Supplanting the Law and Local Education Authority through Regulatory Fiat. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session (September 21, 2016). Serial Number 114-53
Author: US House of Representatives. Committee on Education and the Workforce
Date: 2017-00-00
Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Subjects: Federal Regulation,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,Federal Aid,Elementary Secondary Education,School Districts,Educational Finance,State Aid,Federal State Relationship,Educational Equity (Finance),Resource Allocation

When the committee last met to discuss the Every Student Succeeds Act, concerns were heard from State and local education leaders that the administration was not implementing the law in a way that respects its letter and intent. Since that time, the Department of Education has released a regulatory proposal--&quot;supplement not supplant&quot; regulation--that demands its own examination. This proposal changes the long-standing policy that Federal funds supplement rather than supplant State and local resources. For years, the rule was applied differently depending on how many low-income students the school served. As a result, schools faced different requirements. Some are more onerous than others. That changed with the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, legislation that again was passed with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. Now, according to the law, the rule should be enforced equally across every school. To do that, the bipartisan law, again that the President signed, says districts only have to show that funds are distributed in a way that does not take into account Federal resources. The law also clearly prohibits the Secretary of Education from interfering in the process. The proposed regulation threatens to impose a multibillion regulatory tax on schools across the country. To comply with the policy, many school districts will have no choice but to change their hiring practices and relocate their teachers. Other communities may have to raise taxes because they simply do not have the resources to meet this new burden. Some districts may have to do both. So regardless of how a district must cope with the new regulation, the bottom line is that schools will be forced to make decisions based on getting numbers to work and not on what is in the best interest of their students, and the Federal Government will have unprecedented control over local education funding. This meeting transcript of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the Committee on Education and the Workforce includes witness testimonies and discussion on how this proposal is impacting local communities across the country. The following are included: (1) Prepared Statement of Honorable Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education; (2) Prepared Statement of Honorable Marcia L. Fudge, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education; (3) Testimony of Steve Canavero, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Nevada Department of Education; (4) Testimony of Ryan Owens, Executive Director, Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration; (5) Testimony of Scott Sargrad, Managing Director, K-12 Education Policy, Center for American Progress; and (6) Testimony of Nora Gordon, Associate Professor, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research. Additional submissions are provided by Mrs. Fudge and Mr. Rokita. Additional questions for the record and responses to those questions from Dr. Canavero and Mrs. Gordon conclude the transcript.