Transcript Document

Introduction to
Title I, Part A
Fiscal Requirements
Presented by
Tiffany R. Winters, Esq.
[email protected]
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Spring 2012 Forum
Overview
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
LEA-to-School allocations
Set asides
Equitable Services allocation
Carryover
MOE
Comparability
Supplement not Supplant
2
Valuable Legal Resource

“Title I Fiscal Issues” Feb. 2008
www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/
fiscalguid.doc

Consolidating funds in schoolwide
programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability,
Grantbacks, Carryover
3
LEA-to-School Allocations
“Ranking and Serving” Rules
 1) Identify Eligible Schools
 2) Rank Schools in Order of Poverty
 3) Serve Schools Strictly in Accordance
with Rank
4
STEP 1:
IDENTIFY ELIGIBLE
SCHOOLS
5
Eligible School Attendance
Areas

Percentage of children from low-income
families who reside in area . . .
AT LEAST AS HIGH AS . . .

Percentage of children from low-income
families in LEA
6
LEA Discretion: Eligibility

“35 Percent Rule”


May designate as eligible
Must still serve in order
7
LEA Discretion: Eligibility

“Grandfathering” option

If a school has lost eligibility (fallen below
the poverty threshold used by the LEA)
THEN

May continue to serve but only for one
more year
8
5 Poverty Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Census data
Free and reduced price lunch
TANF
Medicaid eligibility
Composite of above
9
STEP 2:
RANK ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS IN
ORDER OF POVERTY
10
Ranking and Serving

Exceeding 75% poverty



Strictly by poverty
Without regard to gradespan
At or below 75% poverty

May rank by gradespan
11
Ranking with Grade Span
Option
School
Poverty Rate
Albermarle Elementary
92%
Lincoln Middle School
87%
Beaumont High School
83%
Roosevelt Elementary
79%
Scott Elementary
74%
Toshiba Elementary
59%
Brennan Elementary
49%
Key Middle School
58%
Washington High School
70%
12
STEP 3:
SERVE SCHOOLS STRICTLY
IN ORDER OF RANK
13
Allocation to Schools



NOTE: first, reserve set-asides
Allocate to schools based on total # of
students from low income families
residing in area (including nonpublic)
Discretion on amount of PPA

Higher PPAs must be in higher schools on
ranked list
14
Allocations given without
regard to schoolwide or
targeted assistance model
Title I funding . . .
. . . To serve school based on poverty
. . . To serve student based on
academics
Ranking with Grade Span
Option
School
Poverty
Rate
# Poverty
Students
PPA
Allocation
Albemarle Elementary
92%
82
$1,500
$123,000
Lincoln Middle School
87%
90
$1,250
$112,500
Beaumont High School
83%
76
$1,250
$95,000
Roosevelt Elementary
79%
40
$1,000
$40,000
Scott Elementary
74%
56
$1,000
$56,000
Toshiba Elementary
59%
119
$1,000
$119,000
Brennan Elementary
49%
92
$1,000
$92,000
Key Middle School
58%
47
$1,000
$47,000
Washington High School
70%
160
n/a
16
Ranking with Skipping
School
Poverty
Rate
# Poverty
Students
PPA
Allocation
Albemarle Elementary
92%
82
$1,500
$123,000
Lincoln Middle School
87%
90
$1,250
$112,500
Beaumont High School
83%
76
$1,250
$95,000
Roosevelt Elementary
79%
40
$1,250
$50,000
Scott Elementary
74%
56
$1,250
$70,000
Toshiba Elementary
59%
119
$1,250
$148,750
Brennan Elementary
49%
92
$1,250
$115,000
Key Middle School
58%
47
n/a
Washington High School
70%
160
n/a
17
Exception: Rank & Serve

“Skip” school, ONLY if:
1.
2.
3.

Meet Comparability;
Receiving supplemental State/local funds
used in Title I-like program; and
Supplemental State/local funds meet or
exceed amount that would be received
under Title I
Still count and serve nonpublic in area
18
Title I Set-Asides
LEA MUST reserve specific
percentage:




20% choice transportation and SES
1% parental involvement
5% for teacher and paraprofessional
qualifications
10% professional development
(if LEA ID)
20
LEA MUST reserve but not
specific percentage:



Administration (public and private)
Homeless
Neglected & Delinquent
21
LEA MAY reserve:



Incentives to teachers in ID schools
(<5%)
Professional development
“other authorized activities”



Summer school
Preschool
Districtwide program
22
CAUTION:
DON’T CIRCUMVENT
“RANKING AND
SERVING” RULES!
Funds for Supplemental Education
Services & Choice Transportation

Amount equal to 20% of LEA
allocation
(unless lesser amount needed)



To pay transportation for choice
To satisfy all requests for SES
services
Both
24
Credit for “Parent Outreach”




Allow limited amount of funds for
“parent outreach” to count toward 20%
Capped at 0.2% of LEA Part A grant
May spend more for outreach, but only
0.2% counts toward 20%
EX. – $1 million LEA grant;


20% = $200,000
0.2% = $2,000 can count toward
$200,000
25 25
What costs count as “parent
outreach”?


Parent notices, communication
through the media, internet, and
community, displaying
information on LEA’s website, and
parent fairs
Allowance, not a requirement
26
Use 20% “unless a lesser amount is
needed”
How do you know if less is needed?
27 27
To spend less than 20%, LEA must:
200.48(d)(2)(i)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Partner, to the extent practicable, with
outside groups (CBO, FBO, etc.)
Send timely, accurate notice to parents
Ensure SES sign-up forms given
directly to all eligible students/parents
Ensure SES sign-up forms made widely
available through broad dissemination
(internet, other media, public agencies)
28 28
5.
6.
Provide (at a minimum) two
enrollment windows at separate
points in school year of sufficient
length
Ensure SES providers are given
access to school facilities, using a
fair, open and objective process, on
same basis as others
29
Does LEA need SEA’s
permission before reallocating
the 20%?
NO!
30
LEA must document and
notify SEA!
Before reallocating remainder of 20%,
LEA must:
 Maintain records demonstrating it has
met criteria
 Notify the SEA that it met criteria
 Notify SEA of amount of remainder it
intends to spend on other allowable
activities
31
Set Aside for Parent
Involvement





For LEAs with Part A allocations
>$500,000
1% minimum reserved
Proportional amount to private students
95% of remainder to schools
5% of remainder kept at LEA
32
Equitable Services for Private
School Students
Equitable Services:
Deriving Allocation
General Formula:

Based on number of:
1.
2.
3.
Private school students
From low-income families
Who reside in Title I-participating public
school attendance areas
34
Calculate Allocation for Instruction:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identify eligible school attendance areas
Rank in order of poverty
Strictly serve in rank order (i.e., ID who is
“Participating Public School”)
Calculate PPA for each area
Derive allocation amount for each area

6.
Must include nonpublic low-income #
Reserve nonpublic amount

PPA x # of nonpublic low-income students who
reside in participating public school area
35
Equitable Services Set-Aside
School
Poverty
Rate
Albemarle Elementary
# Poverty
Students
92%
82
PPA
Allocation
$1,500
$123,000
Albemarle Elementary School Equitable Services Share
Children in Poverty in Albemarle Schools
82
Children in Poverty in Private Schools located in the
attendance area
20
PPA
Equitable Services Set-Aside
$1,500
$30,000
36
Distributing the Funds
37
Two options:
1) Pooling: pool the funds to use for
students with greatest educational need
anywhere in LEA; or
2) School-by-School: funds follow child to
private school for educationally needy
child in that school
37
Reservation for districtwide
instruction



If LEA reserves for “districtwide
instructional programs for public
elementary and secondary”
Then proportional amount goes to
nonpublic
34 CFR sect 200.64(a)(2)(i)(A)
38
Example



LEA reserves $500,000 for districtwide
reading initiative
Of all low-income in LEA residing in
participating attendance areas, 5% are
private
5% of $500,000 to private allocation
39
Applies to:






Summer school programs
After school programs
Reading coaches
Parental involvement
Professional development (optional setaside ONLY)
Preschool Programs

(If Preschool is not included in the definition of an
elementary school)
40
Does Not Apply to:


SES/Choice (20%)
Preschool


(If Preschool is not included in the definition of
an elementary school)
Professional Development (10% for LEA
Improvement)
41
Carryover
Carryover

General Rule: May carryover up to 15%
of Title I, Part A

Reallocated by state if exceeds

Waiver by SEA once every 3 years

NOTE: FY 2009 flexibility
43
Use of Carryover Funds


Flexible
3 Options:
1.
2.
3.

Put back in LEA formula & redistribute
Designate for particular LEA activities
(Allow school to retain)
Cannot use in ineligible school
44
3 Pillars of Fiscal
Accountability
Maintenance of Effort
Supplement not Supplant
3. Comparability
1.
2.
Maintenance of Effort
Most Directly Affected by
Declining Budgets
MOE: The NCLB Rule



The combined fiscal effort per student or
the aggregate expenditures of the LEA
From state and local funds
From preceding year must not be less
than 90% of the second preceding year
47
MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year
(PFY)



Need to compare final financial data
Compare preceding FY to second
preceding FY
EX: To receive FY 2011 funds
(available July 2011), compare
preceding FY (2009-10) to second PFY
(2008-09)
48
MOE: Failure under NCLB


SEA must reduce
amount of
allocation in the
exact proportion by
which LEA fails to
maintain effort
below 90%
Reduce all
applicable NCLB
programs, not just
Title I
49
Maintenance of Effort Example
(SY 2011-2012)
SY 08-09
SY 09-10
must spend 90%
SY 09-10
Actual amount
Shortfall
Percent shortfall
** reduction in all ESEA
programs
Aggregate
Amount per
expenditures
student
$1,000,000
$6,100
$900,000
$5,490
$850,000
$5,200
-$50,000
-$290
-5.6%
-5.3%**
50
MOE: Waiver

USDE Secretary may waive for State
 Exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances such as natural
disaster
OR
 Precipitous decline in financial
resources of the LEA
51

July 2009 Draft Non-Regulatory
Guidance
 SEA may apply for waiver on behalf
of LEAs
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery
/programs.html
52
Comparability
May not be affected by declining
non-federal revenue,
if treat all schools equally
General Rule – Section 1120A(c)


An LEA may receive Title I, Part A funds
only if it uses state and local funds to
provide services in Title I schools that,
taken as a whole, are at least
comparable to the services provided in
non-Title I schools.
If all are Title I schools, all must be
“substantially comparable.”
54
Timing Issues


Guidance: Must be annual
determination
Review for current year and make
adjustments for current year
55
Written Assurances


LEA must file with SEA written assurances
of policies for equivalence:
 LEA-wide salary schedule
 Teachers, administrators, and other
staff
 Curriculum materials and instructional
supplies
Must keep records to document
implemented and “equivalence achieved”
56
How to show
equivalence achieved?




Student/instructional staff ratios;
Student/instructional staff salary
ratios;
Expenditures per pupil; or
A resource allocation plan based on
student characteristics, such as
poverty, LEP, disability, etc. (i.e., by
formula)
57
How to measure??
Compare:
 Average of all non-Title I schools to
each Title I school
58
For example: Using student/
instructional staff ratios
Average of all
non-Title I schools
10:1






Title I schools:
Lincoln: 10:1
Washington: 9:1
Madison: 11:1
Jefferson: 12:1
59

Basis for evaluation:


by similar gradespans
or
by similar size
school
60
Exclusions:



Federal Funds
Private Funds
Need not include unpredictable changes in
student enrollment or personnel
assignments that occur after the start of a
school year
61
Exclusions: LEA may exclude
state/local funds expended for:

Staff salary differentials for years of
employment
62
Who is “instructional staff”?



Consistent between Title I and non-Title I
Teachers (art, music, physical education),
guidance counselors, speech therapists,
librarians, social workers, psychologists
Paraprofessionals – up to SEA/LEA
63
Supplement
Not Supplant
Supplement not Supplant

Federal funds must be used to
supplement and in no case
supplant state and local
resources
65
Auditors’ Tests for Supplanting
“What would have happened
in the absence of these
federal funds??”
OMB Circular A-133
Compliance Supplement

66
Auditors presume supplanting
occurs if federal funds were used
to provide services . . .



Required to be made available under other
federal, state, or local laws;
Provided with non-federal funds in prior
year; or
Title I funds used to provide service to Title
I students, and the same service is provided
to non-Title I children using non-Title I
funds.
67
Presumption Rebutted!


If SEA or LEA
demonstrates it would
not have provided
services if the federal
funds were not
available
NO non-federal
resources available
this year!
68
What documentation needed?

Fiscal or programmatic
documentation to confirm that, in
the absence of federal funds,
would have eliminated staff or
other services in question

State or local legislative action

Budget histories and information
69
Must show:


Actual reduction in state or local funds
Decision to eliminate service/position
was made without regard to availability
of federal funds (including reason
decision was made)
70
Can you rebut this
presumption?



USDE assumes state and local officials will work to find a
way to comply with a state-mandated requirement
“While it is conceivable that an SEA or LEA could
demonstrate that its loss of revenue is so great that it
cannot meet a legal requirement, we believe that it
typically would be extremely difficult to do so”
“The bar for rebutting this presumption is very high”

Letter from Asst. Secretary Melendez to Leigh Manasevit, January 2011
71
Rebuttal Example



State supports a reading coach program
2010 -2011
State cuts the program from State budget
2011 -2012
LEA wants to support Title I reading coach
program 2011 - 2012
72
Rebuttal Example

LEA must document
a.
b.
c.
d.
State cut the program
LEA does not have uncommitted funds
available in operating budget to pick up
LEA would cut the program unless federal
funds picked it up
The expense is allowable under Title I
73
Exception: 1120A(d)



Exclusion of Funds:
SEA or LEA may exclude supplemental
state or local funds used for program
that meets intents and purposes of
Title I, Part A
EX: Exclude State Comp Ed funds
74
Supplanting in a schoolwide
program
Supplement not Supplant


Statute 1114(a)(2)(B): Title I must
supplement the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of Title I, be
made available from non-federal
sources.
 E-18 in schoolwide guidance
The actual service need not be
supplemental.
76
Questions??
This presentation is intended solely to provide
general information and does not constitute
legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or
later review of these printed materials does not
create an attorney-client relationship with
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not
take any action based upon any information in
this presentation without first consulting legal
counsel familiar with your particular
circumstances.
78