You asked how the State Department of Education (SDE) is enforcing the “no supplant” provision of the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) law for towns whose spending exceeds the minimum expenditure requirement (MER). You also asked what statutory powers the education commissioner has to require a town to redirect local spending to education if she finds a violation of the no-supplant provision.

State law requires towns to spend 100% of their ECS aid for educational purposes. In addition, starting with FY 1999, towns may not use increases in annual ECS funding to supplant local education funding (§ 10-262i(c)). This latter provision is the no-supplant requirement. (OLR Report 2001-R-0842, copy enclosed, describes the no-supplant law and its legislative history more fully. )

The SDE does not monitor towns for compliance with the no-supplant requirement, according to Katherine Nicoletti, the department’s legislative liaison. But the department would investigate in response to a complaint that a town was violating the law. The process for filing such a complaint is set out in § 10-4b, which allows any school district resident or parent of a student enrolled in a district to file a written complaint with the State Board of Education that a local board of education has failed to implement the state’s educational interests. The law also allows the State Board of Education to initiate such a complaint proceeding on its own initiative. One of the state’s educational interests

is that school districts implement state education mandates, such as the no-supplant law. (We enclose OLR Report 98-R-0926, which describes the § 10-4b complaint process in greater detail. )

Section 10-4b requires the complaint to include a description of the facts on which it is based. Nicoletti says the department has never received a complaint about a violation of the no-supplant law, but if it did, SDE’s investigation would be determined by the facts alleged. She said it appeared clear from the no-supplant law’s legislative history that the requirement that a town maintain “local funding for education” covers a broader range of spending than applies to the MER.

Under § 10-4b, the State Board of Education, rather than the education commissioner, has the power to order a local school district that is failing to implement the state’s educational interests to develop a remedial plan or take reasonable steps to remedy the failure. If the local district fails to comply with the plan or the SBE’s order, SBE can ask a court to enforce the order.

JL: ro