IDEA: Results – Driven Accountabilit y and Fiscal Matters Bonnie Little Graham, Esq. [email protected] Jenny Segal, Esq. [email protected] Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC www.bruman.com Spring Forum 2013 Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 1
Mar 26, 2015
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
Agenda Results-Driven Accountability Maintenance of Effort Provision Supplement not Supplant Provision Excess Costs Provision
2
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN
SPECIAL EDUCATION
3
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
4
Monitoring Priorities
5
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
6
Current System of Accountability
Determination based on totality of information including: Annual Performance Report (APR)/State
Performance Plan (SPP) Monitoring Other Public information
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Transition of Students with Disabilities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
9
Trend in National Average Percent of Accurate Data
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
10
Trend in National Average Percent of Written Complaints Timely Resolved
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
11
Trend in National Average Percent of Timely Evaluations of Students with Disabilities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
12
Comparison of Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
13
Trend in National Average Reading Proficiency for Students with Disabilities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
14
Trend in National Average Math Proficiency for Students with Disabilities
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
19
OSEP Notice of Proposed SPP/APR Revisions (April 15, 2013) (Cont.)
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
OSEP Notice of Proposed SPP/APR Revisions (April 15, 2013) (Cont.)
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.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
21
Excess Cost
22
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Excess Cost Requirement
23
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
What is an Excess Cost?
24
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
How to Calculate Excess Costs?
25
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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 Expenditures
tax funds and debtLess Capital Outlays
and Debt
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
IDEA, Part B State and Local Maintenance of Effort
31
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Local-level MOE Reductions
39
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Supplement not supplant
45
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
LEA Supplement Not Supplant (cont.)
48
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Supplement Not Supplant (cont.)
50
IDEA, Part B funds must be used to supplement and not supplant State, local, and other Federal funds.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
51
Questions?
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
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
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Disclaimer