|
In a
significant decision, the United States District Court dismissed
the last remaining challenge brought by the state of Connecticut
to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In the case of Connecticut
v. Spellings, the state (through Attorney General Richard Blumenthal),
had argued that the Secretary of Education's rejection of Connecticut's
existing testing plan was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally,
it claimed that the Secretary's interpretation of the NCLB Act violated
the Act's provision prohibiting "unfunded mandates."
The NCLB
Act of 2001 requires states to submit educational plans to the Secretary
of Education. The plans must consist of "academic content standards"
that will be measured by a single accountability system. Assessments
are required annually of all children in math, reading, and language
arts. For disabled children and students with limited English proficiency
(LEP) the state must develop separate measurable annual objectives
for substantial improvement.
The Act
empowered the Secretary of Education to "issue regulations . . .
to ensure compliance with the act." One such regulation promulgated
by former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, required states to test
special education students and LEP students at grade-level standards.
Congress provided only one exception to this requirement when it
passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004, which
exempted the one percent of the population with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. For those students, the State may measure
achievement by alternative standards. The Secretary also held that
while the NCLB exempted LEP students from reading and language arts
assessment for the child's first year of school in the United States,
they must still test them in math and English language proficiency.
The present
case originated as a result of a Connecticut proposal to assess
special education students at instructional levels rather than grade
levels, and also to exempt recently arrived LEP students from testing
for three years instead of the one year that the Act provides. After
the Secretary of Education denied this plan, Connecticut brought
suit alleging that her decision was arbitrary and capricious. The
Secretary alleged that her denial was not arbitrary, but was based
upon Connecticut's noncompliance with the statute's requirements.
This District Court, in several decisions, agreed with the Secretary.
The Court,
in a decision authored by District Judge Mark Kravitz, found that
Congress expected the same academic standards to be applied across
the board. He noted that Congress provided only one exception to
NCLB, and that was the one-percent exception from the IDEA. The
court also rejected Connecticut's argument concerning LEP students.
The court noted that the three year exemption "flew in the face"
of the Act's annual assessment provision. The one-year exemption
was not an invitation to flexibility.
Connecticut's
other objection was that the Secretary's interpretation of the Act
violated the unfunded mandate provision in the Act. Connecticut
argued that the Act, by requiring states to test without providing
funding, violated the unfunded mandate provision. The court noted
that this was an important issue, but ultimately declined to rule
on it. It found that Connecticut had yet to timely object to the
Secretary's interpretation so as to give rise to a legally reviewable
issue. It noted simply, that a reasonable person could not find
that Connecticut had raised this issue to the Secretary for correction
with the requisite specificity and clarity before raising it in
court. The court noted that it was unfortunate that Connecticut
had yet to do this, and suggested that Connecticut go back again
and raise this issue. With that, the court dismissed the state's
challenge to the statute. Connecticut has since appealed this decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals again emphasizing its unfunded
mandate objection. In a statement issued on the date of filing the
state's appeal, Attorney General Blumenthal stated that "I am hopeful
that the Bush Administration, now on borrowed time, will do the
right thing - follow the law and eliminate the need for this court
battle … [t]he U.S. Department of Education has reneged in its responsibility
to Connecticut students, failing to provide full federal funding
to schools."
A
copy of this important decision may be downloaded here.
By Jeremy
Cline, CCA Legal Intern.
|
