Vanilla or Rocky Road – How well do
funds really blend in Schoolwide Type 3?
Tucson Unified School District’s
Operating Philosophy
• BEST MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL CHILDREN BY
MAXIMIZING THE USE OF ALL RESOURCES AT THE LOCAL
SCHOOL SITE
2
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)
3 1114, J)
(NCLB, Sec.
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
Title I
Title I
Title
I
Federal
Program
Funds
SW 1
Federal
Program
Funds
State
Formula
Funds
SW 2
Other
Funds
SW 3
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?
Federal
Funds
State
Funds
(Title’s I, II, III,
IV)
OTHER
FUNDS
Site Blended Funds
*Other Funds:
Private Grants,
etc.
7
• Schools which pool funds must meet the
intent of each funding stream pooled.
Maintenance and
Operations
Unrestricted
Capital
•Staff – Instructional & Non-Instructional
•Capital (long term use)
• Dollars for Classroom (short term use)
Soft Capital
Title I
Title II
Title III
• Supplement the School Program
• Upgrade/Improve the Entire School
• Close the achievement gap & Effective Support to Struggling Students
•Highly Qualified Staff
• Recruitment & Retention
•
• Language Acquisition
8
FUNDS – TUSD Blending Example
Fund Source
Amount
M&O
$
1,275,000.00
Title I
$
225,000.00
Total
$
1,500,000.00
9
FUNDS – Blending/Proportionality
School Budget Pool % of Total Budget
Title I
State
Funds Not Consolidated
at TUSD:
•Deseg
•IDEA
•Civic Center
•Tax Credit
10
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 System
3. 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
SWIII POOLED FUND MASTER SPREADSHEET
Maintenance & Operations
Title Funds
Total M&O
Funding Includes
%
Blenman
$1,436,680
86%
Carrillo
$1,001,985
Cavett
Total Pooled
Total Title
%Basic
Total Pooled
$240,690
$240,690
14%
$1,677,370
$1,677,370
100.00%
89%
$128,268
$128,268
11%
$1,130,253
$1,130,253
100.00%
$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%
$860,725
$1,823,740
$1,120,029
88%
83%
83%
$120,060
$366,453
$231,420
$120,060
$366,453
$231,420
12%
17%
17%
$980,785
$2,190,193
$1,351,449
$980,785
$2,190,193
$1,351,449
100.00%
100.00%
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%
Description
Lawrence
Lynn
Maldonado
Basic Title I
Total pooled less
the carryover
% All Funds
13
1557
SCHOOL:
10/11 PTs
43.31
Valencia
Pooled
Amount $
$2,417,185
M&O Dollars with 7%
Title I Allocation SWP Type 3
$1,858,445
$558,740
(Total points include Principal, AP, Teacher, Additional Certified & Support Staff)
Pts Total
Amount Total
36.25 $
SY 09/10 Final
Points
Principal
Asst Principal
Teacher
Counselor
Office Mgr/Business Mgr/Registrar
Att Clk/ Other Clerical
Engineer
Librarian
Library Assistant
Fine Arts
Network Tech
Community Rep/Instr Specialist
1.83
2.98
24.60
1.00
0.76
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.05
1.02
0.00
0.41
0.00
2,019,669
Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
101,958
166,031
1,370,589
55,715
42,343
37,329
2,786
56,829
22,843
-
SY 10/11 Preliminary
Points
1.83
2.98
29.42
2.00
0.76
0.67
0.00
0.26
1.00
0.41
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Amount
101,958
166,031
1,639,135
111,430
42,343
37,329
14,486
55,715
22,843
$
SUBTOTAL STAFFING
2,191,270
Other Supplies & Services
Stipends (Coaches & Assistant Coaches)
Substitutes
Extra Duty Stipends (club sponsors, dept chairs, fine arts
0.20
0.58
$
$
11,143
32,315
0.20
0.55
$
$
11,143
30,785
stipends, etc.)
0.10
0.04
1.00
0.03
$
$
$
$
5,572
2,229
55,715
1,671
0.07
0.07
1.31
0.03
0.15
0.00
0.00
$
$
$
$
$
4,000
4,000
73,395
1,500
8,357
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,129
3,900
11,143
33,429
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.31
0.58
0.20
0.02
0.00
$
$
9,000
$
4,393
$
$
$
$
$
17,457
32,542
11,343
1,000
17,000
36.25
$
Office Supplies & Attendance Supplies
Campus Monitor
Overtime (Custodian & Clerical)
Temp/Hrly Tutors, Prep Assist.
Other (Mileage/Subscriptions/Dues/Graduation
Supplies/Rentals/School Paper)
Custodial Supplies
K-3
Loss of Planning
Utilities
Teaching Supplies Allocations
10% Set-aside
Capital (Furniture & Equipment)
Capital (Library)
Capital (General)
SUBTOTAL STAFFING
TOTAL Point Value
Balance of dollars left to budget (over/under)
2,019,669
$
$
43.06
Over Budget
225,915
2,417,185
$
(0)
M & O = 76% Basic = 15%
76%
15%
Stimulus =
8%
Carryover
= 1%
8%
1%
76%
Prog Func 61XX
1001XXX
M & O = 76% Basic = 15%
15%
Stimulus =
8%
Carryover
= 1%
8%
1%
62XX
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
-
-
-
-
-
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,041,426 1,192,387
635,940
79,492
2,440,968
1,855,136
366,145
195,277
24,410
2,859
357
6,950
5,282
1,042
556
69
-
-
25XX
26XX
3,889,289
2,955,860
2001XXX
7,949,244
21XX 35,736
22XX
27,160
-
24XX 65,087
25XX
26XX 62,145
49,466
-
47,231
5,360
9,763
9,322
5,207
4,972
-
651
621
-
17,081
20,849
12,982
15,845
2,562
3,127
1,366
1,668
-
171
208
District Strategic Planning
Transition 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
Resources
Federal:
Non-Regulatory Guidance:
Designing Schoolwide Programs Guidance: March 2006
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ designingswpguid.doc
Non-Regulatory Guidance:
“Title I Fiscal Issues,” February 2008
www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/ fiscalguid.doc
Consolidating funds in schoolwide programs, MOE, SNS, Comparability,
Grantbacks, Carryover
Federal Register, July 2, 2004
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2004-3/070204a.html
State:
ESEA For LEAs – Schoolwide 3
http://www.ade.az.gov/asd/title1/schoolwide/ESEA_LEAsSchoolwide3.pdf
20
Contact Information
Arizona Department of Education
Nancy Konitzer
State Title I Director / Deputy
Associate Superintendent
[email protected]
Richard Valdivia
Deputy Associate Superintendent
[email protected]
Tucson Unified School District
Adrianne 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
[email protected]
21