vanilla or rocky road – how well do funds really blend in schoolwide type 3?
TRANSCRIPT
Vanilla or Rocky Road – How well do funds really blend in Schoolwide Type 3?
Tucson Unified School District’sOperating Philosophy
2
• BEST MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL CHILDREN BY MAXIMIZING THE USE OF ALL RESOURCES AT THE LOCAL SCHOOL SITE
Support for Change
• Federal guidance strongly encourages consolidation– NCLB Section 1111(c)(9) and (10):
• Each SEA must “encourage schools to consolidate funds from Federal, State, and local sources in their schoolwide programs”, and
• Each State plan shall contain assurance that – the SEA will modify or eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can easily consolidate funds from other Federal, State and local sources for schoolwide programs”
– When Title I Part A funds are consolidated with State and local funds…they lose their identity; thus, it is impossible to know on what specific activities Part A funds are spent.”
• How are Federal, state and local services (not just funding) coordinated and integrated?
(Designing Schoolwide Programs Guidance: March 2006, p. 44)(NCLB, Sec. 1114, J)3
Background
• February 2008 Fiscal Guidance– Set out the guidelines for what we call Schoolwide
Type 1, 2 and 3 in AZ
• Timeline• Convergence of Issues in TUSD
– Limited Flexibility under SW1– Site Based Budgeting
4
Types of Schoolwide Programs
5
Schoolwide Type I Schools• Schools use only Title I funds to fund their schoolwide plan.
– The school and LEA must account for and track Title I, Part A
funds separately, identifying activities that the Title I funds support.
– This is governed by cost principles in OMB Circular A-87.
Schoolwide Type 3 Schools• A Local Educational Agency may consolidate and use funds
together with other Federal, State, and Local funds, in order to upgrade the entire educational program of a school • Funds are not consolidated at the LEA level• Funds are consolidated for schools • Reduce impediments to support meaningful reform initiatives
at schools 6
Which funds are blended?
*Other Funds: Private Grants, etc.
7
• Schools which pool funds must meet the intent of each funding stream pooled.
•Staff – Instructional & Non-InstructionalMaintenance and Operations
•Capital (long term use)Unrestricted Capital
• Dollars for Classroom (short term use)Soft Capital
• Supplement the School Program• Upgrade/Improve the Entire School • Close the achievement gap & Effective Support to Struggling StudentsTitle I
•Highly Qualified Staff• Recruitment & RetentionTitle II
•
• Language AcquisitionTitle III8
FUNDS – TUSD Blending Example
Fund Source Amount
M&O $ 1,275,000.00
Title I $ 225,000.00
Total $ 1,500,000.00
9
School Budget Pool % of Total Budget
Title I
State
FUNDS – Blending/Proportionality
10
Funds Not Consolidated at TUSD:•Deseg•IDEA•Civic Center•Tax Credit
Rewiring the Financial System
1. Pre-Planning– What can/will be blended– What cannot be blended– Considerations before blending funds– Supplanting test applies to LEA funding of
Schools
2. Conceptual Blending - [(Section1114 (a)(3)(C)]—Feb 2008, non regulatory fiscal guidance—footnote page 51.
11
Rewiring the Financial System3. Actual Blending
– Changes in flow and handling of paperwork• School & Central Staff Training
– Fiscal Deadlines– Maintenance of Effort– Comparability
• Reporting Expenditures – Proportionality
– Capital– Carryover– Closeout
12
13
SWIII POOLED FUND MASTER SPREADSHEET Maintenance & Operations Title Funds Total Pooled
DescriptionTotal M&O
Funding Includes % Basic Title I Total Title% -
Basic Total PooledTotal pooled less
the carryover % All Funds
Blenman $1,436,680 86% $240,690 $240,690 14% $1,677,370 $1,677,370 100.00%Carrillo $1,001,985 89% $128,268 $128,268 11% $1,130,253 $1,130,253 100.00%Cavett $948,320 84% $176,579 $176,579 16% $1,124,899 $1,124,899 100.00%Corbett $1,096,043 84% $206,790 $206,790 16% $1,302,833 $1,302,833 100.00%Cragin $1,285,880 86% $213,201 $213,201 14% $1,499,081 $1,499,081 100.00%
Davidson $1,112,611 86% $174,339 $174,339 14% $1,286,950 $1,286,950 100.00%Dietz $1,260,215 87% $184,440 $184,440 13% $1,444,655 $1,444,655 100.00%Grijalva $1,942,918 83% $384,540 $384,540 17% $2,327,458 $2,327,458 100.00%Hollinger $1,261,070 82% $274,950 $274,950 18% $1,536,020 $1,536,020 100.00%Howell $1,110,929 85% $194,300 $194,300 15% $1,305,229 $1,305,229 100.00%Johnson $724,835 81% $172,913 $172,913 19% $897,748 $897,748 100.00%Lawrence $860,725 88% $120,060 $120,060 12% $980,785 $980,785 100.00%Lynn $1,823,740 83% $366,453 $366,453 17% $2,190,193 $2,190,193 100.00%Maldonado $1,120,029 83% $231,420 $231,420 17% $1,351,449 $1,351,449 100.00%Manzo $898,021 87% $129,438 $129,438 13% $1,027,459 $1,027,459 100.00%Menlo Park $741,484 85% $130,754 $130,754 15% $872,238 $872,238 100.00%
1557 10/11 PTs PooledSCHOOL: Valencia 43.31 Amount $ $2,417,185 (Total points include Principal, AP, Teacher, Additional Certified & Support Staff)
M&O Dollars with 7% $1,858,445Title I Allocation SWP Type 3 $558,740
Pts Total Amount Total SY 09/10 Final 36.25 $ 2,019,669 SY 10/11 Preliminary Points Amount Points Amount
Principal 1.83 $ 101,958 1.83 $ 101,958 Asst Principal 2.98 $ 166,031 2.98 $ 166,031 Teacher 24.60 $ 1,370,589 29.42 $ 1,639,135 Counselor 1.00 $ 55,715 2.00 $ 111,430 Office Mgr/Business Mgr/Registrar 0.76 $ 42,343 0.76 $ 42,343 Att Clk/ Other Clerical 0.67 $ 37,329 0.67 $ 37,329 Engineer 0.00 $ - $ - Librarian 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Library Assistant 0.05 $ 2,786 0.26 $ 14,486 Fine Arts 1.02 $ 56,829 1.00 $ 55,715 Network Tech 0.00 $ - $ - Community Rep/Instr Specialist 0.41 $ 22,843 0.41 $ 22,843
0.00 $ - $ - SUBTOTAL STAFFING $ 2,191,270
Other Supplies & Services Stipends (Coaches & Assistant Coaches) 0.20 $ 11,143 0.20 $ 11,143 Substitutes 0.58 $ 32,315 0.55 $ 30,785 Extra Duty Stipends (club sponsors, dept chairs, fine arts stipends, etc.) 0.10 $ 5,572 0.07 $ 4,000 Office Supplies & Attendance Supplies 0.04 $ 2,229 0.07 $ 4,000 Campus Monitor 1.00 $ 55,715 1.31 $ 73,395 Overtime (Custodian & Clerical) 0.03 $ 1,671 0.03 $ 1,500 Temp/Hrly Tutors, Prep Assist. 0.15 $ 8,357
0.00 0.00
Other (Mileage/Subscriptions/Dues/Graduation Supplies/Rentals/School Paper) 0.00 $ - 0.00 $ - Custodial Supplies 0.11 $ 6,129 0.16 $ 9,000 K-3 0.00 $ - 0.00Loss of Planning 0.07 $ 3,900 0.08 $ 4,393 Utilities 0.00 $ - 0.00Teaching Supplies Allocations 0.20 $ 11,143 0.31 $ 17,457 10% Set-aside 0.00 $ - 0.58 $ 32,542 Capital (Furniture & Equipment) 0.00 $ - 0.20 $ 11,343 Capital (Library) 0.00 $ - 0.02 $ 1,000 Capital (General) 0.60 $ 33,429 0.00 $ 17,000
SUBTOTAL STAFFING $ 225,915 TOTAL Point Value 36.25 $ 2,019,669 43.06 $ 2,417,185
Balance of dollars left to budget (over/under) Over Budget $ (0)
M & O = 76% Basic = 15%Stimulus =
8%Carryover
= 1% M & O = 76% Basic = 15%Stimulus =
8%Carryover
= 1%76% 15% 8% 1% 76% 15% 8% 1%
Prog Func 61XX 62XX
1001XXX 28,483,193 21,647,227 4,272,479 2,278,655 284,832 8,251,777 6,271,351 1,237,767 660,142 82,518
21XX 3,329,254 2,530,233 499,388 266,340 33,293 1,064,817 809,261 159,723 85,185 10,648
22XX 1,683,702 1,279,613 252,555 134,696 16,837 432,442 328,656 64,866 34,595 4,324
24XX 5,458,852 4,148,727 818,828 436,708 54,589 1,418,906 1,078,369 212,836 113,512 14,189
25XX - - - - -
- - -
26XX 3,889,289 2,955,860 583,393 311,143 38,893 1,209,319 919,082 181,398 96,746 12,093
42,844,290 32,561,660 6,426,643 3,427,543 428,443 12,377,261 9,406,718 1,856,589 990,181 123,773
- - - - -
- - -
2001XXX 7,949,244 6,041,426 1,192,387 635,940 79,492 2,440,968 1,855,136 366,145 195,277 24,410
21XX 35,736 27,160 5,360 2,859 357 6,950 5,282 1,042 556 69
22XX - - -
- -
- -
- - -
24XX 65,087 49,466 9,763 5,207 651 17,081 12,982 2,562 1,366 171
25XX - - -
- -
- -
- - -
26XX 62,145 47,231 9,322 4,972 621 20,849 15,845 3,127 1,668 208
8,112,213 6,165,282 1,216,832 648,977 81,122 2,485,848 1,889,244 372,877 198,868 24,858
District Strategic PlanningTransition Process Recommendations
• Consult with your Financial Officers – Finance must be consulted and on-board
before you begin • 2 + years for financial transition planning
• Educate Yourself & Others– Seek expertise and advice from the field
• Conduct advance research – Enroll your state department as a partner
• ADE staff were included in the process:– Consulted on the format of school plans– Invited to training events
– Educate and Consult your Auditors
16
Rocky Road• State Law
– Concept of Intents and Purposes doesn’t really exist with AZ funds– Proposed change to Arizona Revised Statutes:
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THIS ARTICLE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY ESTABLISH AN INTERNAL SERVICE FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1114 OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT THAT ALLOWS A SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR TITLE I MONIES TO CONSOLIDATE TITLE I MONIES WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND NONPROFIT MONIES TO IMPLEMENT A SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAM THAT FOCUSES THE SCHOOL'S ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ON IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF ALL PUPILS, ESPECIALLY THE LOWEST ACHIEVING ‑PUPILS. THE SCHOOLWIDE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND IS EXEMPT FROM THE GENERAL AND AGGREGATE BUDGET LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 15 905. ‑
• Capital• Paperwork on county Level• Pooled Funds follow M&O guidelines• Percentage In/Percentage Out challenges• Simplify the process for Sites
17
Schoolwide 3 Today • School Leaders reap the benefits of blending
– Strong comprehensive school plans– Well-informed site leaders & staff engaged in
meaningful strategic planning– Reform programs drive funding– Leveraged use of funds to create comprehensive
web of support-allocated according to site needs– Eliminated most payroll related documentation
requirements– Streamlined processing timelines– Program staff focused on implementation and
outcomes– Partnership with State Department of Education
staff– Moved from a Focus on Compliance to a Focus
on Intents and Innovation
18
Principal Feedback
• With the blended budget, we have stronger ability to use funds in critical areas where we may not have before.
• Less red tape. Facilitates alignment of SW3 plan widen money and resources.
• Has improved because less time spent on budget.• Has helped to enhance intervention support in vital academic
areas.• It helps to have one budget rather than two.• Being new to the game, it has been easier to utilize the funds
while keeping focused on my school model. • Freedom to allocate funds based on needs specific to site.
19
ResourcesFederal:
Non-Regulatory Guidance:Designing Schoolwide Programs Guidance: March 2006www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ designingswpguid.doc
Non-Regulatory Guidance:“Title I Fiscal Issues,” February 2008www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability,
Grantbacks, Carryover
Federal Register, July 2, 2004http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2004-3/070204a.html
State: ESEA For LEAs – Schoolwide 3http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/title1/schoolwide/ESEA_LEAsSchoolwide3.pdf
20
Contact Information
21
Arizona Department of EducationNancy Konitzer State Title I Director / Deputy
Associate [email protected]
Richard Valdivia Deputy Associate Superintendent [email protected]
Tucson Unified School DistrictAdrianne Sanchez Finance Director [email protected]
Shelly Duran Title I Director [email protected]
Eric Lybeck Title I Coordinator [email protected]
Jose Figueroa Academic Budget Management Coordinator