maintenance of effort (moe) for special education ... · determining data needed to complete the...

3/27/2018

1

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for Special Education:

Analysis of Fiscal Year 2017 Compliance

Denise Dusek, MPA

Federal Funding Specialist

Education Service Center, Region 20

March 26, 2018

Revised Slides 17, 66, 87, 94

Learning Objectives

Basic requirements of MOE

How to determine FY17 compliance

Education Service Center, Region 20 | March 2018 2

3/27/2018

2

MOE WorkshopsThree workshops given annually, each covering a different aspect of MOE:

September workshop – Compliance Standard:

Monitoring current year expenditures for compliance

Determining previous year compliance based on final expenditures

March workshop – Compliance Standard:

Determining previous year compliance based on official TSDS PEIMS records

April workshop – Eligibility Standard & Compliance Standard:

Determining data needed to complete the BS6016 Fiscal Compliance Schedule of the Special Education Consolidated Grant application for the upcoming year

Determining preliminary current year compliance based on year‐to‐date expenditures, so adjustments can be made if necessary before the fiscal year end


Basic Requirements


3/27/2018

3

What is MOE? Does it apply to my LEA?

A federal requirement

that affects how an LEA

budgets and spends their

State and/or Local funds (general funds)

on special education

Education Service Center, Region 20 | March 2018

34 CFR §300.203

*N/A to RDSPD (Regional Day School Program for the Deaf) SSA

or VI (Visual Impairment) Cooperatives

Applicable to all LEAs that receive IDEA‐B funds, even if indirectly as a member of a

special education SSA*

5

MOE Summary – Simplified Definition

Basically,

spend at least the same amount*

every year

from the general fund

for special education

*Unless you qualify for Exceptions and/or Adjustment (Voluntary Reduction)

Otherwise, you will have a “decline in fiscal effort”

and will be noncompliant with MOE


3/27/2018

4

YEAR:EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

FROM GENERAL FUND: COMPLIANT?

2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $100,000 YES!

LEA is compliant with MOE in FY17 because it spent the same amount in FY17 as it spent in FY16




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $90,000 NO*

LEA is not compliant with MOE in FY17 because it spent less than the amount spent in FY16.*The LEA did not qualify for exceptions or adjustment to lawfully decrease expenditures in FY17.




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017$90,000

(qualified for $10,000 in exceptions)YES!

LEA is compliant with MOE in FY17. Although it spent less than the amount spent in FY16, the LEA qualified for an exception in FY17.

Now, it has set a new, lower base level to meet next year.



2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $150,000 YES!

LEA is compliant with MOE in FY17. It actually increased it’s spending from FY16 and therefore has set a new, higher base level for spending next year

(unless it qualifies for exceptions/adjustment in FY18).

3/27/2018

5

Test Your Understanding!MOE Basics


Test Your Understanding! MOE Basics – Q1

• Is the LEA compliant with MOE in FY17?


YEAR:EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIAL

EDUCATION FROM GENERAL FUND: EXCEPTIONS/ADJUSTMENT:

2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $110,000 N/A

3/27/2018

6

Test Your Understanding! MOE Basics – A1


YES!

The LEA spent at least the same amount in FY17 that it spent in FY16.

Since it actually spent more, it set a new, higher base level to meet in FY18.




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $110,000 N/A






2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 N/A

3/27/2018

7



NO

The LEA spent less in FY17 than it spent in FY16.

The LEA did not qualify for exceptions/adjustment.




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 N/A






2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 $25,000

3/27/2018

8



YES!

Although the LEA spent less in FY17 than it spent in FY16, it qualified for exceptions/adjustment that equaled the amount of the decline in fiscal effort

The LEA set a new, lower base level to meet in FY18




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 $25,000






2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 $10,000

3/27/2018

9



NO

The LEA spent less in FY17 than it spent in FY16.

The LEA had some exceptions/adjustment, but the exceptions/adjustment amount was less than the amount of the decline in effort.

The exceptions/adjustment amount was not enough to bring the LEA into compliance in FY17.




2015‐2016 $100,000

2016‐2017 $75,000 $10,000

Although the $10,000 in exceptions was not enough to bring the LEA into

compliance, it reduces the amount of the refund due to TEA for noncompliance

ExceptionsAllowable Reasons for Decline in Fiscal Effort


3/27/2018

10

5 ExceptionsLawful reasons for decline in fiscal effort:

1) Departure of Special Education personnel (salary and benefits):

Voluntary Departure (Retired or Resigned) or Terminated for Just Cause or Deceased

2) Decreased enrollment of students with disabilities that results in decreased spending

3) Termination of obligation to provide costly special education program to a particular student who:

Left the LEA; Aged out; or No longer needs the program

Costly Program Defined as $9,570 for 2015‐2016 school yearOnly costs in excess of $9,570 count toward the exception to be

used for decline in effort in 2016‐2017

4) Termination of Costly Expenditures (Capital Outlay)

(N/A to Charter Schools due to method of coding Capital Assets)

5) Assumption of Cost by High Cost Fund (Fund 226)


34 CFR §300.204

For these exceptions, typically the difference

in what was previously spent, compared to the decreased spending

during the year being analyzed, is the amount of the exception the LEA may assert for the decline in effort (Exception for #3 where the

first $9,570 does not count)

19

Simplistic Example of Exception 1 Departure of SPED Personnel

2015‐2016 2016‐2017

Amount of Exception for Decreased Spending in FY17

Special Ed Teacher A paid from general fund

$85,000 Total Payroll Costs: Salary and benefits

$0Teacher A retired 6/30/2016; Teacher A not replaced in 16‐17

$85,000


3/27/2018

11

Simplistic Example of Exception 1Departure of SPED Personnel

2015‐2016 2016‐2017


Special Ed Teacher B paid from general fund

$75,000Total Payroll Costs: Salary and benefits

Teacher B = $0Teacher B retired 6/30/2016;Teacher C replaces Teacher B in 2016‐2017;Teacher C paid $65,000 Total Payroll Costs from general fund

$10,000


Simplistic Example of Exception 2Decreased Enrollment of SPED Students

2015‐2016 2016‐2017


$85,000 Total Payroll Costs (Salary and benefits) for SPED Teacher D paid from general fund

SPED Teacher D reassigned to general education in 2016‐2017 due to decreased enrollment of students with disabilities in 2016‐2017

*Note, this situation does not qualify for Exception 1, but qualifies for Exception 2 ifLEA can document that decreased enrollment led to decreased spending

$85,000


3/27/2018

12

Simplistic Example of Exception 3Exceptionally Costly Program for Specific Student

2015‐2016 2016‐2017


SPED student receives costly program (one‐on‐one aide) that costs $45,000 paid from the general fund

SPED student graduated May 2016 $35,430

($45,000 minus $9,570)


Examples of costly program include, but are not limited to:‐ One‐on‐one paraprofessional or attendant care aide ‐ Educational interpreter‐ Specialized transportation ‐ Hearing impaired teacher‐ Private or public placement (by the IEP team) tuition ‐ Visually impaired teacher

Simplistic Example of Exception 4Costly Expenditures (Capital Outlay)

2015‐2016 2016‐2017


LEA purchases equipment from the general fund:

Patient Lift that costs $6,000

This item was not purchased again in 2016‐2017.

Equipment purchased in 2015‐2016 was an article of nonexpendable, tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost that equals or exceeds $5,000 or the LEA’s established capitalization level, whichever is less.

$6,000


3/27/2018

13

Simplistic Example of Exception 5Assumption of Cost by High Cost Fund

2015‐2016 2016‐2017


$40,000Special education expenditures for particular high‐need student paid from the general fund

LEA receives a High Cost Fund award in 2016‐2017.

The expenditures paid from the general fund for the high‐need student in 2015‐2016 are assumed by the High Cost Fund received in 2016‐2017.

$40,000


Test Your Understanding!Exceptions


3/27/2018

14

Test Your Understanding! Exceptions – Q1

SCENARIO:

• The LEA spent $250,000 from the general fund for special education in FY16


A special education teacher resigned at the end of the 2015‐2016 school year

and was not replaced.

In FY16, this teacher’s payroll costs of $50,000 were paid from the general fund.


Does the LEA qualify for an exception?If so, which exception?

Test Your Understanding! Exceptions – A1

SCENARIO:



A special education teacher resigned at the end of the 2015‐2016 school year




Does the LEA qualify for an exception? YES

If so, which exception? EXCEPTION 1

3/27/2018

15


SCENARIO:



A special education teacher retired at the end of the 2015‐2016 school year


In FY16, this teacher’s entire payroll costs were paid from IDEA‐B.




SCENARIO:



A special education teacher retired at the end of the 2015‐2016 school year


In FY16, this teacher’s entire payroll costs were paid from IDEA‐B.


Does the LEA qualify for an exception? NO Teacher was paid from federal funds

3/27/2018

16


SCENARIO:



Due to budget cuts for FY17, the LEA did not renew a special education teacher’s

contract for the 2016‐2017 school year.




Test Your Understanding! Exceptions – A3SCENARIO:



Due to budget cuts for FY17, the LEA did not renew a special education teacher’s contract for the 2016‐2017 school year.



Does the LEA qualify for an exception?

Exception 1 ‐ NO Personnel must voluntarily depart or be terminated for just cause.

Not renewing a contract does not qualify for Exception 1.

However, if the LEA had a decrease in their enrollment of students with disabilities in 2016‐2017 and can justify that the decreased enrollment resulted in a situation where the teacher was no longer needed, the

decline in fiscal effort might qualify for Exception 2

3/27/2018

17


SCENARIO:



In 2015‐2016, a special education teacher’s payroll costs of $50,000 were paid from the

general fund.

Due to decreased enrollment of students with disabilities in the 2016‐2017 school year,

the LEA no longer needed this special education teacher.

Therefore, the LEA reassigned this teacher to teach GT classes 100% of the time in FY17.




SCENARIO:



In 2015‐2016, a special education teacher’s payroll costs of $50,000 were paid from the

general fund.

Due to decreased enrollment of students with disabilities in the 2016‐2017 school year,

the LEA no longer needed this special education teacher.

Therefore, the LEA reassigned this teacher to teach GT classes 100% of the time in FY17.


Does the LEA qualify for an exception? YESIf so, which exception? EXCEPTION 2

This situation would not qualify for Exception 1; It only qualifies for

Exception 2

3/27/2018

18


SCENARIO:



In 2015‐2016, the LEA spent $20,000 to provide FAPE to a particular student with disabilities.

The student left the district at the end of the 2015‐2016 school year.




SCENARIO:






Does the LEA qualify for an exception? NOAlthough departure of a particular child with a disability may qualify for Exception 3, the dollar amount of the exception is limited to the amount spent in excess of TEA’s definition of a costly program. The costly program definition for FY16 was $9,570. Therefore, the exception amount for this student is only $10,430 ($20,000‐$9,570),

which is not enough to bring the LEA into compliance.

3/27/2018

19


SCENARIO:








SCENARIO:






Does the LEA qualify for an exception? YESThe dollar amount of Exception 3 is limited to the amount spent in excess of TEA’s definition of a costly program. The costly program definition for FY16 was $9,570. Therefore, the exception amount for this student is $10,430 ($20,000‐$9,570).

The decline in fiscal effort was $10,430 ($250,000‐$239,570).

3/27/2018

20

Adjustment (Voluntary Reduction)Allowable Reason for Decline in Fiscal Effort


Voluntary Reduction(Adjustment to Local Fiscal Effort)

An LEA may deliberately reduce their special education expenditures from the general fund if they choose to do so and meet the eligibility criteria to exercise this option


34 CFR §300.205

40

3/27/2018

21

Voluntary Reduction(Adjustment to Local Fiscal Effort)

Must meet all three criteria to be eligible for Voluntary Reduction:

1) Increase in IDEA‐B Formula FinalEntitlement from the previous grant year to the current grant year

2) Determination Level of “Meets Requirements”

3) Not identified as having significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity


If all three criteria are met, you may deliberately reduce spending

for special education from the general fund

by up to half the amount of the increase in IDEA‐B entitlement.

However, that amount of “Freed Up” funds must be spent on Title I type activities and must be documented

34 CFR §300.205

41

Simplistic Example for Taking Voluntary Reduction in FY17

2015‐2016 IDEA‐B Final Formula Entitlement $500,000

2016‐2017 IDEA‐B Final Formula Entitlement $550,000

Increase in IDEA‐B Entitlement $50,000

50% of Increase (“Freed Up” Funds) $25,000

2015‐2016 Expenditures for special education from the general fund $100,000

2016‐2017 Expenditures for special education from the general fund may lawfully be reduced to this lower amount

$75,000*


*Provided that: The LEA also met the other 2 criteria for Voluntary Reduction:

• Meets Requirements; and Not Identified with Significant Disproportionality based on Race and Ethnicity The LEA chooses to exercise this option to deliberately reduce their special education expenditures with State and/or Local funds and

spends the “freed up” funds on Title I type activities If the LEA also reserves a portion of their 2016‐2017 IDEA‐B Entitlement for CEIS purposes, they may not use the entire amount of the

“freed up” funds to reduce special education expenditures with State and/or Local funds for MOE purposes

42

3/27/2018

22

Test Your Understanding!Voluntary Reduction


Test Your Understanding! Voluntary Reduction – Q1

SCENARIO:

• The LEA’s IDEA‐B Final Entitlement was $1,500,000 in FY16


• The LEA had a determination of Meets Requirements

• The LEA was not identified with Significant Disproportionality based on Race or Ethnicity


Does the LEA qualify for Voluntary Reduction in FY17?

If so, by how much can the LEA reduce it’s spending with State/Local funds?

3/27/2018

23

Test Your Understanding! Voluntary Reduction – A1

SCENARIO:






Does the LEA qualify for Voluntary Reduction in FY17? NONo increase in IDEA‐B entitlement

If so, by how much can the LEA reduce it’s spending with State/Local funds? N/A


SCENARIO:








3/27/2018

24


SCENARIO:






Does the LEA qualify for Voluntary Reduction in FY17? YESQualified for all three criteria


$25,000 (Half the amount of the increase in entitlement)


SCENARIO:



• The LEA had a determination of Needs Assistance





3/27/2018

25


SCENARIO:



• The LEA had a determination of Needs Assistance



Does the LEA qualify for Voluntary Reduction in FY17? NOMust have determination level of Meets Requirements

If so, by how much can the LEA reduce it’s spending with State/Local funds? N/A

Summary of Exceptions & Adjustment


3/27/2018

26

Exceptions & Adjustment

FIVE EXCEPTIONSVOLUNTARY REDUCTION

(ADJUSTMENT TO LOCAL FISCAL EFFORT)

Situations mostly beyond your controlPlanned reduction;

Deliberate decision to decrease expenditures

Allowable decline in fiscal effort

Documentation must be submitted to TEA for validation/approval during the timeframe for submitting responses after TEA performs their Preliminary Review of Compliance

May use one or all five exceptions in the same year, if applicable; May use both Exceptions and Adjustment in the same year, if applicable

Sets new, lower base level of spending requirement!



EDUCATION FROM GENERAL FUND: EXCEPTIONS/ADJUSTMENT: COMPLIANT?

MINIMUM AMOUNT TO SPEND NEXT YEAR FROM

GENERAL FUND:

2015‐2016 $250,000

2016‐2017 $200,000 None NO $250,000

The LEA is noncompliant in FY17 because it spent less and did not qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment.





GENERAL FUND:

2015‐2016 $250,000

2016‐2017 $200,000 $50,000 YES $200,000

The LEA is compliant in FY17. Although it spent less in FY17, it qualified for exceptions and/or adjustment in the amount of the decline in fiscal effort. A new, lower base level is set for the spending requirement for FY18!




GENERAL FUND:

2015‐2016 $250,000

2016‐2017 $200,000 $25,000 NO $250,000

Although the LEA had exceptions/adjustment, the exceptions/adjustment amount was less than the decline in effort. Therefore, the LEA is noncompliant in FY17.

3/27/2018

27

Test Your Understanding! Exceptions/Adjustment – Q1• Can an LEA use Exceptions and Voluntary Reduction for the same compliance year?

• If the LEA qualifies for Exceptions and/or Adjustment, what happens to their base level of spending?

• What happens to the LEA’s base level of spending if the LEA increases their spending the next year?


Test Your Understanding! Exceptions/Adjustment – A1

• Can an LEA use Exceptions and Voluntary Reduction for the same compliance year?

YES

• If the LEA qualifies for Exceptions and/or Adjustment, what happens to their base level of spending?

IT IS SET TO THE NEW, LOWER LEVEL

• What happens to the LEA’s base level of spending if the LEA increases their spending?

IT IS SET TO THE NEW, HIGHER LEVEL


3/27/2018

28

Subsequent Years Rule



• When you compare spending amounts, you don’t just compare the analysis year to the prior year

• The prior year must be the most recent prior year in which you were compliant with MOE


3/27/2018

29

Subsequent Years RuleComparison of expenditures must be made to the most recent prior year

in which the LEA was compliant with MOE


YEAR:REQUIRED

LEVEL OF EFFORTACTUAL

LEVEL OF EFFORTCOMMENTS

FY15 (2014‐2015) $100,000 $100,000 Met MOE

FY16 (2015‐2016) $100,000 $ 90,000 Failed MOE*

FY17 (2016‐2017) $100,000Must spend at least $100,000 in FY17

because the last year compliant was FY15

*LEA didn’t qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment

34 CFR §300.203

57


YEAR:

EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIAL

EDUCATION FROM GENERAL FUND

COMPLIANCESTATUS

FY15 (2014‐2015) $100,000

FY16 (2015‐2016) $90,000* Failed MOE

FY17 (2016‐2017) $90,000* Failed MOE


*LEA didn’t qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment

34 CFR §300.203

58

YEAR:

EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIAL

EDUCATION FROM GENERAL FUND

COMPLIANCESTATUS

FY15 (2014‐2015) $100,000

FY16 (2015‐2016) $90,000* Failed MOE

FY17 (2016‐2017) $100,000 Met MOE

Meeting MOE is not simply spending the same amount you spent the previous year.

You must spent the same amount you spent in the most recent prior year that was compliant with MOE.

3/27/2018

30

Test Your Understanding!Subsequent Years Rule


Test Your Understanding! Subsequent Years Rule – Q1

How much must the LEA spend in 2016‐2017 to be compliant?



EDUCATION FROM GENERAL FUNDEXCEPTIONS/ADJUSTMENT AMOUNT COMPLIANT?

2014‐2015 $75,000

2015‐2016 $50,000 $0 NO

2016‐2017 ?? $0

3/27/2018

31

Test Your Understanding! Subsequent Years Rule – A1


ANSWER: $75,000The LEA must spent at least the same amount it spent the last time it was compliant.




2014‐2015 $75,000

2015‐2016 $50,000 $0 NO

2016‐2017 $75,000 $0 YES

Test Your Understanding! Subsequent Years Rule – Q2





2014‐2015 $75,000

2015‐2016 $50,000 $25,000 YES

2016‐2017 ?? $0

3/27/2018

32

Test Your Understanding! Subsequent Years Rule – A2


ANSWER: $50,000Although the LEA spent less in FY16 than it spent in FY15, validated exceptions/adjustment resulted in

compliance in FY16.

The LEA set a new, lower base level of spending for subsequent years.




2014‐2015 $75,000

2015‐2016 $50,000 $25,000 YES

2016‐2017 $50,000 $0 YES

Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustment in Intervening Years


3/27/2018

33

Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustment in Intervening Years

If you had some exceptions and/or adjustment, but the amount was not enough to bring you into compliance that year:

• You can use the “unused” exception/adjustment toward a future year, until such time that the amount brings you into compliance

• Think of this “unused” exception/adjustment as a “carry‐forward” to be used toward a subsequent year’s decline in fiscal effort

• If you have several years in a row of noncompliance, and have some exceptions/adjustment amounts during each of those noncompliant years that were not enough to bring you into compliance, you can sum the amounts together to be used toward a future year


Exceptions Used in Intervening YearsIf you had exceptions, but the dollar amount wasn’t enough to bring you to compliance, you may use the exception amount toward subsequent years’ reviews, until such time that you are compliant


Fiscal Year Expenditures Exceptions Compliant?

2013‐2014 $75,000

2014‐2015 $50,000 $10,000 in FY15 NO

2015‐2016 $65,000 None in FY16 YES

The $10,000 of exceptions in FY15 submitted to TEA during the FY15 Compliance Review was not enough to bring the LEA to compliance.

However, the LEA can use the $10,000 from FY15 toward the FY16 compliance, if needed. The $10,000 is also used to reduce the amount of the refund due to TEA for the FY15 noncompliance.

3/27/2018

34


YEARREQUIRED

EXPENDITURESACTUAL

EXPENDITURESEXCEPTIONS/ ADJUSTMENT

CUMULATIVE EXCEPTIONS FOR

INTERVENING YEARS

ADJUSTEDEXPENDITURES (ACTUAL & EXCEPTION)

COMPLIANT?

2013‐2014 $300,000 $300,000 N/A YES

2014‐2015 $300,000 $200,000 $50,000 $250,000 NO

2015‐2016 $300,000 $200,000 $15,000 $65,000 $265,000 NO

2016‐2017 $300,000 $200,000 $35,000 $100,000 $300,000 YES

2017‐2018 $200,000 $0

• FY 15 and FY16 are noncompliant because the actual expenditures plus the exceptions/adjustment were less than the required level of spending.

• FY16 used “cumulative exceptions/adjustment” by summing the $50,000 exception from FY15 and the $15,000 exception from FY16. However, the cumulative exceptions of $65,000 were not enough to bring the LEA into compliance.

• FY17 used “cumulative exceptions/adjustment” by summing the $50,000 exception from FY15, the $15,000 exception from FY16, and the $35,000 exception from FY17. The cumulative exceptions of $100,000 brought the LEA into compliance in FY17 and set a new, lower base level of $200,000 to meet in FY18.

• Now that the “cumulative exceptions/adjustment” brought the LEA into compliance, the “cumulative” amount is re‐set to zero until such time that the LEA becomes non‐compliant and begins to have exceptions again.

Test Methods and Alternate Methods


3/27/2018

35

Four Test Methods

Special Education Expenditures based on:

Test 1: Local Funds only

Test 2: Combination of State & Local Funds

Test 3: Local Funds only Per Capita (per SWD*)

Test 4: Combination of State & Local Funds Per Capita (per SWD*)


*SWD = Student with Disabilities

34 CFR §300.203

69

Four Test Methods

Test Method 1 Passed

Test Method 2 Failed



LEA compliant because it passed at least one test method






LEA non‐compliant because it failed all four test methods

3/27/2018

36

Alternate Methods

Comparison must be made to most recent prior year in which the LEA

was compliant with MOE with that particular test

• Compare Test 1 to most recent prior year compliant using Test 1





34 CFR §300.203

71

For example:Last year

compliant with Test 1 could be 15‐16, while last year

compliant with Test 2 could be

14‐15

Alternate Methods

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3

LOCAL ONLY PER CAPITA

TEST 4STATE & LOCALPER CAPITA

FY15 (2014‐2015) $55,000 $120,000 $550/SWD $1,200/SWD

FY16 (2015‐2016)Compliant!

(passed at least one test)

$50,000 (Failed*)

$120,000 (Met)

$500/SWD (Failed*)

$1,250/SWD (Met and established

higher level)

FY17 (2016‐2017)Spend at least $55,000 to be compliant using

Test 1

Spend at least $120,000 to be compliant using

Test 2

Spend at least $550/SWD to be compliant using

Test 3

Spend at least $1,250/SWD to be compliant using

Test 4

In FY17, only need to pass one test, but expenditures for that test must equal or exceed expenditures from the

most recent prior year compliant with that particular test


SWD: Student with Disabilities *LEA didn’t qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment

72

3/27/2018

37

Test Your Understanding!Alternate Methods


Test Your Understanding!Alternate Methods – Q1


Was the LEA compliant with MOE in FY15?If so, which test(s) passed?

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $50,000 $300,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD

(The LEA did not qualify for exceptions or adjustment)

3/27/2018

38

Test Your Understanding!Alternate Methods – A1


Was the LEA compliant with MOE in FY15?If so, which test(s) passed?

ANSWER: YES, TESTS 2 and 4

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $50,000 $300,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD




How much must the LEA spend in FY16 to meet MOE using Test 1?

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $50,000 $300,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD

FY16 (2015‐2016) ?? ?? ?? ??


3/27/2018

39




ANSWER: $75,000

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $50,000 $300,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD

FY16 (2015‐2016) $75,000 ?? ?? ??





FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $40,000 $265,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD

FY16 (2015‐2016) ?? ?? ?? ??

*The LEA qualified for $35,000 in exceptions in FY15

3/27/2018

40




ANSWER: $40,000The LEA set a new lower base level with the FY15 exceptions

FISCAL YEARTEST 1

LOCAL ONLYTEST 2

STATE & LOCALTEST 3



FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $40,000 $265,000 $500/SWD $17,000/SWD

FY16 (2015‐2016) $40,000 ?? ?? ??

*The LEA qualified for $35,000 in exceptions in FY15

Alternate Methods

How can you keep track of the last year compliant for each of the four tests?!

TEA’s “IDEA‐B LEA MOE Compliance Review” posted in GFFC

Page 2 of the Final Review shows the last year compliant with each test


3/27/2018

41


Alternate MethodsandCumulative Exceptions/Adjustment in Intervening Years


3/27/2018

42

Alternate Methods and Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustment in Intervening Years

• The “cumulative exceptions/adjustment” amount can be carried forward to use in subsequent years for any failing test, until that particular test passes

• Once a particular test passes, the “cumulative exceptions/adjustment” amount is re‐set to zero for that test, but can still be used toward another failing test, until that other test passes as well

• “Cumulative exceptions/adjustment” can only be used toward a failing test



FISCAL YEAR

INTERVENINGYEARS

EXCEPTIONS/ ADJUSTMENT

TEST 1LOCAL ONLY

TEST 2STATE & LOCAL

TEST 3LOCAL ONLY PER CAPITA


FY14 (2013‐2014) $75,000 $300,000 $550/SWD $16,000/SWD

FY15 (2014‐2015) $10,000$50,000 (Failed)

$200,000 (Failed)

$500/SWD(Failed)

$15,000/SWD(Failed)

FY16 (2015‐2016) $0

$65,000 spent + $10,000 Intervening

Amt from FY15 (Passed)

$250,000(Failed)

$510/SWD(Failed)

$15,500/SWD(Failed)

FY17 (2016‐2017) $0$65,000(Passed)

$280,000(Failed)

$530/SWD + Intervening Amt from FY15, enough to pass per student (Passed)

$15,750/SWD + Intervening Amt from FY15, enough to pass per student (Passed)

FY18 (2017‐2018) $0$65,000(Passed)

$290,000 spent + $10,000 Intervening

Amt from FY15 (Passed)

$530/SWD(Passed)

(Passed)

$10,000 “Unused” Exceptions from FY15 can no longer be used after FY18 because now all tests have been brought to compliance using the $10,000

Simplified Example

3/27/2018

43

Summary


Summary

MOE simplified definition:

Spend at least the same amount*

for special education

from the general fund

as you spent in the

most recent prior fiscal year

that was compliant with MOE

with the particular test method

*Unless you qualify for Exceptions and/or Adjustment


3/27/2018

44

COMPLIANT NOT COMPLIANT LEA spends the same amount it

spent the previous yearLEA spends less than it spent the

previous year; Does not qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment

LEA spends less than it spent the previous year; Qualifies for exceptions/adjustment that equal the amount of the decrease

LEA spends less than it spent the previous year; Amount of theexceptions/adjustment is less than the amount of the decreased spending (“insufficient exception”)

LEA spends more than it spent the previous year


Lower Base Level Set!

Higher Base Level Set!

Exceptions won’t bring LEA into compliance for year in question, but can be used toward compliance in

subsequent years for “failing” tests.“Insufficient exceptions” are also used to decrease the

amount of the refund due to TEA

TEA’s Analysis of Compliance


3/27/2018

45


• TEA performs Preliminary analysis of an LEA’s compliance March ‐ April

• Uses final expenditures uploaded into TSDS PEIMS

• LEAs are given a short timeframe (five business days) to respond with documentation to claim exceptions and/or adjustment if the preliminary results indicate a decline in fiscal effort

• TEA releases Final results around April – June

• Preliminary and Final results are posted in GFFC



• TEA posts the Compliance results in GFFC:

• The Preliminary analysis for 2016‐2017 will be posted around the end of March/early April 2018


3/27/2018

46

Determination of Compliance• Be proactive and perform your own self‐analysis with TEA’s Calculation Tool

• Don’t submit your analysis to TEA; maintain locally

• Once TEA posts their 2016‐2017 Preliminary Review (IDEA‐B LEA MOE Compliance Review) in GFFC, compare your results to TEA’s results

• If TEA’s analysis indicates you are non‐compliant, you will have five business days to submit the 2016‐2017 Exceptions Workbook to claim exceptions and/or adjustment, if applicable, to justify the decreased spending

• If you are compliant because you passed at least one test, but have exceptions/adjustment, you may submit the Exceptions Workbook to try to pass all four tests (this is optional, but beneficial)

• TEA will review the workbooks and then determine a Final Analysis


Determination of Compliance• 2016‐2017 Final Review expected to be posted in GFFC June 2018

• If you submitted the 2016‐2017 Exceptions Workbook, the Final Review will show the dollar amount of the exceptions/adjustment validated by TEA

• Page 1 of the Final Review, row titled:

“Total exceptions and/or adjustment to fiscal effort validated by TEA”

• Final compliance result will be posted at the bottom of page 1, row titled: “Final compliance result (Pass/Fail)”

• If at least one test result shows “Pass”, you are compliant


3/27/2018

47

Determination of Compliance

This example illustrates an LEA that failed Tests 1 and 2 in the Preliminary Analysis

• Although the LEA passed Tests 3 and 4 and was compliant, the LEA submitted exceptions for Tests 1 and 2

• TEA validated the exceptions/adjustment, with a Final result of passing all four tests



• If all four test results for 2016‐2017 indicate “Fail”, you will be required to submit a refund to TEA

• The amount of the refund:o Will be the amount of the failed test with the lowest decline in effort (refunding the lowest amount).

o Will be reduced by the amount of exceptions/adjustment submitted but were insufficient to bring the LEA into compliance

o Will not exceed the amount of your IDEA‐B Final Formula entitlement for the year being analyzed

• TEA will send an enforcement letter with instructions for submitting the refund

• Do not send your payment to TEA until you receive the enforcement letter


3/27/2018

48

Determining FY17 Compliance

Use TEA’s MOE Calculation Tool


Must spend from one year to the next:Same amount* At least 100%*

(equal or exceed amt from previous year)

With State/Local Funds Fund 199/420 (& SPED SSAs Fund 437)

For Special Education PICs 23 & 33

Limited to Certain Function CodesFunction Codes: 11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 51, 53

From the Same Source Test Methods for “State & Local” or “Local Only”

*Unless you qualify for Exceptions and/or AdjustmentEducation Service Center, Region 20 | March 2018 96

3/27/2018

49

TEA Webpage for IDEA‐B MOE

Finance & Grants >

Compliance and Reporting >

IDEA Fiscal Compliance >

IDEA‐B LEA Maintenance of Effort

https://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Federal_Fiscal_Compliance_and_Reporting/IDEA_Fiscal_Compliance/IDEA‐B_LEA_Maintenance_of_Effort/



3/27/2018

50

Page 1 of MOE Calculation ToolIDEA‐B LEA MOE tab



The only data entry performed on Page 1 of the Calculation Tool:“LEA Name”, “CDN”, and “Compliance Review Year” at top,

and “Special Education Student Count” for 2016‐2017 near the bottom

Page 1 of MOE Calculation Tool

100

3/27/2018

51

FY17 Student Count for Page 1 of Calculation Tool

FY17 Special Education Child Count data obtained from

2016‐2017 TSDS PEIMS Fall Collection PDM1‐121‐003


Parameter LEA‐Level Data; Campuses: All

TSDS PEIMS Fall Collection Report


101

Page 2 of MOE Calculation ToolIDEA‐B LEA MOE tab


3/27/2018

52



103

Obtain Last Compliant Year Data from GFFC

• In GFFC, download the IDEA‐B LEA MOE Compliance Review

• School Year 2015‐2016

• Document dated 6/19/2017• (Final Review)

• Use Page 2 “IDEA‐B LEA MOE Subsequent Year Expenditure and Per‐Capita Expenditure Report” for expenditures amounts from last compliant year


3/27/2018

53



Page 2 of 2015‐2016 IDEA‐B LEA MOE Compliance Review (Final, dated 6/19/17)


106

3/27/2018

54


Last Compliant Year Student Count for Page 2 of Calculation Tool


107

Locate Student Count for Last Compliant Year on Page 1 of the 2015‐2016 IDEA‐B LEA MOE Compliance Review (Final, dated 6/19/17)


Page 1 of Compliance Review

Page 1 of 2015‐2016 MOE Compliance Review (Final, dated 6/19/17)

108

3/27/2018

55


Page 1 of 2015‐2016 MOE Compliance Review (Final, dated 6/19/17)


If 2015‐2016 was last compliant year for Test 3 or Test 4, the Student Count would be 145

Last Compliant Year Student Count

109

Page 2 – Last Compliant Year (Student Count)


• In this example of the 2015‐2016 Final Compliance Review:

• If Test 3 and/or 4’s last compliant year indicated on page 2 of the MOE Review was 2013‐2014, the LEA would enter 58 as the child count on page 2 of the spreadsheet



This example illustrates three different years of Student Count data

110

3/27/2018

56


Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustments Intervening Years column; Page 2 Calculation Tool

In this example, data entry is not allowed for Test 1 and Test 2 since last compliant year was 2015‐2016.Data entry is allowed for Test 3 and Test 4 since last compliant year was 2014‐2015


111

Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustments Intervening Years

• These are Exceptions and/or Adjustment to Fiscal Effort (Voluntary Reduction) submitted to TEA in previous years, but the amounts were not enough to bring the LEA into compliance that year

• These amounts can be used toward FY17 compliance

• Amounts are found on Page 1 of the MOE Compliance Review (Final)

• Detailed instructions are located in the first tab of the Calculation Tool


3/27/2018

57


Amount of Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustments, Intervening Years: Enter the sum amount of all cumulative exceptions and/or adjustment to fiscal effort that the LEA submitted in all intervening years (years since last being compliant) that were validated by TEA but did not bring the LEA into compliance for a test method.

Enter the LEA's cumulative exceptions/adjustments amount, which represents a "carry-forward," only for the test methods with a "Fail" compliance result based on page 1 of the Final IDEA-B LEA MOE Compliance Review from the prior compliance review school year (Excel cells M6, M8, M10, M12).

Note: If an LEA's last compliant school year was 2014-2015, this amount is indicated on Line (i) of your 2015-2016 FINAL IDEA-B LEA MOE Compliance Review.

If the LEA's last compliant school year was 2013-2014, this amount is the sum of the amount on Line (f) of your 2014-2015 FINAL IDEA-B LEA MOE Compliance Review and the amount on Line (i) of your 2015-2016 FINAL IDEA-B LEA MOE Compliance Review.

Be sure to use the totals indicated in the Test 1 or 2 columns and not the per-capita exceptions amounts.

Instructions from Calculation Tool:

113



Cumulative Exceptions/Adjustments Intervening Years Page 1 of 2015‐2016 MOE Compliance Review (Final, dated 6/19/17)

114

3/27/2018

58

Page 3 of Calculation ToolIDEA‐B LEA MOE tab




116

3/27/2018

59

FY17 Expenditures Data for Page 3 of Calculation Tool

• 2017‐2018 TSDS PEIMS Mid‐Year Collection• PDM2‐101‐002 TSDS PEIMS ACTUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

• Parameters:• LEA‐level Data

• Unallocated Funds Only

• Campuses: ALL

• Use only the following Function Codes:• 11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 51, 53

• Use PIC 23 (Special Education) and PIC 33 (Pre‐K Special Education)



2017‐2018 TSDS PEIMS Mid‐Year Report PDM2‐101‐002

UnallocatedFY17 Expenditures

Page 1PIC 23 Direct Costs

Always use Unallocated

Data

118

3/27/2018

60




Page 2PIC 23 IndirectCosts

Payments to the Fiscal Agent of a Shared Services Arrangement (SSA) do NOT count toward MOE.

119





120

3/27/2018

61





121



122

3/27/2018

62


ISDs that are members of a Special Education SSA


Charter Schools leave this row blank.

ISDs that are not members of a Special Education SSA leave this row blank.

123


Data source for amount spent by Fiscal Agent on behalf of members of Special Education SSA:

2017‐2018 TSDS PEIMS Mid‐Year Collection Report PDM2‐100‐015 for FY17 expenditures

Members do not have access to this report.

Ask your Fiscal Agent for this amount.

Only Fund 437!


124

3/27/2018

63


2017‐2018 TSDS PEIMS Mid‐Year PDM2‐100‐015 (Fiscal Agent FY17 expenditures on behalf of member)


Please note: The amount to enter in the “SSA Expenditures Paid on Behalf of Member LEA” cell in the MOE Calculation Tool is the amount the Fiscal Agent spent, using Fund 437, on behalf of the member.

It is not the amount the member paid to the Fiscal Agent coded to Function 93.

Applicable only to ISDs that are members of Special Education SSA


125


SHARS Reimbursement Expended in Special Education in FY17

All LEAs were required to submit a survey to TEA in the fall of 2017 to inform TEA whether the LEA participated in SHARS Reimbursement (Revenue Code 5931) and, if so, if any of the reimbursement amount was used for subsequent special education expenditures in 2016‐2017.

• If your LEA indicated that it didn’t participate in SHARS, leave this row on the MOE Calculation Tool blank.

• If your LEA indicated that it participated in SHARS but did not spend any portion of the SHARS reimbursement amount for subsequent special education expenditures in 2016‐2017, leave this row on the MOE Calculation Tool blank.

• If your LEA reported a dollar amount on the survey, enter the amount on this SHARS Reimbursement row.


126

3/27/2018

64

SHARS Reimbursement Expended in Special Education in FY17

• LEAs submitted their data to TEA via a survey instead of GFFC for 2016‐2017

• In prior years, the submission was via GFFC instead of via a survey

• TEA indicated the survey results would be posted in GFFC for ESCs and LEAs to pull the data for purposes of MOE analysis

• As of Friday, 3/23/18, the SHARS Reimbursement data was not available in GFFC



Summary of Finances (SOF) Data Applicable to ISDS ONLY

Lower portion of Page 3 of MOE Calculation Tool

Summary of Finances (SOF) data obtained from the 2016‐2017 Summary of Finances report on TEA’s website:https://tea4avfawcett.tea.state.tx.us/Fsp/Reports/ReportSelection.aspx

• First “Near‐Final” SOF (In this example, September 7, 2017 of the 2016‐2017 SOF)

Enter SOF data in the orange cells of the MOE Calculation Tool, lower portion of Page 3

128

3/27/2018

65


2016‐2017 SOF, First Near Final version

Lower portion, Page 3 of MOE Calculation Tool

Applicable to ISDs Only

129


Summary of Finances (SOF) Data Applicable to Charter Schools ONLY

Lower portion of Page 3 of MOE Calculation Tool

Enter Fund 199 PIC 23 or PIC 33 expenditures, if applicable

Charter Schools do not use Summary of Finances (SOF) data for MOE purposes.

SOF data are only applicable to ISDs as a methodology to determine special education expenditures from local funds.

Most charter schools do not have special education expenditures from local funds.

However, if a charter school receives local funds from donations or fund raising activities, etc., codes to Fund 199, and uses the revenue for special education expenditures, the charter school must enter the dollar amount of the Fund 199 special education expenditures in the applicable section in the lower portion of Page 3 of the MOE Calculation tool.

Otherwise, this section is left blank.

130

3/27/2018

66



Determination of Compliance• After all data entry has been performed in the MOE calculation tool, return to Page 1 to see the compliance results

• The LEA only needs to pass one test to be compliant


3/27/2018

67


If Decline in Effort:

If your LEA qualifies for exceptions and/or adjustment to local fiscal effort (MOE Voluntary Reduction), complete the 2016‐2017 Exceptions Workbook available on TEA’s webpage

https://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Federal_Fiscal_Compliance_and_Reporting/IDEA_Fiscal_Compliance/IDEA‐B_LEA_Maintenance_of_Effort/

133

Exceptions Workbook

• Complete the 2016‐2017 Exceptions Workbook (if you have qualifying exceptions/adjustment)

• Gather required documentation described in the workbook

• Once TEA releases their Preliminary Review in GFFC, compare your results to TEA’s results

• Upload the completed 2016‐2017 Exceptions Workbook and supporting documentation into GFFC


3/27/2018

68

Calculation Tool vs Exceptions Workbook

• Calculation Tool is used to determine compliance• LEA completes and maintains locally

• Not submitted to TEA

• Exceptions Workbook is used to submit documentation of exceptions and/or adjustment to TEA to justify decline in fiscal effort

• LEA submits to TEA within five business days of TEA’s posting of Preliminary Review in GFFC

• Do not submit prior to TEA’s posting of Preliminary Review results

• LEA uploads Exceptions Workbook into GFFC


Bonus SectionUnallocated Expenditures vs Allocated Expenditures


3/27/2018

69

Unallocated vs Allocated Data

Program Intent Codes (PICs) are used to account for the cost of instruction and other services that are directed toward a particular need of a specific set of students

Examples:

PIC 23 = Special Education

PIC 21 = Gifted and Talented



Use specific Basic or Enhanced PIC for any transaction that is clearly and directly attributable to that particular program intent

Use PIC 99 Undistributed for all charges that cannot be clearly attributable to a specific program intent


3/27/2018

70


Unallocated PEIMS/TSDS reports illustrate expenditures coded by the LEA to the various PICs

Amounts should match local records

Allocated PEIMS/TSDS report uses a formula to allocate costs recorded in PIC 99 Undistributed to the Basic and Enhanced PICs according to instructional FTEs assigned to those PICs

Expenditures for specific PICs in the Allocated report will be higher than those in the Unallocated report and in local records



FUNCCODE

PIC 21 GT

PIC 22 CTE PIC 23 SPED

PIC 99 UNDISTRIB

11 917,826 7,986,900 36,445,045 0

12 17,156 150,558 1,032,697 0

13 170,320 192,451 1,078,262 0

21 63,021 174,454 2,043,599 0

23 75,302 552,978 4,233,309 135,208

31 48,083 1,047,954 3,469,214 3,745

32 3,294 24,907 130,923 0


FUNC CODE

PIC 21 GT

PIC 22 CTE

PIC 23 SPED PIC 99 UNDISTRIB

11 876,541 7,672,831 34,206,223 11,062,613

12 0 33,750 0 5,612,142

13 160,079 106,530 523,105 2,721,824

21 49,715 73,230 1,322,077 3,565,214

23 0 0 0 23,015,844

31 19,337 825,387 2,125,405 6,732,079

32 0 0 0 608,197

UNALLOCATED SAMPLE ALLOCATED SAMPLE

All amounts show exactly as the LEA coded –matches local records

The system distributed (allocated) amounts in PIC 99 to specific PICs; reducing PIC 99 amount & increasing amounts in other PICs

3/27/2018

71

Bonus SectionIDEA‐B MOE is Not…


IDEA‐B MOE is Not…


3/27/2018

72

IDEA‐B MOE is Not … the 52% Rule

MOE = Federal spending requirement (34 CFR 300.203):

State and/or Local fundsMaintain the same level of fiscal effort (spending) on special

education expenditures

52% Rule = State spending requirement (TAC 105.11):

State (FSP – Foundation School Program) Special Education allotment

Do not spend more than 48% percent of the allotment on

Indirect Costs


IDEA‐B MOE is Not … the 52% Rule

IDEA‐B MOE

Federal requirement 34 §CFR 300.203

Must spend 100% on special education expenditures from the general fund, from one year to the next, unless qualify for exceptions and/or adjustment

Analysis of Compliance Based On:

Funds: State and/or Local

Unallocated Expenditures

Function Codes:

Some Direct Costs Function Codes andSome Indirect Costs Function Codes

SOF (ISDs only):

First ‘Near Final’ payment cycle

LPE Column


52% Rule

State requirement 19 TAC §105.11

No more than 48% of the FSP special allotment for special education may be expended for indirect costs related to the program

Analysis of Compliance Based On:

Funds: FSP Special Education Allotment

Allocated Expenditures

Function Codes:

All Direct Costs Function Codes

SOF (Applicable to all LEAs):

Last ‘Final’ payment cycle

Final Column (was DPE column)

3/27/2018

73


Expenditures used to determine compliance with IDEA‐B MOE:

Expenditures used to determine compliance with 52% Rule:

Excerpts obtained from

TSDS PEIMS Mid Year Report

Applicable Function Codes

are those highlighted in

yellow

In PIC 23/33, General Fund, did you spend at least the same amount of the total of these certain Function Codes, year to year?

Were the Total Direct expenditures at least 52% of your State Special Education allotment?

IDEA‐B MOE is Not … ESSA MOE

MOE for Special Education (IDEA‐B):

100% spending requirement

Subject to sanctions every year of non‐compliance

MOE for Title Programs (ESSA):

90% spending requirement

Not subject to sanctions the first year of non‐compliance**Provided the LEA was compliant the prior five years


3/27/2018

74


IDEA‐B MOE: ESSA MOE:

Spending Requirement 100% 90%

Exceptions Allowed? YES NO

Waiver Request Allowed? NO YES

Function Codes Used: 11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 51, 53

11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (deficit only), 36 (deficit only), 41, 51, 53

Four Tests for Compliance (Only need to meet one test):

1. Local Only2. State & Local3. Local Only Per Capita4. State & Local Per Capita

1. State & Local2. State & Local per pupil for Refined ADA (RADA)3. State & Local per pupil for Membership4. State & Local per pupil for Enrollment

Consequence of Non‐Compliance:

LEA submits refund to TEA TEA reduces LEA’s allocation of each applicable ESSA program by proportion of decline (If 5% decline, each program’s allocation reduced by 5%)

Sanctions Frequency Subject to sanctions every year LEA is non‐compliant

Five Year Window: Not subject to sanctions the first year of non‐compliance provided the LEA met MOE for each of the immediately preceding five years

Resources


3/27/2018

75


Applicable Function Codes for IDEA‐B MOE11 Instruction

12 Instructional Resources and Media Services

13 Curriculum and Instructional Staff Development

21 Instructional Leadership

23 School Leadership

31 Guidance and Counseling Service

32 Social Work Services

33 Health Services

34 Student (Pupil) Transportation

36 Cocurricular/Extracurricular Activities

41 General Administration

51 Plant Maintenance and Operations

53 Data Processing Services149

TEA’s Webpage for Calculation Tool and Exceptions Workbook


Home > Finance & Grants > Grants >Compliance & Reporting > IDEA Fiscal Compliance > IDEA‐B LEA Maintenance of Effort

http://tea.texas.gov/Finance_and_Grants/Grants/Federal_Fiscal_Compliance_and_Reporting/IDEA_Fiscal_Compliance/IDEA‐B_LEA_Maintenance_of_Effort/

150

3/27/2018

76

Questions

ESC‐20: TEA:

Denise Dusek

Federal Funding Specialist Federal Fiscal Compliance & Special Education Component Reporting Division

(210) 370‐5378 (512) 463‐9127

[email protected] [email protected]


maintenance of effort (moe) for special education ... · determining data needed to complete the...

Documents