After taking public comment for less than two weeks last month, a waiver request from the Iowa Department of Education aimed at reducing bureaucratic hurdles for districts has yet to be approved.
The proposal covers multiple areas of funding through the U.S. Department of Education and includes a request that school districts receive federal dollars in the form of a block grant, which could come with fewer strings attached.
Advocacy groups warn the waiver would remove necessary guardrails and accountability measures for federal funds, while superintendents say the lack of detail about the plan makes it hard to predict how it could affect their districts.
Gov. Kim Reynolds first announced the plan in an op-ed published by The Hill on Mar. 19, where she touted Iowa as the first state in the country to submit a plan requesting federal education money in the form of block grants. Indiana's state education agency has since proposed a similar proposal.
According to the waiver, Iowa school districts currently receive a combined $145.7 million in federal K-12 funding.
Districts receive those dollars in separate funding streams earmarked for specific programs or to support certain student groups, such as English language learners (ELL). The separate funding streams come with their own spending and recordkeeping requirements, which could be loosened under the new plan.
The state estimates the waiver would save the state Department of Education $758,122 and would save school districts a combined $28.2 million in staff time and resources.
How could the plan impact school districts?
The waiver request would impact nine different federal education programs, including funding for rural schools and schools that serve economically disadvantaged students.
At the state's largest district, Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS), Chief Financial Officer Shashank Aurora said without full details on the plan it's difficult to predict its impact on his district. He's concerned DMPS, which has a high percentage of students in populations targeted by federal funding, could receive less money than it already does.
"In the absence of full information as to how exactly [funding] will be divvied out, it does cause concern," Aurora said. "Because if the criteria changes, Des Moines — which has got over 75% of the students who have a high need, where we have 25% plus of the students who are ELL — if any money goes away, it will negatively hurt the student for whom the funding has historically been received."
Aurora said 85-90% of federal funding for DMPS goes towards paying teacher salaries. If the same constraints on funding continue, he doesn't see any potential benefits under the plan. But, he said that could change if the allocated amount remains the same and districts are granted more flexibility.
In northeast Iowa, Charles City Superintendent Brian Burnight said he's optimistic the plan will save administrative time and give districts more flexibility to meet student needs. Burnight said his district could potentially use pooled dollars to support professional development for math and reading.
"That's our hope — that we can steer a large, significant number of dollars towards our greatest needs and then help improve education for students across the board, while still working to maintain resources for English language learners, students that are struggling with reading because of poverty," Burnight said.
Jason Wester, superintendent of the West Burlington Independent School District in southeast Iowa, said the plan could give his district more flexibility to combine funds for a position that serves all students, like a reading interventionist.
However, with few details about the plan out now, he's concerned smaller school districts like his could receive fewer dollars. His school district had 866 students in the 2023-2024 school year. Wester said 80% of the school's federal funding currently goes towards staff salaries.
"The uncertainty is what's scary because we don't know what the process to apply for [it is], we don't know the amount of funds we would be eligible for and we don't know the amount of time and reporting out what that would look like at the end," he said. "Until we know all the details, it's hard to really form an opinion of like, do we support this or do we not?"
He said he's also concerned whether an approved waiver would survive legal challenges.
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't," Wester said.
Advocacy groups raise concerns
Education advocacy groups say Iowa's plan lacks enough detail on how students from targeted groups would continue to receive services and how the plan furthers student academic achievement.
This month, the D.C.-based nonprofit EdTrust published a letter along with other groups, including All4Ed, the National Center for Learning Disabilities and UnidosUS. The groups urged the department to withdraw the request.
"Iowa’s draft unified allocation plan not only requests waivers the U.S. secretary of education lacks authority to grant, but would also undermine program-specific guardrails, weaken transparency regarding how federal funds are spent and divert funds away from students with the greatest needs, including students from low-income backgrounds, rural students and English learners," the letter stated.
Nicholas Munyan-Penney, assistant director of P-12 policy at EdTrust, said Iowa’s type of waiver request is unprecedented and undermines decades of civil rights law around education.
"That was the whole reason ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act], the education act at the federal level, was created, which [was] to make sure that these students, students and backgrounds, are getting access to the funds that they need to be successful," Munyan-Penney said. "This would undermine that sort of targeting of the funds to those students."
Munyan-Penney said Iowa’s request goes further than a similar waiver request from Indiana, which wouldn't roll funding from Title I, Part A, the largest source of federal funding for schools, into its consolidated funds sent to districts.
The groups also criticized the state education department's public comment period, calling it too short to gather meaningful input. The Iowa Department of Education held public comment via online survey from Aug. 19 to Aug. 29.
Details remain unclear
The Iowa Department of Education did not respond to a question about whether a finalized plan has been submitted to the U.S. Department of Education.
State education agencies are required to submit a copy of comments, as well as how they addressed comments, as part of their waiver request. After submission, federal education officials have 120 days to approve the waiver or disapprove and give states the opportunity to revise the request.
IPR News requested a copy of responses from the public comment period, which the Iowa Department of Education has not released yet.
On a website for the waiver request, the state department called the plan details a preliminary update, which may be revised based on the federal department's feedback.
The state Department of Education also said it will provide additional opportunities throughout the review process for the public and stakeholders to provide input.
It's unclear what reporting requirements would look like with the consolidated funds sent to districts or whether schools would receive the same amount of money they currently receive. Under Indiana's plan, the state would create reporting requirements.
It's also not clear when Iowa's plan would go into effect if approved. The similar waiver request proposed by Indiana's Department of Education would go into effect in the 2026-2027 school year.
