Equitable Services Call to Action
AASA is deeply concerned with USED’s flawed interpretation
of the CARES Act’s equitable services requirements. We are calling on our
members to weigh in with Congress to highlight how USED’s guidance undermines
Congress’s goal of targeting CARES Act funds to high-poverty communities.
Briefly, USED’s guidance advises local educational agencies
to calculate the proportionate share for CARES Act equitable services based on
overall enrollment rather than poverty rates. This significantly expands the
share of funding available to private schools beyond what they would have
gotten under the CARES Act’s plain language. A fuller
summary of the current issue is viewable in the text below.
We have created a quick and concise template you can use to
let your members of Congress see how the flawed interpretation’s failure to
calculate the private school share based on poverty results in a significant
increase in private school allocation. All you need to complete the template email is your name, district name, and the percentage of your district’s FY19
(2019-20 school year) Title I and Title II set asides for equitable services. To submit your comments to Congress, please reach out to either your state association or Chris Rogers at crogers@aasa.org
BACKGROUND: Equitable Services (ES)
- Provision
is as old as ESEA itself and is the mechanism by which private schools receive
services by reserving a share of Title I dollars. It is premised on a simple
idea: Title I eligible students are to receive Title I funded support whether
they are in private or public schools.
- Under
Title I, the equitable services share is based on poverty (the number
of low-income children who live in Title I school attendance areas but attend
private schools).
- The
Secretary’s guidance for equitable services as it applies to CARES Act
dismantles this focus on targeting supports to areas with concentrated poverty
and annihilates the concept of equity
- How
the bulk of CARES Act funding flows under the ESSER fund:
- From the federal to the state
level based on the share each state received of overall Title I funding in FY19
(i.e., you will receive the same share of CARES funding that you did of Title I
money in FY19 based on low-income and other Title I formula children).
- From the state to the local
level based on the share each district received of overall Title I funding in
FY19 (i.e., you will receive the same share of CARES funding that you did of
Title I money in FY19 based on low-income and other Title I formula
children).
- At the district level, for
calculating the equitable services set-aside, count all the kids (public and
private) and calculate the CARES funding based on those ratios.
- This means private schools
count all students, not just low-income students, in determining the share of
CARES Act funding for equitable services.
- In
talking with USED, we highlight the following:
- ES is an original provision
of Title I of ESEA and has been continually reauthorized in a manner focused on
equity and serving students in need
- CARES Act language is very
clear in its intent, stating that ES shall be applied in the same manner as
section 1117 of ESSA. (Meaning, driving resources based on poverty.)
- CARES Act funding is
allocated to the state and district level based on Title I allocations, which
are driven by poverty rates. Allowing private schools to use a broader,
all-encompassing enrollment count without regard to poverty is not only unfair
and inconsistent with the way states and locals receive their funding, it is
inequitable because high poverty students in public school, are in
essence, generating funds for wealthy students in private schools, which is not
consistent with 1117 which determines the proportional share for equitable
services based on poverty.
- We are opposed to this
interpretation. We have submitted a letter to USED asking for a revision and
are deeply engaged on the hill. Dan issued a joint public statement with Randi
Weingarten of AFT on this issue. We are busy collecting numbers to highlight
for Capitol Hill what the shift in funding looks like.
- What does this mean for you?
A few things:
- Technically, this is
non-binding guidance. It doesn’t carry the weight of law and you can ignore it.
You, as a district, can determine that you want to adhere to section 1117’s
method of determining the equitable services share and calculate share based on
low-income children that live in Title I attendance areas. (Related, you could
have a state that determines they disagree with ED’s guidance and does the run
for you in a manner that reflects Title I.) If you pursue this route, there is
a chance your state, or USED could decide that they stand by the guidance
interpretation and they could issue a monitoring finding or start an audit,
which comes with its own set of costs and headaches.
- Slow roll the process to
determine the equitable services share. Given the immense pressure we hope to
generate, we are optimistic we can get a revision. Once the equitable service
share is determined, it might be difficult to adjust that set-aside level down.
If you can buy some time to see how this shakes out, you can avoid this
headache. Generally, equitable services must be delivered timely, so that
balance should be taken into account.
- In terms of advocacy: look at
your equitable services share percentage for your district and the state
overall for both Title I and Title II in FY19 (the current school year). The
percentage of the Title II grant set-aside for equitable services is a rough
estimation of what the percentage private schools would receive under the CARES
Act (but could be even higher). Title II’s equitable services share is
based on overall enrollment, while Title I’s equitable services share is based
on poverty. The difference in the percentage between Title II and Title I
is the shift toward private schools under the CARES Act.
- Note: The important analysis
here is the percentage of the overall grant that was set-aside for Title I vs.
Title II equitable services. Title I is funded at a much higher level
than Title II in terms of overall dollars, so the dollar amount will be higher
for Title I – but the overall percentage for Title I equitable services is
considerable smaller because it is poverty based. Therefore, it is not the
dollar amount to report but the percentage of the overall grant (that is, what
percentage of the district’s funding was set aside for equitable services in
Title I and Title II. THAT is the difference to highlight.)
- This
is a rapidly evolving policy priority. Stay tuned!