introduction to title i, part a fiscal requirements
Post on 01-Jan-2016
48 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction to Title I, Part A
Fiscal Requirements
Presented by Tiffany R. Winters, Esq.twinters@bruman.com
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCSpring 2012 Forum
Overview
1) LEA-to-School allocations2) Set asides 3) Equitable Services allocation 4) Carryover 5) MOE6) Comparability7) Supplement not Supplant
2
Valuable Legal Resource
“Title I Fiscal Issues” Feb. 2008www.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. Census data2. Free and reduced price lunch3. TANF4. Medicaid eligibility5. 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
17
“Skip” school, ONLY if:1. Meet Comparability;2. Receiving supplemental State/local
funds used in Title I-like program; and3. Supplemental State/local funds meet
or exceed amount that would be received under Title I
Still count and serve nonpublic in area
Exception: Rank & Serve
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. Partner, to the extent practicable, with outside groups (CBO, FBO, etc.)
2. Send timely, accurate notice to parents3. Ensure SES sign-up forms given directly
to all eligible students/parents4. Ensure SES sign-up forms made widely
available through broad dissemination (internet, other media, public agencies)
28 28
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
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. Private school students 2. From low-income families3. Who reside in Title I-participating
public school attendance areas
34
Calculate Allocation for Instruction:
1. Identify eligible school attendance areas2. Rank in order of poverty3. Strictly serve in rank order (i.e., ID who is
“Participating Public School”)4. Calculate PPA for each area5. Derive allocation amount for each area
Must include nonpublic low-income #
6. 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
# Poverty Students
PPA Allocation
Albemarle Elementary 92% 82 $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 $1,500
Equitable Services Set-Aside $30,000
36
Distributing the Funds
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
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 set-
aside 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. Put back in LEA formula & redistribute2. Designate for particular LEA activities3. (Allow school to retain)
Cannot use in ineligible school
44
3 Pillars of Fiscal Accountability
1. Maintenance of Effort2. Supplement not
Supplant3. Comparability
Maintenance of Effort
Most Directly Affected by Declining Budgets
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
MOE: The NCLB Rule
47
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)
MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year (PFY)
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)
Aggregate expenditures
Amount per student
SY 08-09 $1,000,000 $6,100
SY 09-10 must spend 90%
$900,000 $5,490
SY 09-10 Actual amount
$850,000 $5,200
Shortfall -$50,000 -$290
Percent shortfall** reduction in all ESEA programs
-5.6% -5.3%**
50
USDE Secretary may waive for State Exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances such as natural disaster
OR Precipitous decline in financial
resources of the LEA
MOE: Waiver
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
ComparabilityMay not be affected by declining
non-federal revenue, if treat all schools equally
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.”
General Rule – Section 1120A(c)
54
Guidance: Must be annual determination
Review for current year and make adjustments for current year
Timing Issues
55
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”
Written Assurances
56
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)
How to show equivalence achieved?
57
Compare: Average of all non-Title I
schools to each Title I school
How to measure??
58
Average of all non-Title I schools10:1
For example: Using student/ instructional staff ratios
Title I schools: Lincoln: 10:1 Washington: 9:1 Madison: 11:1 Jefferson: 12:1
59
Basis for evaluation:
by similar grade-spans
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
Staff salary differentials for years of employment
Exclusions: LEA may exclude state/local funds expended for:
62
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
Who is “instructional staff”?
63
Supplement Not Supplant
Federal funds must be used to supplement and in no case supplant state and local resources
Supplement not Supplant
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
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
Can you rebut this presumption?
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 documenta. State cut the programb. LEA does not have uncommitted
funds available in operating budget to pick up
c. LEA would cut the program unless federal funds picked it up
d. The expense is allowable under Title I
73
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
Exception: 1120A(d)
74
Supplanting in a schoolwide program
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.
Supplement not Supplant
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
top related