20 U.S.C. § 6321

Fiscal requirements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Maintenance of effort

A local educational agency may receive funds under this part for any fiscal year only if the State educational agency involved finds that the local educational agency has maintained the agency’s fiscal effort in accordance with section 7901 of this title.

(b) Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal 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 ruleNo local educational agency shall be required to—(A) identify that an individual cost or service supported under this part is supplemental; or(B) 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.

(5) TimelineA local educational agency—(A) shall meet the compliance requirement under paragraph (2) not later than 2 years after December 10, 2015; and(B) may demonstrate compliance with the requirement under paragraph (1) before the end of such 2-year period using the method such local educational agency used on the day before December 10, 2015.(c) Comparability of services(1) In general(A) Comparable services

Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), a local educational agency may receive funds under this part only if State and local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving funds under this part.

(B) Substantially comparable services

If the local educational agency is serving all of such agency’s schools under this part, such agency may receive funds under this part only if such agency will use State and local funds to provide services that, taken as a whole, are substantially comparable in each school.

A local educational agency may meet the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) on a grade-span by grade-span basis or a school-by-school basis.

(2) Written assurance(A) EquivalenceA local educational agency shall be considered to have met the requirements of paragraph (1) if such agency has filed with the State educational agency a written assurance that such agency has established and implemented—(i) a local educational agency-wide salary schedule;(ii) a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in teachers, administrators, and other staff; and(iii) a policy to ensure equivalence among schools in the provision of curriculum materials and instructional supplies.(B) Determinations

For the purpose of this subsection, in the determination of expenditures per pupil from State and local funds, or instructional salaries per pupil from State and local funds, staff salary differentials for years of employment shall not be included in such determinations.

A local educational agency 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 under this subsection.

(3) Procedures and recordsEach local educational agency assisted under this part shall—(A) develop procedures for compliance with this subsection; and(B) maintain records that are updated biennially documenting such agency’s compliance with this subsection.(4) Inapplicability

This subsection shall not apply to a local educational agency that does not have more than one building for each grade span.

(5) ComplianceFor the purpose of determining compliance with paragraph (1), a local educational agency may exclude State and local funds expended for—(A) language instruction educational programs; and(B) the excess costs of providing services to children with disabilities as determined by the local educational agency.(d) Exclusion of funds

For the purpose of complying with subsections (b) and (c), a State educational agency or local educational agency may exclude supplemental State or local funds expended in any school attendance area or school for programs that meet the intent and purposes of this part.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title I, § 1118, formerly § 1120A, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title I, § 101, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1511; renumbered § 1118 and amended Pub. L. 114–95, title I, §§ 1000(4), 1012, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1814, 1874.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 6321, Pub. L. 89–10, title I, § 1120, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, § 101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3557, related to participation of children enrolled in private schools, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

A prior section 1118 of Pub. L. 89–10 was renumbered section 1116 and is classified to section 6318 of this title.

Another prior section 1118 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 6319 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–95, § 1012(1), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 7901 of this title.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–95, § 1012(2), added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which consisted of pars. (1) and (2) relating to general use of funds only to supplement and not to supplant non-Federal funds and special rule that no local educational agency be required to provide services through a particular instructional method or in a particular instructional setting.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 2000–2009 · leading case: Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of US Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of US Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “" 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). That is, States and school districts remain responsible for the majority of the funding for public education, and the funds distributed under Title I are to be used only to implement Title I programming, not to replace funds already being used for…”

Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 599 S.E.2d 365 (N.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff-intervenors’ argument requires us to conduct a two-part inquiry: (1) did the trial court improperly condone the State’s use of Title I funds, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1); and, (2) did the trial court improperly condone the State’s use of such federal funds,…”

Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000). · cites it 2× “, at 210 (quoting 20 U. S. C. § 6321 (a)(2)). Second, we noted that the Court had "departed from the rule relied on in Ball that all government aid that directly assists the educational function of religious schools is invalid.”

Flores Ex Rel. Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Our conclusion is unaffected by 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (d), which provides an exception to some federal fiscal requirements for a narrow class of state funds expended for programs benefitting disadvantaged children.”

Sch. Dist. v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Educ., 512 F.3d 252 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “" 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). That is, States and school districts continue to be responsible for the majority of the funding for public education and the funds distributed under Title I should be used only to implement Title I programming, not as a substitute to the funds that are…”

Connecticut v. Spellings, 453 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Conn. 2006). “” 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). To be eligible for federal funds under the Act, a state must submit to the Secretary a plan developed by the state educational agency.”

Clark Cnty. Council v. Donahue, 873 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. 2007). “, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b) (Supp. IV 2004). If such a regulation exists, the recipient of federal funds may use those funds to add to or increase an existing program, but may never use the funds to replace completely money from another source.”

Connecticut v. Spellings, 549 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. Conn. 2008). “See 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). The so-called “Unfunded Mandates Provision” further states, Nothing in this [Act] shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s…”

Pontiac Sch. Dist v. Sec'y US Dept Ed (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). That is, States and school districts remain responsible for the majority of the funding for public education, and the funds distributed under Title I are to be used only to implement Title I programming, not to replace funds already being used for…”

Pontiac Sch. Dist v. Sec US Dept Ed (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (b)(1). That is, States and school districts continue to be responsible for the majority of the funding for public education and the funds distributed under Title I should be used only to implement Title I programming, not as a substitute to the funds that are…”

Flores v. Horne (9th Cir. 2008). “See 20 U.S.C. § 6321 (d) (limiting the exception to “supplemental State .”

— 20 U.S.C. § 6321(a)(2) — 1 case

Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000). “, at 210 (quoting 20 U. S. C. § 6321 (a)(2)). Second, we noted that the Court had "departed from the rule relied on in Ball that all government aid that directly assists the educational function of religious schools is invalid.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.