Update on Federal Policy and Oversight

1
Update on Federal Policy and Oversight

• Kristen Tosh Cowan, Esq.
• Brustein Manasevit
• www.bruman.com

2
Office of Inspector General

• Keeping everyone busy. . .

3
Recent audits

• Columbus OH 2.3 million
• Time and effort records in schoolwide

4
Recent audits

• San Diego CA - 1.9 million
• Charging early retirement to federal funds
  without prior approval from USDE

5
Recent audits

• Elizabeth NJ
• Unsupported salary and non-salary expenses -
  822,796
• Unallowable costs - 618,392
• Supplanting - 505,737
• Insufficient internal controls

6
Recent audits

• Comparability
• Ohio
• Arizona
• Illinois
• Chicago at least 16.8 million

7
Pending audits

• Urban district DRAFT audit report
• Lack of time and effort records 39.1 million
•  

8
Oversight Who might come knocking?

• USDE Program Offices
• USDE Office of Inspector General
• Pennsylvania Department of Education
• Single Auditors

9
Oversight and Liability

• State Administered Programs
• Federal states
• States districts

10
Emerging Compliance Issues

• Schoolwide Fiscal
• Supplanting Maintenance of Effort
• Response to Intervention (RTI)

11
Title I Fiscal GuidanceConsolidating Funds in
Schoolwide Programs
12
Schoolwide Programs Basic Requirements

• Consolidate federal, state, and local funds to
  upgrade the entire educational program
• Ensure all children meet standards, particularly
  those most at risk

13
Prerequisites

• 40 poverty
• Schoolwide plan

14
What does it mean to consolidate funds?

• Treat like single pool of funds
• Lose individual program identity
• Use without regard to which program contributed
  the specific funds used for a particular activity

15
Literal Consolidation? NO!

• LEA does not literally need to combine funds in a
  single account or pool with its own accounting
  code
• Pool is used conceptually

16

• IMPORTANT
• Identify in SWP PLAN
• What programs are consolidated
• The amounts consolidated from each

17
Three funding scenarios

• 1 Consolidate federal, state, and local
• 2 Consolidate only federal
• 3 Consolidate nothing

18
Scenario 1 Consolidating Federal, State, and
Local Funds
19
What if the LEA consolidates federal, state, and
local?

• When Title I Part A funds are consolidated with
  State and local funds. . . . they lose their
  identity.
• No distinction between federal and non-federal

20
Scenario 2 Consolidating Only Federal Funds
21
Can the LEA consolidate only federal in a SWP?

• Yes Single federal consolidated pool.
• Lose individual program identity
• Accounted for as part of pool
• Not by the individual programs that contributed
  to the consolidated schoolwide pool

22
On what activities can consolidated Federal funds
be used?

• Activities to address the educational needs
  of the school
• Needs assessment
• SW Plan

23
Scenario 3What if there is NO consolidation at
all? How must Title I be used?
24
If no fiscal consolidation, then how must the LEA
use Title I funds?

• On the educational needs of school
• Identified in needs assessment
• Articulated in SW Plan

25

• All kids may participate
• Need not be supplemental
• Must account for and track the Title I funds
  separately, identifying the activities the Part A
  funds support

26
What is educational need?

• Best guess
• Instruction yes.
• Instructional support probably yes
• Administration possibly yes
• Operational no.

27
Supplement not Supplant

• 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

28
SNS NEW!!

• School must receive all the state and local funds
  it would otherwise need to operate in the absence
  of Federal funds
• Routine operating expenses such as building
  maintenance and repairs, landscaping and
  custodial services

29
TOUGH Budget TIMES AHEAD

• Supplement not Supplant
• Maintenance of Effort

30
Maintenance of Effort
31
MOE The NCLB Rule

• LEA may receive funds only if combined fiscal
  effort per student or the aggregate expenditures
  of the LEA from state and local funds from
  preceding year not less than 90 for second
  preceding year.

32
MOE Failure

• Reduce NCLB allocation in the exact proportion by
  which LEA fails to maintain effort below 90.

33
(No Transcript)
34
MOE Waiver

• USDE Secretary may waive if
• Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances
• OR
• Precipitous decline in financial resources of
  the LEA

35
Supplement Not Supplant
36
Supplement not Supplant

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

37

• What would have happened in the absence of the
  federal funds?

38
Presume supplanting has occurred if federal funds
provided services that

• 1. Were required to be made available under
  other federal, state, or local laws.

39
Presume supplanting has occurred if federal funds
provided services that

• 2. Provided with non-federal funds in prior
  year.

40
Presumption Rebutted!

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

41
What documentation needed?

• Confirm that, without federal funds, LEA would
  have eliminated staff or other services in
  question
• State or local legislative action
• Budget histories and information

42
Response to Intervention

• Sorting through the confusion

43
RTI What Is It?

• Early intervention to provide appropriate
  instruction
• Decision making based on the response to the
  intervention
• Tiered model

44
RTI What Does It Do?

• Predicts At Risk students
• Provides early and individualized research based
  interventions
• May avoid over identification as disabled

45
RTI Tiers
Specialized Intervention
Tier 3
At Risk, LD SLD More Intense Support
Tier 2
General Education -predicts At Risk Students
Tier 1
46
Can FEDERAL Funds be used for RTI?
47
Can RTI be part of a FEDERAL PROGRAM?
48
Federal Programs Where RTI Might Fit

• IDEA
• NCLB Title I, Part A

49
Targeted Assistance

• Is it focused on identified Title I students?
• At risk of failing to meet state standards
• Based on multiple, objective, educationally
  related criteria

50

• Is it providing a supplemental service to those
  identified students?

51
Schoolwide Program

• Is RTI in Schoolwide Plan?
• Can it address needs identified through needs
  assessment?

52
Remember

• Meet all Title I requirements
• No independent authority to consolidate or
  combine funding streams
• No waiver

53
New Flexibility Announced

• Differentiated Accountability
• Pilot Program

54
Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program

• Creating a more nuanced system of interventions
• Distinguishing schools on fire vs. smoldering
• Get information to prepare for NCLB
  reauthorization

55
What states are eligible?

• Standards and assessments fully approved
• No significant monitoring findings
• Approved HQT Plan

56
What states are eligible?

• Timely and transparent AYP info to public
• Priority States with high percentage of Title I
  schools ID for improvement

57

• Apply by May 2, 2008
• Peer Review
• Up to 10 states selected
• Implement for 08-09 year, based on 07-08 AYP
  results

58
Brustein Manasevit presents

• Fall Forum
• Managing Federal Education Grants
• Clark County, NV
• December 4-5, 2008
• www.bruman.com

59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
Thank You!

• And Good Luck!