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 lawsuit, filed in federal court in eastern Michigan, charges the Department of Education is forcing schools to meet tough student testing and teacher licensing requirements even though Congress has shortchanged districts and states by $27 billion during the last four years. To meet the law’s regulations, schools have had to use scarce state and local money, which the suit contends is illegal under No Child Left Behind.
A handful of local school districts across the country, including one in Illinois, have either sued the department over various aspects of the law or threatened to sue, but Wednesday’s legal challenge is the first nationally coordinated assault on the controversial act. It represents the latest salvo in the three-year battle over implementation and funding of No Child Left Behind, which requires schools to ensure by 2014 that all students can read and do math at grade level.
At least 30 states have sought leniency from the law’s requirements, and Connecticut has threatened to sue over funding. On Tuesday, Utah lawmakers became the first to openly defy the Department of Education by passing a bill that lets schools ignore federal mandates that conflict with state priorities or use state money.
More Top Picks Best Immersion Blenders
“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.”
NEA finances lawsuit
The National Education Association, which has 2.7 million members, is financing the legal battle. Joining it are nine schools and school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont and NEA chapters in 10 states, including Illinois. The outcome would apply only to districts and schools named in the suit but would set a precedent and, therefore, could have consequences for schools nationwide.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Education called the suit “regrettable.”
“President Bush and Congress have provided historic funding increases for education, and yet we continue to hear the same weak arguments from the NEA,” said Susan Aspey, department spokeswoman. “We … look forward to the day when the NEA will join us in helping children who need our help the most in classrooms, instead of spending its time and members’ money in courtrooms.”
Two weeks ago, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings sought to defuse the growing animosity over the law by allowing states more flexibility to meet the law’s requirements.
The lawsuit centers on an issue that has dogged the law since it was signed by President Bush in 2002: whether the president and Congress have provided enough money to pay for the reforms, which include annual student testing and tougher standards for classroom teachers. Schools that don’t meet the rules face sanctions, such as paying to transfer students to better schools or providing free after-school tutoring.
Other lawsuits challenging so-called unfunded mandates have had mixed results, but Joel Packer, a lobbyist for the NEA, said his group’s legal action has a better chance of success because it hinges on a section unique to the education reform.
The suit turns on one paragraph in the 1,100-page act that bars federal officials from making schools spend their own money to carry out the law. The plaintiffs want a judge to enforce that portion of the act and bar the department from withholding money from states and districts that don’t live up to the law due to funding shortfalls.
Funding falls short
The suit argues that Congress authorized $122 billion during the last four years for NCLB but delivered only $95 billion. Districts made up the shortfall by diverting local money and were forced to slash programs, slow the teacher pay increases and boost class sizes, the suit says.
Aspey said her agency has not analyzed the union’s numbers but doubts they are accurate.
“In every other attack on this issue–and we’ve had a few go-rounds with them–the NEA’s numbers have been detached from reality,” Aspey said. “Since the past is a prologue, there is no reason to think otherwise now.”
There is no national clearinghouse for education spending so it is difficult to know whether districts and states are using their own money to pay for federal reforms. The suit points to several cost studies but some data are outdated.
For example, the lawsuit contends that Illinois plans to spend $77 million over five years to develop and administer federally mandated achievement exams but will receive about $65 million from the federal government.
State disputes figures
Becky Watts, spokeswoman for the Illinois State Board of Education, said the $77 million is based on old calculations. In reality, the state expects to spend about $44.5 million.
The suit also contends that Illinois “had to cut its $19 million gifted program and eliminate social studies and writing tests” to comply with No Child Left Behind. But Watts said that those cuts were made by state lawmakers because of a severe state budget crisis.
But Xavier Botana, director of No Child Left Behind programs for Chicago Public Schools, argues the federal government has not lived up to its promise.
“They require that 100 percent of kids meet standards, but do you think that can be done on the piddly amount of money they give us?” Botana asked. “It is being done on local funds primarily, state funds secondarily, and then whatever little amount of money the feds throw our way. We have no argument against a law that says all kids have to be up to standards, but we do have a problem with a government that mandates it but then refuses to help us get there.”
———-