB. 

"This lawsuit should force the federal government to fulfill the promises of NCLB and provide states and school districts with the funding it promised.  Until that happens, schools will continue to be forced to spend critical resources on compliance and bureaucracy rather than teaching."
 

Superintendents back suit against 'No Child' law

"Where can I sign up?" Lawrence County Schools Superintendent Dexter Rutherford joked Wednesday when told about a legal challenge of the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Local superintendents applauded a lawsuit that The Associated Press said the National Education Association and school districts in three states filed against the controversial NCLB. The suit's aim is to free schools from complying with any part of the education law not funded by the federal government.

The Decatur Daily [TN]

Pontiac v. Spellings in the News

Participants at the news conference in Laredo, TX, included, left to right, parent Raquel G. Ramirez, Cigarroa High School Spanish teacher Rosa Maria de Llano, Rene de la Vina, special education teacher at Cigarroa High School and president of the Texas State Teachers Association affiliate in Laredo, and Sylvia Bruni, Laredo superintendent of schools.                          Photo by Debbie Mohondro

More than 500 news articles were published including front page stories in national outlets such as The New York Times and USA Today, and appearances by NEA President Reg Weaver on CNN and C-SPAN television.  Here is a sampling of Pontiac v. Spellings coverage.

Detroit News editorial

Lawsuit Reveals Flaws in No Child Left Behind

If the federal government wants to dictate policies to local public schools, it should fork over the money for meeting those mandates.

That's the premise of a lawsuit filed in federal court in Detroit last week by the Pontiac School District, the National Education Association and others...

...While the federal courts aren't the proper place for making budget appropriations, the lawsuit hopefully will bring much-needed focus to the problems with No Child Left Behind.

USA TODAY

NEA, school districts sue over 'No Child' law

In a long-awaited challenge that could affect children in every state, the nation's largest teachers union asked a federal judge Wednesday to exempt school districts from any requirements of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law that aren't paid for by the federal government.

School districts have been very, very patient, but their patience has run out...budgets have been eaten up by the rules and regulations imposed by this law," NEA President Reg Weaver said.

New York Times

Districts and Teachers' Union Sue Over Bush Law (free registration required)

Opening a new front in the growing rebellion against President Bush's signature education law, the nation's largest teachers' union and eight school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont sued the Department of Education yesterday, accusing it of violating a passage in the law that says states cannot be forced to spend their own money to meet federal requirements.

"School budgets have been eaten up by the requirements of this law, so on behalf of parents and children we're filing suit," said the president of the National Education Association, Reg Weaver."

Chicago Tribune

Teachers sue over 'No Child' funding (free registration required)

The nation's largest teachers union and a group of school districts sued the U.S. Department of Education Wednesday, contending the No Child Left Behind act is severely underfunded and has forced schools to divert money from worthy programs to pay for the reform's "costly absurdities."

"The NEA is standing up for children, their parents and their school districts," said Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association. "Parents across the country are fed up with Washington and the costly regulations of the so-called No Child Left Behind law. Reform without resources is a cruel hoax."

Associated Press

First national suit over education law

The challenge is built upon one paragraph in the law that says no state or school district can be forced to spend its money on expenses the federal government has not covered. 

"What it means is just what it says -- that you don't have to do anything this law requires unless you receive federal funds to do it," said NEA general counsel Bob Chanin.  "We want the Department of Education to simply do what Congress told it to do. There's a promise in that law, it's unambiguous, and it's not being complied with."

(Note:  the AP story ran in more than 200 media outlets)

Cleveland Plain Dealer

NEA, Ohio affiliate sue over No Child Left Behind

NEA President Reg Weaver said the shortfall has forced school districts to "drain money from classrooms and spend it on paperwork, bureaucracy and big testing companies."

But Ohio Education Association President Gary Allen, a sixth-grade teacher in Xenia, said inadequate federal money for the law has worsened the financial picture at Ohio schools.   In East Cleveland, middle school teacher Pat Frost-Brooks said the school system has had to cut back on extra-curricular activities and programs like home economics to find money it needs to comply with the federal law.

"The achievement gap won't close as fast if we don't have the resources we need to teach the students," said Frost-Brooks, who teaches word processing at Heritage Middle School."

Detroit Free Press

Pontiac sues over funding

Pontiac's school district is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Wednesday against the U.S. Department of Education over funding its education policy.  The suit was filed in federal court in Detroit on Wednesday by the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union.

"No Child Left Behind should be renamed 'Promises Made, Promises Broken,' " Lu Battaglieri, president of the Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, said Wednesday. He said that in 2005, Michigan will get $276 million less than Congress authorized under the act."

Dallas Morning News

Laredo joins suit against No Child Left Behind (free registration required)

School officials and parents in Laredo say the No Child Left Behind Act's promise of English, math and science proficiency may have looked good on paper. But now, they are wondering if they've been handed a program that discriminates against poor Hispanics along the U.S.-Mexico border – and carries a federal mandate without adequate resources.

BlackAmericaWeb.com

No Child Left Behind Underfunding
Spurs NEA Suit Against Bush Administration

While it appears to attack No Child Left Behind, NEA President Reg Weaver told BlackAmericaWeb.com that's not necessarily the case.  "For the record, I have always stated that the objectives of No Child Left Behind are good," said Weaver, adding that the intentions of the law -- higher test scores, smaller class sizes and the hiring of highly-qualified teachers -- are issues he and the NEA, which represents 2.7 million elementary and secondary educators nationwide, have advocated for years. The objectives, Weaver said, haven't been sufficiently supported by the administration, a matter that has caused problems for school districts throughout the country.

Pontiac Parent Tells How Funding Crunch Hits Home

Vera Burdette

"Every day something is being removed from our classrooms because of lack of funding," she said. "There's no money."

Under the so-called "No Child Left Behind" law, states are being shortchanged as the federal government creates new costly rules and regulations without adequate funding.

"The funding will change future lives," Burdette says. "It's critical that the money is here and wherever it's needed. It will make a difference. It would cut down on dropouts."

The 10,000-student district is already grappling with finding and keeping special-needs teachers. Emotionally impaired and gifted children alike are suffering from the lack of attention.

"We shouldn't have to send our kids somewhere else. We should have it inside our schools," she said.

Burdette is an example of why the National Education Association (NEA) and the Pontiac school district, as lead plaintiff in a suit against the federal bureaucrats, simply want the Administration to follow its own law and either provide adequate funding or stop unfairly labeling schools as "failing" and teachers as "unqualified," and forcing parents to use their own local taxpayer dollars to meet these new federal mandates.

"It's critical now," said Burdette, who is concerned about her son's future. "What are the next two to three years going to hold? We're lacking too much as it is."

______________________

Another View: Find out why Pontiac teacher Teni Clark says "what it truly means to be an effective teacher is becoming lost in unfunded mandates."

_________________________________________

Resumen de la Demanda Legal Relacionada
a la Ley 'Que Ningún Niño Se Quede Atrás'

Esta demanda legal tiene por objeto lograr que se cumpla una promesa hecha por el Congreso a los estados y los distritos escolares cuando promulgó la Ley "Que Ningún Niño Se Quede Atrás" ("No Child Left Behind" o "NCLB" en inglés), o sea, que los estados y los distritos escolares no tendrían que gastar su propio dinero en implementar el reglamento de la ley.

Esa promesa figura en la Sección 9527(a) del estatuto, que dice:

Nada de lo contenido en esta Ley se interpretará para autorizar a un funcionario o empleado del gobierno Federal a….ordenarle a un estado o a cualquier subdivisión del mismo, que gaste cualquier cantidad de fondos, o que incurra en cualquier tipo de costos, que no sean pagados por esta Ley.

En esta demanda legal, una diversa red de distritos escolares y asociaciones de educación le piden al tribunal que declare que hay que tomar en serio esta disposición, y que le ordene al Departamento de Educación de los EE.UU. que deje de negarle fondos federales a los estados y distritos escolares que rehúsen gastar su propio dinero en implementar las reglas de la ley.

Los demandantes representan una gran variedad de distritos escolares y asociaciones de educación que se han visto afectados negativamente por la insistencia del Departamento de Educación en que los estados y los distritos escolares sigan todas las reglas de la ley, aun cuando el gobierno federal ni siquiera les ha proporcionado los fondos necesarios para hacerlo. Como consecuencia de este enorme déficit, los estados y los distritos escolares se han visto obligados a utilizar el dinero asignado a otras prioridades educacionales, tales como reducir el tamaño de las clases, ampliar planes de estudios y/o poner en práctica medidas de rendimiento académico de los estudiantes más apropiadas que el gran énfasis que pone la ley en hacer pruebas estandarizadas.

Además del lenguaje sencillo y claro de la Sección 9527(a), estudios realizados recientemente por la Conferencia Nacional de Legislaturas Estatales ("NCSL" por sus siglas del inglés) y el Servicio de Investigación del Congreso ("CRS" por sus siglas del inglés) estuvieron de acuerdo en que los estados no tienen que gastar el dinero de sus contribuyentes en los reglamentos sin reembolso adecuado de parte del gobierno federal.

Al plantear esta demanda legal, los demandantes no están pidiendo al tribunal que anule toda la ley, o ni siquiera una parte de la misma; simplemente quieren que el gobierno federal sea responsable del compromiso que contrajo cuando se promulgó la ley. El remedio que buscan eximiría a los estados y los distritos escolares de la actual obligación ilegal de tener que gastar su dinero para implementar las reglas de la ley Que Ningún Niño Se Quede Atrás.

Washington Shortchanges Children
and Public Schools Across the Nation

The law's commendable goals of high standards and accountability held the promise of helping every child receive a great public education, regardless of his or her family income, language spoken at home, or school funding level.

But for schools across the nation, the promise has gone unfulfilled for 48 million public school children. The escalating bureaucracy and paperwork imposed by the law are taking a toll on the nation's more than 14,000 public school districts, because Washington is not honoring its promise to pay for its regulations.

In FY 2005, the nation's schools received $9.8 billion less than they would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress promised in the law. Under President Bush's proposed budget for 2006, the nation's schools will receive $12 billion less than what Congress authorized when the federal law was enacted.

Making matters worse, in the current school year ten states and a majority of districts had their Title I funding cut, making it more difficult for them to provide extra reading and math help to disadvantaged students. Next year, nine states and two-thirds of all school districts will see less money than this year.

Here's a look at the law's toll on schoolchildren in states where there are plaintiffs to the lawsuit.

Unmet promises in...

For information on the promises unfulfilled in other states:
- FY '05 federal education funding by State
- Proposed FY' 06 federal education funding by State

Connecticut

Public schoolchildren: 571,900
Public school districts: 191

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Connecticut received $68.2 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Connecticut would receive $109 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $71.3 million, leaving behind 24,888 children in Connecticut.

Illinois

Public schoolchildren: 2.1 million
Public school districts: 892

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Illinois received $380.2 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Illinois would receive $566 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $399 million, leaving behind 136,661 children in Illinois.

Indiana

Public schoolchildren: 1 million
Public school districts: 292

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Indiana received $122.9 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Indiana would receive $179.6 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $125 million, leaving behind 51,366 children in Indiana. 

Local voices:
An estimated 700 teachers, parents, school administrators and others rallied at the Statehouse for increased school spending. "I know we're in a deficit. It just feels like they're telling everybody to live up to the No Child Left Behind rules, but you're going to do it with less," said Rebekah Grider, a Manual High School music teacher. The rally was in Indianapolis, but most of the crowd drove in from Gary, where school officials expect to get $26 million less than they wanted. (Indianapolis Star, 3/31/05)

Michigan

Public schoolchildren: 1.7 million
Public school districts: 798

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Michigan received $276.7 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Michigan would receive $445.9 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $318.2 million, leaving behind 105,891 children in Michigan.
   

New Hampshire

Public schoolchildren: 207,600
Public school districts: 162

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, New Hampshire received $27.4 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, New Hampshire would receive $46.6 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $27.4 million, leaving behind 6,793 children in New Hampshire.

Ohio

Public schoolchildren: 1.8 million
Public school districts: 859

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Ohio received $314.5 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Ohio would receive $392.6 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $273 million, leaving behind 103,544 children in Ohio.

Local voices:
For three years, Wade Park Elementary School in Cleveland was on the list of low-performing schools but fought its way off last school year by improving fourth-grade scores, with 55 percent of students passing reading this past year, up from only five percent. This year, the school teachers and principal will try to do better with fewer resources: more than a quarter of the teaching staff is new to the school due to layoffs, and much of the teacher training and after-school tutoring that was credited with raising fourth-grade test scores has disappeared because of budget cuts. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 10/05/04)

Pennsylvania

Public schoolchildren: 1.8 million
Public school districts: 500

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 05, Pennsylvania received $271.9 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Pennsylvania would receive $485 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY ’06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $349 million, leaving behind 119,824 children in Pennsylvania.

Texas

Public schoolchildren: 4.2 million
Public school districts: 1,224

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Texas received $732.6 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Texas would receive $1.2 billion million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY ’06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $861 million, leaving behind 357,551 children in Texas.

Utah

Public schoolchildren: 481,100
Public school districts: 40

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Utah received $27.4 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush's proposed budget for 2006, Utah would receive $68.4 million less than the authorized funding level. 

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $41 million, leaving behind 20,534 children in Utah.

Vermont

Public schoolchildren: 99,700
Public school districts: 284

Impact of costly federal regulations:
In FY 2005, Vermont received $26.7 million less than it would have if No Child Left Behind was funded at the level Congress authorized. Under President Bush’s proposed budget for 2006, Vermont would receive $42.4 million less than the authorized funding level.

• The proposed FY '06 budget shortchanges disadvantaged children by $24.7 million, leaving behind 4,917 children in Vermont.

----------------

Primary Sources

Rankings & Estimates, NEA, May 2004 ( PDF file, 129 pages)

Fiscal Planning Services, Inc.
- FY '05 federal education funding data by State
- Proposed FY '06 federal education funding by State

Growing Chorus of Voices Calls
for Adequate Funding of 'No Child Left Behind'

Many are calling for more federal resources for methods proven to boost student achievement, rather than forcing schools and school districts to spend limited resources and money on costly regulations. The following is a small sampling of recent comments, drawn from news and other sources.

 MICHIGAN

"Last year, we couldn't hold our summer school for homeless children…with No Child Left Behind, districts have had to re-allocate funds that would have gone to something else simply because of the priority (to keep summer school open).  We're not getting into new initiatives; those funds were redirected." 
-- Gayle Green, assistant superintendent for instruction for the Macomb Intermediate School District (Detroit News, 6/11/04)

"The No Child Left Behind Act threatens to pose more un-funded federal mandates…While the intentions may be well and good, the realities create more frustrations for educators and administrators already competing for shrinking dollars. Unfortunately, federal reforms often become barriers to innovation and flexibility."
-- Jennie Hoffmann, parent and school board candidate for Marshall Public Schools (Battle Creek Enquirer, 6/11/04)

"Without more assistance for students with limited English skills, MEAP scores will be affected… It could mean a loss of federal funding."
-- Diane Riegel, state program director for the Coldwater schools (Battle Creek Enquirer, 6/01/04)

"What's expected by (the government) is changing the role of a teacher - there's a lot more they have to do under No Child Left Behind…There are all of these extra demands, plus their class is larger now."
-- Dearborn parent Jamie Bettinger (Detroit News, 8/22/04)

TEXAS

"The President's budget will leave Americans behind at every level. The president's No Child Left Behind deficit is set to swell to $39 billion - just when the stakes are raised for our public schools both in terms of expectations and consequences for missing the adequate yearly progress marks. Despite his pledge to bring No Child Left Behind to high schools, the Administration is proposing to repeal the only NCLB program dedicated to dropout prevention."
-- U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) , (Statement issued 2/07/05)

"With the higher expectations and higher accountability, all of that has dollar signs attached to it.  The biggest issue across the nation is that No Child Left Behind has been underfunded…You're squeezing the dollar tighter and tighter, and that's been the issue."
-- Katy Independent School District Superintendent Leonard Merrell (Houston Chronicle, 3/25/04)

VERMONT

"Any Vermont school board member knows…that the federal government is imposing a federal education tax on local school districts by failing to fund its own mandated programs."
-- John A. Nelson, executive director, Vermont School Boards Association ,
(Rutland Herald, 8/22/04)

"Vermont legislators are considering whether the state should buck federal education policy by discarding the funding and requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Doing so would mean the state would lose more than $48 million in annual funding for the program. But the cost of implementing the testing, administration and educational requirements of the law, signed by President Bush in 2002, could be much more."
(News article in Rutland Herald, 2/11/05)

MASSACHUSETTS

"Without the promised funding, NCLB may do more harm than good, an unfunded mandate that diverts resources desperately needed to help students catch up."
(Editorial, Dover-Sherborn Press, 6/3/04)

CALIFORNIA

"We want our kids to be critical thinkers, which means they also have to be exposed to art, science, literature, and the languages."
-- McKinley Elementary School parent Lisa Schiff, expressing concern about the law's overemphasis on testing in reading and math (San Francisco Examiner, 3/8/05)

"Programs for the gifted have been cut back at public schools nationwide as educators put their time and money toward getting more children to the proficient level."
(Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/23/04)

"Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called 'No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It.'"
-- Columnist Molly Ivins (Contra Costa Times, 6/10/04)

CONNECTICUT

"[The $12 billion NCLB funding shortfall in the President's budget] is going to put incredible pressures on our states and localities to meet these mandatory obligations included in the federal legislation."
-- U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) (Connecticut Post)

"This law imposes an illegal, unconscionable unfunded mandate."
-- Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is filing suit against the federal government over lack of adequate federal funding for NCLB mandates (Connecticut Post, 4/6/05)

"In Connecticut, 18,000 children do not attend preschool; 14,000 of them reside in our poorest towns. I would rather take the resources we must devote to creating, scoring, and administering tests…and establish preschool slots for these youngsters."
-- Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg on NCLB requirements (Education Week, 6/16/04)

"There is a severe lack of funding [under NCLB] for transportation and school construction to arrange the transfer…Funding for transportation and school construction must accompany this option to transfer students if it is to be real.
-- U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons (D-CT), letter to U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige

"At some point there is a divergence of resources and intent. Am I going to have to eliminate all-day kindergarten to pay for all these other things required by No Child Left Behind?  That's a painful choice."
-- Hamden superintendent Alida D. Begina (New London Day, 4/7/05)

ILLINOIS

"When you don't have enough money and you have to cut things like [the district's band program], you are leaving the children behind."
-- Former Lake Villa District 41 student Sean Murray (Lake Villa Review, 1/13/05)

INDIANA

"Michael Benway, superintendent of Valparaiso Community Schools, said he agrees students' progress should be followed from year to year, but said the system does not provide the proper dollars for improvement."
(News article from Northwest Indiana Times, 6/25/04)

PENNSYLVANIA

"There needs to be change. Don't ask us to test, then leave us without the resources."
-- Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/9/04)

"We're not trying to make a political statement, but this law can just overwhelm a school system's ability to meet its requirements, especially when a district is as financially stressed as we are."
-- Fred Gaige, member of Reading school board, which has sued the state over NCLB funding (New York Times, 1/2/04)

UTAH

"We're trying to live within the spirit of the law, but we can't live within the letter of the law…We can't afford it."
-- Utah Republican State Rep. Margaret Dayton, who has proposed legislation in the Utah legislature to place Utah's education priorities first (News in Brief: A State Capitals Roundup, 12/1/04)

"It's an unattainable goal… .There was a study released in Ohio last week that shows it's going to cost one and a half billion dollars just in remediation costs to implement No Child Left Behind." 
-- Utah Republican State Rep. Kory Holdaway

WISCONSIN

"(The) federal government promised they would provide the dollars necessary to help them meet the new requirements. Both the president and the Congress agreed to this…and teachers, parents, principals, and administrators all expected us to keep our word."
-- U.S. Sen Herb Kohl (D-WI) (WisPolitics.com, 3/8/04)
 
"By failing to commit the needed funds and support, the administration has hamstrung states and localities with mandates they can't afford to implement, having a direct and harmful impact on children and their schools."
-- U.S. Rep Ron Kind (D-WI) (WisPolitics.com, 3/8/04)

"'If all the states come back with these kinds of reports, then we have some ammunition to go to the feds."
-- Wisconsin Republican State Sen. Robert A. Gardner, on the estimated $1.5 billion in additional funds it will cost Ohio to implement NCLB (Columbus Dispatch, 1/15/04)

 "[NCLB] doesn't really help education. Education needs smaller class sizes and well-paid teachers. This bill doesn't give any of these items. The law could cost taxpayers millions of dollars."
-- Wisconsin Democratic State Sen. Fred Risser (Associated Press, 6/14/04)

"We've lost money under No Child Left Behind and have to implement all these wonderful new things with less money."
-- Winnecomme superintendent Robert Reinke (Oshkosh Northwest, 12/14/03)

"I'd like to see more attention paid toward identifying the learning problems, more resources for schools, more staff development and time given to districts to make these changes. A lot of those elements are missing in the law as it stands."
-- Green Bay superintendent Daniel Nerad (Green Bay Press Gazette, 1/4/03)

OHIO

"With every other state contending that No Child Left Behind is too expensive, the burden is on the federal government to prove otherwise.  So far, it has failed to do so."
(Editorial, Columbus Post Dispatch, 3/15/04)
 
"All well and good, but where is the money?…For all the Bush team's rhetoric, it offers miserly support of its touted requirements. More frustrating, the administration's failure shifts the financial burden to state governments, most of whom had trouble enough funding adequately their own requirements, even before the enactment of No Child Left Behind two years ago."
(Editorial, Akron Beacon Journal, 1/26/04)
 
"Bush's recommended budgets have fallen significantly short of the amounts promised when Congress originally backed No Child Left Behind."
(Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/22/04)

"The president's plan for education reform has become nothing more than an unfunded mandate. It leaves schools grossly underfunded, forcing teachers to teach students to pass performance tests without adequate resources promised in the legislature.'"
-- Letter from U.S. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) (http://www.denniskucinich.us/)

OTHER

"It's the largest unfunded mandate in the history of the United States."
-- Idaho Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder (Idaho State Journal, 1/28/05)

"The federal government loves to tell state and local educators what to do, but can't be depended on for the money. That's the case, too, for the No Child Left Behind Act.  It brings significant funding for technical implementation but falls way short on professional development for teachers."
(Editorial, Des Moines Register, 5/21/04)

"The feds promised 40 percent funding for IDEA, but we are only getting 20 percent funding. I fear we are on the same path of unfunded federal mandates."
-- Maine Senate Majority Leader Michael Brennan, who has called on the state's attorney general to sue the federal government for failing to fully fund NCLB.
(Press release from Maine Senate Majority Office, 4/6/05)

"[NCLB] was one of the commitments. It leaves us open to the charge of unfunded mandates."
-- U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (http://www.factcheck.org)

"If we have in fact mandated things and not paid for it, then that's a problem."
-- U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1/25/04)
 
"Just mention the controversial No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education law and watch for the eye rolls and exasperated sighs… .Bush and his Education Department have botched implementation, shortchanged funding and failed to remedy problems as they emerged."
(Editorial, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/29/04)

"The federal law, despite its honorable intentions, tries the personnel and financial resources of many schools. And, if any school struggles and fails to meet No Child Left Behind's achievement standards, that school will only suffer further as a result."
(Editorial, Worthington Daily Globe, 2/13/04)

"The worst thing that has ever happened to social studies has been the No Child Left Behind law."
-- Al Frascella, spokesman for the National Council for the Social Studies (Kansas City Star, 4/13/05)

"It still makes no sense to me that we have a federal education law, and I'm spending 80 percent of my time on this law, while the federal government funds only about 12 percent of our school budgets."
-- Linda McCulloch, Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Missoulian, 7/31/04)

"Complaints continue that the federal government has not furnished enough money to implement the law. Congress authorized $20.5 billion in aid for disadvantaged students under the Title I program, but actually appropriated only $12.7 billion."
(Editorial, Lincoln Journal Star, 1/26/05)

"School administrators, fearful of their schools being labeled as failures, are narrowing their course offerings to focus on what will be asked on standardized tests, eliminating recess and physical education to cram in more class time and emphasizing rote learning over reason and thought. And they are getting little support for their efforts, as the funding for Bush's politically motivated, multitudinous mandates was off by a mile."
(Editorial, Las Vegas Sun, 2/9/05)

"The act has focused overdue attentions on the nation's public schools. But the law is unnecessarily punitive, inadequately funded and guaranteed to add to local property tax burdens."
(Editorial, Concord Monitor, 11/12/04)

"This year we have fewer schools on the list than we had last year. But that misses the point…the central point of the discussion ought to be how do we change the implementation so that we talk about what funding is necessary and how do we go about providing for all of our children."
-- New Jersey Education Commissioner William Librera (Newark Star Ledger, 9/28/04)

"Health, history-those things are being cut out of the elementary school curriculum because everything is focused on the tests."
-- Tiffany Greenberg, a student teacher in McMinnville, Oregon (Salem Statesman Journal, 6/30/04)

Maze of Education Regulations Produce Bizarre Results

The reauthorized version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the so-called "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law, significantly increased the federal government's role in education through new testing, reporting, and other requirements for schools.

NEA believes all schools should have high expectations for all students and that educators should be accountable for their progress in helping all children learn. But as educators try to implement NCLB, they are finding serious flaws in the law that prevent a fair and accurate assessment of student progress and educator quality.

This sampling of absurd but disturbing stories from around the nation points out some of NCLB's flaws — and provides a roadmap for correcting them.

Texas

According to a study by independent researchers, Texas must pay $1.2 billion in state funds to meet the accountability standards of the No Child Left Behind law.
(Imazeki and Reschovsky, "Does No Child Left Behind Place a Fiscal Burden on States? Evidence from Texas," February 2005)

California

Education experts and school officials in California say schools are having to pay increasing attention to the middle-of-the-road students who have fallen just short of test requirements. This new focus on so-called "cusp" or "bubble" students, many experts say, is an unintended consequence of a law that emphasizes test scores and proficiency benchmarks. Teachers and principals say they try not to let the focus on cusp students come at the expense of other students, but with school resources and budgets limited, they face tough choices. "We could give a huge amount of help to our lowest performing students, but they're not going to make a big [impact on the school's score]," said fifth-grade teacher Denise Dennis at Remington Elementary School in Santa Ana. "It's an impossible situation. Our hands are tied."
(Los Angeles Times , 11/28/04)

Enrollment in music classes in San Diego public schools has dropped by a third in four years, and one major reason cited by music teachers in the district is the focus on standardized testing in reading and math under No Child Left Behind. "I don't know how long any elementary school is going to be able to keep a music program," said Ricki Pedersen, a music teacher at Kellogg Elementary School in Chula Vista and the last full-time music teacher in Chula Vista elementary schools.
(San Diego Union-Tribune , 11/19/04)

Connecticut

The state of Connecticut will have to spend $42 million of its own money by 2008 to comply with No Child Left Behind mandates, according to a recent study. Towns and cities across the state will have to spend an additional $700 million collectively to comply.
(Associated Press, 4/5/05)

Illinois

The Chicago public school system is paying $2.5 million out of Title I funding, which would have paid for more tutoring, to bus students at schools found "in need of improvement" to other schools in the district.
(Chicago Tribune , 4/6/05)

Chicago has also decided to continue running its own tutoring program for 40,000 struggling students through the end of the school year, but because of a ruling by the U.S. Department of Education, it won't be able to use federal No Child Left Behind funds to pay for it. The Department ruled that Chicago and other districts that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" for two years in a row cannot provide supplemental educational services to eligible low-income children from Title I schools. Although the law allows for private companies and religious institutions to run the tutoring programs, Chicago officials say the district would not have been able to reach as many students if forced to rely solely on private companies because the district's program costs no more than half of what private providers charge for the same service. Now the district plans to pay for the tutoring with $4 million earmarked for summer school.
(Chicago Tribune , 1/31/05)

Illinois eliminated its total budget of $19 million allotted for gifted-student programs in order to focus all resources on basic literacy skills essential to achieving higher test scores. These cuts affect gifted minority students who cannot afford supplemental enrichment or accelerated private education. The states of Massachusetts and California are following Illinois' lead.
(Wall Street Journal , 12/29/03)

Pennsylvania

Joseph O'Brien, 54, superintendent of Springfield schools, says that the law is costing his district $800,000 to $1.6 million for additional staff, tutoring, special education teachers, classroom materials and data management.
(Bloomberg News , 9/30/04)

Wisconsin

Wind Point Elementary School in Racine had to cut down art specialist and physical education teachers to half the school week because of federal mandates and budget cuts, according to Amy Piehler, co-president of the Wind Point Elementary School PTA. Carol Barkow, director of education for Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce added, "I want to know how they propose to fund all the mandates and when the act will be expanded to have equal weight for high school students."
(Journal Times , 9/24/04)

Ohio

For three years, Wade Park Elementary School in Cleveland was on the list of low-performing schools but fought its way off last school year by improving fourth-grade scores, with 55 percent of students passing reading this past year, up from only five percent. This year, the school teachers and principal will try to do better with fewer resources: More than a quarter of the teaching staff is new to the school due to layoffs, and much of the teacher training and after-school tutoring that was credited with raising fourth-grade test scores has disappeared because of budget cuts.
(Cleveland Plain Dealer , 10/5/04)

Other

Broward County, Florida

The school district spent $1.5 million of its Title I money last year busing 850 students to other schools, as required under No Child Left Behind, according to Broward superintendent Frank Till.
(South Florida Sun-Sentinel , 4/2/05)

Hillsborough County, Florida

The school district spent about $20,000 of its Title I money for supplemental education services for three schools this year, but, for the upcoming school year, it expects that figure to rise to $8 million to cover students at an estimated 60 schools eligible to receive supplemental services, said Walt Bartlett, the district's director of federal programs. Bartlett also noted that the administrative costs for implementing the services, which could range from an additional $300,000 to half million dollars, must come out of other parts of the district's budget because the law does not permit the use of Title I funds for this purpose.
(Interview with Walt Bartlett, district's director of federal programs , February 2005)

Volusia County, Florida

Volusia County school officials say that No Child Left Behind would divert $2.5 million from services for some of the county's neediest students next school year to pay for busing and private tutors under the law. "It takes away the very programs that have allowed us to be successful," Superintendent Margaret Smith said.
(Daytona Beach News-Journal , 1/27/05)

Missouri

Budget constraints in Missouri have forced the state to cut back on testing subjects unrelated to No Child Left Behind because of its mandates. The state has cancelled state tests in science, social studies, health/physical education and fine arts the past two years.
(Education Week , 12/8/04)

Jefferson County, Kentucky

The district has spent more than $700,000 of its Title I funds on tutoring and busing alone in the last two years. Officials say No Child Left Behind promises choices that the district can't reasonably deliver. "It's not as simple as it sounds," said Pat Todd, director of student assignment.
(Louisville Courier Journal , 10/15/04)

South Dakota

Three out of four South Dakota students in the state attend rural public schools, and they're facing some major challenges when it comes to the No Child Left Behind Act, according to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office requested by Senator Tim Johnson. The report says that rural school districts have limited resources, difficulty recruiting teachers, shrinking budgets and that teachers are expected to take on more responsibilities.
(Keloland TV, 9/27/04)

Dekalb County, Georgia

All told, DeKalb County Schools spends $35 million a year on transportation, with an increasing share going to meet the busing mandates of No Child Left Behind. Some parents have complained about packed buses and long rides. According to Dannie Reed, executive director of the transportation department, "No Child Left Behind has got us going north, south, east, west."
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution , 8/25/04)

Washoe, Nevada

No Child Left Behind requires that the seven poverty-area schools in Washoe County on the "needs improvement" list must offer parents the option of busing their children to higher-achieving schools. So far, 49 parents have requested that option, compared to only four parents last year. The increase for this school year has forced the district to budget $130,000 for transportation expenses, which is money the district will not have for books, reading specialists and school supplies, school officials said.
(Reno Gazette-Journal , 8/24/04)

Virginia Beach, Virginia

According to a math resource teacher in the Virginia Beach school, this year six out of 16 Title I schools in the district, which has a large population of students from military families, are losing programs that include extended day kindergarten, reading recovery for first graders, and math and reading resource teachers. This is because the school district has held aside $2 million to pay for busing and supplementary education services under No Child Left Behind.
(Interview with Virginia Beach teacher , July 2004)

Arkansas

Teachers from Arkansas told of their school districts having to cut literacy and math specialists, music, art, and gifted programs in order to set aside Title I funds for transportation and supplemental services under the law.
(Interview with Arkansas teachers , July 2004)

About the Lawsuit

A Brief Summary of Pontiac v. Spellings

The Promise

Section 9527(a) of the No Child Left Behind law:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to . . . mandate a state or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

The Plaintiffs

A diverse network of school districts and education associations is asking the court to declare that the law means what it says and and that it prevent the U.S. Department of Education from denying federal funds to states and school districts that refuse to spend their own money on the law's regulations.

The Regulations

The law is roughly 1,100 pages and includes thousands of pages of additional rules and expensive regulations. These regulations form a bureaucratic maze, often to the point of costly absurdity. For example, newly arrived immigrant students can be exempted from taking the standardized reading test, but not the math test. The absence of just two students on testing day can give an entire school a federal failing label. Practically every school must meet all of 37 separate criteria, with no difference in the result for a school that meets 36 of 37 criteria, versus a school that only meets one criterion. Students can transfer from a "failing" school to a neighboring school, even if that other school is severely overcrowded, and the failing school's district has to pay the transfer costs.

How Children Are Affected

This massive shortfall forces states and school districts to divert money from educational priorities, such as reducing class size, retaining the best teachers, or buying the most up-to-date classroom materials.

A recent study estimated that the costs to Texas to meet the law's regulations will run $1.2 billion annually, diverting roughly $300 per student in tax dollars from classrooms to meeting federal rules and regulations. Across the country, social studies, art, music and other programs are cut because of the focus on passing high-stakes standardized tests. It's easy to see why a growing number of school districts are finding their money and staff resources drained by the law's rules and regulations.

The Proof

Recent studies by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) both agreed that states don't have to spend their taxpayers' money on the regulations. In other words, the states should not be required to pay for any cost for which they are not provided federal funds. Government and academic researchers have estimated the costs for 10 states, and in each case they show regulatory costs running to tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The Hope

The Plaintiffs are not asking the court to bring down the law. The best court remedy would be to relieve schools of the current, illegal obligation to spend their money following the No Child Left Behind regulations.

> Questions and answers about this lawsuit

State Legislative Watch List

21 States Seek Changes
to 'No Child Left Behind'

Twenty one (21) states want changes to the federal "No Child Left Behind" education legislation.

They've introduced legislation, resolutions and other actions in their legislative sessions.  Some states have passed measures, like New Mexico and Virginia; others have multiple bills and resolutions pending.

See what your state is doing.

Arizona
SB 1304: A school district or charter school may notify the superintendent of public instruction in writing any time that the school district or charter school will not be participating in or be subjected to the NCLB Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Sen. Karen Johnson (R)
LAST ACTION: 1/27/05 (S) Assigned to Rules Committee

Arkansas
HB 2903: An act to establish procedures for implementing the highly qualified teacher provision in the No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Rep. Nancy Duffy Blount (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/07/05 (H) Read the first time, rules suspended, read the second time and referred to the Committee on Education

Colorado
SB 50: Raises, from 3,000 to 5,000 students, the enrollment threshold for the requirement that a school district that requests a waiver demonstrate the waiver application has the consent of specified person.  Permits a school district to choose not to comply with the federal NCLB Act of 2001 and to seek voter approval…..
SPONSORS: Sen. Mark D. Hillman (R)
LAST ACTION: 03/24/05 (H) House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/28/05

Connecticut
HJR 30 and SJR 35: Calls on Congress to pass legislation to provide waivers to high achieving states, such as Connecticut, from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSORS: Rep. John Mazurek (D) and Sen. John Kissel (R)
LAST ACTION: 1/24/05 (H) Referred to Joint Committee on Education Committee
STATUS: Passed Senate, Passed Final House Committee

SJR 40: Resolution Memorial stating that the Congress of the United States enacted and the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110, while it has the laudable purpose of increased accountability and higher student achievement, it is an unwarranted extension of federal power without federal constitutional authority and misplaced in its application to Connecticut and other states which have consistently led the nation in accountability and student achievement...
SPONSOR: Education
LAST ACTION: 3/24/05 House calendar number 109
STATUS: Passed Final House Committee, Passed Final Senate Committee

Florida
HM 877: A Memorial to the Congress of the United States, urging Congress to reevaluate the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act and to fund the levels authorized in the act.
SPONSOR: Rep. Curtis Richardson (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/08/05 (H) Introduced, referred to Choice & Innovation; Rules & Calendar Council; Education Council

Hawaii
HR 178 & SR 124: Requesting the United States Congress to amend the No Child Left Behind Act according to the recommendations of the National Conference of state legislatures' task force on No Child Left Behind final report.
SPONSOR: Rep. K. Mark Takai (D), Sen. Suzanne N.J. Chun Oakland (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/24/05 (H) Bill scheduled to be heard by EDN on Monday, 3/28/05. 3/22/05 (S) Referred to EDM/IGA.

HR 179 & SR 122: Requesting the President and the Congress of the United States to make certain modifications and acknowledgements with respect to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Rep. K. Mark Takai (D), Sen. Suzanne N.J. Chun Oakland (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/30/05 Passed House with none voting no, (S) Referred to EDM/IGA, WAM

HR 187: Requesting the Department of Education to assess the additional costs to the state of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act and report on the federal Department of Education's efforts to address methodological flaws of the No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Rep. K. Mark Takai (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/18/05 (H) Referred to EDN

Idaho
SJM 101: A Joint Memorial demanding that states without a city of one million or more in population be exempt from the No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Sen. Gary J. Schroeder (R)
LAST ACTION: 1/25/05 Referred to Education Committee

SJM 106: A Joint Memorial to the President of the United States and the Congress, and to the Congressional delegation representing the state of Idaho addressing changes in No Child Left Behind.
SPONSOR: Education
LAST ACTION: 3/04/05 House Introduction - 1st Reading - to Education.
STATUS: Passed Senate

Iowa
HR 11: A resolution requesting Iowa's congressional delegation to work to secure adequate funding for mandates required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
SPONSOR:  Rep. Mary Mascher (D)
LAST ACTION: 2/10/05 Resolution filed H.J. 340.

Maine
LD 676 and LR 1436: Directs the Attorney General to bring suit against the Federal Government and any other appropriate parties if the federal funding provided to the State is insufficient to implement the NCLB Act of 2001.  The Attorney General may seek the necessary funding or may seek relief from the imposition of the federal requirements for which funding is insufficient.
SPONSOR: Sen. Michael F. Bennan
LAST ACTION: 2/08/05 HSE Resolve Referred to the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs.  In concurrence.  Ordered Sent Forthwith.

Maryland
SJR 10: Urging the Maryland Congressional Delegation to seek either full funding for the federal No Child Left Behind or a waiver from the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act; providing that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the Department of Legislative Services to certain individuals; and generally relating to the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Jennie M. Forehand (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/10/05 (S) Hearing 3/24/05

Minnesota
HB 23: Directing the Commissioner of Education to seek a waiver from ineffective provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, directing the commissioner to report on policies and programs to supplement the positive effects of the act related to improving student achievement, closing the student achievement gap, and establishing school accountability; appropriating money for supplemental education services.
SPONSOR: Rep. Carlos Mariani (D)
LAST ACTION: (H) 1/06/05 Introduction and First Reading, Referred to Education Policy and Reform

HB 1489: No Child Left Behind continued implementation conditions imposed. And money appropriated.
SPONSOR: Rep. Mindy Greiling (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/7/05 (H) Author added Solberg

HB 1490: A house resolution memorializing Congress to amend the No Child Left Behind Act according to the recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislatures' task force on No Child Left Behind.
SPONSOR: Rep. Mindy Greiling (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/7/05 (H) Author added Solberg

SB 1092: A Resolution opposing No Child Left Behind requirements expansion to high schools.
SPONSOR: Sen. Geoff Michel (R)
LAST ACTION: 3/21/05 H Senate file first reading, referred to Education Policy and Reform.
STATUS: Passed Senate

SB 1244: A bill for an act relating to education; providing conditions for the continued implementation of No Child Left Behind; appropriating money; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 127A.
SPONSOR: Sen. Steve Kelley (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/07/05 (S) Committee Report: To Pass and re-referred to Finance, 3/21/05 (S) Author added Olson; Hann
STATUS: Passed First Senate Committee

SB 1245: A Resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States to amend the No Child Left Behind Act according to the recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislature's task force on No Child Left Behind. 
SPONSOR: Sen. Steve Kelly (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/07/05 (S) Second Reading, 3/21/05 H Senate file first reading, referred to Education Policy and Reform.
STATUS: Passed Senate

SB 1635: No Child Left Behind Act ineffective provisions waiver
SPONSOR: Sen. Sandy Pappas (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/14/05 (S) Referred to Education

Mississippi
HB 150: An act to create the school testing right to know act, which provides policymakers and the public with accurate information with which to make future decisions about the direction of education policy in the state of Mississippi, and for related purposes. 
SPONSOR: Rep. Erik R. Fleming (D)
LAST ACTION: 2/01/05 (H) Died/Killed in Committee

Nebraska
LR 23: The Legislature calls upon the United States Congress to fully fund No Child Left Behind Act or modify its content to better reflect the Congress' actual financial commitment to the program.
SPONSOR: Sen. Gwen Howard (I)
LAST ACTION: 1/24/05 Notice of hearing (1/31)

New Jersey
ACR 142: Memorializes Congress to modify certain deadlines for paraprofessionals under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone (D)
LAST ACTION: 2/09/04 (A) Introduced and Referred to Education

New Mexico
HJM 35: A joint memorial requesting that the public education department provide certain information on the federal funding received by New Mexico for implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Rep. Daniel Foley (R)
LAST ACTION: 3/17/05 Passed Senate (34-0)
STATUS: Passed House, Passed Senate

HM 2: A memorial urging Congress to ensure that New Mexico's students are not left behind by unfunded mandates in the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Rep. Ray Begaye (D)
LAST ACTION: 2/10/05 Signed

North Dakota
HB 1038: A bill to establish an advisory commission on the No Child Left Behind Act; and to amend and reenact section 54-35-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the interim no child left behind committee.
SPONSOR: Legislative Assembly
LAST ACTION: 3/17/05 Senate Second reading, failed to pass, Y-0/N-47

HB 1365: A bill for an Act to amend and reenact section 15.1-21-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to participation in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Rep. Margaret Sitte (R)
LAST ACTION: 02/09/2005 House Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 22, nays 69

HCR 3012: A concurrent resolution urging the Secretary of the United States Department of Education to declare that elementary teachers licensed by the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board meet and exceed all requirements for being highly qualified as provided in the No Child Left Behind Act.
SPONSOR: Rep. Phillip Mueller (D)
LAST ACTION: 2/05/05 House Committee Hearing; Request return from committee; HJ 462; Withdrawn from further consideration

Oregon
HB 2900: Relating to federal education law; declaring an emergency.  Prohibits states and local educational agencies from participating in federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 if adequate federal funding is not received.
SPONSOR: Rep. Brad Avakian (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/15/05 (H) Referred to Education with subsequent referral to Ways and Means.

HJM 27: Urging the Congress to amend No Child Left Behind Act to provide for waiver and adequate federal funding.  Urges Congress to amend No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to provide waiver and adequate federal funding.
SPONSOR: Rep. Brad Avakian (D)
LAST ACTION: 3/18/05 (H) Referred to Education

Utah
HB 135: Directs public education officials regarding the administration and implementation of federal education programs. 
SPONSOR:  Rep Margaret Dayton (R)
LAST ACTION: 3/2/05 House File for defeated bills

HJR 3: This resolution recognizes Utah's commitment to competency-measured education and the state's leadership role in providing quality education for its citizens.
SPONSOR: Rep. Kory M. Holdaway (R)
LAST ACTION: 3/4/2005 House/to Lieutenant Governor
STATUS: Passed House, Passed Senate

Vermont
HB 59 & SB 38: This bill proposes to direct the state board of education not to comply with the testing and consequence provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
SPONSOR: Rep. Willem Jewet (D)
LAST ACTION: 1/18/05 (H) Current Status: In Education; 1/21/05 (S) Current Status: In Education

HJR 15: Urging Congress to amend the No Child Left Behind Act of 200