comment - administrative law revie...4 kenipson postproof(do nor dliete08p 2015] the dept ofed. avid...

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DTiF911 P

COMMENT

STAR-CROSSED LOVERS: THEDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE

COMMON CORE

JUDSON N. KEMPSON*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In trodu ction ............................................................................................... 596I. Background on Federal Involvement in Education ........................ 601

A. EducationJurisprudence: A Unique Status ....................... 601B. Federal Involvement in Education ..................................... 602

II. The Common Core and The Department of Education ............... 607A. The Development of the Common Core ........................... 607B. The Department of Education's Initiatives ........................ 609

III. The Charge of Agency Overreach .................................................. 612A. Jindal v. U.S. Department of Education ..................................... 612B . C onferred A uthority ........................................................... 617C. Congressional Intent and Reasonable Interpretation ........ 618D. The Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment ........... 622

IV. Agency Authority, Deference, and the Use of the Waiver .............. 624A. The Need for the Common Core ...................................... 625B. The Use of the Waiver to Create Policy ............................ 625

J.D. Candidate, 2016, American University Washington College of Law; M.A.,Educational Administration, 2000, San Francisco State University; B.A., English andAmerican Literature, 1983, Stanford University. I would like to thank Professors LiaEppcrson and Amanda Leiter for their fcdback and guidance in the development of thisComment. I am also indebted to the staff of the Adminisative Law Review for their help andsupport throughout the publication process. Finally, I owe enormous gratitude to all thetalented and inspiring teachers who have taught me or with whom I have worked but mostespecially to my parcnts Ann Kcmpson Grau and Clinton Norris Kcmpson.

9/9/2015 12:19 PMI

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF(Do Nor DLiETE08P

596 AD VISTALTIELIW REJIEW [67:3

C. Clarification of Congressional Intent throughR eauthorization of ESEA .................................................. 626

C on clu sion ................................................................................................. 6 26

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, a working group of state governors and superintendents of

education convened to develop a set of common education standards,

which were released in 2010 as the Common Core State Standards(Common Core).1 The development of the Common Core was abreakthrough the culmination of decades of national attention on public

education and the use of education standards.2 The Common Coreprovided a new direction in education after seven years of lessons learnedabout standards and assessments mandated by the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 (NCLB). 3 NCLB obligated a state to develop its own grade-level standards and standards-aligned assessments independent from theother states.4 The development of the Common Core established anagreed-upon set of standards for students in all of the states that adopted

them.5 Initially, the states adopted the Common Core withoutcontroversy. 6 Fears of parents and politicians alike soon began to grow,

1. See generall Development Process, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVEL,

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process (last visited Apr.22, 2015) (providing the history of the development of the Common Core State Standards(Common Core) as initiated by the National Governors Association and the Council ofChief Statc School Officers).

2. See generalyl Janet Y. Thomas & Kevin P. Brady, Chapter 3: 7he Elementa andEducation Act at 40: Equip, Accountability, and the Evolving Federal Role in Public Education, 29 RE,,.OF RES. IN EDUC. 51 (2005), available at

http://rre.sagepub.com/content/29/1/51.full.pdf+html [hereinafter Thomas] (outliningthe development of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) from 1965 to thebeginning of implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, focusing onthe growing involvement of the federal government in shaping public education policy).

3. See Development Process, upra note 1 (recounting how the development of theCommon Core recruited teachers and experts with experience in standards for the purposeof creating standardization between the states).

4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002)(codified as amended in scattered section of 20 U.S.C.).

5. See Development Process, supra note 1.

6. See Fif-One States and Territorie Join the Common Core State Standard Initiative, NAT'LGOVERNORS ASS'N (Sept. 1, 2009), http://xvw.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/pagc_2009 /col2-content/main-content-list/titlefifty-one-states-and-territories-join-common-core-state-standards-initiative.html (heralding the near-universal participationby states and territories in the state-led development of common standards first envisioned inA ,ation at Risk); cf. Catherine Gewertz, Final Verion of Common Standard Unveiled, EDUC. WK.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


2015] THE DEPT OFED. AVID THE CourOv OCORE 597

arguing that the Common Core was a federal overreach and a violation ofstates' rights.7 Although Congress and a long line of presidents have playedan active role in education policy,8 the Tenth Amendment precludes thefederal government from directly controlling education systems, standards,or curriculum. Since education is not an enumerated power of the federalgovernment, education is the province of the states.')

At the time the National Governors Association and the Council of

Chief State School Officers were developing the Common Core, NCLBwas already two years past reauthorization.") NCLB's core provision thatone hundred percent of students would be proficient on assessments aligned

to state standards by the 2013 2014 school year was proving unworkable asthe financial penalties for failing to meet this target were taking their toll onstates, districts, and schools.11 While NCLB passed with significant

bipartisan support in fall 2001, the possibility of passing a bipartisaneducation bill in 2009 was dim.12 With the development of the CommonCore, the longstanding effort to create common state standards in theUnited States had come to fruition. 1:3 Unlikely to accomplish anything in

(Mar. 23, 2012), http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/02/33common.h29.html?qs -common+core+states+rights (reporting on the process of the development ofthe Common Core as a state-led process with input from various stakeholders).

7. See Joy Rcsmovits, How the Common Core Became Education's Biggest Bogeman,HUFFINGTON POST POLITICS Jan. 30, 2014, 10:00 AM),

http://w- v.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/common-core-n_4537284.html (explainingthe history of the Common Core and how the increasingly polarized political environmentat both the state and federal levels saw initial support for Common Core erode as new

governors assumed statehouses and charges grew of federal overreach).

8. See Thomas, supra note 2, at 52-55 (recounting the involvement in education policyof Congress and the President including President Johnson in 1964, President Reagan in1982, President George H.W. Bush in 1989, President Clinton in 1998, and PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2000).

9. See U.S. CONST. amend. X.10. See 20 U.S.C. § 6302(a) (2006) (setting the appropriations for ESEA through fiscal

year 2007).11. 34 C.F.R. § 200.15(a) (2014); ee Richard D. Kahlenberg, Introduction, in IMPROVING

ON No CHILD LEFT BEHIND: GETTING EDUCATION REFORM BACK ON TRACK 2 (Richard

D. Kahlenberg cd., 2008) (detailing the aspirations of the standards movement but notingmany of the flaws of the implementation of standards through NCLB, including the"unrealistic" goal of achieving one hundred percent proficiency).

12. See Fact Sheet: Student Success Act, EDUC. & THE WORKFORCE CONI. (Feb. 3, 2015),http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID-398301(providing the Republican proposal); Democratic Amendment to H.R. 5, EDUC. & THEWORKFORCE CONI. (Feb. 2015), http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites / dmocrats.ddworkforce .house .gov / files/ documents/ DmocraticSubstitutto%2 OHR5-Summary.pdf (providing the Democratic response).

13. See ina Part I.B.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

I 1 \t~iP''\ ;P0511 TO' a0 1l'i Not' t14 n 0tP

598 ADA1; 11Xsll fill' LIIVR I/ElI [67:3

Congress. the Secretary of the Dqartmnent of Lduatio n (Depart!cnipartnered withi the state givernors and superintendents to develop theCommon Core." Dvesoernent of the Common Core presented anopportunity for ie Departmen the goernors, and state supermtendennto move education reform frwcard. First, the Department used theCommon Core as pmt of its blueprint for the reauthorization of" NCLB.then, thmough the American Reove' and ReinvesIment Act of 2009ARRAx,' the Dqparment introdced discretonary Race to the 'Ixp

grants that supp- ltex states in their adop no of common standards1Finally, the Department began to issue Elementars and Sec ondaryEdtucation A\ct ,ESLA. 1Fiexibility- Waivers in 2012 to states that agreed toimpement elements of Race to the liop. u:

Despite its best intentions, the Department :as not irmune to thepolitical polarization of \ashington. ! The Common Core has become thebanner around which politicians who advocate for smaller govennuent

14 loe lt sonK i% . Dwze:2" (.xz.n',e1 fine t a, Rse/:e toun 1' L- C, \U. Pin 1W xT>

s"l B1Osd RFeb 9,RR', Pub.0 L -No, I 1,-

K-I it or , t. 2..210 2:23 PM[, hrtp./tbiog',edttek.oreg/ dn.,eek/xa' sig-k-2/21 0/02/d !me an_ go;-'rnm,'.s h~axe been ret .ixini~tl'"t = durweoiunn/+ C ,r,-

leportn ilia ~t~latetio oen\f{: s O'8 1/-l" OD/i~'i 1 tO e jt ' .,, {{-it proposal dhat '11'1ite ,d iii{-

tied to aidof'g higher, itifri't uiiiirif ('(nrdo io, 'tnda Udlii, 5. eten in!Jori~ R~on, 1r,'a R ±'ewthn, qn/ c" U ES mn/e and yc.uEdai ]'cai,;ka lelIver o't Lot e:. DOE'. j 9 \r 2')0".http:!/ttwtt2.ed]gos/polictv/elsee/leg/bhecrxnt/hlnxprint pitf

It]. Amerian Roe oven, and Reinvcsnnt At of 2(009 AREA.. Put,. L. N,,. 11 1-5.

193 Stat '279 'codiiedl as amnended in sctereef stetixns of2961 .S.C.

1 7. ld.' ,ce Dia Panrt Ii d;criiing the efeetupopmet and pronixlgation of Rate in theTop giants chx'ogl \RRA tnds ainocated to the l) partnien;.

113, 20 U.S.C g §7831 "'012.: ae I; SIl Fdea hi[tag. 1)OE Jitni 7. 2012..bt / /twrt'a, 2. eelgoo/ipoti i A ;34T'/ arpmv'xd-reqctt / flexri'xui t. doe [hereinatte; 1SI1 1

/t/oihti/ia Po~/ecy/'ri;clJ 0** xfplaini~ug hon' 'atites cox:td apply t7ar re lidef " the iequin~mnsen, of'B throh the SA i rquirments, inctiding the aedopion

of " on'ge'- antI taxeec-read 'st aidards that wereC o ith, r sbaroei bs a substantial iaunshec* of'states co wext apxproved hy a -xsxetistciuxtes of thighei ,:dcx alien,: s)C a/ulso fts'fo ltqiierh.

I'oquend Asked O, DOE 3-4 Xug. 3, 2012,hitp.://\5,,1st2.ed.go;'/poliev/cseaflex/'i ~a-flexlhility-"[aq'.dor proidinig the piqosi form-suing a-rd thii Di partinit 'ip spifix aiuthtorittyi t ssx,: LSL\' He~iititv IS aix irs. as well a spridcine ':piir guidani i tox (i repxirrxmentsi in appiag ibr the 'iwi'vcc,: ice a/o ' i7t/ I

tIf ate, s, DOE, I-c://ww w21ed.go I l/f'b/eeeornuloeaitleibixt /iai ex' tesj2009/indes. hrcl kin iupdat -'d Jin xiii' 1201 5 'pro;idig ,xa ul ;x thi i stats iIan ha -x aphled extin en apptro edl oir ESLA ileubihis X\aisr and 'hc' clot uxexmacio fin" suih wsaivers.

1 9. Se vax, alt:i' fain- Fulex. (anacxeo ( aoe .llxg/x B I,a Moit l**orficlacs ino to /o 201 0Rgfpib//cao P,'oaiot/aa/ Race. Ho F N Wlheat Aol :e 0 li/a. Abtoot it, X, Al-. Post Jobl 22. 2(114,9:3 Il'AJ. http://utit.asiigciupost.t urn!/tltg'/thii -fix/iwp/'2014/tt7/23/ornxoi-ioir -

xigt-hx'-the-corst-mnpor Ian'-isox ic-in -thc-201I trn-'puhliecnpr e'idericial-r aee-herei'-tihat-vo",-necq-x-t-kots-abhctc-ic/ asserting that the" Connysu (>0ccr i> the xitiel issue in cetoda'"s

poitical 0r1

-,'0 1 1 , t " PN


2015] THE DEPT OFED. AVID THE CourOv AOCORE 599

rally. 2 0 These politicians claim that the Common Core and theDepartment's programs that support states' adoption of those standards

provide yet another example of federal government overreach.2 1 In short,

opponents of the Department's efforts to support the adoption of commonstandards believe the Common Core represents an attempt by theDepartment to impose federal standards and control over education in

violation of the Tenth Amendment.22 With the political waters churning,23

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana (Governor), sued the Department ofEducation in the United States (U.S.) District Court for the Middle District

of Louisiana on August 27, 2014.24 The complaint in Jindal v. U.S.

Department of Education (7indal or Complaint) claims that the Department isincentivizing states to adopt common state standards in violation of theDepartment's enabling statutes, ESEA, and Tenth Amendment.2 5 In

20. Id.

2 1. See id. (summarizing the positions of some potential nominees for the Republicanpresidential candidate in 2016, including Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Texas Senator Ted

Cruz, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who are all opposed to the Common Core;

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is asking the state legislature to abandon theCommon Core; NcwJcrsey Governor Chris Christie, who is asking his state to reexaminethe Common Core; and Louisiana Governor Bobbyjindal (Governor), who is calling on hisstate to abandon the Common Core in lieu of its own set of standards).

22. See generall ROBERT S. EITEL ET AL., PIONEER INST. FOR PUB. POL'Y RES., THE

ROAD TO A NATIONAL CURRICULUM: THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE COMMON CORE

STANDARDS, RACE TO THE TOP, AND CONDITIONAL WAIXVERS (Feb. 2012) (laying out the

legal arguments that the Department's Race to the Top and ESEA Flexibility Waivers are

executive overreach and an imposition of national standards on the states by the federalgovernment).

23. See Catherine Gewertz, State Lawmaken Assert Influence Over Standard , EDUC. WK.June 23, 2014), http://w-wx.edweek.org/ew /articles/ 2014/06/23/36stateboards.h33.html(highlighting the way state legislatures are reasserting their control over education policy inthe states in reaction to the adoption of the Common Core); ve a1~o Andrew Ujifusa, AewLawsuit Challenges Adoption oI Common Core in Louisiana, EDUC. WK. STATE EDWATCH BLOGJuly 21, 2014, 5:41 PM), http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state-edwatch/2014/07/newlawx suit challenges-adoption_.html (reporting on the legislatures' challengeof the state board's procedure in adopting the Common Core and highlighting how

Louisiana has become "ground zero" for the controversy over the Common Core at the

state level); Andrew Ujifusa, Louisiana Board Joins Common-Core-Teting Suit Against Gove norJindal, EDUC. WK. STATE EDWATCH BLOG July 29, 2014, 1:26 PM),

http://blogs.cdwek.org/dwek/state-cdwatch/201 4/07/louisiana-board-joins-common

-core-testing-suit-against-governor jindal.html?qs -common+core+legal+challenges(reporting on Governor Jindal's conflict with the school board and state legislature regardingthe state's adoption and implementation of the Common Core).

24. Complaint, Jindal v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 3:14-cv-00534-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.filed Aug. 27, 2014) [hereinafterjinda].

25. Id. at 1; Department of Education Enabling Act (DEOA), 20 U.S.C. § 3402(2012); General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1221 1 (2012); U.S. CONST.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


600 ADumIST4TIEL4W REJIEW [67:3

addition, the Complaint asserts that the use of ARRA and ESEA to support

states in adopting common standards was coercive and thus exceeded the

constitutional limits of the Spending Clause. 2

This Comment argues (1) Governor Jindal's suit is unlikely to be

successful since the Department has acted within its statutory authority, and

(2) in the face of Congressional inaction in reauthorizing ESEA, theDepartment used the administrative tools at its disposal to both relieve the

states of the burdens of NCLB while advancing its statutory mandate to

support states, promote innovation, and ensure the academic success of allstudents. Governor Jindal's suit will likely not go far and is more political

theater than a true question of agency overreach.2 7 Congress conferredregulatory powers to the Department through its enabling statutes.28

Additionally, Race to the Top grants and ESEA Flexibility Waivers, thetwo Department programs at issue in Jindal, are reasonable interpretations

of ESEA and ARRA. Ultimately, the courts will most likely defer to theagency's authority under a Chevron analysis.2 ' Further, Louisiana

voluntarily applied for both a Race to the Top grant and ESEA Flexibility

Waiver, and no imminent danger exists such that the Department will takeaway its ESEA funding. 3°

Part I of this Comment provides the background of the unique status

that education holds in constitutional jurisprudence, as well as the long

amend. X.26. Jindal, supra note 24, at 13 16. While GovernorJindal is suing the Department,

two other lawsuits have been filed in state court in Louisiana. One is a petition forinjunctive relief filed by parents and the Louisiana Superintendent of Education againstGovernor Jindal for pulling Louisiana out of the assessment consortium. Verified Pet. forPrelim. and Permanent Inj. and Decl. Relicf, Hill v.Jindal, No. 632170, 2014 WL 4210774(La. Jud. Dist. Ct. Jul. 22, 2014). The other is a suit against the Louisiana Superintendent ofEducation filed by the state legislature for implementing the Common Core. Pet. toSuspend Implementation and Enforcement of "Common Core" for Failure to Follow theProvisions of La. Law and for Inj. Relicf, La. State Reps. v. Louisiana, No. 632150 (La. Civ.Dist. Ct.July 25, 2014).

27. See Peter Grier, Bobby Jindal Sues Obama Over the Common Core. I fhat' that 'Wean or

2016?, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR (Aug. 27, 2014), http://-vvkvw.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-

Decoder/Decoder-Buzz / 20 14/0827/Bobby-Jindal-sues-Obama-over-Common-Core.-What-s-that-mcan-for-2016 (stating that taking on the "soft target" of the Common Core isboostingJindal's ratings in a potential run for President).

28. GEPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1221e-3; DEOA, 20 U.S.C. § 3474.29. See infia Part II.C.30. See Letter from Ann Whalen, Dir., Policy and Program Implementation, DOE, to

Bobby Jindal, Governor, La. (Dec. 22, 2011), available athttp:/ /www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase3-awx ards/louisiana.pdf [hereinafterWhalen Letter]; see also Louisiana's ESEA Flexibility Request, DOE (Apr. 5, 2013),http://xvw2.cd.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-requests/larequestamendcd042 313.pdf.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


2015] THE DEPT OFED. AID THE CourOv OCORE 601

involvement of the federal government in education and education policy.Part II discusses the development of the Common Core and theDepartment's two programs to incentivize its adoption by the states, Raceto the Top grants and ESEA Flexibility Waivers. Part III presents thearguments of agency overreach in the Jindal suit against the Department ofEducation. Finally, Part IV argues that the Department's use of the waiverprovision of ESEA provides a powerful example of how an executiveagency can move policy forward during times of legislative gridlock.

I. BACKGROUND ON FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION

A. Education Jurisprudence: A Unique Status

As a backdrop to the federal government's involvement in education, it isimportant to understand the unique status of education in constitutionaljurisprudence. Education is never mentioned in the Constitution, yet muchof American legal discourse wrestles with the idea of a right to education.3 1

Because the Constitution does not explicitly address education, theSupreme Court has long held that education is not a fundamental right32

and that control over education resides with the states. Regardless, theCourt has repeatedly discussed the importance of education in the UnitedStates and explained that it plays a "fundamental role" in our democracy. "33In one of its most defining civil rights cases, Brown v. Board of Education ofTopeka,3 4 the Supreme Court stated that education was "the veryfoundation of good citizenship" and when states choose to provide a publiceducation, they must provide it to everyone equitably.35 Today, all stateshave compulsory education laws. 36 Additionally, unlike the United States

31. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954) (asserting thateducation is "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments").

32. See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 37 (1973) (holding thatdisparities in school financing were not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment becauseeducation was not a fundamental right and the poor are not a suspect class). But see id. at62 63 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (asserting that strict scrutiny should be applied to anyclassification related to education since it is "inextricably linked" to the rights of citizens).

33. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1982) (holding that states cannot deny a publiceducation to undocumented children since education has a "fundamental role" in oursociety).

34. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

35. Id. at 493.36. State compulsory education laws require parents to send their children to school,

usually from the ages of six to sixteen. See A ,ational Sumve qI State Laws, GALL 1 16 (2007),https:/ /a.next.westlawxv.com/Link/Document/Blob/I9c5aa4a35b541 lde9b8c850332338889.pdf? (providing a summary of each state's compulsory attendance law with refrence tostate codes, age requirements for attendance, exceptions to the statute, home school

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


602 AD/uIISTL4TIELIW REIEW [67:3

Constitution, the majority of state constitutions articulate a right toeducation.37 Given the country's universal understanding of theimportance of education, the Supreme Court may eventually revisit its

holding in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez38 and establisheducation as a fundamental right. 3)

B. Federal Involvement in Education

The Constitution does not enumerate power over education to thefederal government; thus, education is reserved for the states under theTenth Amendment. °( Nonetheless, both Congress and the President haveasserted tremendous influence over the nation's schools and districts. For

example, initially enacted in 1965 as part of President Johnson's War on

provisions, and penalties on parents for noncompliance).37. CONN. CONST. art. VIII, § 1 ("There shall always be free public elementary and

secondary schools in the state."); GA. CONST. art. VIII, § 1, I ("The provision of anadequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of

Georgia."); N.M. Const. art. XII, § 1 ("A uniform system of free public schools sufficient forthe education of, and open to, all the children of school age in the state shall be establishedand maintained."); S.D. CONST. art. VIII, § 1 ("The stability of a republican form ofgovernment depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty ofthe Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schoolswherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitablemeans to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education."); WASH.CONST. art. IX, § 1 ("It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the

education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or prefrence onaccount of race, color, caste, or sex."); see, e.g., ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONALLAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 948 n. 14 (4th cd. 2011) (citing examples of cases that have

established a fundamental right to education, including Serrano v. Priet, 557 P.2d 929 (Cal.1977); Rom v. Counciliwr Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989); Edgewood lndep. Sch. Dist.v. Kbiry, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989); Abbot v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (NJ. 1990); Tenn. SmallSch. sy. v.ax 1cllh ferter, 851 SAV.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); lDuffj v. Secc olthe Exec. Ofice oEduc.,615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993)).

38. 411 U.S. 1, 30, 37 (1973) (holding that education plays a "vital role" in our society,but it is not a fundamental right); accord Pler at 221 (stating that education plays a"fundamental role" in our society). Contra San Antonio, 411 U.S. at 102 03 (Marshall, J.,dissenting) (asserting that rights not mentioned in the Constitution, such as education,become fundamental when closely connected to constitutional rights: "As the nexus betweenthe specific constitutional guarantee and the nonconstitutional interest draws closer, thenonconstitutional interest becomes more fundamental and the degree of judicial scrutiny

applied when the interest is infringed on a discriminatory basis must be adjustedaccordingly.").

39. See CHEMERINSKY, mura note 37, at 946 48 (suggesting that the Supreme Courtmay eventually declare that education is a fundamental right by tracing the Court's

decisions regarding the right to education and also citing various cases that have establishededucation as a fundamental right at the state level).

40. U.S. CONST. amend. X.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

I 3\PB ili P 0511N 15 ( 1 t 1)c 5cc N ti~;t nqio , 0

2015] fi ', T Em. W! 11 MfRt ;o, hOur 6 03

Poverty program. ESEA established a federal grant program fr states withthe ob jective of closin the achieveenti gap between middle class students

and students likng in po >rty. r states to receie federal educationfunding, they must meet f "edera requilements for hoiw the funds are to beused in public schools." - A fundamental conc ept that underlies ESLA

funmdin is that the funds can oad% be used to provide support throaghsiitppleiental progranis In other words, states can accept the education

fundis tiot the lde'aI government, 113 tey canoit use these funds treplace the state futds necessar\ to run the cducation program alreadyrequired under state law.4

Since its enactment. ESEA has become the Department largest publiceducation expenditre.-l During the first veam of EhEA. ambiguity in thelaguage of the statute led to abuses.4 One longstanding requirement iof

ESEA fmding has been that ESEA funds were specifically meant tosupplement rather than supplant education serv ices to help c'lose theachievement gap. 7 Nevertheless, these supplemental programns were left to

41. .V 1 "htcma.. stipta note 2, at 32 33 'providine th-e hictonr behind the en-actment ot"ESEA during th.eJohnn admincsnraricn.

12. Sr.¢: [SEA, 2t0 U.SC.( t 631 ie ' 1:t 2 adating that funds be 1,et 1n proadei(ef e t' chitdren needing "pr " aTo I a43. Id, g 6.3 13b '3 t'nnmds reee" :iect ceee ta' n d. pert m nea . Wet V.B'B n Ro i.-. t' e nrites

"IhaI, nless{.rIse e-qsrd tcbly a i, l e~ made as~cita]{ -e tc' i-cideen. ibt teak b,' suse d tes

setet dutaec' or SPct 't1 ltDtt s, 1 'C, ES:iMAes " I-14 Id.: BC, rccr l)). *Nt uN-Ri-cUtL 513 Ri ( U t ID c : 1 f'itLI PtF(SCA IssuEs: Nt ITgF

ai [ibiR (a r sr kttLtts St PiA.t I. NOr S t't'HN (Y Vk re t (:XIV 1 V t COMsOticATc

Ptsns iS SetlOOtWtitt PROSE 5>'5 (,RAIl ttK Ri' d til1tiS.- 37 4i qeh. 2tA0pts tpv<//wswwsedgox/pngracnsititteiprta./fiaaguid.pd 'defining and illestrating she

ditlerenee bi en using 'Title I ttch sw supplmeat an eosung piogran rather tha tosuppam ssate finds 6cr a requie educatinal program for c example, ayu for a readintprogram Iron sta aen i tocat funds one "T ar and using fedeli Title I tunds the tbllnuvingycar ttld not t e tetltecl tecase tilt ahct diuies scid

d he tsingo techrat ttn, toseiptlant 't te a-d local itcs thas w,'-re already used eo prtide tn progrant..

45. Tin Departt t f Ed LcAtio wGmas slc, ated 368. 1 illion o diserwticcsars fitds in21113. >36.7 billion ,tf sfinch seas allocated tin dleantnuns and sceotidaix edcton~. 01 shat

>36T.7 billion, 324.1 hillico 'as alkitated tbr LSL\ spn ding, and I \Ii billion 2. , allocatedIce" lnclisideeals wit Dicahihies Educ ation Act Il]_EA speoctrcg. .)1 clte rettanting

discrctiormrvi ih s. ° ..t r e f i hiliten ssas altoatt fr V sstco r ete i t dic rcactn ON . bIf h c e

wshich stas allcct ted list Pelt titants. and 3,'3,tcilliccc isa. at lo ate-'d 6c" otther pccogreaces ,r

IDOE. ,StMAR (ttkc itF UD!( RIToes kNARi ltUN5$ Nec. 2. 201 I'

help:i/sstse2.ecd gas/aboei/teriew et /eedgm/iceedet I 4/soenoacry/appetedix2.tpdf46,. 8'r 'I'cotna< .ar:.p cot-' 2, at 5 3 sseunhcig~ ste report I!te I uiL8K4: I" It He:'pcc

Preol Cbre.'. wsihi ntieed shc" use tef E'EA T idle 1 ti5rds 5cc pay tccr bcol's arcd supplac's terenih'r schools ttr sc pac tir general expense tech ss oxerheal ttr opaic aitg c cest*s.

47. 90 tU S.C . Vi b.'b I.

-,'0 1 1 , "l PM


604 ADiJmLISTRATIEL4W REI EW [67:3

the states without sufficient accountability.48 To address some of the earlyabuses of ESEA, Congress has increasingly imposed greater accountabilityon schools.49 In 1988, Congress amended ESEA to require documentationfrom states and districts that students living in poverty were demonstratingacademic achievement, thus introducing an assessment requirement intoESEA. 5

In 1981, President Reagan convened the National Commission onExcellence in Education (the Commission) to examine student performancein public schools.5 1 The Commission issued its report, A Nation at Risk, in1983, noting the "patchwork quilt" of education programs in the UnitedStates that resulted from each state developing its own education programsindependently and stressing the need for uniform academic standards.52

In 1989, President George HAV. Bush convened an historic educational

summit in Charlottesville, Virginia with the state governors.5 3 The summitissued recommendations for greater accountability with ESEA, including

the development of higher academic standards shared by the states, similarto the findings in A Nation at Risk. 54 In 1991, President Bush incorporatedthe recommendations from the 1989 educational summit in America 2000,

48. See Thomas, supra note 2, at 51, 54 (describing steps taken to increase Title Iaccountability).

49. Id. at 54-55 (describing the process of requiring states to document and defineachievement levels of students who were being served through ESEA Title I and eventuallyrequiring administration of standardized tests to measure achievement).

50. Id. at 54 (describing the introduction of standardized tests to document academicachievement of disadvantaged children, the target of Title I funding for children living inpoverty).

51. See DAVID P. GARDNER ET AL., NAT'L COMM'N ON EXCELLENCE IN EDUC., ANATION AT RISK: THE IMPERATIVE FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM 39 41 (1983), available athttp://files.cric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf [hereinafter A NATION AT RISK] (describingthe formation of the Commission with the purpose of providing the Secretary of Educationwith recommendations regarding the state of education in the United States).

52. Id. at 5 18 (highlighting the lack of achievement of American students); ee generalyid. at 23 36 (suggesting not only higher academic standards that were common among thestates but also increased course requirements, longer school days, and changes in thetraining and retention of teachers).

53. See generaly Alyson Klein, Historic Summit Fueled PushJ1r K 12 Standard , EDUC. WK.(Sept. 23, 2014), http://xw. edweek. org/ew /articles/201 4/09/24/O5summit. h34.html(providing an overview of the education summit with state governors convened by PresidentH.W. Bush to establish goals for education).

54. Id. (recommending the establishment of national education goals that states andschools should be accountable for meeting, thus addressing the "patchwork" of standardsinitially raised in A ,, ation at Risk); ee A NATION AT RISK, sufra note 51, at 14 ("And wherethere should be a coherent continuum of learning, we have none, but instead an oftenincoherent, outdated patchwork quilt.").

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


2015] THE DEPT OFED. AVID THE Co, 11 1OVCORE 605

an education initiative that Congress failed to pass.55

With President Clinton's election in 1992, the quest for educationalreform continued. Congress enacted the Goals 2000: Educate AmericaAct 56 in 1994 and reauthorized ESEA renamed the Improving America'sSchools Act of 1994.51 These initiatives increased accountability for statesaccepting ESEA Title I funds and focused on student achievement tied toacademic standards.58 The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 alsointroduced the concept of "adequate yearly progress" an annual goal ofmeasurable growth as demonstrated by standardized assessments.59

In 2001, President George W. Bush facilitated the reauthorization ofESEA as NCLB/ ° NCLB represented a significant increase in the federalgovernment's role in public education both in substance andaccountability. First, NCLB formally incorporated the standardsmovement in education reform and linked accountability to studentachievement on assessments aligned to the standards.t 2 NCLB alsoimposed penalties on schools and districts that failed to show adequateyearly progress on these new assessments.t 3 Additionally, NCLBintroduced a requirement that interventions for reading and mathematics,

special programs or curricula to support struggling students, must be"scientifically research based." 4 Finally, NCLB required that by 2014, all

55. See Klein, upra note 53 (providing grants for model schools, local development ofnational standards, and the establishment of school and district report cards to demonstrateprogress).

56. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994)(codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).

57. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518(1994) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 U.S.C.).

58. See Lauren B. Resnick ct al., StandardF-Based Re/bm: A Powejful Idea Urnmoored, inIMPROVING ON No CHILD LEFT BEHIND: GETTING EDUCATION REFORM BACK ON TRACK

115 17 (Richard D. Kahlenberg cd., 2008) (discussing how President Clinton moved thestandards movement forward through reauthorizing ESEA and requiring states to developcontent and performance standards and assessments that were aligned to those standards,thereby creating an effective measure for Title I accountability).

59. Id. at 118.60. 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2012).61. See Resnick ct al., supra note 58, at 117 20; id. at 115 17 (adding to the standards

and testing put in place under Clinton by creating an accountability system that focuses onstudent achievement goals and required schools and districts to meet those goals or be

subject to sanctions); Thomas, sfra note 2, at 55 57.62. Thomas, spra note 2, at 55 57.63. 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.32 200.45 (2014); ,Fee Thomas, wpra note 2, at 575 8 (outlining

penalties for failing to show adequate yearly progress, including the loss of administrativefunds, reorganization of the school, replacement of staff, or a takeover of the school by thestate).

64. ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6301(9); ,Fee id. at § 7801(37)(A) (defining "scientifically based

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

8-,'iro 1 , Pc I

606 ADwaIX ut t "a MyLA Il [67:3

students demo.tnstratc ma stefv f standards as measured by st andardizedassessments in English and iatthemaiics,

Though lmdable in its aspiranons. NC'LB has prose it be ethlengingand flO ed in its implementation/- First, particu lar student groups,including Engish Learners ad Special Education students, are especiallyvulnerable to being labeled as not proficient, 7" Additiomally, schools andrlistriuts have fbo tnd the goal of one hundred percelnt jprofictiev n thestandlands ly 2014 tnattainable. NCLB also iam:mdatIl a series ofprogxecssinl more11 p,.unil we corrective measutres for those schools and

districts that ull to meet these ever-acreasing performance targets - ' Since

tesearlt l s ''lest :'it:h .that t -- , v,. "de >~psiie;ntcr cit rie o t-bx -- 3 tmic: a-sd -ab he::~It' ottdiiit 30 -ot tin it j:bl 'h it ,ct li tsrtiedg t- -mt a edt- Ott-t <(;t-- s tt nd

v~,: "Il ui '1i f" "."4. MW gionA ; I A ,,i' LB ES !'t :' -Su ilmmon iOEtitto: (// Ix2.d;tgti 2/nc ili/ot i i/in;ro/exrt sno ni f t :-t lst Ii t ld I .ih. Il. 2t1 c!

in . O \cn IDonca-. Lttafng do :.mtsrdcds of: Xi /diL'f Bedi/d.' ASc. PtS ta on,6. 2012-, incp.//x'-.rc cc~wsfongtnPo'Lcom/oprins/estczplttg-the-t 'nstrodncs-otfno-titi-l1cM-h ad/l2O12101i/O6(/gIQ'oA cptP sory ht highliinng box: NCLB exptosed

achit n! igca: aps based on rote, income e, isaiity, and 11iagnagt-' ai li- weli asstatedc a coaxersatin ouot box: to close thos'- aps. hotutsol how NCLB cated an

ordtteiai god of proficien! c dat lii, jeionatc ic-ntizd state t- lox- hi- :h it- acadetiestaIards i order to neat h those goalsc

67. Sec Thoma>s.q¢ra ntt- 2, at: 58 sQ tincdingi tint Lnelhsh triners rYcqtiit at teasot 0~

to sex cen cears to tan-tcne pr oficient in Ltighix an;d noting that researich tioxx ~s cxeen tsiti dirhighcst cqoatity- hnsi'rtion, tnat'_x stctents xith disathchts ticker attum ptsdi-ieiriy.

til. Jo'. at Io, -si2.uS 1 Unidc Nt_ L% s coi-ecivc acntons, tbr examp]:itt, sehiots: tha't hati to nieet ;adcjtoat

ct-arty progr-,s for two tctnsit tmin? yteam "etr into in hcsot Imoprovcement. wxhi'ch rcequin s thexc hoctt tto csc sari of it-, Tlittt I l funds to: - notiy, parecnts of" the schoiols tm.iturecowme

pertornsanee targe- : '2- o'ft r sttideiuts to transter ttc atoctie schtool in the district that is notin Schtollomprcts nt: t: pas for the ciansntiettitun of stcdents, xxho elect to ated aclifit rent schiitk " - devetlop a .- itttot jsian to ttnc ci)rptsat strategies has.edtti -U nsc~fttatts

based research' and Thdopi poities atic ptrat tieced tht toill oitre stiticnt oascoemec:cindt 5 pic-side ptc-itosioomd desetopioent fur its teach--is. See 20 U.S.nC. Q 1316 90t2.

Fihitoe ':;t schottol' t-cet p,'ito no' tatrges 3-thricc ears as a r-sx adits ins acdiitinatrttfttq irtcm o---ipit cetasx- cdiucationa:t scr tx:itt 5:t g. a-ic-r-thoot norig-, Id. Tlheapresito i sirei,-s cenni-te s 5-' is the sehootl t'ails I-mc to tgs i- ur tseiNars as a c-nv, hutat it citiittt- to tnhlt-r of csrcc ttx-e cit:tons ctist got s iint ito 1~ : r.'. iaplatig schtool sctf

h10 are rlevniit it t' idcii tci ake ad-'Quoce gox: 2) potctng iito ca iplce a int'x

turotittitto- -3' -cra-sing tti-o tsthool level ioautagemnc auithsoity.- ;4 hsirig il totieexpert to adixise tse sthtool: -5) letsgch.cring thc scht,tt day 01r iear, cor-I ccxi t'ctrcig tit-;lirtttrfctiaiot of the sictool c t I ctnattx, i" the stiocit tits i ateet pertuctsittiie targetes fix e

years ic I Ox r -w tstt sc-at is tpent poaing tot case of the- foltoswima opitis ts ticcot to tnt-syeatr six: -I- retot tqitn'dii schotct as a pi.lslti ithatter stct: ;2. tepaci cg al tr ni)tc ccf theschoolsh taff~ -3 enn ritng tainto elsoiract swits a pinvatt tisinagectent corstipaix to tspt i-alt-' tltsc~f oit; -I) ltctcnint iise micito tover ti: the state tt ri::; and -a atiy icler Itajri restrcuctring,it

1 the , sihooi gtox,,rnanre ti oit'~ri' its xi. cice [.

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DLiETE08P


NCLB is still in effect and requires all students to be one hundred percentproficient on grade-level academic standards at this point, most schools anddistricts that receive ESEA Tide I funds are somewhere along thecontinuum of corrective action.7o

II. THE COMMON CORE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A. The Development of the Common Core

Congress was due to reauthorize NCLB in 2007.71 The act originallypassed with significant bipartisan support, but the reality of annualassessments, yearly goals, and consequences for not meeting those goals ledto a fraying of the bipartisan support that still persists today.72 While

70. Id.; see alo Thomas sura note 2, at 56.71. ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6754(c) (2012) (providing that funds would be allocated from

2002 to 2007).72. Most of the disagreement on Capitol Hill on the reauthorization of NCLB in 2007

through today centers on issues of fcdcral involvement in education, testing, andaccountability. Interestingly, the political parties have seemingly switched sides. (ompare11iiller'3 Speech Lacks Detail, Some Say, EDUC. WK. BLOG July 31, 2007, 9:14AM),http:/ /blogs.edweek.org/edweek/NCLB-Actll/2007 /07/miller-speech draxws mixed reac.hml (reporting that the Secretary of Education underPresident George W. Bush, Margaret Spelling, was willing to wait for a reauthorization billthat would not 'roll back' accountability measures" while Rep. George Miller (D-CA), theHouse Education and Labor Committee Chairperson, saw "serious changes" in the lawaround testing and accountability), and Amit R. Paley, K"Uo Child' % eed to Expand Beond Tests,Chair Say. , WASH. POST July 31, 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html (reporting that Rep. GeorgeMiller (D CA) claimed there was "too much emphasis on standardized testing" in NCLBwhile the Republican Ranking Member on the House Education and WorkforceCommittee, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), said, "Any attempts to weaken thelaw will be met with stiff resistance from House Republicans"), with Lyndscy Layton, I uteHouse Pushes Back Against GOP on Fund Ior Poor School Children, WASH. POST (Feb. 13, 2015),http: / /vw.washingtonpost.com/local/education/white-house-pushes-back-against-gop-on-school-funds-for-poor-kids/2015/02 / 13/06713fac-b399-11 c4-827f-93f454140c2b_story.html (reporting on President Obama's negative reaction to the recentRepublican plan for reauthorization bill, the "Student Success Act," which would roll backmost state accountability measures), and Alyson Klein, IWite House Lsues Veto 7/reat AgainstHouse GOP \CLB Rewrite, EDUC. WK. POLITICS K-12 BLOG (Feb. 25, 2015, 10:31 AM),http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015 /02/

whitehouseissuesvetothreat L.html?qs -nclb+veto (reporting on President Obama's"biggest unsurprisc of the day" when he threatened to veto the House Republican's StudentSuccess Act because it backed off on accountability for schools to meet the needs of poorand minority students). See also Lauren Camera, Slim Hope Jo ESEA Reauthorization, SayEducation 'Iniden,' EDUC. WK. POLITICS K 12 BLOG (Aug. 14, 2014, 7:28 AM),http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2014/08/littlehopefor esea reauthori.html (taking a rather dim view of the prospects of

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


608 ADummLISTRTIEL4i wREIEW [67:3

Congress has been unable to reach an agreement about the future ofNCLB, the states have continued to pursue the educational reforms that

began with A Nation at Risk, particularly the idea of national standards. TheDepartment, beginning in 2009, has also used its authority to relieve states

of NCLB burdens while supporting their efforts to develop and implement

common standards.73

In 2007, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chiefsof State Schools Organization discussed the possibility of developingnational standards.74 With lessons learned from NCLB, the standards

movement that began with A Nation at Risk and America 2000 was set to takeits next step.75 While standards-based education took a big step withNCLB, the "patchwork quilt" issue highlighted in A Nation at Risk

remained. 76 Differing standards from state to state not only resulted in the

continued "patchwork quilt" of educational program quality highlighted inA Nation at Risk, but states with lower standards were not subject to the same

level of accountability under NCLB as those with higher standards.77 A

workgroup of state leaders and educators began meeting in 2009 to developboth College and Career Readiness Standards and then K-12 AcademicStandards. 78 After validation and input from educators, the final version ofthe Common Core State Standards was released in the spring of 2010.7

)

State superintendents then brought the Common Core back to their statesfor discussion and debate.8 () Between the states' desire to adopt common

rcauthorization "'We are only six years behind,' mocked one respondent. 'What's therush now?"'). Nonetheless, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensionsof the 114th Congress recently succeeded in introducing an ESEA reauthorization bill, the

Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, on April 30, 2015, which passed the Senate on July 16,2015. S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015); Text of the Evey Child Achieves Act of 2015,GoVxTRACK.US, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ 114/s1177 /text (last visited Aug. 4,2015).

73. See infba Part II.B.74. See Development Process, supra note 1 (indicating that state chiefs of education discussed

the possibility of common standards at a meeting of the Council of Chief State SchoolOfficials in 2007).

75. See Thomas, supra note 2, at 535 4.76. See ANATIONAT RISK, supra note 51, at 14.77. See generaly SHLILA BYRD CARMICHAEL ET AL., THOMAS B. FORDHAM INST., THE

STATE OF STATE STANDARDS AND THE COMMON CORE IN 2010 (2010), http://cdcx.s3-

us-west-2.amazonavs.com/publication/pdfs/SOSSandCC20 10 FullReportFINAL 8.pdf(comparing the state standards against one another and the Common Core and discussingthe uneven application of NCLB).

78. See Development Process, supra note 1 (describing the formation of a standardsworkgroup by state education leaders in 2009).

79. Id.80. Id.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI



standards and the incentives provided through federal grants, forty-fivestates and the District of Columbia had adopted the Common Core withinthree years of the Common Core's release.8 1

B. The Department of Education's Initiatives

As part of ARRA,82 Congress allocated $45 billion in education funds tohelp states during the fiscal crisis in 2009. Of that $45 billion, $4 billionwas set aside for a competitive grant program that the Department namedRace to the Top for which states could apply.8 , Through Race to the Top,the Department set forth a blueprint for the reauthorization of NCLB, oneintended to reward innovation and growth.84 The four goals of Race to theTop were:

Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in

college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; [b]uilding

data systems to measure student growth and success, and inform teachersand principals about how they can improve instruction; [r]ecruiting,

dcveloping, rcwarding, and rctaining effective teachrs and principals,

especially where they are needed most; and [turning around our lowest-

achieving schools.8 5

In the application process, those four goals were an absolute priority.8 t

While the Race to the Top application does not mention the Common

81. Id.82. Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 279 (2009) (codified as amended in scattered sections

of 26 U.S.C.).83. Race to the Top Fund, DOE, http://-,vvw2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop

/index.html (last updated Mar. 25, 2014) (providing information regarding the regulationsfor the Race to the Top Program, based on the incentive grant section of ARRA); Race tothe Top Fund, 74 Fed. Reg. 59,836, 59,836 (Nov. 18, 2009). See Notice of ProposedInformation Collection Requests, 74 Fed. Reg. 11,533, 11,533 (Mar. 18, 2009) (solicitingpublic comment on ARRA's $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to support publiceducation during the financial crisis). See generall DOE, THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND

REINVESTMENT ACT: SAVING AND CREATING JOBS AND REFORMING EDUCATION (Apr. 3,

2009), http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/presentation/arra.pdf (providing abreakdown of the allocation of ARRA's $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,including $39.8 billion specifically for public education and $4.35 billion for the Race to theTop grant program).

84. See Race to the Top Fund, upra note 83.

85. Id. (internal citations omitted).86. Id.; ee also Michele McNeil & Lesli A. Maxwell, Race to Top Enten Home Stretch with

16 Finalits, EDUC. NK. (Mar. 5, 2010), http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/201 0/03/05 /24finalists ep.h29.html?qs -common+core+states+rights (reporting on theelements of the state finalists' applications for Race to the Top, including the expansion ofcharter schools, Illinois requiring all districts to use student achievement as at least fiftypercent of teacher evaluations, and the adoption of common standards).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

I 13 \tP't' P0 i .icS i t i>e st N tt a trot,'U P

610 Ama1It "i a ,.ti La r Mi nt [67:3

(ore by name, it pro)T.xdes that states are required to adopt "commtonstanda rs" that are shued by "a significant mber of states," defined as a

tajtrity of states in the coturi.P In its responses to firequenty sIedquestions and its scoring rubric liar Race to the 'Fop applications howexer,the Department states that it does not endorse it particular set ofstandards)8 a While the adoption of common standards is an absolutepriority, 3t represents ony fot urtecn percent of ihe total poits on fhe scoring

rubnx U8~ nder ARRA, the Deparemnt also awarded grants t a state

consoria to dev elop cornmon assessments aligted to the commttflottstandards. > Two consortia were assardedi grants, SMA\RTER Blalaneed

Assessment Consort ut (SBAC and Partership for Asessment forC'],, ti PARCC. . poanhheln agReadiness for College and Career PRC ... p orans. telnug

87. Se Race t t i Top Fund. 74 V-1P c egW ".,688. y.owl No. i8 200", celariliingthe rolbrit lot Re: to the lop that the { cotmmotn .st ta ls adopted neected to btc <topted hyitie '>-iajouty of the St~at,:s.

88 lDOE, RAE TO TIE TL J PtRctRii M (it IecsseL raI[) lRttteTL\ ASKEDt(4t:LSM OXs 20 iday 27, 2t) it0 http-!/ fv isiw2.ed.gov/prugratisiracetoehetop/facppd.l

89. DOhE, krrAsttx B. Se:OmNe; RUBRtt D t-2h_:tis /rss-i<ag .ed.go i< o tietiis/ntcethetuop/itoiingeulic,,.., , ,, _ pdf (last, tepdated _Jan. 2010'..

A0. Se IAf/eolh.tfu! bc i/o :-!ac'ce [fec "fo Asscoset Theegeam. DUE 'Ate'. Itt. 2012htp!/ /n is ss2ccl gos/ prigeap:s/rm etciihe-rol-asessenenti /applic anthtml (prosicthegifiniatooie abott the> wmors cf the Rac e to the Top Assc sscner . Program grants.

91. ,Sc Rctz to 84e 7/a A .eocttn PMec.'e, DOE,http.:/issxsu.edgos /progras.0iraeeutoheop-o sse sment/inde e~t tans ,t pda ted Aug. 1').

1 -. explaining tha ARR\ funds sould ti provided to gittps of states itc devloypass s'tnents that ar salid, support and intuirm insmtttso provide arccmate: infitem'atonabout shat: ttdot ots knoss and eats ,o. .use eoeaseu>, studento aec}'devement against standards

dc sicnrid u , to estn' tut i I dents gain: the knov ledge and skills neediciH , suet ed incollege ;ind tie swoitniac,:.) .';'V ccc et Osverrviest lforcuatios Race cco the Top EtrocAssessment Progcaeo' "aire Jolting A-pph' :.,tio>s it Ness Awsacds for hi , :al Year 1TN{

colt.. 75 INtl ke:g. 18.i 7" 18.171 75 Ap O. 21010' provicding derailed alttatioW n cIteRea.including the numbei of ,[tecs th<at set tied to he a part of the asse ssment des eloposentcotsottrtim, tcor 'election of grant reipin~s t hicsiih sen: SMI\RI ER Bialanc 0 Asse'ssmtiettCtetsoctixur SiAC aud Patruership fist Asses-esent tot Rearitess to' (Colle g,. ati CareetPAR(.(+: :' Axctt't,e .Sc':eco., SBAC. htsp://www.smaetn rieaanecl.org/ss otrdsiuc, 55.

eootet/tploads/2tt1 /1t2/S rmrcBalanceed I'<o.s utis ' Stttttsaippdt last susitecl Aug. -4.0205' pro r iditig infomiateon ab~ot SBiAC: Aicmbc; She" . SBAXC.hettp:t/wwwsrs.senatterbalancecd oig/ateiimenb,-'r-staies/ lnst svisiteci jtseie 6. 2ttlJ 'isticegSR SC M etsber States tee inc ittde t a1 efbreia, Co cectiet, Be'aw se. tiassa ii idacho, tcessMaine, Mi higats. Missoutri° Motarea Nesada. Ne is Hacepshire. Noethl (J3trolina, NorthDakoeta, Ott cots, Socth Dakota, 'lh' Berea of Iidati ' InAfi'st. Virgin isladics.

Vetninot. XWastoritri. X\est Virgiena. X\is-'coctseo. aid h.'socmitig; b, n. PARC.

ht.://>s.-swpaceetiite.ocg/abottt-jiaret lest visiicc (li-e' 2I5 t13 rvidiceg iPtnt-'Onid-tiattote PARCC, the assessienet cones-oti"ene eomptiseci it Aikansas Cototaado. Disiri, tof"

Ccilhuereia. Iteiis, Lcistena. Miarvlanr. 'tassac tsttstis Ntissiotdpi. Ness Jerisy NessMe leo. Nest ok. Oeici. an3d Rhc~ode IslaidL

- ,2 1: 8 , , ,l PN


2015] THE DEPT OFED. AAD THE CO, IIIIOVCORE 611

of ARRA does not explicitly call for common standards and assessments,but rather uses ambiguous language that asks states to "enhance the qualityof the academic assessments" and "improve State academic content

standards."9r2

The Department also introduced a new program in 2011 to relieve

schools and districts from the demands of NCLB if they were to adopt theCommon Core. Under NCLB, Congress authorizes the Secretary to grant

states waivers of certain NCLB requirements. ), A state can seek a waiver of

some of NCLB as long as it describes how the waiver will "increase the

quality of instruction" and "improve the academic achievement ofstudents.' 94 In 2011, the Secretary implemented this provision through aprogram called ESEA Flexibility Waiver.95 In order to qualify for ESEA

Flexibility Waivers, states are required to implement many of therequirements of Race to the Top, including the adoption of "college- andcareer-ready standards.' The ESEA Flexibility Waiver program similarlydefines college- and career-ready standards as standards that are "commonto a significant number of States" or approved by "a State network of

institutions of higher education."' While the ESEA Flexibility Waiverprogram does not mention the Common Core by name, the Common

Core is the only set of common standards adopted by a significant number

of states98 Therefore, a state either needs to adopt the Common Core orhave its own standards approved by its institutes of higher education in

order to qualify for an ESEA Flexibility Waiver.' To date, the

92. Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 14,005(d)(4), 123 Stat. 279, 282 83 (codified as amended inscattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).

93. 20 U.S.C. § 7861(a) (2012) (waiving statutory and regulatory requirements); me aloid. § 6316 (outlining the School Improvement process and the onerous corrective actionsimposed on schools that fail to meet achievement targets).

94. Id. § 7861 (b)(1)(B); ee id. § 7861 (c) (listing the waiver restrictions); me also wpra notes60 70 and accompanying text (describing the requirements under NCLB).

95. See Letter from Arne Duncan, Scc'y, DOE, to Chief State School Officers (Sept. 23,2011), available at http:/ /www2.cd.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html (invitingstate superintendents to apply for ESEA Flexibility Waivers).

96. See ESEA Flexibiliy Polic Document, supra note 18 (providing criteria for state'squalifying for ESEA Flexibility).

97. Id.98. See generaly Frequently Asked Qestionn, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE

1 2, http://-xvw.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/FAQ(s.pdf (last visited Aug. 4,2015) (explaining how each state had its own standards and the Common Core was built onthe best of these standards).

99. See Laws & Guidance: ESEA Flexibilit, DOE,http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html (explaining that awaiver will be granted if states develop "rigorous" standards to improve quality of educationthat are also approved by the state's institutes of highcr cducation); ee also Letter from Arne

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

1 ii \1P'O\ POsit 110)1 i~'t Ne iOut U Pt)

u12 ADwA 1 U;XI 1 Vf ; MY L~r ao [67:3

Department haos granted vaims to fir'. -three of the forlTy-tixe aies iathave applied.l1011 Tw'No other states' applications are cu reentilk under

rex iew. u01 the: Depaitieni has denied ie extensio iof a waiver for ny

one tate, Oklahoma, w4hich rescinded its adoption of the Common Corewithout having college- and career-ready standards in place that w ereapproxedl by it institutions of hiIgher education. 1,

111. [IlL (tAR(C. OF ACIENCV OX ERRE Aft

A, Iind- . U.. J Dpartoteo o/°Ed/ ca/-

Soon after a significant niawoit of states adopted the Common Core in20P1 the Common Core began to experience a bae kiash as corn ri uose

the fdera govenment had efcti ational curiuto eslates ," Despite claims thai the Dcpn'-rlnent bad overreached aid

violated the 'Tenh Amendment. the states x ohintarily adopted dieCommon Core, and most of the action r~egarding the Coimnon Core has

ocured at the suite level whetre legislatures are iaxrng second thoughtsabout ot adoption. " On Autsi 27, 2014, Governor Bobby Jidai filelthe first complaint against the Dejparment fr its pograms s jporting tihe'

Dtiim. Seexv DIE. 1O0 lih ia ttinoy, Cnmr. Alaka Dcpt of dun . arnd EarlY Dwe.Mans 20. 9013. ma.k da/d a htyp:/ /iwww2.edigov/ enlie. /omcafloxisocrotary-leui'rsi/ak.htrni

awardirtg AlaSka\s ESLA Fhlt'ibiitx Water. DOE, E51EA flesntnrisI RI jj TST FOuX,'\"tNow 3: Xi\i,:siK 2t6 i'say,i 2il 203 . hiy//!www2.d gox/peliiy/est fiex/approed-

reqoestiaki .pdf *providing ihau \Jiaika did not a,1(lpi common staniild, hut had itsstandardss approxed Py ius mnsetm of higher odtcaiion) I otte:r Itoe 'an'ick K. (;amble.Pre'.,. Umk, of A\la'-ka. to Arnt IDuoran, See's, DOE 1928 29 {Jue 7. 20i.2',, aa~l ihtp//iwxw2.ed gox /policxy/oseaflor/appros.,c-r, quesrs/akti la:nstem pdi ::onfirming

11ha1 Alasbis standard.- pe eared stude]nts in sutcceed inl coil, ~go:l.. Sa,, Ls & (Adre: i 5 1 I7es,'ibi. 1...,'1'a urno 99 (pron,'idjng a picoirl of ith siaes

10ha14 hero b en n d s, allis~r,.

111. 14. tinor~g that . Dyoling .0(1 1. a h-aie lo",: CeI applicatiolns ,iirct reader

10)2. 3>¢ Catherine Ci 11/t )Az. ')st~t r; . ... ", F[ t .Sloe to t~o'its 50.1C 3 i's' Osts;*

1,!-okdhona+wan it '0i1;.g that h,1 w01e "by an nieda n\1 fim it' ltlusal 1,akul if 1he

,10ac4 0. aiu1'on ..1'4-:' le.rt Pci ha i .i 11 sttes s'tdards were 110 good f-tnoutgh .lt3. Ste gen alt Akrtir-' I jifhsa C O;lmttll (Ale Baodo'lvd Jo'!. State Eftorts, Lot'<. XX is.

'stitch 31, 201i-4. htrp://xcveee14ck~otg/is e0!:00n/onmhutcdla/201 4-ano-0ra(ker html 'liarkieg 11h0 acri'ns ill variems isoa0 1000003, aga155 adopuoi {of theCJommilon C (r

Ilil. Se, Gewersu, ~res not' '23 /3.101 ,qil1g an 110115 iCO oft'faotls tali' legal at tions~ iin

reatlion o lit'e Com'monttuer ..

2 ,% : 1 1 , ,[ PN



adoption of common standards.105 According to the Complaint, theDepartment has used its authority under its enabling statutes in waysCongress never intended and that violate the Tenth Amendment. 1()

Under the Tenth Amendment, any power not explicitly delegated to thefederal government is reserved for the states. 107 Since the Constitution doesnot confer to the federal government any power to control education, all ofthe Department's enabling statutes draw a bright line between its authorityand states' rights. 108 For example, the General Education Provisions Act of1965 (GEPA), which established the Department of Education, specificallyprovides that "no provision of any applicable program shall be construed toauthorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the UnitedStates to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum,program of instruction ... of any educational institution, school, or schoolsystem."'1() This limitation on the Department is echoed throughout itsother enabling statutes.1 0 ESEA also prohibits the use of federal funds bythe Department "to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designedto be used in an elementary school or secondary school."1 1 Additionally,ESEA prohibits requiring any state to have "academic content or studentacademic achievement standards approved or certified by the FederalGovernment."

112

According to the Complaint, the Department's Race to the Top grantthrough ARRA is at odds with Congressional intent by directing standards,assessments, and programs of instruction. 113 In order to meet the "absolutepriority" of the Race to the Top application, the Governor claims, stateswere required to adopt a single set of "nationalized" standards. 114 Therequirement to implement assessments that are aligned with the standards,

105. Jindal, supra note 24.106. Jindal, supra note 24, at 1.107. U.S. CONST. amend. X.108. All of the fcderal education statutes have a provision regarding the relationship

between the Department of Education and the states. Accord ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 7907 (2012)(prohibiting the fcderal government from controlling, directing, or mandating a instructionalprogram or curriculum in a State); GEPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232a (2012) (prohibiting fcderalcontrol of education); DEOA, 20 U.S.C. § 3403(a) (2012) ("The establishment of theDepartment of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government overeducation or diminish the responsibility for education which is rescnvcd to the States and thelocal school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.").

109. 20 U.S.C. § 1232a.110. See, e.g., DEOA, 20 U.S.C. § 3403 (b) (stating the intention of Congress not to

encroach on states' and local governments' rights).111. ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(b).112. Id. § 7907(c).113. Jindal, supra note 24, at 21.114. Id. at 23.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DEI.iET2E8

614 ADVISTAL4TiEL4w REJIEw [67:3

the Governor continues, is also meant to lead states to nationalizedstandards under the direction of the Department. 115 The Governorspecifically points to an award letter to one of the assessment consortiaunder the Race to the Top Assessment grant, PARCC, which states thatthe Department would maintain "substantial involvement" in theprogram.11t Thus, the Governor characterizes the two assessmentconsortia, PARCC and SBAC, as "agents of the Department," working toput into place nationalized standards and assessments. 117

The Governor also argues that the Department had no authority toimplement the ESEA Flexibility Waiver program. 118 As noted above, to beawarded an ESEA Flexibility Waiver, states needed to agree to fourconditions, including the adoption of college-ready and career-readystandards and aligned assessments.11) The Governor asserts that thewaivers are coercive because states allegedly have no choice but to agree tothe "objectionable" Race to the Top conditions of the waivers rather thanbe subject to the "more onerous conditions" of NCLB. 120

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),121 a court hasjurisdiction to review an agency's action to determine if the agency violatedthe Constitution, exceeded the authority of its enabling statue, or otherwiseacted unreasonably.122 A court first analyzes whether Congress conferredthe agency the authority to make rules and regulations that have the forceof law. 123 If the agency does have the authority, the court will look at thelanguage of the statute and whether the intent of Congress is clear. 124 If thelanguage of the statute is unclear or ambiguous, the court will thendetermine if the agency's interpretation is reasonable. 12

In Jindal, the court will need to determine whether the Department'senabling statutes conferred the authority to provide incentives to the statesto adopt common standards through its ARRA Race to the Top programand ESEA Flexibility Waivers.12t If the Department does have such

115. Id. at 36 37.116. Id. at T 38.117. Id. at T40.118. Id. at T43.

119. Id. at 42; ee upra notes 93 102 and accompanying text (explaining the details ofthe ESEA Flexibility Waiver program).

120. Jindal, upra note 24, at 46.

121. Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2012).

122. Id. § 706(2)(A) (C).123. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984).

124. Id. at 842 43.125. Id.126. (. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226 27 (2001) (establishing that

before undergoing Chevron analysis, a court must first determine whether Congress conferred

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 itJ t'O\toitpO Oft )t'lRc0i il't No iAt tcrd S

20i5] Ti Ppm, C; E1 Axn /I.m Ct W 1 WON 615

authority, the court wii1 then cleteminiure I I hether the intent of (Gress js

clear in the statuie. If it is not. the court will determine xw hether theDe:partment's interpj'etiitris of the statutes are teastnabD. In

examinung xwhether the LDepartnment eommnitted a eonsittitioal viokitiotithrough its programs, the court will analyze xwhether the progrants to

encourage states to adopt common stanlards either (1) violated theSpending Clause bv sin g federal unds in a manner that was cert ixve t)the jpoint ,:ft e.oi pulvt - or 2. inyoseil a natitnma ciirriculum in violatitonof' the Temhb Amendment. i:

Governor Jind successftlh jumped the first hurdle in his suit againstthe Department when the district court deenid the Department's MotWon to

DismnissN wxhich claimed that the Governor lacked standing to bring his sitftrwaid W "o satisy tht stanling reqtirenent, a plaintiff st est'alish

th (1) lie has stffered an injury in fct that is concrete, panticliarized, andmn ,g 2 the injn was caused Ly the defendat's conduct; anti 3' the

mn}m 'avi redlressabie, ,' Since Lottisiana vohmntarily' entered into thepartnership to dev elop the Common Cr. . voluntarily adopted the

Common Core. tO 3 xoiutarilv applied for and ret cixed a Race to the lop

to th~e agencyC the atutnority to pro itfti rules tech the h}_rcee of latw

127 Cheoc. 467 1.8. .842 43123.Sie South Dakota . Dii 483 t.S. 903. )Q t3 1087 lhotding that CorigIre-m aytU tt' SpeHnding Clause to imptetoen progfr"s th" e:V to; she genterA xw r r 'ons ayite act coerciex e ail t Nat Fed of lode1p. Bus. NFB v S( belihrus 132 S. Ct. 25tA.

t,02 03 2012 V a'rsooing that Confes s'" powero tfd the Spe tnhg (Jla, .1t lhotetd toindhocent: ox that st ate take on vouart ty.

129,'. 6.S. CoNSz. amnd. X; .,coed Uncited States x' Lopez. 514 . U.S. 549. 56"3 t} :1995rt3: edog the argument th~at posses'ion oh a iirer tneloar a school eao he regulated hy the

fberat ooteot because it allen'ts intt rstat, coome'i.e tfathse tlht t :ietal gotetotrt fit

cult] then, under the (;omtmerce (Clao.s:, egnlatt' It:al tit.teation anti eurrictuhtm. an areaoXe wfOshiech the states have ocre'i~nty.

131. Jindal o. IU.S. D p't of Editc.. No. 14-.CV-5 34, 201.5 W\I fL 5132 M.D. La. Ft b.d. 015; .t at \I~0 m. an Sttpp. of Deli.' Mlot, to [hos'issr La:k oi Sttbjt c Matter

ftorisditcit* aud in Op'c to Pl's Mot. Onr Pielit. tcj.Jindal t. tU.9. Dep't ci Ltita.. Ntoa: I':;.tti 3.51)i)1UJ 2113 N 367 ,*,2t.5 NEDI. La. Act. 3. 20 1 i ien nhaict Zoxict:u

to _i. Iets.

131. Lu Jan x. Deledets oilde, 504 . . 5t :31 d1'92l112 . e Dr"r/stttni Ptt:,.; n' I*t indctitng that fio t-eitt stat:, itohtditg

Louisana. itietd tile Coconic C irVi St ate Startdards ltinodxe to dcx -'icp tboi~lu~icn

Standatdti5 Of' flto f4i On 5/o/ ,e ~ tAtd fot .)ihttir 301:1i (,ottiuc, (,,ptt .55t/ Sirt/rotd Jttt/tc/te.N xi'L ('oxViRNOiS Sass Sent. 1. 200.. hitp.//!w.xx.tiga.ttrg/cnts/lcme/rnctts

roocm/nto'tris-eks/pagst 2oogh/col2-tctotr /mtait-xcotntrt-it/ tth ifit-one-statesa- itenritttnt's-itu-cnmittn-tore-n t-'.tandartl.-',iniitatVfi.hlifl ctnrittircig thtat Loitisiana xtas:cut' of steveral staites thait had sigoed n toif tim' (3tomnm C(.',o(:

- , 1 1 , , ", , P,\ I

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF(Do Nor DLiETE08l

616 AD/umsmrtL4TIJEL4w REIEw [67:3

grant of $1 7.4 million, 134 and voluntarily applied for and received an ESEAFlexibility Waiver,135 the Department argued that Governor Jindal couldnot prove an injury in fact, much less causation, or redressability.136Presuming the allegations in the Governor's Complaint to be true,however, the district court denied the Department's Motion to Dismiss andfocused its analysis on the issue of whether the standards and assessments

encouraged through Race to the Top and the ESEA Flexibility Waiverswere tantamount to an infringement of Louisiana's state sovereignty over itseducational program. The district court ruled:

134. See Whalen Letter, supra note 30.135. Louisiana's ESEA Flexibility W aiver Request, supra note 30; States Approved 1fr ESEA

Flexibili) (Includin g DC and PR), DOE (Sept. 27, 2013),http:/ /www2.cd.gov/policy/lsec/guid/sea-flexibility/approvalflcxrcquest820.doc.

136. See Mot. to Dismiss at 19 20 (arguing that there was no injury in fact to the statesince applying for the Race to the Top grant and ESEA Flexibility Waiver were notmandatory and failure to apply would not necessarily result in any loss of ESEA funding); id.at 21 (arguing that there was no causation because any injury was brought on by thevoluntary actions of the Governor and the state); id. at 21 24 (arguing that there was noredressability since controlling state law, not the Governor, binds Louisiana in adopting theCommon Core and implementing the PARCC assessments).

Two separate scenarios also demonstrate that failure to adopt the Common Coreor to receive a Race to the Top grant or ESEA Flexibility Waiver would not result in injuryin fact to a state Texas and Alaska did not participate in the development of the CommonCore, adopt the Common Core, or apply for the Race to the Top grant, but did receiveESEA Flexibility Waivers and continued to receive ESEA funding; California, on the other

hand, did participate in the development of the Common Core, adopt the Common Core,apply for and fail to receive a Race to the Top grant, and did not receive an ESEAFlexibility Waiver, but still receives ESEA funding and operates under the originalrequirements of NCLB. See Fort-,!Vine States and Territories Join Common Core Standard Initiative,NAT'L GOVERNORS ASS'N (June 1, 2009), http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-

room/n ews-releases/pagC_2009 /col2-content/main-content-list/titleforty-nine-states-and-territories-j oin-common-core-standards-initiative.html [hereinafter Fory-,ine States](providing that Alaska and Texas were not among the states that signed on to the

development of the Common Core but that California was one of such states); Standards inYour State, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE,http:/ /xxvw.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/ (last visitCdJunC 15, 2015) (showingthat Alaska and Texas have not adopted the Common Core but California has); DOE,

RACE TO THE Top: PHASE 1 FINAL RESULTS,

http:/ /www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase l1-applications/score-summary.pdf (lastvisited Aug. 4, 2015) (showing that Alaska and Texas did not apply for Race to the Top butCalifornia did and failed); Laws & Guidance: ESEA Flexibili , supra note 99 (showing that the

Department granted Alaska and Texas ESEA Flexibility despite not having adopted theCommon Core but did not grant California ESEA Flexibility even though it did adopt the

Common Core).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DEiiE8E


Even if the common standards and aligned assessments were thrust uponLouisiana, without any meaningful way to resist, and even if the Secretarywas without the authority to grant conditional ESEA waivers, Louisiana'ssovereign right to control education is injured only if the Common CoreStandards and PARCC assessments jointly operate in a way that mandateseducational curriculum, content or programs of instruction. 137

Whether standards and assessments are equivalent to curriculum, then,will be central to the court's decision.

B. Conferred Authorify

As the district court found that Governor Jindal established standing tobring his suit, the merits of the case rest on whether the Department hadthe authority to incentivize the adoption of the Common Core and alignedassessments.1 The court will most likely hold that the Department'sprograms to support the adoption of common standards are an acceptableuse of agency authority. The court will begin its analysis by examining theDepartment's enabling statutes to determine if Congress intended theagency to create rules and regulations that have the force of law. 13) Underboth the Department of Education Organization Act (DEGA) and GEPA,Congress conferred the Department the authority to promulgateregulations that have the force of law to accomplish the intent of thestatutes.140 Under DEGA, the purpose of the Department of Education isto "supplement and complement" state efforts and to "promote improvements" inorder to improve education in the United States. 141 The statute also givesthe Secretary of Education the authority to create rules and regulations thatare necessary or appropriate to fulfill the mandate of the Department. 142

When Congress established the Department of Education under GEPA,Congress also recognized that the country's welfare and security dependedupon a "well-educated citizenry."14 To achieve that goal, GEPA providesthat the Secretary is "authorized to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, andamend rules and regulations" of the programs overseen by the

137. Jindal v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. No. 14-CV-534, 2015 WL 854132 at *5 (M.D. La.Feb. 26, 2015).

138. See id. (stating that "there is only infringement to the State's sovereignty over thefield of education if the standards and assessments are defhcto curriculum.").

139. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 221 (2001) (establishing that a courtmust first determine whether Congress confcrred an agency the authority to promulgaterules with the force of law before a court may apply Chevron analysis).

140. See DEOA, 20 U.S.C. § 3474 (2012); GEPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1221c-3 (2012).141. 20 U.S.C. § 3402 (emphasis added).142. Id. § 3474.143. Id. § 1221-1.

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


618 AD/umsmrtL4TIJEL4w REIEw [67:3

Department.144 Since Congress conferred the Department and theSecretary the authority to promulgate regulations with the force of law, thecourt will next need to determine whether the intent of Congress is clearfrom the statute, and if not, whether the Department's programs reflect areasonable interpretation of the statute.145

C. Congressional Intent and Reasonable Interpretation

While GovernorJindal asserts that the actions of the Department clearlyexceed the intentions of Congress,14 the plain meaning of NCLB refutesthis assertion. The Act is far-reaching and aims to ensure that childrenattain high levels of achievement on assessments aligned to rigorousacademic standards developed by the states.147 To achieve these aims,Congress conferred to the Department the authority to promulgatesweeping rules and regulations.148 Congress authorized the Department toensure that the materials used for instruction align with academicstandards, hold schools and districts accountable, and improve teachingand learning by using assessments meant to ensure students meet thechallenging and rigorous academic standards that the states developed. 14)

To understand the issues in the Governor's suit against the Departmentof Education, it is beneficial to define how educators use these terms. Afterall, the Governor's argument rests on the idea that standards andassessment drive "curriculum," which the Department is expresslyforbidden from controlling. 150 While "standard" refers to the achievementlevel that is considered acceptable or desirable, "curriculum" is defined asthe courses taught at schools.151 Standards let us know what students willlearn, while curriculum encompasses the tools, strategies, frameworks,textbooks, and materials teachers use to operationalize the standards. 152 In

144. Id. § 1221c-3.145. Chevron v. Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 43 (1984).146. Jindal, sra note 24, at 1.147. ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2012).148. See DEOA, 20 U.S.C. § 3474 (2012); GEPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1221c-3 (2012).149. ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (1).150. See Jindal, supra note 24, at 1 ("This case involves an attempt by the executive

branch to implement national education reform ... in contradiction... of Congressionalpolicy forbidding federal direction or control of curriculum .. ");.see ao EITEL ET AL., upra

note 22, at 19 20 (stating that standards drive curriculum and that the Departmentunderstood that a change in standards would result in a change of curriculum).

151. See REBECCA R. SKINNER &JODY FEDER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R43711,

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 6 (2014).

152. Id. at 6, 22 23 (differentiating between standards and curriculum while concludingthat the Department acted within its authority and did not violate its statutes or promulgatea national curriculum).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI


2015] THE DEPT OF ED. AAD THE CO, IIIIOVCORE 619

short, standards are what students will learn, while curriculum andinstructions are how students will learn those standards.

For example, a professor of administrative law probably has an idea ofwhat is essential for law students to learn about the topic during a course.The professor would probably want all the students to understand the APAand the way our regulatory state is structured. He or she may also wantstudents to understand what agencies are, how they are formed, and howCongress confers authority to them, but that they mostly reside within theExecutive Branch. Our professor's law students may also be expected tolearn the processes of note-and-comment rulemaking, adjudication, andguidance documents. Moreover, an administrative law professor mayexpect students to be able to articulate the constitutional issues raised byunelected agencies, to conduct a arbitrary and capricious as well as adeference analysis, to discuss why an agency would choose one form ofaction-rulemaking, adjudicatory enforcement, or non-binding guidanceover another, as well as to argue policy issues. These skills are thestandards of an administrative law course. 153

An administrative law professor would then need to choose the casebookand other materials that would best help students master these standards.The professor would consider the following: what cases were in thecasebook; how the cases were sequenced; what background, issues, andtopics are presented in the notes for the cases; and what practice problems,if any, were given to students to apply their knowledge. The materials andhow they are presented are the curriculum of the course.

Finally, the instruction of the course would include the activities andstrategies the professor would use to engage the students with thecurriculum so they can master the standards. Would the professor lectureor use the Socratic method? Would there be a number of short essaysthroughout the course, a research paper, or one final? Would the professorhave the students work in pairs or groups to discuss the material? Wouldstudents role play an agency adjudication or submit a comment to aproposed rule on regulations.gov? These activities and strategies are theinstruction of the course.

Elementary and secondary education follows a path similar to that of ourhypothetical law professor above. States adopt standards that articulate

153. (ompare WILLIAM F. FUNK ET AL., ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE:

PROBLEMS AND CASES xiii-xiv (5th cd. 2014) (listing substantive topics covered, includingrulcmaking, nonleglislative rules, adjudication, judicial review, and the structure ofagencies), with ANDREW F. POPPER ET AL., ADMINISTRATIVE L w: A CONTEMPORARY

APPROACH xiii xxxiv (2nd cd. 2010) (listing substantive topics covered, includingrulcmaking, judicial review, deference to agency action, adjudication, evidence, separation

of powers, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 it \tt"'O\ t'OsIt 10' )t0i 1)'i N O u Lt air 0PS

6213 ADAIIXt a fil~l-l' ,lV "Ri, Tt.i [67:3

what s~tdents Null learn. 121 As an example, the Co _mmon Core standard fhr

reading" hteraure, CCSS E[L iteascx.RL- 1-19_19 expects students in teoksc-mb and tsvelfdi grades to be able o denonstrate know ledge of

eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twxentieth-ctors foundational wvorks ofAmerican literature, incluchng hunw two or more tcxts from the same period

treat similar themes or top'%. 'I'he Common Core Standards buid up1o this e clation in seventh gradc %i Ji01! ELA-Literacs.RL-7.9,

which expcets students to he ab!e to "' a.tipare and ,oxttra t a lidt0 a-clmoci! as al ,.4f 13 li) C pmate' ot, 311arlc ter' 4r131 4 hlisor'i Cal3' (' ecl of" tI a :1,tt'

period a-s a means ot understanding liow authots ol fiction usc or alhcr

history." CCSS ELA-LItesc'.RL-3.- vides an exanple of how chicomplex st dird begins: "Cosn are and contrast th themes, s Y tn and

plots , si us cs writ n yhe sante a dtr o about lhe sare ',C snmi:

characterts g Iln tO,:s fro a13 5riCdi :,,l ?Itasl ig the sktlis of5untderstanding theme g,sutn c 'Cter, asd plot and then compaing texiorks of' the same or difle'rent anthor' to anahL-ze themes andt topics in

\mero.an, h'storx' are daunting tasks. The stadards honwever, do not;omd 1 at COt~t'It t us o l hXw eahc3-s ar:e supposeds u make ibisI-rotppen in the (':1ssloor'tl.

Ownce sot s adopt stadau dmtt C toei-11 dmti ieIls Siotlts sfexpcctcd to master, thle" mevelop curriwulum goidvtuc fe [ dizsrict' mci

'choos. "Ivpit aIRy, a state n'.vl dexelop a curri'culum fmanevtork that fleshesoat the standards ar,,d d,.c cs.... what the standards might look like in the

3.]kissro333 111, n Thm (:ifW rnkt drabi IthgbsL4 iLa,gur' i..'/i7it;',, I.Lvguag'

Ie.'ktpai,,eat ,,g tAJA/r.LD Ib tit, a '.,k, adoted by ii-: itfl 2 St' Boad 3 coiEduc'ation, ilesles out the Conunon (X 'or ith descriptions of 'ahat die

151. ,Ire ]'5,,lf't~ lkne aag At Standard: Rearg Luto'ratga (;wade / I?. ('3oMxt~ti CotSi"sA-. s (TNI) 1R0 INTliI'd hutjx//suu.,,. onestat~dards nrg/IA},! -LW':ny i/Rl_, - -12 /

155. Id.151;. Eng,h tgt age Aet: S'tanda 'd: Readiz{: Lkita'r, (nade 7, (CoustIO' ('ottORE kiT:E

SiLX YND)AR10 INTFiI\Ixi, http://twxo',,tod-aoto1'og/lVkdiitc'aesyiR1/7/ Lts visited

15'7. Lngbdik Latgt-,N Ad4' Staa~d dit,,tfgs Ilaan esGade . (onsio Co al('() STATE tSi 'NtxARDO twIi TITVE htop://xs.c ort 85,adt'ds.ot"'/LLA-'Ltt.et, ciRL/ 3/ last \iit~ 3

AXog. 4, 20315.158c Et11 313 1'AL.D(P1 3F E l',t ih4Il I NGAG A RT Si/'sEv.C-I 51t ,iNto[5313

DEs ItLO'1i.N! 10.141 5)WO1. k C stfti't li' II{' ReBLIC Scunt Ls; K[I)ooRosa KiEcs

r11001 (11 t G noD IT51>,ist 1--2 21314; [hereintdier ELA/LLD 1'tl 1WORKJ.http/ nii //, cd(' ca gos /tti!iic/doi tssees/elaeldt-,mtrio pdf idisngnshng the :sandardsdhat 'defint. iht soidt'nts arl' exp,-' ted to krom and( bt- able t,) do as eacht 'pan-t lev el otspan " and the~ framework that provides the "ttcuixo Lot to' ihntluemt'tcatonof..., standards" by provji dm goirant e on "the des Ioptm'nt Of &r.frimcului, nsl'ttas,ds~ssiit't, 105t111,_ionid mtaterials, and unife:snortal learmn,"t

- , 0 5 1 1 , ,i P,\

I 1 \tt'[pO\ P.UiS [I (Al II 1l'i No ii II A PS

2 0 51 fi B !, E, Evo Ixn urn Ctv ,n1 R CO621

cri n'ncn w0 ouMI look like in tN lassu:a apd whl]at it h}onid n:la,,izeand t nugt'st: necrintis 1tH ntittht Is used. : P5blislers t e thehse

I313 ork', hi devea lop tetbooks, atl i 1og ies itnt o-tie v 1;t riais 113a1 ar'appro rv1 b% tih tae board. 1 t) Local boaId, of edAca-on tinn go throuia similar process in adopting state-approved curric ulum atertais thatxxould meet the needs of their particular schools and stidr ts. Local

Sua"ds u an abs adopt nancrials they fie! a;c i line with the fi'arnew orksa)3 address dhe I t 'am- 1( . T s.i eule t I, tirade ti-tiler il who is ctani-ro'c

w% it ma i ng sure sti e nts iitalster- CCSS ELALiera v.RL. I 1-12.9 nlayhave a variety of American nox els from w hich to select when developiw isor her curriculum. 'the teacher could choose to Ibrus on American identit,and race through Mark Tan's 7b- Adttjes ot Nec/Ib[r o, Fnn and ZoraNeale Hurston's lb/v Egotis I,: 1.trinp tod. Alternatixely' the teacherrould focus on class and social issues through coinpan Upton Sinelair7it Juggl , a depiction of the immigrant experience in the rneatpackgindustry in Chicago, with 1. Scott F' izneraid's 7%-: Go'aI (Gats,s.. a study of"Anmerican social c:lass during the Jazz Agec in Nexw York City. Standards aredistinct from curricuflum: standards set the goal oif what stnclents shooldllean and culrrienliui is the dec ision: made bv local cnmrimutties of boss tget to the goal.

WVith an undersdtancing of the difference hetweii stindards md

curriculum, both the Race to the Top program and the ESEA Fiexihilx.\\a i e's promldgated by the Dortmmnt become reasonableinter)retations of ARRA and ESEA. The Depaitinent's enabling sttutes,as "ell as ARRA and ESEA. eonter to the Depai'nten the authority inprouitlgate, amend, or rescind rules and piocedtres to irtherCongress-ionai intent. -,3 The purpose of the Ipartment is to facilitate thestates in developing a %xeil-educated citizenry." :+ ' though the TenitAimendmetit precludes tie federal goveimnien from controlling edcNation,the Departient's purpose is to ensiue that all children learn at high levelsthrough supplernentng and complimenting the efforts of states itid

[ 59. g at 1t 112 pi'p-idiog an ov1 nicw of 11 , ogal <aiioo of1 no xi ork inc Inding

all_ (15,-'r1i1 Of" the standirds, flajor teleli %n (currIiluml, inllm'ttoll, i-als fcsm'. and

1u0. In' a 2 (discussing publisher.s as an adi'nce to the : 'fl ,ewtrl

HQ1. Id. (, 2H g that,, ed lO ; are 10, auihncet n. flaw'work. as tie) 10 iiL useIt 'P14 "road1 nap" to des elop curriculi'm,

102. GCUP-k.20 U.'3.... § 1221i--3 2'012, K -,""VRRA. tW. L. No. li11-5 123 MSmt. 279~-2009 m'dilied as ame'nded in sct't'1ecd seti'ons or 26 LS AU .. ..) RXbdstESEA, USIA 20 8U..(';. §Gl 'WI7,

12)3. (WII. 4 I'> C,. ., 1221 I.

l - ,2 15 8 , , t, PN

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DEiETE18P

622 AD ISTL4TIJELIW REJIEW [67:3

promoting innovation. 16 4

The Department did not mandate or direct the forty-eight states that

developed the Common Core.6 5 State governors and superintendents, notthe Department, initiated the work on the Common Core with broadsupport. 166 By supporting the adoption of the Common Core andproviding grants to develop assessments aligned to the Common Core, asrequired under NCLB, the Department was merely fulfilling its mandate tosupport states' efforts to ensure the achievement of all students.167

Similarly, the ESEA Flexibility Waiver program falls within a reasonable

interpretation of the Department's mandate to support states' efforts to

effectuate challenging standards and assessment systems while at the sametime "to improve the management and efficiency of Federal educationactivities" in light of the growing burden of NCLB accountability. 16 8

D. The Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment

The context of the Race to the Top and ESEA Flexibility Waiverprograms easily refutes Governor Jindal's contention that the Department

164. DOE, OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 2 (2010), available at

http:/ /vww2. cd.gov/about/o rverxiew/focus /what.pdf165. See Development Process, wpra note 1 (documenting that it was the governors and

educational leaders of the states that met and launched the Common Core State StandardsInitiative).

166. See Frv-,Aine States, sura note 136 (providing that foty-eight state governors, withthe exception of Alaska and Texas, agreed to participate in the state-led initiative to developcommon standards in English and mathematics for grades K 12).

167. See ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (stating that the Department must ensure all studentshave a fair and equal opportunity to achieve).

168. Id. § 3402(6). Courts generally defr to agency expertise in "filling the gaps" ofstatutory language, but recent legal scholarship has focused on how much defrence shouldbe given to agencies when they interpret a waiver provision rather than just the statute.Compare Derek N. Black, Federalizing Education by WI aiver?, 68 VAND. L. REV. 607, 614 18(arguing that courts should not grant agencies Chevron defrence when analyzing a waiverprovision, particularly when that provision is so broad as in the case of ESEA and theSecretary has conditioned the waiver on requirements that were not in the original statute),and Patrick Haney, Coercion by the Aumben: Conditional Spendinug Doctrine and the Future ofFedealEducation Spendinug, 64 CASE NV. RES. L. RE. 577, 578 79 (2013) (claiming that under thestandard of,\FIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), NCLB is unconstitutionally coercive),with DavidJ. Barron & Todd D. Rakoft In Defne ql Big Jaiver, 113 COLUM. L. REV. 265,266 72 (2013) (using the ESEA waiver provision as an example of how broad waiverprovisions in statutes facilitate government functioning, particularly in times of legislativegridlock and legislative complexity), and Eloise Pasachoft, Conditional Spendin After AFIB v.Sebelius: 7he Example ofFederal Education Law, 62 AM. U. L. RE-\. 577, 662 (2013) (arriving atthe conclusion ater analyzing ESEA, one of the largest fcderal programs, that under theholding in ,FIB v. Sebelius, 132 S. CE 2566, ESEA would not be deemed unconstitutionallycoercive).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

qir,' 1 1 , , U PSI

20 i 1 T51 1 P11 . of ED, VtD mm 1 (ut I/0 RPO 623

used those programs to coerce slates into adopting the mmoin Core and.herefi e, violated die limits of the Spending Clause. the Supreme Comrt

has feld that it is not oerve if the Wleral goverm ent attaches oHithins

to the receipt of federal funds as long as those conditions are related to thepurpose of federal spending and are not cocfive to the point of

conpulsion. 5" As previously discussed, the Departments enabling statutesgranti it the authoitv 10 ircenti ize stares to adoj4 onmon standards in

order tI fulfill its iaidate to promrote a wcll-elutcated ('itizeur. TheIliestikn the disiiet tout wtill need ito address is whether the proguatheuiselves are so hurdensone, like a "gun to the head," 'x that states ha eno choice bat to comph). 1'7

ESLA has never been a resource for states to supplant their requiredprogramn. Since its tnt. epuon in 1965. E'.SEA has mandatel that thepuirptose of federal funds is to .'tufpiemel state-indaied ecititation prams

to support to iow-achieving students. /f> E iE asa s intended to besomething above and eyod eod the quired program. '' States. districts,and schools can opt out of Title I of ESEA, continue providinA education asrequired under state' law, and eecit fedt'ral funding for supplementaprograms Of ihe 545 billion ARRA funds ihat stales and schoolsrcei\ed hrn the federal goverrnent Ieginning in 2009, oul 54 billio liof

that total was set aside for the competitive Race to hie Top grantprogram. 7'5 States still rteeived sizeable amounts of federal supportthrough ARRA on top of ESEA Title I funds during the financial crisiswithout requirnents to participate in the program, i,

169. ,Ste New York . nited State', 50 WS. 1414, 167 M9 QAing South Iakoa v.IDole -13 t .S. 23 .11987., w 1hen: the ( dourt hell tttistituonal ti, sxitholdoig of l Dt:a

hiehwav ols ('rou states filing to adopt a unonit thinking agw.17(3 NUB s' Sehehits, ti' S. Ct. at d23t 10 *eqaoing the Aiotdalth CareA l's

i'C')reurmn that tales insolemnt the exlpansion of M> dicaid or lost Medicaid

lituding a- a "gun to the hed;" in other ,,tOris the, . Xs leouiwnt ot ri thc 1 ,taes wohnot howie hut to sign 01 to tire it'w prs~m).

171. c! ojra PIro IlgC.

172,. ESEA, M 7,

17.,S~ . 2 U.S.C. f (ilS3t.3 AilSr>. "'t,-u, -: r.i' is> ti.. . n y nut 1,' usd tot ite s,.' '. ' - thtt ate othe>.}s'e r.',j onoetPt 1o >as he illd t;etvatltt)1e I') I lildreni.., OU

n/it'. tttz used to i oI{ital e ot '.opp rl{ 'oi st . -*t ti{ ,}t. es.'".

173. In' e'ltphatt't/ng that USEA N fnds srit' tnly to suppilemenit the ed'ttaiiotia

174. e Anthuti- Conugilo. Note., ,\c,',oi Lw'ghi/er and the IHn'S I s<i' ! Ltt[abl Renect;Nb.\' Child Ift' Behian" l'i/ Scifgucitc 0 fVi the ]'edl o/on clt i l/ 'l,)ad I$/lit l Oiei tao/Ahn~e.2(109 BYt' Era t & LU. 365:381) 82 (t19) {notiug that tederal litnthng i ltucation

mnitttts to (',, ahott setven or eight p~ert tnt of total elucation pt ndtog..173. .t teptci att' $3 a..ti d aet toip'tn ing texvt_ 'prot iitimo ini ation regatrding Ratte to

tile l"t; Pcograut.

1 6./c ,5th 57c' .S/ahtli..fsn , miu:d, D(YE Statr. l 7 3 (0{


624 ADimISTL4TIELIW REJIEW [67:3

The ESEA Flexibility Waiver also did not coerce states to adopt theCommon Core. If states were content to continue doing business under theregulations of NCLB, they were free to do so. Additionally, the ESEAFlexibility Waiver program required states to adopt college- and career-ready standards. 1 States could choose either to adopt common standardswith other states or have their standards approved as college- and career-ready by state institutes of higher learning. While Oklahoma passedlegislation rescinding its adoption of the Common Core and lost its ESEAFlexibility Waiver, Indiana pulled out of the Common Core but retained itsESEA Flexibility Waiver when Indiana's colleges and universities approvedIndiana's own standards.17

8 States, therefore, have three options fromwhich to choose in setting the course of their education policy.

IV. AGENCY AUTHORITY, DEFERENCE AND THE USE OF THE WAIVER

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana will mostlikely find in favor of the Department injindal v. U.S. Department of Education.The Department used the authority granted to it by Congress to fulfill itsmandate to ensure the achievement of all children through encouraginginnovation while supporting states. When confronted with an act ofCongress that was becoming unworkable, the Secretary effectively used theadministrative tools available to him to relieve states of the burdens ofNCLB while supporting states in their efforts to develop and adoptcommon standards.

http:/ /xx vw2.ed.gov /policy/gen/leg/recove ry/factshect/stabilization-fund.html (providingan overview of the $48.6 billion program available to state education programs throughARIZA to weather the fiscal crisis).

177. See ESEA Flexibility Polic Document, pra note 18 (indicating that ESEA Flexibilitywill be granted to State Education Authorities that adopt rigorous college- and career-readystandards).

178. Lauren Camera, Oklahoma Loses RIamer Over Academic Standards; Indiana, KamasIfaiven Extended, EDUC. WK. POLITICS K 12 BLOG (Aug. 28, 2014, 3:00 PM),http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2014/08/hold hold hold oklahoma loscs_.html. But ee Andrew Ujifusa, Indiana FinallyOK Standards to Replace Common-Core Adoption, EDUC. WK. STATE EDWATCH BLOG (Apr. 8,2014, 11:31 AM), http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/stateedwatch/2014/04/indiana-finally-adopts-standards-to-replace-common-core-adoptionhtml (highlightingthat the new standards are a hybrid between the Common Core and Indiana's priorstandards and noting that some analysts say the new standards are "very similar, if notidentical, to the common core"); Allic Bidwell, Indiana Drops Common Core, But I Vill WStandard Be DiJferent?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP. (Mar. 24, 2014, 6:20 PM),http:/ xvw. usnews. com /news/ articles/ 2014 / 03 / 24 / indiana-drops-common-core-but-some-say-new-standards-arent-much-diftcrent (questioning whether the new standards arenot just the Common Core repackaged).

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 3\'0 ~ [1~~p~) 5. (131 1 0i'1) No it ilt 010.

L~i~ FyiBun.(4wE t'r -U hn/ A,oi

1. 7l;re \i 'edjio the (Cononon (Cm'

Since the passage of LSEA in 1965, the federal governmen has beenin olied in education policy in the United States. I, Despi being one of

the wealhiest industria1lized counttes in hie world, the achieveme o ur

students is lacing. For over thirti years, education reormers havestressed the imortance of challenging standards to iiprove education.

B. 'Thee ' t, 1Icr 1) toea tPlic

Through the wisaiver provision in ESLA. ' th dLeparunent has offeredstates a suite of choi es in r(sponse to NCLB, Those states that choose tcontinue implementing the (TmmonI Core ran do so trader the LSI'k

fIcxibly Waiver. Likexwise, those states that have standarids hat theninstitutes of higher eIa aion certified as eing college- nd career-read

can also utilize the waiver. i , Tie Common Core had great support w hen

it ws as urncued i 201 0 with forty-five states as well as the District ofColumbia adopting the standards b} 201 Ho3. w However. because theCommon Core has become a lightning rodh for exceltve overreach, a festates are experiencing buer's remorse 811( have passed legislati either

rescinding the adoption of the Common Core or re01 ie tiot thestandards.: ' Oklahoma and Indiana hase already puflled out of the

Comnon Core. South Carolna has passed legislation that will replace

17'2 USEAk )0US.(' f63131 ras,. (20129tlt0. ()RhA, x\15,ijti CuR Ut G'NOMtiC (]O3-OPLkRAION AND l)tFvrLPNti.NT {ESt 20P1Ri. ei ~s IN B.'ttc 5 (2(1)2. hup//iiwwooei d.org/pi.,a/kevfndiosn.,/pisa-20l 2-tesuhr,-

ovrrsiex '.:x 'shxwhg the rmnkiog o" the United Stuts rompitred to other iSintzrzdflils'

18t Sec Renit enal., 'asa note 38, ! 103 l10304.,Pa Part 1.B.182. 90 US.( t 61.83. Na tar. 't Gudance:] Ski '-h oEth ' n/' " 00W ,

181. Id. *'-uitg than tin i waier si only tic gran'ntito stals with nrgorous" staindards)',', ct/u0 L'E414 s/i/;t, Pnoct cc ~ur .,t sukra nine 18.

183. .57c D'cclcprnt Pno'ess .njnnr oott 1:; ccts¢ (£,Ctherine Gc-oere. Str .l dup/cinas ifC'ttmcen ,taadn c/ ,St-un .Ahuaz/. L.c:. WiK. [Jtly 9. 2010!.

imp./i.,,a c.,d 1eek7or g/-w/ars/2010/07/09/ 4stan dard.h2.hmlqs= -(tom non +Core+Ieai+ dhaltro,,es ;orthiring d-o earls, histol the flC ornTon C;ore when ito xianrdard,Xwertr irst reItased)l

1iSt .C:(ewil-t/, 'tsfiot 1orW 23 i hoinig ho~ 1'egislatuex that ornt aptir -l.X ci the'torin Core tased on the r oromendation of ther tt-arinti of e''1mnation 1rJ10

ie n thei a o i deranding more cntrol oer edtcational . wichw

oice C die w-heelhoun of the siates: ceparinents of'ed tic-ationi).

107 . t ct rews Ijitin. f,'ndinan Rr/rcoco MnI-)i of:,'it. I'cani,:f Sure,dna to i&/,/ac' (u.,m,n

hit-j:/l}.'tos.itt:d we.or ticdowecksati- cdw r.h/90 ti2 10/irtdian;3. reteC5SCs (ifil to...io.-tv

/2; 8 5[! , PM

4 1 \55'~p((\ rt( sT [5 5W) a 1)' No sLt nU i8

626 ADh. ,f V "!t f/t'J L I;VRL fil't [67:3

the Comm on(ove wih its own standards next car.5 Nevertheless. fortiv"three ,;tes are operating und Er EA 1 H 0exibiit \Waives s an no states

1a4e C 1st5 ESEA fisnds. Aidtoili,.fr.~hresae axe :still !ttrss'ding- . tihe

Mnpiemation of the (:omrsrxon Core.

l.ventsall, however, Congress needs to take on the reanthorization ofESEA. EighQt years past the date foxits reauthoeszatoss, states arestruggling under NCLBs burdens.' Presented wxth a blueprint hireauthorization in the fbrrn of Race to the lop. Congress should debate

and refine Race to the Top. The Common Core, an initiative led hy tiestates and ititially s, claimed by most, souilt be retained and incorporatedin tile cant hoezaustsn of ESLA.

CONCLUSIIN

Wh Ien the final version of the Common Core Nvas released in 2010. it xx asheralded as a great ad-vance in eds ati mJrent. ' Initiated b1 St ateleaders and educators, the ono re "a4as tihe {'tiininatidts of de cadcsof nork (n conent and perloisnane standards to impove tihe aehievAetnntofrall students i'Te osttinrsrandth eealgvrmetfo

developing natond standards. ' ts a result, there ws a hodgepodge ofstandar(ds and progha rs horn state to state, first characterixed as a

w ~stt'sic..ssai,'ards.ta 1''950at'.,insisn cart' ltsnsq'indiana' ;\ndhx t I jiflusa. Ol:A(as Pal 'sya ,;,@ Biib r,, lb'/sbss2 Ckmaaa C',t :ii s ' e /alsiEsa"srS x~.W (

2014- acc'il( 01; i;0.4 3+ o I 1 ; :111

i5t g i s I io ag rs~ bill t repla c t' ]t , l ; ( i, o e r'li ait;hadihl

i W'dd wsi aow.'_rds, 'a'ing It is rita and imple'ncted in Asle sate that MY,' Moisartiipate, It is 'be ass s orral i thriai;ltn, in fact, 5s ass1 a rrictushmti at all. ]1a,

t'tlWsetus anod s, h ,l dis' s' will sol d1i tlit: b:si lesoti Islan wil cht' appropiats:xtlotks, and will dint' 1tassroos 1earnsg te,1313. Sa (J sshen,:(M Gersa. 3thn' (ahe/nw -;,, ......s t&r ,So d S%7a"., to "L, p' d" (Clssswa

(or., flDi c '. K (-'.. Ceuot nest s.LxsStER BLO (Jise "1., 20 1., 4:32 P Xt.h-s-p:-//blegs .e ddWe'(- k.org/'dxs ecki/s-e a mssr/20ti406/sous t,t relina becoome lt' <_s's;

ifsalU"s{o5sh+('aressia [repting o a ist' 'a:cm nsr'st) to r~ep -:l nao[t'on of th (2nnnnnn

Cars' ali's Indianla) Bus srr t.uila'.a, s:u rs: ; 178 (repor'ting an lien Isadi{' nt-

'551tidS sW'r similar to 'hr Connneon Cast : Bidxwcll, a//rno ite' 1 8.1 ... ,' Do, ,/toa ent! itsi,,% s/ran ct 1.l9s. ,st isist 'lot") 60--70 asd aXtO[plyi505 text.

191. A192. S Re siek w a&., 1s/na 55 ' <; 3. a; 103- st,193. I.S Coes'saitnd. N

-,'0 1 1 , "[ PN

4 KENIPSON POSTPROOF Do Nor DEiETE08P

2015] THE DEPT OFED. AVID THE Co,11vr1OV CORE 627

"patchwork quilt" in the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk.194 Through theleadership of President George HAV. Bush, President Clinton, andPresident George W. Bush, the state governors and superintendentseventually reached a consensus and developed the Common Core StateStandards in 2009.195 Within a year, forty-six states had adopted thestandards and began work toward implementation.

The Secretary of Education, seeing an opportunity to move theeducation agenda forward in an era of political polarization, used hisauthority to incentivize and support not only the development of thestandards but the assessment system as well.1" )' Unfortunately, the

Common Core became seen as executive overreach, an attempt to forcenational standards on the states.1)7 While the states' enthusiasm for the

Common Core has cooled as a result of heated political rhetoric, forty-five

of the original forty-six states are still moving forward with implementingthe Common Core. Though Governor Jindal has sued the Department,the case will likely be decided in favor of the Department, which acted wellwithin its enabling statutes to further its Congressional mandate.

Ultimately, the Department used the administrative tools it had to fulfillits Congressional mandate. 198 In light of Congress's long-running inabilityto reauthorize ESEA since 2007, the Department needed to step in and fill

the gaps of legislation following reauthorization.1it) The actions of theDepartment, however, should give Congress pause. Forty-three states andthe District of Columbia are operating with ESEA Flexibility Waivers. In

essence, in failing to reauthorize ESEA, Congress has handed educationpolicy almost entirely over to the Department.00°

194. See A NATION AT RISK, su/ra note 51, at 14.

195. See supra Part IB; supra Part II.A.196. See supra Part II.A.197. See supra Part III.198. See supra Part III.B.199. See supra Part I.A B.200. At the time of the publication of this Comment, the 114th Congress has made

progress in moving the reauthorization of ESEA forw ard. On April 30, 2015, SenatorLamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,Labor & Pensions, introduced the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 to reauthorize theESEA, which passed the Senate onJuly 16, 2015. S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015); Text qI theEve Child Achieve Act Y 201), GovTRACK.US,www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/I14/s1177/text (last visited Aug. 4, 2015). Much of thelanguage of the bill restrains the authority of the Department and its Secretary. Forexample, the Secretary does not have the authority under the bill to require states to adoptparticular standards or assessments. S. 1177 § 111 (a)(6). In terms of standards, specifically,the Secretary "shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exerciseany direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adoptedor implemented by a State." Id. § 1111 (b)(1)(G)(ii). While the bill allows states to enter into

9/2/2015 8:51 PMI

4 KINIPSON POSTPROOF ,Do Nor DIFiTI 1 uP

ADMIsTi TIVEL4 IREJIEIw [67:3

partncrships, it also gocs furthcr to prohibit thc Sccretary from "rcquiring or cocrcing"states to enter into such partnerships. Id. § 1111 ()(2). Whether the House will pass the billwith these limitations and prohibitions and whether President Obama will sign it into laware still very open questions. However, the Department's involvement in the adoption andimplementation of the Common Core has certainly motivated Congress to limit the agency'sauthority.

9/2/2015 8:51 PNI

"0A ADMINISTRATIVELAW REVIEW

Subscription and Order Form

The tlowning are the prices for .tabsusptiorn ,and indivtdoal i.sues. Pleasie ntact us'ai .12--988--5522 ,ith inquiries atnd( order s.

] . lndividnad ehgihlrt tbr nientlxerslip in' the ABA {intd v.is mnt mheship inl Section ol'rlministran's C Laws and Reg-nlatorv Practice..................... $60.00

2. Organization or indiv idnal Ioeated inl the Un~ited Slates or its [os~.ssions noteligible tir membership in Ie IB i .................. ..... .................. .. . fO.00

"a Organization or" individual located otside oft U nited States and its possessiot

not eigible tom tlelbershiJ) in the ABA...............................................$145.00

. Law students at1r1ding aI A\J{\ at'cedited L's school :incudes nenihreship inSec lion ot A pnonistran t-: Las 'nid Reg aton y Pnaetiee ................. .. 10.00

a. B:ek isues O le's than ,vo) vt.ars old E)r ises paliAhed more tbai two yeams agocontat illia S. in & o. inc. at 800-828-771............................$10.00) eac

6. U)nantity distcount if five (5) or more copies of the samre a.ck issue- ...... $8.00 eaCth

VIomne/Numnber O) 1; ty (ost /Issue Total

Handling c-harge when ordlerhnig bat k issues $i3.95.

StisiptSion if studnt indieate nanme of '' hol f attorn-ey give Jurisdiction whereadmitted,:

tot ... .. . . ................................ ...... ............... ................................

Please l~nm

Nmtne...... ............................... ..........T tl ...... .... ... .............................. .. * . ........... ...................................

Comopanyx i()rganization: .............................................d ss:........ ................................... ...... .............................................. ..

i,,/Sta -:/ i ............. . . . . ............. ................. ........phone: ..... ............. .. ........ ........... ............. . ...............

lia s i le:.. . . ......... ............................................................................................... . .

-..a .................. ....................... ....... .........Woul son like to be plaed ot our e-tnail tnailnig list i Yb-s El No

Method of paiynmeintF] Cti.ck enclo)sed OtWket checks pavable to Ite-Arltetnc B~n Assoc~tal:on

] (/barge ay credit: I] M\asterC, amd I Visa -. Card Number:.............................

Ex )iration ..a..:........ S g r. ........... . ........ . .......

Setnd t.hd fotrm s i ac tsmik to 312 -,. 8,-55h., or riail to \ilernbm'r Se-xcee, Auert'caBar 'ssoeiaton, 750 North Lake Shore De it ago, IL 60)611.497. Onders also

Ptatcteptel tia t oiphion - at 312-988-,52,

Please alloss tws 0 to three elot(os cb ]leyct

'fJ{.\NK X( )L K ~ (AR ORDLR

i3' 'd

The Administrative Law Review isACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS

for Recent Developments

The ,Idr irai, Jaw Reiew is accepting submissions, on an ongoing bass to beconsidered for publication in the Recent Uevelopments sectioni.

Papers should be shorter than average articles and should report new, exciting evcnts inadministrati\e law and regulatory practice.

Topics tray encompass r ecen t even~ts, case decisions, adninisnration changes, ne~s

appointments, emerging trends. or reew rc pubish d hlterature tat has thepotential to chane the face and practice of adninistrati e law. 1he Recent

Developments section updates our readers on the latest developments of adminlistra tcvlaw and spums discussion within the industry with concise, topical pieces.

Please send submissions or inlquiries to:

ahr.srde q>w(l.amnerican.edu

or

Senior Recent De lopenl EditorAdministrative L0w Reicw

American University Washington College of Law1801 Mas, achusetts Ase., NW, Suite 6/)3

Washington, D2 C. 2)0016

('0, CO*.

ADMINISTRATIVELAW REVIEW

* SECI ON OF U

Volume 67 Fall 2015 Number 4

Editor in Chief

Neil A. Murphy

Executive EditorFrancesca C. Rawleigh

Senior Recent

Developments Editor

Theresa S. Kim

Managing EditorSam DePrimio

Senior Articles Editors

Breanna DiazAlison Gaske

Axecutive Communications &

Development Editor

Marissa Pisarick

Senior Note &

Comment Editor

Lindsey Garber

Senior ALR Accord Editor

Michael T. Grimes

Articles Editors

Ebunola Aniyikaiye Kendal G. Hardison

Jeffrey M. Elkin Chi Ching Tsang

Naomi I. Ahsan

Alexander N. Ball

Kelsey E. Beerer

Lillie W. Blanton

Sandra R. Braschi

Caitlin A. Buchanan

Katherine Beck

Keiran Bleich

Catherine Butler

Michael Cabrera

Michael Chandeck

Christopher Creech

Adam Curfmnan

Seth DiAsio

Justyna Felusiak

Senior Symposia Editor

Melissa D. Garcia

Note & Comment EditorsJohnathan R. Davey Kassie L. Richbourg

Judson N. Kempson Meridith S. Satz

Jessica A. Petrella

Senior Staff

Elizabeth Helen Chadha Eitan R. Heering

Meghan M. Clark-Kevan Stephanie Mendiola

Joseph C. Elliott

Crystal E. Evans

Michael D. Fumei

Safiya A. Hamit

Lauren E. O'Neil

Sheena Rangroo

Mai Lan G. Rodgers

Emma Burgess Roy

Tara Schonhoff

Mara R. Vento

Caitlin E. Whaley

Junior Staff

Olga Fleysh

Ann Garcia

Ross Handler

James Hill

Kimberly Koruba

Jieun Lee

Elizabeth Leman

Daniel Lherault

Carolyn Mahoney

Sarah Martin

Robert Martinez

Allison Mazzei

Megan Mejjia

Christina Moehrle

Adam Mogill

Ruby Moreno

Steven Nieman

Jared Sands

Lauren Shapiro

Shelby Smith

Lauren Tavar

Justin Teitell

Shelley Trautman

An Thien Iran

Amber Unwala

Karina Velez

Stephanie West

Faculty Board

Andrew F. Popper, Chair

Lewis A. Grossman

Benjamin M. Leff

Amanda Cohen Leiter

Jeffrey S. Lubbers

Jamin B. Raskin

Coordinator, Law ReviewsSharon E. Wolfe

WilliamJ. Snape, III

Anthony E. Varona

StephenJ. Wermiel

Lindsay F. Wiley

J. Jonas Anderson

GaryJ. Edles

Paul F. Figley

Amanda Frost

ADMINISTRATIVELAW REVIEW

ADVISORY BOARD

Hon. Judith S. Boggs

Barry Breen

Hon. Daniel Brenner

Reeve Bull

Andrew C. Cooper

Neil Eisner

Alexia Emmermann

Andrew Guhr

Gary Halbert

Sabrina S. Jawed

Hon. Scott Maravilla

David McConnell

Hon. Eve L. Miller

Warnecke Miller

Amit Narang

Naveen Rao

Scott Reid, M.P.

Judith Rivlin

Marc Sacks

Cary Silverman

Eric Simanek

Megan Tinker

Arthur Traynor

Greg Weinman

I~) ~ I'~ NORFOL

AMERICAN UNIVERSITYWASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW FACULTY

AdministrationClaudio M. Grossman, BA.,J.D., SJ.D., DeanAnthony E. Varona, A.B., J. D., LL.M., Associate Dean fo Faculty and Academic Affairs

Lia Eppr on, BA, J.D., Associate DeanJ oFaculty and Academic Afjais

Jenny Roberts, B.A.J.D Associate Deanfo Scfolasp

Robert D. Dinerstein, A.B., J. D., Associate Dean foi Expeuiential Education, Directo, Clinical Programs

David B. Jaff, BA.,J.D., Associate Dean foi Student AfaIsBillie Jo Kaufman, B.S., M. S. J.D., Associate Dean oLibPay and Information Resources

Khadijah Al-Aiin-El, Directoi, Office fD ceopment and Almni Relations

Rebecca T. Davis, B.S., M.A.T., Assistant Dean, Ofce otfe ReistaKhalid R. 0. Khalid, B.A., M.A., Assistant Dean Finance and Administation

D. Akira Shiroma, B.S.J.D., Assistant Dean fo Admissions and FinancialAid

TracyJenkins, B.A.J.D., Assistant Dean fo Caee & fofessional Deelopment

Full-Time FacultyDavid E. Aaronson, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., The George Washington University; LL.B., Harvard University; LL.M.,

Georgetown University. B.J. 7enney Profess of Law and Director ofte JialAdvocay Program

Evelyn G. Abravanel, A.B.,J.D., Case Western Reserve University. Professo qfLaw

Padideh Ala'i, B.A., University of Oregon;J.D., Harvard University. fofesso ofLawJonas Anderson, B.S., University of Utah;J.D., Harvard University, Associate fofess of Law

Kenneth Anderson, B.A., University of California at Los Angeles;J.D., Harvard University. fofesso ofLaw

Jonathan B. Baker, A.B.J.D., Harvard University; Ph.D., Stanford University. fofesso qfLawSusan D. Bennett, A.B., M.A., Yale University; J. D., Columbia University. Professo qfLaw and Director of te Community

and Economic Development Law ClinicBarlow Burke, A.B., Harvard University; LL.B., M.C.P., University of Pennsylvania; LL.M., SJ.D., Yale University.

Professo qfLaw and John S. Myes and Alvina Reckman Myers Sctolar

Susan D. Carle, A.B., Bryn Mawr College;J.D., Yale University. fofesso ofLawMichael W. Carroll, A.B., University of Chicago;J.D., Georgetown University. Presso qfLaw and Diector jtKe

Pmo Jam on Information Justice and Intellectual Property

Janie Chuang, B.A., Yale University;J.D., Harvard University. Associate Professo ofLawJohn B. Corr, B.A., MA.,John Carroll University;J.D., Georgetown University; Ph.D., Kent State University. Professo

ofLaw

Jennifer Daskal, B.A., Brown University; M.A., Cambridge University; J.D., Harvard Law School. Assistant fofess ofLaw

AngelaJordan Davis, B.A., Howard University;J.D., Harvard University. fofess of LawRobert D. Dinerstein, A.B., Cornell University; J.D., Yale University. fofesso ofLaw and Directo of Clinical ProgJams

Jeremi Duru, B.A., Brown University; M.P.P., Harvard University; J. D., Harvard Law School. fofess of Law

Walter A. Effross, B.A., Princeton University;J.D., Harvard University. fofesso ofLawLia Epperson, B.A., Harvard University;J.D., Stanford University. Associate fofess of Law and Directo ofS.J.D. ProgJam

Christine Haight Farley, B.A., Binghamton University;J.D., University at Buffalo Law School; LL.M.,J.S.D.,Columbia University. Professo ofLaw

Amanda Frost, A.B.,J.D., Harvard University. fofess of Law

Llezlie Green Coleman, B.A., Dartmouth College;J.D., Columbia Law School, Assistant Professo OfLaw

Robert K. Goldman, B.A., University of Pennsylvania; J.D., University of Virginia. Profess of Law and Louis C James

Sctola,

Claudio M. Grossman, Licenciado en CienciasJuriclicas y Sociales, Universidad dce Chile, Santiago; Doctor of theScience of Law, University of Amsterdam. Dean, Professo ofLaw and Raymond I &ealdson ScholaJ in

International and Humanitarian Law

Lewis A. Grossman, B.A., Yale University;J.D., Harvard University; Ph.D., Yale University. Professo ofLawHeather Hughes, B.A., University of Chicago;J.D., Harvard University. Professo OfLaw

David Hunter, B.A., University of Michigan J.D., Harvard University. fofessofLawand DiectooftheInte dationalLegal Studies Pro Jam

PeterJaszi, A.B.,J.D., Harvard University. fofess of Law and Faculty Director of te Glus/ko Samuelson Intellectual Popel

Law ClinicCynthia E. Jones, B.A., University of Delaware;J.D., American University Washington College of Law. fofesso ofLaw

BillieJo Kaufman, B.S., M.S., University of Indiana at Bloomington;J.D., Nova Southeastern University. Associate

Deanfo Lib ay and Info mation Resources and Alofesso ofLawBenjamin Leff, B.A., Oberlin College; M.A., University of Chicago Divinity School;J.D., Yale University. Profess of

Law

Amanda Cohen Leiter, B.S., M.S., Stanford University; M.S., University of Washington; J. D., Harvard University.Professo qf Law

James P. May, B.A., Carleton College;J.D., Harvard University. Professo ofLawBinny Miller, B.A., Carleton College;J.D., University of Chicago. fofesso ofLaw and Decto ofthe CriminalJustice Clinic

Elliott S. Milstein, B.A., University of Hartford; J.D., University of Connecticut; LL.M., Yale University. Professo of

LawFernanda Nicola, B.A., Law Degree, University of Turin Ph.D., Trento University, Italy; LL.M., SJ.D., Harvard

University. fofesso ofLaw

Mark Niles, B.A., Wesleyan University; J. D., Stanford University. Professo ofLaw

Diane F. Orentlicher, B.A., Yale University; J. D., Columbia University. Profess of LawTeresa Godwin Phelps, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., University of Notre Dame; M.S.L., Yale University. Dnec ofhe egal

Rhetoric and Witing Pogram and Profess of LawAndrew D. Pike, B.A., Swarthmore College;J.D., University of Pennsylvania. Pfesso ofLaw

Nancy D. Polikof; B.A., University ofPennsylvania; M.A., The George Washington University; J.D., Georgetown

University. Pofesso of LawAndrew F. Popper, B.A., Baldwin-Wallace College;J.D., DePaul University; LL.M., The George Washington

University. ofesso ofLaw and Direco of /he Interated Ciniculum Progam andJamin B. Raskin, B.A.J.D., Harvard University. Diecto offte LL.M. Pogam in Law and Goveimen/ and Professo of Law

Jayesh Rathod, A.B., Harvard University; J. D., Columbia University. Professo ofLaw and Diec/o offe Immiian/Justice

ClinicIra P. Robbins, A.B., University of Pennsylvania; J.D., Harvard University. Professoi oLaw and fus/ice, Direco of/he

J.D.1M.S. DualDegiee Proam in Law and justice, and Banard T Welsf ScfolaJenny M. Roberts, B.A., Yale University;J.D., New York University. Profess of LawEzra Rosser, B.A., Yale University;J.D., Harvard Law School; M.Phil., University of Cambridge. Profess of Law

Herman Schwartz, A.B.J.D., Harvard University. hfessoi of Law, Co Direcoi, Centeioi Human Rights and HumanitarianLaw

Ann Shalleck, A.B., Bryn Mawr College;J.D., Harvard University. Profess of Law, Direco of/fe Women and fhe Law

Proram, and Caiiinton Shields ScholaMary Siegel, B.A., Vassar College;J.D., Yale University. Pifessoi ofLawBrenda Smith, B.A., Spelman College;J.D., Georgetown University. Professo ofLawDavid Snyder, B.A., Yale University;J.D., Tulane Law School. hfessoi oLaw and Direcoi, Business Law PiogramRobert Tsai, B.A., University of California at Los Angeles;J.D., Yale University. hfess of Law

Anthony E. Varona, A.B., Boston College;J.D., Boston College; LL.M., Georgetown University. Pifessoi oLaw andAssociate Deanfoi Faculy and Academic Affairs

Stephen I. Vladceck, B.A., Amherst College;J.D., Yale University. hfessoi oLawPerry Wallace,Jr., B.Engr., Vanderbilt University; J. D., Columbia University. hfess of Law and Direco of/he

J.D./MBA Dual Degree gram

Lindsay F. Wiley, A.B.J.D, Harvard University; M.P.H.Johns Hopkins University. Associate Profess of Law

Paul R. Williams, A.B., University of California at Davis;J.D., Stanford University; Ph.D., University of Cambridge.Rebecca I Graziei ofess of Law and In/erna/iona/ Relations and Dieco of/he J.D. M.A. Dual Deg ee Aogram

Law Library AdministrationJohn Heywood, B.S., Northern Arizona University;J.D., American University Washington College of Law. Associate

Law LibiarianSima Mirkin, B.Engr.Econ., Byelorussian Polytechnic Institute; M.L.S., University of Maryland. Associate Law Libiarian

Shannon Roddy, Assistant Law LibiarianWilliam T. Ryan, B.A., Boston University;J.D., American University Washington College of Law; M.L.S., University

of Maryland. Law Libiaiian

Amy Taylor, B.A., Rhodes College; M.S.L.I.S., Catholic University of America;J.D., The University of Alabama.Associate Law Libiarian

Ripple Weisding, B.A., Brandeis University; M.A., King's College;J.D., Georgetown University; M.S.L.S., Catholic

University of America. Assistant Law Libiarian

Linda Wen, B.A., Hunan Normal University; M.S., University of South Carolina, Associate Law Libaian, Headof

Collections and Bibliographic Seriices

EmeritiIsaiah Baker, A.B., Yale University; M.A., DePaul University; M.B.A.J.D., Columbia University; LL.M., Harvard

University. Associate hofess of Law EmeritusDaniel Bradlow, B.A., University of Witwatersrand, South Africa;J.D., Northeastern University Law School; LL.M.,

Georgetwon University Law Center; LL.D., University of Pretoria. Pofess of Law Emeritus

David F. Chavkin, B.S., Michigan State University; J.D., University of California at Berkeley. ofess of Law EmeritusEgon Guttman, LL.B., LL.M., University of London. Profess of Law and Levitt Memoiial liust Schola Emeius

Patrick Kehoe, B.C.S., Finance, Seattle University; J.D., M.L.S., University of Washington. ofessoi oLaw EmIusNicholas Kittric, A.B, LL.B., M.A., University of Kansas; LL.M., SJ.D., Georgetown University Law Center. Universy

Aofessoi Emeritus

Candace S. Kovacic-Feischer, A.B., Wellesley College;J.D., Northeastern University. Profess of LawRobert Lubic, Pofesso Law Emeius

Anthony Morella, A.B., Boston University;J.D., American University Washington College of Law. Profess of Law

EmeitusMichael E. Tigar, B.A.J.D., University of California at Berkeley. Professo Emeitus

Robert G. Vaughn, B.A.J.D., University of Oklahoma; LL.M., Harvard University. Pfesso f(Law Emeritus and A.Allen King Scholai

Richard Wilson, B.A., DePauw University;J.D., University of Illinos College of Law. Pifessoi oLaw Emeritus

Special Faculty AppointmentsNancy S. Abramowitz, B.S., Cornell University; J. D., Georgetown University. Professoi ofPactice ofLaw and Directo of

thef/ane R. Spagens Federal Tax Clinic.Elizabeth Beske, A.B., Princeton University;J.D., Columbia University. Legal Rhetoric Instrucoi

Elizabeth Boals, B.S., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University;J.D., George Mason University. aciionei

In Residence, Assocaie Direc/oi, liial Pactice Piogram

Brandon Butler, B.A., University of Georgia; M.A., University of Texas at Austin; J.D. University of Virginia School ofLaw. Pactitioner in Residence

Claire Donohue, B.S., Cornell University; J. D., M.S.W., Boston College, LL.M., The George Washington UniversityLaw School. Pactitioner in Residence

Kate Elengold, Pactitione in Residenc, Glashko Sainuelon Intellectual Propely Law Clinic

Paul Figley, B.A., Franklin & Marshall College;J.D., Southern Methodist University. Associate Directo of LegalRhetoric

and Iga! Rfetoic Instructor

Scan Flynn, B.A., Pitzer College (Claremont); J. D., Harvard University. Associate Directoi, Program on Info mationJusticeand Intellectual ropery and Pofssouial Lectre in Residence

Dorcas Gilmore, Practitioner in Residence

Horacio Grigera Nan, LL.D.J.D., University of Bueno Aires; L.L.M., SJ.D. Harvard University. Distinguished

Pactitioner in Residence and Director ofhe IntenationalAbit ation hogram

Elizabeth Keith, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;J.D., George Mason University. Legal Rhetoic

InsiuctoiDaniela Kraiem, B.A., University of California at Santa Barbara;J.D., University of California at Davis. Associate

Director ofthe Wmen and the Law Program

Jeffery S. Lubbers, A.B., Cornell University;J.D., University of Chicago. Profess o (Practice inAdministlative Law

Claudia Martin, Law Degree, Universidad dce Buenos Aires; LL.M., American University Washington College of Law.

Professoria/ Lecturer in ResidenceJuan Mendez, Certificate, American University College of Law; Law Degree, Stella Mars Catholic University. hfessow

ofHuman Rights Law in Residence

Jennifer Mueller,J.D., Harvard Law School. Ractitione in Residence, Janet R. Spaens Federal Tax Clinic.Sunita Patel, Practitioner in Residence, CivilAdvocacy Clinic

Victoria Phillips, B.A., Smith College; J.D., American University Washington College of Law. hfessof the Practice ofLaw

Heather Ridenour, B.B.A., Texas Women's University;J.D., Texas Wesleyan. Director ofLegalAnaysis Program and Legal

Rhetoric InstructoiDiego Rodriguez-Pinzon,J.D., Universidad dce los Andes; LL.M., American University Washington College of Law;

SJ.D., The George Washington University. Professoria/ Lecturer in Residence and Co Directoi, Academy on

Human Rights and Humanitauian LawSusana SACouto, B.A., Brown University; M.AL.D, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy;J.D., Northeastern

University. hfessouia/ Lecturer in Residence and Directoi, Wal Climes Research Ofice

Macarena Saez,J.D., University of Chile School of Law; L.L.M. Yale Law School. Fellow in the Intel national Iegal Studies

Anita Sinha, B.A., Barnard College;J.D., New York University. PRactitione in Residence, Immigrant Justice Clinic

William Snape, B A University of California at Los Angeles;J.D., George Washington University. Director ofAdjunct

Dee/opment and Fellow in En ironmenta/ Law

David Spratt, B.A., The College of William and Mary;J.D., American University Washington College of Law. IegalRhetouic Instructor

Richard Ugelow, B.A., Hobart College; J. D., American University Washington College of Law; LL. M., Georgetown

University. Practitione in ResidenceStephen Wermiel, A.B., Tufts University; J.D., American University Washington College of Law. Profess of te Pactice

ofLawWilliam Yeomans, B.A., Trinity College;J.D., Boston University Law School; LL.M., Harvard University. Pactitione

in Residence, Diector o(Legislative Poacticum

E SECTION OFUADMINISTRATIVE LAW

AND REGULATORY%PRACIC[

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONSECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW AND REGULATORY PRACTICE

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL

OfficersChairChair-Elect

Vice ChairSecretaryBudge't Officer

Assistant Budget OfficerSection Delegates

Last Retiring G hair* t (((11(1 ( 'o mi fe ,(11Jf er

AB \ Board of" Governors Liaison

Jeffrey A. Rosen*Rene6 M. Landers*

John F, Cooney*Linda D. Jelluf*

Hon. Edwx ardJ. Schoenbaum*Louis.J. George*

HOD, I-L Russell FrisbyJr.*

Ronald M. Levin*Anna Williams Shavers*

Joseph B. BluemeIl

Council

Member 2016 Jack I. BeermannJames R. Gerkds

Ryan -Nelson[ lynn iXhie

Nleniber 2017

lember 2018

Ex-OfficioState Administrative LawExecutive.Branch

Judiciary.Aegislathve Branch

Adnministrati e,Jud iciarsYong Lawyers DivisionLaw Student Division

Jane C. LUXton

XWilliam S. MorrowJr.Connor Raso

Da-vid Rostker

RonaldJ. KrotoszynskiLevon Q Schlichter

Christopher]J. WAalkerAdam J. White

TBDJeffiey (. Weiss

lon A. Raiond RandolphDaniel tlores

lion. Julian Mann III

Christopher R. FortierKevin Misener

comment - administrative law revie...4 kenipson postproof(do nor dliete08p 2015] the dept ofed. avid...

Documents