Kristen Tosh Cowan, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit PAFPC Conference April 5, 2011

 2009 and 2010  2011  2012  2013 Brustein & Manasevit 2

Funding Trends  More consolidation  More competition Brustein & Manasevit 3

Standards and Assessments  Common Core debate Require or “incentivize” Brustein & Manasevit 4

Accountability  Growth Model  Subgroup accountability  No 100% proficiency Brustein & Manasevit 5

Accountability  School improvement – more nuanced Obama & Sen Dems – 4 SIG models for lowest % Republicans – More local flexibility Target interventions to struggling subgroup Choice/ SES – 1 option of many  New Rewards Program Brustein & Manasevit 6

Teacher Preparation and Evaluation  Preparation: Focus on teaching colleges Performance exam for classroom Brustein & Manasevit 7

Teacher Preparation and Evaluation  Evaluation: Emphasis on outputs Multiple factors, including student assessment data Performance/ merit pay Brustein & Manasevit 8

Fiscal Requirements  Comparability Close loophole of excluding salary differential to reflect seniority Move to measuring non-federal expenditures/ student  Supplement not Supplant  Maintenance of Effort Brustein & Manasevit 9

Federal scrutiny, monitoring and audits! 10 Brustein & Manasevit

** #1 greatest area of audit exposure

 Easy finding for auditors  Unclear, contradictory guidance  Expensive!! Brustein & Manasevit 12

 2006 – Columbus – $2.3 million  2008 – Detroit - $49 million  2010 – Philadelphia - $123 million Brustein & Manasevit 13

No

 Time and attendance records  Payroll records Worked 8:00-4:00  Time and effort records  Time distribution records Worked 50% on Title I administration and 50% on nonfederal Brustein & Manasevit 15

YES

 Any employee working on a federal program ◦ Not contractors  All employees paid with federal funds  Some employees paid with non-federal funds ◦ Matching Brustein & Manasevit 18

 Semi-Annual Certification Signed every six months by supervisor or employee “This is to certify that Kristen Cowan has worked 100% of her time for the period January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2010, on Perkins Administration.” Signature of employee: Date: Brustein & Manasevit 19

 Personnel Activity Reports (PAR) Signed every month by employee “For the month of September 2010, I spent my time 50% on Title I Program Services and 50% on non-federal programs.” Signature of Employee: Date: Brustein & Manasevit 20

 After-the-fact record  Total activity for which employee compensated  At least monthly (unless substitute system)  Signed and dated by employee Brustein & Manasevit 21

Equitable Services to Nonpublic School Students

1. Inadequate Public Control and Oversight of Funds 2. Failure to Distribute Set-Asides 3. Inadequate evaluation of program 4. Inadequate consultation 5. Third Party Contracts and Invoices Brustein & Manasevit 24

LEA is responsible for planning, designing and implementing the Title I program Through consultation LEA cannot delegate to private schools or third party contractors 25

Separate “pots”:  Instructional Allocation Includes districtwide instruction (set-aside)  Parent Involvement (set-aside)  Professional Development (set-aside)  Administration (LEA and third party provider costs) Brustein & Manasevit 26

27  Based on number of: 1. Private school students 2. From low-income families 3. Who reside in Title I- participating public school attendance areas

28  SEA must require LEA to ensure third party is in compliance  Provider give “technical descriptions... in detail sufficient to enable the LEA to determine” if requirements met

29  LEAs must exercise proper oversight over invoices  Invoice expenditures in 2 categories: Instructional activities and administrative costs  Within each category, provide detail sufficient to determine compliance Name and salary of each teacher, instructional materials purchased, supervisor’s salary, office expenses, travel costs, capital expense type costs, and fee

So maximize the flexible use of your federal dollars! 30 Brustein & Manasevit

 Combine administration for all NCLB programs  NOT non-administrative activities  Single Cost Objective  Semi-annual certification  LEA needs approval of SEA 31 Brustein & Manasevit - March 18, 2011

 May transfer up to 50% of funds under: Title II Part A (Teacher Training) Title II Part D (Ed Tech) Title IV (Safe and Drug Free)  Transfer to Title I Part A or any of the above programs  Increases the base on which calculating set asides Brustein & Manasevit 32

 Transfer up to 30%  May only use for school improvement activities (1003 or 1116) Brustein & Manasevit 33

 Notify SEA  Modify local plans (submit to SEA within 30 days)  Consult with private school officials Brustein & Manasevit 34

 Combine federal, state, and local funds into flexible pool to be used for improving entire school  Must have at least 40% poverty  Conduct needs analysis and develop plan!  Not required to: Identify Title I students for targeted services Maintain separate fiscal accounting records to track Title I $ to allowable Title I activity – only to activity in SWP plan Use Title I for supplemental purposes Brustein & Manasevit 35

 Ensure that the amount of Title I funds for that year is supplemental to the total amount of state and local resources that school would have received in the absence of Title I  Only look at total nonfederal dollars going into that school – not whether federal funds bought something “extra” Brustein & Manasevit 36

 Federal funds must be used to supplement and in no case supplant state and local resources

 “What would have happened in the absence of these federal funds??”

OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement

#1. Required to be made available under other federal, state, or local laws

#2: Provided with non- federal funds in prior year

 If SEA or LEA demonstrates it would not have provided services if the federal funds were not available  NO state or local resources this year!

 Fiscal or programmatic documentation to confirm that, in the absence of fed funds, would have eliminated staff or other services in question  State or local legislative action  Budget histories and information

1. Actual reduction in state or local funds 2. Decision to eliminate service/ position was made without regard to availability of federal funds (including reason decision was made)

April 27-29, 2011 Washington, DC To register:

47 Brustein & Manasevit

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. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances. Brustein & Manasevit 48