1. Schoolwide Funding Consolidation Panel Panelists: Nancy Konitzer, Arizona Department of Education, Rebecca Vogler, Cincinnati Public Schools and Jose Figueroa, Baboquivari Unified School District Moderated By: Tiffany R. Winters, Esq. and Leigh Manasevit, Esq. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC www.bruman.com Spring Forum 2015

2. Three Types of SW Schools 1.SW with no consolidation 2.SW that consolidates only federal funds 3.SW that consolidate federal, state, and local funds Sometimes referred to as “SW3” 2 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

3. All Schoolwide Programs: Basic Requirements Consolidate programs to upgrade the entire educational program of the school Ensure all children meet standards, particularly those most at risk Requirements: – 40% poverty – Schoolwide plan Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 3

4. All formula (non-competitive) BUT some caveats - Includes IDEA - up to cap (but not exempt from programmatic requirements) Migrant; Indian Ed restrictions re consultation All discretionary (competitive) Still must comply with application ED only (no School Lunch, Head Start) Important: Must Identify in SW PLAN: the programs that are “consolidated” and the amounts consolidated from each! 4 What federal program funds can be consolidated? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

5. For Formula Grants Meet “Intents and Purposes” A school that consolidates federal funds is not required to meet most of the statutory and regulatory requirements of the specific federal programs applicable at the school level. – Not required to ID particular children or provide supplemental services 5 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

6. For Discretionary Grants Must still carry out all activities described in application But do not need to account separate for specific expenditures of the discretionary grant funds 6 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

7. What does it mean to consolidate funds? Treat funds like a “single pool of funds” Lose individual program identity School has one flexible pool of funds – LEA does not literally need to combine funds in a single account or pool with its own accounting code – “Pool” is used conceptually “Use to support any activity of the schoolwide program without regard to which program contributed the specific funds used for a particular activity” 7 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

8. Can the State prevent consolidation? NO. Each SEA must “encourage schools to consolidate funds from Federal, State, and local sources in their schoolwide programs”, and “Each State plan shall contain assurance that - the SEA will modify or eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other Federal, State, and local sources for schoolwide programs” ESEA 1111(c)(9) and (10) 8 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

9. TYPES OF SW PROGRAMS AND LEVELS OF CONSOLIDATION 1.No Consolidation 2.Consolidate only federal funds 3.Consolidate federal, state and local funds Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 9

10. Standard Title I Schoolwide School - No Consolidation All students are eligible Title I Students Title I funds must be spent on the “educational needs” of school – Identified in needs assessment – Articulated in SW Plan Must account for and track the Title I funds separately, identifying the activities the Part A funds support EDGAR and allowability rules apply 10 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

11. Schoolwide School With Federal Funds Only Consolidation All students are eligible Title I Students Title I funds must be spent on the “educational needs” of school (same as standard Title I school) Single Federal consolidated pool “From an accounting perspective, the funds from the contributing Federal programs lose their individual identity when they become part of a consolidated schoolwide pool and would be accounted for as part of that pool rather than by the individual programs that contribute to the consolidated schoolwide pool.” 11 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

12. Schoolwide School With Consolidation of Federal, State and Local Funds “When Title I, Part A funds are consolidated with State and local funds... they lose their identity.” No distinction between federal and non-federal EDGAR does not apply 12 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

13. THE MECHANICS OF CONSOLIDATION 13 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

14. The Mechanics of Consolidation EXAMPLE 1:Across all SW schools in LEA Consolidated schoolwide pool with its own accounting code The expenditures attributed to that code are charged on a proportional basis – If Title I contributed 8%, then 8% of SWP expenses charged to Title I 14 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

15. The Mechanics of Consolidation (cont.) EXAMPLE 2: Single school model No single accounting code for SWP For accounting purposes, LEA attributes expenditures back to specific program REGARDLESS of what services those funds support Two options for distributing expenditures: – proportion of revenues or sequence charging Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 15

16. Recordkeeping in SWP School operating SWP that consolidates funds is not required to maintain separate fiscal accounting records, by Federal program, that ID the specific activities supported by each program’s funds. – May have to track to functional categories like salaries, travel, supplies, etc. BUT – The LEA would not be required to track how much it spends on activities (for example, salaries) back to a specific program included in the consolidated SW pool. 16 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

17. Reporting with SW Consolidation Proportional Basis (or “any other reasonable method”) Use for identifying: – Carryover – Amount unused non-federal funding – MOE – Comparability – Reporting expenditures back to State or USDE – State Per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE) 17 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

18. Supplement Not Supplant in all SW Schools ESEA 1114(a)(2)(B): Title I must supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Title I, be made available from non-federal sources – The actual service need not be supplemental 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 18 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

19. Time and Effort Required with Consolidation? If LEA/school consolidates...Then must keep... Federal, state, and local fundsNo time and effort records Federal onlyTime and effort required Nothing (only Title I funds SWP)Time and effort required Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 19

20. PANELISTS Nancy Konitzer, Arizona Department of Ed; Rebecca Vogler, Cincinnati Public Schools; and Jose Figueroa, Baboquivari Unified School District Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 20

21. Schoolwide Legal Resources Statute: ESEA Section 1114 Regulations: 34 CFR 200.25-200.29 Non-Regulatory Guidance – Designing Schoolwide Programs Guidance: March 2006 www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ designingswpguid.doc www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ designingswpguid.doc – “Title I Fiscal Issues,” February 2008 (replacing May 2006) http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability, Grantbacks, Carryover 21 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

22. QUESTIONS? Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 22

23. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 23 This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client- lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.