Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title I Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions Title I allocation choices after $571,000 kept at district level
Summary
Board members pressed staff about a decision not to apply the direct-certification 1.6 multiplier in the consolidated Title I application, a choice staff said left about $571,000 to be used at the district level for set-asides and positions rather than spiraled to schools.
At a Cumberland County School Board work session, district staff and board members debated the district’s Title I allocation methods after staff said the district did not use the direct certification 1.6 multiplier in the district’s consolidated funding application for fiscal year 2025. Board members said the choice reduced the per-school amounts and that about $571,000 was not spiraled to elementary schools.
A staff presenter identified in the meeting as Diane (presenting the Title I slides) described how Title I allocations are calculated by the U.S. Department of Education and noted that local allocations are derived from federal and state data sources such as census data, direct certification lists, Medicaid and temporary assistance counts, and, when allowed, household surveys. She said community eligibility (CEP) status means the district cannot use free-and-reduced-price lunch counts in some schools and that alternative methods such as the household survey are available but must be accurate if used.
"This is how our Title I budget comes to us," Diane told the board, explaining the federal data sources and the district’s consolidated funding application. She further noted that if the district used the direct-certification times 1.6 multiplier this year, the number of students counted for per-pupil allocations would increase and could change which schools must be served.
Board member Charles Van Winkle pressed for accountability and asked where the $571,000 that did not go to schools was spent and whether data supported the staffing funded by Title I. In response, Dr. Whitmoreger, who spoke and identified himself as the federal programs director, said some positions were created at the director of schools’ request and were deemed allowable by the Tennessee Department of Education. "As the federal programs director, I do or try to do, if it's allowable, what my director of schools asked me to do," he said, and added that some set-asides and reservations of funds explain part of the district-level spending.
Board members raised several concerns: whether the district analyzed student-level data before creating Title I-funded positions, whether the positions funded (one cited as paid 70% from Title I and another paid roughly 30%) were directly supervised or evaluated using student outcomes, and whether the consolidated funding application process and supporting documentation were shared with the board before submission. Diane said the CFA had been submitted to meet the state deadline but that additional documentation could be provided to the board.
Staff explained how the 1.6 multiplier works: multiplying direct certification by 1.6 can raise schools’ poverty percentages and thus change which schools must be served under Title I rules. Presenters said Cumberland County currently serves 10 schools (nine elementary schools and Phoenix High School) under Title I, but using the multiplier would push more schools above a 75% threshold and require serving 12 schools, which would spread the fixed pot of Title I dollars across more campuses and lower per-pupil allocations.
Board members asked staff to bring supporting data and documentation to future meetings showing how Title I-funded positions tied to student-level outcomes and to explain the decisions that led to the consolidated funding application choices. No formal vote was recorded on Title I allocations during the work session; staff said they would provide additional documentation and the TSBA/TDOE guidance materials on methods and eligibility.
