CRS Report Analyzes Legal Basis for “Supplement, not Supplant” Language

CRS Report Analyzes Legal Basis for “Supplement, not Supplant” Language

May 12, 2016

The Congressional Research Service released a report that analyzed the legal basis for the “supplement, not supplant” language that the Dept. of Education proposed during negotiated rulemaking earlier this year. CRS notes that the language could be challenged in court concluding that, “ED’s interpretation appears to go beyond what would be required under a plain-language reading of the statute.” Education Week called the dispute “perhaps the most high-profile dispute about” ESSA.

Nine Senate Democrats, civil rights groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and TeachPlus – which delivered a letter signed by more than 600 teachers who work in high-poverty schools to Education Secretary King – have expressed support for the Dept. of Education’s position.

• Opponents of the Dept. of Education’s position – who support Chairman Alexander’s stance – are “a broad coalition that doesn’t always agree, including organizations representing the nation’s governors, state education chiefs, school boards and superintendents, as well as the two largest teachers unions,” reports the Washington Post.