Director McKenzie Snow:

We, the undersigned education and civil right organizations, write to provide feedback on Iowa’s draft unified allocation plan, including requests for waivers and reinterpretation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requirements.

While we appreciate the intention of aligning planning and spending across funding streams and reducing administrative burden, the proposal in the unified allocation plan both goes beyond the Secretary’s waiver authority and lacks sufficient detail to understand (1) which specific federal requirements and provisions would be waived; (2) how groups of students who are served by the programs for which waivers are requested — like students from low-income backgrounds, rural students, English learners, and students in juvenile justice facilities — would continue to receive assistance; and (3) how the unified allocation plan would advance student academic achievement. We urge Iowa to reconsider this broad waiver request and instead pursue its goals through existing federal flexibilities, as noted in each section below.

We also note that the public comment period on the draft unified allocation plan—just 12 days long—is insufficient and far too short to gather meaningful public input from all affected constituencies. We strongly encourage the Iowa Department of Education to extend this comment period to at least one month. Given that providing a “reasonable opportunity” for public comment, and providing these comments and the state’s response to them, is one of the pieces of information Iowa will be required to submit in any waiver request to the U.S. Department of Education (ESEA section 8401(b)(3)(A)), Iowa’s current process runs the risk of violating these essential requirements for public transparency and input.

(I) Allow state administrative and state activities set-aside funds to be consolidated based on existing statutory formulas

As the draft plan notes, Iowa does not need a waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to consolidate state administrative funds provided under the ESEA. ESEA section 8201 explicitly permits such an approach, so long as the majority of the state agency’s resources come from non-federal sources. However, while the consolidation of state administrative funds is permitted under the ESEA, the consolidation of funds for state activities goes beyond what is permissible. The proposal to consolidate state activities funds from multiple federal funding streams—including those dedicated to support activities for specific groups of students like English learners—raises serious concerns. Iowa does not sufficiently demonstrate how it would continue serving these specific student populations, supporting their needs, or closing opportunity and achievement gaps. Instead of a waiver, we encourage Iowa to continue to utilize the existing transferability provisions in Title V of the ESEA, which would permit some state activities set-aside funds to be consolidated, such as those provided for state activities under Title II-Part A, Title IV-Part A, and Title IV-Part B, while safeguarding state activities funds designed to support specific groups of students.

(II) Allow school district formula and competitive funds to be consolidated together based on existing statutory formulas utilizing expanded transferability flexibilities

The proposal to consolidate formula and competitive funds for districts into a “single fund” or block grant also lacks adequate detail and justification. Worse, it would compromise resources, services, and protections for vulnerable populations, including students from low-income backgrounds, rural students, English learners, students who are involved in the juvenile justice system, and students whose parents are migratory agricultural workers or fishers. As the U.S. Secretary of Education lacks authority to waive the “the allocation or distribution of funds to… local educational agencies” (ESEA section 8401(c)(1)), this request is outside the scope of the law; consolidation of separate formula and competitive funds into one program would require a reauthorization of the ESEA by Congress.

Permitting, for example, Title I-Part A funds to be used in any public school, not just those serving the highest populations of students from low-income backgrounds, would not only be illegal and exceed the Secretary’s executive authority, but it would also compromise bedrock federal requirements that ensure access and opportunity for students living in concentrated poverty—the very reason the ESEA exists at all. The requirements within the programs Iowa is seeking to consolidate in its unified allocation plan ensure federal dollars are spent effectively, reach the students they are intended to support, and safeguard equal opportunity to high-quality education. This dedicated funding is not bureaucratic red tape. It is a protection that prevents vulnerable students from being sidelined when budgets are tight or competing priorities emerge. Iowa’s proposal leaves unanswered how the state would ensure its districts would continue to support these student populations, as well as how its districts would demonstrate compliance with ESEA’s essential and un-waive-able fiscal requirements, like supplement, not supplant and maintenance of effort.

Current transferability provisions in Title V, as Iowa recognizes, already provide flexibility for LEAs to move funds between certain programs, allowing districts to address coordination and strategic planning challenges. Iowa has not demonstrated why additional flexibility is needed beyond what already exists, particularly when that new flexibility would primarily impact funding specifically designated for students from low-income backgrounds, English learners, rural students, and other at-risk students.

We also note that ESEA section 8401(b)(1)(F) specifically requires waiver requests to describe “how schools will continue to provide assistance to the same populations served by programs for which waivers are requested….” We urge Iowa to reconsider and withdraw this request and instead rely on existing flexibilities in federal law to streamline and align program administration. For example, Iowa could consider developing a “Super App” approach, which enabled Louisiana to consolidate its district applications for both federal and state funds into a single application, without requesting any federal waivers. This approach could be a much better solution for Iowa that would reduce burden for school districts while maintaining essential federal requirements and safeguards that protect vulnerable students.

(III) Allow the IDOE to calculate and retain the equitable participation proportionate share in all relevant ESEA programs for school districts and nonpublic schools that opt in through meaningful consultation to provide equitable services to nonpublic school students and teachers through a third-party provider(s)

Like the prior element in Iowa’s draft unified allocation plan, this request exceeds the U.S. Secretary of Education’s authority and is inappropriate and illegal. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving requirements pertaining to equitable participation (ESEA section 8401(c)(5)). Further, we have significant concerns about outsourcing the provision of equitable services to unnamed and unaccountable third-party providers, who may not comply with federal requirements that equitable participation does not result in the transfer of any federal funds to private schools. Local school districts have the capacity and knowledge to manage the equitable participation requirements, and Iowa has not demonstrated how the outsourcing of these provisions to non-public entities would benefit students, their families, and educators, nor increase academic achievement. We urge Iowa to withdraw this request on both grounds and instead follow the recent U.S. Department of Education guidance on equitable participation under the ESEA.

(IV) Explore opportunities to best support school districts in prioritizing schools most in need of support through revised USED administrative interpretation (ESEA Section 1113)

This element in Iowa’s draft plan also exceeds the U.S. Secretary of Education’s authority. The ESEA statute specifies that the process for ranking-and-serving schools under Title I-Part A cannot be waived by the Secretary (ESEA section 8401(c)(10)), and it is inappropriate to ask the U.S. Department of Education to issue guidance that is inconsistent with the statute.

Since 1965, Title I-Part A has provided supplemental funding to support the education of students living in concentrated areas of poverty, with specific schools that serve the highest share of students from low-income backgrounds prioritized for funding and designated as Title I schools. Specifically, section 1113 of the ESEA requires districts receiving Title I-Part A funds to rank-order all of their schools according to the share of children living in poverty and must first serve any school (in order) with poverty rates above 75%. Districts may lower this threshold to 50% for high schools, which are less likely to receive Title I-Part A funding, but they are not required to do so. If funds remain after serving this population of schools with the highest concentrations of poverty, additional eligible schools may also be served in rank order (either districtwide or by grade span). This targeting of Title I funds is necessary, appropriate, and reflective of national education priorities for the last 60 years. It is telling that other federal education programs, such as Title IV-Part A and even emergency dollars through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) program utilize the Title I-Part A formula as a basis to ensure the funds are targeted to students most in need.

Iowa’s statement that this approach does not “support coherent, district-wide school improvement investments” misses the point that the Title I-Part A program is intentionally designed as a program targeted toward students from low-income backgrounds, particularly those living in concentrated areas of poverty, given the additional educational challenges these students face that necessitate supplementary resources, beyond what states and districts can provide. The state provides insufficient details regarding why additional flexibility about allocating Title I-Part A funds to schools is necessary, and does not offer any information or assurance of how districts would continue to support and provide assistance to students in schools that are currently served by Title I-Part A.

We urge Iowa to reconsider and withdraw this request—particularly as it is not a request for a waiver like the prior three sections—would require the U.S. Department of Education to exceed its authority and ignore clear statutory language, and would significantly harm students from low-income backgrounds.

(V) Modernize supplement, not supplant implementation across multiple ESEA programs (Title II, III and IV) through revised USED administrative interpretations

This portion of Iowa’s unified allocation proposal is not a request for a waiver from federal requirements either, but rather asking the U.S. Department of Education to inappropriately reinterpret one of its most critical and longstanding provisions: that federal funds be used only to supplement, not supplant state and local education funds. The simple test Iowa proposes—to demonstrate that per pupil expenditures on all instructional improvement have not declined from the past fiscal year—is wholly insufficient as evidence that federal funds did not supplant state and local funds. Such a proposal sounds more like maintenance of effort, a separate fiscal requirement. We recommend removing this section from the proposal submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, particularly as it is not a request for a waiver or flexibility from statutory requirements and instead asks for new non-regulatory guidance without a credible alternative for demonstrating supplement, not supplant under Titles II, III, and IV.

Conclusion

Iowa’s draft unified allocation plan not only requests waivers the U.S. Secretary of Education lacks authority to grant, but would also undermine program-specific guardrails, weaken transparency regarding how federal funds are spent, and divert funds away from students with the greatest needs, including students from low-income backgrounds, rural students, and English learners. Further, the draft plan does not demonstrate how it will improve Iowa students’ achievement, nor how it will continue to assist the specific groups of students impacted by the broad swath of federal law Iowa would no longer follow. This request brushes aside far too many of the vital safeguards Congress placed in the ESEA that have ensured access and equal opportunity for all students for the past 60 years.

We urge you to withdraw this request and instead consider leveraging the flexibilities already in federal law. These flexibilities allow the state to streamline program administration while maintaining the critical civil rights protections and guardrails in the federal law that ensure funds reach the students they are intended to serve, particularly those who are the furthest from opportunity and struggling the most academically.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal.

Sincerely,

All4Ed
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
EdTrust
National Center for Learning Disabilities
National Parents Union
UnidosUS