Edjurist TV: Episode 1 - Podcast with Dr. Gina Umpstead on The Implications of Pontiac v. Spellings.
Justin Bathon on Monday, February 9, 2009 at 3:44PM Today we are debuting a new feature, Edjurist TV. The plan here is to record interviews of some of the movers and shakers in the education law community, giving them an opportunity to talk about their area of expertise. Most of the videos will be both audio and video, but this first one is audio only (i.e. a podcast). You'll see more of these, including with some possible sponsorships, over the coming months.
But, today in Episode 1 I had the opportunity to sit down with Gina Umpstead, an Assistant Professor at Central Michigan University. She has been following the NCLB litigation closely, with a particular focus on the Pontiac v. Spellings case out of Michigan. So, in this episode, we chatted it up about that case and the en banc hearing at the 6th Circuit and its possible ramifications on NCLB reauthorization. I was wholly impressed with her expertise on this topic and I think you will be as well (I think she sort of outshines me by plenty).
Resources:
Unfunded Mandates Provision of NCLB, Section 7907
Pontiac v. Spellings - Sixth Circuit Opinion - 3 Judge Panel
Pontiac v. Spellings - District Court Opinion
Mark Walsh's thoughts after attending the en banc hearing.
NSBA's resources on the case.
Reader Comments (1)
Listening to Dr. Umpstead explain the Unfunded Mandates Provision was extremely beneficial. I thought the most interesting thing I learned was that states only receive app. 8% of their funding from the federal government, yet all of our assessment is designed around the expectations of the federal government.
As a student in educational leadership, I have learned that the power of a school district continues to be in the hands of the district with mandatates/guidelines from the state. Listening to this podcast makes me question whether that is the case at all.
Realistically, even in a wealthy state where the disticts could make the choice to decline federal funding, it would be a political disaster. No state department or school district could say they don't believe in having all children meet proficient standards. It seems to be a no win situation.