Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1333122/description-tags-fiscalguid
Timestamp: 2018-06-22 04:10:27
Document Index: 250898225

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', '§200', '§200']

Uploaded by anon-670792
Page INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..………… A. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT…………………………………………… A-1. When an SEA determines maintenance of effort for its LEAs, must the SEA use the same measure for all its LEAs? 7 8 13
14 28 28 30 30
B-8. B-9.
B-12. B-13. B-14.
B-15. B-16.
B-17. B-18.
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? The Title I statute provides that comparability may be determined on a district-wide or grade span basis. Are there limitations on the number of grade spans an LEA may use? In addition to grade span groupings, does the LEA have the option to divide grade spans into a large school group and a small school group? Are there any circumstances in which the comparability requirement might not apply? If an 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, is that sufficient to demonstrate comparability? What are an SEA's responsibilities for monitoring the comparability requirement? Is an SEA required to collect LEA comparability information each year? If an LEA submits a yearly written assurance that it has met comparability, is that sufficient? May an SEA use the single audit process to monitor comparability? Are preschool staff and student enrollment included when determining a school’s student-to-instructional-staff ratios?
D. CARRYOVER……………………………………………………………… D-1. D-2. What actions must an SEA take with respect to an LEA that exceeds the 15 percent carryover limitation? On what amount is the 15 percent limitation on carryover based?
Page D-3. D-4. Does an LEA include funds carried over from the previous fiscal year in the current year’s allocation base to determine statutory reservations? Do funds an LEA transfers into its Title I, Part A program from other ESEA programs under the transferability authority in Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 of the ESEA affect the base on which the 15 percent carryover limitation is calculated? If a State’s fiscal year is not the same as the Federal fiscal year and ends June 30 rather than September 30, may the SEA apply the percentage limitations on carryover funds as of June 30? May an SEA waive the 15 percent limitation on carryover funds? Does the percentage limitation on carryover funds apply to all LEAs? What happens to excess funds carried over by an LEA? Does the carryover limitation apply to school improvement funds an LEA may receive from the four percent an SEA reserves under section 1003 of Title I? Does the carryover limitation apply to funds an LEA may receive under the State Academic Achievement Awards program under section 1117(b)? May an SEA carry over State administration funds authorized in section 1004? How does an LEA handle Title I, Part A funds that are carried over when allocating funds to school attendance areas? If an LEA is required in a given year to reserve a specific amount of funds for a particular purpose but does not spend all of those funds in that year, may the LEA carry over those unspent funds and spend them in accordance with the flexibility noted in Q12? If an LEA reserves 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation for supplemental educational services (SES) and choice-related transportation, but spends less than that amount, is the LEA required to carry over the unspent funds for SES and choice-related transportation costs in the following year? Are unspent funds from required reservations included in the carryover limitation? Do funds carried over from reserves affect the amount of money an LEA must reserve in the following year? How does the carryover provision apply to equitable services to private school children? 41 42
D-6. D-7. D-8. D-9.
D-10. D-11. D-12. D-13.
E. CONSOLIDATING FUNDS IN SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS………. Consolidating Funds E-1. Which Federal education program funds may be consolidated in a schoolwide program? E-2. May a schoolwide program school consolidate funds it receives under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
Page May a schoolwide program school consolidate funds it receives from discretionary grant programs? E-4. The July 2, 2004 Federal Register notice indicates that it is permissible for a schoolwide program school to consolidate the Title I, Part D (prevention and intervention programs for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at-risk) funds it receives. Part D consists of two programs. Subpart 1 authorizes the State Agency Neglected and Delinquent program, and Subpart 2 authorizes the Local Agency program. Which of these programs may a schoolwide program school consolidate with other Federal, State and local funds? E-5. What is an SEA’s responsibility regarding the consolidation of funds at the school level for schools operating schoolwide programs? Meeting Intent and Purposes E-6. How may a school that is operating a schoolwide program meet the intent and purposes of the programs for which it consolidates funds? Record Keeping E-7. What fiscal record-keeping requirements apply to an LEA or a school with respect to Federal funds that are consoidated in a schoolwide program? E-8. Is an LEA required to document employee time and effort in schools that operate schoolwide programs? General Fiscal Questions E-9. May an SEA require an LEA to account separately for each Federal program whose funds are consolidated in a schoolwide program? E-10. How can a schoolwide program demonstrate that it supplements, and does not supplant, State and local funds? E-11. When an LEA calculates whether it has maintained fiscal effort, it excludes expenditures from Federal funds. If a schoolwide program can consolidate Federal education funds, and those funds “lose their program identity,” how can the LEA determine the amount of Federal expenditures to exclude in calculating maintenance of effort? E-12. Some programs have limitations on the use of funds for certain activities within the program. For example, section 4115(c)(1) of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools) limits expenditures for certain activities (supporting "safe zones of passage," acquiring and installing metal detectors, and hiring security personnel) to not more than 40% of the funds made available to an LEA under Part A, Subpart 1 of Title IV. How does this limitation apply in the following scenarios? E-3. 49 50
Page E-13. At least two Federal education programs limit the amount of funds that may be carried over to the subsequent fiscal year. Section 1127(a) of Title I prohibits an LEA from carrying over more than 15 percent of the amount of funds allocated to it for any fiscal year under Part A. Similarly, section 4114(a)(3)(B) of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools) prohibits an LEA from carrying over more than 25 percent of the allocation it receives under Title IV for that fiscal year unless approval to carry over a greater amount is given by the SEA. How are the amounts of these caps calculated in the following scenarios? A State must exclude expenditures by its LEAs of Federal funds under Title I and Title V, Part A of the ESEA in calculating “current expenditures” for the purpose of determining the State per pupil expenditure (SPPE). If a schoolwide program school consolidastes Title I and Title V, Part A funds and they thus lose their specific program identity, how can the LEA determine its expenditures of those funds so that the State may exclude them in calculating SPPE? 55
F. GRANTBACKS……………………………………………………………. F-1. F-2. F-3. F-4. F-5. What requirements must be met for the Secretary to award a grantback? What is the period of availability for the use of grantback funds? Will the Department consider approving grantbacks on all misused Federal education funds? What are the terms and conditions to which a grantback payment is subject during and after the project period? What public notification is made that the Secretary intends to award a grantback? ACRONYMS
ESEA FY GEPA IDEA LEA MOE SEA SY
To ensure that funds made available under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) are used to provide services that are in addition to the regular services normally provided by a local educational agency (LEA) for participating children, three fiscal requirements related to the expenditure of regular State and local funds must be met by the LEA. The LEA must— 1. Maintain fiscal effort with State and local funds; 2. Provide services in its Title I schools with State and local funds that are at least comparable to services provided in its non-Title I schools; and 3. Use Part A funds to supplement, not supplant regular non-Federal funds. These requirements are critical to the success of Title I, Part A because they ensure that the Federal investment has an impact on at-risk students the program is designed to serve— something that would not occur if Federal dollars replaced State and local resources that would otherwise be made available to these at-risk students. At the school district level, the maintenance-of-effort provision requires that an LEA maintain its expenditures for public education from State and local funds from one year to the next. Thus, an LEA cannot reduce its own spending for public education and replace those funds with Federal funds. At the school building level, comparability requires an LEA to ensure that each Title I school receives its fair share of resources from State and local funds. In other words, an LEA may not “discriminate” (either intentionally or unintentionally) against its Title I schools when distributing resources funded from State and local sources simply because these schools receive Federal funds. At the individual student level, an LEA must, under the supplement, not supplant requirement, ensure that services to students participating in Title I receive from Part A funds are additional to the regular services an LEA would otherwise provide to those students with funds from non-Federal sources. That is, services from Title I resources cannot replace or supplant services that an LEA would ordinarily provide to all its students. 1 In addition to these three requirements, this guidance addresses fiscal issues concerning the carryover of Title I, Part A funds, consolidating Federal funds in schoolwide programs, and the grantback process.
Current State Fiscal Preceding State Fiscal Year Year 2005 (begins on 2004 (begins on July 1, 2004) July 1, 2003)
Second Preceding State Fiscal Year 2003 (begins on July 1, 2002)
2006 (begins on July 1, 2005)
2005 (begins on July 1, 2004)
2004 (begins on July 1, 2003)
2007 (begins on July 1, 2006)
2008 (begins on July 1, 2007)
2009 (begins on July 1, 2008)
2010 (begins on July 1, 2009)
EXAMPLE 1: In this example, which uses State fiscal year (FY) 2002 and FY 2003 as the comparison years, the LEA needed to spend $900,000 in the aggregate during the preceding fiscal year (FY 2003) to meet the 90 percent level, but spent only $850,000. As a result, the LEA failed to meet the 90 percent level by $50,000 or 5.6 percent ($50,000 ÷ $900,000). Similarly, on a per student basis, the LEA needed to spend $5,490 per student during the preceding fiscal year, but spent only $5,200 per student. The LEA failed to maintain effort on a per student basis by $290 or 5.3 percent ($290 ÷ $5,490). Therefore, unless the Secretary grants a waiver, the SEA must reduce the LEA's school year (SY) 2004-05 allocation by 5.3 percent (the reduction most favorable to the LEA). MOE Determination Used for School Year (SY) 2005-06 Allocation Purposes * Aggregate Expenditures 1 Amount LEA spent in 2nd preceding fiscal year (State $1,000,000 FY 2003, which began July 1, 2002) 2 Amount LEA had to spend in the preceding fiscal year (State FY 2004, which began July 1, 2003) in order to maintain effort (90% of 2nd preceding year's 900,000 expenditure) 3 Actual amount LEA spent in the preceding fiscal year (State FY 2004) 850,000 4 Amount by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (Line 2-Line 3) -50,000 5 Percent the SEA must reduce the LEA's allocation (Line 4÷Line 2) ** -5.6% ** The SEA uses the percentage that is most advantageous to the LEA * These are funds that became available on July 1, 2005 under the Federal FY 2005 appropriation. Amount Per Student $6,100
EXAMPLE 2: In determining maintenance of effort for the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which an LEA failed to maintain effort, an SEA must consider an LEA's expenditures in the year the failure occurred to be no less than 90 percent of the expenditures for the third preceding year. The following table illustrates how an SEA determines the base for its MOE calculations in the year after an LEA has failed to maintain effort.
3 4 5 Level required to Amount by State and Local State and Local meet the which LEA Reduction in LEA allocation Federal Fiscal Year Expenditures 1st Expenditure 2nd preceding requirement (90% failed to Appropriation preceding year year (Col. 4÷Col 3) of column 2) maintain effort FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 (Funds become (SY 2001-02) (SY 2000-01) available on July 1, 2003 for use mainly in SY 2003-04) Reduce grant award made available on July 1, 2003 by $850,000 $1,000,000 $900,000 -$50,000 5.6% FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 (Funds become (SY 2002-03) (SY 2001-02) available on July 1, 2004 for use mainly in SY 2004-05) $810,000 $900,000* $810,000 --No reduction in grant made available on July 1, 2004 (for SY 2004-05) because FY 2003 expenditures of $810,000 were 90% of FY 2002 expenditures 1 2
FY 2004 (SY 2003-04)
Reduce grant award made available on July 1, 2006 by 2.8%
Because the SEA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that LEAs comply with the comparability requirement, the SEA may establish the method a district uses to determine comparability. An SEA has flexibility in establishing reasonable variances for LEAs to use in determining whether their Title I and non-Title I schools are comparable. If an LEA is using student/instructional staff ratios to compare the average number of students per instructional staff in each Title I school with the average number of students per instructional staff in non-Title I schools, an SEA may, for example, allow the LEA to consider a Title I school comparable if its average does not exceed 110 percent of the average of non-Title I schools. Similarly, if an LEA is using student/instructional staff salary ratios to compare the average instructional staff salary expenditure per student in each Title I school with the average instructional staff salary
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. 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
FTE Instructional Student Enrollment Staff 483 456 582 634 564 577 691 620 34.4 40.7 43.1 48.5 41.16 42.7 56.6 45.7 Student/ Instructional Staff Ratio Comparable? 14.0 11.2 13.5 13.1 13.7 13.5 12.2 13.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Large Non-Title I Elementary Schools KG - 6 ML King Jr. KG - 6 Moylan KG - 6 TJ McDonnough KG - 6 MD Fox KG - 6 Annie Fischer Total 110% of Student/FTE ratio for non-Title I schools
775 509 544 899 608 3,335
54.6 41.3 39.3 65.4 49.4 250.0
14.2 12.3 13.8 13.7 12.3 13.3 14.6 *
417 425 436 307
Small Non-Title I Elementary Schools KG - 6 Sand Everywhere KG - 6 Simpson-Waverly KG - 6 Mark Twain KG - 6 Sarah Rawson Total 110% of Student/FTE ratio for non-Title I schools
346 325 359 297 1,327
* In order to comparable, the student/instructional staff ratio for each small Title I elementary school may not exceed 13.1. (11.9 x 1.1) 18
School District as a Whole Grade Span PK - 5 PK - 5 6-8 PK - 5 PK - 5 6-8 PK - 5 PK - 5 9 - 12 Student/ Student FTE Instructional Instructional Enrollment Staff Staff Ratio Comparable? 371 25.6 14.5 Yes 483 33.2 14.5 Yes 818 50 16.4 Yes 484 31 15.6 Yes 682 42.4 16.1 Yes 1,174 64 18.3 No 423 30 14.1 No 482 29.8 16.2 Yes 1,737 110 15.8 Yes 6,654 416 16.0 14.4 17.6
School Davis School Devers School Edgar Fahs Smith MS Fergurson School Goode School Hannah Penn MS Jackson School McKinley School William Penn HS Total 90% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 110% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio *
371 483 484 682 423 482 2,925
25.6 33.2 31 42.4 30 29.8 192
14.5 14.5 15.6 16.1 14.1 16.2 15.2 13.7 16.7
* Each elementary school is comparable if the student/instructional staff ratio falls between 13.7 (15.2 x 0.9) and 16.7 (15.2 x 1.1).
Middle Schools Student/ Student FTE Instructional Instructional Enrollment Staff Staff Ratio 818 50 16.4 1,174 64 18.3 1,992 114 17.5 15.8 19.3
School Grade Span Edgar Fahs Smith MS 6-8 Hannah Penn MS 6-8 Total 90% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 110% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio *
Comparable? Yes Yes
All Elementary Schools Grade Span PK - 5 PK - 5 KG - 5 PK - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 KG - 6 PK - 5 PK - 5 PK - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 FTE Student/ Student Instructional Instructional Enrollment Staff Staff Ratio 430 29.3 14.7 565 40.6 13.9 269 17.6 15.3 470 29 16.2 641 45 14.2 390 22.5 17.3 390 26 15.0 601 36 16.7 420 26 16.2 477 28.5 16.7 339 20 17.0 245 16.3 15.0 503 31.5 16.0 5,740 368.3 15.6 14.0 17.2
Comparable? Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Small Elementary Schools Elizabeth R. Martin Elementary KG - 5 Hamilton Elementary KG - 5 James Buchanan Elementary KG - 6 Ross Elementary KG - 5 Thomas Wharton Elementary KG - 5 Total 90% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 110% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio *
269 390 390 339 245 1,633
17.6 22.5 26 20 16.3 102.4
15.3 17.3 15.0 17.0 15.0 15.9 14.4 17.5
EXAMPLE 5 (All elementary schools in the LEA are Title I schools; high-poverty schools are compared to high-poverty schools and low-poverty schools are compared to low-poverty schools) In this example, all of the elementary schools in the LEA are Title I schools and the comparability determination is based on student/instructional staff ratios. The LEA demonstrates comparability by determining whether the student/instructional staff ratio for each school falls within a range that is between 90 and 110 percent of the average for all schools. In the first set of calculations, which is based on all schools, one school is not comparable. The LEA refines the comparison so that it compares (1) the student/instructional staff ratio of each of its highpoverty schools (those with a poverty rate above 60 percent) with the average for all of its highpoverty schools and (2) the student/instructional staff ratio in each of its low-poverty schools (those with poverty rates of 41 and 40 percent) to the average ratio for its low-poverty schools. When the LEA compares the student/instructional staff ratio for each of its high-poverty schools to the average for all of its high-poverty schools, the ratio for each school falls within 90 and 110 percent of the high- poverty schools’ average, and each school is, therefore, comparable. Similarly, when the LEA compares the student/instructional staff ratio for each of the LEA’s low-poverty schools, the ratio for each of the low poverty school falls within the 90 and 110 percent of the average ratio for its low poverty schools, and each school is, therefore, comparable.
FTE Student/ Instructional Instructional Free/Reduced Student Enrollment Staff Staff Ratio Lunch Children School Violet Hill 560 36 15.6 542 Oakdale 470 29 16.2 425 Elmwood 641 45 14.2 539 Hobson 477 28.5 16.7 385 Berlieth 562 40.6 13.8 435 Davis 420 26 16.2 322 Indian Rock 425 29.3 14.5 316 Roosevelt 339 21 16.1 249 Park 503 31.5 16.0 354 Camp Springs 355 22.5 15.8 252 White Hill 245 16.3 15.0 148 Bannaker 400 26 15.4 161 Eastern 273 17.6 15.5 112 Total 5,670 369.3 15.4 4,240 90% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 13.9 110% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 16.9 Grade Span PK - 5 PK - 5 KG - 5 PK - 5 PK - 5 PK - 5 PK - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 KG - 5 KG -6 KG - 5
School High Poverty Title I Schools Violet Hill PK - 5 560 Oakdale PK - 5 470 Elmwood KG - 5 641 Hobson PK - 5 477 Berlieth PK - 5 562 Davis PK - 5 420 Indian Rock PK - 5 425 Roosevelt KG - 5 339 Park KG - 5 503 Camp Springs KG - 5 355 White Hill KG - 5 245 Total 4,997 90% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio * 110% of Student/Instructional Staff Ratio *
FTE Student/ Student Instructional Instructional Free/Reduced Staff Staff Ratio Lunch Children Enrollment 36 29 45 28.5 40.6 26 29.3 21 31.5 22.5 16.3 325.7 15.6 16.2 14.2 16.7 13.8 16.2 14.5 16.1 16.0 15.8 15.0 15.3 13.8 16.8 542 425 539 385 435 322 316 249 354 252 148
Total Grade Span Enrollment 308 405 1,323 279 516 1,109 622 706 543 721 962 467 7,959 State and Local Per Child Funds Amount Comparable? Allocated $1,217,232 $1,830,195 $5,813,262 $1,129,123 $2,121,276 $4,971,647 $2,846,272 $3,106,032 $2,170,914 $3,329,578 $4,308,798 $2,296,239 $35,140,568 $3,952 $4,519 $4,394 $4,047 $4,111 $4,483 $4,576 $4,399 $3,998 $4,618 $4,479 $4,917 $4,415 $3,974 $4,857 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Elementary Schools Grade Span State and Total Local Funds Per Pupil Comparable? Enrollment Allocated Amount 647 425 327 184 1,583 $2,637,995 $1,974,622 $1,239,003 $751,640 $6,603,260 $4,077 $4,646 $3,789 $4,085 $4,171 $3,754 $4,588 Yes No Yes Yes
Middle Schools Schools Grade Span Total State and Per Pupil Comparable? Enrollment Local Funds Amount Allocated 562 719 323 1,604 $2,298,580 $3,285,830 $1,468,035 $7,052,445 $4,090 $4,570 $4,545 $4,397 $3,957 $4,836 Yes Yes Yes
High Schools State and Total Local Funds Per Pupil Schools Grade Span Enrollment Allocated Amount Comparable? Edgemere HS 9 - 12 962 $4,677,244 $4,862 Yes Franklin HS 9 - 12 500 $2,013,704 $4,027 No Per-child amount LEA provides from State and local 1,462 $6,690,948 $4,577 funds to all schools in the grade span $4,119 90 % of per child amount $5,034 110 % of per child amount
The second high school is not comparable because the amount allocated per child is less than $4,119, and the LEA would need to adjust the allocation of State and local funds to that school during the school year in order to comparable.
Questions and Answers on Comparability B-1. Must an LEA determine comparability every year? Yes. Demonstrating comparability is a prerequisite for receiving Title I funds. Because Title I allocations are made annually, comparability is an annual requirement. [Section
B-17. May an SEA use the single audit process to monitor comparability? The use of single audits as the only way to monitor comparability is generally inadequate because the comparability process must enable an LEA, during the current year, to identify and correct instances where it has non-comparable schools and enable an SEA to verify that comparability has been met. The single audit process, as the only enforcement tool, usually does not allow an SEA to determine whether an LEA has met the comparability requirement within the time frame for allocating Title I funds and for the LEA to correct any non-compliance. [Section 1120A(c)(1)(A)]
B-18. Are preschool staff and student enrollment included when determining a school’s student-to-instructional-staff ratios? Generally, preschool should not be considered a grade-span for comparability purposes unless the State considers preschool to be part of elementary and secondary education.
Presumption of Supplanting To determine compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement, a State must determine what services an LEA would have provided in the absence of Title I funds to students in Title I schools. Keep in mind that any determination about supplanting is very case specific and it is difficult to provide general guidelines without examining the details of a situation. Because Title I funds are available, the State would use a set of presumptions—that is, predictions—of what the LEA would have provided in the absence of the Title I funds based on its behavior in other situations. In the following instances, it is presumed that supplanting has occurred: 1. An LEA used Title I funds to provide services that the LEA was required to make available under Federal, State, or local law.
EXAMPLE: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that an LEA serving children with disabilities develop an individualized education program (IEP) to ensure that a child with a disability receives a free appropriate public education. The IEP functions as a framework for the services the LEA is required to provide to each child to meet the requirements of IDEA. An LEA may not use Title I funds to provide services that must be provided under each child’s IEP because, in the absence of the Title I funds, it is presumed that the LEA would use other funds or it would be in violation of the IDEA. However, in a targeted assistance school, an LEA may use its Title I funds to provide additional, supplemental services to such children. In a schoolwide school, an LEA must ensure the Title I funds a school receives 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 the amount of funds needed to provide services that are required by law for children with disabilities.
2. An LEA used Title I funds to provide services that the LEA provided with non-Federal funds in the prior year(s).
EXAMPLE: An LEA paid for a reading specialist in a Title I school in the previous year from State and local resources but decides to use Title I funds to pay for that teaching position in the current year. This would be supplanting because the LEA is replacing State and local resources with Title I resources to pay for the same teaching position.
3. An LEA used Title I funds to provide services for children participating in a Title I program that the LEA provided with non-Federal funds to children not participating in Title I.
EXAMPLE: A State requires only half-day kindergarten. A district may not use Title I funds to pay for an extended-day kindergarten program for Title I schools and then use State or local funds to pay for a full-day kindergarten program in non-Title I schools. This would be supplanting because Title I schools would not be receiving any of the State or local funds. In other words, unless the exclusion discussed in the next section applies, an LEA may not use Title I funds to pay for services in Title I schools and use State funds to pay for the same services in non-Title I schools.
These presumptions, however, are rebuttable if the LEA can demonstrate that it would not have provided the services in question with non-Federal funds had the Federal Title I funds not been available. For example, in the second situation discussed above, an LEA could provide programmatic and fiscal documents showing that the teaching position paid for in the previous year with State and local funds was eliminated in the current year because of State and local budget cuts. The LEA would need to ensure that it had contemporaneous records to confirm: • • There was in fact a reduced amount or lack of State and local funds available to pay for this position. The LEA made the decision to eliminate the position without taking into consideration the availability of Federal funding, along with the reasons for that decision—e.g., school board minutes.
Exclusions When determining whether Title I funding is supplemental, an SEA or LEA may exclude State and local funds expended in any school for carrying out a program that meets the intent and purposes of Title I, Part A. (These exclusions also apply when determining whether Title I and non-Title I schools are comparable.) A program meets the intent and purposes of Title I, Part A if the program either— • • • Is implemented in a school in which the percentage of children from low-income families is at least 40 percent; Is designed to promote schoolwide reform and upgrade the entire educational operation of the school to support students in their achievement toward meeting the State’s challenging academic achievement standards that all students are expected to meet; Is designed to meet the educational needs of all students in the school, particularly the needs of children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's challenging student academic achievement standards; and
Total allocation Minimum amount LEA must obligate between July 1, 2005 – September 30, 2006 to avoid excess carryover (85 percent of total appropriation) Amount LEA may carryover and obligate during October 1, 2006 – September 30, 2007 (carryover period provided under section 421(b) of GEPA) $1,500,000
1,275,000 225,000
Questions and Answers on Carryover D-1. What actions must an SEA take with respect to an LEA that exceeds the 15 percent carryover limitation? Unless it grants the LEA a waiver of the carryover limitation (see Q6), an SEA must reduce that LEA’s allocation by the exact amount it exceeds its 15 percent carryover limitation. The following chart illustrates how much an SEA would reduce an LEA’s allocation because it exceeded its carryover limitation.
* This amount would be available for the SEA to reallocate to other LEAs as provided under section 1126(c) of Title I.
On what amount is the 15 percent limitation on carryover based? The percentage limitation is applied to the amount allocated to the LEA for Title I, Part A under Subpart 2 for the current year, plus any funds transferred into Title I, Part A under the authority in Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 (see Q4). It does not include carryover funds from the preceding year, excess funds that the SEA reallocated to the LEA under section 1126(c) of Title I, school improvement funds received under section 1003, or funds received under the State Academic Achievement Awards program.
Does an LEA include funds carried over from the previous fiscal year in the current year’s allocation base to determine statutory reservations? No. Title I of the ESEA requires an LEA to reserve certain percentages of its Title I allocation for specific purposes. For example, under section 1118(a)(3), an LEA must generally reserve at least one percent of its allocation for parent involvement activities.
The base for calculating any of the reserves required under Title I is only the current year amount allocated to the LEA for Title I, Part A under Subpart 2, plus any funds transferred into Title I, Part A under the authority in Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 (see Q4). The LEA would not include carryover funds from the preceding year (or the other types of funds mentioned in Q2) when determining current-year reservations. D-4. Do funds an LEA transfers into its Title I, Part A program from other ESEA programs under the transferability authority in Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 of the ESEA affect the base on which the 15 percent carryover limitation is calculated? Yes. Because transferred funds are subject to the rules and requirements of the programs to which they are transferred, the amount an LEA transfers into Title I, Part A from other ESEA programs increases the Part A resources available to the LEA. Thus, an SEA must base the calculation of an LEA’s 15 percent carryover limitation on the Title I, Part A funds allocated to the LEA plus any funds the LEA transferred into Part A from other ESEA programs. The following chart illustrates how this would work:
* These funds became available on July 1, 2005.
If a State’s fiscal year is not the same as the Federal fiscal year and ends June 30 rather than September 30, may the SEA apply the percentage limitations on carryover funds as of June 30? No. An SEA may establish a project year that is the same as its State fiscal year so that it begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. However, an LEA is entitled to access Title I funds for the full 15-month period (until September 30) before the limitation on carryover funds applies. Therefore, an SEA may not apply the limitation on carryover until after September 30, even if the SEA approves projects for a period from July 1 through June 30. The SEA should establish controls to ensure that, after
September 30 of each year, an LEA is not allowed to use any prior-year funds that exceed the 15 percent carryover limitation. If an LEA’s project includes both prior-year and current-year funds, charges should be made against prior-year funds first in order to reduce any amounts that are in excess of the carryover limitation. The SEA or LEA must continue to account for funds by grant year. D-6. May an SEA waive the 15 percent limitation on carryover funds? Yes. Section 1127(b) of Title I provides that an SEA may, once every three years, waive the 15 percent carryover limitation if-• • D-7. The SEA determines that the request of an LEA is reasonable and necessary; or Supplemental appropriations for Title I, Part A become available. [Section 1127(b)] Does the percentage limitation on carryover funds apply to all LEAs? No. The percentage limitation does not apply to an LEA that receives an allocation of less than $50,000 in Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 funds. [Section 1127(c)] D-8. What happens to excess funds carried over by an LEA? If an LEA does not have a waiver of the carryover limitation, the excess funds become available to the SEA to reallocate to other LEAs in accordance with the criteria it has established under section 1126(c) of Title I. D-9. Does the carryover limitation apply to school improvement funds an LEA may receive from the four percent an SEA reserves under section 1003 of Title I? No. The carryover limitation applies only to funds an LEA is allocated under Subpart 2 of Title I, Part A, plus any funds transferred into Title I, Part A under the authority in Title VI, Part A, Subpart 2 (see Q4). D-10. Does the carryover limitation apply to funds an LEA may receive under the State Academic Achievement Awards program under section 1117(b)? No, because these funds are not part of the LEA’s Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 allocation. D-11. May an SEA carry over State administration funds authorized in section 1004? Yes. An SEA may carry these funds over, and the percentage limitation in section 1127(a) does not apply because the limitation only applies to Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 funds allocated to LEAs.
D-14. If an LEA reserves 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation for supplemental educational services (SES) and choice-related transportation, but spends less than that amount, is the LEA required to carry over the unspent funds for SES and choice-related transportation costs in the following year? It depends. There are several situations in which an LEA would need to carry over unspent Title I, Part A funds in this context. For example, if an LEA has documented demand (e.g., parent applications) to absorb the full 20 percent on choice-related transportation and SES but, for whatever reason, spends less than 20 percent, an LEA would be out of compliance with the statute and subject to enforcement sanctions unless it reopens enrollment for SES and/or public school choice. If reopening enrollment is impossible, the LEA must carry over to the following school year the unexpended balance of the set-aside and use that balance for choice-related transportation and SES in that year—in addition to spending an amount equal to 20 percent of that year’s Title I, Part A allocation. An LEA may find itself in this position if there is a lower than expected enrollment rate among eligible students that applied for SES, or if the student attendance levels in SES tutoring sessions are lower than anticipated, but there is unmet demand for choice or SES among other eligible students. Another scenario in which an LEA would need to carry over unspent funds for choice and SES is if the LEA initially prioritizes the students to whom it offers SES—e.g., its lowest-achieving, low-income students—and demand from those students does not absorb the full 20 percent. In this instance, the LEA would need to reopen enrollment to all eligible students or carry over to the following year the unexpended balance of the setaside and use that balance for choice-related transportation and SES in that year—again, in addition to spending an amount equal to 20 percent of that year’s Title I, Part A allocation too. On the other hand, if an LEA offers the opportunity to transfer to other schools and to receive SES to all eligible students and demand for those services does not absorb an amount equal to 20 percent of the LEA’s allocation, the LEA may use those funds for other allowable activities during the year in which the reservation was made or carry over the unexpended balance and use those funds for any purposes for which carryover funds may be used (see Q12). If these funds are carried over, the equitable participation requirements for private school children in Title I would apply. [Section 1120; 34 CFR
Questions and Answers on Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide Programs Consolidating Funds E-1. Which Federal education program funds may be consolidated in a schoolwide program? Except as noted below, the Secretary has authorized a schoolwide program school to consolidate funds from any Federal education program administered by the Secretary, whose funds can be used to carry out activities in a public elementary or secondary school. (See 69 FR 40360-63 (July 2, 2004), Notice of authorization and exemption of schoolwide programs. The notice is available on ED’s website at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2004-3/070204a.html.) This authority also extends to services, materials, and equipment purchased with those funds and provided to a schoolwide program school. A school that operates a schoolwide program may NOT consolidate funds under Subpart 1 of Part B of Title I of the ESEA (Reading First), which establishes reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 3. Within the general schoolwide consolidation authority, a schoolwide program school may consolidate funds received under the following programs only as outlined below: • Migrant Education. Consistent with section 1306(b)(4) of Title I and 34 CFR 200.29(c)(1), before a school operating as a schoolwide program consolidates funds received under Part C of Title I, ESEA for the education of migratory children, the school, in consultation with parents of migratory children or organizations representing those parents, or both, must first meet the unique educational needs of migratory students that result from the effects of their migratory lifestyle and those other needs that are necessary to permit those students to participate effectively in school, and must document that these needs have been met. Indian Education. Consistent with section 7115(c) of the ESEA and 34 CFR 200.29(c)(2), a school operating as a schoolwide program may consolidate Indian education funds received under Subpart 1 of Part A of Title VII of the ESEA only if the parent committee established by the LEA to help develop the Indian education program under section 7114(c)(4) of the ESEA approves the inclusion of those funds. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See response to Q2.
received by the LEA under Part B of IDEA for that fiscal year, divided by the number of children with disabilities in the jurisdiction of the LEA, and multiplied by the number of children with disabilities participating in the schoolwide program. A school may also consolidate funds it receives for students with disabilities under section 8003(d) of the ESEA. A school that consolidates funds under Part B of IDEA or section 8003(d) of the ESEA may use those funds in its schoolwide program for any activities under its schoolwide program plan but must comply with all other requirements of Part B of IDEA to the same extent as it would if it did not consolidate funds under Part B of IDEA or section 8003(d) of the ESEA in the schoolwide program. E-3. May a schoolwide program school consolidate funds it receives from discretionary grant programs? In general, a schoolwide program school may consolidate funds it receives from discretionary (competitive) grants as well as from formula grants, except for Reading First. [See 69 FR 40360-63 (July 2, 2004.)] However, if a school operating a schoolwide program consolidates funds from discretionary grant programs, the school must still carry out the activities described in the application under which the funds were awarded. However, a schoolwide program school would not need to account separately for specific expenditures of the consolidated Federal funds. Although not required, it is preferable that the applicant LEA or school indicate in its application for discretionary funds that some or all of the funds would be used to support a schoolwide program and describe its activities accordingly. Moreover, if authorized by the program statute, the Department or an SEA could include in its selection criteria for a particular program extra points for conducting activities in a schoolwide program school. For example, an SEA could include such points when awarding subgrants under the Even Start Family Literacy program, which requires an SEA to give priority to applicants that target services to families in need of family literacy services residing in areas with high levels of poverty, illiteracy, or other such need-related factors, including projects that would serve a high percentage of children who reside in participating areas under Part A. Specific examples illustrating how schoolwide program schools could consolidate and use discretionary grant funds by carrying out the activities described in the application under which the funds were awarded are provided in 69 FR 40360-64 (July 2, 2004), Notice of authorization and exemption of schoolwide programs. This notice is available on ED’s website at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/20043/070204a.html.
What is an SEA’s responsibility regarding the consolidation of funds at the school level for schools operating schoolwide programs? Each SEA must-• • Encourage schools to consolidate funds from other Federal, State and local sources in their schoolwide programs; and Modify or eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources in their schoolwide programs. [Section 1111(c)(9) and (10); 34 CFR 200.29(c)]
Meeting Intent and Purposes E-6. How may a school that is operating a schoolwide program meet the intent and purposes of the programs for which it consolidates funds? A school that consolidates and uses, in a schoolwide program, funds from any other Federal education program administered by the Secretary, except Reading First, is not required to meet most statutory or regulatory requirements of the program applicable at the school level, but must meet the intent and purposes of that program to ensure that the needs of the intended beneficiaries are met. The school must be able to demonstrate that its schoolwide program contains sufficient resources and activities to reasonably address the intent of the included programs, particularly as they relate to the lowest-performing students. [Section 1114(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR 200.29(a) and (b)] For specific examples of how a schoolwide school may consolidate funds under Title III, Part A, Subpart 1 (English Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B programs see 69 Fed. Reg. 40360-63 (July 2, 2004), Notice of authorization and exemption of schoolwide programs, available at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/fedregister/other/2004-3/070204a.html. Record Keeping E-7. What fiscal record-keeping requirements apply to an LEA or a school with respect to Federal funds that are consolidated in a schoolwide program? A school operating a schoolwide program that consolidates in a single account and uses, in a schoolwide program, funds from other Federal education programs administered by the Secretary (except Reading First) is not required to maintain separate fiscal accounting records, by program, that identify the specific activities supported by those program funds. The school must, however, maintain records that demonstrate that the schoolwide program, considered as a whole, addresses the intent and purposes of each of the Federal education programs whose funds were consolidated to support it. [Section 1114(a)(3)(C)] An LEA must be able to show the amount of funds from each Federal education program for each grant year that was consolidated in the single schoolwide program account the LEA allocated to a schoolwide program school and may use any reasonable method to demonstrate how Federal funds that consolidated account were in a schoolwide program have been expended. For example, the LEA could allocate expenditures of Federal funds consolidated in a schoolwide program school in proportion to the amount of funds allocated to the school under each Federal program. [Section 443 of GEPA]
How does an LEA document employee time and effort in schools that operate schoolwide programs? Generally, Attachment B.8.h(3) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A87, which contains government-wide cost principles that apply to the use of Federal funds by State and local governments and Federally recognized Indian tribal governments, provides that charges for the wages or salary of an employee who works solely on a single Federal program or cost objective must be supported by periodic certifications that the employee worked solely on that program or cost objective. These certifications must be prepared at least semi-annually and must be signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. If an employee works on multiple activities or cost objectives, Attachment B.8.h(4), (5), and (6) require the employee to prepare personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation to support a distribution of his or her salary or wages among the Federal programs or cost objectives. Application of the OMB Circular A-87 requirements to employees in a school operating a schoolwide program varies under different circumstances. For example: 1. If a school operating a schoolwide program consolidates Federal, State, and local funds under section 1114(a)(3)(C) in a single account, an employee who is paid with funds from the single account is not required to file a semi-annual certification. Because Federal funds are consolidated with State and local funds in a single account, there is no distinction between staff paid with Federal funds and staff paid with State or local funds from the single account. In effect, payment from the single account certifies that the employee works only activities of a single program or cost objective—i.e., the schoolwide program. 2. If a school operating a schoolwide program does not consolidate Federal funds it receives in a single account, an employee who works, in whole or in part, on a Federal program or cost objective must meet the OMB Circular A-87 requirements as follows: (a) An employee who works solely on a single cost objective (i.e., a single Federal program whose funds have not been consolidated in a single account) must furnish a semi-annual certification that he/she has been engaged solely in activities supported by the applicable source in accordance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraph 8.h(3). (b) An employee who works on multiple activities or cost objectives (i.e., in part on a Federal program whose funds have not been consolidated in a single account and in part on Federal programs supported with funds consolidated in a single account or on activities funded from other revenue sources) must maintain time and effort distribution records in accordance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraph 8.h(4), (5) and (6). The employee must document the portion of time and effort dedicated to:
(1) The Federal program and (2) Each program or other cost objective supported by either consolidated Federal administrative funds or other revenue sources. General Fiscal Questions E-9. May an SEA require an LEA to account separately for each Federal program whose funds are consolidated in a schoolwide program? According to section 1114(a)(3)(C) of the ESEA and §200.29(d)(1) of the Title I regulations, a schoolwide program is not required to maintain separate fiscal accounting records, by program, that identify the specific activities supported by those particular funds. However, an SEA has the authority to establish necessary accounting procedures to ensure proper use of Federal program funds. At the same time, and consistent with §200.29(e)(2), an SEA must modify or eliminate fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources in their schoolwide programs. E-10. How can a schoolwide program demonstrate that it supplements, and does not supplant, State and local funds? In a schoolwide program, Title I, Part A funds and other Federal education program funds may be used only to supplement the total amount of funds that would, in the absence of Federal 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. It is generally an LEA’s responsibility, and not the school’s, to ensure that the “supplement not supplant” requirement is met and that a schoolwide program school receives all the State and local funds it would receive were it not a Title I schoolwide program school. In other words, an LEA may not reduce its allocation of State and local funds and resources to a schoolwide program school because the school receives Federal funds to operate a schoolwide program. An LEA should be able to demonstrate, through its regular procedures for distributing funds and resources, that it distributes State and local funds fairly and equitably to all its schools– including schoolwide program schools– without regard to whether those schools are receiving Federal education funds. A schoolwide program school is not expected to keep records of the particular services paid for with Federal education funds that are used in the schoolwide program, nor is it required to demonstrate that any particular service supplements the services regularly provided in that school.
In cases in which the Department has recovered funds from an SEA or LEA that misspent or failed to account properly for Title I, Part A funds, Section 459 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1234(h) allows the SEA to request a “grantback.” A grantback may not exceed 75 percent of the recovered funds. F-1. What requirements must be met for the Secretary to award a grantback? If an SEA wishes to request a grantback of Title I, Part A funds, the chief State school officer must submit the following to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education: • A letter that – 1. Requests a grantback of funds; 2. Provides assurances that – (a) The practices in the SEA or LEA that resulted in the violation of law have been corrected; and The Title I, Part A program in the SEA or LEA has been reviewed during the current school year, and the SEA has determined that it is in compliance with all applicable requirements.
A detailed explanation and documentation of actions taken to correct the specific violation. A plan for the use of grantbank funds that— 1. Meets the requirements of Title I, Part A; 2. To the extent possible, benefits the Title I children who were affected by the failure to comply or by the misuse of funds that resulted in the recovery. (If a time lapse makes it impossible to serve the same children, the plan must justify use of funds for the benefit of current participating Title I children.); and 3. Includes the following: (a) An identification of the recipient(s) of the grantback funds; (b) A brief description of the SEA’s or LEA’s current Title I, Part A program;
(c) A detailed description of the activities to be provided with grantback funds and how these activities would supplement the regular Title I, Part A program; (d) An itemized budget that shows how the recipient(s) would spend the funds on the proposed activities; (e) The beginning and ending dates of the project period; (f) Evidence that parents or other representatives of the children who would benefit from the grantback funds were consulted in planning the program;
(g) A description of how equitable services would be provided to eligible private school children; • Evidence that the SEA has fully satisfied its financial liability or has entered into a repayment agreement with the Department. It is important for the SEA to address any other outstanding debts with the Department by making payment or entering into a repayment agreement before requesting a grantback of Title I, Part A funds. If funds were repaid to the Department as a result of LEA audit findings under the Single Audit Act, audit materials that provide the basis for how the audit determinations were resolved by the SEA.
What are the terms and conditions to which a grantback payment is subject during and after the project period? Any grantback payments by the Secretary shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to accomplish the purposes of the affected programs, including— 1. 2. The submission of periodic reports on the use of grantback funds; and Consultation by the recipient with students, parents, or representatives of the population that will benefit from the payments. [20 U.S.C. 1234h(b)]
2010-2011 Campus Improvement Plan - Salazar
anon-474429
Top Ten Gov Investments
anon-923336