Re: Re:burden of proof nclb court ruling

[Guest guest]

fyi

Major Court Ruling on No Child Left Behind:

States and School Districts Not Required

To Spend Own Funds To Comply With Law

Victory announced on eve of controversial law's sixth anniversary

WASHINGTON -- On the same day President W. Bush held a press conference

in Chicago to defend the failing No Child Left Behind, and on the eve of NCLB's

sixth anniversary, a federal appeals court delivered yet another major blow to

the controversial law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

ruled today that Secretary Spellings is violating the Spending Clause of the

Constitution by requiring states and school districts to spend their own funds

to comply with the law.

" The court's message couldn't be more clear: If the president is sincere about

continuing No Child Left Behind, he needs to put his money where his mouth is, "

said NEA President Reg Weaver. " The president refuses to budge on NCLB, his

flagship domestic policy, but unless he takes action it is clearly a sinking

ship. "

Six years ago, President Bush promised to fully fund NCLB. But the president

has consistently refused to make good on his promises. Due to Bush's recent veto

of the FY 2008 education appropriations bill, there will be a $14.8 billion gap

in funding for NCLB programs. That is on top of the previous cumulative gap of

$56.1 billion.

The ruling is a major victory for the National Education Association and the

other plaintiffs -- including nine school districts and nine NEA state

affiliates -- which brought the lawsuit in April 2005 to oppose costly federal

regulations that divert money from children and classrooms to paperwork and

bureaucracy. Today's ruling by the appeals court reverses the lower court's

November 2005 summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit.

At issue is Section 9527(a) of the law that says, " Nothing in this Act shall

be construed to …. mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds

or incur any costs not paid for under this Act. "

NEA and the other plaintiffs had argued in their complaint that this section

of the law prevents the federal government from requiring states and school

districts to spend their own funds to comply with the law's mandates.

The lawsuit does not challenge the laudable goals of the law or call for its

dismantling. Instead, it simply argues that any federal mandates in this law

must come with tools and resources to get the job done. Otherwise, educators

can't be expected to do more with less. The court agreed, holding that the

Education Department's interpretations of NCLB, requiring that states and school

districts devote their own funds to NCLB compliance, " violate the Spending

Clause. "

" It's time for the Secretary to comply with the law and the Constitution, "

Weaver said. " If the administration won't ensure that states and schools have

the federal funds needed to implement the law, then they must cease with threats

to punish states and districts who cannot comply due to lack of federal funds. "

The lack of funding at issue in the lawsuit is just one aspect of NCLB that has

come under increased fire recently. Parents, teachers and lawmakers have called

for reform because of the law's obsessive focus on standardized testing,

heavy-handed punishments and bureaucratic protocols.

For more information, please visit the No Child Left Behind/ESEA section of our

Web site.

A copy of the complete decision is available here (PDF 122KB, 29 pages).

Printer friendly E-mail Subscribe

greeneyed_angel27 <greeneyed_angel27@...> wrote:

Its land but Virginia is even stricker, what state are you in?

The school will have a rather shaky stand with the state and the

qualifications of the staff if everyone else disputes the finding,

they will of course try and bring someone in to verify but OSHA is

the for example the groups that controls the licenses of therapist.

My Private therapist actually worked in my school district while

training so she new the tricks and if OSHA is contacted it examines

the child and the person making the claim on your child, thus their

license comes into play same thing with the rest of the staff,

nobody wants their evaluation question by a higher attority and the

state does not want it on their record that they let a child fall

thru the cracks due to neglect. Trust me, on this I have heard some

good advice from therapist and teachers who have come full circle

since they now have children or family members themselves with

special needs.

> >

> > Hi:

> > My nearly 3 year old apraxic son just had his IEP on Friday.

> Prior

> > to this, the public special needs pre-school has consistently

> stated

> > that they can only provide Adam with 1 hour of individual ST per

> > week, despite the fact that he has been getting 2 hours of

private

> ST

> > for the last few months and continues to need this much time.

> They

> > had also told me that they would only provide the hour of ST if

we

> > attended their public special needs pre-school at least 2 days

per

> > week. In the meantime, a school board member got wind of this

and

> > long story short, we were offered the 2 hours of ST and they did

> not

> > insist we attend their pre-school at the IEP meeting.

> >

> > I have tried to explain on a number of occasions why their

program

> is

> > not appropriate for Adam, and they insist their special needs

> program

> > is appropriate for all disabled children-they accomodate all

> children

> > that are referred. So, we were given one public pre-school

> program

> > to choose from...a program of about 10 kids, (2-3 typical

children

> at

> > most, all others appearing to have either behavioral/emotional

> > disorders, severe physical disabilities, or other learning

> > disabilities. The majority of children also had some level of

> speech

> > disorder, so it was hard for me to see who would be the " speech

> role-

> > models " for Adam). They call it a language-based program, but it

> > seems very behaviorally focused due to the needs of the children

> in

> > the class. Also, to make matters worse, they are down numerous

> SLP

> > positions, so all individual ST is contracted out off site,

> including

> > ours. So, here is my question...does the public school have any

> > obligation to offer some other type of program to us, including

a

> > private pre-school with typical children where Adam's speech

> therapy

> > goals can be carried out in the classroom? Adam currently

attends

> a

> > private pre-school and has made great progress as they are

> > incorporating his ST goals in the class. This is clearly the

least

> > restrictive environment, but I am not sure how LRE applies to

pre-

> > schools. At the IEP meeting we were told in no uncertain terms

> that

> > they would not reimburse us for the private school; we had only

> one

> > choice for a free education and that was there public pre-school

> > disabled program. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated on

> this

> > issue. I don't want to pursue this funding issue if it is just

> not

> > worthwhile.

> > Thanks!

> > Holly

> > Mother to Adam, nearly 3 years old, apraxic

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or

entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,

proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,

retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any

action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities

other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this

in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all

computers.

>

> Sharon Lang

>

> ---------------------------------

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Search.

>

>