Reading School District, Petitioner v. Department of Education, Respondent

No.2278 C.D. 2004 (Pa. Commonwealth Court, 2005)

Facts of the Case

Reading School District (RSD) argued it was denied due process when an appeal of sanctions held against the district regarding its failure to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) as set forth by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was dismissed by the Department of Education (Department). The Department of Education, however, asserted that the appeal filed by Reading School District did not comply with the Department’s appeal policy. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania had to decide whether the Department of Education’s limits on appeals was in violation of the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sections 1 and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Before the 2003-2004 school year, RSD was notified by the Department that a number of its schools failed to achieve AYP according to NCLB. After failed attempts to appeal NCLB on grounds that it created an unfunded mandate, on January 29, 2004, RSD sent the Department an estimated $26,000,000.00 plan to bring the failing schools into compliance. Given the school district anticipated little more than $8,000,000.00 in federal funding, RSD requested the additional funds necessary to implement the plan and thus achieve compliance. The Bureau of Assessment and Accountability of the Department determined that six schools in the RSD failed to make annual yearly progress under the NCLB Act. On July 15, 2004 the Department notified the RSD that it would be placed on level 1 or level 2 sanctions in the 2004-2005 school year.

The RSD challenged the sanctions by appealing to the Department on grounds that the Department had 1) created an unfunded mandate (20 U.S.C. 7907(a)), 2) sanctioned schools that had not received federal funds designed to implement NCLB, 3) failed to provide assessment tests in Spanish and 4) failed to provide mandatory technical assistance to schools that had been sanctioned. The Department dismissed the appeal, citing it was in violation of the Department’s policy which allowed for appeals only on the basis of faulty data, significant progress toward meeting the goals of NCLB or unforeseen circumstance. RSD appealed this decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Decision of the Court

The court ruled that the Department of Education’s policy regarding appeals was unconstitutional, as it violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. On June 6, 2005 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania remanded the matter to the Department with instructions to hear and determine the issues raised by RSD in its appeal.

Basis for the Decision

School District of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (1996/1997) was cited to underscore the importance of “flexibility” and “a fair and impartial tribunal” in regards to due process. The amount of due process owed to a party was defined as “unlimited” by Allegheny County Health Department v. Ligons (1974).

Administrative Agency Law gives RSD the right to question the statute it violated as 2.pa.C.S. §703(a) states, “A party who proceeded before a Commonwealth agency under the terms of a particular statute shall not be precluded from questioning the validity of the statute in the appeal.”

Additionally, the Commonwealth Court revealed through “a simple exercise in statutory interpretation” that the Department redefined acronyms used in NCLB to intentionally limit the appeals of its decisions.

Prepared by Kristin Takach Summer 2005