Chanin Knows Best
“In point of fact, however, neither the parental notice requirement – nor, indeed, any of the other requirements in NCLB – are ‘imposed’ on the states in a legal sense. NCLB has been enacted on the basis of Congress’ Spending Power, and states can avoid this and other statutory requirements simply by declining to accept federal Title I funds. If the states decide to accept such funds, however, then they must also accept the conditions that Congress has attached to them. To be sure, a legal argument can be made that this choice is not really ‘voluntary’ – states have no option but to comply inasmuch as they cannot adequately fund public education without the federal contribution – but the courts uniformly have rejected such an argument in the education context, as well as in connection with other federal aid programs.” — National Education Association General Counsel Robert Chanin, in a May 7, 2003 memo to NEA state affiliate officers and staff on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), reported exclusively by the Education Intelligence Agency — first on December 8, 2003, and again on April 25, 2005.
“In short, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a) cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit Congress itself from offering federal funds on the condition that States and school districts comply with the many statutory requirements, such as devising and administering tests, improving test scores, and training teachers.” — Chief U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division), in his ruling to dismiss Pontiac v. Spellings, the NEA-engineered lawsuit against the No Child Left Behind Act.
NEA announced it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
