|
There's Still Time to Apply for EANS (1)
The window for the submission of applications for federal assistance under the first round of Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS) is set to close at 5:00 p.m. (PT) on April 26, 2021. Application is made online via a web portal accessible on this California Department of Education (CDE) webpage. The application must be accompanied by a cover sheet that is to be completed and uploaded as per directions provided in the application. EANS (1) * funding flows from a $2.75 billion appropriation enacted by Congress as part of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021. The funds are intended to provide services and assistance to nonprofit private schools offering instruction in any of grades K-12, inclusive, that were negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Private schools that have either received, or expect to receive second-round Payroll Protection Program loans/grants may not make application for EANS (1) assistance. EANS (1) funds may be used to provide services and assistance to eligible private schools whose applications will have been submitted in a timely and approvable manner. The amount of funding available to serve and/or assist a particular school will be determined by two factors: b) enrollment; and, b) the number of "low-income students" enrolled. A base per-pupil allocation (PPA) will be generated by each student who does not meet the "low-income" criterion, while those students meeting the criterion will generate 120 percent of the base PPA. (Methods by which students meeting the "low-income" criterion may be identified can be found in item "C-11" of this guidance document issued by the U.S. Department of Education). "Assistance" has been interpreted to include reimbursement for permissible expenses (incurred on, or subsequent to March 13, 2020) that include items such as:
- Supplies to sanitize, disinfect, and clean school facilities;
- Personal protective equipment (PPE); and,
- Physical barriers to facilitate social distancing.
Reimbursement may also be received for durable items, including:
- Educational technology;
- Portable air purification systems; and,
- Leasing sites or spaces to ensure social distancing.
Applicants should note that receipt of reimbursement for certain durable items entails transfer of ownership to the California Department of Education. Reimbursements will become available within six months of the approval of an application. Guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education makes it clear that a private school receiving reimbursement under EANS (1) will not be deemed a "recipient of federal financial assistance." The law also requires that EANS (1) funding be used to provide services and/or assistance of  a secular, neutral, and non-ideological nature.
Permissible services include initiating and maintaining education and support services, or assistance for remote or hybrid learning, or to address learning loss. Services will either be provided directly by the CDE, or via a third-party provider of service contracted by CDE. Notably, the EANS (1) statute requires all funds to be obligated (i.e., contractually committed, or otherwise committed by written agreement) within six months of the date the state received its EANS (1) allocation. This places the deadline for the obligation of funds sometime in the first half of August, 2021. Though funds must be obligated within the six-month window, they may be expended through September 30, 2023. The EANS (1) implementation process appears to be taking the following form: 1. Schools complete the initial online application available until 5:00 p.m. on April 26, 2021. The initial application will enable CDE to determine the number of "low-income students" enrolled in schools making successful applications and to calculate a basic per-pupil allocation. ("Low-income students" will generate 120 percent of the basic PPA.)
2. No later than May 12, 2021, CDE will notify applicants of their approval status, together with their respective allocation amounts. Additional program details and instructions will be provided at this time.
3. Following notification of approval from CDE, applicants will begin the process of submitting documentation required for reimbursements, and/or for obtaining specified services.
Though the CDE has refrained from estimating a base PPA, CAPSO anticipates a figure of at least $500 (meaning that each student meeting the "low-income" criterion would generate at least $600). Thus, a private school with a total enrollment of 250 students, of whom 25 met the low-income criterion, could expect to generate $127,500 in EANS (1) funding. The fewer the number of applicants, the higher the per-pupil allocations.
Upon completion of the online application, no confirmation is issued. School administrators wishing to obtain validation from the California Department of Education that a completed EANS application has been submitted in a timely manner are encouraged to:
- Complete the online application, including the uploading and submission of the cover page at the earliest possible date.
- Address an email to EANS@cde.ca.gov and address a bcc copy of the email to themselves.
- In the body of the email, request confirmation that the school's completed EANS application has been received by the California Department of Education in a timely manner,
- being sure to include the name of the school as it was entered in the application; and,
- including the name of the person who submitted the application.
Please send requests for confirmation at the earliest possible date, mindful that the deadline for the submission of EANS (1) applications is 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 2021.
*Throughout this article reference has been made to "EANS (1)." This is because the American Rescue Plan Act enacted by Congress last month contains an additional appropriation in the identical amount of $2.75 billion to provide emergency assistance to non-public schools. The law governing those funds, to be known as "EANS (2)" or "ARP EANS," is somewhat different from EANS (1), and will be addressed in a future edition of the E-Mailer.
|
|
After Espinoza
In sparsely populated Maine, it so happens that fewer than half of the state's 260 school districts operate a public high school. To assure access to a publicly-funded secondary level education for students residing in such districts Maine provides a tuition-assistance program. The program enables children to be enrolled in high schools of their parents' choosing, whether public or private, with the state picking up the tab, even if parents opt to send their children to schools located out of state. There is, however, a limitation. The state will only assume the cost of education if it is provided by "...a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The exclusion of religious schools from Maine's tuition assistance program posed a problem for David and Amy Carson, whose daughter Olivia is currently a senior at Bangor Christian Schools. Though the high school is fully accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and is classified by the Maine Department of Education as a "private school approved for attendance purposes," it is, undeniably, a religious school. And while the Carsons would very much have liked to make application under Maine's tuition assistance program, they desisted from doing so. Instead, they (together with two other families) turned to the courts. The initial complaint was filed in a federal district court, in 2018, not long after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. As the district court noted in its ruling, several justices who sided with the majority in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer stated in a footnote (appearing in the majority decision) that, "[t]his case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other  forms of discrimination." That was enough for the district court to dismiss the parents' claims.
In July, 2019, the parents appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which adjudicated the case over virtually the same time period as the U.S. Supreme Court was considering Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In its 5-4 ruling in Espinoza, SCOTUS held that if a state provides aid enabling students to attend private schools, it can't single out religious schools as ineligible on the basis of such schools' religious status. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: "A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."
In his cautiously worded statement, Chief Justice Roberts left room for a distinction to be drawn between discrimination on the basis of religious status, and discrimination on the basis of religious use (of public funds). The distinction was noted in a concurring opinion authored by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote: "The Constitution forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. That guarantee protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly."
The distinction between religious status and religious use wasn't lost upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which also ruled in favor of the state. Contained in that court's ruling was the following finding: "Espinoza made clear, moreover, that discrimination in handing out school aid based on the recipient's affiliation with or control by a religious institution differed from discrimination in handing out that aid based on the religious use to which the recipient would put it."
Is such a distinction really what the majority had in mind when SCOTUS returned its ruling in Espinoza? That's the question David and Amy Carson have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to address in a petition filed in February of the current year. As SCOTUSblog frames the issue, the petition asks "whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or 'sectarian,' instruction."
If SCOTUS grants the petition and agrees to take up the matter, it could signal the end of so-called "Blaine Amendments" - state constitutional provisions that prohibit appropriations and other forms of state assistance to religious entities. Ironically, if fittingly, James G. Blaine, the 19th century Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives for whom such provisions were named, hailed from the state of Maine.
The Council for American Private Education (CAPE) is among the organizations that have joined one of several amicus briefs submitted in support of the petitioners. A decision from SCOTUS regarding whether or not it will take up the matter had been expected to be made this month. The state of Maine, however, has been granted an extension of time for filing a response to the petition, which appears likely to move a response from the Court back to late May, or early June.
Stay tuned!
|
|
Quick Takes
Lincoln Snyder to Head NCEA
The National Catholic Educational Association has named Lincoln Snyder as its next President and CEO, effective July 1, 2021. At that time, Mr. Snyder, who currently serves as Executive Director of Schools at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, will take the reins at the largest, private professional education association in the world. NCEA's 140,000 member-educators serve 1.6 million students. NCEA announced the appointment, here. Prior to assuming his leadership role at the Diocese of Sacramento in 2015, Mr. Snyder served as an instructor and board chair at Christian Brothers High School, Sacramento. He is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, and holds a master's degree in Lasallian Leadership from St. Mary's University of Minnesota. Before
 |
|  |
Lincoln Snyder
|
entering the field of education, he acquired valuable experience in business and real estate, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Lincoln is also a venerated member of the CAPSO "family" who, in addition to his role as chief contact for the Diocese of Sacramento, serves on the association's Public Policy Committee, and has participated in multiple task-forces and working groups. For the past two years Lincoln has also chaired the California Catholic Schools Superintendents Conference.
Anyone who has worked with Lincoln knows him to be a "go to" leader with a "can do" attitude. His quick and nimble mind, analytical prowess, creativity, humor, and boundless energy will soon redound to the benefit of Catholic educators, students and their families across the nation and beyond. We're proud of you, Lincoln!
CaPSPDNow Professional Development
A number of new, federally funded professional development opportunities are available to teachers, administrators and other educators employed in California nonprofit private schools offering  instruction in any of grades K-12, inclusive. These continuing professional education programs are underwritten by Title II, Part A of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, and are "branded" under the banner of " CaPSPDNow." The programs are administered by the Sacramento County Office of Education, through a contract with the California Department of Education.
Upcoming CaPSPDNow programs include:
Focused Feedback for Focused Instruction
Format: 4-day webinar, each session 3 hours Designed for: All educators, grades PK-12 Presenter: Bernadette Lambert Cost: Free
For additional information including dates, times and online registration, click here.
Cultivating Tenacity, Motivation, and Self-Efficacy in Students
Format: 4-day webinar, each session 3 hours Designed for: All educators, grades PK-12 Presenter: Rick Wormeli Cost: Free
For additional information including dates, time and online registration, click here.
Why Students Don't Pay Attention
And What You Can Do About It
Format: 4-day webinar, each session 3 hours Designed for: All educators, grades PK-12 Presenter: Bryan Harris Cost: Free
For additional information including dates, time and online registration, click here.
Colleague Coaching and Mentoring Workshop
Format: 4-day webinar, each session 2 1/2 hours Designed for: All educators, grades PK-12 Presenters: Christine Lam and Rebecca Chirchick Cost: Free
Note: This program is completely subscribed. You may either sign up to be wait-listed, or register for a repeat of the webinar, to be conducted in July.
For additional information including dates, time and online registration, click here.
Information about additional CaPSPDNow professional development programs, including the 2021 Virtual Summer Conference, is available here.
SB 95: A Textbook Case of "Gut and Amend"
On March 18, 2021, the California Legislature sent SB 95 - a bill
requiring employers to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave to eligible employees - to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature. The measure was signed into law the following day, and its provisions, which apply to employers of more than 25 employees, became effective on March 29, 2021. The Liebert Cassidy Whitmore law firm has published a Special Bulletin outlining what employers need to know about SB 95, and private school leaders would do well to familiarize themselves with the new law's provisions. CAPSO never weighed in on SB 95. There was simply no real opportunity to do so, as on March 14 SB 95 was a different bill. The following day, the measure underwent a process known as "gut and amend," in which a bill is essentially - and in this case, literally - rewritten, with the resulting legislation comprising the equivalent of a newly-introduced piece of proposed legislation.
If you're a visual learner, take a look at the amendments to SB 95 that were made on March 15. Text appearing in blue italics is newly amended, while red text that is struck through shows portions of the prior text that have been deleted. As a quick scroll through the document readily reveals, the entirety of the bill that existed prior to March 15 was deleted, and replaced by the provisions appearing in blue italics. Three days later, the "new" bill was on the Governor's desk. When the Legislature employs the "gut and amend" procedure in this manner, one can only think, there ought to be a law...
Natural Hazard Safety Training for Schools
The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) Seismic Hazards Branch, Earthquake and Tsunami Program is pleased to announce the following FEMA National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP) funded training:
| Web Event: | NETAP Web-Based Training: FEMA P-1000, Safer, Stronger, Smarter: A Guide to Improving School Natural Hazard Safety | | Date & time: | Tuesday, May 11, 9am-11am | | Register here: |
| | Instructor: | Ines Pearce, CEO, Pearce Global Partners | | Description: | This free web-based training shows how to physically protect school facilities and operations before, during, and after a natural hazard event. It also provides guidance for developing a comprehensive strategy to address natural hazard safety in schools. | | Document: | Link to view Please be patient as it may take a few moments to load the large document. | | Audience: | School administrators, facilities managers, emergency managers, emergency planning committees, teachers and staff at K-12 schools, state officials, district administrators, school boards, and teacher union leaders. | | PDH Eligible: | Yes. (Note: In the case of multiple participants watching the training on the same device, a PDH certificate will only be issued to the individual who registered for the training.) |
 
Inclusive Education in Private Schools: 5 Keys to Success
Did you know that private schools are supporting an increasing number of students with individual learning needs and disabilities each year? PROGRESS Center and All Belong Center for Inclusive Education are excited to share evidence-based practices and resources that can help private school educators meet the increasingly diverse needs of their students. In this webinar, All Belong Center for Inclusive Education, which has supported more than a hundred nonpublic schools over the past 40 years, will present five keys to inclusive education that benefits all students. Local private school educators will share how they implement the keys to success to get results. The session will close with freely available resources that can support private school educators in promoting success.
Webinar Date: April 28, 2021 Webinar Time: 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. (PT)
Elizabeth Dombrowksi, B.A. Executive Director of All Belong, where she serves as a champion for ability inclusion in schools and churches.
Mark Krommendyk, Ed.D. Retired principal from grand rapids Christian Schools and Consultant for All Belong
Brenda Maas, M.A. Ed. ESS Director at NorthPointe Christian Schools in Grand Rapids, MI where she works in conjunction with All Belong.
President Biden Releases FY 2022 Budget Request Anyone of the opinion that the federal government has been stingy in its appropriations for K-12 education (and, particularly, for public K-12 education) should take heart from President Joe Biden's recently released federal budget request for fiscal year 2022. The President's proposal seeks a total of $108.2 billion for the U.S. Department of Education, representing a whopping 41 percent increase over the current year. A large chunk of that figure comes by way of a massive $20 billion increase in Title I funding (boosting total Title I funding to $36.5 billion). By comparison, the additional $2.6 billion sought for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act seems like spare change. As we remind readers every year, when it comes to the federal budget process, the President proposes and Congress disposes. President Biden is clearly feeling generous. Barring any serious hiccups in the anticipated economic recovery, there's little reason to believe Congress will spoil the party.
|
|
Drawing a Line
The California Association of Private School Organizations has registered support for AB 762, a bill currently pending in the California Legislature. Authored by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D. - Milpitas), the measure would require private schools to follow the same procedures as public schools when determining whether a would-be school site is located on, or proximate to a source of toxic substances. The association has gone on record describing the bill's provisions as "sensible, reasonable, and practical."
During a recent interview, a reporter seemed surprised to learn that private schools were supporting a measure that would increase the amount of state regulation to which they'd be subject. "Aren't you concerned," he asked, "that this could be one step down a road you'd rather not travel?" It's a good question, inviting a response that helps to clarify the drawing of lines between reasonable and unreasonable state regulation, as well as public and private.
To wit, there's a public dimension to private education. Private schools educate a certain percentage of the public. At no point do children enrolled in private schools, the instructors who teach them, or the parents who send them there ever cease being members of the public. Our jurisprudence has long established that private schools fulfill certain public purposes.
When we think of public health, we don't tend to draw distinctions on the basis of school types. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the most recent issue creating controversy around schools and public health was likely to have been SB 277, the 2015 bill authored by State Senator Richard Pan that eliminated the personal beliefs exemption relative to required school vaccinations. For all the passion it ignited, the battle lines that formed in response to SB 277 had little, if anything, to do with school types. Yes, there was opposition from private school parents, but the same was true for public school counterparts. At issue was the authority of the state to limit individual liberty in service of public health. Though controversy continues to bubble up around mandatory school vaccinations, the issue doesn't offer a particularly strong case for claims of excessive government regulation of private schools.
Neither, for that matter, does the state's regulation of private schools over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, too, the state began with the observation that a virus draws no distinction between public and private. To protect the public from the spread of the virus, state and local health authorities made all schools subject to the same public health requirements. Recognizing the blurring of boundaries between public and private in the midst of a public health crisis, the state even went so far as to equip private schools with personal protective equipment, as a public health measure.
That's not to say that recent public health decisions made by state and local authorities should be immune from criticism. It's a safe bet that policy making around the management of COVID-19 will be studied for decades to come. And whereas enhanced knowledge will almost certainly cash a harsh light upon various decisions and policies, it will also magnify the environment of uncertainty in which human decision makers were operating.
Against this background, AB 762 can hardly be regarded as controversial. Private school students, teachers, administrators and visitors to private school campuses are no more immune to the presence of nearby toxic substances than are their public school counterparts. To preserve the health of the public, it makes little sense for the state to draw a distinction between public and private schools when establishing safeguards against inadvertent exposure to hazardous substances. Where then, can a line between reasonable and unreasonable state regulation be drawn?
One example of what the state may not do is force private schools to adopt the Health Education Framework California's public schools are required to follow. To do so would violate a key finding of the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1925 decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. In that landmark case, the nation's High Court held that: "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments of this Union rest excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."
The preservation of pluralism in American education rests upon a mutual and reciprocal recognition of authority and restraint by public and private actors. Confusion among private school stakeholders about the legitimate role of government in preserving public health may prove to be as unsettling to the preservation of that delicate balance as confusion among government officials about the implications of our nation's fundamental theory of liberty. Reasonable people can and should dispel any such confusion, if and when it arises.
Ron Reynolds
Note: The commentary and views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the California Association of Private School Organizations, or its members.
|
|
Publication Note
The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published on May 26, 2021.
|
|