January 2003

TO: District Superintendents

Superintendents of Schools

New York City Board of Education

FROM: James A. Kadamus

Attached for your information is the Regents proposal on State Aid to school districts for school year 2003-04. The Regents approved it on December 13, 2002. This proposal represents a significant departure from the current formula. It simplifies and improves the functioning of the aid system while increasing the link between State Aid and student achievement in difficult economic times. It provides for an increase of $516 million, 3.5 percent, over school year 2002-03. For quick reference to the proposal, I refer you to the table of contents on page 6.

The proposal:

• Consolidates eight aids and grants into a single Comprehensive Operating Aid, raises the aid ceiling, adds pre-k pupils, and adjusts aid for regional cost differences.
• Provides a limit on aid increases and losses.
• For districts for which the formulas result in an increase, increases will be limited. The limit will be greater for districts serving concentrations of pupils who need extra time and help.
• For districts for which the formulas result in a loss,
• Districts with average or above-average local effort are guaranteed at least 95 percent of what they received in the same aid categories in 2002-03.
• Districts with less than average local effort will lose no more than 15 percent of what they received in the same aid categories in 2002-03.

• Consolidates five aids into a new Gap Aid to provide extra time and help to meet State learning standards.
• Consolidates three aids into a new Instructional Materials Aid to provide greater flexibility for school districts to meet their instructional materials needs, including loans to nonpublic school students.
• Provides aid for the education of students with disabilities (Public Excess Cost Aid), adjusted to provide a greater incentive to districts to place students in integrated settings with their non-disabled peers. A transition adjustment is provided to guard against loss on a per-pupil basis.
• Provides for an increase in Educationally Related Support Services Aid to help school districts with the costs of support services and curriculum modification to maintain students’ placement in general education and avoid referral to special education.
• Improves aids in support of career and technical education:
• BOCES Aid will be continued and the millage aid ratio will be updated to better reflect local tax effort;
• Special Services Aid for noncomponent school districts will be enhanced to provide for greater comparability with aid paid for career and technical education programs provided at BOCES.
• Consolidates aid for summer school transportation with regular Transportation Aid.
• Continues existing provisions for aid for school construction.
• Provides Building Reorganization Incentive Aid for school construction projects approved by the voters within five years of school district consolidation.
• Continues Operating Reorganization Incentive Aid but provides this only to newly consolidated districts where the Commissioner determines that the consolidation will improve student performance.

Exhibit A provides a breakdown of the dollar amounts requested. The proposal recommends an increase of $516 million over the prior year. Exhibits B and C illustrate the impact of the proposal on school districts, grouped for high need school districts compared with all others and by need-resource capacity category. The proposal allocates 76 percent of the proposed increase to high need school districts. A technical supplement (Appendix C) provides a more detailed explanation of the elements of the State Aid proposal.

As the movement towards higher standards for all students evolves, many successes are apparent. Performance on the grade 4 English Language Arts and mathematics examinations continues to be strong. Performance on the Grade 8 English Language Arts and mathematics examinations, while initially weaker, is showing signs of improvement, most noticeably a reduction in the number of students scoring at Level 1 while maintaining numbers of students at Levels 3 and 4. At the high school level, 89 percent of the 1997 cohort of high school students passed the Regents English exam; 87 percent passed the Regents mathematics exam. Students with disabilities have showed a steady increase in Regents test taking and passing: 65.5 percent passed English and 50 percent passed mathematics. These successes are happening all over the State, in poorer districts and wealthier districts, and with all groups of students.

Despite the many successes, a troubling resource and achievement gap persists. Students attending schools that have a high percentage of student poverty and limited local resources have a dual problem. First, they tend to have fewer resources. This is especially true in areas where high regional costs mean that a dollar for education buys fewer goods and services than in less costly areas of the State. Second, students attending such high need school districts consistently achieve at lower levels than students at schools with more affluent and less needy peers. These students are more likely to need extra instructional time, tutoring, and assistance from social service agencies, yet are less likely to receive those services.

If the move to higher standards is to be successful, it must facilitate success by all students regardless of the school they attend, family background, and educational needs. We must have the will to align our State resources to provide the financial support for all students to be successful. This Regents proposal moves our State a positive step in this direction.

Regents Goal

The Regents goal is to educate all of New York State’s children to the level of the State’s learning standards. To this end, the Regents have focussed on closing the gap between actual student achievement and that needed for all students to meet State learning standards. The Regents proposal on State Aid to school districts for school year 2003-04 is in the fourth year of a five-year proposal. It builds on previous years’ efforts to improve the distribution of funding to close the achievement gap.

Many factors contribute to the existence of a resource and achievement gap in New York State (see Table 1). These relationships result from the complex interactions of student poverty, achievement, school spending, and school funding.

The balance of this section examines data illustrating these relationships by illuminating the resource and achievement gap.

The relationship between poverty and educational achievement is well established. As student poverty in a school increases, academic performance declines. This is illustrated in Figure 1 in which all New York State school districts are grouped by need-resource capacity category. The figure shows free lunch eligibility and grade 4 English language arts performance for each category. New York City and the large cities (Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse and Yonkers) have the

These numbers suggest that, in order to meet higher learning standards, New York State must be concerned about: what affects the achievement of students in schools with concentrations of student poverty; the resources that high need school districts have to support their educational program; and the effectiveness with which school districts use their resources. It suggests that the successful education of so large a group will have a significant impact on the economic vitality of the State by producing workers who can function in a competitive, international market and by reducing the costs of social services and criminal justice.

added). Money matters and how it is used makes a difference as well. Using New York State school data, we examined the relationship between school district spending and student achievement as measured by grade 4 English Language Arts test performance (see Figure 3). Spending data are adjusted in

two ways. First, dollars spent are adjusted by the Regents Regional Cost Index to reflect comparable purchasing power from one region of the State to another. Second, spending per pupil is further adjusted by providing an additional weighting for pupils from poverty backgrounds to reflect the additional services that such pupils require. The resulting cost and need-adjusted expenditures per pupil show a trend: the more the school district spends, the greater the pupil achievement.

Figure 3 shows that a distinct relationship exists between spending, student risk, and academic performance. These relationships exist even when different data are used. That is, the emphasis on need and cost is supported by data from New York schools.

Examining the relationship between school spending and student poverty is also illuminating. Poverty is often used as a proxy or substitute measure for educational need. This is because of the high correlation between poverty and student achievement and because of the desire to use a measure that is not affected by the varying academic successes of school districts. As a result, poverty rather than achievement may be used as a proxy for educational need in aid formulas, because of the interest in providing incentives for school districts to improve student achievement.

Figure 5 shows that educational need is high, especially in the New York City School District where more than three out of four students are at risk of not graduating from high school. In the Large City school districts more than two-thirds of the high school students face a similar risk. In some instances this need has increased in recent years. This represents a serious policy concern for New Yorkers.

We examined revenues raised and tax rates for different groups of school districts. Figure 7 shows the average dollars raised per pupil for each category of school district (tax levy per pupil displayed by the bars) and tax levy per $1,000 of actual property value (expressed as a tax rate and shown with the line). Average and low need districts collect more local revenue per pupil while taxing at a comparable rate to the Big Five districts. Overall, the rural high need districts have some of the State's lowest tax rates and lowest local revenue per pupil. Further analysis of school district local effort shows that districts with higher student poverty and limited fiscal capacity are more likely to have a local effort problem. From those findings, the Regents acknowledge local effort as a significant element in closing the achievement gap.

Examination of New York State data reveals the following. Schools with the largest percentage of minority students have the largest percentage of teachers without appropriate certification (Figure 8). Looking at the percent of uncertified teachers by need-resource capacity category shows that more than one in four teachers teach without appropriate certification in New York City (Figure 9). In school districts outside the Big Five, the rate is one in 25.

While having a certificate in the subject area one teaches may not explain why some teachers have a greater impact on student achievement than others, the lack of appropriate certification is found in districts where overall student achievement is among the lowest.

Figure 10 shows that teacher turnover has increased in all parts of the State, further contributing to the challenge of closing the achievement gap. It is at the highest levels in New York City.

The ability of school districts to meet student needs is affected by the cost of doing business in the region in which the district is located. Figure 13 shows that costs are about 52 percent higher in the New York City-Long Island region than in the North Country. New York State legislative commissions and blue-ribbon panels have noted this phenomenon and recommended that State Aid be adjusted to compensate for these cost differences. The State Aid dollar should purchase the same amount of goods and services around the State.

In conclusion, the additional needs of schools educating concentrations of students from poverty backgrounds are well supported. Yet school districts with concentrated poverty tend to spend less. They have limited capacity to raise revenues locally, raise fewer local revenues per pupil, lack certified teachers, have greater teacher turnover, and, in the case of New York City, have lower cost-adjusted teacher salaries. Aid formulas are less beneficial for the State’s largest cities in supporting career and technical education as an alternative path to a high school diploma and in not recognizing regional cost differences in aid provided for school operation. These data lead us to the policy directions noted in Table 2.

Principles for this year’s proposal are:

• Equity: Target aid to districts that need the most help in educating their pupils to meet the standards.
• Transparency: Simplify the aid system to eliminate unnecessary duplication of data submissions and to make the formulas more understandable for school leaders and taxpayers.
• Predictability: Provide stability and sustainability in State funding.

Many students need additional instructional time at some point in their education. Students from poverty backgrounds or with limited English proficiency may have greater need for additional instruction to meet the same learning standards as their more economically advantaged peers. Research studies¹⁵ have documented the positive impact that a variety of ‘extra time’ educational programs have on the achievement of educationally disadvantaged students. Additional instruction can come in the form of before and after-school programs, programs for speakers of languages other than English, pre-kindergarten programs, and academic intervention services of an instructional and support service nature. Resources should be provided to assist in supporting the costs of additional learning time needed to implement school improvement plans and to improve the recruitment and retention of qualified teachers and principals. Such aid should be responsive to different levels of pupil needs in districts.

The Regents State Aid proposal should:

• Continue to support aid for school improvement in schools with concentrations of students from poverty backgrounds and limited English proficiency; and
• Continue to support aid to help defray the cost of educationally related support and prevention programs and services.

Recommendations in this area will provide greater equity in funding. To the extent that aid streams are consolidated and formula components are simplified, greater transparency will also be accomplished.

A range of programs has for decades provided students with additional pathways to high school graduation. The prevailing philosophy for these pathways is that a single approach does not meet the needs of all learners. Career and technical education is one such pathway that has proven successful in motivating many students to high levels of academic success. Students in these programs benefit from instruction that they perceive as helping them prepare for the labor market, and therefore more readily accept the relevance of the academic content. Higher standards are achieved by focusing on practical tasks that often involve doing rather than mastery of academic concepts presented in isolation from the practical world. The Regents recommend that State Aid should:

• Support quality CTE programs that will help students achieve the standards for all districts;
• Encourage the cost-effective sharing of programs and resources among districts (including city school districts), BOCES and other service providers; and
• Provide more comparability in funding career and technical education programs between the Big Five city school districts and programs provided at BOCES in the rest of the State.

This aid would provide more flexibility to help school districts meet expenditures for textbooks, computer software, library materials and on-line services. It would provide flexibility in funding to assist school districts in their different stages of moving to instructional materials and services in electronic format. Although this aid is consolidated, schools need a well-equipped library to support students’ achievement of the Regents learning standards. Therefore, it is critical that school districts use a portion of the consolidated funds (Textbook, Computer Software and Library Materials Aids) to purchase school library media program resources.

The consolidated Instructional Materials Aid would complement a proposed Public School Library Support Aid, advanced as a separate budget proposal by the New York State Education Department. This proposal is intended to respond to the needs of public school students in school districts with concentrations of student poverty for access to library materials and services provided by qualified staff.

In May 2000, the Board of Regents adopted Commissioner’s Regulations to implement a System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS), which expanded upon the Education Department’s previous program of registration review for the lowest performing schools. SASS aligned accountability for schools with the accountability required for students. It established adequate yearly targets for all schools not meeting the standards, not just the worst performing schools, and it further integrated State and federal accountability programs. SASS established a mechanism by which schools could be determined to be in need of improvement or making rapid progress based upon performance trends over time. SASS anticipated many of the new accountability features of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and will be the basis of the single statewide accountability system that No Child Left Behind requires all states to implement.

School accountability is a way to account for the State’s investment in education. The System of Accountability for Student Success:

• Sets building targets to recognize differences in schools;
• Requires implementation of school improvement plans, supported by comprehensive planning, where student performance targets are hardest to achieve; and
• Provides greater flexibility for schools meeting the standards and greater oversight for schools with poor student achievement.

These accountability requirements for schools help to provide individual school and statewide measures of student achievement and to motivate additional progress in closing the gap between actual student achievement and that needed to meet State learning standards.

The failure of school districts to either maintain local tax effort or to respond to State Aid increases by lowering tax rates has been a concern of the Regents. Despite fiscal incentives, maintenance of local effort can be a formidable challenge to some school districts. In New York State, a district’s capacity to achieve a given spending level involves a state and local partnership. Any diminution of local tax effort in high need school districts, particularly if local tax effort is "inadequate" to begin with, poses a significant policy concern. Since local effort tends to be a greater problem for school districts with high pupil need and limited fiscal capacity, every effort must continue to be made to ensure that State Aid to school districts is reflective of school district fiscal capacity, pupil needs and costs.

State Aid formulas that recognize variations in wealth and provide incentives for low wealth districts to make greater tax effort can be effective in reducing the number of low taxing districts. In addition, the local effort requirement in place for the New York City School District should be improved and extended to the large four city school districts of Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo and Yonkers.

State Law, known as the Wicks Law, requires school districts to employ four separate contractors for projects of $50,000 or more. For all but the largest of projects, a general contractor can effectively manage these separate functions. Although estimates vary, this change is expected to result in considerable savings in building costs for school districts.

The State should encourage the reduction of local costs by exempting school districts from the Wicks Law, thereby allowing a single general contractor for school construction projects in excess of $50,000, rather than four separate contractors as currently required.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act supports and complements the Regents higher standards reform agenda. Key aspects of the Act are also fundamental to the Regents agenda. These include setting high standards, statewide testing and publication of results, setting adequate yearly progress targets for schools not meeting the standards, consequences to ensure that students have access to quality education in a safe and supportive environment, and the notion that no child will be left behind. While the federal law will provide New York State schools with some additional resources, these will be subject to "supplement, not supplant" requirements. That is, the new resources may not be used to support existing initiatives but must add to them. The federal resources and requirements will help the Regents in their efforts to close the student achievement gap, but do not diminish the task or the demand on State resources appreciably.

Arnot, Richard and James Rowse (1987), "Peer Group Effects and Educational Attainment", Journal of Public Economics 32, pp. 287-305.

Berryman, S.E., Flaxman, E. and Inger, M. (1999), "Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: An Equitable Way to Prepare Middle Level Students For The Future." Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education: Digest 83.

Evans, William N., Wallace E. Oates, and Robert M. Schwab (1992), "Measuring Peer Group Effects: A Study Of Teenage Behavior," Journal of Political Economy 100(5), pp. 991-996.

Fleischmann, Manly (Chairman) (1972). "Report of the New York State Commission on the Quality, Cost and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education," Volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Glasheen, R. "Towards an Understanding of the Relationships among Student Need, Expenditures and Academic Performance." New York State Education Department Report to the Board of Regents, September 2002.

Grubb, W.W., Davis, G., Lurn, J.; Plihal, J., and Morgan, C. (1991), "The cunning hand, the cultured mind: Models for integrating academic and vocational education." Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Grubb, W.W; & Stasz, C. (1991) Assessing the integration of academic vocational education. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Hanushek, E. (1966), "School Resources and Student Performance" in G. Burtless, ed. Does Money Matter? The Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C. pp. 43-73.

Hanushek, E. (1998), "The Evidence on Class Size" Working Paper, pp. 1-40.

Henderson, Vernon, Peter Mieszkowski and Yve Sauvageau (1978), Peer Group Effects and Educational Production Functions, Journal of Public Economics 10, pp. 97-106.

Jencks, C. and M. Phillips (1998), "The Black-White Test Score Gap," Chapter 1 in C. Jencks and M. Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap, The Brookings Institution: Washington D.C., pp. 1-25.

Ladd, Helen F. and Janet S. Hansen (2002). Making Money Matter: Financing America’s Schools. In Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000. Fiscal Proceedings from the Annual State Data Conference July 1999 and July 2000. National Center for Education Statistics.

Link, Charles and James Mulligan (1991), Classmates’ Effects on Black Student Achievement in Public School Classrooms, Economics of Education Review 10, pp. 297-310.

Mosteller, F. (Summer/Fall 1995), "The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children, 5, pp. 113-127.

New York State Board of Regents (September 2002). Local Effort. Report to the Regents Subcommittee on State Aid.

New York State Board of Regents (June 2002). 2002 Chapter 655 Report: Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State’s Schools (BR(A)4.1 and attachment).

Rivkin, S. G.; E.A. Hanushek; and J.F. Kain (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6691 (revised).

Rubin, Max J. (Chairman) (February 1982). New York State Special Task Force on Equity and Excellence in Education, Volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Rumberger, Russell and J. Douglas Willms (1992). The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Segregation on the Achievement Gap in California High Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14(4), pp. 377-396.

Salerno, Frederic V. (Chairman) (December 1988). Funding for Fairness. A Report of the New York State Temporary State Commission on the Distribution of State Aid to Local School Districts, Volumes 1 and 2.

Shavit, Yehuda and Robert A. Williams (1985), Ability Grouping and Contextual Determinants of Educational Expectations in Israel, American Sociological Review 50, pp. 62-73.

Summers, Anita and Roberta Wolfe (1977), Do Schools Make a Difference? American Economic Review 67, pp. 639-652.

Willms, J. Douglas (1986), Social Class Segregation and its Relationship to Pupils’ Examination Results in Scotland, American Sociological Review 51, pp. 224-241.

The need/resource capacity index, a measure of a district's ability to meet the needs of its students with local resources, is the ratio of the estimated poverty percentage (expressed in standard score form) to the Combined Wealth Ratio (expressed in standard score form). A district with both estimated poverty and Combined Wealth Ratio equal to the State average would have a need/resource capacity index of 1.0. Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) categories are determined from this index using the definitions in the table below.

Operating: Operating Aid is the greater of $400 or Aid Ratio Aid multiplied by Selected Total Aidable Pupil Units (TAPU). Aid Ratio Aid is the product of the State Sharing Ratio (greater of: 1.33 – (1.085 * Combined Wealth Ratio) or .915 – (0.56 * Combined Wealth Ratio) or 0.53 – (0.238 * Combined Wealth Ratio), with a maximum of 1.00) multiplied by $4,600 (up from $3,900) multiplied by a Regional Cost Index (see explanation following). Selected TAPU, Total Wealth Pupil Units (TWPU), and TAPU for Expense have been changed to be based on average daily membership (instead of average daily attendance), eliminate the 0.25 additional weightings for Pupils with Special Educational Needs and secondary pupils and add served prekindergarten pupils weighted at 0.5. Aid for New York City is on a citywide basis.

Tax Effort: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Tax Equalization: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Tax Limitation: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Gifted & Talented: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Minor Maintenance and Repair: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Operating Standards Aid: Consolidated with Operating Aid.

Transition Adjustment: The base includes 2002-03 Comprehensive Operating, Tax Limitation, Gifted and Talented, Maintenance and Repair and Operating Standards aids. For those districts for whom the new formula is less beneficial, districts are guaranteed an Alternate (income) Pupil Wealth Ratio-adjusted due minimum based on what they received in 2002-03. The due minimum percentage starts at 95 percent and may be adjusted upward for districts with below average income per pupil. The adjustment equals (Alternate Pupil Wealth Ratio – 0.50) * 0.10 and cannot be less than 0.00 or greater than 0.05. The resulting due minimum amount is reduced by the local effort shortfall which is the difference between the local levy (without STAR) and the local levy that could be raised at a wealth-adjusted State average tax rate ($15.44 multiplied by the Alternate Pupil Wealth Ratio). However, no district receives less aid than 85 percent of the base year aid. Caps on increases are modified by a Need/Resource Index which is limited to 1.8. District Operating Aid is capped at a need-adjusted 7.00 percent over 2002-03 aids. District increases in Operating Aid over 2002-03 aids are capped at a need-adjusted 18.10 percent. The Need/Resource Index is the district’s Extraordinary Needs Ratio (i.e., district Extraordinary Needs percent divided by the State average of 53.1 percent) divided by its CWR.

Gap: This new aid equals a selected amount multiplied by the Aid Ratio (1 – (.4 * Income Wealth Ratio)) multiplied by a pupil needs count composed of limited English proficient pupils, a poverty count (based on the percent of K-6 eligible applicants for the free lunch program), a sparsity count and served prekindergarten pupils. The selected amount is at least 12 percent of an aid ceiling of $5,444 multiplied by the Regional Cost Index. The concentration factor equals 1 plus: the positive result of the district's needs percent minus 44.0 divided by 70.0.

Extraordinary Needs: Consolidated into Gap Aid.

Summer School: Consolidated into Gap Aid.

Limited English Proficiency: Consolidated into Gap Aid.

Universal Pre-Kindergarten: Consolidated into Gap Aid.

Early Grade Class Size Reduction: Consolidated into Gap Aid.

Excess Cost - Public: A district’s 2001-02 Approved Operating Expense/TAPU for Expense is limited to a $2,000 to $8,250 range. The aid equals the allowed expense times the Aid Ratio (1 - (.51 * CWR), with a .25 minimum). Pupils are aided by district of attendance. A 1.30 weighting (down from 1.65) is provided for pupils who require special services or programs for 60 percent or more of the school day consistent with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). High Cost expense must exceed the lesser of $10,000 or four times district AOE/TAPU for Expense. Declassification Aid is included based on 50 percent of the basic Public Excess Cost Aid per pupil. No district receives less than 95 percent of its 2002-03 aid per pupil however this cannot exceed 150 percent of formula aid. Excess cost aid for students in integrated settings is the product of excess cost aid per pupil multiplied by 120 percent (up from 50 percent) of the attendance of pupils who receive special education services or programs by qualified personnel, consistent with an IEP, for 60 percent or more of the school day in a general education classroom with nondisabled students.

Excess Cost - Private: Aid is for public school students attending private schools for students with disabilities. Net tuition expense is multiplied by the Aid Ratio (1 - (.15 * CWR), with a .5 minimum).

Educationally Related Support Services: The aid equals: a) $379.85 (up from $365) multiplied by the State Sharing Ratio (with a .25 minimum) multiplied by 9 percent of Selected TAPU; plus, b) $616.25 (a reduction from $635) multiplied by the Public Excess Cost Aid Ratio, multiplied by 20 percent (up from 15 percent) of the Selected TAPU multiplied by the Extraordinary Needs percent in excess of 40 percent (down from 60 percent).

BOCES: BOCES Aid is included for administrative, shared services, rental and capital expenses. Save-harmless is continued. Approved expense for BOCES Administrative and Shared Services Aids is based on a salary limit of $30,000. Aid is based on approved 2002-03 administrative and service expenses and the higher of the millage ratio or the Current AV/2001-02 TWPU Aid Ratio: (1 - (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)) with a .36 minimum and .90 maximum. The millage ratio factor is increased from 8 to 9 mills. Rent and Capital Aids are based on 2003-04 expenses multiplied by the Current AV/2001-02 TWPU Aid Ratio with a .00 minimum and a .90 maximum. Payable aid is the sum of these aids.

Special Services Computer Administration: Computer Administration Aid equals the Current AV/2001-02 TWPU Aid Ratio (1 - (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)) with a .36 minimum multiplied by approved expenses not to exceed the maximum of $72.00 (up from $62.30) multiplied by the Fall 2002 public school enrollment with half-day kindergarten weighted at 1.0.

Special Services Career Education: Career Education Aid equals the Current AV/2001-02 TWPU Aid Ratio (1 - (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)) with a .36 minimum multiplied by $4,140 (up from $3,720), multiplied by the 2002-03 Career Education pupils including the pupils in business and marketing sequences weighted at .50 (up from 0.13).

Instructional Materials: This new aid is based on 2002-03 expenditures for software, library materials and textbook purchases. The maximum Instructional Materials Aid equals $80.00 per pupil multiplied by the combined 2002-03 public plus nonpublic enrollment for pupils attending school in the district plus district pupils attending full time BOCES and private school programs for students with disabilities plus pupils attending the State operated schools at Rome and Batavia and resident pupils placed in Special Act school districts. Aid cannot exceed approved expenditures.

Textbook: Consolidated into Instructional Materials Aid.

Computer Software: Consolidated into Instructional Materials Aid.

Library Materials: Consolidated into Instructional Materials Aid.

Computer Hardware Aid: Aid for instructional computer hardware expenses (acquisition and limited repair and staff development expenses) is equal to the lesser of 2002-03 expenses or $32.35 multiplied by the Selected TAPU multiplied by the Current AV/2000-01 TWPU Aid Ratio (1 – (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)). Expenses for Maintenance and Repair and Staff Development are limited to 30% (up from 20%) of maximum aid.

Operating Growth: The district's estimated enrollment-based Growth Index in excess of 1.0100 (up from 1.0040) multiplied by the estimated 2003-04 Operating Aid.

Transportation: Aid is based upon estimated approved transportation operating expense plus capital expenses as reported to the Commissioner by November 15, 2002 (except in cases of emergency) multiplied by the selected Transportation Aid Ratio with a .9 maximum and a .065 minimum. The selected Aid Ratio is the highest of 1.263 multiplied by the State Sharing Ratio or 1.01 - (.46 * Pupil Wealth Ratio) or 1.01 – (.46 * Enrollment Wealth Ratio), plus a sparsity adjustment. The sparsity adjustment is the positive result of 25 minus the district’s 2001-02 enrollment per square mile, divided by 58.

Summer School Transportation: Transportation Aid for Summer School programs is based on estimated approved transportation operating expense plus capital expenses as reported to the Commissioner by November 15, 2002 (except in cases of emergency) multiplied by the selected Transportation Aid Ratio with a .9 maximum and a .065 minimum. Aid is no longer prorated to remain within a $5.0 million appropriation.

Building: Aid is equal to the product of the estimated approved building expenses multiplied by the highest of the 1981-82 through the 2001-02 AV/RWADA Aid Ratios or the Current AV/TWPU Aid Ratio. For projects approved by voters on or after July 1, 2000, expenses are multiplied by the higher of the Building Aid Ratio used for 1999-00 aid less .10 or the Current AV/TWPU Aid Ratio. Up to 10 percent of additional building aid is provided for projects approved by voters on or after July 1, 1998. Building expenses include certain capital outlay expenses, lease expenses, and an assumed debt service payment based on the useful life of the project and an average interest rate.

Building Reorganization Incentive: Building Reorganization Incentive Aid on capital outlay, lease and debt service is subjected to the same requirements as regular Building Aid however, aid is provided for reorganization projects only if approved by voters within five years of district consolidation and if the project is contained in the five year capital reorganization plan.

Operating Reorganization Incentive: Operating Reorganization Incentive Aid is included as in permanent law however, no newly consolidated districts will receive aid unless the Commissioner determines the consolidation will improve student performance.

Full Day Kindergarten Conversion: Districts with any half-day kindergarten or no kindergarten programs in 1996-97 and in the base year (2002-03), are eligible for aid equal to the estimated 2003-04 Operating Aid per Selected TAPU multiplied by any increase in full day kindergarten enrollment in 2003-04 over 2002-03.

Teacher Support Aid: A total of $67.48 million is provided in aid to the Big Five City School Districts.

Academic Support Aid: A total of $24.92 million is provided in aid to the Big Five City School Districts.

Small Cities Aid: Aid is provided as in permanent law, including the gradual phase-out of save-harmless.

Improving Pupil Performance Grants (IPP): This grant is eliminated for 2003-2004.

The index includes 77 titles for which employment at the entry level typically requires a bachelor’s degree, and excludes teachers and categories that tend to be restricted to federal and state government. The wage data are provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are drawn from the 1998 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. The OES survey is an establishment survey and according to U.S. Department of Labor analysts, "wages and earnings tend to be more accurately reported in establishment surveys as they are based upon administrative records rather than recall by respondents." Additionally, the survey is administered on a three-year cycle where each year one third of the establishments are surveyed and wage data are aggregated using a technique known as wage updating. Thus, the approximations of wages become increasingly accurate and are most precise in the third year. The RCI calculations are based on the third and most accurate data-year in the cycle, and thus inspire confidence that the results are a good representation of the variation in professional service costs around the state. The triennial nature of the data means that the RCI need only be updated in those years in which the most accurate data in the cycle are available.

The index was calculated as the weighted median hourly wage for a given labor force region divided by the weighted median hourly wage for New York State ($26.02). The index was truncated to three decimal places then divided by the North Country value of .687. Index values range from 1.000 for the North Country to 1.515 for the Long Island/New York City Region. The accompanying table lists the counties included in each labor force region. The weighted median wage for New York State and for each labor force region was calculated as follows:

1. Title Weight = the number of employees in a given title statewide divided by the number of employees in 77 titles statewide. Applying title weights to each labor force region prevents the index from being skewed by variations in occupational mix across regions.

2. Median Hourly Wage = median hourly wage rate reported for each title in each labor force region and statewide.

A separate index was created for each labor force region based on a subset of 47 of the 77 titles. These 47 occupations represent those titles where there were no missing data in any of the labor force regions. This index was then used to estimate the median hourly wage of titles with missing data in any given labor force region. This was done by multiplying the statewide median hourly wage for the title with missing data by the 47-title index for the specific labor force region for which the salary data was missing.

For the purpose of index construction, the New York City and Long Island labor force regions were treated as a single labor force region. The New York City/Long Island weighted median wage was calculated as follows:

1. Title Weight = same as above.
2. NYC/LI Median Hourly Wage = for each title:

(# of employees in LI + # of employees in NYC)

Regional Cost Index

Counties in Labor Force Regions

Albany

Columbia

Greene

Rensselaer

Saratoga

Schenectady

Warren

Washington

Cayuga

Cortland

Onondaga

Oswego

Genesee

Livingston

Monroe

Ontario

Orleans

Seneca

Wayne

Wyoming

Yates

Dutchess

Orange

Putnam

Rockland

Sullivan

Ulster

Westchester

Nassau

New York City

Suffolk

Fulton

Herkimer

Madison

Montgomery

Oneida

Schoharie

Clinton

Essex

Franklin

Hamilton

Jefferson

Lewis

St. Lawrence

Broome

Chemung

Chenango

Delaware

Otsego

Schuyler

Steuben

Tioga

Tompkins

Allegany

Cattaraugus

Chautauqua

Erie

Niagara

010100 ALBANY

010500 COHOES

011200 WATERVLIET

020601 ANDOVER

020702 GENESEE VALLEY

020801 BELFAST

021601 FRIENDSHIP

022001 FILLMORE

022101 WHITESVILLE

022302 CUBA-RUSHFORD

022401 SCIO

022601 WELLSVILLE

022902 BOLIVAR-RICHBG

030200 BINGHAMTON

030501 HARPURSVILLE

031301 DEPOSIT

031401 WHITNEY POINT

031502 JOHNSON CITY

041101 FRANKLINVILLE

041401 HINSDALE

042302 CATTARAUGUS-LI

042400 OLEAN

042801 GOWANDA

043001 RANDOLPH

043200 SALAMANCA

043501 YORKSHIRE-PIONE

051101 PORT BYRON

_________________________

Note: A High Need District is defined as one which is in the top 30 percent of a ranking of districts based on poverty and combined wealth ratios, and includes the Big 5 City school districts. See page 26 for additional detail.

060601 PINE VALLEY

060701 CLYMER

060800 DUNKIRK

061501 SILVER CREEK

061503 FORESTVILLE

061700 JAMESTOWN

062301 BROCTON

062401 RIPLEY

062601 SHERMAN

062901 WESTFIELD

070600 ELMIRA

080101 AFTON

081003 UNADILLA

081200 NORWICH

081401 GRGETWN-SO-OTS

081501 OXFORD

082001 SHERBURNE-EARL

090201 AUSABLE VALLEY

090301 BEEKMANTOWN

090901 NORTHRN ADIRON

091200 PLATTSBURGH

101300 HUDSON

110101 CINCINNATUS

110200 CORTLAND

110901 MARATHON

120401 CHARLOTTE VALL

120701 FRANKLIN

120906 HANCOCK

121401 MARGARETVILLE

121601 SIDNEY

121701 STAMFORD

121702 S. KORTRIGHT

121901 WALTON

131500 POUGHKEEPSIE

140600 BUFFALO

141800 LACKAWANNA

150203 CROWN POINT

150901 MORIAH

151501 TICONDEROGA

160801 CHATEAUGAY

161201 SALMON RIVER

161501 MALONE

161601 BRUSHTON MOIRA

161801 ST REGIS FALLS

170301 WHEELERVILLE

170500 GLOVERSVILLE

170600 JOHNSTOWN

171001 OPPENHEIM EPHR

210302 WEST CANADA VA

210501 ILION

210502 MOHAWK

210601 HERKIMER

210800 LITTLE FALLS

211003 DOLGEVILLE

211103 POLAND

211701 VAN HORNSVILLE

212001 BRIDGEWATER-W

220301 INDIAN RIVER

220909 BELLEVILLE-HEN

221401 LA FARGEVILLE

222000 WATERTOWN

222201 CARTHAGE

230201 COPENHAGEN

230301 HARRISVILLE

230901 LOWVILLE

231101 SOUTH LEWIS

240901 MOUNT MORRIS

250109 BROOKFIELD

250301 DE RUYTER

251501 STOCKBRIDGE VA

261600 ROCHESTER

270100 AMSTERDAM

270301 CANAJOHARIE

270701 FORT PLAIN

271102 ST JOHNSVILLE

280201 HEMPSTEAD

280208 ROOSEVELT

280209 FREEPORT

300000 NEW YORK CITY

400400 LOCKPORT

400800 NIAGARA FALLS

410401 ADIRONDACK

410601 CAMDEN

411701 REMSEN

411800 ROME

412300 UTICA

421800 SYRACUSE

430700 GENEVA

441000 MIDDLETOWN

441600 NEWBURGH

441800 PORT JERVIS

450101 ALBION

450801 MEDINA

460102 ALTMAR PARISH

460500 FULTON

460701 HANNIBAL

461801 PULASKI

461901 SANDY CREEK

470202 GLBTSVLLE-MT U

470501 EDMESTON

470801 LAURENS

470901 SCHENEVUS

471101 MILFORD

471201 MORRIS

471601 OTEGO-UNADILLA

472001 RICHFIELD SPRI

472202 CHERRY VLY-SPR

472506 WORCESTER

490601 LANSINGBURGH

491200 RENSSELAER

491700 TROY

500402 EAST RAMAPO

510101 BRASHER FALLS

510201 CANTON

510401 CLIFTON FINE

511101 GOUVERNEUR

511201 HAMMOND

511301 HERMON DEKALB

511602 LISBON

511901 MADRID WADDING

512001 MASSENA

512101 MORRISTOWN

512201 NORWOOD NORFOL

512300 OGDENSBURG

512404 HEUVELTON

512501 PARISHVILLE

513102 EDWARDS-KNOX

530600 SCHENECTADY

540801 GILBOA CONESVI

540901 JEFFERSON

541001 MIDDLEBURGH

541401 SHARON SPRINGS

550101 ODESSA MONTOUR

560501 SOUTH SENECA

561006 WATERLOO CENT

570101 ADDISON

570201 AVOCA

570302 BATH

570401 BRADFORD

570603 CAMPBELL-SAVON

570701 CANISTEO

571501 GREENWOOD

571800 HORNELL

572301 PRATTSBURG

572702 JASPER-TRPSBRG

580106 AMITYVILLE

580109 WYANDANCH

580232 WILLIAM FLOYD

580512 BRENTWOOD

580513 CENTRAL ISLIP

590501 FALLSBURGH

590901 LIBERTY

591302 LIVINGSTON MAN

591401 MONTICELLO

600101 WAVERLY

600301 CANDOR

600402 NEWARK VALLEY

600801 SPENCER VAN ET

600903 TIOGA

610501 GROTON

610901 NEWFIELD

622002 ELLENVILLE

630801 HADLEY LUZERNE

630918 GLENS FALLS CO

631201 WARRENSBURG

640601 FORT EDWARD

641301 HUDSON FALLS

641701 WHITEHALL

650501 LYONS

651201 SODUS

651501 N. ROSE-WOLCOT

651503 RED CREEK

660900 MOUNT VERNON

661500 PEEKSKILL

662300 YONKERS

680801 DUNDEE