Title I Comparability Reporting Compliance Requirements 2015-16 School Year August 2015

Title I Comparability Reporting

Compliance Requirements2015-16 School Year

August 2015

Consolidated Planning & Monitoring

Janine R. WhitedDirector of Project Management

[email protected]

Clarifications

Basic Premise of Comparability

• The basic premise of comparability is to ensure the LEA can demonstrate that state and local funds used to provide services at Title I schools are at least comparable to the services at non-Title I schools.

• For this reason, the grade span groupings used for comparing schools to demonstrate comparability are very important.

• Grade span groupings must match the basic organization of schools in the LEA.

Grade Span Grouping

• If the LEA has multiple schools serving grades that cross more than one of the basic grade span grouping configurations, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, those schools may be compared as a separate grade span grouping.

• For example, if the LEA's basic organization primarily includes schools serving grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, the LEA would have three grade span groupings.

• If the LEA also has two schools serving K-8, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, the LEA would have four grade span groupings – the fourth being K-8.

Grade Span Grouping

• Defined grade span groupings for comparability must take into consideration which grades the LEA serves with Title I funds.

• For instance, if the Title I schools in the LEA serve only grades K-8, but not grades 9-12, the comparability calculations only need to include the Title I and/or non-Title I elementary and middle schools, but not the non-Title I high schools.

• However, if a school crosses multiple grade span groupings where any grades in the LEA are served with Title I funds, it must be included in one of the grade span groupings of the basic organizations of the LEA.

Schools Crossing Grade Span Groupings• No school may be excluded from comparability simply

because it crosses multiple grade span groupings.

• For instance, if the LEA's basic organization primarily includes schools serving K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, the LEA would have three grade span groupings.

• If the LEA also has one K-6 school, the school could be included in the K-5 grade span grouping but K-6 could not be identified as a separate grade span grouping.

• Likewise, if the LEA has two K-8 non-Title I schools, the LEA would still have only three grade span groupings for comparability because at least one of those K-8 schools is not a Title I school.

Options for Schools Crossing Grade Span Groupings

• If a school serves grades that cross more than one grade span grouping, the LEA has the following options for including the school in comparability determinations:

– OPTION 1: Include a school in the grade span grouping with which the school has the most grades in common:• A K-6 school could be compared within the K-5 grade span

grouping. • A K-8 school could be compared within the K-5 grade span

grouping.• A 6-12 school could be compared within the 9-12 grade span

grouping.• A K-12 school could be compared within the K-5 grade span

grouping.


– OPTION 2: Divide the grades the school serves by the grade span groupings. Then include the school in each grade span grouping it crosses based on the grades:• A K-6 school could be compared within both the K-5 and 6-8

grade span groupings. – Grades K-5 would be compared within the K-5 grade span grouping.– Grade 6 would be compared within the 6-8 grade span grouping.

• A K-8 school could be compared within both the K-5 and 6-8 grade span groupings.

• A 6-12 school could be compared within both the 6-8 and 9-12 grade span groupings.

• A K-12 school could be compared within the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade span groupings.


– OPTION 3: If the LEA has multiple schools serving grades that cross more than one grade span grouping, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, those schools may be compared as a separate grade span grouping.

If all schools that serve grades crossing more than one grade span grouping are non-Title I schools, option one or two must be used.

Option three may not be used to exclude non-Title I schools from comparability determinations.


– OPTION 3: (cont.)Examples for comparing multiple schools as a separate grade span grouping:• If the LEA has multiple K-6 schools, and at least one of those schools is

a Title I school, the schools may be compared within a separate K-6 grade span grouping.*

• If the LEA has multiple K-8 schools, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, the schools may be compared within a separate K-8 grade span grouping.*

• If the LEA has multiple 6-12 schools, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, the schools may be compared within a separate 6-12 grade span grouping.*

• If the LEA has multiple K-12 schools, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, the schools may be compared within a separate K-12 grade span grouping.*

* For each example above, if none of the schools are Title I, option one or two must be used and the schools may not be compared as a separate grade span grouping.

Grade Span Grouping Examples

• EXAMPLE 1:– All schools in the LEA are Title I schools.– The LEA has three K-5 schools, two 6-8 schools, and one 9-12

school, but also has one K-6 and one K-8 school.– Because the LEA has only one K-6 and one K-8 school, those

schools cannot be separate grade span groupings, but must be compared within one of the three basic grade span groupings.

Example 1:– K-5– 6-8– 9-12

Example 2:– K-5– 6-8– K-8– 9-12

Example 3:– K-6– 7-8– 9-12

OR MAYBE

OR MAYBE


• EXAMPLE 2:– The LEA serves both Title I and non-Title I schools. – The K-5 and 6-8 schools are all served by Title I and one of

two K-8 schools is served by Title I. There are two 9-12 non-Title I schools.

– Because the LEA has multiple K-8 schools, and at least one of those schools is a Title I school, those schools may be compared as a separate K-8 grade span grouping.

– Because none of the Title I schools in the LEA serve any grades 9-12, the high schools may be excluded from the calculations.

Example 1:– K-5– 6-8– 9-12

Example 2:– K-5– 6-8– K-8– 9-12

Example 3:– K-6– 7-8– 9-12

OR MAYBE

OR MAYBE


• EXAMPLE 3:– The LEA serves both Title I and non-Title I schools. – The LEA has four K-6 schools, three 7-8 schools, and two 9-12

schools, but also has one K-8 school and one 6-12 Title I school.

– Because the LEA has only one K-8 and one 6-12 school, those schools cannot be separate grade span groupings, but must be compared within one of the three basic grade span groupings.

Example 1:– K-5– 6-8– 9-12

Example 2:– K-5– 6-8– K-8– 9-12

Example 3:– K-6– 7-8– 9-12

OR MAYBE

OR MAYBE

Excluding Support Staff

• If the LEA opts to exclude other personnel directly supporting instruction from comparability determinations, the exclusion must be consistent for all schools in the LEA.

• Form III has been updated to provide a space for the LEA to indicate its intent to exclude all personnel directly supporting instruction from comparability.

• The LEA must still submit Form III and note "EXCLUDED" in the space provided.

Schools are Not Comparable

• If the LEA is unable to demonstrate comparability by the October 31 deadline, the LEA must still upload all required forms by October 31 and a letter stating that the LEA was not able to demonstrate comparability and understands it must make necessary adjustments within the same school year.

• If adjustments are required to demonstrate comparability, all new comparability forms and a letter stating what adjustments were made must be uploaded to ePlan no later than December 1 of the same school year.

Uploading Files to ePlan

• Forms I – IV are Excel files which must be completed and uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder.

• Please do not print and scan Excel files. If Excel files are printed and scanned, the LEA will be requested to upload the completed Excel files.

• Only Form V is to be printed, signed and scanned before it is uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder.

Alternative Methods Documented

• The standard method for demonstrating comparability is based on student/instructional staff ratio comparisons.

• Any method approved must be one that does not compromise the intent of the law for demonstrating comparability. The October 31 deadline applies to all alternative methods.

– Alternative 1: Per Pupil Budgeted Instructional Expenditures– Alternative 2: Student / Instructional Staff Salary Ratios– Alternative 3: Large and Small Schools– Alternative 4: High and Low Poverty

Alternative Methods Documented

• An alternative method may be considered with prior approval by TDOE.

– Alternatives 1 & 2: Request for approval must be received by TDOE no later than October 15.

– Alternatives 3 & 4: When requesting approval to use this alternative, the LEA must first submit all completed Forms I – V showing the results of the standard method. Request for approval must be received by TDOE no later than October 15.

Comparability Overview

Prerequisite for Receiving Title I Funds• Demonstrating comparability is a prerequisite for

receiving Title I, Part A funds.

• Because Part A allocations are made annually, comparability is an annual requirement.

• The Local Educational Agency (LEA) must perform comparability calculations every year to demonstrate that all of its Title I schools are in fact comparable and make adjustments if any are not.

Standard Comparability Method

• Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) may establish the method LEAs use to determine comparability.

• The standard comparability method TDOE uses compares student/staff ratios for state and locally-funded instructional staff in each Title I school with the average student/staff ratios for state and locally-funded instructional staff in non-Title I schools.

TDOE Standard Method for Comparability• A Title I school is deemed comparable if its

student/staff ratio does not exceed 110 percent of the average student/staff ratio of non-Title schools.

• If all schools in the LEA, or all schools within a particular grade span are Title I, a Title I school is deemed comparable if its student/staff ratio does not exceed 110 percent of the average student/staff ratio of Title I schools.

• Alternative methods to demonstrate comparability may also be considered as described later in this presentation.

Comparability Deadlines

• No later than October 31, the LEA shall annually demonstrate if comparability requirements have been met and all required forms must be uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder regardless of method used to demonstrate comparability.

• If the LEA is unable to demonstrate comparability by the October 31 deadline, the LEA must still upload all required forms by October 31 and a letter stating that the LEA was not able to demonstrate comparability and understands it must make necessary adjustments within the same school year.

Comparability Deadlines

• If the LEA’s first submission, after review by TDOE, shows comparability has not been met due to an error in data, calculation or procedure, and adjustments are required, the LEA will be notified.

• If adjustments are required to demonstrate comparability, all new comparability forms and a letter stating what adjustments were made must be uploaded to ePlan no later than December 1 of the same school year.

LEA Written Procedures

• An LEA must develop procedures for complying with comparability requirements. [Section 1120A(c)(3)]

• These procedures should be in writing and should, at a minimum, include the LEA’s: – identification of the office responsible for making

comparability calculations,– timeline for demonstrating comparability, – the method and process for collecting data required to

demonstrate comparability, – the selected basis for demonstrating comparability, and – how and when the LEA makes adjustments in schools that are

not comparable.

Basis for Demonstrating Comparability• LEAs using the standard comparability method will

determine comparability based on the average number of students per state and locally-funded instructional staff. The LEA may demonstrate comparability using either calculation basis below:

– District basis where,• All Title I schools are compared to all non-Title I schools; or• All Title I schools are compared to all Title I schools

OR

– Grade-span basis where,• By grade-span, Title I schools are compared to non-Title I

schools; or• By grade-span, Title I schools are compared to Title I schools

Data Collection

• The data must be collected for the current school year and cannot be based on projections from the prior year.

• Data collection encompasses all data reported on Forms I – V which include: – the list of all schools in the LEA (including charter schools and

small schools) with student enrollment and the number of low income students;

– the lists of instructional and other personnel supporting instruction, counting full-time equivalents (FTEs) by funding source;

– the comparability calculations; and– the summary report and assurances.

Maintaining Source Documentation

• The LEA must maintain source documentation to support the calculations and forms submitted to demonstrate comparability, and, any needed adjustments made to staff assignments.

Required Forms

• Form I – School List & Enrollment

• Form II – Licensed Instructional Personnel

• Form III – Other Personnel Supporting Instruction

• Form IV – Comparability Calculations – required unless the LEA has only one building per grade-span– depending on the LEA’s selected calculation basis, either

district or grade-span, the LEA will use one or more versions of Form IV

• Form V – Comparability Summary Report & Assurances

Required Forms

• All required forms are available for download from ePlan and must be completed by all LEAs regardless of method used to demonstrate comparability.

• All completed forms must be uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder no later than October 31.

Form I:School List &

Enrollment

Form I – School List & Enrollment

• Form I is required for all LEAs and the completed form must be uploaded to ePlan.

• Complete one Form I for the entire LEA.

• List all schools in the LEA, including charter schools and small schools, and complete all student count and enrollment columns.

• A locally developed form may be used, but it must clearly delineate the same information indicated by this form.

Form I – School List & Enrollment

• The grade span must be based on the School Eligibility page in ePlan and student enrollment must be based on the current school year and not on the prior year projections.

• See the instructions tab in the excel file for details to complete each field on the form. If additional rows are needed, copy existing row(s) and insert at the bottom of the worksheet.

• Upload the completed EXCEL file to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder. (Please do not print and scan.)

Form II:Licensed Instructional

Personnel

Form II – Licensed Instructional Personnel• Form II is required for all LEAs and the completed

form must be uploaded to ePlan.

• Complete one Form II for the LEA with a tab for each school in the LEA.

• Within the same excel file, the tabs provided can be copied and renamed for each school.

Form II – Licensed Instructional Personnel• List all licensed instructional personnel at each

school.

• Instructional personnel includes all licensed classroom teachers and other licensed personnel assigned to the school who provide services that support instruction: principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, librarians, music, art, and physical education teachers, guidance counselors, speech therapists, and licensed social workers and psychological personnel.

• Do not include any pre-school personnel.

Form II – Licensed Instructional Personnel• The LEA must consistently include the same

categories of staff members for both Title I and non-Title schools.

• See the instructions tab in the excel file for details to complete each field on the form.



Form III:Other Personnel

Supporting Instruction

Form III – Other Personnel

• Form III is required for all LEAs and the completed form must be uploaded to ePlan.

• Complete one Form III for the LEA with a tab for each school in the LEA.– If the LEA opts to exclude other personnel directly supporting

instruction from comparability determinations, the exclusion must be consistent for all schools in the LEA.

– The LEA must still submit Form III and note "EXCLUDED" in the space provided.

• Within the same excel file, the tabs provided can be copied and renamed for each school.


• List all other personnel directly supporting instruction at each school.

• Other personnel directly supporting instruction assigned to the school may include paraprofessionals and other non-licensed personnel such as social workers.

• Aides not involved in providing instructional support may not be included. Other personnel that may not be included are clerical, custodial, food service, transportation, and any other personnel not providing instructional support. Do not include any pre-school personnel.


• The LEA must consistently include the same categories of staff members for both Title I and non-Title schools.

• See the instructions tab in the excel file for details to complete each field on the form.



Form IV:Comparability

Calculations

Form IV – Required for all LEAs

• Form IV is required for all LEAs (unless the LEA has only one building per grade-span) and the completed form(s) must be uploaded to ePlan.

• Form IV for the standard method determines comparability based on the average number of students per instructional staff.

Form IV – Comparing Schools

• The LEA must determine which version(s) of Form IV are appropriate.– Comparing Title I schools to non-Title I schools:

• Form IV-a compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on a district basis.

• Form IV-b compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on a grade-span basis.

– Comparing Title I schools to other Title I schools:• Form IV-c compares each Title I school to all Title I schools on a

district basis.• Form IV-d compares each Title I school to all Title I schools on a

grade-span basis.

• If using the grade-span basis, reference the previous “Grade Span Grouping” section for details.

Form IV – Determining Appropriate Version(s)• EXAMPLE of an LEA using the grade span basis with

forms IV-b and IV-d used to calculate comparability:

– K-5: The LEA has three elementary schools, all of which are served by Title I.• Two of the schools serve grades K-5 and one serves K-8.• The LEA would use Form IV-d to compare the three Title I

schools to one another in the K-5 grade span grouping.



– 6-8: The LEA has only one middle school serving grades 6-8 which is served by Title I.• Since this is the only school in that grade span, the school may

be excluded from the comparability calculations because there are no other middle schools with which to compare the school.



– 9-12: The LEA has two high schools, one Title I and one non-Title I.• The Title I school serves grades 6-12 and the non-Title I school

serves grades 9-12. • To ensure the Title I school is comparable, it must be compared

to the non-Title I school in the same grade span grouping using Form IV-b.

Form V:Summary Report &

Assurances

Form V – Summary Report & Assurances• All LEAs will complete Form V to provide a

comparability summary report with assurances that must be signed and uploaded to ePlan with all other required forms.

• Whether the LEA is demonstrating comparability on a district or grade-span basis, or has only one building for each grade span, a total of the number of Title I and non-Title schools must be provided.

Summary Report & Assurances Edits

• The total number of schools is no longer reported by grade span on the summary report.

• The LEA will enter:– The total number of all Title I schools, including charter

schools and small schools, and– The total number of all non-Title I schools, including charter

schools and small schools.

• In the Assurances section, the LEA must check whether:– All Title I Schools are Comparable, or– All Title I Schools are NOT Comparable and a Letter of

Explanation is Attached

Form V – Required Information

• Provide LEA name and all contact information.

• Check appropriate response indicating original submission or revised submission.

• Check appropriate response indicating whether comparability was calculated on a

• district basis, or • grade-span basis, or • LEA has only one building for each grade span.


• The data collection date must be reported on Form V.

• The data must be collected for the current school year and cannot be based on projections from the prior year.

• The data collection date reported must be no later than October 31.

• The LEA must maintain source documentation to support the calculations and forms submitted to demonstrate comparability, and, any needed adjustments made to staff assignments


• If applicable, complete the section regarding schools excluded with 100 or fewer students.

• An LEA may choose to exclude schools with enrollments of 100 or fewer students from its comparability calculations.

• The LEA must check whether:– All Title I Schools are Comparable, or– All Title I Schools are NOT Comparable and a Letter of

Explanation is Attached

Form V – Signature & Date

• Form V must be signed and dated by the responsible LEA official attesting to the assurances listed and the accuracy of the comparability report.

• For an original submission, Form V must be dated no later than October 31.

• Upload the signed, scanned Form V to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder.

Alternative Methods

Alternative Methods

• The standard method for demonstrating comparability is based on student/instructional staff ratio comparisons.

• An alternative method may be considered with prior approval by TDOE. (See the “Approval of Alternative Methods” section for details.)

• Any method approved must be one that does not compromise the intent of the law for demonstrating comparability. The October 31 deadline applies to all alternative methods.

Alternative 1:

• Per Pupil Budgeted Instructional Expenditures

• An alternative method for demonstrating comparability is based on state and locally-funded per pupil budgeted instructional expenditures.

• Instructional expenditures include instructional staff and materials and may not include capital expenditures, clerical, custodial, food service, transportation, etc.

Alternative 1: (cont.)

• A Title I school is comparable if the per pupil budgeted instructional expenditures are at least 90 percent of the average per pupil budgeted instructional expenditures of non-Title schools.

• If all schools in the LEA, or all schools within a particular grade span are Title I, a Title I school is comparable if the per pupil budgeted instructional expenditures are at least 90 percent of the average per pupil budgeted instructional expenditures of Title I schools.


• The LEA must determine which version(s) of Form IV are appropriate.

• Comparing Title I schools to non-Title I schools: • Form IV-PPE-a compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on

a district basis.• Form IV-PPE-b compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on

a grade-span basis.

– Comparing Title I schools to other Title I schools:• Form IV-PPE-c compares each Title I school to all Title I schools

on a district basis.• Form IV-PPE-d compares each Title I school to all Title I schools

on a grade-span basis.


• All Forms I – V are available for download from ePlan and must be completed by all LEAs regardless of method used to demonstrate comparability.

• All completed forms must be uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder.

Alternative 2:

• Student / Instructional Staff Salary Ratios

• A Title I school is comparable if the student/instructional staff salary ratio is at least 90 percent of the average student/instructional staff salary ratio of non-Title schools.

• If all schools in the LEA, or all schools within a particular grade span are Title I, a Title I school is comparable if the student/instructional staff salary ratio is at least 90 percent of the average student/instructional staff salary ratio of Title I schools.


• The LEA must determine which version(s) of Form IV are appropriate.

– Comparing Title I schools to non-Title I schools: • Form IV-SAL-a compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on

a district basis.• Form IV-SAL-b compares Title I schools to non-Title I schools on

a grade-span basis.

– Comparing Title I schools to other Title I schools:• Form IV-SAL-c compares each Title I school to all Title I schools

on a district basis.• Form IV-SAL-d compares each Title I school to all Title I schools

on a grade-span basis.


• All Forms I – V are available for download from ePlan and must be completed by all LEAs regardless of method used to demonstrate comparability.

• All completed forms must be uploaded to the ePlan LEA Document Library, 2016, Comparability folder.

Alternative 3:

• School Size – Large and Small Schools

• If the LEA has first shown it is unable to demonstrate comparability using the standard method based on student/instructional staff ratio comparisons, this alternative method may be considered for approval by TDOE.


• This alternative is based on student/instructional staff ratios for state and locally-funded instructional staff but allows for comparison based on school size.

• Schools must be identified as belonging to either a group of large schools or one of small schools.

• Each group of schools must consist of at least two schools.

• At least one school in each group must be a Title I school.


• When determining whether a school is considered in the large or small group, there must be a significant difference in the enrollments of schools.

• At a minimum, the largest school must have an enrollment that is at least two times the enrollment of the smallest school.

• Schools in the large group are compared to one another and schools in the small group are compared to one another.

Alternative 4:

• School Poverty – High and Low Poverty

• If the LEA has first shown it is unable to demonstrate comparability using the standard method based on student/instructional staff ratio comparisons, this alternative method may be considered for approval by TDOE.


• This alternative is based on student/instructional staff ratios for state and locally-funded instructional staff but allows for comparison based on school poverty.

• Schools must be identified as belonging to either a group of high poverty schools or one of low poverty schools.

• Each group of schools must consist of at least two schools.

• At least one school in each group must be a Title I school.


• Schools with poverty of 60% and greater would be considered in the high poverty group and remaining schools would be considered in the low poverty group.

• Schools in the high poverty group are compared to one another and schools in the low poverty group are compared to one another.

Approval of Alternative Methods

• An alternative method may be considered with prior approval by TDOE. Any method approved must be one that does not compromise the intent of the law for demonstrating comparability. The October 31 deadline applies to all alternative methods.

– Alternatives 1 & 2: Request for approval must be received by TDOE no later than October 15.

– Alternatives 3 & 4: When requesting approval to use this alternative, the LEA must submit all completed Forms I – V showing the results of the standard method. Request for approval must be received by TDOE no later than October 15.

Comparability Support

CPM Comparability Support

• CPM Regional Consultants – Map of District Assignments1) Corey Currie

[email protected](731) 234-5417

2) Janet (Michelle) [email protected](731) 225-3627

3) Bridgett [email protected](615) 626-3466

4) Courtney [email protected](615) 864-5471

5) Deborah [email protected](615) 864-5162

6) Jacki [email protected](423) 262-3296

https://eplan.tn.gov/documentlibrary/

mailto:[email protected]






CPM & Finance Regional Consultant District Map

LAKE

OBION WEAKLEY

DYER GIBSON

LAUDERDALE

HAYWOOD

FAYETTE

CROCKETT

BENTON

SHELBY

TIPTON

HENRY

CARROLL HUMPHREYS

HENDERSONMADISON

HARDEMAN McNAIRY HARDIN

HOUSTON

STEWARTROBERTSON

MONTGOMERY

DICKSON

CHEA

THAM

PERRY

HICKMANWILLIAMSON

DAVIDSON

MAURY

LEWIS

WAYNE LAWRENCE

MARSH

AL

L

GILES

SUMNERMACO

NTROUSDA

LE

WILSON

RUTHERFOR

D

BEDFORD

LINCOLN

SMITH

DEKALB

WHITE

PUTNAM

JACKSON

CLAY

CANNON

COFFEE

FRANKLIN

MO

OR

E

PICKETT

OVERTON

FENTRESS

CUMBERLAND

BLEDSO

E

WARREN

VAN

BUREN

GRUNDY

SEQUATCH

IE

MARION

SCOTT

MORGAN

CAMPBELL

ROANE

LOUDON

RHEA

HAMILTO

N BRADLE

Y

McMINN

POLK

MEI

GS

MONROE

BLOUNT

SEVIER

KNOXANDERSO

N

CLAIBORNE

GRAING

ER

JEFFERSON

HANCOC

K HAWKINS

SULLIVAN

JOHNSO

NCARTE

R

UNICOIHAMBLE

NGREENE

COCKE

WASHIN

GTO

NUNIO

N

Corey Currie, CPMCindy Smith, Fiscal

Michelle Mansfield, CPMBrad Davis, Fiscal

Bridgett Carwile, CPMRob Mynhier, Fiscal

Courtney Woods, CPMBrian Runion, Fiscal

Deborah Thompson, CPMDustin Winstead, Fiscal

Jacki Wolfe, CPMJackie Broyles, Fiscal

120 Chester200 Decatur240 Fayette350 Hardeman360 Hardin380 Haywood390 Henderson

391 Lexington (PK-8)

490 Lauderdale550 McNairy570 Madison 680 Perry792 Shelby

793 Arlington796 Germantown794 Bartlett798 Millington795 Collierville797 Lakeland

840 Tipton

960 West TN School for Deaf

030 Benton090 Carroll

092 Hollow Rock- Bruceton

093 Huntingdon094 McKenzie 095 South Carroll097 West Carroll

170 Crockett171 Alamo (PK-6)

172 Bells (PK-5)

230 Dyer231 Dyersburg City

275 Gibson271 Humboldt City272 Milan SSD273 Trenton274 Bradford SSD

400 Henry401 Paris SSD (K-8)

420 Houston430 Humphreys480 Lake660 Obion

661 Union City810 Stewart920 Weakley

985 ASD

110 Cheatham140 Clay180 Cumberland190 Davidson 210 DeKalb220 Dickson250 Fentress440 Jackson560 Macon630 Montgomery670 Overton 690 Pickett710 Putnam740 Robertson800 Smith830 Sumner850 Trousdale930 White950 Wilson

951 Lebanon SSD (PK-8)

970 Dept of Children’s Serv.971 Dept of Corrections963 TN School for the Blind961 York Institute (9-12)

020 Bedford040 Bledsoe080 Cannon160 Coffee

161 Manchester (PK-8)

162 Tullahoma260 Franklin280 Giles310 Grundy410 Hickman500 Lawrence 510 Lewis520 Lincoln

521 Fayetteville 580 Marion

581 Richard City 590 Marshall600 Maury640 Moore750 Rutherford

751 Murfreesboro (PK-6)

770 Sequatchie880 Van Buren890 Warren910 Wayne940 Williamson 941 Franklin SSD (PK-8)

010 Anderson 011 Clinton (PK-6)

012 Oak Ridge

050 Blount 051 Alcoa City 052 Maryville 060 Bradley

061 Cleveland070 Campbell330 Hamilton530 Loudon

531 Lenoir City

540 McMinn541

Athens City (PK-9)

542 Etowah City (K-8)

610 Meigs620 Monroe

621 Sweetwater (PK-8)

650 Morgan700 Polk720 Rhea

721 Dayton City (PK-8)

730 Roane760 Scott

761 Onieda

100 Carter 101 Elizabethton

130 Claiborne150 Cocke

151 Newport City (K-8)

290 Grainger300 Greene

301 Greeneville

320 Hamblen340 Hancock370 Hawkins

371 Rogersville (K-8)

450 Jefferson460 Johnson County470 Knox

780 Sevier 820 Sullivan

821 Bristol 822 Kingsport

860 Unicoi Co870 Union Co900 Washington 901 Johnson City

964 East TN School for Deaf

Central Time Zone Eastern Time Zone

Revised 8/17/2015

CHESTER DEC

ATU

R

1 2 3 4 5 6

FRAUD, WASTE or ABUSE

Citizens and agencies are encouraged to report fraud, waste or abuse in State and Local government.

NOTICE: This agency is a recipient of taxpayer funding. If you observe an agency director or employee engaging in any

activity which you consider to be illegal, improper or wasteful, please call the state Comptroller’s toll-free Hotline:

1-800-232-5454

Notifications can also be submitted electronically at:

http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/hotline

Documents

Title I Comparability Reporting Compliance Requirements 2015-16 School Year August 2015