2008 Woodie Awards
Connecticut calls No Child Left Behind unconstitutional
Daniel Black
Issue date: 10/5/06 Section: Opinion
As all other students of Marist's school of education probably are, I am very concerned with the state of education in this country and especially concerned with the government's influence upon it. It was a comfort, recently, to learn that the state of Connecticut shares this concern. This past August, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued the U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, alleging that her interpretation and implementation of No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional.
Bravo Connecticut; how wonderful it is to know there is a political agenda in this country that focuses on something other than money and exploiting whomever it takes to acquire it. I have read over Blumenthal's appeal to the U.S. District Court; it sounds reasonable. The people of Connecticut believe the standards the Federal Government imposes on their education system should be accompanied by appropriate funding. They further believe that their standardized testing systems should be acceptable alternatives to the federal "high-stakes" standardized tests, respecting that Connecticut's students rank with the highest achieving in the country.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the federal government believes Blumenthal has a case. Most of the lawsuit was dismissed on the premise of jurisdiction, the idea that Connecticut has no grounds to challenge federal power in this particular arena. I find this interesting, mildly anyway, that a state government cannot challenge the federal government in cases that concern the teaching of that state's children. Whose children are they? Who rightfully exerts power over what and how they learn and how, specifically, that learning is measured? These questions, poignant they may be, cause me less distress than does the statement Federal District Court Judge Mark Kravitz made in regards to why the state of Connecticut cannot yet bring No Child Left Behind to trial.
In dismissing some of Connecticut's more pressing grievances, Kravitz stated that the law cannot be challenged until the state of Connecticut has, in fact, broken it. I believe it is very important for us, any of us that have an interest in protecting the rights and futures of children, to consider carefully the meaning and implications of Krevitz's words. By forcing Connecticut to break the law before they can legally appeal its legitimacy, the federal government is forcing the state to 'leave a child behind' before they can challenge the merits of the very Act that purports to 'leave no child behind;' the curators of this legislation are its own undoing. But all irony aside, I'll ask the blatantly obvious question: what about the child? By whose authority must a child fail to learn in order to stimulate the political leaders responsible for his or her education into action that prevents the failure of future children? I believe if Blumenthal has a case then it ought to be addressed, the denial a child's education is an unnecessary step.
Bravo Connecticut; how wonderful it is to know there is a political agenda in this country that focuses on something other than money and exploiting whomever it takes to acquire it. I have read over Blumenthal's appeal to the U.S. District Court; it sounds reasonable. The people of Connecticut believe the standards the Federal Government imposes on their education system should be accompanied by appropriate funding. They further believe that their standardized testing systems should be acceptable alternatives to the federal "high-stakes" standardized tests, respecting that Connecticut's students rank with the highest achieving in the country.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the federal government believes Blumenthal has a case. Most of the lawsuit was dismissed on the premise of jurisdiction, the idea that Connecticut has no grounds to challenge federal power in this particular arena. I find this interesting, mildly anyway, that a state government cannot challenge the federal government in cases that concern the teaching of that state's children. Whose children are they? Who rightfully exerts power over what and how they learn and how, specifically, that learning is measured? These questions, poignant they may be, cause me less distress than does the statement Federal District Court Judge Mark Kravitz made in regards to why the state of Connecticut cannot yet bring No Child Left Behind to trial.
In dismissing some of Connecticut's more pressing grievances, Kravitz stated that the law cannot be challenged until the state of Connecticut has, in fact, broken it. I believe it is very important for us, any of us that have an interest in protecting the rights and futures of children, to consider carefully the meaning and implications of Krevitz's words. By forcing Connecticut to break the law before they can legally appeal its legitimacy, the federal government is forcing the state to 'leave a child behind' before they can challenge the merits of the very Act that purports to 'leave no child behind;' the curators of this legislation are its own undoing. But all irony aside, I'll ask the blatantly obvious question: what about the child? By whose authority must a child fail to learn in order to stimulate the political leaders responsible for his or her education into action that prevents the failure of future children? I believe if Blumenthal has a case then it ought to be addressed, the denial a child's education is an unnecessary step.
Be the first to comment on this story