States and school districts can be required to spend their own money to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act if they accept federal funds under the law, the Bush administration argues in its formal reply to a National Education Association lawsuit that challenges the law.
In court papers filed June 29, the administration asked a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit to dismiss the suit, which was filed in April. The motion attacks the suit鈥檚 central claim that the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 implementation of the sweeping 3陆-year-old law violates the statute鈥檚 ban on placing 鈥渦nfunded mandates鈥� on states and districts.
The law is based on the principle that states and school districts 鈥渢hat receive federal financial assistance must comply with the conditions that come with that assistance,鈥� the motion filed by the U.S. Department of Justice says. 鈥淚n this lawsuit, plaintiffs seek the federal financial assistance without the accountability. 鈥︹��
The federal government also challenges whether the Washington-based national teachers鈥� union, 10 of its affiliates, and nine school districts that are also plaintiffs have the legal standing to sue on behalf of states and districts across the nation.
The lawsuit鈥檚 main argument hinges on a proviso in the No Child Left Behind law that forbids 鈥渁n 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.鈥� (鈥溾�楴EA Files 鈥楴o Child Left Behind鈥� Lawsuit,鈥� April 20, 2005.)
The plaintiffs contend that the Education Department has issued thousands of pages of regulations under the education law that states and districts must collectively spend billions of dollars to obey, often through measures that are costly, 鈥渁bsurd,鈥� and detrimental to their educational programs. The suit does not ask the court to strike down the NCLB law, but to relieve states and districts of the obligation of spending their own money to comply with it.
In its formal reply, the Justice Department argues that Congress imposed as a condition of federal aid to states and districts that they meet the law鈥檚 obligations, which could entail spending their own money.
鈥淧laintiffs ignore the fundamental distinction between a condition of assistance imposed by Congress and an 鈥榰nfunded mandate鈥� imposed by 鈥榝ederal officers or employees,鈥� 鈥� the motion says.
The suit attempts to create 鈥渁n inadequate-funding excuse鈥� for failing to meet No Child Left Behind Act requirements, a step that would 鈥渢hwart the law鈥檚 primary purpose, which is to hold states and school districts that accept federal funds accountable for achieving improved educational results,鈥� the administration says.
An Issue of Standing?
States and districts wanting to avoid the burden of the education law鈥檚 requirements may instead decline federal funding or advocate more of it, but they should not be able to 鈥渇orce the federal government to keep paying them money when they do not fulfill the statutory conditions,鈥� the motion says.
The administration challenges the legal standing of both groups of plaintiffs: first, the NEA and its state affiliates in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Vermont, as well as the local affiliate in the city of Reading, Pa.; and second, a total of nine school districts in Pontiac, Mich.; Laredo, Texas; and the Vermont towns of Leicester, Brandon, Pittsford, Sudbury, and Whiting.
The unions lack standing to pursue the claim because the states or districts that they say they are assisting by the lawsuit do not need or depend on the unions鈥� help to exercise their rights, the Justice Department contends.
In addition, the motion says the union plaintiffs have not identified any concrete ways their members have been harmed by the alleged diversion of funds from school programs to meet the federal law鈥檚 requirements.
Alleged harms in the suit, such as when union members receive a 鈥渟tigma鈥� from their schools鈥� failure to meet the law鈥檚 academic goals, are 鈥減erfunctory鈥� allegations that 鈥渁re particularly inadequate in this case where the alleged stigma results from the truth: i.e., the failure of school district to make progress in increasing proficiency in consecutive years,鈥� the Justice Department鈥檚 court papers say.
The administration also argues that the districts lack standing because the suit dwells more on the challenges allegedly faced by other districts and states in meeting the law鈥檚 requirements than on any local funds the plaintiff districts have had to spend.
Robert H. Chanin, the NEA鈥檚 general counsel, said that while he would not comment on the Bush administration鈥檚 arguments in detail, the plaintiffs were 鈥渃ertainly pleased that the Education Department has chosen to put before the court the 鈥榤erits鈥� issue,鈥� referring to the plaintiffs鈥� contention that the implementation of the law constitutes an unfunded mandate.
