Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans rule (2017)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education in January 2017, that amended department regulations regarding accountability requirements and authorization for submitting consolidated state plans for education programs to further the stated goals of the Every Student Succeeds Act. The Trump administration revoked the rule under the Congressional Review Act on March 27, 2017, which invalidated the regulations.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 200 and 299
  • Agency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia
    See also: Congressional Review Act

    The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, which replaced the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). The ESSA, in part, reduced the authority of the U.S. Department of Education over state education systems by giving both states and school districts more power to determine their own testing standards, academic assessments, and intervention methods. The ESSA made changes to Title I of the ESEA, including changes to accountability requirements and authorization for submitting consolidated state plans for education programs. In particular, the ESSA "authorizes an SEA to submit, if it so chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated State application for covered programs and authorizes the Secretary to establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information, assurances, and other material required to be included in a consolidated State plan or consolidated State application."[5]

    In response to the statutory changes implemented by the ESSA, the Department of Education proposed amended accountability and state plan requirements on May 31, 2016, to "provide clarity and support to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement the ESEA requirements regarding accountability systems, State and LEA report cards, and consolidated State plans," according to the proposed rule.[5]

    President Donald Trump (R) issued guidance on January 24, 2017, entitled, "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review," which directed executive departments to review new and proposed regulations issued under the Obama administration that had not yet gone into effect. In response to the directive, the Department of Education issued a rule to delay the effective date of certain regulations, including the regulations regarding accountability and state plans.[4]

    Congressional Review Act

    A Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was introduced by Rep. Todd Rokita (R) on February 1, 2017, in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the Department of Education's rule relating to accountability and state plans. Supporters of the resolution argued that the action was necessary to correct what they referred to as the executive overreach of the Obama administration's rule. Rokita stated when introducing the resolution, "We wrote a very specific law saying the states are in charge... Here we have a federal agency inserting itself, not just interpreting law, but actually making law and taking us in the exact opposite direction that all of us intended."[6]

    The resolution was passed by Congress on March 9, 2017, and signed into law on March 27, 2017, by President Trump (R). The CRA resolution invalidated the final regulations, which were subsequently removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.[3][2]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary amends the regulations implementing programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also updates the current ESEA general regulations to include requirements for the submission of State plans under ESEA programs, including optional consolidated State plans.[1][7] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the final rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ [T]he proposed regulations would:
    • Establish requirements for accountability systems under section 1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including requirements regarding the indicators used to annually meaningfully differentiate all public schools, the identification of schools for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, and the development and implementation of improvement plans, including evidence-based interventions, in schools that are so identified;
    • Establish requirements for State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including requirements regarding the timeliness and format of such report cards, as well as requirements that clarify report card elements that were not required under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB; and
    • Establish requirements for consolidated State plans under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including requirements for the format of such plans, the timing of submission of such plans, and the content to be included in such plans.[7]
    		 ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Federal Register, "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans," November 29, 2016
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Register, "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans," July 7, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.57 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965," accessed April 4, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Federal Register, "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans; Open Licensing Requirement for Competitive Grant Programs; Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act," January 30, 2017
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Federal Register, "Elemtnary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans," May 31, 2016
    6. ↑ The Washington Post, "Congressional Republicans poised to overturn Obama-era education regulations," March 6, 2017
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act_of_1965,_as_Amended_by_the_Every_Student_Succeeds_Act-Accountability_and_State_Plans_rule_(2017)&oldid=10691838"