A couple more No Child Left Behind odds and ends.

This NEA lawsuit against the law from Michigan and elsewhere gets people (especially bored reporters or easily excitable ones) worked-up but in the long run it’s still much ado about nothing that at one court level or another seems almost certain to be put to rest. Remember, back before it was filed, even the NEA’s general counsel said the legal merits were weak. Also, related, when did “unfunded mandates” became such a concern for “progressives” anyway? It’s a conservative argument against federal involvement in various issues. Are all these people against the Americans with Disabilities Act, too?

Not much news out of Chicago and the education events there yesterday but during the gaggle with the press beforehand Secretary Spellings indicated her strategy this year should Congress not get the law done:

And so what the President is going to say is that we want the Congress to act. We hope they will. But if they don’t, I’ll take administrative steps at the Department, as I have in the last three years, to start to work on some of these matters.

That’ll be interesting to watch because so far the rule has been: When the establishment likes the administrative change, it’s OK. When the establishment doesn’t like the administrative change and it could adversely affect adults, the text of the law suddenly becomes very important!

4 Replies to “More NCLB”

  1. Any legal action that might curtail federal power under the Spending Clause is noteworthy in itself. There are 5 basic restrictions of federal power under the Spending Clause, one of which is basically:
    “Any conditions placed on federal funds must be stated unambiguously. States must be able to accept funds knowing the full consequences of conditions.”

    Basically, it’s like there’s a contract between the feds and states, and the feds must be reasonably clear about the terms of the contract up front. I think they’ve got a case. However, action on this front is only likely to lead to tweaking of the law, not any significant change of federal power under the Spending Clause.

  2. Unfunded mandates became a rallying cry for “progressives” when it is a Republican administration pushing something they don’t like.

    It is the same thing that drives Republican or conservative cries also, so like everything else, it is all a matter of perception

  3. Very interesting blog.
    And design is nice.
    I’m a teacher too.
    Best wishes from Buenos Aires.
    Spanish Teacher.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.