Connecticut Sues 'No Child Behind' Law

[SLCPUNK]

By NOREEN GILLESPIE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

HARTFORD, Conn. - The state of Connecticut filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging
President Bush's No Child Left Behind school reform law, arguing it is illegal because it requires expensive testing and programs it doesn't pay for.

The lawsuit, which officials said was the first of its kind to be brought by a state government, asks a federal judge to declare that the federal government cannot require state and local money be used to meet federal testing goals.

"The goals of the No Child Left Behind Act are laudable," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "Indeed, Connecticut has pursued these goals for decades, but the federal government has failed in implementing them."

Blumenthal announced plans for the lawsuit this spring, after the state was repeatedly denied waivers to avoid some of the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which aims to have every student in public schools proficient in reading and math by 2014.

Connecticut's chief complaint with the law has been testing. The state, which has been administering its own mastery test for 20 years, wants to continue testing every other year. The federal law requires annual testing, and federal education officials have repeatedly denied the state's requests for leniency.

"This mindless rigidity harms our taxpayers, but most of all our children," Blumenthal said.

Standardized testing in grades three, five and seven is scheduled to begin this school year.

A recent report projects that the state will be $41.6 million short in paying for the law's requirements through 2008, but federal officials question that estimate. A state law prohibits state money from being used to pay for the law's requirements.

In Utah, the state legislature passed a measure defying the federal law, and it was signed by Gov. Jon Huntsman on May 2. The law gives state educational standards priority over the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

The nation's largest teacher's union, the National Education Association, joined with school districts and union chapters across the country to file a lawsuit this year challenging the law. Connecticut's union chapter is part of that lawsuit.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

[Lisa]

^ ^ now you know why they are the richest cheap bastards

[SLCPUNK]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the article.

[Surfrider]

Sounds to me like they have pretty solid grounds for the challenge.  I am not too familiar with how the NCLB works, but it sounds like unconstitutional commandeering.  It is unconsitutional for Congress to pass laws that require the states to act.  However, as stupid as it sounds, they can use federal funds in order to basically coerce the states into doing certain things.  But if there are no funds being provided it sounds like commandeering.

[SLCPUNK]

However, as stupid as it sounds, they can use federal funds in order to basically coerce the states into doing certain things. 

They tried that with utah (one of least wealthy in the country) and they still turned their back on NCLB, and that is a huge conservative majority right wing state. Also this debunks the "being cheap" statement, since Utah is much lower down the scale compared to Connecticut.

[pilferk]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

We sure are.  We also have one of the highest costs of living in the country....and our "per capita" wealth is largely attributable to the CT "Gold Coast" (Greenwich, Stamford, etc), rather than the larger segment of the population.

The point of the article (and Blumenthal actually talked about doing this a few months back) is that unfunded Federal Mandates put undue burden on the State, and State taxpayers, without allowing the State Government (who were elected) any discretion.  In other words, they should not be able to put a carte blanche line item on a State Budget, without State approval.  Yet that's exactly what NCLB does.

[Surfrider]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

We sure are.? We also have one of the highest costs of living in the country....and our "per capita" wealth is largely attributable to the CT "Gold Coast" (Greenwich, Stamford, etc), rather than the larger segment of the population.

The point of the article (and Blumenthal actually talked about doing this a few months back) is that unfunded Federal Mandates put undue burden on the State, and State taxpayers, without allowing the State Government (who were elected) any discretion.? In other words, they should not be able to put a carte blanche line item on a State Budget, without State approval.? Yet that's exactly what NCLB does.

Isn't the state approval accepting the funds?

[pilferk]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

We sure are.? We also have one of the highest costs of living in the country....and our "per capita" wealth is largely attributable to the CT "Gold Coast" (Greenwich, Stamford, etc), rather than the larger segment of the population.

The point of the article (and Blumenthal actually talked about doing this a few months back) is that unfunded Federal Mandates put undue burden on the State, and State taxpayers, without allowing the State Government (who were elected) any discretion.? In other words, they should not be able to put a carte blanche line item on a State Budget, without State approval.? Yet that's exactly what NCLB does.

Isn't the state approval accepting the funds?

Accepting WHAT funds?  That's the whole point...

The Federal Governement signed into law the NCLB act...but has provided NO (or inadequate) funding to enforce the mandate, but refuse to give the states any leeway in that mandate.

In other words, the rules enacted by the Feds still apply, but the STATE has to pay for it.  That's what the lawsuit is alledging: The Federal Government is spending State Tax Dollars, without representation.  We elected members of the Federal Goverment to spend Federal Dollars on a Federal Budget and elect members of the STATE government to spend STATE dollars on a STATE budget.  The lawsuit, in part, is alledging that the Federal Government is overstepping their bounds by, essentially, spending state budget dollars...something they have no mandate, or right, to do. 

It's a longstanding argument, actually.  There have been a number of unfunded Federal Mandates in the past, but none as expensive (over time) as the NCLB act.  In the past the states have grumbled, but have put up the money to fund the mandate (after a token vote in the State Government), since it was less expensive than fighting.  THIS time, though, given the costs over time will run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars...CT, at least, has chosen to fight.  I think you might find some other states jumping on board in short order.

And remember, as in all things, there's ulterior motives involved.  Blumenthol has his eyes on the Govenor's chair and this type of high profile case, if successful (and Richard is successful far more often then not), would be a feather in his cap toward that end.

[gilld1]

Bush and his big plan are leaving all children behind.  I see it every day at the school I teach at.  Freedom will become Freedumb!

[Surfrider]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

We sure are.? We also have one of the highest costs of living in the country....and our "per capita" wealth is largely attributable to the CT "Gold Coast" (Greenwich, Stamford, etc), rather than the larger segment of the population.

The point of the article (and Blumenthal actually talked about doing this a few months back) is that unfunded Federal Mandates put undue burden on the State, and State taxpayers, without allowing the State Government (who were elected) any discretion.? In other words, they should not be able to put a carte blanche line item on a State Budget, without State approval.? Yet that's exactly what NCLB does.

Isn't the state approval accepting the funds?

Accepting WHAT funds?? That's the whole point...

The Federal Governement signed into law the NCLB act...but has provided NO (or inadequate) funding to enforce the mandate, but refuse to give the states any leeway in that mandate.

In other words, the rules enacted by the Feds still apply, but the STATE has to pay for it.? That's what the lawsuit is alledging: The Federal Government is spending State Tax Dollars, without representation.? We elected members of the Federal Goverment to spend Federal Dollars on a Federal Budget and elect members of the STATE government to spend STATE dollars on a STATE budget.? The lawsuit, in part, is alledging that the Federal Government is overstepping their bounds by, essentially, spending state budget dollars...something they have no mandate, or right, to do.?

It's a longstanding argument, actually.? There have been a number of unfunded Federal Mandates in the past, but none as expensive (over time) as the NCLB act.? In the past the states have grumbled, but have put up the money to fund the mandate (after a token vote in the State Government), since it was less expensive than fighting.? THIS time, though, given the costs over time will run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars...CT, at least, has chosen to fight.? I think you might find some other states jumping on board in short order.

And remember, as in all things, there's ulterior motives involved.? Blumenthol has his eyes on the Govenor's chair and this type of high profile case, if successful (and Richard is successful far more often then not), would be a feather in his cap toward that end.

Let me explain my post.  I will have to go read the NCLB because I am not sure what the wording of the bill is, whether it is mandatory or not.  Is the NCLB an expenditure with strings attached or is it a law as a federal mandate?  If it is the latter, then I am not sure what enumerated power the feds are relying on for the constitutionality of the law.  However, with the recent Raich decision I guess Congess basically has unfettered discretion in where they want to legislate.  If it is such a mandate then it would have to be implemented by federal employees, or else it would be unconstiutional commandeering of state employees.  Thus, the funding argument would not even be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of the law. 

Since it seems that state employees are implementing the no child left beind, I am guessing that it is an expenditure with strings attached (something the court has always upheld so long as the regulation is rationally related to what the money is being given for).  This would be a far tougher challenge for Connecticut because any funding they do receive would hurt their argument.  Thus, since Connecticut is receiving some federal funds for education they have basically opted into the program which then requires then to fulfill the federal mandates required to receive the funds.  Their argument would therefore be very technical and goes to whether the government has to fund everything that it requires to receive the funds.  In actually thinking it over I think the case is actually going to be a loser. ( Of course, as a I previously noted, this is basically loophole to regulate the states that the Supreme Court has allowed. )  For example, in South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court basically allowed the federal government to attach the reciept of highway funds to the states maintaining a minimum drinking age of 21.  Although, I dont believe it was challenged on this point, the Supreme Court did not say that the Federal Government would also have to provide money for the enforcement of this higher drinking age.  Anyway, sorry for the rambling


Edited: Glancing at the NCLB it seems to be funds with strings attached.  Making it a much tougher challenge.

[pilferk]

How laughable, Connecticut is the richest state in the country. And apparently the cheapest. Funny how it usually works out that way.

We sure are.? We also have one of the highest costs of living in the country....and our "per capita" wealth is largely attributable to the CT "Gold Coast" (Greenwich, Stamford, etc), rather than the larger segment of the population.

The point of the article (and Blumenthal actually talked about doing this a few months back) is that unfunded Federal Mandates put undue burden on the State, and State taxpayers, without allowing the State Government (who were elected) any discretion.? In other words, they should not be able to put a carte blanche line item on a State Budget, without State approval.? Yet that's exactly what NCLB does.

Isn't the state approval accepting the funds?

Accepting WHAT funds?? That's the whole point...

The Federal Governement signed into law the NCLB act...but has provided NO (or inadequate) funding to enforce the mandate, but refuse to give the states any leeway in that mandate.

In other words, the rules enacted by the Feds still apply, but the STATE has to pay for it.? That's what the lawsuit is alledging: The Federal Government is spending State Tax Dollars, without representation.? We elected members of the Federal Goverment to spend Federal Dollars on a Federal Budget and elect members of the STATE government to spend STATE dollars on a STATE budget.? The lawsuit, in part, is alledging that the Federal Government is overstepping their bounds by, essentially, spending state budget dollars...something they have no mandate, or right, to do.?

It's a longstanding argument, actually.? There have been a number of unfunded Federal Mandates in the past, but none as expensive (over time) as the NCLB act.? In the past the states have grumbled, but have put up the money to fund the mandate (after a token vote in the State Government), since it was less expensive than fighting.? THIS time, though, given the costs over time will run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars...CT, at least, has chosen to fight.? I think you might find some other states jumping on board in short order.

And remember, as in all things, there's ulterior motives involved.? Blumenthol has his eyes on the Govenor's chair and this type of high profile case, if successful (and Richard is successful far more often then not), would be a feather in his cap toward that end.

Let me explain my post.? I will have to go read the NCLB because I am not sure what the wording of the bill is, whether it is mandatory or not.? Is the NCLB an expenditure with strings attached or is it a law as a federal mandate?? If it is the latter, then I am not sure what enumerated power the feds are relying on for the constitutionality of the law.? However, with the recent Raich decision I guess Congess basically has unfettered discretion in where they want to legislate.? If it is such a mandate then it would have to be implemented by federal employees, or else it would be unconstiutional commandeering of state employees.? Thus, the funding argument would not even be necessary to challenge the constitutionality of the law.?

Since it seems that state employees are implementing the no child left beind, I am guessing that it is an expenditure with strings attached (something the court has always upheld so long as the regulation is rationally related to what the money is being given for).? This would be a far tougher challenge for Connecticut because any funding they do receive would hurt their argument.? Thus, since Connecticut is receiving some federal funds for education they have basically opted into the program which then requires then to fulfill the federal mandates required to receive the funds.? Their argument would therefore be very technical and goes to whether the government has to fund everything that it requires to receive the funds.? In actually thinking it over I think the case is actually going to be a loser. ( Of course, as a I previously noted, this is basically loophole to regulate the states that the Supreme Court has allowed. )? For example, in South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court basically allowed the federal government to attach the reciept of highway funds to the states maintaining a minimum drinking age of 21.? Although, I dont believe it was challenged on this point, the Supreme Court did not say that the Federal Government would also have to provide money for the enforcement of this higher drinking age.? Anyway, sorry for the rambling


Edited: Glancing at the NCLB it seems to be funds with strings attached.? Making it a much tougher challenge.

Gotcha, that's a bit clearer.

Correct.? It is "funds with strings attached".? The issue is that federal mandate was not accompanied by a matching increase in federal education dollars, thereby telling the States something to the effect of: "You have to do this, and you have to pay for it too, out of YOUR budgets." sine Fed dollars are "already spent" in the budget (maybe it's more correct to say that the State now has to "replace" the lost Fed dollars, since the Fed dollars now have to fund NCLB, rather than what they WERE being used to fund..either way..)? And obviously, with State budgets already stretched thin, many states are balking.? It's not really like the drinking age increase, where the cost to enforce was minimal, since time and manpower were already allocated to enforcing A drinking age...the number just changed from 18 to 21.? In this case, there WAS no testing program in place that met the Feds new mandate, and, in addition, the long term costs of testing are staggeringly high.? So, while the State's didn't blink at the drinking age increase (which, FYI, still had to pass through the State Legislature to go into effect), this new mandate is another matter, entirely.

And I agree, it may be a slippery slope to argue for CT.? I'm sure the Feds are going to fall back on "Well, what we're really asking for is proof that the federal dollars being provided are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing".? And it's a great counter-point for them to make, since any Federal Dollars are subject to a Federal Accounting by the State, to ensure it's being spent for the reasons the Fed allocated it.?

I do know that CT has commissioned a study, internally, to see what theloss of Fed Education Dollars vs the Cost of NCLB will net out to.? I haven't heard the results yet....but it wouldn't surprise me if Blumenthol has, and the results are the impetus for the lawsuit.

[Surfrider]

It's not really like the drinking age increase, where the cost to enforce was minimal, since time and manpower were already allocated to enforcing A drinking age...the number just changed from 18 to 21.? In this case, there WAS no testing program in place that met the Feds new mandate, and, in addition, the long term costs of testing are staggeringly high.? So, while the State's didn't blink at the drinking age increase (which, FYI, still had to pass through the State Legislature to go into effect), this new mandate is another matter, entirely.

I think you have keyed in on the key distinction and argument that they are going to have to make.  I am not aware of any case law deciding that distinction one way or the other.

And I agree, it may be a slippery slope to argue for CT.? I'm sure the Feds are going to fall back on "Well, what we're really asking for is proof that the federal dollars being provided are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing".? And it's a great counter-point for them to make, since any Federal Dollars are subject to a Federal Accounting by the State, to ensure it's being spent for the reasons the Fed allocated it.?

I think you nailed it on the head.  I am willing to place a bet on the courts using this rationale to deny CT.