There鈥檚 one hitch: According to , districts are already spending, or planning to spend, almost a quarter of funds from the American Rescue Plan on facilities and operations.

鈥淕etting clarifications and new restrictions this late in the game is tough on [districts],鈥� said Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. 鈥淲hat happens if money is already approved and spent before these recent鈥� guidelines were released?

The department was especially pointed about using federal dollars to build and upgrade sports facilities. The school district, for example, paid for new athletic fields and the in Alabama renovated weight rooms

Such expenses would not be allowed unless districts can connect the project to COVID preparedness and response, the document said. 鈥淚t is unclear, for example, how constructing a swimming pool is related to the pandemic,鈥� according to the department.

The Milwaukee district declined to comment on its use of funds for athletics-related projects, while the Wisconsin Department of Education said it is still reviewing the guidance to 鈥渄etermine next steps.鈥� Alabama officials did not respond to requests for comment.

With billions in COVID relief funds for schools still unspent, school finance experts say the guidance could confuse district leaders who have been waiting for the guidance for months. But with it dropping before the holidays, it could be well into January before states offer webinars or other opportunities to explain it to districts.

The document is not law, but says leaders should be prepared to justify how their projects relate to the pandemic. The has picked up this fall, according to Roza鈥檚 tracking of expenditures. A recent survey from , however, showed that over 40% of those responding said they were struggling to navigate compliance standards related to spending the funds.聽

In March, the department schools Superintendent Richard Woods that it was OK for districts to use the money to cover rising fuel costs. The new guidance doesn鈥檛 specifically address that scenario and only gives expenses 鈥渞elated to improving indoor air quality鈥� as an 鈥渁cceptable鈥� example. 

Department officials told 社区黑料 that the newest information is consistent with past guidance and that they have always 鈥渦rged caution around long-term facilities and capital expenditures.鈥� They said whether an expense is allowable is still up to state officials. 

鈥淚t really isn’t our role to ensure that states are looking at every single situation in the exact same way because 鈥� the context matters,鈥� the official said.

Still, Elleka Yost, director of advocacy for the Association of School Business Officials International, said the 鈥渢one鈥� of the document bothers her.

鈥淭he quality of school facilities impacts student health, well-being, attendance, engagement and learning,鈥� she said. 鈥淚nvesting funds in facility improvements should be seen as part of a district鈥檚 strategy to recover from the pandemic and improve student learning rather than as something contradictory or unessential to achieving those goals.鈥�

Some district leaders have made the case for spending relief funds on athletic facilities by saying they .

Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director for AASA, the School Superintendents Association, that instead of providing flexibility for districts with classroom additions going up or extensive renovations already underway, the department chose to 鈥渃riticize these decisions and chastise districts for these expenditures.鈥�

The department provided no more details in response to the requests for extensions on spending the funds that came from AASA and , but said it will lay out a process 鈥渁t a later date.鈥�

Districts worried about obligating the money by the 2024 deadline could pay ahead for services delivered over multiple years; the document lists a software license as an example. But it also warns that this practice is 鈥渘ot good stewardship鈥� of federal funds.

Teachers and parents

Since the American Rescue Plan passed in March 2021, experts like Roza have also cautioned districts against using the funds for teacher and staff pay raises because it would be hard to continue covering those higher costs when the money runs out. 

But the guidance notes that the funds can be used for 鈥減ermanent salary increases.鈥� Austin Reid, senior legislative director for federal education policy at the National Conference of State Legislatures, finds that advice puzzling, given talk of a .

鈥淔unding full roles or permanent salary increases can still be a risky bet by local districts, especially given the uncertainty in the economy,鈥� he said.

Paying parents incentives to ensure their children go to school, on the other hand, is off the table, according to the department, which called attendance a 鈥渕andatory activity.鈥�

鈥淭his one frustrated me, in part because we have a massive problem with chronic absenteeism,鈥� Roza said. 鈥淪eems like we shouldn鈥檛 be invoking the notion that school is mandatory so soon after school became un-mandatory when it shut down for a year.鈥�