The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Department of Education. The plaintiff’s challenged a federal regulation under No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which permitted teachers who participated in alternative route teacher training programs, but have not yet obtained full State certification, to be characterized as “highly qualified teachers” under NCLB. (Alternative routes to certification refers to non-traditional programs that are typically designed for people who already hold at least a bachelor’s degree in a field other than education).
The “highly qualified teachers” designation is important for State compliance with NCLB. NCBLA provides funds to states and schools under several sections – on appeal was Title I funds, which supplement the educational needs of disadvantaged students (Slip Opinion pg. 5; see also 20 U.S.C. §§6301 et seq.). A central premise of NCLB is good teachers – defined by Congress as “highly qualified” teachers; the goal by the end of 2005-2006 school years was to have only “highly qualified” teachers instruct core academic classes in school districts receiving Title I funds (Id. § 6319(a)(2)). NCLB contains a lengthy definition of “highly qualified teacher” (see 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23)(A)(i) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.56).
Plaintiffs challenged language in CFR § 200.56. Specifically they objected to characterizing as “highly qualified teacher” an alternative route teacher who has not yet obtained full state certification, but who merely “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward full certification[.]” (pg. 9, quoting § 200.56(a)(2)(ii)(A)(4) (emphasis in original). The California regulations on the issue “mimic[ed] the federal regulation challenged[.]” (pg. 12).
The reason for the challenge of the CFR was it allowed teachers without full certification to teach. Plaintiffs contend that the CFR (upon which the 2004 California regulations were based) allowed a “disproportionate number of interns to teach in minority and low-income schools in California” in violation of NCLB (pg. 12).
The court applied the Chevron framework to analyze the CFR (see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). The first question under the Chevron framework is to ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” (Id. at 842-843). The court determined that the intent of Congress was clear leaving the analysis at the first question (pg. 14).
The court found the CFR inconsistent with the intent of Congress in NCLB. The court stated the “precise question at issue” is the difference between the meaning of “has obtained” full State certification in the statute, 20 U.S.C. § 7801(23), and the meaning of “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward” full State certification in the regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 200.56(a)(2)(ii) (pg. 16). The analysis pitted language in the NCLB against language in the CFR interpreting NCLB.
Focused on this language the court held that by including in the definition an alternative route teacher who merely “demonstrates satisfactory progress toward” the requisite of “full state certification” the education secretary’s regulation impermissibly expanded the definition of “highly qualified teacher.”
Discussed above was only the majority opinion (look later for an analysis of the dissent). The opinion opens a new area of law at a timely moment in our nation. It also raises a thorny question for California on how to comply with NCLB and how to fill the teacher shortage without expanding the budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment