WASHINGTON, D.C. | November 7, 2016
Twenty-five Republican members of the Senate and House education committees today urged the Department of Education to withdraw its proposed “supplement not supplant” regulation, saying it “violates the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” and called on the department to instead work with Congress to implement the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
as it is written.
The regulatory proposal would change the longstanding requirement that prevents school districts from using federal Title I funds as a replacement for state and local funds in low-income schools.
submitted to Education Secretary John King, the members said the rule “draws broad and inaccurate conclusions about what Congress intended when amending the [‘supplement not supplant’] provision that are not supported by the statutory text and violate clear and unambiguous limitations on the Secretary’s authority.”
The members said certain provisions of the rule are “unlawful, unnecessary and could result in harmful consequences to [local educational agencies], schools, teachers, and students.”
Specifically, the rule dictates to states and local school districts how they should distribute state and local funds, which violates the law and its prohibitions on the Secretary. They write:
In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the test for reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute consists of two related questions. First, the question is “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter” because the court and agency must “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Second, if “Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue” or “if the statute is silent or ambiguous” the question is “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
The intent of Congress in amending the SNS requirements under Title I of ESEA is clear and unambiguous in directly speaking to the issue of how LEAs must demonstrate compliance. As the Court has held, that should be “the end of the matter” for the Department, which through rulemaking should “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Instead, the NPRM violates this principle in imposing new requirements that reflect the Department’s own construction of the statute. We therefore strongly urge the Department to rescind this additional language and work with Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral way to implement ESSA as Congress clearly intended. The following outlines areas of agreement, and then describes the ways in which the Department’s proposal violates the letter and intent of the statute and could lead to negative results for low-income students and schools if it were implemented.
The letter was signed by Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN), along with Senate committee members Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Michael B. Enzi (R-WY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and House committee members Mike Bishop (R-MI), Bradley Byrne (R-AL), Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Joe Heck (R-NV), Luke Messer (R-IN), Phil Roe (R-TN), Todd Rokita (R-IN), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Joe Wilson (R-SC).
To read the letter, click here.
# # #