001This presentation will discuss the requirement related to the title one part A supplement non-supplant methodology which has been selected for review as part of the program monitoring validation process being conducted by the federal program compliance division at the Texas Education Agency. This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and guidance to Texas LEAs, ESC's, nonprofit subgrantees, and participating private schools receiving equitable services. The content of this presentation reflects the Texas Education AY's current understanding of statute and applicable federal guidance. The content of this presentation is subject to change as a result of future guidance or other updates provided by federal agencies with regulatory oversight of these programs. This presentation does not constitute legal advice and entities are therefore advised to seek legal counsel regarding the information and guidance provided in this presentation before acting
002upon the ed provided. The Texas Education Agency does not permit thirdparty recording or the use of artificial intelligence summary services during its grants related trainings. Attendees of TEA's grant related trainings may not use AI services, language models, applications, interfaces, or assistance to attend, review, or record the trainings. TEA further prohibits any person or entity from using the information included in its grants related trainings to train AI technologies. Any attendees of TEA's grant related trainings who violate this prohibition may be removed from the trainings and may be barred from attending future grants related trainings. Documenting overall compliance for a program requirement may require several forms of documentation to be maintained locally and available upon request by TEA and/or an auditor. To ensure overall compliance with program requirements, LEAs should refer to the program guide and/or other
003program related resources that reference the multiple forms of documentation required to be maintained locally. The documentation requested for submission during the validation process may not include all forms of documentation that are required to be maintained locally. The agenda for today's presentation will include a discussion of the specific program requirement, acceptable documentation for the validation, past validation issues, a discussion of examples, and the resources that are available. In order to document compliance with the supplement not supplant requirement, the LEA has either a formal supplement not supplant methodology for distributing state and local funds to its campuses or it has a formal statement of exemption. ELEAS have been selected for this particular requirement based on their response to the question in part D of the SC5000 schedule as documentation for item 1.1. The LEA is asked to
004submit a copy of its supplement nonsupplant methodology for the specified school year. Sample templates for this document are available in the supplement nonsupplant handbook. As we are reviewing the methodology, we will be looking to see that it is title one neutral, meaning that the LEA is allocating its state and local funds to campuses without regard to whether they are title one campuses. We will also be looking to see if the methodology describes how the state and local funds are allocated. Issues that may result in an improvement needed status include auditable documentation requested was not submitted, the methodology is not title one neutral, the methodology is unclear, the exemption is not valid, or the documentation that was provided was not from the school year requested. For item 1.2, Two, we will be looking for evidence that
005connects the methodology to the campus budgets. Acceptable documentation for this could include summary pages from the general ledger for the applicable school year showing the total budget amount allocated to each campus. Please note that we do not need the entire campus ledger. We only need summary pages that show the campus name, campus number, and the total amount budgeted for each campus. Issues that could result in an improvement needed status include that the auditable documentation requested was not submitted, that the campus names and numbers and their corresponding state and local budget totals are not evident, that the budgeted amounts are not related to the methodology requested, or that the documentation submitted was not from the applicable school year. Some of the challenges that we've identified in past validations include that the LEA was actually eligible for
006a statement of exemption, although it submitted a methodology. It's not wrong for an LEA that is exempt to have a written methodology for allocating its state and local funds to its campuses, but it is maybe extra work. If the LEA chooses to have a statement of exemption, the LEA should ensure that it has selected statement of exemption in part D of the SC5000 campus selection schedule of the consolidated federal grant application. Another challenge is that the documentation submitted did not indicate a particular school year. LEA should review their statement of exemption or their methodology each year and revise it as necessary. Campus status may change from year to year and methodologies may change. The dates should always reflect the current school year. And finally, pages from the general ledger might only show line item expenditures
007and not the total budgeted amounts per campus. When we're looking for compliance with the section of the of validation, compliance is determined based on budgets, not on line item expenditures. When documenting the connection to the general ledger, the LEA should submit only the relevant pages of the report that shows the campus name, the campus number, and the original or revised budget amount for fund codes 199 for the districts or for fun codes 420 for charter schools. The name of the particular port report will vary depending on the LEA's system. Here's a sample of what such a report might look like. It has the campus name and campus number and the original and revised budget amounts for each campus. It's likely that the report would include one page per campus so that the LEA would have
008have all of its campuses represented. Some of the information on this sheet includes line item expenditures. That's not exactly what we're looking for, but as long as it has the campus name, the campus number, and the original revised budget amount for the campus, that's what we need. Next, we will review the resources and support that are available to assist LEAs in completing the program monitoring validation process. In the category of overall process resources, eleas can access the PMV process handbook, instructions, training video, and training slides for tips on submitting documentation and a video on how to navigate the smart sheet work app system. These as well as other programspecific resources are available on the ESSA program monitoring validations web page. For each requirement included in the validations, there is a guidance document that describes the
009acceptable documentation as well as training slides and a training video that discuss previous findings. These resources are available to eleas to review prior to submitting documentation for selected PMV requirements. Please take advantage of these documents to ensure that the district is informed of the overall process for program monitoring validations and all programspecific resources. Complimentary technical assistance and training are available from each regional education service center. ESC contacts for each regional center are located towards the bottom of the TEA Title One Part A web page. Questions related to the program monitoring validations for the Title One Part A program may be directed to Vivian Smurl at essport tea.ex.gov.