DISTRICT LETTERHEAD

DATE

James Butler
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave. SW
Room 3W246
Washington, DC 20202

Docket ID: ED-2016-OESE-0056

Dear Mr. Butler:

I am writing on behalf of DISTRICT NAME to provide comments on the regulations proposed by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) regarding the amendments made to the supplement not supplant rule in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). DISTRICT NAME is a district with great diversity, serving ## students, ## schools (## Title I schools, ## Title I schools insert configuration if you choose and any other demographic or information).

DISTRICT NAME is dedicated to ensuring that all students have equitable access to the resources, facilities, and teachers that will help them to be engaged and successful students. However, we are concerned that these regulations go too far in requiring rigid, inflexible approaches that will add to our administrative burden and costs and divert focus away from the overall quality of education. Our concerns are listed below.

1.  Regulations Go Beyond the Scope of the Statute

The intent and clear language of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by ESSA, are to ensure that federal funds must be used in ways that are supplemental to state and local dollars. The statute does not dictate how a district must ensure that funds are supplemental, only that it must do so. The language of the statute says only that a local educational agency (LEA) “shall demonstrate that the methodology used to allocate State and local funds” to each Title I school ensures that Title I funds are supplemental (Sec. 1118(b)). Members of Congress have made clear in discussions, reports, and statements that the intention is for more flexibility at the state and local levels.

We have been ensuring Title I schools receive at least as much state and local funding as non-Title I schools for years by ______INSERT EXAMPLE. ED should allow any LEA methodology that complies with the statute – that is, that ensures that federal funds are supplemental and do not take the place of state and local dollars.

2.  The Proposed Regulations Put State and Local Expenditures under Federal Control

ED is using a relatively small portion of a district’s funding to leverage control over a much larger pool of funds that have been appropriated by the state and raised by local levies. In effect, this allows the federal government more control over a school’s budget and spending decisions than its administrators, teachers, or parents. We have strong concerns about the choice of federal funds versus the requirements of these proposed regulations. PLEASE ENTER ANY FISCAL DATA HERE THAT MAY BE HELPFUL.

3.  The Proposed Regulations Do Not Take into Account LEA Needs

From a more practical standpoint, the proposed methodologies in these regulations could hamper the ability of our district to make any improvements in our non-Title I schools.

[USE THE BELOW EXAMPLE OR INSERT EXAMPLE OF SITUATIONS IN YOUR DISTRICT.

For example, under several of the methodologies suggested, state and local dollars could only be spent by a non-Title I school on projects like a new school building, new fiber optic internet connections, or an extensive renovation if an equal or greater amount were spent in Title I schools. Even more affluent schools need repairs or updates. Limiting the ability to spend state and local dollars on such projects leaves LEAs with few choices for financing. Perhaps they might switch to another methodology for compliance, causing confusion and disruption. Perhaps they would save state and local dollars until all schools need an equal amount of repair, leading to further maintenance issues. Or perhaps they would let minor problems go unchecked until more repairs are necessary – potentially costing communities more in the long run. Or perhaps some schools have unique programming. Would those need to be eliminated to equate funding?]

The proposed regulations leave DISTRICT NAME little autonomy to determine and address our own needs. These decisions belong in the hands of the district and should not be dictated by the supplement not supplant regulations.

4.  The Proposed Regulations Would Impact Teacher Assignments

Under two of the three proposed methodologies (the personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures test and the per-pupil expenditure test), teacher salaries and benefits would have to be taken into account when allocating funds to Title I and non-Title I schools. ED does note that the intention of the proposed regulations is not to require renegotiation of collective bargaining agreements or other contracts, but that may be the result, as teacher salaries vary from school to school and could be impacted under these methodologies. Teachers could be forced to change schools at any point in their career – especially late in their career as those teachers draw more in salary – potentially with little advance notice. This is disruptive for teachers, would cause dissatisfaction within the district, and could exacerbate existing teacher shortages. INSERT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT TEACHER ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS.

5.  These Methodologies Create Significant Additional Administrative Burden

The selection of a methodology will also significantly increase administrative costs. Demonstrating compliance is more than a matter of filling out a form; each district will be required to run multiple calculations to determine which methodology is best for it and will have to reassign staff and reallocate expenditures accordingly. Our district does not have site-based accounting capabilities. That will take time and cost money to implement. EXPAND ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed regulations. DISTRICT NAME appreciates ED’s efforts to improve equity for our students, but it is clear that these regulations are not an effective means of doing so. States and districts should be allowed to use their own methodology for compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement as long as it follows the letter and intent of the statute while allowing for local autonomy and decision-making.

If you would like to discuss our concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our INSERT CONTACT NAME, PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL.

Sincerely,