Next steps for Iowa City schools unclear after USDA ruling of non-compliance

IOWA CITY - School board members on Wednesday were frustrated and divided about what to do next, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed that the district's diversity policy is not compliant with federal law.

The policy, passed in February 2013, has faced legal questions from the State Department of Education and the USDA since its beginning. Board members now must decide by Jan. 31 whether to correct the non-compliant sections of the policy - likely making it less effective - or rescind the policy entirely.

The issue centers on whether the district's use of federal free and reduced lunch eligibility data - a common measure of poverty in schools - would publicly identify students who qualify for the program.

The district would use that data to determine poverty levels in each school and then attempt to balance those levels. The district's attorney, Joe Holland, had maintained that practice was on good legal footing, superintendent Stephen Murley said.

A Nov. 12 letter from the USDA official to the State Department of Education, however, stated otherwise. The federal agency wrote that the diversity policy is not compliant with federal regulations protecting the privacy of students eligible for free and reduced lunch, because it examines the data at too minute a level.

Federal law allows for the use of 'aggregate data” without parent permission. That means only using data at the schoolwide or districtwide level, USDA spokesman Devin Koontz said. The Iowa City policy aggregated data in groups of 10 students.

'The goal is, we want children to be able to access healthy school meals without being stigmatized for participating in the program,” Koontz said. 'They're already a vulnerable population, and we don't want our data to be used to make them any more vulnerable.”

The state passed the USDA's letter - written after the state and district asked for clarification earlier this year - on to district officials last week and has given them until Jan. 31 to correct the policy.

Murley said there are a number of other data sets the district could use to measure poverty, but it has concerns about all of them. Census data quickly becomes outdated, he said, and property value data is not a good indicator for Iowa City because many people rent houses or apartments.

'We know this is the right work to do for kids,” Murley said. 'So how do we go about doing that work absent the ability to dictate that through policy?”

Jeff Berger, a deputy director at the State Department of Education, said the district could also do its own data collection. Another option, Murley said, is to try to balance poverty levels on a smaller scale, working with community members a few schools at a time.

Holland has told the district its best legal action would be to rescind the policy, Murley said. Board members have reservations about that, he said, because they are concerned about the message it would send to underprivileged Iowa City communities.

But the district's present conundrum shouldn't be a surprise, said board member Tuyet Dorau, who has been an opponent of the diversity plan since it was first proposed.

'We're right back exactly where I said we would be - with a policy that we can't implement,” Dorau said, pointing to Jan. 31, 2013, when the State Department of Education told the district the policy would not be compliant with the law.

'The fact of the matter still remains that we need to focus on educational outcomes and educational measures,” Dorau said.

Board President Chris Lynch said the district will have to have at least some short-term plan in place soon, as it will begin setting boundaries for the new Liberty High School in early 2015.

TIMELINE

' December 2012: Diversity policy was first unveiled

' January 31, 2013: State Department of Education informed district officials the policy would not comply with federal law

' February 2013: School board voted 4-3 to approve the policy. State officials expressed further concerns about its implementation, and school attorney Joe Holland asked the USDA for clarification.

' May 2014: As the district began to implement the policy, the state Department of Education expressed additional concerns. The district decided to de-emphasize the policy in its redistricting.

' June 3, 2014: The state and district asked for clarification from the USDA on the policy.

' Nov. 12, 2014: The USDA replied, informing the state of the policy's noncompliance.

' Nov. 25, 2014: The state passed the USDA's letter on to district officials.