UGG Debriefing &
Comparability Summary
2015 ESEA Directors Institute
August 2015
Consolidated
Planning &
Monitoring
Eve Carney
Executive Director
Janine Whited
Director of Project
Management
Eve.Carney@tn.gov
Janine.Whited@tn.gov
Uniform Grants
Guidance
UGG Debriefing
Uniform Grants Guidance:
• Simplicity
• Consistency
• Obama Executive Order on Regulatory Review
– Increase Efficiency
– Strengthen Oversight
Rationale
Most Significant General Changes
• Auditors (A-133 + federal OIG) and Monitors (federal and State PassThrough) must look more to “outcomes” than to “process”
• The Omni Circular has a MAJOR emphasis on “strengthening
accountability” by improving policies that protect against waste, fraud and
abuse
 Required written policies/procedures
Allowability –
Cost Principles and
Items of Cost
Cost Principles: Factors Affecting
Allowability
• §200.403
All Costs Must Be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Necessary, Reasonable, and Allocable
In conformance with federal law and grant terms
Consistent with state and local policies
Consistently treated
In accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
Not included as match
Net of applicable credits
Adequately documented
Selected Items of Cost –
Conferences
• §200.432 (Updated)
 Allowable conference costs include rental of facilities, costs of meals and
refreshments, transportation, unless restricted by the federal award
 New: Costs related to identifying, but not providing, locally available dependent-care
resources
 New: But 200.474 “travel” allows costs for “above and beyond regular dependent
care”
 Conference hosts must exercise discretion in ensuring costs are appropriate,
necessary, and managed in manner than minimizes costs to federal award
Selected Items of Cost – Travel
• §200.474 (Changed)
 Travel costs may be charged on actual, per diem, or mileage basis
 Travel charges must be consistent with entity’s written travel reimbursement policies
 Grantee must retain documentation that participation of individual in conference is
necessary for the project
 Travel costs must be reasonable and consistent with written travel policy / or follow
GSA 48 CFR 31.205-46(a)
Time and Effort
Participants
• All employees paid in part or in full with federal funds
• Some employees paid with non-federal funds (state match)
• Part-time employees
• NOT contractors
Part 200.28 Cost Objective –
Defined
What is a cost objective?
• Program, function, activity,
award, organizational
subdivision, contract, or work
unit for which cost data are
desired and for which provision
is made to accumulate and
measure the cost of processes,
products, jobs, capital projects,
etc.
What aren’t cost objectives?
•
•
•
•
•
Federal Programs
Title I, Part A
Doing my job
ESEA
Working on initiatives and programs that
benefit Students with Disabilities
• Director of Federal Programs
• IDEA
• Educating children in classrooms
Multiple Cost Objectives
 Multiple Cost Objectives §200.430(vii) include working on





More than one federal award
A federal award and a non-federal award
An indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity
Two or more indirect activities that are allocated using different allocation bases
An unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity
A-87 Standards – Current Rule
• Semi-Annual Certifications
 If an employee works on a single cost
objective:
 After the fact
 Account for the total activity
 Signed by employee or supervisor
 Every six months (at least twice a
year)
• Personnel Activity Report (PAR)
 If an employee works on multiple cost
objectives:
 After the fact
 Account for total activity
 Signed by employee
 Prepared at least monthly and
coincide with one or more pay
periods
2 CFR Part 200 Standards – New Rule
• Charges for salaries must be based on records that accurately reflect the
work performed
1. Must be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable
assurance charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated
2. Be incorporated into official records
3. Reasonably reflect total activity for which employee is compensated and not exceed
100%
4. Encompass all activities (federal and non-federal)
5. Comply with established accounting polices and practices
6. Support distribution among specific activities or cost objectives
New Rule – Compliance
• If records meet the standards: the non-federal entity will NOT be required
to provide additional support or documentation for the work performed
200.430(i)(2)
• BUT, if “records” of grantee do not meet new standards, ED may require
PARs 200.430(i)(8)
 PARs are not defined
 Questioned costs must be repaid using state/local funds
• Recommend maintaining current system of documenting personnel
expenses until these new standards have been audited
Budget Estimates and Percentages in
Documenting Personnel Activities /
Reconciliation
• Budget estimates alone do not qualify as support for charges to federal awards
§200.430(i)(1)(viii)
• May be used for interim accounting purposes if:


Produces reasonable approximations
Significant changes to the corresponding work activity are identified in a timely manner
•
NEW: Percentages may be used for distribution of total activities §200.430(i)(1)(ix)
•
NEW: All necessary adjustments must be made such that the final amount charged to the
federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated §200.430(i)(1)(viii)(C)
•
Annually, reconciliation assures allocability – charging the federal award only for the
benefit received.
De Minimis Benefit
• Limited work on another cost objective does not need to be captured in
time and effort records.
• Employees may work 5% or less on another cost objective.
• The worked performed on these limited duties cannot deprive a benefit
from the intended beneficiaries.
• EXAMPLE: A teacher works on a single cost objective but also has limited
other responsibilities, such as cafeteria or bus duties.
– As long as these additional responsibilities do not exceed 5% over a twelve-month
period, then the teacher can still complete a semi-annual certification (single cost
objective)
Financial Management
Controls:
Key Components
Internal Controls
• §200.303 – Internal Controls must ensure compliance with federal
statutes, regulations, and terms of the award.
• Entities must:
 Evaluate and monitor compliance
 Take prompt action when instances of non-compliance are identified; and
 Safeguard protected personally identifiable information (PII)
• Effective control over and accountability for:
1. All funds
2. Property
3. Other assets
NEW: Written Cash Management Procedures
• Written Procedures required to implement the requirements of 200.305
• Written procedures must include a description of the method the district
uses (Tennessee is a reimbursement state)
• Must minimize time elapsing between reimbursement request and
disbursement to comply with Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA)
New: Written Allowability
Procedures
• Written procedures required for determining allowability of costs in
accordance with Subpart E – Cost Principles
• Procedures can not simply restate the Uniform Guidance Subpart E
• Should explain the process used throughout the grant development and
budget process
• Someone familiar with the program requirements should be involved with
the allowability determinations, and the written procedures should include
this (position, not name of employee)
Financial Management
Controls:
Procurement
Open Competition
• §200.319
• All procurement transactions must be conducted with full and open
competition (in Tennessee over 10,000)
• T.C.A. states that the threshold of $10,000 or more for purchases.
– Cumulative purposes anticipated to exceed $10,000 must be competitively bid
• To eliminate unfair advantage, contractors that develop or draft
specifications, requirements, statement of work, and invitations for bids or
RFPs must be excluded from competing for such procurements
Conflict of Interest
• §200.112
• Must maintain written standard of conduct, including conflict of interest
policy
• A conflict of interest arises when any of the following has a financial or
other interest in the firm selected for award:
–
–
–
–
Employee, officer, or agent
Any member of that person’s immediate family
That person’s partner
An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above or has a
financial interest in the firm selected for award
Conflict of Interest
• §200.112
• NEW: All non-federal entities must establish conflict of interest policies,
and disclose in writing any potential conflict to federal awarding agency in
accordance with applicable federal awarding agency policy
Cost/Price Analysis
• §200.323
• Must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement
action, including contract modifications
• NEW: Only required for costs in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold ($150,000)
– Cost analysis generally means evaluating the separate cost elements that make up
the total price (including profit)
– Price analysis generally means evaluating the total price
– However, TN has a lower limit of $10,000
Vendor Selection Process
• §200.320
• Methods of procurement:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
NEW: Micro-purchase
Small purchase procedures – N/A to Tennessee
Competitive sealed bids
Competitive proposals
Non-competitive proposals
Vendor Selection Process: 1) MicroPurchase
• §300.320(a)
• NEW: Acquisition of supplies and services under $3,000 or less
• May be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if nonfederal
entity considers the cost reasonable
• To the extent practicable must distribute micro-purchases equitably
among qualified suppliers
Vendor Selection Process: 2) Small
Purchase Procedures – N/A to TN
• Good or service that costs $100,000 or less
(NEW: $150,000 under 200.88)
 TN has a lower threshold, $10,000; therefore this procurement method is Not
Applicable
• Must obtain price or rate quotes from an adequate number of qualified
sources
• “Relatively simply and informal”
Vendor Selection Process: 3)
Noncompetitive Proposals
• Appropriate only when:
– The good or services is available only from a single source
(sole source)
– There is a public emergency
– The awarding agency authorizes
– NEW: awarding agency or pass-through must expressly authorize noncompetitive
proposals in response to written requires from nonfederal entity - 200.320(f)(3)
– After soliciting a number of sources, competition is deemed inadequate
• Cannot contract with vendor who has been suspended or debarred:
http://www.sam.gov
Contract Administration
• §200.318
• Revised: Nonfederal entities, such as TDOE, must maintain oversight to
ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions,
and specifications of the contract
– Contractors bound by terms of contract
– Important to include appropriate terms and conditions
– Manage for performance
Use and Disposition of Grant-Acquired
Equipment
• §200.313
• Clarification: shared use is allowed if such use will not “interfere”:
 1st preference – other projects supported by the federal awarding agency
 2nd preference – project funded by other federal agencies
 3rd preference – use for non federally funded programs
• When property no longer needed, must follow disposition rules:
 Transfer to another federal program
 Over $5,000 – pay federal share
 Under $5,000 – no accountability
Requirements of
the
Pass-Through
Entity
Federal awarding agency review of risk
posed by applicants
• §200.205
• NEW: ED and “Pass-Through” must have in place a framework for
evaluating risks before applicant receives funding
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Financial Stability
Quality of Management System
History of Performance
Audit Reports
Applicant’s Ability to Effectively Implement Program
Federal awarding agency review of risk
posed by applicants
• §200.205
• ED or “Pass Through” May Impose “additional federal award conditions”:






Require reimbursement;
Withhold funds until evidence of acceptable performance;
More detailed reporting;
Additional monitoring;
Require grantee to obtain technical or management assistance; or
Establish additional prior approvals
Monitoring and reporting program
performance
• §200.328
• NEW: Monitoring by the “Pass Through”
• Monitor to assure compliance with applicable federal requirements and
performance expectations are achieved
• Must cover each program, function or activity (see also 200.331)
• Must submit “performance reports” at least annually
Resources
• Uniform Grants Guidance: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-1226/pdf/2013-30465.pdf
• COFAR: https://cfo.gov/cofar/
• OCFO Time and Effort Guidance:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/gposbul/time-and-effortreporting.html
Resources
• 2 CFR 200: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=6214841a79953f26c5c230d72d6b70a1&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titl
e02/2cfr200_main_02.tpl
– FAQs: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/uniform-guidance/faqed.pdf
• EDGAR: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edgar.html
– Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 75-79, 81 to 86 and 97-99. For
awards made prior to 12/26/2014, EDGAR Parts 74 and 80 still apply.
– For awards made on or after 12/26/2014, 2 CFR Part 200, which includes the
substance formerly in parts 74 and 80, applies.
Resources
• ePlan: https://eplan.tn.gov/

Uniform Grants Guidance Training Videos:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=4e040e5a9ca9cbb4&id=4E040E5A9CA9CBB4!121&Bsrc=
Share&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&sc=Photos&authkey=!AmuTdskCXMWsAvc

NOTE: The videos are not to be used for any other purpose nor shared with anyone outside of
the department or LEA.
Comparability
Summary:
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.
Comparable State & Local Funds with
Supplemental Title I Funds
SUPPLEMENTAL Title I Funds
are Like the Cherry On Top of State & Local Funds
Title I
Title I
Title I
Non-Title
Non-Title
Non-Title
Basic Premise of Comparability
• Remember, 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
• 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.
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.
• Additionally, 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.
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 K5, 6-8, and 9-12, the LEA would have three grade span groupings.
• If the LEA also has only 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 schools, but both are 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.
Options for Schools Crossing Grade Span
Groupings
– 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.
Options for Schools Crossing 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 nonTitle I schools, option one or two must be used.
Option three may not be used to exclude non-Title I schools from comparability
determinations.
Options for Schools Crossing Grade Span
Groupings
– OPTION 3: (cont.)
Example for comparing multiple schools as a separate 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 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:
– K-5
– 6-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 2:
– K-5
– 6-8
– K-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 3:
– K-6
– 7-8
– 9-12
• 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.
Grade Span Grouping Examples
Example 1:
– K-5
– 6-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 2:
– K-5
– 6-8
– K-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 3:
– K-6
– 7-8
– 9-12
• 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.
Grade Span Grouping Examples
Example 1:
– K-5
– 6-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 2:
– K-5
– 6-8
– K-8
– 9-12
OR
MAYBE
Example 3:
– K-6
– 7-8
– 9-12
• 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.
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
• For assistance with alternatives, please contact CPM.
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
Support
CPM Comparability Support
• CPM Regional Consultants – Map of District Assignments
1) Corey Currie
Corey.Currie@tn.gov
(731) 234-5417
2) Janet (Michelle) Mansfield
Janet.Mansfield@tn.gov
(731) 225-3627
3) Bridgett Carwile
Bridgett.Carwile@tn.gov
(615) 626-3466
4) Courtney Woods
Courtney.Woods@tn.gov
(615) 864-5471
5) Deborah Thompson
Deborah.Thompson@tn.gov
(615) 864-5162
6) Jacki Wolfe
Jacki.Wolfe@tn.gov
(423) 262-3296
CPM & Finance Regional Consultant District Map
STEWART
OBION
WEAKLEY
HENRY
MONTGOMERY
GIBSON
SCOTT
HOUSTON
WILSON
DAVIDSON
HUMPHREYS
CARROLL
CLAY
MACON
SUMNER
JACKSON
DICKSON
DYER
ROBERTSON
SMITH
OVERTO
N
WHITE
WILLIAMSON
HENDERSON
MADISON
TIPTON
PERRY
WARREN
BEDFORD
1
FAYETTE
Corey Currie, CPM
Cindy Smith, Fiscal
120
200
240
350
360
380
390
490
550
570
680
792
840
Chester
Decatur
Fayette
Hardeman
Hardin
Haywood
Henderson
391 Lexington (PK-8)
Lauderdale
McNairy
Madison
Perry
Shelby
793 Arlington
796 Germantown
794 Bartlett
798 Millington
795 Collierville
797 Lakeland
Tipton
960 West TN School for Deaf
HARDEMAN
2
McNAIRY
HARDIN
WAYNE
Michelle Mansfield, CPM
Brad Davis, Fiscal
GILES
LINCOLN
Bridgett Carwile, CPM
Rob Mynhier, Fiscal
3
COCKE
030 Benton
090 Carroll
092 Hollow RockBruceton
093 Huntingdon
094 McKenzie
095 South Carroll
097 West Carroll
170 Crockett
171 Alamo (PK-6)
172 Bells (PK-5)
230 Dyer
231 Dyersburg City
275 Gibson
271 Humboldt City
272 Milan SSD
273 Trenton
274 Bradford SSD
400 Henry
401 Paris SSD (K-8)
420 Houston
430 Humphreys
480 Lake
660 Obion
661 Union City
810 Stewart
920 Weakley
110 Cheatham
140 Clay
180 Cumberland
190 Davidson
210 DeKalb
220 Dickson
250 Fentress
440 Jackson
560 Macon
630 Montgomery
670 Overton
690 Pickett
710 Putnam
740 Robertson
800 Smith
830 Sumner
850 Trousdale
930 White
950 Wilson
951 Lebanon SSD (PK-8)
985 ASD
970
971
963
961
4
020
040
080
160
260
280
310
410
500
510
520
580
590
600
640
750
770
880
890
910
940
Dept of Children’s Serv.
Dept of Corrections
TN School for the Blind
York Institute (9-12)
SEVIER
LOUDON
COFFEE
FRANKLIN
JEFFERSON
BLOUNT
RHEA
GRUNDY
SHELBY
KNOX
CUMBERLAND
ROANE
MAURY
LEWIS
CARTER
GREENE
MORGAN
HICKMAN
HAYWOOD
SULLIVAN
HAWKINS
UNION
PUTNAM
DEKALB
CLAIBORNE
CAMPBELL
MARION
Courtney Woods, CPM
Brian Runion, Fiscal
Bedford
Bledsoe
Cannon
Coffee
161 Manchester (PK-8)
162 Tullahoma
Franklin
Giles
Grundy
Hickman
Lawrence
Lewis
Lincoln
521 Fayetteville
Marion
581 Richard City
Marshall
Maury
Moore
Rutherford
751 Murfreesboro (PK-6)
Sequatchie
Van Buren
Warren
Wayne
Williamson
941 Franklin SSD (PK-8)
McMINN
MONROE
Central Time Zone Eastern Time Zone
POLK
5
Deborah Thompson, CPM
Dustin Winstead, Fiscal
010 Anderson
011 Clinton (PK-6)
012 Oak Ridge
050 Blount
051 Alcoa City
052 Maryville
060 Bradley
061 Cleveland
070 Campbell
330 Hamilton
530 Loudon
531 Lenoir City
540 McMinn
541 Athens City (PK-9)
542 Etowah City (K-8)
610 Meigs
620 Monroe
621 Sweetwater (PK-8)
650 Morgan
700 Polk
720 Rhea
721 Dayton City (PK-8)
730 Roane
760 Scott
761 Onieda
6
Jacki Wolfe, CPM
Jackie Broyles, Fiscal
100 Carter
101 Elizabethton
130 Claiborne
150 Cocke
151 Newport City (K-8)
290 Grainger
300 Greene
301 Greeneville
320 Hamblen
340 Hancock
370 Hawkins
371 Rogersville (K-8)
450 Jefferson
460 Johnson County
470 Knox
780 Sevier
820 Sullivan
821 Bristol
822 Kingsport
860 Unicoi Co
870 Union Co
900 Washington
901 Johnson City
964 East TN School for Deaf
Revised 8/17/2015
Questions
Feedback
TASL Credit Keyword
Questions?
Feedback Survey
• At the end of each day, please help us by providing feedback.
• Today, please use the survey link below.
– https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2015-ESEA-Aug-26
TASL Credit
• In order to receive 14 TASL credits for the 2015 ESEA Directors Institute,
the participant must attend two full days, August 26 – 27.
– Partial credit cannot be earned.
– Use the form provided at the back of the agenda to collect keywords throughout the
conference.
– After the conference, go online to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2015-ESEATASL
and enter your information.
• You will not receive credit if you do not complete the online form by
September 4, 2015.
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