Public Law (PL) 107-110 requires that, as a condition of receiving Title I, Part A funds, each local educational
agency must ensure that all schools, both Title I and non-Title I, receive comparable state and local resources
before adding federal funds. This guidance describes the process for making these determinations.
GENERAL INFORMATION
A-1. Must a Local Educational Agency (LEA) determine comparability every year? ........1
A-2. When should comparability be determined?...........................................................................1
A-3. Are there any circumstances in which the comparability requirement might not
apply? ................................................................................................................................................1
DETERMINING COMPARABILITY
B-1. How does an LEA determine comparability?.........................................................................1
B-2. When determining comparability, must an LEA maintain documentation of
compliance?.....................................................................................................................................2
B-3. What are the general requirements for determining comparability under each
option?...............................................................................................................................................2
B-4. If an LEA elects to skip an eligible school when allocating Title I funds because that
school is receiving supplemental funds from other state or local resources that are
spent according to the requirements of Section 1114 or 1115 of Title I, must that
school be comparable? .................................................................................................................2
B-5. Must an LEA include charter schools when determining whether Title I and non-
Title I schools are comparable? .................................................................................................2
B-6. May an LEA use a different method for determining comparability to account for
differences between its charter schools and non-charter schools?...................................3
B-7. If an LEA files a written assurance that it has established and implemented an LEA-
wide salary schedule and policies to ensure equivalence among schools in staffing
and in the provision of materials and supplies, is that sufficient to demonstrate
comparability?.................................................................................................................................3
B-8. If an LEA chooses to measure compliance with the comparability requirement by
comparing pupil-teacher ratios or instructional expenditures, which staff members
should be included as "instructional staff"? Which staff members should be
excluded?..........................................................................................................................................3
B-9. If an LEA uses pupil-teacher ratios or instructional expenditures to measure
comparability, how can the LEA determine which staff are paid with state and local
funds in a school-wide program in which there is no requirement to track federal
funds to particular activities?......................................................................................................3
B-10. When using average instructional materials to determine comparability, can the
LEA exclude certain expenditures from the calculations?.................................................4
B-11. If an LEA is using the pupil-teacher ratio method to demonstrate comparability,
should all figures used [enrollment and instructional staff Full-time equivalent
(FTE)] reflect data from the same day in the school year?................................................4
B-12. If all schools in an LEA or in a grade span grouping receive Title I funds, must the
LEA demonstrate that these schools are providing comparable services?....................4
B-13. The Title I statute provides that comparability may be determined on a LEA-wide
or grade span basis. Are there limitations on the number of grade spans an LEA
may use? ...........................................................................................................................................4
B-14. Are preschool staff and student enrollment included when determining a school’s
student to instructional staff ratios?..........................................................................................5
B-15. In addition to grade span groupings, does the LEA have other options to group
schools?.............................................................................................................................................5
B-16. If an LEA determines that a Title I school is not comparable, what steps should be
taken?.................................................................................................................................................5
B-17. How does the Florida Department of Education (Department) monitor compliance
with comparability?.......................................................................................................................5
i
1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Law (PL) 107-110, Section 1120A(c) – Fiscal Requirements – requires that Local
Educational Agencies (LEAs) ensure that Title I schools receive
state and local funds
for services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to those provided to non-Title I
schools. In order to receive Title I funds, the LEA must ensure that it is meeting the
comparability requirements and must submit comparability calculations to the
Department on an annual basis.
A-1. Must an LEA determine comparability every year?
Yes. Demonstrating comparability is a prerequisite for receiving Title I funds.
Because Title I allocations are made annually, comparability must be determined
annually [PL 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(1)(A)].
In Florida, comparability determinations take place in October after Survey 2,
during which time student and staff membership are reported. LEAs are required
to conduct comparability calculations by the close of the state processing period
for these data and report to the Department by December 3, 2007. For LEAs that
identify non-comparable Title I schools, the LEA must take corrective actions
upon such determination and report such actions to the Department by December
1, 2007.
A-2. When should comparability be determined?
The Department requires that LEAs complete and submit comparability reports by
November of each school year. Comparability calculations must be determined
early in the school year so that an LEA can identify and correct instances during
the current school year in which it has non-comparable Title I schools.
A-3. Are there any circumstances in which the comparability requirement might
not apply?
Yes. The comparability requirement does not apply to an LEA that has only one
building for each grade span [Section 1120A(c)(4)]. An LEA may also exclude
schools with 100 or fewer students from its comparability determinations. If the
exclusion of schools with less than 100 students results in only one building per
grade span, the LEA would be exempt.
DETERMINING COMPARABILITY
B-1. How does an LEA determine comparability?
LEAs have three options for determining comparability: assurances, pupil-teacher
ratio, or average instructional expenditures. Whatever method the LEAs use, they
must have written procedures for determining comparability and ensuring that
non-comparable Title I schools are provided the resources to make them
comparable. Such procedures should include: the timeline for comparability
calculations and the office responsible for them; the comparability option utilized
by the LEA; the source(s) of data, identification of included data elements and the
date certain; and how and when the LEA makes adjustments in schools that are
not comparable.
2
B-2. When determining comparability, must an LEA maintain documentation of
compliance?
An LEA must maintain source documentation for five years to support the
documentation to demonstrate that any needed adjustments to staff assignments or
allocations were made. [PL 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(3)(B); Section 443 of
GEPA; and 34 CFR 75.730 and 80.42].
B-3. What are the general requirements for determining comparability under
each option?
If the LEA chooses the assurances option, it must submit evidence of
comparability among schools through the LEA staffing allocation plan,
instructional materials allocation
plan, and LEA-wide salary schedules.
LEAs that choose to compare Title I and non-Title I schools using the pupil-
teacher ratio must examine the average number of students per instructional staff
member (pupil-teacher ratio) in non-Title I schools compared to the pupil-teacher
ratio of each Title I school. These ratios in Title I schools must not be greater than
110 percent of the average for non-Title I schools.
LEAs that determine comparability using average instructional materials
expenditures examine the average state and local per-pupil expenditures for non-
Title I schools and ensure that each Title I school receives not less than 90 percent
of the average for non-Title I schools.
It is important to note that only those grade spans served by the LEA with Title I
funds are to be included in the comparability calculations, regardless of the
method utilized. Therefore, if an LEA serves only elementary schools with Title I
funds, only schools within the elementary grade span would be included when
determining comparability.
B-4. If an LEA elects to skip an eligible school when allocating Title I funds
because that school is receiving supplemental funds from other state or local
resources that are spent according to the requirements of Section 1114 or
1115 of Title I, must that school be comparable?
Yes. A school that is otherwise eligible for Title I but is not served, or skipped,
must be considered Title I for comparability purposes. Section 1113(b)(1)(D)(i) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires that a school be
comparable in order to be skipped. When calculating whether Title I schools are
comparable, an LEA must treat an otherwise eligible Title I school that is skipped
as if it were a Title I school when determining comparability. When calculating
comparability, the LEA would exclude the supplemental state and local funds
expended in the school in its comparability calculations.
B-5. Must an LEA include charter schools when determining whether Title I and
non-Title I schools are comparable?
Yes, if the charter school encompasses a grade span served by Title I. The LEA
must include all such schools, charter and non-charter, within an LEA when
making comparability determinations.
3
B-6. May an LEA use a different method for determining comparability to
account for differences between its charter schools and non-charter schools?
Yes. An LEA could, for example, determine and compare the pupil-teacher ratio
in each non-charter school operating a Title I program to the pupil-teacher ratio
for all of its non-Title I schools. For charter schools operating a Title I program,
an LEA could use a different measure to determine comparability—e.g.,
determine the per-student amount of state and local funds used to purchase
instructional staff and materials in each of those schools and compare that
calculation to the average per-student amount of state and local funds used to
purchase instructional staff and materials in its non-charter schools.
B-7. If an LEA files a written assurance that it has established and implemented
an LEA-wide salary schedule and policies to ensure equivalence among
schools in staffing and in the provision of materials and supplies, is that
sufficient to demonstrate comparability?
No. An LEA must keep records to document that the salary schedule and policies
were actually implemented annually and that they resulted in equivalence among
schools in staffing, materials, and supplies. Such documentation is necessary to
ensure that the LEA has maintained comparability among its Title I and non-Title
I schools.
B-8. If an LEA chooses to measure compliance with the comparability
requirement by comparing pupil-teacher ratios or instructional
expenditures, which staff members should be included as "instructional
staff?" Which staff members should be excluded?
In calculating comparability, an LEA must only include staff paid with state and
local funds [PL 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(1)(A)]. This would exclude staff paid
with private or federal funds (such as IDEA or Title I).
If an LEA chooses to measure compliance by comparing pupil-teacher ratios or
instructional expenditures, the LEA must consistently include the same categories
of staff members in the ratios for both Title I and non-Title I schools.
Instructional staff may include teachers and other personnel assigned to schools
who provide direct instructional services, such as music, art, and physical
education teachers, guidance counselors, speech therapists, and media specialists,
as well as other personnel who provide services that support instruction, such as
school social workers and psychologists. Instructional paraprofessionals
supported with state and local funds should be counted as half of a full-time
equivalency (.5 FTE) in comparability determinations. Paraprofessionals that do
not provide any instructional support services cannot be included in comparability
calculations.
B-9. If an LEA uses pupil-teacher ratios or instructional expenditures to measure
comparability, how can the LEA determine which staff are paid with state
and local funds in a school-wide program in which there is no requirement to
track federal funds to particular activities?
An LEA may demonstrate that its Title I schools are comparable in several ways.
Two of the most common measures are pupil-teacher ratios or instructional
materials expenditures. These measures assume that an LEA is able to
4
differentiate between the instructional staff paid from state and local funds from
those paid with federal funds, because comparability determinations only focus on
the use of state and local funds.
There are several ways an LEA may demonstrate comparability in a school-wide
program school. If the LEA does not consolidate its federal funds or continues to
track expenditures of those funds to particular activities, the LEA would calculate
comparability for its school-wide program schools the same as it would for its
targeted assistance schools. The LEA may determine the percentage that federal
funds constitute of the total funds available in a school-wide program school. The
LEA would assume that the same percentage of instructional staff in the school
was paid with federal funds and delete those staff from its comparability
determinations. The LEA may use a different measure for determining
comparability in school-wide program schools that is not dependent on
identifying instructional staff
paid with state and local funds.
B-10. When using average instructional materials to determine comparability, can
the LEA exclude certain expenditures from the calculations?
Yes. Staff salary differentials for years of employment need not be included in
comparability determinations. State and local funds expended for language
instruction educational programs, excess state and local costs of providing
services to children with disabilities as determined by the LEA, and state or local
supplemental programs in any school attendance area or school that meet the
intent and purposes of Title I, Part A can also be excluded from the calculations
[Section 1120A (c)(2)(B) and (c)(5) and (d) and 34 CFR 200.79].
B-11. If an LEA is using the pupil-teacher ratio method to demonstrate
comparability, should all figures used [enrollment and instructional staff
Full-time equivalent (FTE)] reflect data from the same day in the school
year?
Yes. An LEA must use the same date certain for all data in the comparability
calculations. For example if an LEA uses pupil-teacher ratio, it should retrieve the
total student and staff FTE on a single date certain, as on the Friday during Survey
2 week in October. An LEA need not include unpredictable changes in student
enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after the beginning of a school
year in determining comparability of services.
B-12. If all schools in an LEA or in a grade span grouping receive Title I funds,
must the LEA demonstrate that these schools are providing comparable
services?
Yes. If an LEA serves all its schools with Title I funds, the LEA must use state
and local funds to provide services that are substantially comparable in each
school, and must demonstrate this by comparing each Title I school to the
allowable variance from the average for all Title I schools.
B-13. When determining comparability on a grade span basis, are there limitations
on the number of grade spans an LEA may use?
Yes. When grouping schools by grade span, five categories are allowed:
elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, combination schools, and
“other” schools. The LEA should group schools according to their “best fit”
5
within these grade span groupings. For example, if most elementary schools in
the LEA are K-5, but two are K-6, the two K-6 schools should be included in the
elementary grade span. In addition, combination schools should be placed either
in the grade span that provides the “best fit,” or within the combination school
grade span. For example, a school that serves students in grades 7-12 may fit
better in the high school grade span, since the majority of grades served are high
school. The “other” category should only be used for Exceptional Student
Education centers, alternative schools, and detention centers with low pupil-
teacher ratios or increased instructional materials expenditures.
B-14. Are preschool staff and student enrollment included when determining a
school’s student to instructional staff ratios?
No. Preschool should not be considered a grade span for comparability purposes
because Florida does not consider preschool to be part of elementary education.
B-15. In addition to grade span groupings, does the LEA have other options to
group schools?
Yes. An LEA may group schools by enrollment size. However, an LEA may only
use this option if the smallest school in a large enrollment size grouping has an
enrollment size that is twice the enrollment of the smallest school in the small
enrollment size grouping.
For example, if an LEA has ten Title I elementary schools, five of which have
enrollment size ranges of 250-500 and five of which have enrollment size ranges
of 500-750, an LEA may choose to group those schools, within the grade span, by
large and small enrollment sizes.
B-16. If an LEA determines that a Title I school is not comparable, what steps
should be taken?
If an LEA finds that a Title I school is not comparable, it must immediately make
the necessary adjustments to staff or expenditures to make that school
comparable. In addition, the LEA must submit reports showing both the original
and revised calculations to the Florida Department of Education indicating the
resources provided to make the school comparable. For example, in the case of
pupil-teacher ratio, an LEA may need to add an instructional position at a school.
If the LEA provides a paraprofessional, it may only count that instructional
position as .5 FTE. The position must be filled and not vacant or advertised to
bring the school in compliance.
B-17. How does the Florida Department of Education monitor compliance with
comparability?
The Florida Department of Education monitors compliance with comparability
through online comparability reports that are reviewed annually and the annual
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) monitoring process. The Department ensures that
LEAs have written policies and procedures in place and that source
documentation is maintained for comparability calculations. In addition, the
Department monitors the corrective action the LEAs took to make non-
comparable schools comparable, if applicable. The LEA should maintain
documentation of the additional resources provided to non-comparable schools.
6
The Department also reviews single audits, but does not use such audits as the
only way to monitor comparability.