Transcript Document

Introduction to Title I
Fiscal Requirements
Presented by
Kristen Tosh Cowan, Esq.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
[email protected]
Spring Forum 2011
Overview
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
LEA-to-School allocations
Set asides
Equitable Services allocation
Carryover
Comparability
Reauthorization Predictions
2
Resources -- Allocations

Statute


Regulations


Section 1113
34 CFR §200.77-78
Non-regulatory Guidance

August 2003
3
Resources – Cross-cutting

“Title I Fiscal Issues” Feb 2008
www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/
fiscalguid.doc

Consolidating funds in schoolwide
programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability,
Grantbacks, Carryover
4
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
5
STEP 1:
IDENTIFY ELIGIBLE
SCHOOLS
6
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
7
LEA Discretion: Eligibility

“35 Percent Rule”


May designate as eligible
Must still serve in order
8
LEA Discretion: Eligibility

“Grandfathering” option


Continue if served last year
But, only continue for one year
9
5 Poverty Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Census data
Free and reduced lunch
TANF
Medicaid eligibility
Composite of above
10
STEP 2:
RANK ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS IN
ORDER OF POVERTY
11
Ranking and Serving

Exceeding 75% poverty



Strictly by poverty
Without regard to gradespan
At or below 75% poverty

May rank by gradespan
12
Exception: NO Rank & Serve if

Small LEA exclusion


If <1000 students
One school at each gradespan
13
STEP 3:
SERVE SCHOOLS STRICTLY
IN ORDER OF RANK
14
Allocation to Schools



BUT first, calculate 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
15
Allocations given without
regard to schoolwide or
targeted assistance model
Title I funding . . .
. . . To school based on poverty
. . . To student based on academics
“125 Percent” Rule


If serve any school <35%
Then PPAs for all schools must be at
least 125% of LEA’s PPA under Title I
allocation

Entire LEA Title I-A Grant
# of low income on census
17
EXAMPLE:
$1,000,000 total Title I grant
2,000 poverty students
= $500/ student PPA
If serve school <35% poverty,
$500 x 1.25 = $625 PPA
18
Exception: Rank & Serve

“Skip” school, if:
1.
2.
3.

Comparability met
Receiving supplemental state/local funds
used in Title I-like program
Supp. State/local funds meet or exceed
amount would be received under Title I
Still count and serve nonpublic in area
19
Title I Set-Asides
LEA MUST reserve specific
percentage:



20% choice transportation and SES
1% parental involvement
10% professional dev (if LEA ID)
21
LEA MUST reserve but not
specific percentage:



Administration (public and private)
Homeless
Neglected & delinquent
22
LEA MAY reserve:



Incentives to teachers in ID schools
(<5%)
Professional development
“other authorized activities”



Summer school
Preschool
Districtwide program
23
CAUTION:
DON’T CIRCUMVENT
“RANKING AND
SERVING” RULES!
Calculating % set asides


Take off entire LEA grant
Transferability:


Includes transferred amounts
Carryover:

Does not include carry over (apply % only
in first year available)
25
Example

Title I, Part A = $500,000
Transferred $30,000 from Title II
Carried over $50,000 from prior year

Each % set aside applies to $530,000


26
Funds for Supp Ed Services
and 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
27

If no SES, then 20% on choice

If no choice, then 20% on SES

If both, then minimum of 5% for
choice, 5% for supp services, and 10%
for either
28
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
29
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
30
“Amount equal to 20%”

May use Title I, Part A; school
improvement (sect. 1003); ARRA


transferability
State, local, or private funds
31
If use Title I Funds,
from where?

Off the top of LEA allocation OR from
individual school allocations?


Both permitted
If school in corrective action or restruct,
<15%
32
Use 20% “unless a lesser amount is
needed”
How do you know if less is needed?
33
To spend less than 20%, LEA must:
200.48(d)(2)(i)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Partner, to 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)
34
5. Provide (at a minimum) two
enrollment windows at separate
points in school year of sufficient
length
6. Ensure SES providers are given
access to school facilities, using a
fair, open and objective process, on
same basis as others
35
Does LEA need SEA’s
permission before reallocating
the 20%?
NO!
36
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
37
SEA monitors 20% compliance through:
(200.48(d)(3))

Regular monitoring (on multi-year
cycles)


Ensure 6 criteria are met
More frequent monitoring


For LEAs that have spent “significant portion” of
20% on other activities AND subject of “multiple
complaints, supported by credible evidence,”
regarding implementation of choice or SES
SEA must complete its review by the beginning of
the next school year
38
Consequences for non-compliance
200.48(d)(4)

If SEA finds LEA did not meet all 6
criteria, then LEA must in the
subsequent year:


Spend amount equal to the remainder of
20% in the subsequent year on choice/
SES, in addition to new 20%, OR
Meet all 6 criteria and obtain permission
from the SEA before spending less than full
20% in subsequent year.
39
How to reallocate?


If took school allocations, then
reallocated to those schools
Subject to equitable participation of
private school students
40
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
41
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
43
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 sch area 44
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)
45
Example



LEA reserves $500,000 for districtwide
reading initiative
Of all low-income in LEA residing in
participating attend areas, 5% are
private
5% of $500,000 to private allocation
46
Applies to:



Summer school
After school programs
Reading coaches
DOES NOT APPLY TO:
 SES/ Choice (20%)
 Preschool
47
Reservation for teachers
and families

If LEA reserves funds for parental
involvement or professional development

Then proportional amount to nonpublic

34 CFR sect 200.65(a)
48
Example


LEA reserves 1% of $500,000 allocation
for parental involvement, or $5,000.
Of all low-income families residing in
participating attend area, 6% are
private. Then 6% of $5,000 used for
families of participating private school
students.
49
Carryover

General Rule: May carryover up to 15%
of Title I, Part A

Reallocated by state if exceeds

Waiver
50
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
51
3 Pillars of Fiscal
Accountability
Maintenance of Effort
Supplement not Supplant
3. Comparability
1.
2.
Heightened Federal Scrutiny
on Comparability!!



Common finding of USDE Program
Reviewers
Many serious findings in OIG Audits
Focus of “equity” initiatives
53
General Rule - §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.
Reasonable variance is ok (10%)
54


If all are Title I schools, all must be
“substantially comparable.”
Reasonable variance ok (>10%)
55
Timing



Common Finding!
Guidance: Must be annual
determination
Review for current year and make
adjustments for current year
56
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”
57
Demonstrate “equivalence
achieved” through:





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)
Need only meet under 1 approach
58
How to measure??
Compare:
 Average of all non-Title I schools
to
 Each Title I school
59
For example: Using student/
instructional staff ratios

Average of all nonTitle I schools =
10:1





Title I schools:
Lincoln: 10:1
Washington: 9:1
Madison: 11:1
Jefferson: 12:1
60

Basis for
evaluation:
Compare:
 Grade-spans
 Large schools
 Small schools
61
Does not apply if LEA has:


Only 1 school
Only 1 school at each gradespan
62
Exclusions:


Federal Funds
Private Funds
63
Exclusions:

Need not include
unpredictable changes
in students enrollment
or personnel
assignments that
occur after the start of
a school year
64
Exclusions: LEA may exclude state/
local funds expended for:




Language instruction for LEP students
Excess costs of providing services to
students with disabilities
Supplemental programs that meet the
intent and purposes of Title I
Staff salary differentials for years of
employment
65
Who is “instructional staff”?



Consistent between Title I and
non-Title I
Teachers (art, music, phys ed),
guidance counselors, speech therapists,
librarians, social workers, psychologists
Paraprofessionals – ED: up to SEA/ LEA
66
How to calculate in a SWP?

Problem (theoretically):



Cannot exclude state and local funds
Cannot identify teachers paid with state
and local funds
Use (non-federal) expenditures per
student
67
How to calculate with charter
schools?



Charters must be included (if not
independent LEAs)
Problem: No LEA control over staffing
Use (non-federal) expenditures per
student
68
How will Reauthorization
impact Title I Fiscal
Requirements?
Reauthorization Predictions

Comparability



Close loophole of excluding salary
differential to reflect seniority
Move to measuring non-federal
expenditures/ student
Supplement not Supplant

Change to reviewing total amount of
funding, not individual expenditure?
70
Reauthorization Predictions

Choice/ SES –




Unlikely 20% minimum mandate
One option of many
Target to underperforming subgroup
Financial incentives for teachers and
students
71
Reauthorization Predictions
No significant changes to:
 Ranking & serving rules
 Equitable services
 Consolidating funds in schoolwides
 Time & effort
72
This presentation is intended solely to provide general
information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal
service. This presentation does not create a client-lawyer
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore,
carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of
Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a
later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any
follow-up questions or communications arising out of this
presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit,
PLLC 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.
73