November 24, 2005
W WINS AGAIN:
Judge Rejects Challenge to Bush Education Law (MICHAEL JANOFSKY, 11/24/05, NY Times)
A federal judge in Michigan on Wednesday dismissed a major challenge to the Bush administration's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, saying the federal government had the right to require states to spend their own money to comply with the law.The action came in the first lawsuit that tried to block the education law on the ground that it imposed requirements on states and school districts that were not paid for by the federal government. A handful of states have complained that the law forces them to spend millions of dollars they do not have, and one, Connecticut, has sued the Department of Education in a separate federal action.
In his ruling, Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, said that if lawmakers had meant to pay for mandates in the law, they would have phrased the legislation "to say so clearly and unambiguously."
Judge Friedman said those challenging the law had offered nothing to show that Congress "intended for these requirements to be paid for solely by the federal appropriations." He made a distinction between Congress, which he said had the right to impose conditions on states, and officers or employees of the Education Department, who he said did not. While the plaintiffs in the Michigan case - the nation's largest teachers' union and school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont - said they would appeal, it remained unclear what impact the ruling might have on the Connecticut challenge, which was filed in late summer.
Lawyers for the Department of Education, who have until Dec. 2 to respond in the Connecticut case, said the department would cite the Michigan ruling in their filings.
But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut called the Michigan ruling "wrong and in no way legally binding" on his state's lawsuit, saying, "We will continue to pursue our claims vigorously."
The No Child Left Behind law requires that children in every racial and demographic group in all schools score higher on standardized tests in math and English each year. A school's overall failure to achieve annual progress can lead to sanctions, and in the most severe cases, closing.
The point isn't to fund education but to fail the schools and give kids vouchers--even Ted Kennedy figured out that he'd been tricked within a year of crowing about the law. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 24, 2005 11:51 AM
I just love the irony of the NEA and allies arguing that the feds can't impose mandates without paying for them. Somehow I don't think they'll be using this argument when it comes to endangered species regulations, zoning laws, regulations on businesses, etc.
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 24, 2005 2:19 PMOJ, let me put it to you this way: kids now have vouchers thanks to Prez. Bush in the same way that Al Gore is now President thanks to MoveOn.Org
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 24, 2005 9:22 PMNow? The numbers are somewhat limited now because only some schools couldn't pass the early rounds, but none can pass the later.
http://www.brothersjudd.com/webpage/book.htm#rayola
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/the_first_harri.html
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/so_much_for_sma.html
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2005 9:32 PMI've seen the links before 20,000 kids here, 20,000 kids there; pretty soon you got yourself a whole school district full of voucher kids, which would make Bush an awsome county commissioner.
We've got dozens of schools in Detroit that have failed MISERABLY every single test NCLB has thrown at them: every measure, yardstick, tough last chance, bs-o-meter paper tiger, all of it. NO VOUCHERS.
These schools have now gifted the Metro Area in which I live with 500,000 completely illiterate job-seekers. They can't spell "voucher," so they sure aren't going to hold Bush or their Democrat masters accountable in any way; but why you, OJ, don't see the voucher debacle for what it is makes no sense.
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 24, 2005 9:50 PMI don't doubt your position on the law, but if something doesn't happen (i.e., vouchers in a big school district) before Sept. 2007, it probably won't happen at all.
As is said about terror, inc. - "Faster, please".
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 24, 2005 10:50 PMI was hoping that they would delare the whole thing to be unconstitutional so we could shut down the Department of Education.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 25, 2005 3:01 AMPalm:
Sorry, I stopped listening after "...20,000 kids here, 20,000 kids there..."
jim:
A transaformation that's taking place across the Anglosphere and already rather advanced here isn't going to stop, even if it slows or pauses once in awhile. History isn't random.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 9:26 AMHistory isn't random, but neither are sinecures and political swamps - look at CA. Let's just hope that it is now a hopeless follower and not a trend-setter.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 25, 2005 9:50 AMThe speed of transformation is as relevant as the transformation itself. It was almost 150 years between Wycliffe and Luther. OJ, the voucher rollout is moving at Reformation speed. The fact is that Bush early-on settled for having a PR remnant of kids, 100,000 or so, getting vouchers and untold millions of kids continuing as slaves to state schools. The sole purpose of these few kids was so the press and bloggers could point to them as successes hopefully not preceeded by the word "Potemkin."
At what threshold of kids with vouchers do you consider yourself duped? When does your enthusiasm wane? 1% of schoolage kids with vouchers by 2010? 2% by 2020? Would you still consider Bush a brilliant education president if only 3% of schoolage children have vouchers by 2030 despite 50% being consigned to ever-failing schools? Bush's castle in the sky was all it took to win your loyalty on this issue forever.
Posted by: Palmcroft at November 25, 2005 12:03 PMPalm:
Yes, Luther too was a success even though the Reformation isn't yet complete.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2005 12:13 PM