idea: results – driven accountability and fiscal matters

IDEA: Results – Driven

Accountability and Fiscal Matters

Bonnie Little Graham, [email protected] Jenny Segal, [email protected] & Manasevit, PLLCwww.bruman.comSpring Forum 2013

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bruman.com/

Agenda Results-Driven Accountability Maintenance of Effort Provision Supplement not Supplant Provision Excess Costs Provision

2


RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

3


IDEA Monitoring U.S. Department of Education Office of

Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors States’ implementation of IDEA Parts B and C

States monitor local education agencies’ (LEAs) implementation of Part B and early intervention services (EIS) programs’ implementation of Part C


4

Monitoring Priorities

5


Current System of Accountability

Determination based on totality of information including: Annual Performance Report (APR)/State

Performance Plan (SPP) Monitoring Other Public information


7

Determination Process Meets Requirements

Provided valid and reliable data for all indicators Demonstrated substantial compliance for compliance

indicators (4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,16, 17, 20) Needs Assistance

State that did not meet requirement, need intervention, or need substantial intervention

Needs Intervention Very low compliance data Failure to provide reliable data for a compliance indicator Longstanding noncompliance for a key IDEA requirement

Needs Substantial Intervention Failure to comply significantly affected the core

requirements of the program

8


Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Transition of Students with Disabilities


9

Trend in National Average Percent of Accurate Data


10

Trend in National Average Percent of Written Complaints Timely Resolved


11

Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Evaluations of Students with Disabilities


12

Comparison of Outcomes for Students with Disabilities


13

Trend in National Average Reading Proficiency for Students with Disabilities


14

Trend in National Average Math Proficiency for Students with Disabilities


15

Components of Accountability System to be Aligned within RDA

APR - indicators will be designed to measure outcomes most closely aligned with improving results.

State Status Determinations – designation “meets requirements” should

acknowledge State’s effectiveness in improving outcomes for children with disabilities relative to other States.

Determinations will be based on overall performance on a set of priority indicators and other relevant data rather than just compliance indicators.

Monitoring and Technical Assistance – differentiated system of monitoring and TA will support State with most significant needs for improvement. Based on data from priority indicators.


16

OSEP 13-6 Memorandum (Issued 12/2012)

Revised SPP and (FY) 2011 APR due Feb. 15, 2013

ED is considering how it will use data from results indicators in making determinations in spring 2013.

Developing “State Results Matrix” and “State Compliance Matrix” Example: State Assessments


17

OSEP Notice of Proposed SPP/APR Revisions (April 15, 2013)

Proposed revisions are based on the following principles: Align with RDA vision and goals Reduce duplication and reporting burden Retain consistent data sources and

measurements.


18

OSEP Notice of Proposed SPP/APR Revisions (April 15, 2013) (Cont.)

Major Proposed Revisions: Combine SPP/APR into one document Collect SPP/APR through online submission Remove:

“Timely correction of noncompliance” (Part B, ind. 15/ Part C, ind. 9) –though will continue to be monitored through compliance indicators.

“Timely and accurate data” (Part B, ind. 20/ Part C, ind. 14)- though OSEP will continue to analyze data already available to ED.


19


Report only on slippage when State did not meet its target; no requirement to report on progress (EDGAR 80.40(b)(2))

State Systems Improvement Plan (SSIP) – replaces reporting on improvement activities

by indicator. New Part B, ind. 17/ Part C, ind. 11 A comprehensive, ambitious and achievable

plan for improving results. Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC

20


SIPP- Three Phases Phase I – (must include with 2015 SPP/APR submission for FFY 2013)

Data analysis identification of the focus for improvement infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity theory of action.

Phase 2 -(must include with 2016 SPP/APR submission for FFY 2014) Infrastructure development Support for LEA implementation of evidence-based practices Evaluation plan

Phase 3 - (must include with 2017- 2020 SPP/APR submissions for FFY 2015-2018) Results of ongoing evaluation and revisions to SPP.


21

Excess Cost

22


Excess Cost Requirement

23


What is an Excess Cost?

24


How to Calculate Excess Costs?

25


Four Steps:

Step 1: LEA must determine total amount of expenditures for elementary school students from all sources-local, State and federal (including Part B)-in the proceeding school year.

(Less Capital outlay and debt services)State and Local + Federal funds – capital outlays =

Total Expenditurestax funds and debt Less Capital Outlays

and Debt


26

Step 2: Subtract from the total expenditures less

capital outlays and debt: IDEA Part B; Title I, Part A ESEA; Title III, Parts A and B of the ESEA; and Any State or local funds expended for programs

that would qualify for assistance under any of the grant programs described above)

= Total expenditures less capital outlay and debt, minus deductions

27


Step 3: Determine the average annual student

expenditure:

(total expenditures less capital outlay and debt minus deductions)/(average number of students) = Average annual

student per expenditures

28


Step 4: Determine the total minimum amount of funds the LEA

must spend for the education of its elementary school children with disabilities (not including capital outlay debt service):

(Number of children with disabilities in LEA elementary schools) X

(average annual per student expenditure) = (Total minimum amount LEA must spend for education of children with disabilities before using part B funds)

29


SEA Exceptions SEA providing direct services to children

with disabilities to make FAPE available: May use Part B funds from State set aside

OR Part B payments that would have otherwise been available to an LEA for the purpose of serving those children

Does not need to comply with excess cost requirement

34 CFR §§ 300.175, 300.227(a)(2)(ii)

30


IDEA, Part B State and Local Maintenance of Effort

31


State Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

• A State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year.

• Must use ALL State funds!! May not use Medicaid reimbursements towards SEA MOE

requirements.

32


Grant Application FY 2013 MOE Section

• States must provide in whole dollars the total amount of State financial support made available for special education and related services for children with disabilities by year for the State fiscal years included in the application.• Include state funds provided to LEAs, the SEA, and other state

agencies for that purpose

Previously, States only affirmed that they were in compliance with MOE requirements

33


State MOE WaiverIDEA Waiver ONLY applies to State MOE! (not LEA

MOE)ED may waive SEA MOE (for one FY at a time) if ED

determines that a waiver would be equitable due to:

Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster or a precipitous & unforeseen decline in State financial resources; or

The SEA meets Supplement Not Supplant Waiver Requirements. IDEA Regs §§300.163(c) and 300.164

Does not reduce State MOE for subsequent years

34


State MOE Waiver (cont.)ED wants to make sure any reduction in State SPED funds is not greater than the % reduction in revenues experienced by the State (SPED treated equitably). Factors considered:

State’s revenues and extent of decrease based on exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances

State’s total appropriations for current versus prior year State’s appropriations for other agencies State’s compliance with Implementing IDEA, Part B and

performance record Other available funds to mitigate effects of waiver

35


Failure to Meet State MOE South Carolina Consequences for failure to maintain support:

ED reduces allocation for FY following the FY in which the State fails to comply.

March 2013- Stopgap spending bill, Section 1514 of H.R. 933. Penalty will not continue perpetually. Reduction only for the year(s) out of compliance.

Reduction is the same amount by which the State fails to meet the requirement.

Section 1514 of H.R. 933 - reduced funding taken away from a State that fails to make MOE will be split among other States.

Following year reverts back to previous level of effort.

36


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr933pp/pdf/BILLS-113hr933pp.pdf



Local-level Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

An LEA may not use its Part B funds to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities made by the LEA from local funds below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year.

34 CFR 300.203(a)

37


Local-level MOE (cont.) Four ways to calculate Local MOE:

1. Comparison of total expenditures using local funds only,

2. Comparison of total expenditures using State and local funds,

3. Comparison of the per pupil amount using local funds only, or

4. Comparison of the per pupil amount using State and local funds.

34 CFR 300.203(b)

38


Local-level MOE Reductions39


Local-level MOE - Optional Flexibility •If there is an increase in the LEA’s allocation, compared to the previous FY allocation,

•Then the LEA may reduce the level of expenditures otherwise required by not more than 50% of the amount of excess in allocation,

•But the LEA must use an amount of local funds equal to the MOE reduction to carry out activities that could be supported with ESEA funds, regardless of whether the LEA is using ESEA funds for those activities. (IDEA Regs Section 300.205)

▫ This will reduce the following year’s MOE as well!

40


Local-level MOE - Optional Flexibility (cont.)

• Flexibility may be unavailable if:▫ SEA determines that LEA is unable to establish and

maintain programs of FAPE that comply with Part B and § 613(a); or

▫ The SEA took action against an LEA under § 613(a) of IDEA;

▫ SEA has taken action against an LEA under § 616 and subpart F of regulations; or

▫ LEA is identified as “significantly disproportionate.”

41


Local-level MOE – Optional Flexibility & CEIS

• The amount of LEA MOE reduction that an LEA can take is affected by an LEA’s use of Part B funds for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS).

• Therefore, must subtract any CEIS set-aside from any potential LEA MOE reduction!

42


Local-level MOE (cont.) • Consequences for violation: SEA can not reduce an

LEA’s current or future allocation.• ED would handle an LEA MOE violation by seeking

a recovery of funds from the SEA. The level of recovery would depend on the

degree to which the LEA failed to maintain effort, but would not exceed the amount of the LEA’s subgrant for the year in question. (See OSEP policy letter, July 26, 2006, to Carol Ann Baglin on www.bruman.com ) Up to SEA to recover funds from LEA

43


http://www.bruman.com/

Local-level MOE (cont.) Consequences for violation: The LEA’s MOE requirement reverts to the level set the

last time the LEA met MOE!

Letter to the Center for Law and Education, Kathleen Boundy, dated April 4, 2012 on www.bruman.com

Rescinds previous Letter to NASDSE Executive Director Bill East, dated June 16, 2011.

What about LEAs that relied on June 2011 letter to reduce effort levels???

44


Supplement not supplant

45


SEA Supplement Not Supplant

•Part B funds must be used to supplement and increase the level of Federal, State and local funds expended for special education and related services provided to children with disabilities, and in no case supplant those Federal, State and local funds.•A State may use funds it retains for State admin and other State-level activities without regard to the prohibition on supplanting other funds

34 CFR 300.164

46


LEA Supplement Not Supplant• Part B funds must be used to supplement

State, local and other Federal funds (used for providing services to children with disabilities)

• If LEA meets MOE, then LEA meets supplement /not supplant requirements

• No particular cost test • ARRA Guidance, April 2009

34 CFR 300.202

47


LEA Supplement Not Supplant (cont.)

48


CEIS and Supplement Not Supplant CEIS must supplement any ESEA activities or

services. 34 CFR 300.226(e)

Model example:1. CEIS and local funds serve total population – CEIS for

eligible CEIS students

2. Title I provides Response to Intervention to Title I students and CEIS supplements

49


Supplement Not Supplant (cont.)

50

IDEA, Part B funds must be used to supplement and not supplant State, local, and other Federal funds.


51

Questions?


This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials 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.

52


Disclaimer

idea: results – driven accountability and fiscal matters

Documents

c brustein manasevit

pllcbrustein manasevit

disabilitiesbrustein

compliance indicators

reliable data

disabilities relative

system of monitoring

relevant data