1. 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 carl.evans@ode.state.oh.us Ed Peltz, Ohio Department of Education edward.peltz@ode.state.oh.us Elena Sanders, Ohio Dep’t. of Education elena.sanders@ode.state.oh.us

2. 2 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, Not Supplant – Student or Program Level https://ccip.ode.state.oh.us/ccip/documentview.asp?docid=502 Maintenance of Effort (MOE) – LEA Level https://ccip.ode.state.oh.us/ccip/documentview.asp?docid=516 Comparability of Services - School Level https://ccip.ode.state.oh.us/ccip/doclib/doclib_group.asp?DocGroupI D=1628

3. 3 Supplement, Not Supplant An LEA must: Use Part A funds to supplement, not supplant regular non-federal funds.

4. 4 Supplement, Not Supplant The LEA must be able to: Demonstrate a loss of state and local funds from the prior year. Show an increase in standard operating costs. Demonstrate that state/local funds have not been redirected to a new activity.

5. 5 Supplement, Not Supplant The LEA must be able to: Document that the board of education was on record to eliminate the activity under question unless a new source of funds was made available (in the absence of state and local funds). Document that the activities are consistent with the purposes of the federal program.

6. 6 Maintenance of Effort (MOE) 1120A(a) and 9521 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 34 CFR 299.5

7. 7 MOE (continued) Section 9521 provides that an LEA may receive funds under a covered program for any fiscal year only if the SEA finds that either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures from state and local funds for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.

8. 8 In addition to Title I, Part A, MOE requirements of section 9521 apply to the following ESEA programs: Title I, Part B, Subpart 3, Even Start Title I, Part D, Neglected, Delinquent Title I, Part F, Comprehensive School Reform Title II, Part A, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Title II, Part D, Educational Technology State Grants Title III, Part A, English Acquisition State Grants Title IV, Part A, Safe & Drug-Free Schools/Communities Title IV, Part B, 21 st Century Learning Centers Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2, Rural Education MOE (continued)

9. 9 Failure to Meet the Requirement The SEA shall reduce the amount of the allocation of funds under a covered program in any fiscal year in the exact proportion by which an LEA fails to maintain effort by falling below 90 percent of both the combined fiscal effort per student and aggregate expenditures (using the measure most favorable to the LEA).

10. 10 Failure to Meet Requirement (continued) For a year in which effort was not maintained, the lesser amount shall not be used for computing maintenance of effort in subsequent years.

11. 11 Waiver The Secretary may waive the maintenance of effort requirements if it is determined that such a waiver would be equitable due to  Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster; or  A precipitous decline in the financial resources of the LEA.

12. 12 Expenditures In determining whether an LEA has maintained fiscal effort, the SEA must consider the LEA’s expenditures from state and local funds.

13. 13 Expenditures include: Administration Instruction Attendance and health services Pupil transportation services Operation and maintenance of plant Fixed charges Net expenditures to cover deficits for food services and student body activities

14. 14 Expenditures exclude: Community services Capital outlay Debt service Expenditures made from funds provided by the federal government for which the LEA is required to account to the federal government directly or through the SEA Supplemental expenses made as a result of a Presidentially declared disaster

15. 15 Comparability 1120A(c) and (d) of ESEA 34 CFR 200.79

16. 16 Comparability General Requirements 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 schools in an LEA are Title I schools, an LEA must use state and local funds to provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each school. Because Title I allocations are made annually, comparability is an annual requirement.

17. 17 Comparability General Considerations Comparability: … is about fairness, equitable services. … is a precondition for receiving funds. … only looks at state and local resources - not federal or private resources. … compares each Title I school to the average of non-Title I schools (slides 31-34). … compares each Title I school to the average of the Title I schools with the lowest low income percentage if all the schools are Title I schools (slides 35-37), or

18. 18 Comparability General Considerations Comparability … determines if each Title I school falls within a range that is between 90 and 110 percent of the average for all Title I schools (slide 41). … 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.

19. 19 LEA written assurance to SEA of establishing and implementing: District-wide salary schedule Policy to ensure equivalence in instructional staff Policy to ensure equivalence in curriculum materials and instructional supplies Compliance Requirements

20. 20 üDevelop and implement procedures for compliance annually. Sample template: (http:ccip.ode.state.oh.us/ccip/documentview.asp?docid=979) üProcedures: Must be in writing. Include LEA’s timeline for demonstrating comparability. Identify the office responsible for making comparability calculations. Documenting Compliance

21. 21 Documenting Compliance (continued) üProcedures: Identify the measure and process used to determine whether schools are comparable. Determine how and when the LEA makes adjustments in schools that are not comparable.

22. 22 While the LEA is required only to submit and document compliance with the comparability requirement biennially (once every two years) to the Ohio Department of Education, it must perform the necessary calculations every year to demonstrate that all of its Title I schools are, in fact, comparable and make adjustments if any are not. Documenting Compliance (continued)

23. 23 Electronic Report Form Electronic forms and directions are located in the CCIP Doc Library under Financial (https://ccip.ode.state.oh.us/ccip/doclib/doclib_g roup.asp?DocGroupID=1628), or e-mail edward.peltz@ode.state.oh.us or elena.sanders@ode.state.oh.us. Mac or Windows users: Need Acrobat Reader and Excel

24. 24 Documenting Compliance (continued) SY 2007-2008 Comparability Report: Due on or before December 1, 2007 Name Excel file with district name and IRN (e.g., Jefferson044444Rep1of1) E-mail electronic form as an attachment to vivian.clayborne@ode.state.oh.us

25. 25 Keep a saved copy of completed report for audit purposes. Maintain records and source documentation e.g., low income data, payroll records, EMIS records, etc. An early determination of comparability would allow an LEA to make adjustments with the least amount of disruption. Documenting Compliance (continued)

26. 26 Documenting Compliance (continued) The LEA may exclude schools with 100 or fewer students. The comparability requirement does not apply if the school district has only one building in each grade span, e.g., K-5, 6-8, 9-12. If grade spans overlap, however, the comparability requirement may apply.

27. 27 Documenting Compliance (continued) When grade levels overlap within a particular grade span, the school district looks at where the majority of grade levels fall within the span to determine whether the school should be elementary, middle or high school grade spans.

28. 28 Documenting Compliance (continued) If grade spans overlap by at least two grade levels, the comparability requirement applies unless there are three or more grade levels outside of the overlap.

29. 29 Documenting Compliance (continued) SW-EXIST - Title I Schoolwide Existing, TA - Title I Targeted, SW-NEW - Title I Schoolwide NEW, NONE - Non-Served Example 1Example 2Example 3Example 4 K-1 SW-EXIST K-4 TA K-4 NONE K-4 SW-EXIST 1-3 SW-EXIST 2-4 TA K-4 SW-EXIST K-5 SW-EXIST 3-4 SW-EXIST K-2 TA K-4 SW-NEW 5-8 SW-EXIST 5-8 NONE 5 3-8 TA 6-8 NONE 6-8 NONE No 2 grade level overlap 2 or more grade levels overlap 2 or more grades overlap & 3 or more outside All one-of-a-kind, No comparison necessary Grade Span Group: K-4, 2-4, K-2 3-8 one-of-a- kind; Compare K-4 schools 2 groups: K-4 & K-5; 5-8 & 6-8

30. 30 District-wide as a whole Grade span grouping (match basic organization) Large-school and small-school groupings (two times enrollment of smallest in the grade span) Comparability Flexibility

31. 31 Served school(s) compared to average of non- served school(s) in each grouping One-of-a-kind served school per grade span – no comparison necessary Eight or more grades above kindergarten may be grouped as a separate grade span – for example – K-8, K-9 or 5-12. Comparison School Groupings: Served and Non-Served Schools, One-of-a-kind, K-8 (Forms 1, 2, 3, 4)

32. Exhibit A: Same Grade Span - served and non-served building data compared Columns A, B, and C data should match the FY2008 CCIP Title I Building Eligibility Application page. Column B normally reflects the previous year’s low income data since the application is completed during the summer and this is Ok. (If the names of the schools and/or grade spans do not match, you may first need to update OEDS and contact your consultant to alert them to update the CCIP before completing the comparability report so your source documentation and records match.) Columns D, E, and F must reflect current year (SY2007- 2008) data, which is usually different than the building application page enrollment information. Do not include Pre-K teachers or Pre-K students. Rank Order- Highest to Lowest Percent Tabs One-of-a-kind

33. Exhibit A: Same Grade Span - served and non-served building data compared Beginning with Line 1, Col. B1, list Comparison Schools in descending order based on low income pct. Calculations are automatically carried to LEA Report page. X

34. Exhibit A: Same Grade Span - served and non-served building data compared “NC” if not comparable Per Pupil Expendi- ture. Each bldg. must be equal to or greater than H18. Student/Instr. Staff Ratio. Each bldg. must be equal to or less than G17. Tolerance Amount (G)NC (H)NC

35. 35 Served school(s) with highest or higher percentage of low-income students compared to the served school with the lowest percentage of low-income students in each grouping Served school(s) with the higher percentage of low-income students compared to the average of up to half of those served schools with the lowest percentage of low-income students in each grouping Comparison School Groupings: All Title I Served Schools

36. Four schools served. May use lowest poverty building pct. or up to half (2) of lower poverty buildings as comparison school(s). Exhibit B: Same Grade Span - All Served

37. Used the two served schools with the lowest pct. of low income students to be in compliance

38. Exhibit C: Larger/Smaller Option Four served schools, grades 1-5, divided into larger/smaller groups: Larger Comparison Group: Jefferson-525 pupils (20% low-income) Marshall-450 pupils (25% low-income) Smaller Comparison Group: King -274 pupils (27% low-income) Washington-220 pupils (36.5% low-income)

39. Jefferson is the comparison school because it has the lowest income pct. On the smaller school report, King would be the comparison school to Washington because it has the lower income pct. Exhibit C: Larger/Smaller Option

40. 40 Exhibit D: Form 3-Alternate Method C Per Pupil Instructional Staff Expenditure

41. 41 If all the schools in the grade span are Title I served schools, forms 5, 6, or 7 can be used to demonstrate comparability by determining whether the student/instructional staff ratio, per pupil expenditure, or per pupil instructional staff expenditure, for each school, falls within a range that is between 90 and 110 percent of the average for all Title I served schools in the grade span. Yes means comparable; No means not comparable Exhibit E-All Schools Served 90% 110%

42. 42 Curriculum Materials/ Instructional Supplies These are state and local funds budgeted for curriculum materials and instructional supplies. These accounts are located between functions 1000 through 1900 in the Uniform School Accounting System ( USAS ) budget document.

43. 43 Sample Definition of Instructional Staff If the LEA chooses to measure compliance by comparing staff ratios or staff salary ratios, it must consistently include the same staff members in the ratios for both Title I and non-Title I schools. Instructional staff may include teachers and other personnel assigned to schools who provide direct instructional services such as music, art, and physical education teachers, guidance counselors, speech therapists, and librarians, as well as other personnel who provide services that support instruction such as school social workers and psychologists.

44. 44 Paraprofessionals Whether paraprofessionals are included depends on procedures developed by the SEA or LEA, as appropriate. Consistent with Title I requirements, the paraprofessional may provide instructional support only under the direct supervision of a teacher.

45. 45 Paraprofessionals (continued) Carefully consider whether a paraprofessional supported with state and local funds should be considered equivalent to a teacher or other instructional staff member in comparability determinations. Exclude aides not involved in providing instructional support in the comparability determinations.

46. 46 Exclusion of Federal Funds Any staff paid with federal funds or funds that are not state or local funds (e.g., funds from foundations) must be excluded from instructional staff calculations. The LEA may include only staff paid with state and local funds.

47. 47 Preschool Staff/Enrollment Generally, preschool is not considered a grade span for comparability purposes unless the state considers preschool to be part of the elementary and secondary school system.

48. 48 Special Education Special education students and staff do not have to be counted if the comparability results are being skewed. For example, all special education students may be located in one or two buildings. If the district counts special education staff, they must count special education students. If the district does not count special education staff, they do not count the special education students.

49. 49 Schoolwide Program School If the LEA does not consolidate its federal funds and continues to track expenditures of those funds to particular activities, the LEA would calculate comparability for its schoolwide program schools the same as it would for its targeted assistance schools.

50. 50 Schoolwide Program School The LEA may determine the percentage that federal funds constitute of the total funds available in a schoolwide program school. The LEA would assume that the same percentage of instructional staff in the school was paid with federal funds and delete those staff from its comparability determinations.

51. 51 Schoolwide Program School The LEA may use a different measure for determining comparability in schoolwide program schools that is not dependent on identifying instructional staff paid with state and local funds. In each case, the non-Title I schools compared would be the same, but the method used for comparison purposes would be different.

52. 52 When calculating whether Title I schools are comparable, an LEA must treat an otherwise eligible Title I school that is skipped as if it were a Title I school when determining comparability. Skipping an Eligible School

53. 53 Note that an LEA would exclude any supplemental state and local funds expended in the school in its comparability calculations. Skipping an Eligible School

54. 54 All schools within an LEA must be included. Community schools geographically located within an LEA but are legally their own LEAs would not be included. An LEA may use a different method for determining comparability to account for differences between its charter schools and “regular” schools. Community Schools

55. 55 LEA may exclude state and local funds for language instruction educational programs (bilingual education for LEP children), and excess costs of providing services to children with disabilities, as determined by the LEA. Exclusion of Funds

56. 56 Supplemental state or local funds may be excluded in any school for programs that meet the intent of Title I Part A (Targeted or Schoolwide) or Title I Part C (Migrant Education). Exclusion of Funds

57. 57 Exclusions An LEA need not include unpredictable changes in student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after the beginning of a school year in determining comparability of services.

58. 58 Resources ODE Office of Federal Programs Phone: (614) 466-4161 ODE Web site: www.ode.state.oh.us NCLB Web site: www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ Title I Fiscal Guidance (May 2006) Web site: www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc CCIP Doc Library Web site: http://ccip.ode.state.oh.us