A federal district court judge in Michigan today issued a ruling on the No Child Left Behind Act according to this article in the Detroit Free Press:
"U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Wednesday that had Congress intended to fully fund the programs it required in the law, it would have said so in the legislation."
Now, I'm just a second year law student, and thus not terribly well versed in the mores of Constitutional Law, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that if Congress is going to require the states to do something, they can't require the states to pay for it. In other words, if Congress wants to set up Federal Education guidelines, Congress has to provide the states with the adequate means with which to achieve those guidelines, which would mean funding.
The No Child Left Behind Act reminds me of Prinz v. United States, where the Brady Act required a waiting period before someone could buy a handgun, but then Congress required the states to employ someone to do the background check - a state official performing a federal job. Combine that with South Dakota v. Dole, which says that the Federal Government can apply incentives to follow a Federal standard, but they can't make the "apple" they dangle so much that the states have to rely on the funds, thus compelling the states to comply, and it seems as though No Child Left Behind is a healthy center, where it looks as though Congress is mandating compliance without providing means with which to do so. This strikes me as a blow against states' rights. Bad Decision by the judge, IMHO.
2 comments:
As a public school counselor heavily impacted by No Child Left Behind, I have to hope Judge Friedman's decision is thrown out, as it ought to be. Here is an example of a change in our procedures thanks to NCLB: If I, as the school counselor, am invited to attend an IEP conference, my name has to be included on the notice that goes home to the parent. If I get sick, have an auto accident, get called away on an emergency, or for some other reason am not able to attend, the teacher holding the conference must write a letter explaining why I am not attending, and the letter must be signed by the parent and by every person who is attending the conference, indicating that it is ok for me to be absent. This paper becomes part of the file on the particular student. A copy is put into the IEP file, a copy is sent to the district audit file, the parent keeps a copy, and I keep a copy. Somehow, this helps to guarantee that no child is left behind, that the parent's rights are not violated, and that another tree is killed. I'm not opposed to the idea, but maybe bewildered by it. I don't work for the government. I'm only a public school employee who finds the process unwieldy and awkward. There is a reason state law provides 25 days to write an IEP; it takes time to analyze the assessment data and develop reasonable goals that the child can be expected to reach. An evaluation involves a number of people and several thousand dollars each. So let's make it just a little more complicated. I know the ultimate goal is the student's welfare, but I am in a position to see how little time we have to do the monumental record keeping in addition to the actual teaching. I guess that's a little rant of my own.
Rant on, Gramma. I'm going to be charitable and assume that the intent behind NCLB was noble, but it's a mess. And a rant of my own: what the world doesn't need now is more young people adept at bubbling answers in lieu of critical thought (apologies to Burt Bacharach).
Post a Comment