Public Law (P.L.) 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.
325 W. GAINES STREET • SUITE 514 • TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0400 • (850) 245-0509 •
A-1. Must a Local Educational Agency (LEA) determine comparability every
A-2. When should comparability be determined?
A-3. Are there any circumstances in which the comparability requirement might
A-4. Is an LEA required to have procedures in place for complying with the
comparability requirements in P.L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(3)?
A-5. If an LEA uses student/instructional staff ratios or student/instructional staff
are paid with state and local funds in a schoolwide program in which there is no
B-1. How does an LEA determine comparability?
B-2. When determining comparability, must an LEA maintain documentation of
B-3. What are the general requirements for determining comparability under
B-4. If an LEA elects to skip an eligible school when allocating Title I funds
B-5. Must an LEA include charter schools that are schools within the LEA when
B-6. May an LEA use a different method for determining comparability to
B-7. Are special education centers or alternative schools to be identified in the
B-8. Is it sufficient to demonstrate comparability if an LEA files a written
and policies to ensure equivalence among schools in staffing and in the provision
B-9. Which staff members should be included as "instructional staff” if an LEA
B-11. When using average instructional materials to determine comparability,
from the same day in the school year if an LEA is using the student/instructional
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Law (P.L.) 107-110, Section 1120A(c) requires Local Educational
Agencies (LEAs) to 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 a Local Educational Agency (LEA) determine comparability
every year?
Yes. Demonstrating comparability is a prerequisite for receiving Title I funds.
The Department allocates Title I funds on an annual basis; therefore, determining
and reporting comparability is an annual requirement. [USDE Non-Regulatory
Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues; P.L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(1)(A)]
In Florida, comparability determinations take place following Survey 2 during
which time student and staff membership are reported to the Department. LEAs
are required to conduct comparability calculations by the close of the state
processing period for these data and report these results to the Department via
the online Comparability Report. 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.
A-2. When should comparability be determined?
Comparability calculations should be determined early in the school year so that
an LEA can identify and correct any non-comparable Title I schools. An early
determination of comparability would allow an LEA to make adjustments during
the school year in which it has non-comparable Title I schools with the least
amount of disruption. [USDE Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues]
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 fewer than 100 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.
1
A-4. Is an LEA required to have procedures in place for complying with the
comparability requirements in P.L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(3)?
Yes. An LEA must have written procedures for complying with the comparability
requirements in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). [
P.L. 107-110, Section
1120A(c)(3)(A)-(B)].
These procedures should include the following:
Timeline for demonstrating comparability
Identification of the office responsible for making comparability
calculations
Measure and process used to determine whether the schools are
comparable
Manner and timelines for making adjustments in schools that are not
comparable
A-5. If an LEA uses student/instructional staff ratios or
student/instructional staff salary ratios to measure comparability, how can
the LEA determine which staff are paid with state and local funds in a
schoolwide program in which there is no requirement to track federal funds
to particular activities?
According to United States Education Department (USED) guidance, there are a
number of ways for an LEA to demonstrate that its Title I schools are
comparable. Two of the most common measures are student/instructional staff
ratios and student/instructional staff salary ratios. These measures assume that
an LEA is able to differentiate those instructional staff who are 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. However, in a
schoolwide program school, the school is not required to track the expenditure of
federal funds to particular activities. Rather, the school may consolidate its
federal funds with its state and local funds and spend the consolidated funds for
any activities included in its schoolwide program plan. As a result, an LEA might
not be able to determine which instructional staff to include in its comparability
determinations.
There are several ways an LEA may demonstrate comparability in a schoolwide
program school:
If the LEA does not consolidate its federal funds or continue to track
expenditures of those funds to particular activities, the LEA would
calculate comparability for its schoolwide 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 schoolwide program school. The LEA would
assume that the same percentage of instructional staff in the school was
2
paid with federal funds and delete those staff from its comparability
determinations.
The LEA may use a different measure for determining comparability in
instructional staff paid with state and local funds. In each case, the non-
Title I schools compared would be the same, but the method used for
comparison purposes would be different.
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. Whichever method is used,
the LEAs must have written procedures for determining comparability and
ensuring that non-comparable Title I schools are provided the resources to make
them comparable. [P. L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(3)(A)]
B-2. When determining comparability, must an LEA maintain
documentation of compliance?
An LEA must maintain source documentation for five years to support the
assurances, pupil-teacher ratio, or average instructional materials calculations
and documentation to demonstrate that any necessary adjustments to staff
assignments or allocations were made. This should be done annually to ensure
compliance with comparability requirements. [P.L. 107-110, Section
1120A(c)(3)(B); Florida Department of State General Records Schedule for State
and Local Government Agencies GS1-SL; Section 443 of General Education
Provisions Act (GEPA); and 34 Code of Federal Regulations (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. [P.L. 107-
110, Section 1120A(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii); USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I
Fiscal Issues]
If the LEA files a written assurance with the State Educational Agency (SEA) that
it has established and implemented a district-wide salary schedule and policies to
ensure equivalence among schools in staffing and in the provision of materials
and supplies, it must keep records to document that the salary schedule and
policies were implemented and that calculations demonstrate equivalence was
achieved among schools in staffing, materials, and supplies. [P.L. 107-110,
3
Section 1120A(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iii); USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal
Issues]
LEAs that choose to compare Title I and non-Title I schools using pupil-teacher
ratio should 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 should not be greater
than 110% of the average for non-Title I schools. [USED Non-Regulatory
Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues]
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% 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?
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. [P.L. 107-110, Section
1113(b)(1)(D)(i); Section 1120A(d); USDE Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I
Fiscal Issues]
B-5. Must an LEA include charter schools that are schools within the LEA
when determining whether its Title I and non-Title I schools are
comparable?
Yes. An LEA should include charter schools, if the charter schools encompass a
grade span served by Title I. The LEA should include all such schools, charter
and non-charter, within an LEA when making comparability determinations.
[USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues]
4
B-6. May an LEA use a different method for determining comparability to
account for differences between its charter schools and non-charter public
schools?
Yes. An LEA could determine and compare the student/instructional staff ratio in
each non-charter school operating a Title I program to the student/instructional
staff 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-Title I charter schools.
B-7. Are special education centers or alternative schools to be identified in
the comparability calculations?
Yes. Center schools such as exceptional education, dropout prevention, and
other alternative schools must be included in the comparability calculations and
are to be placed in their grade span category if the LEA is using the instructional
staff-student ratio methodology.
B-8. Is it sufficient to demonstrate comparability 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?
No. An LEA should 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. [P.L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(2);
USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues; Section 443 of GEPA; and
34 CFR 75.730 and 80.42]
B-9. Which staff members should be included as "instructional staff” if an
LEA chooses to measure compliance with the comparability requirement
by comparing pupil-teacher ratios?
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 librarians.
Other personnel who provide services that support instruction, such as school
social workers and psychologists may also be included. Instructional
paraprofessionals supported with state and local funds should be counted as half
of a full-time equivalency (.5 FTE) in comparability determinations.
5
Paraprofessionals that do not provide any instructional support services cannot
be included in comparability calculations.
The LEA should consistently include the same categories of staff members in the
ratios for both Title I and non-Title I schools. [USED Non-Regulatory Guidance,
Title I Fiscal Issues]
B-10. Which staff members should be excluded as “instructional staff” if
an LEA chooses to measure compliance with the comparability
requirement by comparing pupil-teacher ratios?
In calculating comparability, an LEA must only include staff paid with state and
local funds [P.L. 107-110, Section 1120A(c)(1)]. This would exclude staff paid
with private or federal funds [such as Individual with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) or Title I]. [USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues]
B-11. 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-12. Should all figures used (enrollment and instructional staff FTE)
reflect data from the same day in the school year if an LEA is using the
student/instructional staff ratio method to demonstrate comparability?
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, such as on 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. [USED Non-Regulatory
Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues; 1120A(c)(B) and (C)]
6
B-13. 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. [P.L. 107-110, Section
1120A(c)(1)(B); USED Non-Regulatory Guidance, Title I Fiscal Issues]
B-14. 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”
within these grade span grouping. 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.
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 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 25-500 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. What steps should be taken if an LEA determines that a Title I school
is not comparable?
If an LEA determines that a Title I school is not comparable, it should
immediately make the necessary adjustments to instructional staff or
expenditures to make that school comparable. In addition, the LEA must submit
reports showing both the original and revised calculations to the Department
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
7
that instructional position as .5 FTE. The position must be filled and not vacant
or advertised to bring the school in compliance. [P.L. 107-110, Section
1120A(c)(3)(B)]
B-17. How does the Florida Department of Education monitor compliance
with comparability?
The Department 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 must maintain documentation of the
additional resources provided to non-comparable schools.
The Department also reviews single audits, but does not use such audits as the
only way to monitor comparability.
8
