Full-Time and Part-Time Students:
There is a conflict between the way part-time students are handled in EPC depending upon whether the system is using the student count to calculate discount rates or Category 2 budgets.
EPC’s “School Information” profile for each school includes the following four fields for student counts:
- Number of Full Time Students
- Total Number of Part-Time Students
- Peak Number of Part-Time Students
- Total Number of Students Eligible for National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
The difference between the peak and the total number of part-time students is important for Category 2 budget purposes. The concept is that the budget should be determined by the peak number of students (including full-time students) served by a Wi-Fi system at any point in the day. Consider, for example, a school serving 100 part-time students in a morning session and 150 part-time students in an afternoon session. That school would have a total of 250 part-time students with 150 peak part-time students. In calculating the Category 2 budget, the determining factor would be the 150 peak part-time students, not the 250 total.
For discount rate purposes, the total number of enrolled part-time students (and full-time students) is the important factor. Thus, in our example, the discount rate would be determined by the number of eligible students out of the 250 part-time students unless — and this is a critical distinction — some or all of those part-time students are already being counted as a part of the enrollment of another school in the district. In that case, the district’s discount rate is based on total enrollment, i.e., without duplicative counting of students attending two of a district’s schools.
In other words, double counting of students within a district is fine to determine the peak-time count of students in each school for Category 2 purposes, but students cannot be double-counted in the district’s enrollment for discount rate purposes.
There is one more complication. The issue of double-counting for discount rate purposes does not arise if students attend part-time in their home district and part-time in another district, typically an ESA school. In this case, the ESA is a separate district. Attending students, therefore, are treated as being enrolled in two districts for discount rate calculations.
If this sounds a bit confusing, be comforted in the knowledge that the EPC system, including the Entity Profile Bulk Upload template, is confused as well. Currently the Total Number of Students Eligible for NSLP “Cannot exceed the number of Full Time Students.” The presence of part-time students, at a minimum, may throw off the discount rate calculation. At worst, the system will not accept the correct number of eligible students.
Our recommendation is to carefully check the discount rate of any district having schools with part-time students. You may want to avoid updating the EPC profiles for such schools until USAC corrects the problem or provides clarifying guidance.
Form 471 Consortium Issues:
A number of consortium applicants are concerned about the following problems, some of which can, or will hopefully soon, be solved:
- A number of consortia are still listed incorrectly as school districts or library systems in EPC. Until the applicant type can be corrected, a consortium cannot establish its member profile. Corrections need to be made through CSB, but there appears to be a backlog of requests. Any consortium needing to request an applicant type change should do so as early as possible.
- A consortium cannot currently draft a Form 471 if certain profile information has not been completed in the accounts of one or more of its members. Consortia are reporting receiving the following error message:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c1f5/0c1f58fc6f1429eca93e75058e2fecfdea3dbe79" alt="E-rate consortia error message"
This is clearly a problem exacerbated by the lack of any indication as to which member profile(s) is causing the problem. We expect both issues to be resolved in a near-term system fix.
- The good news for consortia is that all connectivity data resides at the member level, and that a consortium’s Form 471 application(s) is not contingent on the members’ completion of their connectivity profiles. The bad news, as indicated above, is that this is not true of member discount rate data. From an application review standpoint, USAC has indicated that a consortium’s discount rate will ultimately be determined after all the individual member discount rates are validated. Supposedly, this will not hold up review and approval of a consortium application, but it does subject the consortium to the possibility of a Revised Funding Commitment Decision Letter with a different consortium discount rate at some uncertain future time. One solution under discussion would be to fix a consortium’s discount rate at a certain date (e.g., the close of the window or the start of the funding year) regardless of subsequent updates to member NSLP updates.
- Another way to provide consortium control of member discount rates is to provide consortium access to the student data profiles of its members. The only reasonable way to do this currently requires the consortium to register as a consultant, with a Consultant Registration Number (“CRN”), and encourage all members to add the consortium’s consultant user(s) to their EPC accounts with full or partial rights. Alternatives to this approach have been suggested.
- In past years, some consortia have included other consortia as members. At present, EPC does not support a consortium of consortia. The only solution is to deconstruct the sub-consortia, listing their individual members as part of the major consortium.
Fixing School and Library Entity Lists:
When EPC first went live, a number of applicants reported that not all entities listed in their FY 2015 applications were ported over. USAC indicated that many of the missing entities were NIFs, and subsequently did an update. We’re still finding missing entities, again often NIFs.
School districts and library systems need to check their EPC entity lists carefully. Applicants planning to use the Entity Profile Bulk Upload template to update their entity profiles should note that the upload only affects listed entities. It does not add or delete entities. Entities can be added and/or deleted only by CSB. For one or two entities, the best way to do this is call CSB. For large scale changes, initiate a Customer Service Case attaching a list of corrections.