No
Child Left Behind Rebuked by 6th Circuit
On January 7, 2008, the US Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, & Tennessee) ruled
that school districts from several states, including Vermont, have made
allegations sufficient to allow them to proceed with a legal claim that they
are not liable for the costs of complying with mandates under the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLBA) in excess of the federal funding provided. Although the ruling is a potentially very
significant victory for local school districts, the case is most likely
destined for a long process before the basic issues it presents make their way
through the federal courts.
Relying on the Act’s “Unfunded Mandates” provision, the
federal appeals court held that states did not receive clear notice of their
liabilities under NCLBA as required by the Spending Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The unfunded mandates
provision in the Act reads: “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 educational agency, or the 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 the Act.” The appellate ruling
reverses a U.S. District Court’s dismissal of the case and returns it to that
court for a trial on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim. The lower court accepted the federal
government’s interpretation of § 7907(a) as merely prohibiting a federal
officer or employee, not Congress, from imposing unfunded mandates.
The plaintiffs argue that the Constitution’s spending clause,
as applied through the Act’s UMA clause, exempts school districts that accept
NCLBA funds from spending more on compliance with the
Act than is provided through the Act itself.
Many observers have raised this question since the enactment of the NCLBA, but this case is the first to successfully
present the issue to a federal appeals court.
By sending the case back to the trial court, the Sixth Circuit has sided
with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the meaning of the Act’s UMA, and
ordered the lower court to proceed accordingly.
Although
Vermont school districts, in the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, are among
the plaintiffs in the case, the ultimate decision of the 6th Circuit will have limited legal impact in
Vermont. For the Court’s holding to be
binding in Vermont, either the U.S. Supreme Court must accept and the case on
appeal from the 6th
Circuit, or a similar suit must be tried and won in a court with jurisdiction
over Vermont—the U.S. District Court in Vermont or the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
In
either scenario, the effect on Vermont would be significant. Title I funds alone provide revenues of
approximately $50 million annually for our school districts. The costs of implementing NCLB regulations
are difficult to quantify and widely disputed, but at a bare minimum, increased
assessing of students and pressure to assure that all students make adequate
yearly progress on assessments has added costs to almost every school district
in the state.
In
other NCLB news, the act is up for reauthorization in the U.S. Congress but the
process is reportedly moving slowly. Due
to political concerns in an election year, it appears likely that
reauthorization will not occur until the new Congress convenes in 2009.
Editor’s
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted from the NSBA’s Legal Clips service.