A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

1. Maintain State and local effort;

2. Provide services in project areas with State and local funds that are at least comparable to services provided in areas not receiving Part A services; and

3. Use Part A funds to supplement, not supplant regular non-Federal funds.

Maintenance of Effort

• An LEA may receive its full allocation of Part A funds for any fiscal year only if the SEA determines that the LEA has maintained its fiscal effort in accordance with section 14501 of the ESEA.

  Requirement

  Section 14501 provides that an LEA may receive funds under a covered program (Title I, Part A is a covered program) for any fiscal year only if the SEA finds that either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by the LEA 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.

  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).

  For a year in which effort was not maintained, the lesser amount shall not be used for computing maintenance of effort in subsequent years.

  Waiver

  The Secretary may waive the maintenance of effort requirements if he determines 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.

  Section 200.64 of the Title I regulations defines several terms applicable to calculating maintenance of effort.

  Expenditures to be included

  In determining whether an LEA has maintained fiscal effort, the SEA must consider the LEA's expenditures from State and local funds for free public education. Those expenditures include expenditures for 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.

  Expenditures to be excluded

  Expenditures for community services, capital outlay, and debt service are not to be included in the determination. In addition, 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 are excluded from the determination.

  "Preceding fiscal year"

  For purposes of determining maintenance of effort, the "preceding fiscal year" is the Federal fiscal year or the 12-month fiscal period most commonly used in a State for official reporting purposes prior to the beginning of the Federal fiscal year in which funds are available.

  [NOTE: The Department will be issuing regulations for Title XIV which includes the maintenance of effort requirements. Once published, the Title I maintenance of effort regulations will be repealed.]

For funds first made available on July 1, 1995, if a State is using the Federal fiscal year, the "preceding fiscal year" is Federal fiscal year 1994 (which began on October 1, 1993) and the "second preceding fiscal year" is Federal fiscal year 1993 (which began on October 1, 1992).

If a State is using a fiscal year that begins on July 1, 1995, the "preceding fiscal year" is the 12-month period ending on June 30, 1994, and the "second preceding fiscal year" is the period ending on June 30, 1993.

Funds First Available	Preceding Fiscal Year	Second Preceding Fiscal Year
July 1, 1996	1995 (1994-95)	1994 (1993-94)
July 1, 1997	1996 (1995-96)	1995 (1994-95)
July 1, 1998	1997 (1996-97)	1996 (1995-96)
July 1, 1999	1998 (1997-98)	1997 (1996-97)
July 1, 2000	1999 (1998-99)	1998 (1997-98)

Failure to maintain effort

If, during the preceding year, the LEA needed to spend $900,000 to meet the 90 percent level but only spent $85,000, the LEA failed to meet the 90 percent level by $50,000. Therefore, unless the Secretary grants a waiver, the SEA must reduce the LEA's allocation by 5.6 percent ($50,000 divided by $900,000 = 5.6%)

In determining maintenance of effort for the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which the LEA failed to maintain effort, the SEA must consider the LEA's expenditures in the year the failure occurred to be no less than 90 percent of the expenditures for the third preceding year.

EXAMPLE: (This example is based on an LEA with expenditures of $1,000,000 in FY 94, $850,000 in FY 95, $810,000 in FY 96, $800,000 in FY 1997, and $700,000 in FY 1998.)

	1	2	3	4
Program/Grant Year	Expenditures first preceding year	Expenditures second preceding year	Level required to meet the requirement (90% of column 2)	Reduction in LEA allocation
1996-97 (FY 97)	$850,000 (FY95)	$1,000,000 (FY 94)	$900,000	5.6% of LEA's allocation ($50,000/$900,000)
1997-98 (FY 98)	$810,000 (FY 96)	$900,000 90% of FY 94 i.e., 3rd preceding year-instead of FY 95	$810,000	No reduction to FY 98 grant
1998-99 (FY 99)	$800,000 (FY 97)	$810,000 (FY 96)	$729,000	No reduction to FY 99 grant
1999-2000 (FY 00)	$700,000 (FY 98)	$800,000 (FY 97)	$720,000	2.8% of LEA's FY 2000 allocation ($20,000/$720,000)

Comparability

• An LEA may receive Part A funds only if it uses State and local funds to provide services in Part A schools that are at least comparable to the services provided in schools that are not receiving Part A funds. If the LEA serves all of its schools with Part A funds, the LEA must use State and local funds to provide services that are substantially comparable in each Part A school.

An LEA may determine comparability on a districtwide basis or on a grade-span basis.

• Even if all schools in the LEA or in a grade span grouping are served, the LEA must demonstrate that it will use State and local funds to provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each school.

  For example, the LEA, in order to establish a comparison to determine that services are "substantially comparable," may calculate ratios for the group of schools serving program areas with the lowest percentage of children from low-income families. The ratio for each of the other program schools would then be compared with the average calculated for the comparison group of program schools.

• Although there is no limitation on the number of grade spans an LEA may use, the number should match the basic organization of schools in the LEA. For example, if the LEA's organization includes elementary, middle, and senior high schools, the LEA would have three grade spans.

• If there is a significant difference in the enrollments of schools within a grade span--for example, the largest school in the grade span has an enrollment that is two times the enrollment of the smallest school in the grade span--the LEA may divide grades spans into a large school group and a small school group.

• The comparability requirement does not apply to an LEA that does not have more than one building for each grade span. An LEA may also exclude schools with 100 or fewer students from its comparability determinations.

• An LEA shall be considered to have met the comparability requirement if the LEA files with the SEA a written assurance that it has established and implemented a--
  • Districtwide salary schedule;
    
  • Policy to ensure equivalence among schools in teachers, administrators, and other staff; and
    
  • Policy to ensure equivalence among schools in the provision of curriculum materials and instructional supplies;

  In the alternative, an LEA may meet the comparability requirement if it establishes and implements other measures for determining compliance such as student/instructional staff ratios or student/instructional staff salary ratios. For example, an LEA may--

  A) Compare the average number of students per instructional staff in each Part A school with the average number of students per instructional staff in schools not participating in Part A programs. A Part A school is comparable if its average does not exceed 110 percent of the average of schools not participating in Part A programs.

  B) Compare the average instructional staff salary expenditure per student in each program school with the average instructional staff salary expenditure per student in schools not participating under Part A. A Part A school is comparable if its average is at least 90 percent of the average of schools not participating in Part A programs.

  • Staff salary differentials for years of employment shall not be included in comparability determinations.

  • 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.

Records: If the LEA files a written assurance that it has established and implemented a districtwide salary schedule and policies to ensure equivalence among schools in staffing and in the provision of materials and supplies, it must keep records to document that the salary schedule and policies were implemented and that equivalence was achieved among schools in staffing, materials, and supplies. If the LEA established and implemented other measures for determining compliance with comparability such as student/instructional staff ratios, it must maintain source documentation to support the calculations and documentation to demonstrate that any needed adjustment to staff assignments were made.

Developing Procedures for Compliance

• An LEA must develop procedures for compliance with the comparability requirement and implement those procedures annually. An LEA is only required to document compliance with the comparability requirement biennially (every two years).

Determining Compliance

• When determining compliance for comparability, an LEA may exclude State and local funds expended for--
  • Bilingual education for LEP children; and

  • Excess costs of providing services to children with disabilities as determined by the LEA.

Note: Title I no longer permits any exclusion of supplemental State or local funds from the Title I comparability requirement.

Supplement, not supplant

Program Designs

Exclusion of Supplemental State and Local Program Funds from the Supplement, not Supplant Requirement

A program meets the requirements of section 1114 if it is--

• implemented in a school that meets the Title I schoolwide program poverty thresholds--60% in 1995-96; 50% in subsequent years;

• is designed to upgrade the entire educational program in the school to enable all children to meet the State's challenging student performance standards;

• is designed to meet the educational needs of all children in the school, particularly the needs of children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's student performance standards; and

• uses the State's system of assessment to review the effectiveness of the program.

A program meets the requirements of section 1115 if it--

• serves only children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's student performance standards;

• provides supplementary services designed to meet the special educational needs of children who are participating in the program to enable those children to meet the State's student performance standards; and

• uses the State's system of assessment to review the effectiveness of the program.

Although past authorizations required approval, neither a State nor an LEA needs to apply for approval to exclude State or local funds under the Title I of the ESEA.
-###-

[Uses of Funds]

[Acronyms Used in this Document]