PINE TREE ISD

PROPOSED 2011/2012 BUDGET

GENERAL FUND

FOOD SERVICE

DEBT SERVICE

JULY 28, 2011

1

61

2

62

3

READING MATERIALS

4

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepth

Understanding Texas School Finance

Bragging Wrongs

InDepthPublished Quarterly

In last quarter’s InDepth, our cover story featured

an article (“Bragging Rights”) about our 44th place standing among all the states with respect to state and local expenditures per pupil in public schools. If that standing has improved, it will only be because some other state cut public education funding more than Texas did. Even so, our embarrassingly low place doesn’t reveal just how bad our public education funding actually is.

That’s the problem with statistics and averages; they sometimes give the wrong impression. One mathematician put it something like this: Onaverage every Texan has exactly one ovary and one testicle, but not any Texan is actually so equipped. Proving, we guess, that there is no such thing as an average Texan, and warning us to look beyond the average for the truest picture.

During the 82nd Legislative Session, legislative leaders were concerned that reducing funding just in very highly-funded districts would be too severe. They actually characterized it as “too extreme” and “unfair,” even though those high-funded districts would have still been funded above the low-funded districts after cuts were implemented. Instead, they cut the districts already at the lowest levels, an irresponsible act that was more about protecting certain perennially high-funded districts than seeking a fair solution. If fair was indeed a priority with the state leadership, there wouldn’t be funding inequities to start with. Let’s be straight about that.

It is commonly hoped that some piece of good may result from tragedy, and there will be some in this one. The public education funding system in Texas

before this legislative session, a great deal of that

hold-harmlesses and outside-the-system funding

schemes. In 2007, when the Basic Allotment was set at a level that actually cut formula funding, every district in the state went to Target Revenue Hold-Harmless funding for the entire biennium. By so doing, the great inequities in our funding system were more obviously exposed than any average or statistical treatment could possibly have shown.

This time, three additional truths have been exposed:

Maintaining an inequitable system takes

funded districts back to the formula level.

equitable funding system. If we have an unfair system, then it is because that’s the way they want it.

Fair treatment for children and taxpayers will

not come until the people demand it.

*2010-11 M&O Tax Rate **2011-12 SB 1 Revenue per WADA

Same... District Tax Rate* Revenue**

LocationAlamo Heights $1.04 $6,242

San Antonio $1.04 $5,035

SizeGlen Rose $0.825 $8,423

Diboll $1.04 $4,882

Tax RateAustin $1.079 $6,180

Amarillo $1.08 $5,139

RevenueCollege Station $1.00 $5,654

Jourdanton $1.17 $5,652

5

the long six months of the legislative session. Having started out with the right plan--using the $5.5 billion Target Revenue scheme to cover the $4 billion cut to public education--the legislature immediately changed its

these districts will drop below $5,000.

Given an excellent political excuse of “having” to cut funding for public education, the legislature could

leadership chose to require substantial funding cuts for the children in the lowest-funded districts in order to

mitigate the cuts for those lucky enough to reside in privileged zip codes.

Table: What House Leadership Got Out of the SB 1 Compromise

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 2

SB 1: The Aftermath

6

Why would anyone think cutting Riesel, Lufkin, and Abilene to below $5,000 per WADA is better than cutting

Groesbeck, Seminole, and Northwest down to $6,240? If Target Revenue had been reduced more from the top

down, districts in the formula system would not have to be cut.

Looking Beyond the Averages

discretion regarding their tax rate. Otherwise, the state knowingly and intentionally cut funding below the lowest acceptable level in some districts when it did not have to for the upcoming biennium.

So what else could the state have done? Other options for funding the $4 billion shortfall were widely discussed during the regular and special sessions, some of which are shown in this table:

Instead, the state leadership chose to reduce funding to public schools, including these low-funded districts:

Even if they insisted on cutting public education, they could have done it better. Check this out:

DistrictAdopted M&O

Tax Rate

Current Law

Funding Level per

WADA

SB 1 Funding

Level per WADA

Amount Saved by

State in 2011-12

Riesel ISD $1.04 $5,058 $4,773 $253,000

Lufkin ISD $1.04 $5,225 $4,965 $2,781,692

Abilene ISD $1.04 $5,207 $4,929 $5,735,210

Total $8,769,902

DistrictAdopted M&O

Tax Rate

Funding

Level per

WADA After

SB 1 Cuts

If Funding Levels

Were Cut to

Reasonable Level

per WADA

Amount Saved by

State in 2011-12

Groesbeck ISD $0.92 $6,473 $6,240 $480,679

Seminole ISD $0.74 $6,368 $6,240 $408,704

Northwest ISD $1.04 $6,641 $6,240 $7,898,497

Total $8,787,880

Options2012-13 Biennium

Revenue Estimates

Actual State Benefit

Realized

Eliminate Tax Loopholes

a. High-Cost Gas Exemption

b. Certain Sales Tax Exemptions

c. Chapter 313 Abatements

a. $2 billion

b. $5.6 billion

c. $420 million

- 0 -

Restructure Franchise Tax $2 billion - 0 -

Use Rainy Day Fund Up to $6.5 billion - 0 -

Adopt Additional Taxes, for example:

a. Increase Tobacco Tax by $1.05

b. Levy 1¢/oz. on Sugary Soft Drinks

a. $700 million

b. $1 billion

- 0 -

Reduce or Eliminate Inefficient Funding (Target

Revenue, Wealth Hold-Harmless) Up to $5.5 billion $1.5 billion

Totals Up to $23.72 billion $1.5 billion

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 3

7

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 4

Should School Districts Go Back to Court?

19

91

19

89

19

71

19

49

Laid the foundation for Texas’ current school funding system. The Act established the Minimum

to become the Foundation School Program or

minimum levels of funding per student and allowed for local property taxes to support programs beyond the minimum.

funding formulas, tax responsibilities and requirements were adjusted

Rodriguez v. San Antonio

initially sided with the

the state funding system was a “violation of equal protection,” but the ruling was later overturned by the

that education is not a federally protected right.

The inequities in funding statewide, which created a per-student funding

case. The Texas Supreme

“there must be a direct and close correlation between

the educational resources available to it.” The system was declared in violation of

They ruled that a system that relied so heavily on local property taxes must produce similar revenue for

The Legislature passed

similar yields regardless of local property wealth by creating studies to monitor inequities. These studies didn’t actually implement a new system. The Supreme

that the system was unconstitutional.

GILMER-AIKIN ACTRODRIGUEZ V.

SAN ANTONIO ISDEDGEWOOD I EDGEWOOD II

You never know what is going to happen if you go to court, but after a session in which the Legislature

by $4 billion, the question must be asked: Should school districts go back to court?

equitable and adequate funding.

Equitable funding refers to the fair distribution of resources to districts, adjusting for the varying costs

Adequate funding refers to the amount of resources

accountability rating.

So do schools have a case?

Equity

The 82nd Legislature had less state revenue to distribute due

of using the Rainy Day Fund or raising new revenue, the Legislature shorted school funding formulas by $4 billion.

If current law were fair, it would be easy enough to prorate what each district is supposed to

of litigation and legislation, current law is not fair.Some districts are limited to formula funding while other districts receive higher funding under “hold harmless” provisions rolled into “Target Revenue.” And, some districts are still able to raise more money locally than others.

across-the-board cut favored by some in the House

favored by some in the Senate that cuts more from districts with Target Revenue, but limits their loss.

SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION: A HISTORY

8

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 5

19

95

20

03

20

05

19

92

The Legislature responded with the passage of SB

eliminating the property

but this new system was

claimed the law instituted a statewide property tax, which is unconstitutional, and won.

The Legislature’s next solution was SB 7, which sought to eliminate

in a new way – through recapture. The law was challenged by districts of varying wealth levels, but was upheld by the

the system provided for

knowledge,” as required

provided reasonable access to educational opportunities for all students.

public education was challenged again, as the

system’s maximum tax

which most districts were taxing, was essentially a statewide property tax, which is prohibited by

Districts argued that taxing at that rate was essential to provide a basic education for their students. After being dismissed by an appeals court, the case was heard by the Texas Supreme

and the case was returned to a trial court.

unconstitutional on the grounds that, since many districts were at the maximum tax rate and no longer had “local discretion,” it constituted a statewide property tax. The court required that the legislature address the

In a third called special session, the Legislature lowered property taxes to allow for more local control of tax rates, levied a new business tax, increased tobacco taxes, increased certain guaranteed funding levels and reduced recapture.

EDGEWOOD III EDGEWOOD IV WEST ORANGE-COVE I WEST ORANGE-COVE II

Allotment, while only 37 percent comes from Target Revenue.

You can see the inequity starkly by sorting the districts from lowest to highest by total revenue per

how the state can justify this sort of inequity in court.

rates in favored districts at the expense of the other districts. Generally lower-funded school districts have been forced to adopt higher local tax rates to meet the needs of their children. Another way to say this is that districts that receive more state money than others

of the revenue generated by the lower-funded dis-tricts with their higher local tax rates and uses it to

worse, some districts won’t be able to mitigate the loss of state dollars with local dollars because they can’t

The cuts also left our schools woefully underfunded.

Legislature actually cut spending on public educa-

how bad things would have to be before the Supreme -

equate, but certainly the case is growing stronger than ever.

Our state constitution prohibits a state property tax.To determine whether a local property tax has be-

decides whether a school district retains “meaningful discretion” over its property tax rate. By “meaning-

available to use or not to use as the district desires. (continued on page 9)

9

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 6

News & Other Notes

The Equity Center hosted its 30th Annual Membership Breakfast in Austin on June 27th. Over 100 Equity Center

and honor Equity Center directors and CPPP’s Dick Lavine.

Following opening remarks by President Joddie Witte, Stan Surrat, Supterintendent of Lindale ISD, was recognized for

his invaluable contributions to the Equity Center’s mission during the last four years as a Regional Director. Regional

Directors Mark Pool, Superintendent at El Campo ISD, and Mike Quatrini, Superintendent at San Elizario ISD, were also

recognized though they were not present.

Dr. Wayne Pierce presented the 2011 Champion of Equity Award to Dick Lavine, Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Center for

Public Policy Priorities (CPPP). When presenting the award, Wayne emphasized that Dick’s accolades go well beyond

appreciate those efforts.”

Upon receiving his award, Dick said that he’s always so impressed with the number of Equity Center superintendents he

Dick said that his job is to talk to legislators and the public about the role of government in funding those things that

Texans priortize.

“And what people care about the most is their kids. Not just their own kids, but all the kids in their community, and that’s

what you’re really doing is helping advance people’s understanding of the role of government and the importance that

we’re all in this together.”

Park, are in the same boat as all other districts, it will be in everyone’s interest to move us all forward together.

Equity Center Hosts 30th Annual Membership Breakfastand Presents Champion of Equity Award to Dick Lavine

Top Left:

Bottom Left:

10

voters said they want less government. In response, the 82nd legislature has set about slashing the public education budget by $4 billion. The drastic cuts to school districts in every Texas community have been, and will continue to be,

publications from across the state that were reporting as the polls closed and

communities were passed, voters saw needs in their school

are Texans voting to raise their taxes to pay for things they care about and, in this case, their local public schools. If taxpayers will support tax increases for funding facilities, it is reasonable to expect stronger support for the teachers that teach in those buildings.

The legislature has decided to balance the state ledger without raising revenues, taking approximately $23 billion from current

anywhere in the nation. Spending cuts to Texas public schools, already among the nation’s most poorly

closed.

This is not what voters intended even if they

They did not mean less teachers or more cuts to local public schools.

And how local stakeholders feel about their

Texas school districts that proposed higher

districts’ taxpayers voted to ratify the higher tax rates proposed.

The lege simply got it wrong.

In Your Opinion

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 7

Lege Gets it Wrong

“

TexasISD.com

The message appears to be

clear. On May 14th, when 39

out of 56 local school bond

referendums in typical Texas

communities were passed,

[voters] saw needs in their

school districts and were

willing to pay higher

“

Total District with Bond

Referendums59

Districts with Bond

Referendums that Passed42

Districts with Bond

Referendums that Failed17

Percent Passed 70%

11

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 8

2011 Gold Sponsor

School Finance & Accountability Experts

H D SMoak, Casey & Associates (MCA) brings together a team of experts who have been associated with every major issue

issues that affect them and develop an action plan for effectively dealing with those issues.

MCA provides an array of specialty services including:

Budget development & review

Performance measurement systems, including dashboards and balanced scorecards

Accountability analyses

Strategic planning efforts

Revenue estimating

www.moakcasey.com

Phone 512-485-7878 400 W. 15th Street Suite 1410 Austin, TX 78701-1648 Fax 512-485-7888

TASBO LEGISLATIVE PIPELINE SERVICE

This service provides detailed analytical and

legislation.

Subscribers receive daily reports and customized

revenue estimates for each major legislative proposal

that would affect school district revenues, enabling

programs, accountability, and revenue structure.

TASA ACCOUNTABILITY FORUM SERVICE

Offered by TASA in cooperation with Moak, Casey

designed to assist superintendents and other school leaders

accountability issues.

Subscribers receive legislative updates, detailed

analysis of district and campus accountaiblity data,

and interactive participation in an electronic forum for

facilitating rapid exchange of information.

12

educational requirements and economic necessities . . . will in short order violate the prohibition of a state

ceiling.

Have districts been forced by educational requirements and economic necessities to use all their local tax

And it is important to keep in mind that the number of schools pushed to the tax cap is only a piece of

2003 that if a single districtof knowledge, then the state is imposing an unconstitutional state property tax. In the context of shorting

Is it time to go back to court? You be the judge.

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 9

Should Districts Go Back To Court? (continued from p. 5)

13

that struggles with providing for an equitable school

same issues, the Department of Education established the Equity and Excellence Commission in February of this year. The commission’s charter details its purpose, which is “to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input regarding how the Federal government can increase educational opportunity by improving school funding equity.”

The 34-member commission was created at the urging of

academics, union leaders, community organizers, philanthropists and seven

to traditional commission

is holding town hall meetings across the country, see

more on following page

The commission is charged with producing a report

by the end of the year with recommendations on actions that both the federal government and state and local governments can take to improve equity

exactly what the federal government’s role can be in improving educational

radio show, she expressed great hope that whatever the outcome, the report the

simply sit on a shelf, but will lead to meaningful change.

Ms. Ali also emphasized that the commission was organized to hear from people across the country, and urged our members to provide input and share their stories with the commission. You can email the commission

at equitycommission@ed.gov.

For more information about the Equity and Excellence

1. Outlining the problem – Determining

the equity issues, disparities, and

shortfalls in excellence.

2. Setting goals – What does a more

equitable, more excellent system look

like, and what sort of educational

opportunities need to be available “for

every child and in every community.”

3. Determining how to reach those goals

– Setting an outline of how to get to our

goals.

4.

system -- federal, state, local -- is needed

in order to deliver?”

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 10

News & Other Notes

U.S. Department of Education

Equity and Excellence Commission

, co-

former chair of the

California State Board

of Education, and

Christopher Edley,Christopher EdleyChristopher Edley Dean

of Berkley School of Law,

serve as the committee’s

co-chairs.

Hammond is a professor

of education at Stanford

University and founder

of the Stanford Center

for Opportunity Policy in

Education. She focuses

her research, teaching,

and policy work on issues

of school restructuring,

teacher quality and

educational equity.

is a

professor and executive

director of The Campaign

for Educational Equity,

at Teachers College,

Columbia University, and

an adjunct professor at

Columbia Law School.

Previously, he was

counsel for plaintiffs in

Campaign for

.

is president of the

American Federation

of Teachers, AFL-CIO,

representing thousands

of teachers and school

employees across the

country. Ben Jealous

is the youngest person

to hold the position of

President and CEO

of the NAACP. The

Equity Center’s 2010

publication,

includes research

from several of these

esteemed commission

members.

Excellence and Equity Commission’s members are said to represent the “all-stars” in education reform. Here’s a few members of the all-star team:

14

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 11

News & Other Notes

Dr. Wayne Pierce’s Testimony to the

Equity and Excellence Commission

Thank you for this opportunity to present some important information about the status of equity in Texas public school funding and the challenges that lie before us.

teaching high school mathematics, coaching, driving a bus, serving as middle

superintendent. I have been involved to one degree or another in Texas school funding litigation since Edgewood I and have seen the good that it has done as well Edgewood Ias its shortcomings.

principle of fair treatment of children and taxpayers.

As you may already have begun to suspect, this is not a presentation of scholarly research, complete with regression analyses of dependent and independent variables about the various aspects of Texas state policy and funding for public education although it does contain its share of numbers, charts and tables. It is not

funding statutes adopted over many years by our state legislature. This is a simple story about Texas children and the principles that today guide their state government in funding their public education.

The fact is that Texas already has a very good structure of funding formulas that take into consideration both

district and student costs in providing a public school education in the calculation of each district’s weighted

student count, which is also used in a second funding tier for enrichment. It is funded at such a low level,

however, that the Legislative Budget Board estimates that fewer than one in every eight districts will be in

accumulation of historical inequities.

every state entity can get by with 95% of its current funding level (even when it is already 95% of 95% of 95%)

and diffuse the public’s attention by simply pointing, and saying the magic word: wastefraudandabuse.

Common sense dictates that if Texas is to be competitive on a global level in the future, then Texas public

to live up to that standard. It certainly is possible, but the Texas Legislature and its leaders over the years have

thing next time. Unfortunately, to date, “next time” has never become “this time.”

Perhaps this assessment is unfair. Perhaps, it is beyond the ability of any legislative body to have the vision

system. If so, our only remaining salvation lies in the hands of the Texas citizenry and efforts like those of this

rise to the challenges we face and create the solutions that will bring a brighter tomorrow to our public school

children.15

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 12

The local district impact of school funding decisions made at the state level is usually lost in the magnitude

bombs dropping from 40,000 feet. The damage done to the communities below goes unrealized. Let’s imagine for a moment what this local impact looks like, without ignoring the collateral damage…

The Sceneelected state representative shaking hands and kissing babies. He gets up to the podium, and after brief remarks about the great townspeople and Miss Jenny’s amazing peach cobbler, he begins talking about the

State Rep. Doe: ...And I’m proud to say that not only did we cut state spending, but we did it without raising taxes!

Crowd:

State Rep. Doe: You elected me to go to Austin and tell our state leaders that the great people of this town

eliminating wasteful government spending.

Crowd:

State Rep. Doe:

Crowd:

State Rep. Doe: So that’s why we cut spending for public education by $4 billion.

Crowd:

State Rep. Doe:

But Mr. Doe, I was reading the other day that

you had to cut schools?

State Rep. Doe: Eh, er, actually ma’am, we thought it was best to keep some of that money for the future, for an even rainer day.

Local Teacher: already one of the lowest-funded in the state before y’all even got to Austin! I know there are wealthier districts down the road, but why did you have to cut our schools?

State Rep. Doe:

Crowd:

To Be Continued...

Disclaimer:admit how much they cut from public education. As soon as they hit their home turf, education returns to

our state’s sentators and representatives choose to answer to their voters this summer and next year as they

answers about why their school children had to share in so much pain?

Beyond the Capitol Dome

The Chronicles of an Underfunded District

16

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 13

2011 Gold Sponsor

17

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 14

From the Field: EC Members Speak

Invoice to the State

From the Field: EC Members Speak

districts across the state. Reimbursement is requested for lost revenue in comparison to high target revenue

Do you have a successful local campaign, op-ed piece, TRE materials or any story

or e-mail cook@equitycenter.orgwebsite and we may highlight it in our quarterly InDepth.

INVOICE

Low Target Revenue ISD INVOICE # 1DATE: JUNE 28, 2011

100 Limited Opportunity Lane

Anywhere, TX 75474

TO: The State of Texas

Austin, TX 78701

PAYMENT TERMS DUE DATE

Due on receipt PAST DUE

QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE LINE TOTAL

15,600

WADA

from

2006-2011

Reimbursement requested for lost revenue in

comparison to high target revenue districts per

WADA since FY06.

$2,664$41,588,400

Example given:

High TR district $7,544 – Low TR district $4,880 =

$2,664

$2,664 X 3,120 WADA = $8,311,680

$8,311,680 X 5 years = $41,558,400

PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT IMMEDIATELY!

SUBTOTAL

SALES TAX

TOTAL $41,588,400

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

18

2011 Gold Sponsor

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 15

Leading Financial Advisor to Texas School Districts.

F i r s t S o u t h w e s t

FirstSouthwest, like the Equity Center, is dedicated to supporting Texas school districts. According to

MuniAnalytics, we have been the No. 1 ranked

� nancial advisor for Texas ISD bond issues for the

past ten years.

Since 1946, FirstSouthwest’s experienced

professionals have been helping Texas Chapter 42

school districts achieve their � nancing and facilities

goals. Our extensive experience ranges from

planning and executing the bond election process to

structuring lease/purchase � nancing agreements and

using non-voted maintenance tax debt.

If we can be of assistance to your district, please call

or visit us online today.

800.678.3792

FirstSW.com

© 2011 First Southwest Company. All rights reserved. Member FINRA/SIPC. PFD0311029

19

www.jr3online.com

www.abargasco.com

www.rwblaw.net

www.moakcasey.com

www.edlaw.com

www.swst.com www.iTransSolution.comwww.hcde-texas.org

www.fulbright.com

THE AIKIN GROUP

wbkconstruction.comwww.wraarchitects.com

Summer 2011 Equity Center InDepthPage 16

2011 Gold & Silver Sponsors

Uncover Additional Transportation Funding

www.iTransSolutions.org

20

Page 1 of 22

Initial Guidance for Local Educational Agencies on the

Education Jobs Fund Program

Frequently Asked Questions

The Texas Education Agency May 11, 2011

Revision #1, May 23, 2011 Revision #2, June 20, 2011

(Questions added or revised since the prior revision are noted and appear in BLUE.)

21

Page 2 of 22

Purpose of the Guidance The purpose of this guidance is to provide information on the Education Jobs (Ed Jobs) Fund program based on the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance.

For Additional Information and Updates The Texas Education Agency will provide additional or updated program guidance as necessary through the Ed Jobs website located at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941. Please send any comments or questions to FormulaFunds@tea.state.tx.us with “Education Jobs Questions” in the subject line.

Table of Contents

A. General Information Page 3 B. Local Uses of Funds Page 7 C. Accountability and Reporting Page 16 D. Resources and Information Page 18 Appendix A: Public Law No. 111-226, Education Jobs Fund, as Amended Page 20

22

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�mailto:FormulaFunds@tea.state.tx.us�

Page 3 of 22

A. General Information A-1. What is the Education Jobs Fund (Ed Jobs) program? The Ed Jobs program is a new federal program that provides $10 billion in assistance to states to save or create education jobs for the 2010–2011 school year. Jobs funded under this program are exclusively for school-level employees that provide educational and related services for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. Source: U. S. Department of Education (USDE) Guidance, April 15, 2011 A-2. What is the statutory authority for the program? The Ed Jobs program is authorized in Public Law No. 111-226 (Act), which President Obama signed on August 10, 2010. (See attached copy of the statute at the end of this guidance.) A-3. How much did Texas receive in Ed Jobs grant funds? Texas received $830,820,460. A-4. Are local educational agencies (LEAs) required to complete and submit an application for the Ed Jobs grant? LEAs that had an approved 2009–2010 or 2010–2011 grant application for ARRA Title XIV State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) from TEA are not required to complete a grant application for the Ed Jobs grant. LEAs that did not have an approved SFSF grant application for either year must complete a simple two-page grant application to receive Ed Jobs funds. The application was emailed directly to these LEAs. See question A-10 with regard to applicable provisions and assurances. A-5. How will my LEA receive the Ed Jobs grant funds? Most LEAs received a Notice of Grant Award (NOGA) from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) on May 9, 2011, specifying the amount of funds awarded, the CFDA number, the Financial Accounting and Reporting (FAR) fund number, and the beginning and ending date of the grant period. LEAs that did not have an approved SFSF application to TEA for the 2009–2010 or 2010–2011 school years must submit a brief paper Ed Jobs application that was emailed to them on May 9, 2011. LEAs that are required to submit a paper grant application will receive their Ed Jobs funds as soon as the application is approved by TEA. The Ed Jobs grant is paid on a reimbursement basis, as with all federal grants. LEAs will draw down funds through the automated expenditure reporting (ER) system. LEAs must comply with cash management rules for drawing down no more cash than is necessary to meet three days’ needs. Refer to the NOGA transmittal letter that accompanied the NOGA emailed to the LEA for additional information related to cash management and interest earned. A-6. What is the period of availability of Ed Jobs funds? The period of availability is August 10, 2010 through September 30, 2012. The Ed Jobs program is intended to support educational and related services during the 2010–2011 school year. Ed Jobs funds are available for obligations that occur as of August 10, 2010 (the date of enactment of the legislation). An LEA that has Ed Jobs funds remaining after the 2010–2011 school year may use those remaining funds through September 30, 2012. This period includes the additional year of fund availability authorized under the Tydings Amendment (Section 421[b] [1] of the General Education Provisions Act [GEPA], 20 U.S.C. 1225[b] [1]). Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

23

Page 4 of 22

A-7. Can Ed Jobs funds be used for expenditures prior to August 10, 2010? No, an LEA may not use Ed Jobs funds for expenditures for any period prior to August 10, 2010, the date that the legislation was enacted. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 A-8. Do Ed Jobs funds have to be used in the 2010–2011 school year? The intent of the bill is for the Ed Jobs funds to be used in the 2010–2011 school year, with unused funds available until September 30, 2012. (See also A-6.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 A-9. How does an LEA rescind its Ed Jobs notice of grant award (NOGA) if the LEA determines it does not wish to receive Ed Jobs funds? An LEA may rescind their Ed Jobs NOGA by contacting TEA in writing through email, fax, or letter. The notification must be signed by the superintendent or chief executive officer. The written communication must state that the LEA does not wish to accept the funds. The decision to rescind Ed Jobs funds is irreversible and binding. LEAs may contact TEA as follows:

• Email: karyn.gukeisen@tea.state.tx.us • Fax: Karyn Gukeisen at (512) 463-7915 • Letter:

Texas Education Agency Division of Formula Funding-Karyn Gukeisen 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701

A-10. Must an LEA agree to any provisions and assurances in order to receive and expend Ed Jobs funds? Yes. All of the provisions and assurances in the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 SFSF grant applications, including the General Provisions and Assurances, the Debarment and Suspension Certification, the Lobbying Certification, and the Program-Specific Provisions and Assurances apply to the Ed Jobs grants and are incorporated by reference into the Ed Jobs NOGA. By accepting Ed Jobs funds, the LEA is agreeing to comply with all the SFSF provisions and assurances. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 A-11. Does the Ed Jobs program require Central Contractor Registration (CCR)? The reporting requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) apply to Ed Jobs funds. Therefore, LEAs are required to register with the CCR and receive a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. Grantees register with CCR only once, but they must renew and revalidate their registration at least every 12 months from the date they first registered to ensure that the CCR is up to date and in sync with changes that may have been made to Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) information. TEA cannot complete CCR registration renewal on behalf of LEAs. If an LEA does not renew its CCR registration, it will expire. An expired CCR registration may impair an LEA’s ability to receive funds under Ed Jobs. Therefore, TEA strongly suggests that LEAs renew their CCR registration prior to the expiration date and enter the updated expiration date in the ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reports for Ed Jobs.

24

Page 5 of 22

A-12. Should LEAs expect to receive these funds again in the 2011-2012 school year? These funds are appropriated by Congress as one-time funding for Texas. LEAs should not expect additional funds in 2011-2012. The following FAQs were added June 24, 2011: A-13. How did TEA determine the amount of Ed Jobs funding that each LEA will receive? Ed Jobs allocations were determined based on weighted average daily attendance (WADA) as of May 5, 2011. The dollar amount per WADA was determined by dividing the funds available by the number of WADA statewide, which resulted in an amount of $134.17 per WADA. LEA allocations were determined by multiplying their WADA by $134.17. A district’s WADA is calculated by first subtracting from a district’s Tier I entitlement any transportation funding the district is due, any funding the district is due for new instructional facilities, the district’s TxVSN allotment, the district’s high school allotment, and 50% of the CEI adjustment. The resulting amount is then divided by the district’s basic allotment amount to arrive at a district’s WADA. Source: TEA School Finance, May 16, 2011 A-14. Are charter schools that begin serving students in 2011–2012 eligible for funds from the Education Jobs Fund? Because the Ed Jobs money was intended to be expended in the 2010–2011 school year, LEAs that did not exist in 2010-2011 are not entitled to Ed Jobs funds. Source: TEA Legal Services, May 16, 2011 A-15. Will the state foundation funds we will receive for next school year be reduced in any way because we received the Ed Jobs funds? The state education budget for the 2012–2013 biennium has not yet been authorized, so we do not have the information to fully respond to this question. We will update this FAQ as soon as the information is available. A-16. There has been some discussion of the Ed Jobs grant being used as a revenue source to fund Senate Bill 22, yet these funds have already been distributed to districts. What impact, if any, does this grant have on the 2012–2013 biennium state budgets? Please refer to A-15. A-17. The May 6, 2011, Ed Jobs announcement letter posted to the TEA Correspondence page states that if an LEA already receives SFSF funding, no Ed Jobs application is necessary. Does this mean that Ed Jobs funds will be treated like the SFSF funds—that is, will Ed Jobs funds replace state funding due to the LEAs, or should Ed Jobs funds be considered additional funds? At this time, Ed Jobs funds are not part of an LEA’s Foundation School Program (FSP) allotment for 2010–2011. No 2010-2011 FSP payments were reduced as a result of Ed Jobs. However, we do not yet know Ed Job’s potential impact on FSP for the 2012–2013 biennium. The state education budget for the 2012–2013 biennium has not yet been authorized, so we do not have the information to fully respond to this question. We will update this FAQ as soon as the information is available. A-18. FAQ number B-1 states that the supplement-not-supplant provision does not apply to Ed Jobs funds but that the state is required to document maintenance of effort. Will

25

Page 6 of 22

Ed Jobs funds supplant state funding in the FSP allotment, as occurred with SFSF? Is this really additional money? This is additional funding for the 2010–2011 school year. The Ed Jobs funds are not part of the FSP program for the 2010–2011 school year. The state education budget for the 2012–2013 biennium has not yet been authorized, so we do not have the information to fully respond to this question. We will update this FAQ as soon as the information is available. A-19. My understanding of the rules for the Ed Jobs program is that they will closely resemble the rules for the SFSF received by LEAs in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011. Information regarding the allowable use of Ed Jobs funds seems contrary to the SFSF rules. How are the two programs related? SFSF and Ed Jobs have very few elements or rules in common. Both require ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting. One potential use of SFSF funds is for salaries and benefits, while the only allowable use for Ed Jobs funds is salaries and benefits. The relationship between SFSF and Ed Jobs may be confusing because the enabling legislation for Ed Jobs specified that LEAs that had submitted an approved application for SFSF funds could not be required to submit an application for Ed Jobs funds, and that the provisions and assurances in the SFSF application submitted by LEAs also applied to the Ed Jobs grant. The only part of the SFSF application that is relevant to Ed Jobs is the provisions and assurances. (See also A-10.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 A-20. We currently use Financial Accounting and Reporting (FAR) fund code 287 for another grant. In the FAR guide, fund code 287 is for Federally Funded Special Revenue Funds-Locally Defined. Now that the Ed Jobs grant has been assigned fund code 287, will that fund be used only for the Ed Jobs grant, or can it also be used for other grants if we classify the other grants with different subobject codes? Fund 287 must be used exclusively for Ed Jobs funds. LEAs should use other locally defined codes for any other grants that they may have previously coded to fund code 287. Subobject codes may be used with the other locally defined codes, but not with fund code 287. Source: School Financial Audits, May 16, 2011 A-21. Will expenditures from Ed Jobs FAR fund code 287 with program intent codes designating compensatory, career and technology, special education, bilingual, and gifted/talented be counted to determine whether districts have met their direct expenditure obligations for those special program allotments? Ed Jobs funds will be considered in determining whether districts have met their direct expenditure obligations for special program allotments. Source: School Financial Audits, May 16, 2011 A-22. Will the allocations for the Ed Jobs grant appear on the district’s Summary of Finance (SOF) Statement? Ed Jobs allocations will not be reflected on the LEA’s SOF statement. Each grantee received a notice of grant award (NOGA) via email. A-23. I cannot find my Ed Jobs NOGA on eGrants. I can find it in ER but wanted to find the Microsoft Word version. How can I find my NOGA? The NOGA was emailed to the authorized official and primary and secondary contacts for the SFSF application. Please contact one of those individuals at your LEA for the information.

26

Page 7 of 22

A-24. Is Ed Jobs part of the ARRA grant? Ed Jobs is not part of the ARRA grant, but the authorizing statute requires grantees to comply with ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting requirements. (See also C-4.)

B. Local Uses of Funds

B-1. Does the supplement-not-supplant provision apply to Ed Jobs? Updated June 24, 2011:

The federal supplement-not-supplant provisions do not apply to Ed Jobs funds at the LEA level, but the state is required to document maintenance of effort (MOE). See B-28 for information on compliance with supplement-not-supplant requirements of Title I, Part A, Sections 1120A(b) and 1114(a)(2)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Source: USDE Guidance, November 2010

B-2. For what purposes may an LEA use its Ed Jobs Fund grant funds? Updated June 24, 2011:

An LEA must use its funds only for compensation and benefits that are not prohibited by Texas law or statute, and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing school-level employees, to recall or rehire former school-level employees, and to hire new school-level employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services. An LEA may use Ed Jobs funds to pay the costs of benefits for school-level employees even if the salaries of those individuals are not paid with Ed Jobs funds. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011, and May 11, 2011, and TEC §22.007

B-3. What categories of expenses may an LEA support with Ed Jobs funds? Updated June 24, 2011:

For purposes of this program, the phrase “compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services” includes, among other things, salaries, performance bonuses, health insurance, retirement benefits, incentives for early retirement, pension fund contributions, tuition reimbursement, student loan repayment assistance, transportation subsidies, and reimbursement for childcare expenses for school-level employees. An LEA may use the Ed Jobs funds to pay the costs of benefits for school-level employees even if the salaries of those individuals are not paid with Ed Jobs funds. Please note: Texas Education Code (TEC) §22.007 does not allow public school districts to offer incentives for early retirement from the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. (TEC §22.007 is not applicable to charter schools.) Also, the Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53 precludes bonuses unless the bonus plan was approved as part of the employees’ compensation before the employees rendered their services. (See also B-2.) Ed Jobs funds may be used for early resignation incentives under certain conditions (See B-24). Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 and May 11, 2011; TEC §22.007; and Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53. B-4. Which employees may an LEA support with Ed Jobs funds? An LEA may use Ed Jobs funds to pay the salaries of teachers and other employees who provide school-level educational and related services. In addition to teachers, employees supported with program funds may include, among others, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, in-service teacher trainers, classroom aides, counselors, librarians, secretaries, social workers, psychologists, interpreters, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, information technology personnel, nurses, athletic coaches, security officers, custodians, maintenance workers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers. (See also B-2

27

Page 8 of 22

and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-5. Does it matter how the school-level employees are currently being funded (i.e., state, local, federal funds-SFSF, or a combination)? Can we support them with Ed Jobs funds regardless of how they are currently being funded? It does not matter how the school-level employees are currently being funded. Ed Jobs funds can be used to help retain, rehire, or hire new school-level employees regardless of how they are currently being funded. (See also B-1 and B-2.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-6. Can LEAs use Ed Jobs funds to pay for school-level positions that are already funded using state or local funds? Yes, the Ed Jobs Fund grant funds can be used to pay for school-level positions that are currently funded from local, state, or federal funds. However, the LEA must maintain proper documentation for ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting. (See also B-1, B-2, B-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-7. If an LEA has determined they will not be laying off school-level employees or hiring new school-level employees, and they have no after school or extended learning programs, can they still use Ed Jobs funds? If so, for what types of expenditures? LEAs that will not be laying off school-level employees or hiring new school-level employees can still use the funds to pay the salaries and benefits of any individual who provides educational and related services at the school level, even if such expenses are already supported with other funding sources. Source: USDE Guidance, May 10, 2011 B-8. Where both the statute and USDE guidance say that benefits and support services are allowable, does that mean benefits and support services only for employees that are paid from Ed Jobs funds? Or, for example, can an LEA pay insurance or other benefits for all school-level employees, regardless of whether or not their salaries are paid from Ed Jobs funds? An LEA may use Ed Jobs funds to pay the costs of benefits of school-level employees even if the salaries of those individuals are not paid with Ed Jobs funds. Source: USDE Guidance, May 11, 2011

B-9. What are the statutory prohibitions on an LEA’s use of Ed Jobs funds? Updated June 24, 2011:

The statute prohibits LEAs from using Ed Jobs funds for general administrative expenses as that term is defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in its Common Core of Data. These prohibited expenses are administrative expenditures related to the operation of the superintendent’s office or the LEA’s board of education, including the salaries and benefits of LEA-level administrative employees or other district-wide employees. In addition, TEC §22.007 does not allow public school districts to offer incentives for early retirement from the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. (TEC §22.007 does not apply to charter schools.) The Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53 precludes bonuses unless the bonus plan was approved as part of the employees’ compensation before the employees rendered their services. The statute also prohibits LEAs from using Ed Jobs funds for other LEA-level support services expenditures as that term is defined in the Common Core of Data. These prohibited activities include the payment of expenditures for fiscal services, LEA program planners and researchers, and human resource services. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011; TEC §22.007; and Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53.

28

Page 9 of 22

B-10. Our education service center will be administering this grant. Could we use Ed Jobs funds for this expense? No. Ed Jobs funds may only be used to support school-level employees. (See also B-9.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

B-11. The April 15, 2011, USDE guidance states that allowable expenses include health insurance, compensation, and benefits. Would this also include life insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, short-term and long-term disability insurance, long-term care insurance, workers compensation, unemployment insurance costs, Medicare, and FICA related to allowable salaries under this grant?

Updated June 24, 2011:

All would be allowable but only for employees who provide educational and related services at the school level. Source: USDE Guidance, May 10, 2011 B-12. Our district currently contributes $150 per month per employee towards health and $1.20 per month for employee life insurance. Could we use Ed Jobs funds for this expense? Yes. Ed Jobs funds may be used for health insurance, life insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, short-term and long-term disability insurance, long-term care insurance, workers compensation and unemployment costs for school-level employees. (See also B-3 and B-13.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-13. Our school-level employees are scheduled to receive a reduction in pay because they will have to contribute more toward their insurance benefits. Can the Ed Jobs funds be used to cover the increased cost of insurance benefits for all school-level employees? Yes, Ed Jobs funds can be used to pay for insurance for school-level employees, even if the salaries of those individuals are not paid with Ed Jobs funds. (See also B-3, B-11 and B-12.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011, and May 10, 2011 B-14. Can Ed Jobs funds be used to pay public school or charter school administrators? Ed Jobs funds may not be used to pay for LEA-level administrators. However, funds may be used for school-level administrators, including principals and assistant principals. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-15. May an LEA use Ed Jobs funds to pay the salaries and benefits of an LEA-level administrative official who also teaches or has other school-level responsibilities? For an individual with both LEA-level and school-level responsibilities, an LEA may use Ed Jobs funds to pay only that portion of the employee’s salary and benefits associated with the time spent on allowable (i.e., school-level) activities. The LEA must maintain documentation substantiating that amount of time (i.e., time and effort records). (See also C-7.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-16. Can an LEA use Ed Jobs funds to pay the salary of day-care employees who provide services to teenage mothers enrolled at our school? Yes. Ed Jobs funds can be used to pay employees of school district-operated day-care centers as long as the child-care providers are employees of the LEA and are located on a school campus. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

B-17. May an LEA use Ed Jobs funds to change previously established employee salary schedules or to reduce the number of furlough days?

Updated June 24, 2011:

29

Page 10 of 22

An LEA may use Ed Jobs funds to restore reductions in salaries and benefits for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. Ed Jobs funds cannot be used to implement salary increases retroactively because it would be considered a gift of public funds, which is prohibited by Article 3, Section 53 of the Texas Constitution. An LEA may not increase salary after a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part except in exchange for additional consideration from the employee such as the performance of additional duties. See Texas Attorney General Opinion No. MW-68 (1979). An LEA may also use the funds for any additional salary and benefits costs associated with the elimination of furlough days that had been scheduled for the 2010–2011 school year for school-level employees. An LEA may not use Ed Jobs funds to compensate employees or pay benefits for any period prior to August 10, 2010, the date of enactment of the Act. (See also B-2 and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011; Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53; and Texas Attorney General Opinion No. MW-68 (1979)

B-18. Can the LEA use Ed Jobs funds to pay for teacher salary increases that were awarded using another source of funds?

Updated June 24, 2011:

Yes. Ed Jobs funds can be used to pay teacher salary increases, regardless of how they were previously funded. However, Ed Jobs funds cannot be used to implement salary increases retroactively because it would be considered a gift of public funds, which is prohibited by Article 3, Section 53 of the Texas Constitution. (See also B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-17.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 and Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53 B-19. May an LEA use Ed Jobs funds to pay the compensation and benefits of individuals who provide school-level services, but who are not employees of an LEA? No. An LEA may not use the funds to pay for contractual school-level services by individuals who are not employees of an LEA (e.g., janitors employed by an outside firm). However, an LEA that contracts with another LEA to provide educational and related services may use Ed Jobs funds to pay that portion of the contract associated with the salaries and benefits of the school-level employees of the LEA providing the services. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

B-20. May an LEA use Ed Jobs funds to meet previously unmet pension fund liabilities? Updated June 24, 2011:

No. An LEA may not use Ed Jobs funds to meet pension obligations incurred in school years prior to 2010-2011. However, an LEA may use its funds for pension obligations accruing on the basis of services that a school-level employee performs during the 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 school years. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

B-21. Can LEAs use Ed Jobs funds for performance bonuses set to be paid in June 2011, paychecks?

Updated June 24, 2011:

Yes, as long as performance bonuses are for school-level employees, and the bonus plan had been approved before the employee rendered their services. (See also B-3 and B-9.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 and Texas Constitution, Article 3, §53. B-22. Can LEAs use Ed Jobs funds for salaries of professional employees that are not budgeted in the SFSF application? Or do we need to amend the SFSF application to include the employees we want to fund through Ed Jobs? Yes, LEAs can use Ed Jobs funds for school-level employees who are not budgeted in the

30

Page 11 of 22

SFSF application. SFSF application(s) do not have to be amended to include Ed Jobs expenditures.

B-23. Can LEAs use Ed Jobs funds to pay incentives for early retirement? Updated June 24, 2011:

Texas Education Code (TEC) §22.007 does not allow public school districts to offer incentives for early retirement from the Teacher Retirement System. (TEC §22.007 does not apply to charter schools.) Source: TEC §22.007

B-24. Can LEAs use Ed Jobs funds to pay incentives for early resignation for school-level employees?

Updated June 24, 2011:

Yes, if the early resignation incentives meet certain criteria, and only with prior approval from TEA, as delegated to the State by the U.S. Department of Education. Ed Jobs funds are subject to the OMB Circular A-87 cost principles. OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.g., states that prior approval is required in order to charge a grant for “mass or abnormal severance pay.” LEAs must meet specific criteria to use Ed Jobs funds for such incentives. The criteria are: (1) the LEA establishes a written policy or has an employer-employee agreement; (2) the only individuals that receive a resignation incentive paid from Ed Jobs funds are employees that have provided educational or related services at the school level; and (3) the use of the resignation incentive will directly or indirectly save or create jobs at the school level. To receive prior approval, an LEA must contact TEA to request the Education Jobs Fund Early Resignation Incentive Request for Approval form. To request email Karyn Gukeisen at Karyn.gukeisen@tea.state.tx.us or call (512) 463-8525. The completed form must be signed by the LEA’s authorized official and returned to TEA. TEA must maintain documentation that LEAs have met the criteria. All funds will still have to be obligated by September 30, 2012. Public school districts should confer with their legal counsel to ensure that the early resignation incentive is structured so that it cannot be construed as an early retirement incentive prohibited under TEC § 22.007. TEA approval for Ed Jobs purposes does not constitute a finding that the incentive complies with TEC §22.007, Education Code, or with Article 3, Section 53, of the Texas Constitution. For a discussion of the applicability of Article 3, Section 53, of the Texas Constitution to an early exit plan, see Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0165 (2000). Please note: For TRS purposes, salary and wages are monetary compensation that are (1) payments for services rendered, and (2) earned or accrued proportionally as the work is performed. Because payment incentives intended to secure notice of an employee’s resignation are not for service rendered by the employee, the payment is not creditable compensation for TRS purposes and should not be reported to TRS. Source: USDE Guidance, May 10, 2011 and Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Rule 25.21, subsections (d)(5) and (d)(13). B-25. Can Ed Jobs funds be used to purchase fuel for school buses? No. Ed Jobs funds can only be used to support school-level employees. (See also B-3.)

31

mailto:Karyn.gukeisen@tea.state.tx.us�

Page 12 of 22

Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-26. May an LEA use Ed Jobs funds for construction, renovation, or repairs? No. Ed Jobs funds can only be used to support school-level employees. (See also B-2 and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-27. Does the receipt of Ed Jobs funds require LEAs to comply with federal civil rights laws? Yes. The receipt of any federal funds, including Ed Jobs funds, obligates recipients to comply with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-28. How are Ed Jobs funds treated in determining compliance with the supplement-not-supplant requirements of Title I, Part A in sections 1120A(b) and 1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA in school year 2010–2011 and subsequent years? If Ed Jobs funds are being used in school year 2010–2011 to pay staff in positions that would normally be supported with state or local funds, then those staff, even though supported with federal Ed Jobs funds, should be considered to be supported with state and local funds. If, however, Ed Jobs funds are being used in school year 2010–2011 to pay staff in positions that would normally be supported with other federal funds, those staff should be considered to be supported with federal funds. For additional information, refer to “Guidance – When to Treat Expenditures of Education Jobs Funds as State or Local Funds for Purposes of the Fiscal Requirements Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,” November 2010, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941. Source: USDE Guidance, November 2010

B-29. How are school personnel who are paid with funds from the Ed Jobs grant treated in determining comparability under section 1120A(c) of the ESEA? In order to make this determination, it is important to consider the purpose of the comparability requirement and the purpose of Ed Jobs. The comparability of services requirement in section 1120A(c) of the ESEA requires an LEA to use state and local funds to provide services in each of its Title I schools that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to the services it provides in its non-Title I schools. (If all of an LEA’s schools are Title I schools, the LEA must use state and local funds to provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each school.) Consistent with the purpose of Ed Jobs, the USDE expects that Ed Jobs funds in many cases will be used to rehire school staff (such as teachers) who were previously paid with State or local funds, or to hire new school staff in order to provide an LEA’s basic education program. In other words, we expect that many school staff supported with Ed Jobs funds will be staff that an LEA would normally include in its comparability determinations. This circumstance raises the question of how an LEA should consider such staff, who are working in positions that normally would be paid for with non federal funds but are now supported with federal Ed Jobs funds when the LEA determines whether its Title I schools meet the comparability requirement under section 1120A(c) of the ESEA.

32

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�

Page 13 of 22

When determining whether its Title I schools meet the comparability requirement, an LEA with staff who are supported with Ed Jobs funds should assess how each position would be funded were Ed Jobs funds not available. School staff paid with Ed Jobs funds who are in positions that would ordinarily be supported with state or local funds and would ordinarily be included in comparability determinations should continue to be included in those determinations. On the other hand, school staff paid with Ed Jobs funds who are in positions that would otherwise be supported with other federal funds, with the exception of the Impact Aid funds (or funds from the SFSF program when those funds are used for activities authorized by Impact Aid), would continue to be excluded from comparability determinations. An LEA should include an explanation of how it treats school staff paid with Ed Jobs funds in the comparability procedures it is required to develop under section 1120A(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA. Source: USDE Guidance, November 2010 B-30. When determining NCLB maintenance of effort (MOE), will the Ed Jobs funds be included with fund 199 like the SFSF money? Yes. For the purpose of meeting MOE requirements, Ed Jobs funds are treated the same as funds provided by the SFSF program. More specifically, section 14012(d) of ARRA, which under the Ed Jobs legislation also applies to Ed Jobs funds, provides that, with prior approval from the U. S. Secretary of Education, an SEA or LEA may treat expenditures from the SFSF program that are used for elementary, secondary, or postsecondary education as nonfederal funds for the purpose of any requirements to maintain fiscal effort under any other program that the USDE administers, including Title I, Part A. Source: USDE Guidance, November 2010 B-31. Can indirect costs be charged to the grant? No, LEAs may not use Ed Jobs funds for any type of administrative costs, including indirect costs. Funds may only be used for compensation and benefits for school-level employees. Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 The following FAQs were added June 24, 2011: B-32 Wages paid under FAR fund code 266 (SFSF) are treated as state funds and are subject to the same payroll benefit procedures as state funds (i.e., wages paid through fund 266 are not subject to Federal TRS). Should Ed Jobs funds be treated the same way we treated fund 266? A revised response to this question is pending. B-33. If wages are paid with Ed Jobs funds, will these wages be subject to federal TRS? A revised response to this question is pending. B-34. Can the district put Ed Jobs funds directly into our self-funded health insurance fund on behalf of our employees and not increase employee contribution rates next year? Yes, but only for school-level employees. See also B-11 and B-12. B-35. In order to be competitive with area districts, our district provided a 2010–2011 salary increase in an effort to retain school-level employees. Can this cost be replaced with the Ed Jobs grant funds in 2010–2011? Yes, previously granted salary increases for school-level employees can be funded with Ed Jobs funds. (See also B-2 and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

33

Page 14 of 22

B-36. The guidelines indicate that the hiring of new school-level employees is an allowable expenditure under the Ed Jobs grant. Does this include employees who were hired to replace an existing position? All school-level employees may be funded, regardless of whether they were hired to replace an existing employee or fill a new position. There is not a supplement-not-supplant provision for Ed Jobs. )See also B-1, B-2, and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-37. I understand that we can use Ed Jobs funds to pay salaries for our cafeteria employees. I need clarification about the “school-level” qualification. These employees are coded as district positions because all the campuses are located at the same location. We do have two separate cafeterias but the employees could be working at one or both depending on the circumstances. Is it still allowable to pay them with the Ed Jobs funds even though they are not campus-specific in the payroll codes? You can pay salaries for the cafeteria workers as long as they work at the school level, providing services to students and school-level personnel, regardless of the number of campuses they serve. If the employees do not work 100% at the school level, Ed Jobs funds cannot be used to fund 100% of their salaries, and time and effort records will be required. (See also B-38, B-39, B-40, B-45, B-46, and B-47.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 2015 and OMB Circular A-87 B-38. Can the Ed Jobs funds be used to pay for school-level instructional specialists? You can pay for school-level instructional specialists as long as they work at the school level, providing services to students and school-level personnel. If they do not work 100% at the school level, time and effort records will be required. (See also B-37, B-39, and C-7.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 2015 and OMB Circular A-87 B-39. Can we use Ed Jobs funds to pay our bus drivers or custodial staff? Does the custodial staff need to be school-level only or can they be LEA-level such as a maintenance director or custodial coordinator? You can use Ed Jobs funds to pay for bus drivers and custodial staff as long as they work at the school level. If they do not work 100% at the school level, time and effort records will be required. LEA-level personnel would not be eligible under the Ed Jobs fund. (See also B-40 and C-7.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 and OMB Circular A-87 B-40. Are the custodian and district receptionist assigned to the administration building eligible to be paid from Ed Job funds? No. Only school-level personnel are eligible for funding under Ed Jobs. Ed Jobs funds may not be used for LEA-level positions, such as those working at the administration building. If an employee (such as a custodian) works both at the school-level and LEA-level (administration building), time and effort records will be required and their salaries must be prorated accordingly between Ed Jobs funds and another funding source(s). (See also B-9, B-14, B-39, and C-7.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 and OMB Circular A-87 B-41. The state may not reserve more than 2% of the Ed Jobs funding for administrative costs. Can an LEA claim more than 2% administrative cost if the LEA’s indirect cost ratio is greater than 2%? No. LEAs may not pay any direct or indirect administrative costs from Ed Jobs funds. All funds must be spent for school-level positions and/or benefits. (See also B-9 and B-31.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

34

Page 15 of 22

B-42. My interpretation of the information I have read from TEA’s website and USDE guidelines is that Ed Jobs funds can be expended on school-level salaries, benefits, etc. For example, a classroom teacher’s total salary and benefits for 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 can be fully funded with Ed Jobs funds. Is this supplanting? There is no supplement-not-supplant provision for Ed Jobs. (See also B-1.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-43. Can we use Ed Jobs funds to pay for elementary probationary teachers in order to offset a projected deficit in state funds? Ed Jobs funds can be used for all school-level personnel. (See also B-2 and B-3.) B-44. The Ed Jobs grant period is from August 10, 2010, to September 30, 2012. Does this mean we can charge payroll expenditures from August 31, 2010, to June 30, 2011, to Ed Jobs? Yes, because those dates fall within the period of availability of funds. The Ed Jobs funds can be used retroactively back to August 10, 2010. (See also A-6.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011. B-45. Are time and effort records required for employees that spend 100% of their time at the school level? As long as the employee spends 100% of his or her time as a school-level employee, and is funded 100% from Ed Jobs funds, no time and effort records will be required. If the employee is paid from multiple sources, time and effort records will be required. Source: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 B-46. If an employee has both LEA-level and school-level duties and we are paying some portion of his or her salary from Ed Jobs, do we need to keep time and effort records? Yes. Time and effort records will be required if the employee is not funded 100% from Ed Jobs funds. Only the time worked at the school level can be charged to Ed Jobs. (See also C-7.) Source: OMB Circular A-87 B-47. Time and effort is not required for school-level employees who are paid from Ed Jobs funds, who spend 100% of their time at the school level. What if you paid a salary increase from Ed Jobs funds and the remainder of their salary from local funds - would time and effort requirements apply? No, because this scenario would comprise a single cost objective under OMB Circular A-87 (federal cost principles) paid from multiple eligible funding sources. Source: OMB Circular A-87 B-48. Can Ed Jobs funds be used for food service warehouse employees, delivery persons, and bus mechanics? Ed Jobs funds can be used to pay salaries and benefits for food service warehouse employees, delivery persons, and bus mechanics only to the extent that their functions are carried out at the school level. Ed Jobs funds cannot be used for bus mechanics if they are not working at the school level. Ed Jobs funds can be used for the portion of a delivery person’s time that is spent delivering from school to school, and while on a school campus. Ed Jobs funds cannot be used to compensate an employee for the time the employee spends making deliveries to an administration building or to LEA-level administration personnel. If the “school-level” determination cannot be clearly made for an employee, it is advisable for the LEA to fund that employee’s salary from other funds. (See also B-45, B-46, and B-47.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

35

Page 16 of 22

B-49. Are certain PEIMS role IDs ineligible for Ed Jobs funding? For example, would secretaries and clerks in the administration building be eligible for Ed Jobs funding? Would a maintenance worker or groundskeeper for the administration building be eligible? No. Only school-level personnel may be funded from Ed Jobs. Employees who perform LEA-level administration functions, or who work exclusively on LEA-level property cannot be paid from Ed Jobs funds. (See also B-2, B-3, B-37, B-38, B-39 and B-40.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-50. Can these funds be used to continue and/or support ongoing initiatives for which we used our 2010–2011 SFSF funds, such as making improvements in teacher effectiveness, establishing prekindergarten-to-college and career data systems, and making progress toward rigorous college and career-readiness standards? All Ed Jobs funds must be used for salary and benefits for school-level staff. You can use your Ed Jobs funds for school-level salaries, thus freeing up other funds to support your SFSF initiatives. (See also A-19, B-2 and B-3.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 B-51. Since the Ed Jobs funds appear as though they may be treated as local, is the LEA safe to use these funds in lieu of other state funding it may have received for regular education at the school level? Can the funds supplant rather than supplement? Supplement-not-supplant provisions do not apply to Ed Jobs. (See also B-1, B-28, and B-29.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

C. Accountability and Reporting

C-1. What is the designated FAR fund code for Ed Jobs Funds? LEAs will use FAR fund code 287 to account for Ed Jobs funds throughout the entire grant period. C-2. Are there rules that govern the amount of Ed Jobs funds that a state or its LEAs may draw down at any one time? Yes. The standard cash management rules apply to Ed Jobs funds. An LEA may not draw down any Ed Jobs funds from TEA’s Expenditure Reporting (ER) system unless the LEA intends to pay out the funds within three business days of receipt of funds. C-3. How must entities that receive Ed Jobs funds track those funds? The state and its LEAs must maintain records that separately track and account for Ed Jobs funds. In accordance with the requirements of section 443(a) of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1232f (a)), the state and its LEAs must maintain records that will facilitate an effective audit and demonstrate that the funds were used in compliance with applicable requirements. LEAs will use FAR fund code 287 to account for Ed Jobs funds. C-4. Do the reporting requirements under Section 1512 of ARRA apply to Ed Jobs funds? Yes. Under section 101 of the Education Jobs Fund act, a state and its LEAs must fulfill the reporting requirements under Section 1512 of ARRA. Specifically, the state will submit quarterly reports on its own behalf and on behalf of its LEAs that describe, among other things, how those funds were used, including the number of FTEs saved and created. LEAs will be required to submit Section 1512 Quarterly Reports on Ed Jobs funds beginning with the quarter ending June 30, 2011, regardless of whether any Ed Jobs funds have been expended or any funds

36

Page 17 of 22

have been drawn down in ER as of that date. For additional guidance on Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting requirements, refer to TEA’s ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting page (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7860&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941). Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011 C-5. We do not plan to use any of the Ed Jobs funding until the 2011-2012 school year. Will it create an ARRA reporting problem if we have not utilized any of the funding by the July 5, June 30, 2011, ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Report due date? No. However, you must file a report for all quarters, including for the quarter ending June 30, 2011, even if you have zero expenditures and/or zero jobs saved or created during that quarter. C-6. Does the Ed Jobs program have reporting requirements in addition to the Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting requirements? Yes. States will submit annual Ed Jobs reports to the USDE that include information on the number of education personnel impacted by the program. The USDE will provide guidance on the annual reporting requirements. C-7. Are LEAs required to maintain time and effort records for school-level employees paid with Ed Jobs funds? A school-level employee paid from Ed Jobs funds who is assigned to one or more schools for 100% of the time is not required to maintain time and effort records or to complete the 6-month certification required under OMB Circular A-87. However, an employee who is assigned to one or more schools part of the time and to LEA-level activities must maintain time and effort records and the Ed Jobs grant can only be charged for the amount of time the employee works at the school level. C-8. Will LEAs be monitored or audited on Ed Jobs funds? Yes, LEAs will be monitored and/or audited to ensure LEAs used Ed Jobs funds in accordance with the statute; that they complied with all fiscal requirements, including proper accounting for and tracking expenditures and cash management; and that they complied with maintaining documentation for reporting jobs under ARRA Section 1512. The following FAQs were added June 24, 2011: C-9. What kind of documentation, if any, will be required to prove that we would have had to let someone go if we are retaining a position; have already let someone go if we are recalling or rehiring a former employee; or why we must hire new employees? You should maintain board minutes, internal memoranda, and budget planning documents. That documentation may reflect that positions were eliminated, then later saved or reinstated. (See also C-4.) Source: School Financial Audits, May 16, 2011 C-10. With the understanding that a deficit budget can be a balanced budget with additional layoffs of staff, what will be required for a district to justify that it saved jobs in 2011–2012? Please refer to C-9.

37

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7860&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=7860&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�

Page 18 of 22

C-11. Since the Ed Jobs grant project period begins August 10, 2010, can we use these funds for 2010–2011 salaries? Since most 2010–2011 salaries have already been paid, can we recode those wages using Ed Jobs funds? If we do the recoding, for example, starting September 2010, how can the FTEs be reflected in ARRA quarterly reporting? You can recode previously paid school-level salaries to Ed Jobs back to August 10, 2010. Employees must be reported in ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reports for the quarter in which they are recoded using Ed Jobs funds. For example, if you recode the school-level employees in May or June 2011, you will report them in the ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Report that is due June 30, 2011, for charges made to the Ed Jobs grant in May or June 2011. You will not correct the previous quarterly reports. (See also A-6 and C-4.) Source: USDE Guidance, April 15, 2011

D. Resources and Information

D-1. Where may I obtain updated information about the Ed Jobs program? The USDE will post updated information about the Ed Jobs program on the USDE website at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/educationjobsfund/index.html. The information is also available on TEA’s Ed Jobs website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id= 2147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941. D-2. Where may I obtain answers to specific questions that I may have about the Ed Jobs program? For questions on ARRA Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting, contact TEA’s Fiscal Accountability and Federal Reporting Unit (FAFRU) at 512-936-3647 or arrastimulus@tea.state.tx.us. For questions about Ed Jobs use of funds or expenditure reporting, contact the Division of Formula Funding at formulafunds@tea.state.tx.us. The following FAQs were added June 24, 2011: D-3. I see on TEA’s website that Texas received the Ed Jobs grant. I’ve been out of a job for awhile and I’d like to know how this grant can help me get back into a position at a school district. Where can I go and who can I talk to about a job? The purpose of this grant is to support school-level employees. You should visit your local school district or open-enrollment charter school, starting with the local human resources department. Also, a new web portal has been placed on TEA’s http://www.TheBestTeachInTexas.com website, which directly links job seekers to available teaching and education-related positions found in http://www.WorkInTexas.com. To search for job openings in specific school districts or charter schools, go to TEA’s Statewide School District Job Search web page at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/districtSearch.aspx. D-4. Will there be a webinar on the Ed Jobs funds? Webinars were presented on June 14 and June 21, 2011. No further webinars are planned at this time. Please review this FAQ document thoroughly and refer to TEA’s Ed Jobs website at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941 for guidance from the USDE. D-5. Is TEA going to publish further guidance regarding the use of Ed Jobs funds? TEA will continue updating this guidance document as questions are received. Please see TEA’s Ed Jobs website at

38

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/educationjobsfund/index.html�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�mailto:arrastimulus@tea.state.tx.us�mailto:formulafunds@tea.state.tx.us�http://thebestteachintexas.com/�http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobs/job.html�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/districtSearch.aspx�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=9411�

Page 19 of 22

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941 for updated guidance.

39

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=%202147500359&menu_id=934&menu_id2=941�

Page 20 of 22

Appendix A

Public Law No. 111-226 (August 10, 2010)

TITLE I

EDUCATION JOBS FUND

EDUCATION JOBS FUNDS

SEC. 101. There are authorized to be appropriated and there are appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise obligated for necessary expenses for an Education Jobs Fund, $10,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount under this heading shall be administered under the terms and conditions of sections 14001 through 14013 and title XV of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) except as follows:

(1) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.— (A) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be available only for allocation by the Secretary of Education (in this heading referred to as the Secretary) in accordance with subsections (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 14001 of division A of Public Law 111–5 and subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, except that the amount reserved under such subsection (b) shall not exceed $1,000,000 and such subsection (f) shall be applied by substituting one year for two years. (B) Prior to allocating funds to States under section 14001(d) of division A of Public Law 111–5, the Secretary shall allocate 0.5 percent to the Secretary of the Interior for schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the basis of the schools’ respective needs for activities consistent with this heading under such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may determine.

(2) RESERVATION.—A State that receives an allocation of funds appropriated under this heading may reserve not more than 2 percent for the administrative costs of carrying out its responsibilities with respect to those funds. (3) AWARDS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—

(A) Except as specified in paragraph (2), an allocation of funds to a State shall be used only for awards to local educational agencies for the support of elementary and secondary education in accordance with paragraph (5) for the 2010–2011 school year (or, in the case of reallocations made under section 14001(f) of division A of Public Law 111–5, for the 2010–2011 or the 2011–2012 school year). (B) Funds used to support elementary and secondary education shall be distributed through a State’s primary elementary and secondary funding formulae or based on local educational agencies’ relative shares of funds under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available. (C) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 14002 of division A of Public Law 111–5 shall not apply to funds appropriated under this heading.

(4) COMPLIANCE WITH EDUCATION REFORM ASSURANCES.— For purposes of awarding funds appropriated under this heading, any State that

40

Page 21 of 22

has an approved application for Phase II of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund that was submitted in accordance with the application notice published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 59142) shall be deemed to be in compliance with subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) through (5) of subsection (d) of section 14005 of division A of Public Law 111–5. (5) REQUIREMENT TO USE FUNDS TO RETAIN OR CREATE EDUCATION JOBS.—Notwithstanding section 14003(a) of division A of Public Law 111–5, funds awarded to local educational agencies under paragraph (3)—

(A) may be used only for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services; and (B) may not be used for general administrative expenses or for other support services expenditures as those terms were defined by the National Center for Education Statistics in its Common Core of Data as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(6) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR RAINY-DAY FUNDS OR DEBT RETIREMENT.—A State that receives