The present article, a cross-case analysis, analyzes one aspect of the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that has generated conflict between the U.S. Department of Education and the federal court system. The conflicts arose between the courts' oversight of desegregation and the implementation of the public school choice mandates of NCLB in two south-eastern school systems, Richmond County, Georgia, and Pinellas County, Florida. The sources used are interviews by the author with each system's school superintendent and school board attorney, as well as official documents, including court orders and correspondence between county and federal officials. The conflicts not only raise constitutional legal issues but highlight the problem of local consent and bargaining in the implementation of federal education policy and illustrate the changing nature of federal authority with respect to desegregation. The two cases contribute to the knowledge base about the judicial implementation of federal education policies.
Acree v. County Board of Education of Richmond County, Civil Action No. CV-1179: Order approving request to delay the implementation of the school choice and transportation requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002a).
2.
Acree v. County Board of Education of Richmond County, Civil Action No. CV-1179: Request for delay in implementation of the school choice and transportation requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002b).
3.
Acree v. County Board of Education of Richmond County, Civil Action No. CV-1179 (2003).
4.
Acree et al. v. Drummond et al. v. County Board of Education of Richmond County, Georgia et al., 336 F. Supp. 1275 (S.D., Ga. 1972).
5.
As court steps aside, Pinellas County schools face new challenge. (2000, August 13). St. Petersburg Times, p. 1D.
6.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Barnes, J. (2004). Overruled? Legislative overrides, pluralism, and contemporary court-Congress relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Board of Education of Oklahoma v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).
9.
Boger, J.C. (2003). Education's “perfect storm”? Racial resegregation, high stakes testing, and school resource inequities: The case of North Carolina. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1375, 1386.
10.
Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board: Amended final order withdrawing federal supervision and granting unitary status to the public schools of Pinellas County (2000).
11.
Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case No. 8:64-CV-98-T-23B: Motion for relief from court order pursuant to 34 CFR § 200.44c (2004b).
12.
Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case No. 8:64-CV-98-T-23B: Response to motion for relief from court order (filed by the plaintiffs' attorney) (2004c).
13.
Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case No. 8:64-CV-98-T-23TGW: Judge's order denying the motion for relief from court order pursuant to 34 CFR § 200.44c (2004d).
14.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483; 74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 (1954).
15.
Bullock, C.S. (1984). Equal education opportunity. In C. S. Bullock & C. M. Lamb (Eds.), Implementation of civil rights policy (pp. 55-92). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16.
Cashin, E.J. (1985). The quest: A history of public education in Richmond County, Georgia. Columbia, SC: Bryan.
17.
DeBray, E. (2004). “The equitable powers of the judge”: The conflict between No Child Left Behind and court-ordered desegregation in Richmond County, Georgia. Equity and Excellence in Education , 37(3), 264-277.
18.
Derthick, M. (1999). How many communities? The evolution of American federalism. In M. Derthick (Ed.), Dilemmas of scale in America's federal democracy (pp. 125-153). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. 236-41 (1965).
20.
Feltes, G. (1999). A guide to the U.S. federal legal system: Web-based publicly accessible sources. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.llrx.com/features/us_fed2.htm#The_Court_System
21.
Finder, A. (2005, September 25). As test scores jump, Raleigh credits integration by income. The New York Times, p. 1.
22.
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).
23.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968).
24.
Haberlin, S. (2004, July 20). Court ruling denies many students school choice. Ocala Star-Banner. Available at http://www.starbanner.com
25.
Hereford and the United States v. Huntsville Board of Education, CV-63-J-109-NE: Joint motion of plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants to modify desegregation order, filed April 30, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (2003).
26.
Hickok, E. (2002, August 28). Letter to Superintendent Charles Larke [Files of Leonard Fletcher, Fletcher, Harley & Fletcher, LLP]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
27.
Janssen, J. (2001). An analysis of the legal and historical context of the Pinellas County School District's separation from court-ordered desegregation established in Bradley v. Board of Public Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
28.
Jeffrey, J.R. (1978). Education for children of the poor: A study of the origins and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
29.
Jenkins, J.K., & DeBray, E. (2005, November). Grutter, NCLB, and student body diversity in public K-12 schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Education Law Association, Memphis, TN.
30.
Johnson, C., & Canon, B. (1984). Judicial policies: Implementation and impact. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
31.
Katzmann, R. (1997). Courts and Congress. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
32.
Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2000, May). Why are schools racially segregated? Implications for school choice policies. Paper presented at School Choice and Racial Diversity Conference, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
33.
Larke, C. (2002). Letter to U.S. undersecretary of education Eugene W. Hickok [Files of Richmond County Board of Education , Augusta, GA].
34.
Lewin, N. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The triumph of school choice over racial desegregation. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 12(1), 95-134.
35.
Matus, R., & Waite, M. (2004, June 16). Schools graded a success by state, a flop by feds. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1A.
36.
Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1989). Implementation and public policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
37.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 9(2), 171-178.
38.
Miller, M. (2004). The view of the courts from the Hill: A neoinstitutional perspective. In M. Miller & J. Barnes (Eds.), Making policy, making law: An interbranch perspective (pp. 53-71). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
39.
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995).
40.
Neal, T., & Poole, J. (2004, June 15). A test in Florida. The Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/
41.
Nelson, D. (2002, June 27). Memorandum to Georgia district superintendents on federal guidance on public school choice and supplemental services. Atlanta: Georgia Office of Education Accountability .
42.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
43.
Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.
44.
Paige, R.L. (2002, June 14). Dear colleague. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/News/Letters/020614.html
45.
Radin, B. (1977). Implementation, change, and the federal bureaucracy: School desegregation policy in HEW. New York: Teachers' College Press.
46.
Richard, A. (2004, February 18). Class-size reduction is slow going in Florida. Education Week, pp. 30, 35.
47.
Rodgers, H., & Bullock, C. (1976). School desegregation: A multivariate test of the role of law in effectuating social change. American Politics Quarterly, 4, 153-175.
48.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1; 91 S. Ct. 1267; 28 L. Ed. 2d 554; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 52 (1971).
49.
Tobin, T. (2004, May 1). Law risk to choice, court told. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1B.
50.
Viteritti, J. (2005). The end of local politics? In W. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 308-323). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
51.
Warford, J. (2004, May 17). Letter from Florida K-12 chancellor of education to Pinellas County superintendent Howard Hinesley [Files of John Bowen, Pinellas County school board attorney].
52.
Wildavsky, A. (1998). Federalism and political culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Yin, R. ( 1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
