1. SEA-LEA Collaboration for ESSA Implementation
Sheara Krvaric, Esq.
Federal Education Group, PLLC
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

2. Why Collaboration? To develop:
A shared understanding of ESSA options and requirements
A sense of shared responsibility for program success
A mechanism for ongoing feedback
To identify:
Barriers to effective programming
Technical assistance needs
Best practices
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

3. Opportunities for Collaboration
Redesigning the LEA-to-SEA application for ESSA funds
“Activity-focused” spending guidance with examples of how ESSA (and possibly other) grants can support effective practices
Protocols for spending data required for supplement not supplant and per-pupil expenditure reporting
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

4. LEA-to-SEA Application
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

5. Redesigning the LEA-to-SEA Application for ESSA Funds
ESSA makes changes to Titles I, II and IV that will likely require SEAs to update the application template LEAs use to apply for funds
For example:
Clarified programming options for Title I schools
Modifications to ranking and serving for secondary schools
Changed use of funds options for Title II
New Title IV, Part A program
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

6. Application Redesign (cont.)
This is a chance to step back and think about the application afresh with the input of LEAs who use the application
Important considerations
Consolidated application authority
Promoting programs aligned to goals and needs
Linking program decisions to budgets
Compliance needs
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

7. Consolidated Application Authority
8305(d) of ESSA:
The State educational agency shall require only descriptions, information, assurances, and other material that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the local educational agency plan or application
ED Guidance from IASA (archived):
SEAs are free to determine the content of consolidated local applications The flexibility that SEAs have to design the content of consolidated local applications means that they are not required to include specific application requirements set forth in individual program statutes.
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

8. Common Application Challenges
Level of detail to consider in budget review
Format constraints that limit program options
Extended approval process
Internal control needs (front-end compliance check versus back-end monitoring)
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

9. Consolidated Application Opportunities
Rethink format
Holistic planning first: identify needs and goals, identify strategies, identify activities
Then budget: assign funding source to each activity
Then address grant-specific issues as needed in separate sections
Align application to the way LEAs plan services
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

10. Consolidated Application Opportunities (cont.)
Address hidden barriers
For example, drop down menus that limit spending options
No specific space to exercise allowable flexibilities
Develop formal review protocols
Consider review standards that match state philosophy (how will staff apply necessary/reasonable standard, what level of budget justification will be required)
Capitalize on subject matter expertise across the SEA
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

11. Activity Focused Guidance
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

12. Activity Focused Guidance for Program Coordination
LEAs get most of their information about federal grants from their SEAs
Most SEA guidance focuses on the technical details of one program at a time, with little information about spending options
Activity-focused guidance can support LEAs in identifying:
Effective practices
The personnel, goods and services they will need to implement the practices
The funding available to support the costs
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

13. Example: Job-Embedded Professional Development
ED Grant
Possible Uses of Funds
Title I, Part A
Additional planning time for teachers
Instructional coaches
Data experts/data teams
Mentoring/peer supports
Title II, Part A
Evaluation and support systems
Wide range of job-embedded professional development activities
Induction/professional development programs for new teachers
Mentor teacher/teacher leader programs
IDEA, Part B
Professional development for teachers of students with disabilities (can include special educators and general educators that serve students with disabilities).
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

14. Federal Focus on Collaboration
The U.S. Department of Education encourages inter-program collaboration as a way to maximize federal resources
This is part of a larger federal trend to support performance and coordinated approaches to spending
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

15. Coordinated Spending is Permitted by Federal Law
The U.S. Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) authorize coordinated spending so long as the recipient:
Follows federal spending rules
Tracks how federal funds are spent
(34 CFR § )
Coordinated spending is not the consolidation of funds, but a way to use multiple funding sources to support a project
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

16. ED Guidance on Coordinated Spending
Examples of Leveraging ESEA, IDEA, and Perkins Funds for STEM Education for School Year 2016–2017
Examples of Leveraging ESEA, IDEA, and Perkins Funds for Humanities Education for School Year 2016–2017
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

17. ED Guidance (cont.)
Examples of Leveraging ESEA and IDEA Funds for Digital Teaching and Learning:
Federal Programs and Support for School Counselors:
Maximizing Flexibility in the Administration of Federal Grants:
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

18. State Examples
Tennessee Guidance on Response to Intervention
Louisiana Planning Guide
Mississippi Guidance on IDEA for Early Literacy
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

19. Supplement not Supplant and Per-Pupil Expenditure Reports
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

20. Importance of Collaboration
Both requirements look at state/local spending in individual schools
Compliance will depend on how LEAs account for spending
SEA compliance protocols should take into account LEA practices, LEA capacity, FMS capacity, accounting rules, etc.
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

21. Supplement not Supplant Background
ESSA retained SNS requirement, but changed how compliance is tested
ED has proposed regulations that would require LEAs to show they distribute “almost all” available funds to schools in one of four ways:
Weighted per-pupil based on educational disadvantage
Resource formula that ensures Title I schools get at least as much spent districtwide
State developed methodology
Equal (or greater) per-pupil spending in Title I schools
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

22. Many Unanswered Questions For example:
What does it mean to distribute “almost all” available funds?
What about restricted revenue?
What about spending for central services like transportation, maintenance and repair, pensions and other retirement costs, capital spending, curriculum development, etc.?
What about spending that might affect school-to-school comparisons?
Special education
Costs to comply with desegregation/other court orders
Magnet programs
Choice programs
Spending carried out over a number of years (tech purchases, capital plans, maintenance projects, etc.)
Spending done on “as needed basis (repairs, etc.)
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

23. Unanswered Questions (cont.)
What are the penalties for non-compliance?
Which year’s spending is evaluated?
What do key terms mean, like “significant proportion” to qualify for an exemption?
And many more . . .
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

24. Per-Pupil Expenditure Reporting
Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) requires reporting on:
The per-pupil expenditures of federal, state and local funds, including actual personnel expenditures and actual non-personnel expenditures of federal, state, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds, for each local educational agency and each school in the state for the preceding fiscal year
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

25. Defining Per-Pupil Regulations *Proposed 34 CFR 200.35
States must develop “a single statewide procedure to calculate LEA current expenditures per pupil and a single statewide procedure to calculate school-level current expenditures per pupil”
Includes expenditures for administration, instruction, instructional support, student support services, pupil transportation services, operation and maintenance of plant, fixed charges, and preschool, and net expenditures to cover deficits for food services and student body activities, and
Excludes expenditures for community services, capital outlay, and debt service
State and local report cards must include the amount of spending that was not allocated to schools
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

26. Per-Pupil Expenditures (cont.)
Many of the same SNS questions apply, including:
How much of central costs should be allocated to schools
How should central-costs be allocated to schools
How will the state’s procedures for PPE reporting influence SNS (particular the “special rule”, which is tied to the PPE report but with its own exceptions)
How, if at all, will state and local report cards/communication strategies address PPE differences that are driven by:
Variable programming
Specialized schools
Maintenance needs, etc.
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved

27. Disclaimer
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 Federal Education Group, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
© 2016 • All Rights Reserved