Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC April 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presented by Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum 2012 Maintenance of Effort, Comparability.
Advertisements

NCLB Title I Comparability Paul Williams Principal Consultant ISBE September 2011.
Title IA Fiscal Issues Jackie Godbout Title IA Program Consultant
1 Title I Comparability Requirement Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
LOUISIANA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION JOHN WHITE.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC March 2013.
M AINTENANCE OF E FFORT & C OMPARABILITY R EPORT Teresa Scott Accounting Manager-Grant Management Albuquerque Public Schools NM ASBO.
Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street, NW Washington, DC (202)
1 “Changing Performance” Nashville, Tennessee February 2, National Title I Conference Consolidating Funds S choolwide P rograms Sandy Brown &
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Title I. Purpose of Title I ARRA  To provide additional assistance to LEAs and schools that have high concentrations.
Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit 3105 South Street NW Washington, DC (202)
Maintenance of Effort IV-B Funding LEA Level Special Education Services Kansas Department of Education Special Education Services.
Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2011 M AINTENANCE OF E FFORT, C OMPARABILITY & S UPPLEMENT N OT.
Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds Key Issues for Decision-makers.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Excess Cost Presenter Patricia Holcomb-Gray Office of Special Education Programs NJ Department of Education June 3, 2015.
1 South Dakota Department of Education – Grants Management Rob Huffman – Administrator Mark Gageby – Special Education Fiscal Kim Fischer – Fiscal Monitoring.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC March 2014.
Demonstrating Comparability School Year October 2014October 2014.
Office of Special Education Fall Forum 2013 General Initiatives and the Role of Special Education.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC April 2013.
Title I, Part A Fiscal Requirements for Comparability FY Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Title I, IIA, VI, & X December 2012.
TITLE I FISCAL ISSUES. FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUNDING ISSUES Supplement not Supplant Maintenance of Effort Comparability Time and Effort 100% Certifications.
Tell your story using numbers and words Susan Andre, Title I Coordinator East Baton Rouge Parish School System.
Comparability & Title I Compliance Annual MASBO Institute May 12, 2015.
Maintenance of Effort Time and Effort Requirements September 2014.
Excess Costs IDEA-B Requirement Texas Education Agency (TEA)
Maximize Fiscal Flexibility: Consolidated Administration, Transferability, Waivers, and Schoolwide Programs Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq.
Tell your story using numbers and words Susan Andre, Title I Coordinator East Baton Rouge Parish School System.
ESEA Directors Institute 2014ESEA Directors Institute 2014 Title I Schools – Select / Rank / Serve.
TITLE I COMPARABILITY Determinations & Reporting Title I Technical Assistance Session School Improvement Grant Programs October 6, 2011.
Introduction to Title I, Part A Fiscal Requirements Presented by Kristen Tosh Cowan, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum 2011.
Developing a Title I Budget Title I Directors Budget and Planning Workshop June 18, 2012 Embassy Suites.
Fiscal Considerations Spring 2006 NCLB Regional Workshops.
Federal Grant Training. I. Title I-A Fiscal Requirements  To ensure Title I-A funds are in addition to regular services normally provided, three fiscal.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WEBINAR APRIL 30, 2014 PLEASE DIAL INTO TELECONFERENCE: Toll Free Number/ Participant Code/ COLLEGE ACCESS CHALLENGE.
Maintenance of Effort Virginia Department of Education Office of Program Administration and Accountability Title I University April 16, 2015 Chris McLaughlin.
M AINTENANCE OF E FFORT & C OMPARABILITY R EPORT Teresa Scott Director-Grant Management Albuquerque Public Schools NM ASBO Fall Conference.
No Child Left Behind Application Title I, Part A Part 2.
TITLE I, PART A ESEA ROLLOUT SPRING 2013 Version Title I, Part A Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Maintenance of Effort Federal Cross-Cutting & Special Education MoE Daniel Lunghofer Supervisor, School District/ESD Accounting.
Schoolwide Funding Consolidation Panel Panelists: Nancy Konitzer, Arizona Department of Education, Rebecca Vogler, Cincinnati Public Schools and Jose Figueroa,
Schoolwide Consolidation Consolidation Legislation and Guidance Title I Schoolwide Fiscal Guidance issued February, 2008 [Section E] Designing Schoolwide.
Introduction to Title I Fiscal Requirements Presented by Kristen Tosh Cowan, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Spring Forum 2011.
Local Education Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirements under IDEA.
1 Division of Public Schools (PreK -12) Florida Department of Education Florida Education: The Next Generation DRAFT March 13, 2008 Version 1.0 NCLB: 2009.
Title I Part A: Back to Basics ESEA Odyssey Fall 2010.
Title I, Part A COMPARABILITY. What is the purpose of Comparability? To ensure that participating Title I schools receive the same level of services from.
SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT TESTS District Level: Maintenance of Effort School Level: Comparability of Services Child Level: Educational.
1 Michigan Association of State and Federal Program Specialists “Recent Enforcement and Compliance Issues” Traverse City, Michigan November, 2007 Leigh.
Presented by Leigh M. Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum 2013 Supplement Not Supplant, Maintenance.
SES Training on Screens 11, 12, and Part of 8. By Steve Crew September 12, 2007.
1 Title I Part A Fiscal Requirements Section 1120A Title I/Federal Programs Spring Conference 2010 Participants, Ohio Department of Education Ed Peltz,
1 Title I Part A Fiscal Requirements Section 1120A OAASFEP 2007 Title I/Federal Programs Fall Conference Participants: Carl Evans, Ohio Dep’t. of Education.
Kay Townsend, Fiscal Consultant Title I, IIA, VI, & X Oklahoma State Department of Education (405)
Special Education Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Michael Brooks Division of School Finance Special Education.
IDEA Grants Application: Maintenance of Effort. 2 What is Maintenance of Effort? IDEA regulation (34 CFR § ) which directs districts, for each grant.
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC May Ken Krawchuk
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant
Excess Costs IDEA-B Requirement
Every Student Succeeds Act
Introduction to LEA MOE Tool
Excess Costs IDEA-B Requirement
LEA Maintenance of Effort and Excess Cost Calculation
Understanding Supplement Not Supplant Under ESSA, IDEA, and Perkins
Introduction to Title I, Part A Fiscal Requirements
Title I, Part A Supplement not Supplant (SNS) Under ESSA
Maintenance of Effort Virginia Department of Education
ESEA Programs | December 2018
Office of Federal Programs
Maintenance of Effort, Comparability & Supplement, Not Supplant
Presentation transcript:

Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC April 2011

USDE Title I Fiscal Guidance (May 06) fiscalguid.doc This guidance covers these areas: Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Comparability Supplement not Supplant Carryover Grantbacks

Maintenance of Effort Legal Authority: NCLB: Section 9521

MOE: The NCLB Rule LEA may receive funds only if SEA finds the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA from state and local funds from preceding year is not less than 90% for second preceding year.

MOE: Preceding Fiscal Year Need to compare final financial data –PDE Uses Annual Financial Report (AFR) Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY EX: To receive FY 2005 funds (available July 2005), compare FY 2004 ( ) to FY 2003 ( )

Expenditures Included “Expenditures from state and local funds for free public education” Administration; instruction; attendance and health services; pupil transportation services; operation and maintenance of plant; fixed charges; and net expenditures to cover deficits for food services and student body activities

Expenditures Excluded Funds from federal government Community services; capital outlay; debt service; or supplemental expenditures made as a result of a Presidentially declared disaster

MOE: Failure ESEA: If LEA fails MOE, 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

Aggregate expenditures Amount per student SY 041,000,0006,100 SY05 – must spend 90% 900,0005, – Actual amount 850,0005,200 Shortfall-50, Percent shortfall/ reduction -5.6%-5.3%**

Years after Failure SEA uses 90% of the prior year amount rather than the actual expenditure amount

MOE:Waiver USDE Secretary may waive if: –Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as natural disaster OR –Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA

Comparability Legal Authority: Title I Statute: §1120A(c)

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. If all are Title I schools, all must be “substantially comparable.”

Timing Issues Guidance: Must be annual determination YET, LEAs must maintain records that are updated at least “biennially” (1120A(c)(3)(B)) Review for current year and make adjustments for current year Assurances are due November 15. Egrants changes for 08/09.

Written Assurances LEA must file with SEA written assurances that state: –The LEA is exempt from demonstrating Comparability because it has only 1 building per grade span or; –The LEA has successfully documented the comparable staff to pupil ratio in the district using the Detailed School Data Sheet.

How to measure in a district with non-Title I buildings Compare: Average of all non- Title I schools Each Title I school Average of all non-title I schools=10:1 Title I schools: Lincoln: 10:1 Washington: 9:1 Madison: 11:1 Jefferson 12:1 TO

How to measure in a district with all Title I buildings Compare: Average of one or more of the lowest poverty Title I schools to each higher poverty Title I school Lincoln 30% poverty, Washington 50%, Madison 55%, Jefferson 60% Chose only Lincoln as the comparison school Lincoln 30%, Washington 32%, Madison 55%, Jefferson 60%, chose both Lincoln and Washington as the comparison schools

Basis for evaluation: grade-span by grade-span OR school by school (district-wide basis)

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

Who is “instructional staff” Administrators (principals and assistant principals) Art Teachers Classroom Teachers Guidance Counselors Librarians Music Teachers Physical Education Teachers Project Directors (Non-federally funded) Psychologists Social Workers Speech Therapists

Not included… Bus Monitors Consultants Crossing Guards Maintenance Staff Security Staff Federally paid Staff

Optional staff… Bilingual Teachers Special Education Title I “Like” Staff Teachers Aides (instructional) Although the LEA has the discretion to count or not count these types of staff, it must be done consistently across the grade spans being compared.

How to access the Data Sheet and Assurance page and click on the eGrants link at the left of the page. Then click on the Division of Federal Programs link at the left of the screen. Enter your Login ID and password, then click on the “Consolidated Application” link. At the main Consolidated Application page you’ll see the link for Comparability towards the bottom of the screen.

Supplement/Supplant Targeted Assisted – program level supplanting. “Reasonable and necessary.” Very situationally dependent Schoolwide – fiscal level supplanting only, but must meet “intents and purposes.” School must receive all the state and local funds it would otherwise need to operate in the absence of Federal funds –Includes routine operating expenses such as building maintenance and repairs, landscaping and custodial services

Can Title I $ be used for basic operational expenses? If only federal combined – –No, must be for educational needs If federal and non-federal combined – –No, but impossible to determine which is federal –Be sure sufficient state and local funds allocated to school to meet basic operational needs

What is “educational need”? Not addressed in guidance –Instruction – yes –Instructional support – probably yes –Administration – possibly yes –Operational – no

Closing Thoughts The SWP is VERY important! Targeted versus SWP which is better?