Welcome to Supplement, not Supplant

Federal Guidelines 

Title I-A, Section 1118 Fiscal Requirements (b) FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT, NONFEDERAL FUNDS.

1. IN GENERAL.—A State educational agency or local educational agency shall use Federal funds received under this part only to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from State and local sources for the education of students participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.
2. COMPLIANCE.—To demonstrate compliance with paragraph (1), a local educational agency shall demonstrate that the methodology used to allocate State and local funds to each school receiving assistance under this part ensures that such school receives all of the State and local funds it would otherwise receive if it were not receiving assistance under this part.
3. SPECIAL RULE.—No local educational agency shall be required to:
   • identify that an individual cost or service supported under this part is supplemental; or
   • provide services under this part through a particular instructional method or in a particular instructional setting in order to demonstrate such agency’s compliance with paragraph (1).
4. PROHIBITION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary to prescribe the specific methodology a local educational agency uses to allocate State and local funds to each school receiving assistance under this part.

Methodologies

An LEA has significant flexibility in adopting a methodology to meet the new supplement not supplant requirement. The methodology must:

• Allocate State and local funds to schools in the LEA;
• Provide each Title I school the State and local funds it would receive were it not a Title I school—i.e., be neutral regarding a school’s Title I status.
• An LEA must be able to demonstrate compliance—i.e., that it has implemented its methodology.

Exclusion of Supplemental Non-Federal Funds

Consistent with the statute, if an LEA is required by law to provide funding to schools for a specific purpose, the LEA must provide such funds to Title I schools on the same basis as it provides such funds to non-Title I schools, subject to application of the “exclusion” provision. This includes funds needed to provide services that are required by law for students with disabilities and English learners, as indicated in the ESEA section 1114(a)(2)(B). Under the statute, an LEA may exclude from a supplanting determination supplemental non-federal funds expended in any school for programs that meet the intent and purposes of Title I. ESEA section 1118(d).

Intent and Purposes

Under the existing Title I regulations, a program meets the intent and purposes of Title I if it is:

OR

• implemented in a school with at least 40 percent poverty;
• designed to promote schoolwide reform and upgrade the entire educational operation of the school;
• designed to meet the educational needs of all students in the school, particularly those who are not meeting State standards; and
• uses the State’s assessment system to review the effectiveness of the program;
• serves only students who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet State standards;
• provides supplementary services to participating students designed to improve their achievement; and
• uses the State’s assessment system to review the effectiveness of the program. 34 C.F.R. § 200.79(b)

Methodology Examples

Example #1:

• An LEA offers after-school tutoring for any student who scores below proficient on the State’s mathematics assessment.
• Paying for eligible students in a Title I school with Title I funds and eligible students in a non-Title I school with supplemental local funds would not violate the supplement not supplant requirement.
• This is true even though the Title I school would not receive its share of the supplemental local funds to provide tutoring to eligible students.
• Rather, the local funds to provide tutoring in the non-Title I school would qualify for the exclusion because they are supplemental and benefit students who, by virtue of being non-proficient in mathematics, are failing to meet the State’s mathematics standards and thereby are eligible for Title I services.

Example #2:

• An SEA has an “A-F” school grading system and identifies all “F” schools—both Title I and non-Title I schools—as comprehensive support and improvement schools.
• An LEA would not violate the supplement not supplant requirement if it uses Title I funds to implement interventions in its Title I “F” schools and uses supplemental non-Federal funds to provide the same interventions in its non-Title I “F” schools.

Example #3:

• The exclusion provision applies even if the activity is required by State or local law. For example:
• A State law requires all third-grade students to meet the State’s proficient achievement standard in reading/language arts in order to be promoted to fourth grade.
• Any student who is not proficient at the start of third grade must be provided 90 minutes of supplemental services designed to improve his/her reading proficiency.