How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I

8/2/2019 How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I

1/32

How the Supplement-Not-SupplantRequirement Can Work Against the

Policy Goals of Title IA Case or Using Title I, Part A, Education Funds More Eectivel

and Eciently

Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric Federal Education Group, PLLC

March 2012

www.americanprogress.org www.aei.o

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

Tightening Up Title I


2/32


3/32

1 Introduction and summary

3 Overview of the supplement-not-supplant requirement

5 History and policy behind supplement-not-supplant

7 Supplement-not-supplant and todays Title I

10 Practical implementation

18 Potential solutions

22 Conclusion

23 Endnotes

25 About the authors

Contents


4/32


5/32

Introduction and summary | www.americanprogress.

Introduction and summary

ile I o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac, a ederal program o

provide addiional assisance o academically sruggling sudens in high-povery

areas, has long conained a provision called he supplemen-no-supplan

requiremen.1 Tis provision was designed o ensure ile I unds were spen

on exra educaional services or a-risk sudens, bu in pracice, he rule as i is

currenly enorced can preven school disrics and schools rom spending ederal

money on eecive educaional sraegies. Complying wih he supplemen-no-

supplan rule also carries an enormous adminisraive burden.

Spending ile I unds eecively on academically sruggling and a-risk sudens

can be dicul because he ederal governmen currenly ess or supplemen-

no-supplan violaions on a cos-by-cos basis. In oher words, school disrics

and schools mus prove ha each individual cos charged o ile I suppors an

aciviy he disric or school would no have oherwise carried ou wih sae or

local unds. Any cos a school disric or school would have paid or in he absence

o ile I is no considered o be exra.

Federal adminisraive rules insruc audiors and oher oversigh personnel o

presume ha aciviies mandaed by law, previously suppored wih sae or local

unds, or beneing all sudens are, by deaul, no exra. As a resul, i is dicul

or school disrics and schools o:

Implemen comprehensive programs wih ile I unds (please see page 13 or

an example) Implemen innovaive programs wih ile I unds (please see page 16 or

an example)

Manage adminisraive responsibiliies in a way ha minimizes burden(please see page 14 or more inormaion)

Tis works agains ile Is goals o ensuring all sudens have access o a high-

qualiy educaion, and argeing resources eecively o make a dierence where

needs are greaes.2


6/32

2 Center or American Progress | How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against Title I

ile I was designed o be a exible program, giving school disrics and schools

laiude o spend ile I unds on a broad array o educaional services as long as

hey are consisen wih he programs purposes. Te supplemen-no-supplan

rule as i is currenly enorced, however, subsanially limis how school disrics

and schools may spend heir ile I unds, resricing he ways in which ile I can

suppor a-risk sudens.

Tis paper briey describes he origins o ile Is supplemen-no-supplan require-

men and provides examples o how he rule aecs sae and local implemenaion

o ile I programs. Tis paper also oers hree opions or reorming he rule:

Replace he curren cos-by-cos es wih a es ha ocuses on he amoun o

sae and local unding ile I schools receive o ensure such unds are allocaed

neurally wihou regard o he ile I unds available o he school.

Allow he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion, and perhaps sae educaional agencies,o waive he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen as needed o promoe eec-

ive and ecien educaional sraegies or a-risk sudens.

Eliminae he supplemen-no-supplan es alogeher.

Te purpose o his paper is o explore he ways in which he supplemen-no-

supplan requiremen works agains he goals o ile I and o oer suggesions

or alernaives ha beter promoe he responsible use o ile I unds.


7/32

Overview o the supplement-not-supplant requirement | www.americanprogress.

Overview of the supplement-

not-supplant requirement

A State educational agency or local educational agency shall use Federal

unds received under this part only to supplement the unds that would, in the

absence o such Federal unds, be made available om non-Federal sources or

the education o pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and

not to supplant such unds.

Section 1120A o the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

A is mos basic, ile Is supplemen-no-supplan provision requires saes

and disrics o use ile I unds o add o (supplemen) and no replace (sup-

plan) he sae and local unds hey spend on educaion. In oher words, ile I

unds are no mean o subsiue or sae and local unds, bu raher provide an

addiional layer o suppor. Tus, saes and disrics are required o demonsrae

ha ile I unds are used o purchase exra academic services, sa, programs, or

maerials he sae or disric would no normally provide.

Supplemen-no-supplan is bes undersood as a scal es ha saes and

disrics mus apply o veriy hey are spending ile I unds on exra coss. I

is one o hree scal ess a school disric mus mee in order o spend ile I

unds, each o which operaes dierenly:

Test #1Maintenance of effort. Te mainenance-o-eor provision ocuses

on spending a he school disric level. o receive ile I unds, a disric gener-

ally may no reduce he amoun o sae and local money i spends or public

educaion rom one year o he nex.3 Tis es looks a he oal amoun o sae

and local money a disric spends each year.

Test #2Comparability. Te comparabiliy provision ocuses on services

suppored a he school level wih sae and local unds and is a prerequisie

or receiving ile I unds. o receive ile I unds, a disric mus veri y i


8/32


uses sae and local unds o provide services in ile I schools ha, aken as a

whole, are a leas comparable o he services provided in schools ha are no

receiving ile I unds.

Test #3Supplement-not-supplant. Te supplemen-no-supplan provi-

sion ocuses on individual coss as i is currenly enorced. A sae, disric, orschool ha receives ile I unds mus veri y all coss paid wih ile I unds

are addiional o wha he agency would oherwise provide wih sae and local

unds. Tis es looks a wha he agency would have done in he absence o

ederal unds. A he school level, supplaning is analyzed dierenly in a ile I

argeed assisance school versus a schoolwide school, which is discussed in

urher deph on page 8 o his repor.

Finally, i is imporan o address he relaionship beween ile I and low-

income children in order o undersand he challenges o he supplemen-

no-supplan requiremen. While he ile I program was designed o addresspovery in general, and money is allocaed o school disrics and schools based

on aggregae povery levels, individual sudens are eligible or ile I services

based on academic need, no economic disadvanage. Tus, in a ile I argeed

assisance schoolhe curren deaul program model ha delivers services

only o specically idenied sudens wihin he schoola ile I suden may

be poor or wealhyeligibiliy depends on wheher he suden is sruggling

academically, no he sudens socioeconomic saus.4 In a ile I schoolwide

schoola model or delivering services in high-povery schools ha mee

cerain crieriaall sudens are eligible o receive services, hough he law sill

requires schools o pay special atenion o academically sruggling sudens.5

Services are no argeed o sudens based on povery.

Undersanding suden eligibiliy or he ile I program is an imporan

ramework or undersanding he modern challenges o he supplemen-no-

supplan requiremen.6


9/32

History and policy behind supplement-not-supplant | www.americanprogress.

History and policy behind

supplement-not-supplant

In recognition o the special educational needs o children o low-income amilies

and the impact that concentrations o low-income amilies have on the ability

o local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the

Congress hereby declares it to be the policy o the United States to provide nan-

cial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations

o children om low-income amilies to expand and improve their educational

programs byvarious means which contribute particularly to meeting thespecial educational needs o educationally deprived children.

Original Declaration o Policy om the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act o 1965

Alhough supplemen-no-supplan is a scal es, i has been closely conneced

o he policy purpose o ile I and he debae abou wha ha purpose is,

hroughou is hisory.

In a 2001 anhology on he hisory o ile I, Jack Jennings, a ormer high-level

congressional saer and curren direcor or he Cener on Educaion Policy,

explains ha ile I wen hrough an ideniy crisis in he early years o is imple-

menaion as policymakers and early ederal adminisraors o he program

sruggled o deermine ile Is purpose.7

On he one hand, he law was enaced as he cornersone o Presiden Johnsons

war agains povery. I was based on he belie ha providing exra nancial

assisance o high-povery school disrics would help raise he qualiy o educa-

ion hose disrics could provide. Tus, some policymakers, whom Jennings callsradiionaliss, el he ile I program was simply a mechanism o deliver aid o

needy school disrics. Tose disrics would hen have subsanial exibiliy in

how hey spen he unds.


10/32


On he oher hand, he law was designed o help educaionally deprived children.

Tus, oher policymakers, whom Jennings calls reormers, el ile I unds

should be spen only on argeed services or specic groups o needy sudens

insead o or he bene o school disrics as a whole.

When a well-publicized repor drew atenion o he ac ha ile I unds ofenwere being spen on general school expenses, including operaional coss, raher

han specic services or a-risk sudens, Jennings argues he pendulum shifed

o he reormers.8 Congress responded by imposing a supplemen-no-supplan

requiremen on ile I unds. As a resul, he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion used

he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen o enorce he idea ha saes and

disrics should no use ile I unds on general educaion expenses. Tis was

inended o ensure unds were concenraed on educaionally disadvanaged chil-

dren. Any cos ha was provided o all sudens was considered a general expense

and could no be suppored wih ile I unds.

In essence, ederal enorcemen o he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen

became a change managemen oola way o communicae o saes and disrics

accusomed o receiving exible ederal grans ha ile I money was mean o be

concenraed on specic sudens.

Tus, by he mid-1970s, ile Is supplemen-no-supplan requiremen was an

imporan enorcemen ool used by he ederal governmen o direc schools and

disrics o provide addiional services and resources o ile I sudens, insead o

having ile I unds bene a school or disric as a whole. From ha perspecive,

supplemen-no-supplan did help urher some o he iniial goals o ile I. Ye,

as he law coninued o evolve, i is no clear ha he supplemen-no-supplan

requiremen is consisen wih he policy goals o odays ile I.


11/32

Supplement-not-supplant and todays Title I | www.americanprogress.

Supplement-not-supplant

and todays Title I

Te purpose o this title is to ensure that all children have a air, equal, and

signicant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a mini-

mum, prociency on challenging State academic achievement standards and

state academic assessments.

Statement o Purpose om currently authorized

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

In many ways, ile Is ideniy crisis sill exiss, bu has evolved. By saue,

schools and disrics mus use ile I unds o improve he academic achievemen

o specically idenied sudens including:

Sudens who are ailing or mos a risk o ailing o mee sae sandards as

deermined hrough muliple, educaionally relaed, objecive crieria esab-

lished by school disrics and schools Children who paricipaed in cerain ederally suppored preschool programs

such as Head Sar Migran sudens Negleced and delinquen sudens Homeless sudens9

Tereore, a he individual suden level, povery is no a crierion or receiving

services, and a sudens eligibiliy or ile I services has nohing o do wih he su-

dens income level. While unds are disribued in subsanial par based on povery

levels, ile I unds are o be used o help academically disadvanaged sudens.

Te curren ension revolves around how bes o improve he achievemen o

academically disadvanaged sudens.


12/32


As he ederal governmen began o use supplemen-no-supplan and oher scal

requiremens o crack down on improper ile I spending, disrics responded by

using ile I unds o build programs or a-risk sudens ha were separae and

disinc rom he regular classrooms program. Disrics relied heavily on pull-ou

models ha removed academically a-risk children rom he normal classroom

because such programs made i easier o demonsrae ha ile I unds were beingused o provide exra services.

Ye, ederal policymakers now poin o research showing ha oering compar-

menalized services may no be he mos eecive way o improve he academic

perormance o a-risk sudens, paricularly in schools wih high concenraions o

povery.10 Insead, hese policymakers have relied on research poining o he value

in implemening comprehensive sraegies hroughou a school o improve he aca-

demic perormance o all sudens, paricularly hose mos academically a risk.11

As a resul, ederal policy now encourages saes and disrics o use unds morecomprehensively. A he legislaive level, Congress has worked o make ederal

educaion programs more consisen so ha elemenary and secondary educaion,

special educaion, and career and echnical educaion programs can be oered

more seamlessly. A he execuive level, he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion acively

encourages disrics o incorporae heir ile I services ino broader educaional

improvemen plans. Raher han oering programs in siloslike a pull-ou ile

I programhe deparmen encourages disrics o inegrae ile I services ino

more comprehensive school-reorm eors.

Nowhere is his policy inenion more clear han wih he concep o schoolwide

programs. ile I auhorizes wo dieren models or delivering services:

Model #1Targeted assistance.Any school receiving ile I unds may choose

o operae a argeed-assisance model. In a argeed-assisance program, he

school idenies specic academically a-risk sudens and may use ile I

unds only o serve hose seleced sudens. In oher words, he school main-

ains a lis o eligible childreni a suden is no on he lis, hen he or she

canno receive ile I services.

Model #2Schoolwide. High-povery schools, hose in which a leas 40

percen o he sudens are rom low-income amilies, may choose o operae

a schoolwide program model i hey also mee cerain oher crieria, such as

having a schoolwide plan wih specic required componens. In a schoolwide


13/32

Supplement-not-supplant and todays Title I | www.americanprogress.

program all sudens are eligible o paricipae in ile I-unded services, and he

school uses is ile I unds o upgrade he schools enire educaional program.

Te goal is o improve he academic perormance o all sudens, paricularly he

lowes-achieving sudens.

While boh models are permissible, rom a policy perspecive he ederal govern-men encourages eligible schools o implemen schoolwide programs. Te ile

I saue requires saes o encourage schools o implemen schoolwide programs

and o reduce barriers o schoolwide implemenaion.12 Addiionally, he U.S.

Deparmen o Educaion promoes he benes o he schoolwide model in is

nonregulaory guidance.13

In addiion o he comprehensive naure o schoolwide programs, he U.S.

Deparmen o Educaion has encouraged ha model as a way o use ile I

o promoe innovaion. In nonregulaory guidance on designing schoolwide

programs, he deparmen noed, he ile I schoolwide process suppors hecreaion o high-perorming schools by encouraging schools o make signican,

even radical, changes in how hey do business.14

From a pracical sandpoin, however, i can be very dicul or disrics and

schools o implemen comprehensive programs wih ile I unds, including

schoolwide programs, and supplemen-no-supplan is one o he mos

signican barriers.


14/32


Practical implementation

o bes undersand he pracical challenges o dealing wih supplemen-no-

supplan, i is imporan o undersand how he provision has been inerpreed by

execuive branch agencies. As discussed above, he ile I saue requires saes

and school disrics o use ile I unds only o supplemen and no o supplan

sae and local unds ha would be available in he absence o ederal unds. While

he saue is silen as o how a sae or school disric can demonsrae compli-

ance wih he supplaning requiremen, execuive branch agencies have imposed a

cos-by-cos es or supplaning. As explained in more deail below, his cos-by-cos approach o supplaning leads o pracical oucomes very dieren rom wha

Congress likely inended.

Because i is very dicul o deermine wha a sae or school disric would have

done in he absence o ederal unds as is required by he ile I saue, he

execuive branch developed hree presumpions o supplaning ha are used by

he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion and oher oversigh eniies, including audiors

and moniors,15 o deermine i supplaning has occurred:

Presumption #1Required by law. Supplaning is presumed i a sae, disric,

or school uses ile I unds o pay or somehing ha i is required o provide

under oher ederal, sae, or local laws. I sae law requires a school disric o

mainain a specic class size, or example, hen he disric could no use ile I

unds o pay he salary o any eacher used o mee he saes class-size reduc-

ion mandae.

Presumption #2Supported last year. Supplaning is presumed i a sae,

disric, or school uses ile I unds o pay or somehing i suppored las year

wih sae or local unds.16

I a disric used sae and local unds o suppor read-ing coaches one year, or example, hen i could no use ile I unds o pay or

hose same reading coaches he nex year.


15/32

Practical implementation | www.americanprogress.o

Presumption #3Provided to everyone. Supplaning is presumed i a sae, dis-

ric, or school uses ile I unds o pay or services o ile I sudens i he sae,

disric, or school uses sae or local unds o provide he same services o oher

sudens. A disric canno use ile I unds o oer exended day schooling o

ile I sudens, or example, i i provides he same exended day schooling o

non-ile I sudens wih sae or local unds.

Tese presumpions can be overcome (or rebuted) in limied circumsances

where a sae, disric, or school can demonsrae o an audior or moniors sais-

acion ha i would no have suppored a paricular cos in he absence o ile I,

bu in pracice his is very hard o do.17 Tese presumpions also work dierenly

in schools ha have implemened schoolwide programs, which is discussed in

more deail below.

While he hree presumpions are no conained in he ile I saue or regula-

ions, hey are he mehod he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion, audiors, moniors,and oher oversigh eniies use o es compliance wih he supplemen-no-

supplan requiremen. Te presumpions are included in several nonregulaory

guidance documens prepared by he deparmen and also in a se o insrucions

he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion and he Oce o Managemen and Budge

joinly issue o audiors.18

Tese hree presumpions resul in supplaning being esed or on a cos-by-cos

basis, where each individual iem purchased wih ile I unds mus saisy he

above crieria in order o be considered exra. Tus, i is nearly impossible o

say wih any cerainy exacly wha consiues supplaning because he analysis

varies rom cos o cos, eniy o eniy, and reviewer o reviewer. Consider hese

saemens rom he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion during a 2004 webinar on

supplemen-no-supplan:

[Supplement-not-supplant] sounds like a very simple requirement, but it [is]

very act specic. And, you really cant talk about it well in general terms because

it is so dependent upon the acts o the specic situation.

Again you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis its difcult to always tosay, at rst blush, it appears to be supplanting, but when you look at the detail,

that may not be the case. So, again, its very case-specic. We would have to look

at that situation in a lot more detail.19


16/32


Tis cos-by-cos es creaes variabiliy and burden. Unlike mainenance o eor,

which ocuses on aggregae spending rom year o year, or comparabiliy, which

ocuses on spending rom school o school, saes, disrics, and schools canno

perorm one single calculaion o demonsrae hey have complied wih supple-

men-no-supplan. Raher, hey mus jusi y each cos charged o ile I unds in

ligh o he hree presumpions above, be hey goods, services, or salary coss.

Wha does his al l mean or he pracical implemenaion o ile I?

Supplemen-no-supplan has a leas hree eecs ha arguably work agains

he goals o ile I:

Supplement-not-supplant makes it difficult to implement

comprehensive programs with Title I funds

As discussed above, boh Congress and he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion encour-age saes, disrics, and schools o implemen comprehensive programs o ensure

services are coordinaed across a school. Supplemen-no-supplan, however, is

designed o ensure ile I unds remain ocused on a selec group o sudens and

requires saes, disrics, and schools o ensure hose sudens receive unique ser-

vices ha non-ile I sudens do no receive.

Tis makes i adminisraively dicul o coordinae services. Consider, or example,

ha he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion has advised i would consiue supplaning o:

Use ile I unds o pay or services writen ino he individualized educaion

plan o a suden wih disabiliies, complicaing he coordinaed delivery o ile

I and special educaion services o a suden eligible or boh20

Use ile I unds o pay or cerain services o English language learners, com-

plicaing he coordinaed delivery o ile I and oher services o

hese sudens21

Tereore, i is easies or a disric o comply wih he supplemen-no-supplan

requiremen when i can segregae services ino separae silos in order o proveha each unding source is paying or he appropriae services. (see box Example:

Response o inervenion)


17/32


Many states and districts are implementing tiered intervention

programs to assist students that are struggling academically. This

approach, also known as Response to Intervention, or RTI, typi-

cally uses data and progress monitoring to determine whether

certain interventions are helping a student academically, and

provides increasingly intensive supports when necessary. Because

a well-designed RTI program provides dierent types o interven-

tions to an individual student depending on what works or that

student, it can be challenging to use ederal unds, especially

Title I, to support a comprehensive RTI model.

It is very dicult to blend Title I with other ederal unds to im-

plement a comprehensive approach to assist struggling students

given the way supplement-not-supplant is enorced because a

district must ensure all services to the student are extra. For in-

stance, any service that is oered to all children typically cannot

be supported with Title I undseven i the unds are only used

or Title I-eligible students (but see inormation on schoolwide

programs on page 13).

Thereore, a district could not use Title I unds to pay or a share

o a districtwide universal screening program to nd struggling

readers, which could be an entry point or receiving RTI service

addition, i any part o the RTI program is mandated by state or

cal law, it cannot be supported with Title I unds. Thus, a proact

state legislature or local board o education wishing to promot

an RTI strategy could inadvertently prevent districts rom supp

ing the program with Title I unds depending on how it worded

language regarding the use o the RTI model.

While Title I unds can be used to support RTI programs, the mon

can only be used in limited circumstances. When the U.S. Depart

ment o Education released a presentation on the use o Title I u

to support RTI, it outlined nearly 15 dierent considerations a sc

or district would need to take into account beore it could use Tit

unds or an RTI-based service, most o them related to suppleme

not-supplant considerations.22 This imposes a substantial barrier

using Title I unds to implement an RTI model, especially when o

remembers that each individual cost charged to Title I would hav

be evaluated against supplement-not-supplant considerations.

Example: Response to intervention

Te ederal governmen recognized some o he challenges supplemen-no-

supplan can pose when coordinaing services, so Congress ried o miigae hose

challenges or schools implemening schoolwide programs. While schoolwide

program schools sill mus use ile I unds o add o and no replace he sae and

local unds hey would normally spend, here is no individual cos es writen

ino he saue. Insead o evaluaing each cos charged o ile I using a cos-by-cos es, he ocus o schoolwide programs is on ensuring he school, in he aggre-

gae, received all o he sae and local money i would normally receive in he

absence o ile I unds. Once ha is esablished, he school is no longer required

o demonsrae an individual cos is supplemenal. (see box Example: Te special

case o schoolwide programs)


18/32


The idea behind the schoolwide model is that all children are

eligible to participate, and that by upgrading the schools edu-

cational program, everyone will benet, especially those most

academically at risk. Thus, schools operating schoolwide modelsare not required to identiy specic students eligible to receive

services or demonstrate that particular costs are supplemental. In

other words, unlike in a targeted assistance program, a schoolwide

school could use Title I unds to improve its core curriculum or oer

universal services to all students in the school.

While the normal supplement-not-supplant test requires a cost-

by-cost analysis, the schoolwide test or supplanting is a modied

test based on aggregate nancial data; and like maintenance o

eort and comparability, it is demonstrated at the district level.

In the modied test or supplanting in a schoolwide school, a

school district must be able to show that each schoolwide school

received all o the state and local unds it would receive were it not

a Title I school by demonstrating, through its regular procedures

or distributing unds, that it distributes state and local unds airly

and equitably to all o its schools without regard to whether those

schools are receiving ederal education unds.23

In practice, however, there is substantial conusion about how

this modied supplanting test works. Thus, many auditors, moni-

tors, and even program administrators continue to apply thenormal cost-by-cost test o supplanting in schoolwide pro-

grams. This happens or a ew reasons.

First, there continues to be conusion in the eld about the nature

o schoolwide programs. As conceived by statute, the school-

wide model oers schools the opportunity to use their ederal

resources more fexibly to support comprehensive whole school

reorms. In particular, the Title I statute requires schoolwide

schools to determine what issues impact their students academic

perormance and then use their Title I unds to address those

issues. Schools may, but are not required to, use additional und-ing sources as well, such as other ederal education unds and,

i permitted, state and local unds. In other words, a schoolwide

program can be supported exclusively with Title I unds or by a

combination o unding sources, depending on state or local l

school district needs, and administrative capabilities.

Combining various unding sources is known as consolida-tion, which could be either a literal consolidation o unds in

an accounting system or a virtual consolidation, which simply

recognizes that dierent individual unding streams are paying

dierent parts o a schoolwide program.

In recent years, the enorcement community has ocused heav

on the concept o consolidation, appearing to link the program

matic fexibility oered in the Title I statute to the nancial pra

o consolidating unds. As a result, schools that do not consolid

Title I with other unding sources, which is the vast majority o

schools operating schoolwide programs, are typically not aor

the ull range o fexibilities available under Title I. This is partic

larly true when it comes to supplanting. The statute, however,

not require consolidation as a precondition or gaining program

matic fexibilityit is simply an option.

Second, there has been little technical assistance on how scho

districts can veriy they meet the modied schoolwide test or

supplanting, as opposed to the traditional three presumption

cost-by-cost test. Thus, auditors, monitors, and other enorcem

personnel have been let to design their own methodologies,which can vary dramatically rom state to state, and oten dea

back to the traditional supplanting test.

Knowing this, states oten counsel their districts (and districts t

schools) to analyze supplanting, even in a schoolwide program

school, on an individual cost-by-cost basis, instead o using the

aggregate test that is available. As a practical matter, this seve

restricts the types o comprehensive academic supports that c

be implemented in a schoolwide school.

As a result, even though Title I oers schoolwide programs fexibility in meeting the supplement-not-supplant requirement,

supplement-not-supplant remains an administrative barrier to

implementation o schoolwide programs.

Example: The special case of schoolwide programs


19/32


Even hough he modied supplaning es or schoolwide programs has he

poenial o make he implemenaion oschool-level programs easier o adminis-

er, i does no ully address he range o services ile I could oer. For insance,

iniiaives operaed a he disric level are no covered by he modied es, hus

he radiional supplemen-no-supplan es would apply.24

Supplement-not-supplant makes it difficult to implement

innovative programs with Title I funds

Anoher key prioriy or ile I is he developmen o innovaive programs ha

improve suden achievemen. Tis is paricularly challenging in ligh o he cur-

ren economic downurn and he closing o ederal simulus programs. Secreary

o Educaion Arne Duncan recenly challenged saes, disrics, and schools o

embrace he new normal o doing more wih less, and has promoed ile I as a

way o drive needed reorms.25 Supplemen-no-supplan, however, runs conraryo hese goals because i locks schools and disrics ino unding decisions hey

made in prior years and hereore limis disrics and schools abiliy o move

o innovaive sraegies or promising bes pracices. In shor, supplemen-no-

supplan is a powerul lever in mainaining he saus quo. (see boxes Example:

Expanding an innovaive program and Example: Disric reorm)

Supplement-not-supplant increases administrative burdens

at all levels

One need only look o he examples above o realize ha disrics and ile I

schools mus exensively analyze each cos hey propose o spend no only wih

ile I unds bu also sae and local unds o deermine i he supplemen-no-

supplan requiremen may have an eec in he uure. Saes also are burdened

by his rule when making heir own sae-level spending decisions, and even

more signicanly are burdened by heir oversigh responsibiliy in ensuring

disric-level compliance wih supplemen-no-supplan. Finally, because wha

consiues supplaning varies rom cos-o-cos depending on each siuaions

unique acs and circumsances, i is dicul or disrics o know or cerainwhen hey are a risk o supplaning.


20/32


As districts begin to think about implementing new and innova-

tive programs, they may decide to pilot an initiative in a limited

setting rst. Once the program proves to be successul, they may

then choose to roll it out to other students. To do this, however, it iscritical that the district careully consider how it will und the pilot

project and how it will expand the initiative i successul. Other-

wise, it may nd itsel at risk o supplanting.

Consider a district that wishes to hire reading intervention special-

ists or a ew schools to see whether they can improve student

reading scores. The district uses Title I unds to hire specialists in its

Title I schools and the initiative is successul. I the district wishes to

expand the project to all o its schools, it may have to support the

entire cost, including the cost o the already hired specialists, with

state or local unds. This is because using Title I unds to provide

services to Title I students, when the district provides the same

services to non-Title I students with state or local unds, constitutes

supplanting (see presumption #3 on page 10).

Thus, scaling up can mean losing the ability to support services

with Title I unds. Given the signicant budget pressures districts are

experiencing across the country, the loss o any Title I support, even

or a ew specialists, may make it impossible to expand the project.

Also, while it is possible to overcome the presumption in certain cir-

cumstances, it is up to the specic auditor, monitor, or other reviewerexamining the cost to determine i the district has made a compelling

case. The risk o a supplanting nding may be too high or a district.

Consider instead that the district uses state or local unds to hire

the intervention specialists to pilot the program in a ew o its Title I

schools. The initiative is successul and the district wants to expand

it or all Title I schools and und the entire project with Title I. This

would constitute supplanting, at least in the schools where the

district has already unded intervention specialists with state or

local money (see presumption #2 on page 10). This has the prac

eect o not only locking the district into whatever unding dec

sion it made in the rst year o the pilot but also sends a conusmessage to districts about how to responsibly use ederal unds

There are a variety o reasons why a district may choose to pilo

a project that benets Title I students with state and local mon

rst. A district, or example, may have limited Title I resources

and so may want to ensure a project is likely to be successul

beore picking up any costs with Title Iparticularly in light o

the governmentwide rule that all costs charged to ederal gran

must be necessary and reasonable.26 A districts wish to test a

new project by supporting it with state and local unds rst m

be particularly relevant i the district is considering deunding

current Title I initiative in avor o a new initiative.

Although the district is trying to responsibly implement new

extra services by piloting an initiative, and initially bearing th

cost with state and local unds, the bluntness o the cost-by-c

test makes it risky or a district to proceed using state or local

unds. While this is not the kind o behavior the supplement-n

supplant requirement was trying to curtail, under the cost-by

cost test, districts are let with ew options.

One option is to pilot the project with Title I rom the beginning

requiring the district to reengineer its Title I budget beore an

innovative program has proven to be successul (which also sh

the risk the project will not be successul entirely to the ederal

government). Another is to simply bear the cost with state or lo

unds in perpetuity. Another is to attempt to persuade an over-

sight entity it did not supplant, but this means accepting the ri

o potentially repaying unds i the oversight entity does not ag

Example: Expanding an innovative program


21/32


While here are ways around supplaning deerminaions, because supplaning is

in he eye o he beholder, i can be dicul or saes, disrics, and schools o

esablish reliable adminisraive conrols o preven supplaning. Tereore, he

supplemen-no-supplan requiremen ofen disincenivizes saes and disrics

rom using ile I unds in new and more eecive ways because o he adminis-

raive risks and burdens.

Many school districts across the country ace enormous nancial

and academic challenges. Whether these conditions were caused by

a lack o resources, poor management, a lack o oversight, or some-

thing else, the eect is the samemisaligned budgets, burdensome

bureaucratic procedures, and poor academic perormance. Many o

these districts are increasingly looking to outside specialists who can

help reorm the districts to better serve students.

The rst thing a responsible specialist should do is examine the

districts budget to determine where its money is going. Oten this

exercise will reveal substantial disconnectsamong them, sta

working on ederal programs that might be paid with state or local

unds, or other similar budget alignment problems. The practical

thing to do would be to put the budget back into alignment, ma

sure that those working on ederal programs are paid rom the a

propriate ederal unding source, instead o with state or local u

Unortunately, supplement-not-supplant would prevent this

realignment (see presumption #2 on page 10) even i the end

result o realigning budgets and expenditures would result in c

savings and increased eciencies in ederal programs and bett

management o district operations.

As these examples illustrate, supplement-not-supplant is a blu

tool that prevents districts rom taking all sorts o actions, even

when those actions may end up beneting ederal programs.

Example: District reform


22/32


o he exen supplemen-no-supplan limis disrics rom using ile I unds on

comprehensive, innovaive, and reorm-oriened coss, i can be said o work agains

he goals o he ile I program. Tere are hree opions o address his issue:

Use a ile I-neural allocaion es or supplaning like he one originally

designed or schoolwide programs.Allow he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion, and perhaps sae educaional agencies,

o waive he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen as needed o promoe eec-ive and ecien educaional sraegies or a-risk sudens.

Eliminae he supplemen-no-supplan es alogeher.

Each opion is examined in more deph below.

Use a Title I-neutral allocation test for supplanting rather than

the traditional cost-by-cost analysis

Possible legislaive language or a ile I-neural allocaion es:

In order to demonstrate compliance with the supplement-not-supplant require-

ment, a school district receiving itle I unds must be able to demonstrate that

the methodology it uses to allocate state and local unds to each itle I school

ensures the school receives all o the state and local unds it would otherwise

receive i it were not a itle I school.27

A ile I-neural allocaion es would look a how a school disricallocaessaeand local undso is schoolso ensure he disrics mehodology does no akeino accoun he ile I unds a school may receive. Tis would allow he U.S.

Deparmen o Educaion and oher oversigh eniies o veriy each ile I school

receives he sae and local money i is eniled o receive, and ha is sae and

local allocaion is no reduced as a resul oreceiving itle I unds. Tis is he same

Potential solutions


23/32

Potential solutions | www.americanprogress.o

es currenly designed or esing compliance wih supplaning in schoolwide

programs and could be expanded o all ile I schools. Tis es would no require

disrics or schools o cos ou each iem o heir basic educaional program

suppored wih sae and local unds; raher, his es would ocus on wheher he

LEA had a ile I-neural mehodology o allocae he po o sae and local unds

o each ile I school.

I is imporan o noe ha his proposed es would no look a wheher he

amoun o sae and local money a ile I school receives is equiable. Given he

signicance o he problems caused by he curren supplemen-no-supplan es,

his issue should be addressed on is own, separae rom oher ile I scal issues.

Concerns over equiy can be addressed hrough ile Is comparabiliy requiremen.

While he proposed supplaning es ocuses on how disrics allocae sae and

local unds o ile I schools, his is appropriae because ile I unds are driven

o schools based on ile Is ranking and serving requiremens.28 For disric-levelspending, he cos-by-cos es should also be eliminaed because ile Is maine-

nance o eor es would ensure school disrics do no reduce he amoun o sae

and local money hey spend o provide educaion rom year o year, hereore elimi-

naing he need or he burdensome cos-by-cos analysis or disric-level spending.

I is no necessary o es each and every cos charged o ile I a he school and

disric level o saisy he original purposes o he supplemen-no-supplan

requiremen, which were o ensure ha saes, disrics, and schools receiving

ile I unds used he money o bene eligible sudens; and ha hey did no

reduce he sae or local money hey would have oherwise spen on educaion

jus because hey were receiving ederal unds.

Firs, ile I already conains mechanisms o ensure ile I unds bene eligible

sudens.29 Second, i a school disric can veriy i allocaes o each ile I school

he amoun o sae or local money he school was eniled o had i no been a

ile I school, hen he disric can demonsrae i did no reduce he sae or local

money made available o a ile I school because o is ile I saus.

In oher words, hrough his ype o allocaion es, which requires disrics oshow heir sae and local allocaion process is ile I neural and does no ake

ile I saus ino accoun, disrics can demonsrae hey provide ile I schools

wih a oor o sae and local unds. Tis way, disrics can show ile I money is

being used in addiion o (supplemening) hose unds.


24/32


A ile I-neural allocaion es would be easier o adminiser han he curren

cos-by-cos es o supplaning, and would make i easier o use ile I unds

consisen wih he goals o he ile I program. Te major bene o he ile

I-neural allocaion es o supplaning is ha i would no longer ocus on indi-

vidual coss, bu raher would give disrics a clear and consisen mechanism o

demonsrae ile I unds supplemen sae and local unds.

Tere are wo ways his es could be implemened:

Because he iniial presumpions ha resul in he cos-by-cos es were esab-

lished in documens published by execuive agencies, he es could be revised

hrough execuive acion, such as hrough OMB Circulars or U.S. Deparmen

o Educaion guidance.

Trough legislaive acion.

Because o he coninued conusion over how o comply wih he supplemen-

no-supplan requiremen in a schoolwide program, congressional claricaion o

his issue migh be a powerul way o esablish a new es or supplaning gener-

ally, and also o address lingering conusion around he inenion and scope o he

schoolwide program model.

Allow the U.S. Department of Education, and perhaps state educational

agencies, to waive the supplement-not-supplant requirement

Currenly, he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion does no have he legal auhoriy

o waive he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen. Tis is problemaic because

here is no saey valve o permi he use o ile I unds on a cos ha consi-

ues supplaning bu benes he ederal program and he sudens i serves. Even

i he rs recommendaion above were adoped, a waiver provision would be

helpul since he proposed es would no address supplaning concerns or sae-

level coss. As a pracical mater, 99 percen o ile I unds are spen a he disric

and school levels, bu here may be insances where saes need relie rom he

cos-by-cos es. Tereore, providing hem wih an opporuniy o seek a waiverrom he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion would ac as a saey valve in he unique

circumsance where a sae migh need relie.


25/32

Potential solutions | www.americanprogress.o

I he ile I-neural es or supplaning is no adoped, making he provision

waivable could a leas miigae some o he problems discussed in his paper. For

example, i a disric could demonsrae ha moving coss rom sae and local

unds o ile I does no reduce he level o sae and local unding made available

or educaion, hen i migh make public policy sense o provide a waiver i doing

so would promoe reorms or bene ile I sudens.

I disric-level waivers were permited, Congress may wish o consider wheher he

abiliy o gran a waiver would be limied o he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion or i

i would be appropriae o ves waiver auhoriy wih saes. Because saes have he

legal responsibiliy o oversee heir disrics implemenaion o ile I programs, i

may make sense o permi saes he auhoriy o evaluae disric waiver requess.

Eliminate the supplement-not-supplant test

A hird opion would be o eliminae he supplemen-no-supplan es enirely.

Mos o he proposals ha recommend his opion, however, impose new adminis-

raive burdens on oher ile I scal ess, such as comparabiliy and mainenance

o eor. Adding new adminisraive burdens would make i harder o implemen

eecive ile I programs. In addiion, eliminaing supplemen-no-supplan

enirely would work agains he goal o ensuring ile I unds are supplemenal a

he school level. Tereore, he rs recommendaion would be easier o implemen

and preserve he inen behind he supplemen-no-supplan requiremen.


26/32


Te curren cos-by-cos es or supplaning arguably works agains he goals o

ile I because o is uninended implemenaion consequences. A ile I-neural

allocaion es would beter promoe he goals o ile I, reduce burden, and sill

preserve he supplemenal naure o ile I unds.

Conclusion


27/32

Endnotes | www.americanprogress.o

1 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended byPublic Law 91-230, 109 (a) (1970).

2 Section 1001 o the No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110,107th Cong. (January 8, 2002).

3 The Title I maintenance-o-eort test requires districts to spend atleast 90 percent o the state and local money they spent in the prioryear; thus, in essence, districts may reduce their spending by up to10 percent without penalty.

4 Section 1115(b) o the No Child Left Behind Act. (Eligible children arechildren identied by the school as ailing, or most at risk o ailing,to meet the States challenging student academic achievementstandards on the basis o multiple, educationally related, objective

criteria established by the local educational agency and supple-mented by the school.)

5 A school is eligible to become a schoolwide school i it has at leasta 40 percent poverty level, has a schoolwide plan that contains 10required statutory components, and meets other specic criteriadened in Section 1114 o ESEA. Schoolwide programs and its rela-tionship to supplement-not-supplant are discussed in m ore depthin section IV.

6 In large part, Title I is based on the belie that poverty is a signicantcause o low academic achievement; thus, in targeting high-povertyschool districts and schools, Congress linked poverty and academicdisadvantage at the macro level. On the individual student level,however, academic disadvantage is the sole eligibility criterion.

7 John F. Jennings, Title I: Its Legislative History and Its Promise. InGeorey D. Borman, Samuel C. Stringeld, and Robert E. Slavin,eds., Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads(Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001).

8 The report, published in 1969, explored various challenges acingthe Title I program and touches on themes that continue to berelevant. See: NAACP and the Washington Research Project, Is ItHelping Poor Children? Title I o ESEA (1969), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pd.

9 Section 1115(b) o the No Child Left Behind Act.

10 Non-Regulatory Guidance: Title I Fiscal Issues (Department o Educa-tion, 2008), available at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/scalguid.doc;Non-Regulatory Guidance: Designing SchoolwidePrograms (Department o Education, 2006), available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/designingswpguid.doc.

11 See, or example, research cited in: Gail L. Sunderman, DesigningTitle I Schoolwide Programs: Comparison o Three Urban Districts(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 1999, available at http://

www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434182.pd.

12 Section 1111(c)(9)(10) o the No Child Left Behind Act.

13 Non-Regulatory Guidance: Designing Schoolwide Programs; Guidance:Using Title I, Part A ARRA Funds for Grants to Local Educational Agen-cies to Strengthen Education, Drive Reform, and Improve Results forStudents (Department o Education, 2009), available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reorm.pd.

14 Non-Regulatory Guidance,Designing Schoolwide Programs, p. 3.

15 Federal education programs are overseen by a variety o dierententities including: the U.S. Department o Educations Ofce oInspector General; U.S. Department o Education program ofces;nonederal auditors who conduct an annual audit known as the Sin-gle Audit or all entities that spend more than $500,000 in ederalunds; and the Government Accountability Ofce. State educationalagencies are also responsible or monitoring their school districts

Title I activities.

16 Generally, the term state and local unds does not include supple-mental money a state or district allocates or a Title I-like purpose.In other words, i a state appropriates additional unds above andbeyond its normal allocation to school districts or an educational

program that serves Title I-eligible students, such unds would beexcluded rom any supplanting analysis.

17 Specically, i a state, district, or school can demonstrate to an over-sight entitys satisaction that it would not have supported a par-ticular cost with state or local unds in the absence o ederal unds,then it may be able to pick up the cost with Title I. It is not entirelyclear what an agency would have to prove to in order to overcomethe presumption because this option has evolved over the years. Ina 2003 letter ED advised a district could overcome the presumptioni it could show it could not aord to pay a cost because o declin-ing state and local resources. In more recent guidance, ED impliedthis option is available even in the absence o declining revenuei the districts educational priorities change. See: Guidance: Fundsunder Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965 Made Available Under The American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (Department o Education, 2010), p. 30, C-11, availableat: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-rev-201003.doc. For example, i the district in the example in

presumption #2 above could demonstrate that even though itsstate and local resources have not declined, it has determined toocus the money it has on math and science programs, then thedistrict may be able to overcome the presumption. More recently, inJanuary 2011, ED advised in a letter that although its longstandingguidance permits states, districts, and schools to overcome the rstpresumption o supplanting (the required by law test), in practiceit would be nearly impossible to do. This demonstrates how vari-able the supplement-not-supplant test can be.

18 See, or example, Non-Regulatory Guidance,Title I Fiscal Issues, p.3839; OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement, p. 4-84.000-194.84.000-20, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/deault/les/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/2010/ed.doc.

19 Susan Wilhelm and others, Key Title I Fiscal Issues: Supplement, NotSupplant, Ofce o Elementary and Secondary Education Webcast,October 13, 2004, available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/scal/part5.doc.

20 Non-Regulatory Guidance,Title I Fiscal Issues, p. 38.

21 Title I Key Fiscal Issues: Supplement, Not Supplant, available athttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/scal/index.html;Supplement Not Supplant Provision of Title III of the ESEA (Departmento Education, 2008), available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sgp/supplenalattach2.pd.

Endnotes
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/designingswpguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/designingswpguid.dochttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434182.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434182.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-rev-201003.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-rev-201003.dochttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/2010/ed.dochttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/2010/ed.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/part5.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/part5.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/supplefinalattach2.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/supplefinalattach2.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/supplefinalattach2.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/supplefinalattach2.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/part5.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/fiscal/part5.dochttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/2010/ed.dochttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/2010/ed.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-rev-201003.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/title-i-rev-201003.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/titlei-reform.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434182.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED434182.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/designingswpguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/designingswpguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.dochttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.dochttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pdfhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED036600.pdf


28/32


22 Implementing RTI Using Title I, Title III, and CEIS Funds: Key Issues forDecision-makers(Department o Education, 2009), available athttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/rtiles/rti.ppt.

23 Non-Regulatory Guidance,Title I Fiscal Issues, p. 64.

24 Districts that receive Title I unds may, and in some cases must, reservesome o the money or district-level activities (such as school improve-ment, public school choice, supplemental educational services, paren-tal involvement, equitable services or eligible private school students,and other district-level initiatives). Once the district reserves its unds,it must allocate the remaining money to schools based on a ormula

established by the Title I statute. The modied supplanting test orschoolwide programs governs only the money that is allocated toschools. It does not cover the unds retained at the district level.

25 Arne Duncan, The New Normal: Doing More With Less, Remarksat the American Enterprise Institute panel, Bang or the Buck inSchooling, November 17, 2010, available at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20101117-Arne-Duncan-Remarks.pd; Department oEducation, Duncan Wants Title I Dollars to Drive Education Reorm,Press release, May 11, 2009, available at http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05112009.html; Guidance:Using Title I, Part A

ARRA Funds for Grants to Local Educational Agencies.

26 Ofce o Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-87 (2004),Attachment A, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circu-lars_a087_2004.

27 This language is based on current language used in EDs nonregula-tory guidance or testing supplanting in a Title I schoolwideprogram. See: Non-Regulatory Guidance,Title I Fiscal Issues, p. 64.

28 Section 1113 o the No Child Left Behind Act.

29 Because ederal law requires districts to be able to trace howthey spend Title I money, school districts currently have systems

established to veriy they spend Title I unds on eligible students intargeted assistance schools. Thereore, expanding a Title I-neutralallocation test or supplement-not-supplant to targeted assistanceschools would have no impact on ensuring only Title I-eligiblestudents are served in targeted assistance schools.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/rtifiles/rti.ppthttp://www.aei.org/docLib/20101117-Arne-Duncan-Remarks.pdfhttp://www.aei.org/docLib/20101117-Arne-Duncan-Remarks.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05112009.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05112009.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a087_2004http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a087_2004http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a087_2004http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a087_2004http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05112009.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/05/05112009.htmlhttp://www.aei.org/docLib/20101117-Arne-Duncan-Remarks.pdfhttp://www.aei.org/docLib/20101117-Arne-Duncan-Remarks.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/rtifiles/rti.ppt


29/32

About the authors | www.americanprogress.o

About the authors

Melissa Junge and Sheara Kr varic are atorneys and co-ounders o Federal

Educaion Group, a rm ha provides sraegic and legal advice, compliance

counseling, implemenaion assisance, and raining o saes, school disrics,

charer schools, and oher educaion eniies on how o use and manage ederalgran unds o suppor K-12 programs a he sae and local levels.

Prior o ounding Federal Educaion Group, Junge and Krvaric served as in-house

counsel o he Disric o Columbias newly creaed sae educaional agency in

is sarup year, and beore ha as exernal counsel in privae pracice advising

muliple saes, school disrics, public charer schools, and privae educaion

managemen organizaions. More inormaion abou he auhors is available a

htp://www.ededgroup.com.
http://www.fededgroup.com/http://www.fededgroup.com/


30/32


31/32


32/32

About the Center for American Progress

The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan re-

search and educational institute dedicated to promoting

a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunityor all. We believe that Americans are bound together by

a common commitment to these values and we aspire

to ensure that our national policies refect these values.

We work to nd progressive and pragmatic solutions

to signicant domestic and international problems and

develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is o the people, by the people, and or the people.

Center for American Progress

1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.682.1611 Fax: 202.682.1867

www.americanprogress.org

About the American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute is a community o

scholars and supporters committed to expanding libe

increasing individual opportunity, and strengtheninree enterprise. AEI pursues these unchanging ideal

through independent thinking, open debate, reasone

argument, acts, and the highest standards o researc

and exposition. Without regard or politics or prevailin

ashion, we dedicate our work to a more prosperous

saer, and more democratic nation and world.

The American Enterprise Institute

1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202.862.5800 Fax: 202.862.7177

www.aei.org

American Enterprise Institutefor Public Policy Research

How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I

Documents

Transcript of How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I