We, the undersigned education and civil rights advocacy organizations, appreciate the opportunity to comment on Arkansas’ proposed waiver to requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). While we agree with the proposals for funding flexibilities for local education agencies (LEAs) and the reduction of assessment burdens for advanced students, we have strong concerns about the Arkansas Department of Education’s (ADE) plan to consolidate state-level ESSA funding. We believe this will undermine the resources and supports needed to ensure that the state’s most vulnerable students have equitable access to high-quality educational opportunities.

State-Level Block Grant

ADE’s proposed consolidation of all state set-aside funds raises several important concerns. First, in its current form, the waiver request lacks specificity about which ESSA title programs would be impacted by this program. For instance, the draft request states that Title I funds will be among the funds to be consolidated, but it doesn’t specify whether this refers only to Title I, Part A funds — those designated to support students from low-income backgrounds — or whether this would also apply to the other parts of Title I, which include additional funding intended to support students from migrant families and students in neglected and delinquent settings, including justice-involved youth. ADE should clarify which specific ESSA Title programs are affected before submitting any requests to the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

Additionally, the proposed waiver would put Arkansas students who need the most support at risk of losing access to the resources they need to be successful. Funds intended for vulnerable student groups could be redirected toward broader state priorities rather than being used to support specific student groups that continue to face persistent opportunity gaps. This includes students from low-income backgrounds, students from migrant families, students in neglected and delinquent settings, as well as English learners. If this waiver were to be approved, funds intended to support language acquisition for English learners or instructional services in juvenile justice facilities could instead be used for general instructional initiatives or statewide priorities that do not actually benefit those students. We strongly urge ADE to eliminate this proposal and instead mirror the planned LEA waiver to expand existing ESSA funding flexibilities while continuing to use Title I and Title III funds for the specific student populations as appropriated by Congress for decades.

Similarly, ADE’s proposal to further consolidate federal funds by including 1003 funds risks eliminating support for students in Arkansas’ lowest-performing schools. These funds are designated to support improvement in schools identified via the state’s accountability system, which disproportionately serve students from low-income backgrounds and students of color. National research indicates that these funds are insufficient to fully support the needs of these schools, and allowing these funds to be consolidated with Title funds could make it even harder for these schools to improve. Rather than directing these important resources to other schools and districts across the state, Arkansas should increase its investment in its lowest-performing schools.

Finally, the proposed waiver provides little to no detail about how ADE would ensure that students for whom these federal funds are intended would continue to access the educational opportunities and supports they need to be successful if the state consolidation is approved. Without robust reporting and monitoring of how funds are spent, families and communities cannot hold the state accountable for providing federally required supports for the state’s most vulnerable students. ADE must provide much more detailed information about how it will continue to support students in impacted groups and schools in any final request to ED to ensure public transparency.

LEA Funding Flexibility

We appreciate ADE’s thoughtful and limited waiver request for LEA funding flexibility in conjunction with AR App, an online system that allows Arkansas school districts to streamline planning and target funding toward identified needs. As stated in the proposal, expanding the alternative uses provision in Section 5211 beyond small, rural LEAs will enable all districts to leverage Title II-A, Title IV-A, and Title IV-B funds to support students from low-income backgrounds and English learners. This could be especially beneficial for LEAs that don’t receive enough Title III funds to meet the needs of their English learners, which cannot be addressed via transferability in Section 5103.

Assessment Flexibility

ADE’s proposal for allowing students who enroll in high school courses in middle school to take the associated end-of-course exam in lieu of their grade-level assessment encourages increased access to advanced coursework by lowering the testing burden on students. We believe this request is a common-sense expansion of the existing flexibility for eighth grade math already included in Section 1111(b)(2)(C). We encourage ADE to commit to reporting the extent to which students are leveraging this flexibility on the state’s school report card, including disaggregating results by grade-level tests, end-of-course exams, and ESSA-required student groups.

Conclusion

Arkansas’ draft ESSA waiver request provides common-sense expansions of existing flexibilities for LEA spending and assessment requirements. However, its plan to consolidate state-level funding across many federal programs risks undermining program-specific guardrails and weakening transparency regarding how federal funds are spent. It would divert funds away from students with the greatest needs, including students from low-income backgrounds, students from migrant families, English learners, and students enrolled in Arkansas’ lowest-performing schools. Furthermore, the draft plan does not demonstrate how it will improve student achievement or continue to assist the specific groups of students affected by the proposal.

We urge you to eliminate the planned state-level funding changes and instead leverage existing flexibilities in federal law. These flexibilities allow the state to streamline program administration while upholding the essential civil rights protections and guardrails in federal law that ensure funds reach the students they are intended to serve, particularly those who are furthest from opportunity and struggling the most academically.

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

Sincerely,

All4Ed
EdTrust
National Center for Learning Disabilities
National Parents Union
UnidosUS