1. Maintenance of Effort, Comparability, and Supplement/Supplant PAFPC May 1-4 2016 Ken Krawchuk kkrawchuk@pa.gov

2.  www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc This guidance covers these areas:  Maintenance of Effort (MOE)  Comparability  Supplement not Supplant  Carryover  Grantbacks

3. Legal Authority: NCLB: Section 9521

4.  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.  New - Waived if not failed in the last 5 years – ESSA. Effective 2017-18.

5.  Need to compare final financial data ◦ PDE Uses Annual Financial Report (AFR)  Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY  EX: To receive FY2015 funds (available July 2015), compare FY2014 (2014-15) to FY2013 (2013-14)

6.  “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

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

8.  This letter is to inform you that the Division of Federal Programs has determined that SD has maintained fiscal effort when comparing the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) references a federal regulation requiring grant recipients to maintain a certain level of state/local fiscal effort in order to be eligible for full participation in federal grant funding. This is important, because if an LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort (measured by aggregate expenditure or per pupil expenditure), the Pennsylvania Department of Education is required to reduce its allocations under Title I, Part A, as well as other federal programs for the appropriate year.  According to your Annual Financial Report, aggregate expenditures from state and local sources were 4.88%. For the same comparison period, per pupil spending from state and local sources were 1.86% during the most recent comparison year (2013-14). One or both of these percentages was within the allowable reduction rate of 10%. Because of this, no action is required, and your LEA is eligible for full participation in federal grant funding for school year 2015-16.

9.  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

11.  SEA uses 90% of the prior year amount rather than the actual expenditure amount

12. Aggregate expenditures Amount per student SY 141,000,0006,100 SY15 – must spend 90% 900,0005,490 15 – Actual amount 850,0005,200 Shortfall-50,000-290 Percent shortfall/ reduction-5.6%-5.3%**

13.  USDE Secretary may waive if: ◦ Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as natural disaster ◦ Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA ◦ New - or a change in the organizational structure of the local educational agency - ESSA

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

15.  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.”  New – demonstrated only by staff/pupil ratios. ESSA. Effective 2016-17.

16. Compare:  Average of all non-Title I schools to  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

17. 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

18. grade-span by grade-span or school by school (district-wide basis)

20.  New – No per-pupil examination in ESSA, this method is gone for 2016-17. Student – to – staff calculation is the only method.  Disaggregated state, local, and federal per pupil expenditures will have to be reported, though. New ESSA requirement. The vehicle for doing this has not yet been determined.

21.  Guidance: Must be annual determination  Review for current year and make adjustments for current year.  Use October staff and enrollment numbers.  Assurances are due November 15.  Meeting deadlines now a factor in Risk Assessments under Uniform Grants Guidance.

22.  Federal Funds  Private Funds  Need not include unpredictable changes in student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after October.

23.  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

24.  Bus Monitors  Consultants  Crossing Guards  Maintenance Staff  Security Staff  Federally paid Staff

25.  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.

26.  Go to pa.NCLBComparability.com  User accounts created this year will work next year. Only new users will need to request access. If a user forgot their password they will be able to use the forgot password logic.  Charter schools are exempt but must still submit the Comparability Assurances Worksheet. If you are exempt from demonstrating comparability, you will go straight to the Assurances Worksheet and be certain to attain the required signatures at the bottom.

28.  “Supplement not Supplant” is the basis for the use of all federal funds administered via the Division of Federal Programs.  “In general, an LEA and its schools may use Title I, Part A funds only to supplement, and in no case supplant, the funds that would, in the absence of the Title I, Part A funds, be available from non-Federal sources for the education of students participating in Title I programs.”  There are two kinds of supplanting violations, programmatic and fiscal.

29.  Targeted Assisted – program level supplanting. “Reasonable and necessary.” Very situationally dependent.  “Required by Law, Prior year, and non-Title I students receiving same services with non- Federal funds” tests.

30.  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. Meeting comparability is a strong initial indicator of not supplanting in SW. ◦ Includes routine operating expenses such as building maintenance and repairs, landscaping and custodial services

31.  The Title I statute takes a different approach in schoolwides in an effort to drive comprehensive reforms and approaches in high-poverty schools Instead of making sure Title I delivers “extra” programs and services… We look at the amount of state and local money a schoolwide school receives to make sure it has all the money it would get if it did not also receive federal funds  The goal is to make sure Title I schools, in the aggregate, get extra money – they then have flexibility in how they spend their money

32. Depending on its needs, a schoolwide programs school could spend Title I to: Implement a stronger curriculum Implement an early warning system Extend the school day or school year Reorganize class schedules to increase teacher planning time Revamp the school’s discipline process Hire additional teachers Reorganized classes to promote personalized learning Implement career academies Implement school safety programs Attendance, school climate, and anti-bullying efforts.

33.  Title I funds are supposed to supplement state and local efforts  Three presumptions of supplanting: ◦ Mandated by state/local law ◦ Paid for with state/local funds in prior year ◦ Same services paid for with the Title I for Title I students and state/local funds for non-Title I students Historically, compliance has been reviewed programmatically, by defining the programs and services school districts will deliver with the state and local funds Under the approach, Title I funds are typically limited to separate add-on services

34. Example 1: A school district conducts a technology audit, which shows Title I schools have computer labs, but non-Title 1 schools do not The district reduces state/local allocations to Title I schools in order to redirect state/local money to non-Title I schools so they can by computer labs

35. Result The school district violates the supplemental funds test because Title I schools are deprived of state and local funds because they receive Title 1

36. Example 2: A school district meets the supplemental funds test State and local resources have declined, forcing school leaders to make tough decisions about what to keep and what to cut Most schools decide not to cut teaching positions Title I schools use Title I funds to retain teacher FTEs, while non-Title I schools do so with state/local funds

37. Result ◦ This scenario does not violate the supplemental funds test (but is likely to get scrutinized) ◦ The supplemental funds test looks at the overall level of resources going into a school, and not for supplementary services ◦ Here, the Title 1 Schools have extra resources non-Title I schools do not have  The non-Title1 schools had to cut other costs in order to retain the teacher FTEs with state and local funds, cuts Title 1 schools did not have to make. Title 1 Schools should be getting something extra with the extra dollars they have flowing into the school

38.  All costs charged to Title 1 in a schoolwide program must be: ◦ Consistent with the school’s needs ◦ Reasonably designed to improve student outcomes ◦ Necessary and reasonable ◦ Meets intent and purposes ◦ Educationally related

39.  Title I should be used to close achievement gaps, not budget gaps.  Total amount of federal funds are supplemental  Does the district have a federally neutral funding formula for school allocations?  Were building allocations reduced? If so, how and which ones.  If Comparability was required, how close did they make it by?  Do expenditures match SW plans and do they meet an educational need.  Finally, examine previous year actual per-pupil expenditures

40. ◦ Instruction – yes ◦ Instructional support – probably yes ◦ Administration – possibly yes ◦ Operational – no ◦ Most often needs to be taken case by case.

41.  Negotiated Rulemaking  Section 1118(b) includes a special rule stating that “[n]o [district] shall be required to – (A) identify that an individual cost or service supported under this part is supplemental,” which effectively prohibits a key test previously used to ensure compliance in many Title I schools.

42.  Also, the law replaces the two supplement- not-supplant tests (one for targeted assistance schools and one for schoolwide program schools) with a single compliance test that focuses on a district’s methodology for allocating State and local funds.

43.  Proposal requires that a district “demonstrate that the methodology used to allocate State and local funds to each [Title I school] ensures that such school receives all of the State and local funds it would otherwise receive if it were not receiving assistance under [Title I].”  The methodology must result in each Title I school spending an amount of State and local funds that is equal to or greater (per pupil) than the average spent in non-Title I schools in the district.

44.  The SWP is VERY important!  Targeted versus SWP which is better?