Rural Iowa Districts Feel the Squeeze as AEA Funding Law Reveals Educational Equity Gap
Last updated:
Rural Iowa school districts are facing significant service cuts and budget constraints under the state’s restructured Area Education Agency funding law, while larger districts successfully adapt to the new system, creating a growing educational equity divide as the policy enters its first full year of implementation.
Small Rural Districts Struggle with Service Cuts
Barb Schwamman, superintendent of both Osage Community School District (1,000 students) and Riceville Community School District (400 students), describes the harsh new reality facing small rural districts. “The worst part now is that our decision making is kind of being driven by some scarcity, not strategy,” she explained.
Under the previous pooled resource model, when Osage wanted 10 days of professional development related to literacy training, the AEA would have made it work. Now, they can only afford five days. Schwamman’s districts have been forced to cut professional development, stop weekly deliveries of learning materials, and redirect AEA funds toward rising insurance costs and teacher salaries.
“Usually it’s the AEA that’s helping train the teachers,” Schwamman noted. “But now if the AEA is not who’s training your teachers, you have to budget and pay for that at a time when your budgets are really tight.”
The contrast with larger districts is striking. Matt Degner, superintendent of Iowa City Community School District (14,000+ students), reports that the AEA law has provided valuable funding flexibility. “It’s allowed us to pay for additional positions in the district, or even to compensate for the lack of adequate, timely funding from the state,” he said.
Iowa City has successfully obtained desired services from its local AEA while expanding in-house capabilities. The district’s size and resources allow it to navigate the fee-for-service model effectively while building internal capacity for special education and professional development services. This demonstrates how larger districts can leverage the new system’s flexibility while smaller districts face constraints.
Author Quote"
The worst part now is that our decision making is kind of being driven by some scarcity, not strategy. This policy change represents a fundamental shift from collaborative resource pooling to individual purchasing power, creating predictable equity challenges when educational support services move from collective to market-based systems.
"
AEA System Stabilizes After Major Workforce Reduction
The transition hasn’t been easy for the AEA system itself. Statewide, AEAs lost 429 employees as the new policy took effect, with positions eliminated or staff departing for other opportunities. Central Rivers AEA dropped from 541 to 481 employees, while Heartland AEA reduced staff from approximately 750 to 600.
Stan Rheingans, chief administrator of Keystone AEA and Central Rivers AEA, acknowledges the challenges. “That sometimes means stretching our folks a little bit further, a little bit more windshield time as they travel between districts.” With reduced funding, AEAs now focus on providing exactly what’s required by each student’s Individualized Education Program rather than comprehensive support services.
Key Takeaways:
1
Funding Structure Change: Iowa shifted 10% of special education funding from regional AEAs directly to districts, moving from pooled resources to individual purchasing power
2
Rural District Impact: Small districts like Osage (1,000 students) can only afford half their desired professional development while cutting services due to budget constraints
3
Urban District Success: Large districts like Iowa City (14,000+ students) report increased flexibility and ability to expand services while maintaining AEA partnerships
Policy Creates Two-Tier System of Educational Support
While it’s too early to measure impacts on student achievement, early indicators suggest the policy is creating a two-tier system of educational support services. Larger districts leverage increased flexibility to enhance services, while smaller rural districts make cuts driven by financial constraints rather than educational strategy.
The timing is particularly concerning given recent state mandates requiring enhanced professional development for math and reading instruction. Rural districts now must navigate increased training requirements precisely when their capacity to purchase these services has been constrained, highlighting persistent challenges in rural education funding where 40% of Iowa’s districts serve fewer than 600 students.
Author Quote"
When districts must navigate increased professional development requirements precisely when their capacity to purchase these services has been constrained, rural districts face the greatest disadvantage due to their limited administrative infrastructure and financial flexibility.
"
This Iowa case study reveals a critical truth about education policy: market-based reforms often amplify existing inequities rather than resolve them. When we shift from collaborative resource pooling to individual purchasing power, we predictably advantage districts with economies of scale while constraining those serving smaller communities. The question isn’t whether rural districts deserve equal access to professional development and support services – it’s whether policymakers will design systems that ensure educational equity across all community sizes. For strategies on building equitable educational systems that serve all students effectively, explore our https://learningsuccess.ai/membership/all-access/”>All Access Program.
