The U.S. Department of Education will be granting SEAs and LEAs waivers from certain requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction. These waivers impact the expenditure of funds which may be transferred among programs. These are focused on public school needs – but may impact the equitable participation of private school students and teachers. The U.S. Department of Education has issued Guidance Documents that address the equitable participation provisions. The pertinent responses, and links to the documents, are listed below.
A-17. May the Secretary waive the requirements for an LEA to provide for the equitable participation of private school students and teachers?
ESEA Flexibility FAQs Addendum. No. Under ESEA section 9401(c)(5), the Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory requirement related to the equitable participation of private school students, teachers, and families.
B-22. What are the responsibilities of an SEA or LEA for the provision of equitable services to private school children and teachers with respect to funds being transferred?
ESEA Flexibility FAQs: Each program covered by the transferability authority is subject to equitable participation requirements, which may not be waived (see ESEA section 9401(c)(5)). Before an SEA or LEA may transfer funds, it must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials (ESEA sections 6123(e)(2) and 9501). With respect to the transferred funds, the SEA or LEA must provide private school students and teachers equitable services under the program(s) to which, and from which, the funds are transferred, based on the total amount of funds available to each program after the transfer.
B-10a. Are the Title I, Part A funds that an LEA would otherwise spend for choice-related transportation and supplemental educational services (SES) or for professional development in LEAs identified for improvement subject to the requirements to provide equitable services to eligible private school children, their teachers, and their families?
ESEA Flexibility FAQs Addendum Yes, to the same extent and under the same conditions as regular Title I, Part A funds. In general, an LEA allocates its Title I, Part A funds in two ways: it allocates the majority of those funds to its Title I schools consistent with ESEA section 1113(c); and it reserves some funds off the top of its allocation under 34 C.F.R. § 200.77 for both required and permissible activities. An LEA’s responsibility to provide equitable services to eligible elementary and secondary private school children, their teachers, and their families depends on the nature of the services provided. Equitable services apply to funds an LEA allocates to its Title I schools under ESEA section 1113(c). They also apply to off-the-top reservations that provide district-wide services to Title I schools. However, they do not apply to reservations from which an LEA provides services to a subgroup of students—e.g., homeless students, neglected and delinquent students—or if an LEA focuses the reserved funds on a specific subset of low-performing schools—e.g., schools in restructuring—because public Title I school students as a whole do not benefit from those services either. Accordingly, with respect to Title I, Part A funds freed up from not needing to meet the 20 percent obligation or the set aside for professional development under ESEA flexibility, the responsibility to provide equitable services depends on how an LEA uses those funds. If, for example, the LEA allocates the funds under ESEA section 1113(c) to its Title I schools, it must also provide equitable services with the funds. Similarly, if the LEA uses the freed up funds for an off-the-top reservation to provide summer school or professional development to all its Title I schools, or all its Title I schools at a particular grade level, the requirement to provide equitable services would apply. On the other hand, if the LEA uses funds from an off-the-top reservation to implement interventions in its priority and/or focus schools, the equitable services requirement would not apply.
B-10b. Must an LEA consult with private school officials prior to deciding how to use Title I, Part A funds that may be freed up if the LEA is no longer required to meet the requirements in ESEA section 1116?
ESEA Flexibility FAQs Addendum Yes. Under ESEA section 1120(b), an LEA must consult with private school officials during the design and development of the LEA’s Title I, Part A programs. That consultation must include meetings of LEA and private school officials and must occur before the LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunity of eligible private school children to participate in Title I, Part A programs, including decisions regarding the use of funds freed up under ESEA section 1116.
*****
Action Alert -- Sample letters
Sample Waiver Letters for State Education Department and Local Education Agency
(prepared by Michelle Doyle, Michelle Doyle Educational Consulting)
STATE EDUCATION OFFICE letter
Dear (State official):
I am writing to you regarding the state’s application to the U.S. Department of Education for waivers of provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By way of this letter, I want to share with you my thoughts concerning the implications of waivers on the equitable participation of private school students.
As you are aware, ESEA does not permit the equitable participation of private school students to be waived. However, other actions could affect private school students’ participation in Title IA programs.
Private and public school students generate funding for Title IA in the same manner—low-income students residing in Title IA attendance areas generate funds. When, through the waiver authority, funds are freed up that had previously been used for required set asides, it is important that the needs of the private school students be considered in the determination of the new use of those funds.
In the introductory sections of the application, I request that the following language be inserted as a means of protecting the equitable participation of eligible private school students.
Continued provision of equitable services for eligible Title I students attending nonpublic schools is an important consideration in the implementation of this plan. As a result, we are directing each local educational agency with Title I eligible children attending nonpublic schools to expend an equitable share of any funds the agency designates for priority and focus schools, in addition to the funds already designated for equitable services. If the LEA decides to transfer Title IIA funds, private school students will still benefit from at least the percentage of allocated Title IIA funds that was received under equitable participation in 2011-12.
Prior to the allocation of any freed up funds, the district has the obligation to consult with private school officials and consider the needs of private school students prior to making any decision regarding expenditure of these funds. These topics should be added to the agenda of ongoing consultation or a special consultation meeting should be scheduled.
The waiver authority also calls for review of the state’s application from a wide range of stakeholders. Because of the importance of equitable participation in the Title I program, I ask that you include private school officials in this review process. Reviewers representing the interests of private school students in the Title I program should be those with experience in the program participation of private school students. I am happy to serve in this capacity and/or suggest others that are appropriately qualified.
Thank you for your consideration. My contact information is….
LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY Letter
Dear (district official):
I am writing to you regarding the pending application of our state to the U.S. Department of Education for flexibility waivers of provisions of Title IA of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By way of this letter, I want to share with you my thoughts concerning the implications of waivers on the equitable participation of private school students.
As you are aware, ESEA does not permit the equitable participation of private school students to be waived. However, other actions could affect private school students’ participation in Title IA programs.
Private and public school students generate funding for Title IA in the same manner—low-income students residing in Title IA attendance areas generate funds. When, through the waiver authority, funds are freed up that had previously been used for required set asides, it is important that the needs of the private school students be considered in the determination of the new use of those funds.
Prior to the allocation of any freed up funds, the district has the obligation to consult with private school officials and consider the needs of private school students prior to making any decision regarding expenditure of these funds. These topics should be added to the agenda of ongoing consultation or a special consultation meeting should be scheduled.
As a representative of (number of) private school students in your district, I want to speak with you as soon as possible about the unmet needs of our eligible students that could be met under the flexible provisions of the waiver authority.
Thank you for your attention and consideration. My contact information is…
Effective Consultation Strategies
If your state has not yet submitted an application for flexibility:
Look for notices on your state’s website about their application for waivers. States are required to solicit public opinion on their application before filing it.
Contact the private school representative on the state’s Title I Committee of Practitioners. Every state is required under ESEA to have this Committee in place and there must be at least one private school representative. This Committee must be consulted prior to the state filing their application.
– Send a version of the attached letter (“waiver letter--state”) to your state superintendent asking that he/she ensure that the needs of private school students are taken into account in filing the application and asking for consultation on the composition of the application.
– Send a version of the attached letter (“waiver letter--district”) reminding them that any funds freed up through waivers (such as SES and public school choice transportation) are subject to consultation and equitable participation requirements.
– Consider local “politics”—Is it appropriate to have your Bishop or other Church leader involved? Regional school leadership? A coalition of all or some private schools?
Enlist the assistance of your state Catholic Conference or State CAPE organization (not all states have these organizations).
If your state has already submitted its application, use the checklist below.
Access the application on www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility. Read through it to get general sense of what the state is proposing
Connect with local principals, private school leadership, and Church leadership to build a local coalition in support of holding harmless the private school Title I program.
Put together data from the private schools in your area/state to make the case for the minimal impact on the public school program of providing equitable services through the freed up funds, and the major impact on the private school program of adding these funds.
Prepare a case for the unmet needs of your Title I eligible students and how these needs could be addressed through additional Title I funds.
Adapt the letter to the local district to request a time for consultation for your coalition or representatives of your coalition specifically to discuss the flexibility waiver for which the state has applied. (See attached letter, “Waiver letter-- district”)
Review the federal requirements (above) and ask the LEA to “hold harmless” the private school program
Any freed up funds should be provided equitably to the public and private school Title I programs to increase the per pupil allocation.
Explain the minimal impact this action would have on the public school program and the large impact it has on the private school program. Any transferred funds could be subject to equitable participation.
Meet with the local district representatives with a tight plan to present your case. Bring the relevant guidance with you.
If the district does not agree to provide additional services for your students, prepare a second letter to the district to—thank them for the meeting, re-state your position, ask for their reconsideration, add additional information not presented at the meeting.
If the district does not respond to your second letter or does not respond positively, consider your “local politics”—Is it helpful to have the Bishop or other Church leader address the issue with the Mayor? Can you put together “case studies” of individual children (no identification of the children) to demonstrate the need for additional Title I funds?
Maintain records of the impact on your program of any decisions made by the LEA to either hold the private school program harmless or to expend freed up funds (and/or other Title I funds).
Resolve to become involved in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure a legislative protection for private school Title I students.
*****
ESEA Reauthorization Action Alert
The ESEA reauthorization efforts are focused primarily on improving under-performing public schools. The private school lobbying efforts continue for the equitable inclusion of its students and teachers in all programs that have served them well in the past. The challenge will be to create pathways for inclusion that will respect the uniqueness and independence of the Catholic school and avoid having to compromise and/or adopt public school mandates.
Legislators need to be reminded, by their constituents, of the importance of retaining the equitable inclusion of our students and teachers in the new law.
These are some of the talking points that should be included:
Since 1965, and in each subsequent reauthorization, ESEA has required the equitable inclusion of Catholic school students and their teachers. Currently, 80% of Catholic schools have students and teachers who participate in some ESEA programs.
Private school students should be included in all programs available to public school students similarly situated. Funds generated by private school students should be spent on them.
The proportinate share of funds allocated for services to private school students and teachers should be calculated based on the total allocation received by the SEA/LEA prior to any allowable expenditure by the SEA/LEA or any decison to transfer funds into other programs.
NCEA has joined with the other members of CAPE (Council for American Private Education) in developing legislative language to assure equitable participation of private and religious school students and teachers in ESEA reauthorization. The document can be accessed here.
When contacting lawmakers, discuss the importance of improving access for Catholic schools students and teachers to participate in federal education programs, especially in Titles I-A and II-A (professional development). The extra value of your comments rests in your ability to provide examples of your schools’ experiences, both positive and negative, with regard to the timeliness and effectiveness of consultation and implementation of services for your students and teachers.
If your school has experienced a steady decline in the amount of funding available for services, then describe the negative effects of the inadequate funding. If your allocations have remained steady and adequate, describe the progress made by students over the course of the year.
******
New Employee Verification Form
Anyone employee hired on or since April 3, 2009, regardless of immigration or citizenship status, must complete a newly revised Form I-9, Employment Verification form. If a previous version of the form was used for anyone hired within that time frame, it should be discarded and the new one completed. Other forms signed prior to April 3, 2009 remain in effect.
All I-9 forms must remain on file for three years from the date of employment, or for one year after termination of employment. They must be available for inspection by authorized officials of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, and Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website contains details and links to the appropriate forms and instructions. Click here to be linked to that site.
* * * * * *
White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools
April 24, 2008
Disturbed by the fact that inner-city faith-based schools are closing "at an alarming rate," the President called on Congress and elected officials at the state and local levels to help preserve such schools and to extend "lifelines of learning" to the children they serve." He stated that “many inner-city children across our Nation, America's faith-based schools provide an option for a better future.As we continue working to improve urban public schools through the No Child Left Behind Act, we must also work to preserve important educational alternatives for underserved students attending chronically underperforming public schools.”
The President received great applause when he stated “ensuring that faith-based schools can continue to serve inner-city children requires a commitment from the federal government”. He noted that the federal government uses taxpayers' money to empower faith-based organizations to help meet critical needs throughout the country in social services, health care and higher education services, and said that “we should use the same philosophy to provide federal funds to help inner-city families find greater choices in educating their children.”
"We have an interest in the health of these centers of excellence; it's in the country's interest to get beyond the debate of public/private, to recognize this is a critical national asset that provides a critical part of our nation's fabric.”
He reiterated his proposals outlined in the State of the Union Address calling for the enactment of a Pell Grant for Kids for K-12 education and the reauthorization of D.C. Choice Incentive Act that created the Washington's Opportunity Scholarship program, which has helped more than 2,600 children in D.C. find new hope at a faith-based or other non-public schools.
NCEA was represented at the Summit by (right to left) Karen Ristau, President, Dale McDonald, PBVM, Regina Haney and Barbara Keebler (not pictured).
Dr. Ronald Bowes, Assistant Superintendent, Diocese of Pittsburgh, addressed the benefits of the Pennsylvania corportae tax credit program while former D.C. mayor Anthony Williams listened.
Dr. Mary McDonald, Superintendent of Schools, Diocese of Memphis, (far left) showcased the Jubilee Schools renewal in Memphis
Rev. Joseph M. O'Keeffe, SJ, Dean of the Lynch School of Education at Boston College addressed
In December 2006, Congress approved an extension of the tax deduction benefit for expenses incurred by teachers in public or private elementary and secondary schools.
Eligible educators may be able to deduct up to $250 for their non-reimbursed expenses for the purchases of for books, supplies, computer equipment (including related software and services) and supplementary materials that are used in their classrooms.
Information from the IRS about the educator expenses deduction is available by clicking here.
National Study Comparing Public and Private Schools
On July 14, 2006, the National Center for Education Statistics released a study titled Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling that uses a sophisticated statistical analysis to examine the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores of public and private school students.
The study analyzed the 2003 grade 4 and grade 8 math and reading results on NAEP assessments and
examined the differences in mean scores after selected school and student characteristics that are presumed to advantage private school students are discounted. The analysis takes raw test scores from a single year and applies statistical controls for demographic factors like race, income, and disabilities.
This study looks at results on one test score at a given time – it does not measure progress over time. Single-year snapshots of test scores provide limited information about student achievement and nothing about the relative quality of public and private schools.
Although the NCES report contains a Cautions In Interpretations section advises that these statistical hypothetical results are of “modest value," the press coverage exaggerates a modest hypothetical difference to make the inferences that public schools perform better than private schools.
Click here to read an NCEA analysis of the report and a link to the full text of the document.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2000(Public Law 108-265) contains provisions that mandate the adoption of local wellness policies, effective at the start of the 2006-2007 academic year. All schools that participate in any of the federal nutrition programs (lunch, breakfast, milk) are required to develop a wellness policy.
The law addresses, primarily, local education agencies (LEAs) who are directed to adopt a district-wide policy for all of their schools. The guidance document, detailing how the requirements of the law are to be carried out, makes specific reference to its applicability to private and religious schools that participate in any of the programs authorized under the National School Lunch Act or Child Nutrition Act.
Each private school may adopt the policy of the local public school district, or develop it own policy, or a diocesan superintendent may develop a policy for all of its schools.
In order to address, and combat, the growing health crisis of childhood obesity the law mandates that the policy detail actions that will help schools foster a healthy environment that impacts favorably on students' nutrition and physical activity. A local wellness policy, at a minimum, must include:
Goals for nutrition education, physical activity and other school-based activities that are designed to promote student wellness in a manner that the local educational agency determines appropriate.
Guidelines for reimbursable school meals, which are no less restrictive than regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pertaining to the Child Nutrition Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
Nutrition guidelines, with the objectives of promoting student health and reducing childhood obesity, for all foods available on each school campus during the school day.
A plan for measuring the implementation of the local wellness policy, including designation of persons within the local educational agency or at each school with the operational responsibility for ensuring that the program goals are being met.
Opportunities for community involvement that include parents, students, and representatives of the school board, school administrators, and the public in the development of the school wellness policy.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Local Wellness Policy website provides sample policy language for each of the policy components, including: nutrition education, physical activity, guidelines for all foods and beverages on school campuses as well as other school-based activities that promote student wellness. It is available at http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/Healthy/wellnesspolicy_faq.html#private
National Catholic Educational Association
