Show Your Work…?

It is a truth universally acknowledged among grant writers — like me, earlier in my career — at federal grants are the worst. The nitpicky-ness of the applications is one thing. But the reporting is quite another. We had to prove, line by line, that the funds we were using for afterschool programming were actually going to the kids we said would get served when we applied. Not “kids in general.” Not “the program overall.” These kids, in this zip code, for this many hours, doing this specific thing the grant paid for.

It was tedious.

It also kept us from being sloppy with taxpayer dollars.

Things Just Changed

Recently, the state and the federal Department of Education announced that South Dakota was approved for a "Returning Education to the States" waiver, paired with something called Ed-Flex authority.

In plain terms: the state can now take several separate pots of federal education money — money currently earmarked for things like afterschool programs, English language learner support, and teacher training — and combine them into one flexible pot through 2029. One pot, by the way, that they don’t have to report back to the feds on.

The pitch is less red tape for the state, as well as local control and flexibility. And I get the appeal, honestly. Nobody who's ever filled out a compliance report is going to pretend they loved it. And I do see the benefits of states — or better yet, individual school districts — determining where they have most need for funding.

The thing about federal education dollars — the kind that I used to write for to fund afterschool programming — is that it really isn’t bureaucracy for its own sake. These programs exist because "afterschool funding" and "English learner support" are easy line items to quietly shrink when nobody's required to report on them separately anymore. Combine the pots, and you lose the receipt.

That doesn't mean bad things will definitely happen. It means we've traded a system where we had to check, for one where we're trusting someone to.

Again, I'm not against flexibility. I've worked both sides of these budgets — as a teacher watching the money arrive too late and too little, and as a grant writer accounting for every dollar of it. I know both how badly districts need room to breathe, but I can easily see how "flexibility" becomes a word people use right before something disappears.

What Worries Me

The state is saying that those dollars will now be used for literacy and family supports. Sounds great, but I have real questions about what those programs will look like — and what kind of transparency and oversight there will be. At the same time, I worry about the programs that depended on those previously-earmarked dollars. Schools and communities across the state — from Sioux Falls to Belle Fourche — depended on those dollars to provide high quality afterschool programming. Programs that were more than just a babysitter — they were homework help, enrichment, physical activity, a healthy snack. Programs that made it easier for parents to work, in a state where most households have two parents working.

This change is especially worrisome for the Sioux Falls School District, the biggest in the state — and one of six school districts we have in District 9. SFSD has over 3,000 English Language Leaners, speaking 115 different languages. Without dollars intended to help these children learn their new language, how can we expect them to succeed? And how can we expect teachers to succeed if, on top of their regular classroom duties, they’re trying to help a child who doesn’t speak the language?

Afterschool programming is also a big need for the Sioux Falls School District. If you talk to parents who utilize the district’s official programming, you will often hear about a significant waitlist. According to district officials, the main barrier to serving more students is affordability. While they are one of the lowest cost afterschool options in Sioux Falls, they provide over a million dollars in scholarships and still can’t meet the demand. And with the rising cost of living, parents are having to make difficult decisions. “We are seeing a lot more students going home alone after school and/or caring for siblings simply because of the cost,” an official told me. While I can’t say for sure if the district’s afterschool program recieves these previously-earmarked federal funds, I do know that it’s story not an uncommon one throughout the state. And at a time when the need is growing — the state is choosing to use funds in other ways.

Here’s Our Homework

I don't know yet exactly what "literacy and family supports" will look like, or whether they'll reach the same kids the old earmarks did. Maybe they will. But I spent years filling out that tedious spreadsheet so nobody could quietly shrink a line item without someone noticing. That's not bureaucracy. That's just the receipt.

So here's what I'd ask. Two things, actually.

First: whoever represents District 9 should be willing to ask the state, publicly, where every one of those dollars ends up — and keep asking until there's an answer. Not a press release. A number.

Second: that's on you, too, a little. Elected officials get away with vague answers when nobody's in the room asking follow-up questions. Show up at a forum. Ask the boring, specific question. "Where exactly is the afterschool money going," is a more useful question than most of what gets asked at these things.

I kept that spreadsheet updated for years. I don't think it's too much to ask the state to keep one too — or to ask the people we send to Pierre to keep checking.