The following excerpts are taken from the USDE equitable services guidance summarized above. Italics represent emphasis added by CAPE Outlook. You can read the full guidance here.

6. Who is responsible for initiating the consultation process and how should it begin?

Similar to how an LEA provides equitable services under the ESEA, an LEA is responsible for initiating the consultation process. It must contact officials in all non-public schools in the LEA to notify them of the opportunity for their students and teachers to obtain equitable services under the CARES Act programs...If non-public school officials have not been contacted, they may contact the LEA or the State ombudsman to inquire about equitable services under the CARES Act programs. If non-public school officials want equitable services for their students and teachers, the LEA must consult with those officials during the design and development of the LEA’s programs and before the LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunity of non-public school students and teachers to participate in the activities funded under the CARES Act programs...

7. How does an LEA that receives funds under the CARES Act programs provide equitable services “in the same manner as provided under section 1117 of the ESEA”?

...The services that an LEA may provide under the CARES Act programs are clearly available to all public school students and teachers, not only low-achieving students and their teachers as under Title I, Part A. Similarly, there is no limitation on residence in a participating Title I public school attendance area for services provided in public schools under the CARES Act programs. For CARES Act services to be equitable in comparison to public school students and teachers, it follows that the same principles must apply in providing equitable services to non-public school students and teachers...

...Because an LEA determines the proportional share based on enrollment in public and non-public schools under the CARES Act programs, the LEA need not collect poverty data from non-public schools...

8. Must an LEA offer to provide equitable services under the CARES Act programs to students and teachers in all non-public schools located in the LEA, even if a non-public school has not previously participated in equitable services under Title I, Part A or Title VIII of the ESEA?

Yes. An LEA must offer to provide equitable services under the CARES Act programs to students and teachers in all non-public schools located in the LEA, even if a non-public school has not previously participated under Title I, Part A or Title VIII of the ESEA.

9. Are all students and teachers in a non-public school eligible to receive equitable services under the CARES Act programs?

Yes. All students and teachers in a non-public school are eligible to receive equitable services under the CARES Act programs, unless a Governor (under the GEER Fund) or an SEA (through the SEA reserve under the ESSER Fund) targets funds for a specific purpose or population of public and non-public school students. Unlike Title I, Part A, equitable services under the CARES Act programs are not based on residence in a participating Title I public school attendance area and are also not limited only to low-achieving students and their teachers.

10. How does an LEA determine the proportional share of funds that must be reserved to provide equitable services to non-public school students and teachers under the CARES Act programs?

... an LEA must use the total allocation it receives under each CARES Act program to determine the proportional share available for equitable services before reserving funds for other purposes.

An LEA uses enrollment data in non-public schools whose students and teachers will participate under the CARES Act programs compared to enrollment in public schools in the LEA to determine the proportional share. Under the CARES Act programs, services are available for all students—public and non-public—without regard to poverty, low achievement, or residence in a participating Title I public school attendance area...

To calculate the proportional share for equitable services under the CARES Act programs, an LEA determines the overall number of children who are enrolled in public schools and non-public schools in the LEA that wish to participate under one or both CARES Act programs. Using the proportion of students who are enrolled in participating non-public schools, the LEA determines the amount of funds available for equitable services based on that proportional share of the LEA’s total allocation under each CARES Act program separately...

13. Is a non-public school whose students and teachers receive equitable services under the CARES Act programs a “recipient of Federal financial assistance”?

No. A non-public school whose students and teachers receive equitable services under the CARES Act programs is not a “recipient of Federal financial assistance.” A public agency must control and administer the CARES Act funds; in other words, no funds may go directly to a nonpublic school. (See Question #5). Thus, a non-public school is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance by virtue of its students and teachers receiving equitable services from an LEA under a CARES Act program. As a result, certain Federal requirements that apply to a recipient of Federal financial assistance are not directly applicable to a non-public school whose students or teachers receive equitable services under the CARES Act programs, unless the school otherwise receives Federal financial assistance for other purposes.

14. What services and benefits under the CARES Act programs are available to non-public school students and teachers?

In sum, equitable services permitted under sections 18002(c)(1) or (3), as applicable, and 18003(d) of the CARES Act must be available to best meet the needs of non-public school students and teachers, as determined through timely and meaningful consultation and consistent with any specific purposes established by a Governor under the GEER Fund or SEA through the SEA reserve under the ESSER Fund, regardless of the specific uses determined by the LEA to meet its own students’ and teachers’ particular needs.

In a release titled "The K-12 Financial Cliff: What States Could Face If Students Switch Schooling Sectors," EdChoice shines a light on what a surge of private school students into public schools would mean for the taxpayers.

"If only 10 percent of private school students return to the public system, the combined state and local cost would be $6.7 billion, with $3.3 billion falling to the states. If 30 percent of private school students have to be reabsorbed into the public system, that cost jumps to roughly $20 billion, with states responsible for just over $10 billion. Given that state leaders already are preparing for significantly reduced revenue and a strained economic recovery post-pandemic, these numbers are staggering and should worry every education advocate in America."

The report breaks out the numbers by state as well. This is an important subject for policymakers to ponder, as the economic and employment fallout from the coronavirus pandemic has brought private schools to the brink of what Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute has called an " existential threat."

EdChoice has been busy. They also have a report out with Hanover Research on how private schools have adjusted to the crisis. Of note: "Private schools are communicating a lot with their families. As we’ve seen in prior parent satisfaction research, this is an area where private schools often receive high marks, and they continue to excel at staying in touch with parents during the pandemic. Eighty-five percent of schools reported communicating multiple times per week or more."

Private schools nationwide have demonstrated the agility and adaptability that comes with having to respond to customers who have other options. This video about Catholic schools in California gives a taste of how private schools are meeting the needs of students and families in these challenging times.

The January 2020 edition of CAPE Outlook covered two important "ministerial exception" cases being taken up by the US Supreme Court, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and  St. James School v. Biel. Originally scheduled to be heard on April 1, the consolidated cases will now be argued on May 11 by teleconference, an extraordinary development given the high Court's extreme reluctance to change its traditional mode of operating. Oral arguments will be broadcast live, another change for the Court.

The Brookings Institution has published a piece on civic formation by new CAPE board member Ashley Berner. "In a polarized America, what can we do about civil disagreement?" highlights data from the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy's School Culture 360 survey, and is worth a read.

Section 18002 (the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund) and Section 18003 (the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund) of the CARES Act have received most of the attention from private schools, as well as the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program, but Section 18001 is also worth keeping an eye on.

On April 27, USDE announced that $180 million under Section 18001 would be made available for a “Rethink K-12 School Models Grant” program. These “ESF-REM” grants are intended to “provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs) in States with the highest coronavirus burden to address specific educational needs of students, their parents, and teachers in public and non-public elementary and secondary schools."

The notice inviting applications references equitable services for private schools: applicants “must ensure equitable access (as defined in this notice) for non-public school students.” In this case, SEAs are the eligible applicants.

Remember, this is a separate program from those covered by the equitable services guidance for Sections 18002 and 18003 described above.

Confused? Reach out to the experts at your State CAPE for advice.