TITLE I FISCAL ISSUES

1. TITLE I FISCAL ISSUES

2. FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUNDING ISSUES • Supplement not Supplant • Maintenance of Effort • Comparability • Time and Effort • 100% Certifications • Budgeting funds by Cost Center and PPA • Expenditures Matching CIPs Budgets • Paying Non-HQ Teachers with Federal Funds • Flexing 2

3. Planning and Budgeting • The LEA should work collaboratively with a team during the planning and budgeting process • Develop goals, strategies and detailed action steps based on needs • Identify allowable funds to support the goals, strategies and action steps • All expenditures must be in compliance with all federal regulations and guidance (NCLB, EDGAR, GAAP, etc.) • Resources are a finite amount and should be used wisely and in accordance with allowable uses • LEA should not have isolated decision-making. 3

4. THE PYRAMID OFFEDERAL RULES Statutes Regulations and OMB Circulars Non-RegulatoryGuidance Letters and Press Releases Issued by ED

5. STATUTES Statutes dictate: • How funds are generated • How funds must be allocated • Who is eligible to be served • How the program must be designed • What uses of funds are permissible • What types of reports or evaluations are required Examples of Statutes • ESEA- Elementary and Secondary Education Act • NCLB- No Child Left Behind • IDEA- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 5

6. REGULATIONS and OMB CIRCULARS Examples: • EDGAR-Education Department General Administrative Regulations • OMB –Office of Management and Budget - Circulars A-87 & A-133 6

7. PURPOSE OF NON-REGULATORY GUIDANCE • Non-Regulatory Guidance is used by the Education Department to provide informal advice to grantees and sub- grantees regarding education requirements. • Guidance does not carry the “force of law.” 7

8. Letters and PRESS RELEASES ISSUED by the USDOE The USDOE uses “Dear Colleague” letters and press releases to notify states and districts about policy changes or clarifications regarding federal law. 8

9. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT An LEA may use Title I funds only to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of Title I funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of students participating in Title I programs. In no case may Title I funds be used to supplant--i.e., take the place of--funds from non-Federal sources. To meet this requirement, an LEA is not required to provide Title I services using a particular instructional method or in a particular instructional setting. [Section 1120A(b)] A Title I Program is either Targeted Assistance or Schoolwide. Targeted Assistance Program • In operating a targeted assistance program, LEAs and schools are given flexibility in selecting the instructional strategies that they believe will best meet the needs of students who are at risk of not meeting challenging State academic achievement standards.   9

10. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT Schoolwide Program Schools • Unlike a targeted assistance program, a schoolwide program school is not required to select and provide supplemental services to specific children identified as in need of services. • A schoolwide program school, however, must use Title I funds only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of the Title I funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for that school, including funds needed to provide services that are required by law for children with disabilities and children with limited English proficiency. [Section 1114(a)(2)] Indirect Cost • The supplement, not supplant requirement also applies to indirect costs. an LEA must use the indirect cost rates outlined in §76.564 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations. [34 CFR 76.564] 10

11. Title I – Allowable Uses of Funds • Instructional Materials and Supplies • Equipment • Personnel • Before and After School Programs • Summer School • Preschool • Professional Development • Parent Involvement • Technology 11

12. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingSupplement Not Supplant • In this case study, we will explore what happened recently in a small rural school district where several central office staff had been assigned multiple duties. Although no funds are directly allocated for a position, the state requires that school districts make provisions to have a testing coordinator which is beneficial because the state requires that districts participate in state assessments. In a particular rural district, the test coordinator was also the Highly Qualified/Professional Development Coordinator with salary portions of .10 FTE of salary/benefits from Title II and .78 FTE from General Fund/OCE. During the regularly scheduled Consolidated Compliance Review, it was also revealed that .12 of the test coordinator’s salary was actually being paid from Title I, with the justification that, “…after all, I deliver tests to Title I schools.” In conversation with the district, the test coordinator expressed shock and dismay replying that they had indeed “…done this over several years.” The district received a finding in this case for this supplanting issue and state staff was asked to research the cost of salary and benefits erroneously paid over the last three years. The request was then made to repay Title I an amount over $34,000.00 12

13. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingSupplement Not Supplant School visits revealed that copier rental leases are paid from Title I funds for the sole copier in the schools. In the absence of federal funds, schools would still require a copier 13

14. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingSupplement Not Supplant When I monitored recently and started checking for supplement vs. supplant I found a unique situation.  A district had taken central office positions (an elementary curriculum director, an attendance officer, a psychologist, and a psychometrist) and divided them among schools at per rata shares using foundation units.  This was considered supplanting because the district came back with federal units and all foundation units were not in place.  It was also a problem with comparability. 14

15. COMPARABILITY 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 schools that are not receiving Title I funds. If the LEA serves all of its schools with Title I funds, the LEA must use State and local funds to provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each Title I school. [Section 1120A(c)] Demonstrating comparability is a prerequisite for receiving Title I, Part A funds. Because Part A allocations are made annually, comparability is an ANNUAL requirement. 15

16. Criteria for Meeting Comparability There are a number of ways that an LEA may meet the comparability requirement. Under the statute, an LEA is considered to have met the comparability requirement if the LEA files with the SEA a written assurance that it has established and implemented a— • District-wide salary schedule; • Policy to ensure equivalence among schools in teachers, administrators, and other staff; and • Policy to ensure equivalence among schools in the provision of curriculum materials and instructional supplies. [Section 1120A(c)(2)(A)] An LEA may also meet the comparability requirement if it establishes and implements other measures for determining compliance such as— • Student/instructional staff ratios; • Student/instructional staff salary ratios; • Expenditures per pupil; or • A resource allocation plan based on student characteristics such as poverty, limited English proficiency, or disability, etc. 16

17. Developing Procedures for Compliance An LEA must develop procedures for complying with the comparability requirements. [Section 1120A(c)(3)] These procedures should be in writing and should, at a minimum, include; • the LEA’s timeline for demonstrating comparability, • identification of the office responsible for making comparability calculations, • the measure and process used to determine whether schools are comparable, and • how and when the LEA makes adjustments in schools that are not comparable. While an LEA is only required to document compliance with the comparability requirement biennially (once every two years), it must perform the calculations necessary every year to demonstrate that all of its Title I schools are in fact comparable and make adjustments if any are not. 17

18. Developing Procedures for Compliance • An LEA may determine comparability of each of its Title I schools on a district-wide basis or a grade-span basis. [Section 1120A(c)(1)(C)] The LEA may exclude schools that have fewer than 100 students. An LEA need not demonstrate comparability if it has only one school at each grade span. • If the LEA files a written assurance with the SEA that it has established and implemented a district-wide salary schedule and policies to ensure equivalence among schools in staffing and in the provision of materials and supplies, it must keep records to document that the salary schedule and policies were, in fact, implemented and that calculations demonstrate that equivalence was achieved among schools in staffing, materials, and supplies. If the LEA establishes and implements other measures for determining compliance with comparability, such as student/instructional staff ratios, it must maintain source documentation to support the calculations and documentation to demonstrate that any needed adjustments to staff assignments are made. [Section 1120A(c)(3)(B);Section 443 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA); and 34 CFR 76.730, and 80.42] 18

19. Examples of Ways to Meet the Comparability Requirement In addition to the statutory assurance, there are other ways an LEA may meet the comparability requirement. An LEA uses student/instructional staff ratios to determine whether Title I and non-Title I schools are comparable. • The LEA can compare each Title I school with the average of its non-Title I schools • The LEA can show a comparison of large schools and small schools • If all schools are Title I schools, the LEA can base the comparisons on grade spans • Where all of the schools in the LEA are Title I schools, the LEA makes separate comparisons for its large schools and small schools. • If all of the schools are Title I schools, the LEA divides its schools between high- and low-poverty schools and compares schools within each poverty band to each other. 19

20. Examples of Ways to Meet the Comparability Requirement • If all of the schools are Title I schools, the LEA divides its schools between high- and low-poverty schools and compares schools within each poverty band to each other. • all of the schools are Title I schools, and the LEA establishes a limited comparison group consisting of its lowest-poverty schools and compares all of its other schools to the average calculated for the comparison group. As an alternative, the LEAs can also demonstrate comparability based on the per- pupil amount of State and local funds that a school uses to purchase instructional staff and materials. 20

21. Questions and Answers on Comparability • B-1. Must an LEA determine comparability every year? Yes. • B-10.If all schools in an LEA or in a grade span grouping receive Title I funds, must the LEA demonstrate that these schools are providing comparable services? Yes. • B-13. Are there any circumstances in which the comparability requirement might not apply? Yes. The comparability requirement does not apply to an LEA that has only one building for each grade span. [Section 1120A(c)(4)] 21

22. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingCOMPARABLITY Evidence revealed that the LEA did not use state funds in Title I schools that were substantially comparable to services in non-served schools. Reading Coaches at non-served schools are paid with 100% state funds while Reading Coaches at Title I schools are paid with 78% state funds. 22

23. Time and Effort Time and Effort should be completed for all employees on split funds each month. The form should include all fund sources the employee is paid from and signed by the employee or their supervisor. 23

24. 100 % Certifications All employees paid with 100% federal funds are required to sign certifications at least twice a year. 24

25. 100 % Certification Document LEA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ School__________________________________________________________________________________________________ (if applicable) Please indicate the current employment quarter for _____________ (school year) Documented by checking the appropriate box below:  Quarter 1. August thru October  Quarter 2. November thru January  Quarter 3. February thru April  Quarter 4. May thru July __________________________________________________ spends 100% of my time as a _______________________ Employee (please print) (position) Salary funding sources and percentages:   • • •  _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Employee’s Signature Date ________________________________________ _________________________________________ Supervisor’s Signature Date 25

26. 100 % Certification <INSERT SYSTEM NAME> CERTIFICATION OF 100% TIME WORKED ON A SINGLE FEDERAL AWARD (OR COST OBJECTIVE) OR STATE FUNDS IF REQUIRED FOR MATCH AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT I, <INSERT NAME>, at <INSERTSCHOOL/WORKPLACE> certify that for the period beginning <INSERT MONTH, DAY, YEAR> and ending <INSERT MONTH, DAY, YEAR>, worked 100% time on the <INSERT SPECIFIC PROGRAM> program and/or activity. ______________________________________________ / _____________ Employee’s Signature Date ______________________________________________ / _____________ Supervisor’s Signature Date  26

27. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingTime and Effort While on a consolidated monitoring review, we asked the school district for their time and effort sheets and 100% certification documents on all personnel paid with Federal Funds. When comparing the list of district personnel paid with Federal Funds with the time and effort documents presented, it was discovered that Title II personnel had neither time and effort documents nor 100% certification documents. The district had the documentation for Title I paid personnel only. When we asked how long this had been done this way, they said for the past 3 years. When we calculated the pay pack for this situation, we estimated 1.2 million would need to be paid back to the federal fund source. 27

28. Cost Center Budgeting • Expenditure Reports/Budget Analysis Reports should match the Per Pupil Allocation page budgeted in e-GAP. • The Expenditure Reports/Budget Analysis Reports should be reviewed monthly by the Federal Programs Coordinator. • The Title I allocation listed on the Budget Page of the Schools’ Continuous Improvement Plans should match both the PPA page in eGAP and the Expenditure Reports / Budget Analysis Reports 28

29. CARRYOVER Under section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), LEAs and SEAs must obligate funds during the 27 months extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second succeeding fiscal year. This maximum period includes a 15-month period of initial availability plus a 12-month period for carryover. However, section 1127(a) of Title I of the ESEA limits the amount of Title I, Part A funds an LEA may carry over from one fiscal year’s allocation to not more than 15 percent of the total Title I, Part A funds allocated to the LEA for that fiscal year. • an LEA is not allowed to include funds carried over from the previous fiscal year in the current year’s allocation base to determine statutory reservations? • an SEA may waive the 15 percent limitation on carryover funds 29

30. Onsite Monitoring Review FindingSchool Expenditure Not Matching eGAP An onsite monitoring review revealed that the school expenditure was not in compliance with the application approved by the SDE. Services delivered to migrant students did not match the .75 FTE used from the Migrant Program fund source which resulted in the amount of $39,365.37. 30

31. Paying Non-HQ Teachers with Federal Funds • Non Highly Qualified Teachers should not be paid with Federal Funds. During a recent federal programs compliance monitoring in and LEA, a Title I paid teacher was found to be non-highly qualified in her assigned position. The teacher had valid professional certificates in Special Education including Specific Learning Disability and Mental Retardation. The teacher’s highly-qualified eligibility is for Special Education: Core Academic Subjects, Including Reading grades P-12.   It was reported by the LEA that the teacher had been in the position at least three years and was paid an average salary and benefits of $71,000. The district failed to realize that in order for this teacher to be deemed highly-qualified for the assigned Title I reading position, the teacher would have to demonstrate competence for her assigned position by taking the Elementary Praxis II test for Elementary Education. A special education teacher is non-highly qualified to teach a regular elementary subject area unless that teacher has demonstrated competency in the regular elementary teaching field and grade level of the core academic subject she is assigned to. 31

32. Flexing UnitsAlabama Department of EducationAssignment of Foundation Units (Act 2011-264)FY2013