The federally funded ARP-EANS program will soon make $181 million worth of COVID-19 related emergency assistance and services available to qualifying California nonprofit private schools. A major difference between the first round of EANS funding and ARP-EANS ('ARP' stands for "American Recovery Plan," the underlying legislation that enacted the program) is that ARP-EANS requires no less than 20 percent of a private school's total enrollment to be comprised of "low-income students." (Different threshold percentages may apply in other states.)

On December 6, 2021, the California Department of Education (CDE) released a "for information only" copy of its ARP-EANS request for information (RFA) document which identified four sources of data applicant schools may use to count "low-income students." They are:

All data used to determine the number and percentage of "low-income students" is to be drawn from the 2019-20 school year.

The method of proportionality offers prospective ARP-EANS applicants a streamlined method for determining whether at least 20 percent of a private school's total enrollment is comprised of "low-income students," and does so in a way that is consistent with program guidelines. Employing the method of proportionality spares private schools from the challenge of attempting to gather, organize, and analyze a substantial body of information from school families during the course of the Winter Break. (The "window" for the submission of ARP-EANS applications runs from December 13, 2021 to 5:00 p.m. on January 3, 2022. These dates were not of the CDE's choosing. Federal guidance requires states to make applications available within 30 days after a state receives its ARP-EANS allocation. It's an unfortunate coincidence that the application period largely coincides with the Winter Break.)

Before proceeding, it's important for readers to understand that 'low-income student' (for purposes of determining ARP-EANS eligibility) refers to a pupil hailing from a family whose combined income does not exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty level. This is the income level that is used to determine eligibility for participation in various federal programs, including the Free and Reduced Price Meals program (FRPM).

Conveniently, the CDE compiles FRPM eligibility information for every public school in the state. If you look at the percentage figures appearing in Column "V" of this CDE table (select the "FRPM School-Level Data" tab), you will see the percentage of pupils in a given public school that are eligible for participation in FRPM. Because FRPM eligibility requires total family income to be no greater than 185 percent of the federal poverty level, this figure also provides a comparable percentage of "low-income" public school students that can be used to derive the corresponding number of private school students. This is where proportionality comes into play.

According to a CDE guidance document titled, "ARP EANS Request for Application Webinar Q&A from December 8, 2021," which was released on December 13, 2021, "proportionality data" is to be "calculated as the number of students enrolled in a NPS who reside in a Title I school attendance area multiplied by the percentage of public school

students in that same attendance area who are from low-income families." ('NPS' stands for "Non-public school," i.e., a private school.)

To furnish a practical example of how the method of proportionality can be used to determine the percentage of "low-income students" in a private school wishing to make application for ARP-EANS assistance and services, imagine the existence of a fictitious nonprofit private school called "The CAPSO School." Further imagine that the "The CAPSO School" is located in Encino, California, and that it offers instruction in grades K-8. Let's also assume that the school enrolls a total of 200 students.

To meet the 20 percent "low-income student" threshold required for participation in ARP-EANS, "The CAPSO School" must enroll no fewer than 40 "low-income students."

To employ the method of proportionality, administrators at "The CAPSO School" will need to know the grade-relevant public school attendance area in which each of its students resides. (It's a good idea for every private school to include this information in its digitized enrollment roster.) Schools not currently in possession of such information can use this handy online search tool from GreatSchools.org to add public school attendance area information to their rosters. Just enter a student's home address in the search box, select either "Elementary," "Middle," or "High" under "School Grade," and click "Search." If in doubt, check to make sure the public school offers instruction at the grade level in which the private school student was enrolled during the 2019-20 school year. (The above-referenced CDE table shows "low grade" and "high grade" information in columns "P" and "Q." Also, see the conclusion of this article.)

Note: GreatSchools.org is a commercial website and CAPSO makes no claims as to the accuracy of the information it provides. Some public school districts provide utilities enabling users to enter addresses in order to identify corresponding public school attendance areas. If, for example, you reside within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District, you can use this public school identifier. Here's one for Glendale Unified. Orange County. Sacramento (City). San Diego Unified. San Francisco. Santa Clara. (Readers can search for similar utilities provided by their public school district of residence.)

Returning to our example, imagine that of all students enrolled in "The CAPSO School," 20 students enrolled in any of grades K-5 resided within the attendance area of Emelita St. Elementary School. The first thing we will want to know about this school is whether it receives Title I funding. If it doesn't, we can't include it in our calculations using the method of proportionality.

Happily, this CDE table lists all public schools that were recipients of Title I, Part A funding in the 2019-20 school year. A quick search reveals that "Emelita Street Elementary" appears in the table. We're good to go!

Returning to the previous table, the information appearing in "Column V" shows that 63.8 percent of Emelita Street Elementary students were eligible for FRPM in 2019-20, meaning that they are "low-income students." That percentage can now be applied to the 20 "CAPSO School" students residing in Emelita Street Elementary School's attendance area: 20 X .638 = 12.76. Applying the method of proportionality, we can now say that 12 "CAPSO School" students have met the "low-income student" criterion.

Let's assume that 24 "CAPSO School" pupils live within the attendance boundaries of Newcastle Elementary. Did that school receive Title I funding in 2019-20? Yes! Its FRPM-eligible percentage is 89.5 percent. Let's go ahead and apply the proportionality formula:

We can now add another 21 "low-income students" to "The CAPSO School's" count.

Next, say that a total of 42 "CAPSO School" students who, in 2019-20, were enrolled in grades 6-8, resided within the attendance area of the Gaspar De Portola Charter Middle School. Did that school receive Title I funding in 2019-20? Check! What was it's percentage of FRPM-eligible/"low-income students?" 51.7 percent. You should know the routine by now!:

The three public schools we have used in our example have enabled us to estimate that there are 54 "low-income students" enrolled in "The CAPSO School." We have met the minimum 20 percent threshold requirement.

Let's imagine that the remaining 114 "CAPSO School" students all reside within the attendance area of the Lanai Road Elementary School. Was this school a recipient of Title I funds in 2019-20? No! Lanai Road Elementary doesn't appear in the CDE table of Title I recipient schools. Even though the school shows a FRPM-eligible/"low-income student" figure of 8.1 percent, the method of proportionality may not be applied to this school. In our fictitious example, it wouldn't matter. "The CAPSO School" would have met the 20 percent "low-income student" threshold using the method of proportionality.

We've now identified an additional 30 "CAPSO School" pupils who meet the "low-income student" criterion, bring us to an intermediate total of 42, meaning that the 20 percent threshold of at least 40 "low-income students" has been met! Say that the remaining 138 students resided within the attendance area of Lanai Rd. Elementary School, with a "low-income student" percentage of 8.1.

Important: Schools making successful application for ARP-EANS services and assistance must maintain the sources of data used to count "low-income students" for a period of at least five years. If your school plans to apply the method of proportionality to count "low-income students," you will need to maintain the following:

To help prospective ARP-EANS applicants identify the percentage of “low-income students” enrolled in a given public school that received Title I funding in 2019-20, CAPSO has created an easy to use table (appearing after a reprint of this article) on this CAPSO web page.

Schools are sorted alphabetically, by public school district and school. To locate a particular school, type its name in the “Search” box. Because multiple public schools can have the same name, be sure that the school you’re looking for is located in the appropriate public school district! For example, say you are searching for Lincoln Elementary School located in the Escondido Union School District. When you type “Lincoln Elementary” in the search box, you will see a considerable number of similarly named schools appearing in the resulting table. You will need to find “Escondido Union” in the first column in order to locate the correct row. Public schools that did not receive Title I funding in 2019-20 are not included in the table.

Last month, more than 900 Lutheran educators gathered in Palm Desert, California, to participate in a venerable annual conference organized by a regional education arm of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. As is customary, this year's Lutheran Education Conference (LEC) offered participants a variety of professional development opportunities, some focusing on religious thought, teaching and practice, and others spotlighting content of a more general and secular nature. Major areas of concentration at this year's program included mental health, "digital impact," and race relations.

To help defray the cost of participation in the three-day conference, a number of participating schools requested of their local public school districts that federal professional development funding provided under provisions of Title II, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) be used to offset registration fees. Some districts said 'yes', others said 'no', and yet others appeared unsure of what is permissible.

LEAs serve as fiscal stewards for the bulk of Title II, Part A funds. Through various monitoring and compliance protocols, public school districts are held accountable for seeing that the funds reserved to provide equitable services for private school educators are expended for allowable purposes and in a manner consistent with the underlying law. Among the law's requirements is the longstanding provision that all educational services or other benefits secured with Title II, Part A funding must be of a "secular, neutral, and non-ideological nature."

Some LEA personnel continue to hold the (mistaken) view that mere sponsorship by a religious entity renders a professional development conference, or other program ineligible for Title II, Part A subsidization, even if programming of a secular, neutral and non-ideological nature is included in the program.

Federal guidance directly addresses the issue:

"To the extent that the conference is part of a sustained and comprehensive secular professional development plan for the teacher, then Title II, Part A funds may be expended to pay for the portion of the costs of the conference that, as determined by the LEA, represent the secular professional development in which the teacher participated." (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, ESEA Title II, Part A Non-regulatory Guidance, Revised October 5, 2006)

While an LEA may not dismiss a request solely because a conference, or other professional development program is organized by a religious entity, it may be reluctant to authorize the use of federal Title II, Part A funds to underwrite an educator's participation in such programs because it feels it cannot control the sessions in which a teacher or administrator chooses to participate.

While this is a legitimate concern, it is, fortunately, one for which a simple solution exists. As a condition of an LEA agreeing to authorize the use of Title II, Part A funds to offset the cost of participation in the sort of conference under discussion, a private school can be required to have each teacher and administrator for whom a subsidy is being requested furnish the LEA with a signed and dated written assurance that takes the following form:

"I [name of educator] understand and affirm that to the extent that federal ESSA Title II, Part A funds are used to underwrite my participation in the [name of conference], such funds will be used to secure professional development services of a secular, neutral, and non-ideological nature."

With this, or comparable documentation in-hand, a LEA can present tangible evidence that it made a reasonable effort to secure compliance with the "secular, neutral, and non-ideological" requirement of the law. Adopting such a policy achieves a workable compromise between a summary refusal from a LEA, and an attempt to conduct some form "policing" intended to verify which conference sessions are attended by which participants.

Sensible as the above approach is, it cannot be implemented at the 11th hour. In fact, the key to a successful request to utilize Title II, Part A funds to help underwrite the cost of participation in any conference or professional development program is the initiation of timely and meaningful consultation between private school officials and LEA staff at an early date. The federal statute places the onus of responsibility for the initiation of consultation upon LEAs. But private school leaders that expect to secure federally funded benefits need to be proactive if they fail to hear from their LEA in a timely manner. There is nothing stopping private school officials from requesting a consultative meeting to put the issues addressed in this article "on the table" at a date that leaves ample time for both sides to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.

At the nuts-and-bolts level, a LEA needs to determine the extent to which it will permit the utilization of federal Title II, Part A funds to support participation in a program offering a mixture of faith-based and secular content. One reasonable approach to making such a determination calls for school administrators to gather information from each participating educator showing which sessions he/she plans to attend. School administrators (rather than LEA staff) can then evaluate the content of each session so as to estimate the amount of time participants will spend in sessions of a secular, neutral and non-ideological nature as a percentage of participation in all program sessions. By sharing this sort of documentation with the LEA, private school officials can furnish their LEA colleagues with a reasonable basis for setting a Title II, Part A subsidy percentage.

Following such a procedure is contingent upon the availability of a conference program that includes descriptive information for each session. The sooner conference organizers can place such information in the hands of prospective participants, the more time private school leaders will have to pursue federal funding. In other words, it's not only LEA officials that need to take action in a timely manner. Successful consultation is always a two-way street. At this season of good will toward all, we do well to remind ourselves that with sufficient time and mutual good will, almost any federally funded equitable services problem can be solved.

On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, a case that holds potentially profound implications for the public funding of private schools. Readers interested in listening to the entirety of the two hour proceeding, in which plaintiffs were represented by Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Michael Bindas, can do so here.

By way of background, when SCOTUS decided Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (in 2020), it held that, “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 other words, a state may not discriminate on the basis of the religious status of a recipient. What was left unclear in the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, was whether states could continue to withhold benefits on the basis of the religious use of funds. Carson v. Makin places this question squarely before the court.

Amy Howe, a frequent contributor to ScotusBlog, provides a “backgrounder” to today’s oral argument, here, and University of Colorado Political Science Professor Joshua Dunn offers post-hoc analysis, here. A decision is expected in June, 2022.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has chosen Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho to lead the nation's second largest public school district. Mr. Carvalho, who has been at the helm of Miami-Dade (currently the nation's fourth largest public school district) since 2008, is known as a charismatic leader, data-driven policy maker, and relentless enabler of improved achievement by under-performing students, particularly those challenged by poverty, disability, and language.

Under Mr. Carvalho's leadership, Miami-Dade has seen a sustained and consistent increase in academic achievement. A recent analysis conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute named Miami-Dade the best overall metro area for school quality in the nation. What makes these accomplishments all the more noteworthy is Florida's reputation as a haven for school choice, with voucher, education savings account, and education tax credit programs all in place. Despite critics' naysaying, the academic progress achieved on Mr. Carvalho's watch belies the contention that such programs are harmful to public education.

Welcome to California, Superintendent Carvalho! CAPSO, whose member-organizations serve more than 200 private schools located within LAUSD's boundaries, extends its every best wish for success and fulfillment in and from your new leadership role.

You can now find detailed 2020-21 Census Day enrollment data for schools, districts, counties and the state on Ed-Data. These data are collected on the first Wednesday in October and also form the basis for the unduplicated pupil count that is used to calculate funding under the state's Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF.

You can also now compare schools or districts using the 2020-21 enrollment and demographic data. 

New data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress' most recent administration of its Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment contain several alarming findings. The percentage of U.S. 9- and 13-year-old children who self-report that they engage in reading for fun on an almost daily basis has fallen to their lowest levels since at least the mid-1980s. The Long-Term Trend (LTT) data also revealed that reading scores of 13-year-old students fell between 2012 and 2020—the first time in the almost 50-year history of the NAEP’s LTT that such a decrease has been recorded.

What makes these findings all the more alarming is that they are obtained from data that was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is widely anticipated that downtrends in achievement and gaps between various groups that existed pre-pandemic will be shown to have been substantially exacerbated following disruptions to in-person learning and exposure to other pandemic-related forms of stress.

The Pew Research Center lays out the decline in reading for fun, here. The National Center for Education Statistics provides a synopsis of the 2020 Long-Term Trend findings in this press release. Finally, National Assessment Governing Board member Scott Marion offers a glimpse of what the nation might expect to see with regard to pandemic-related learning loss, here.

On October 1, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans that would make California the first state in the nation to require all age-appropriate children to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition for enrollment in a public or private school. Through a mandate issued by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), students will be required to be vaccinated for in- person learning beginning in the term following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's full approval of the vaccine for their grade span (7-12 and K-6).

California law establishes January 1 and July 1 as the dates upon which school terms begin. Thus, if the FDA should bestow full approval upon one or more COVID-19 vaccines sometime in January, 2022, the mandate will only take effect on July 1, 2022. If full approval was to be granted on July 2, 2022, the mandate would take effect as of January 1, 2023.

Notably, a CDPH "Fact Sheet" released in tandem with the Governor's announcement alerts readers that, "Requirements established by regulation, not legislation, must be subject to exemptions 'for both medical reasons and personal beliefs.' (HSC section 120338)." Unless California lawmakers enact legislation adding COVID-19 to the enumerated list of diseases for which school vaccinations are required, parents will be at liberty to opt out of vaccinating their child(ren) against COVID-19 by declaring that the vaccination would violate a personal belief.

Initially, it was widely assumed that legislators would waste no time introducing a bill that would add COVID-19 to the list of diseases spelled out in California Health and Safety Code Section 120335. If such legislation were passed and signed by the Governor, it would remove the personal beliefs exemption effective January 1, 2023 (unless an "emergency clause" was added to the legislation, and the bill was to win passage by a 2/3 margin in each house, in which case its provisions would take effect upon signature).

Who would be most likely to author such legislation? Most pundits looked to State Senator Richard Pan (D. - Sacramento). A pediatrician, it was Dr. Pan who, in 2015, carried the controversial SB 277 - the bill that removed both the personal beliefs and religious beliefs exemptions from the list of school-related vaccinations required by Health and Safety Code Section 120335.

But the expectation of rapid legislative action may have been blunted by the stunning recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey. In those states, coalitions of parents were catalyzed into action by an array of school-related issues that included management of COVID-19. In Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin overcame a ten-point-plus poll deficit win the gubernatorial contest, while a Republican gubernatorial contender came within a hair's breadth of overcoming an even greater deficit in solidly Democratic New Jersey.

Voter behavior in those contests has not been lost upon Democratic Party leaders in deep-blue California. 2022 is an election year in which the Governor, half of the 40 State Senate seats, and all 80 seats in the State Assembly will be up for grabs. Why would California Democrats wish to risk galvanizing intense and widespread parental opposition by putting a COVID-19 school vaccination mandate before the Legislature?

The California Association of Private School Organizations has desisted from taking a formal position on the retention of the personal beliefs exemption. Some private school administrators favor the elimination of the exemption as means of shifting the onus of decision making over what they view as a "lose-lose" choice, from their shoulders to the State Legislature. Most private school leaders, however, favor leaving the personal beliefs exemption in place.

My own view is that the removal of the personal beliefs exemption would prove counterproductive, and would damage both public and private schools by inducing vaccine skeptics and mandate opponents to withdraw their children in favor of homeschooling. (Home-schooled children are not subject to the vaccination requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 120335.)

Widespread defections would lower average daily attendance in public schools, with a corresponding reduction in school funding, and could prove financially devastating to many private schools.

Most private schools are in alignment with the state when it comes to encouraging parents to vaccinate themselves and their appropriately-aged children against COVID-19. As trusted sources of information, private schools have often been successful in reducing, or eliminating vaccine hesitancy. Many have partnered with local health jurisdictions to conduct informational campaigns and facilitate access to COVID-19 vaccination clinics - some conducted on their own campuses.

None of these efforts can achieve success if reluctant parents withdraw their child(ren) from schools. It is not idle speculation to imagine that the potential elimination of the personal beliefs exemption will produce fewer fully vaccinated school-aged children than might otherwise have been the case.

For all the above reasons, California's lawmakers would best be advised to leave well enough alone when the Legislature reconvenes in January. But while laying off the matter might make for the most sensible course of action, politicians struggle with the thought of having been elected to do nothing. Will the temptation to meddle win out? Stay tuned!

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.

The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published on January 19, 2022.