Verbatim Mac

Topicality .5

Formula reforms

We meet – Title I grant formula reforms alter regulations of Title I

Counter interp – regulations follow from statutes -- regulations are agency guidelines --- that precludes congress and the courts

Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, No date

(http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/Regulation.aspx)

A regulation is essentially a law but which draws its life not from the decision of a legislative assembly directly but indirectly. A regulation is often passed by the executive branch of government. For example, the federal cabinet meeting in session endorses a regulation. But a regulation has a unique feature: it must draw its authority from a statute. Every regulation must have some statute which enables it. In California Advocates, Justice Kline of the California Court of Appeal, building off a statutory definition, used these words to define regulation: "... every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application or the amendment, supplement, or revision of any rule, regulation, order, or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure.... "A regulation ... has two principal identifying characteristics. First, the agency must intend its rule to apply generally, rather than in a specific case. The rule need not, however, apply universally; a rule applies generally so long as it declares how a certain class of cases will be decided. Second, the rule must implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the agency, or govern the agency's procedure."

We provide better education – current state of federal funding is all about how the funding is regulated not about funding levels. Their interp would preclude title I discussions

Hess, Director of education policy studies, 15(Fredrick, a resident scholar and the director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he works on K–12 and higher education issues http://www.aei.org/publication/the-rewrite-of-no-child-left-behind-is-a-compromise-but-a-principled-one// . “The rewrite of No Child Left Behind is a compromise, but a principled one” 11-24-2015//7-4-2017/GDI/CH)

There are no spending cuts in ESSA. The new law leaves projected spending untouched, though it’s worth noting that GOP victories on domestic spending have dramatically flattened outlays on K–12 over the past decade. In any event, the bill only provides an “authorization” to spend in the future: What’s really at stake right now are the mandates and regulations that the bill does (or doesn’t) impose. The “authorized” spending amount is mostly meaningless. The time when spending fights really matter is when Congress is dealing with appropriations.

Closing comparability loophole = regulation

Closing loopholes/strengthening enforcement of Title I is an increase in federal regulation- both expands the scope of federal regulations and their economic effect

Camera, education reporter at US News and World Report, Sept 1, 16 Lauren, covered education policy and politics for nearly a decade and has written for Education Week, The Hechinger Report, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, and the Chronicle of Higher Education, 2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, “Halting the Quest for Equality,” https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/an-ongoing-quest-to-equalize-education-funding

Equally distributing education funding seems like an idea that wouldn't generate a lot of heated debate. But a new regulation released this week by the Department of Education aimed at doing just that was met with calls of government overreach and charges that it would "wreak havoc" on school systems. An attempt by the U.S. Department of Education to prod states and districts to distribute education funding more equitably received significant pushback Wednesday, as a broad coalition of education groups called foul on the secretary of education for overstepping his authority. "What the secretary is proposing is unprecedented and unlawful," said John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House education committee, in a statement. "We will not allow this administration to undermine these reforms with its own extreme, partisan agenda." At issue is a complicated spending policy known as "supplement not supplant," which ensures states and districts that receive federal money for their poor students through a program known as Title I don't use that money to displace the funding they would already be funneling to schools in need. It's a longstanding policy that's been part of the federal education law since 1969, when a landmark report revealed that some school districts were burning the money on things like swimming pools. Congress recently passed a new version of the law, called the Every Student Succeeds Act, and as part of implementing it, the Education Department is in the process of publishing regulations that define or provide more clarity on various part of the law for states. One of those regulations, the final version of which was proposed Wednesday, would require school districts to demonstrate that Title I dollars are truly supplemental by complying with one of four methodologies. The department argues the regulation would better equalize the amount of money going to schools with students of different socioeconomic backgrounds and prevent states and districts from shortchanging certain schools on their end. While the goal is to equalize funding, many fear that complying with the regulation would force districts to reallocate resources from some schools to others, resulting, among other things, in the forced transfer or even firing of some school staff. "For too long, the students who need the most have gotten the least," said Secretary of Education John King on a press call. "The inequities in state and local funding that we see between schools within districts are inconsistent not only with the words 'supplement-not-supplant' but with the civil rights history of that provision and with the changes Congress made to the law last year." Currently, schools receiving Title I funds educate more than two-thirds of low-income students and students of color, but about 5,750 Title I schools receive substantially less state and local funding than their non-Title I peers within the same school district. The proposed regulation, King added, could mean up to $2 billion in additional state and local funding for high-poverty schools if funding is increased rather than shifted from one place to another. But Kline and others argue the regulation would go beyond the scope of the law and that the Education Department is overreaching. "America's poorest neighborhoods will be hit the hardest as communities are forced to relocate teachers, raise taxes or both," Kline said, who framed the regulation as a "multi-billion dollar regulatory tax" that would "wreak havoc" on schools and students. The GOP lawmakers were backed by a broad coalition of education organizations Wednesday, including, notably, both national teachers unions. "These regulations attempt to circumvent congressional intent and create ripples that extend far beyond the regulations to which they pertain," said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the 3-million-member National Education Association. Trying to prove the Title I funding is supplemental using one of the four options, she underscored, would have a devastating impact on schools. "Schools would be reduced to dollar signs, and people would be spending inordinate amount of time playing games with numbers just to make them come out right," she said. For example, she explained: "You have two school districts and one of them has a school nurse and the other one doesn't. Do you fire the school nurse so it makes your dollar signs equal out? So instead of helping kids, you hurt them? Instead of getting a school nurse for the school without one, you get rid of one at another school?" American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten agreed, and emphasized that the only fair way to fix education funding discrepancies without penalizing some schools by taking money away is for states and districts to increase funding at under-resourced schools so that their funding levels match or exceed that of well-resourced schools. "As much as we agree with the intent, the proposed regulations, as drafted, are an unfunded mandate from Washington that exhorts districts to boost their investment in schools with disadvantaged children without identifying or compelling the resources to do so," Weingarten said in a statement. Groups representing governors, state education chiefs and school superintendents also took issue with the proposal final regulation. The National Governors Association called the regulation "an unfunded, prescriptive mandate well beyond the scope of ESSA."

Requirements for comparability are DOE regulations

Thomas Frank, CNN, January 17, 2017

“Obama Looks to Lock in $1 Billion to Schools with Low-Income Kids,” http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/obama-billion-schools-regulation/index.html

Washington (CNN) The Obama administration is considering a major last-minute policy shift that could force hundreds of school districts to cut spending at well-financed elementary and secondary schools and move nearly $1 billion dollars to schools with large numbers of low-income students. The policy, written by the Department of Education, is under review by the White House budget office and has drawn fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers and school administrators. It was first proposed in September, but the department appears to have rushed to adopt it since Donald Trump won the presidential election. Adopting the regulation before Friday at noon would bind the incoming Trump administration unless Congress overturns it. Republicans on Capitol Hill have pledged to oppose many "midnight regulations" from the Obama White House, and the issue could also come up at the nomination hearing Tuesday for Donald Trump's secretary of education, Betsy DeVos. The regulation would dramatically increase federal control over spending at many of the nation's 14,000 school districts and force some districts to increase spending at low-income schools. Districts could achieve the increase by diverting money -- a total of $800 million nationwide -- from more-affluent schools, or by spending an additional $2.2 billion in state and local funds, the Education Department says. The regulation would apply only to school districts that have both low-income schools that get Title I federal funds and higher-income schools that are not eligible for the money. "If this were to be finalized, it would be a huge deal because it's saying how local and state money inside school districts is to be distributed across schools," said Nora Gordon, a school-finance expert at Georgetown University. Scott Sargrad, a former Education Department official, said the regulation "could significantly improve achievement for students" in low-income schools. "This is the federal government explicitly saying poor students need to have at least the same resources as their higher-income counterparts. That's a significant step for the federal government to say that," said Sargrad, who is now an education policy expert at Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.