Renee v. Spellings, No. 07-4299 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2008)
A U.S. district court in California has ruled that a U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulation defining teachers-in-training who are participating in an alternative route to certification program as “highly qualified” under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) does not conflict with the NCLB requirement that “highly qualified” teachers have “full state certification as a teacher.” A group of students and parents in California, along with the Californians for Justice Education Fund and the California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, challenged the regulation, arguing that “a teacher-in-training with no prior training and no prior teaching experience may be deemed highly qualified the very day he or she enters an alternative certification program and begins to serve as a classroom teacher [and] that this interpretation of highly qualified conflicts with the definition of highly qualified in the NCLB Act, because the NCLB Act requires full State certification.” The suit, brought under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserted that the ED regulation is contrary to the plain language of NCLB and inconsistent with the intent of Congress. The plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the regulation is unlawful and exceeds ED’s statutory authority, as well as an order barring ED from further use of this standard for “highly qualified.”
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. By failing to define the phrase “full State certification as a teacher,” the court held, Congress gave ED the discretion to clarify what NCLB permits. Because “Congress empowered the Secretary (ED) to ‘issue such regulations as are necessary to reasonably ensure that there is Compliance’ with the NCLB Act … [it left to] the Secretary (ED) … the discretion to determine the meaning of ‘full State certification’ as the Secretary (ED) deems necessary.” The court concluded that ED’s interpretation was reasonable and that the regulation merely added the provision that “an individual who is ‘participating in an alternative route to certification program’ that fulfills certain requirements may be considered to have ‘obtained full State certification as a teacher.’” The court also noted that ED’s interpretation is “consistent with the other provisions of the NCLB Act—in particular, the provisions regarding the ‘alternative route’ programs.”
Renee v. Spellings, No. 07-4299 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: The San Francisco Chronicle reports below that “John Affeldt of the nonprofit Public Advocates firm said the plaintiffs probably will appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.” Background on the case is available starting at the second link, which is to a more general discussion of ED’s regulatory changes to NCLB and the question of how far the department’s discretion extends. See also the New York Times retrospective on NCLB since its enactment and discussion of what the future may hold. Last week Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) introduced the “NCLB Recess until Reauthorization Act,” co-sponsored by Rep. Timothy J. Walz (D-MN), which temporarily would suspend further identification of schools and school districts and further escalation of NCLB interventions, for one year or until Congress reauthorizes NCLB. NSBA supports the measure, recognizing that at this point reauthorization could take until 2010. For more details and for reactions to the proposal, see NSBA’s blog, BoardBuzz, as well as Education Week reporter David Hoff’s blog. NSBA’s Office of Advocacy indicates that the appropriations process will not be used as the vehicle for adopting the measure, one idea that had provoked criticism.]
San Francisco Chronicle, 6/18/08, By Bob Egelko, with Nanette Asimov
NSBA School Law pages on NCLB regulatory authority
New York Times, 6/12/08, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
BoardBuzz on H.R. 6239
Education Week NCLB Act II blog on introduction of H.R. 6239
Education Week NCLB Act II blog on civil rights groups’ reactions