May 22, 2006
On March 22, 2006, NEA and a diverse network of schools that are saying "No more" to paying the costs of Washington's regulations have appealed an earlier decision by District Court Judge Bernard Friedman the United States District Court for the Eastern Court of Michigan, who sided with government lawyers in dismissing the case. (Pontiac v Spellings, Nov. 23, 2005).
The NEA and other plaintiffs filed the first national lawsuit against the U. S. Department of Education on April 20, 2005 asking that the Bush Administration allow parents to spend hard-earned tax dollars on their children's classrooms—not bureaucracy, paperwork, and testing companies. Their complaint is based on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that says the federal government must pay for the rules and regulations it is imposing on the nation's public schools. But Washington lawmakers haven't done so, creating a $27 billion shortfall that parents have had to cover with their tax money.
In his ruling, however, Judge Friedman did reject the government's argument that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the lawsuit. Therefore, NEA and the other plaintiffs are asking that the decision of the District Court be reversed.
The appeal argues that the district court decision "was both misplaced and unfounded. It cites extensive legislative history to support the plaintiffs' interpretation of Sec. 95 Sec. 9527(a), which prohibits unfunded mandates. The Federal government has at least 30 days (from March 22) to file its response. Once that response is filed, NEA will file another brief replying to the government's arguments.
NEA announced on April 3, 2006 that six states and the District of Columbia, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Attorney General of Connecticut, school administrators, and state and local elected officials have filed amicus or "friend of the court" briefs supporting NEA's legal appeal.
Copies of briefs from the following are available online: Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (PDF, 911KB, 36 pages), Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (PDF, 140 KB, 36 pages), American Association of School Administrators (PDK, 132 KB, 33 pages, and California State and Local Officials(PDF, 266 KBB, 23 pages).
Adapted from an article on the NEA Website 5/23/2006
The Promise
"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."
- No Child Left Behind Act, Section 9527(a)
Sample of Opposition from 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)