EMSC Banner for Content Pages. The banner reads, "New York State Education Department (NYSED), Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)" Back to EMSC Home
SED Home
Disclaimers and Notices


Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts
2007-08

The Regents State Aid proposal requests the resources and funding system needed to provide adequate resources through a State and local partnership so all students will have the opportunity to meet State learning standards.  This is the fourth year the Regents have refined and advanced a multi-year proposal recommending transition to a foundation aid program based on costs of successful educational programs.

The Regents recommend an increase of $1.7 billion for school year 2007-08, with 80 percent of the increase targeted to high need school districts.  The Regents recommend the New York City School District receive 49 percent of the increase in the first year and 52 percent four years out at full implementation.

Foundation Aid consolidates approximately 30 aid formulas into a simple, transparent formula.  It is based on the cost of general education in successful school districts, reflects differences in pupil needs and regional costs and provides predictability to all school districts with a two percent guaranteed minimum increase.

The Regents proposal also includes the following recommendations:

Details follow.  Please join the Regents and Department in advocating for funding reform to ensure all students in New York State have the opportunity to meet State learning standards.

Contents

Highlights of the Regents 2007-08 State Aid Proposal 

Regents Proposal on State Aid 

Technical Supplement 

Exhibits  

  1. Regents State Aid Proposal New York State 

  2. Regents Proposal First Year Impact 

  3. Regents Proposal Fully Implemented 

  4. Distribution of Computerized Aid per Enrolled Pupil 

  5. Computerized State Aid Increases: How They Are Distributed

Figure 

  1. Share of Computerized Aids as Enacted
     

Highlights of the Regents 2007-08 State Aid Proposal

The Regents Proposal

Foundation Aid

District Foundation Aid per Pupil = [Foundation Cost X Pupil Need Index X Regional Cost Index] – Expected Local Contribution.

Keep Funding for Specific Purposes Separate from Foundation Aid

Strengthen Early Childhood Education

Improve Support for Pupils with Disabilities

Other Proposals

Impact of the Regents Proposal 

The following series of charts and tables illustrate the impact of the Regents proposal.

Exhibit A summarizes the increase the Regents recommend for school year 2007-08 for New York State school districts: $1.695 billion in seven general aid categories.  Of this, the Regents recommend that the Legislature and Governor appropriate a $977 million increase for a new, simplified Foundation Aid to help school districts raise student achievement and accelerate gap closing.

Exhibit B shows the share of the increase for high need school districts versus all others under the Regents proposal compared with State Aid for the current school year.  The Regents proposal would direct 80 percent of the increase to high need school districts compared with approximately 70 percent currently.  This change would ensure all school districts have the resources needed to provide all students with an opportunity to meet State learning standards.

Exhibits C and D show the distribution of the Regents proposal in the first year (2007-08) and at full implementation for need-resource categories of school districts.  For example, New York City would receive approximately 49 percent of the overall increase in 2007-08 and approximately 52 percent at full implementation.

Exhibit E shows the proposed distribution of computerized aid per pupil for school year 2007-08 compared with 2006-07 for school districts grouped by need-resource capacity category.  The four high need school district categories would have the greatest increase under the Regents proposal while average and low need school districts would experience more modest increases. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Regents State Aid proposal for 2007-08 will request the resources and funding system needed to provide adequate resources through a State and local partnership so that all students have the opportunity to achieve State learning standards.  This is the fourth year the Regents have refined and advanced a multi-year proposal recommending transition to a foundation program based on the costs of successful educational programs 

Statement of Need

This proposal pursues two Regents goals: to close the gap between actual and desired student achievement; and to ensure that public education resources are adequate and used by school districts effectively and efficiently.

The Regents Annual Report to the Legislature and Governor on the Educational Status of the State’s Schools (Chapter 655 Report) cites numerous examples of improvement in student achievement since 1996 when the Regents began to raise standards for all grade levels and imposed graduation requirements aligned with the new standards.  For example, the report notes[i]:

While there have been many positive changes in the last 18 years since the Regents have reported on the educational progress of the State’s schools, one disturbing aspect of the report has remained the same.  The report continues to document a pattern of high student need, limited resources, and poor performance in many districts. Generally, these districts can be described as having high student needs relative to their capacity to raise revenues.  These high need districts include the Big 5, 46 smaller districts with many of the characteristics of the Big 5, and 156 rural districts. Large gaps in performance exist between these high need districts and low-need districts, those which both serve children from more affluent families and have generous local resources to draw on.

The results of the 2004 middle-level mathematics assessment illustrate these performance gaps between high and low-need districts.  There were significant improvements in total public school results and in results for each Need/Resource Capacity Category of school districts and for each racial/ethnic group. Nevertheless, the performance gap between low- and high need districts, such as New York City, remains.

We can relate this contrast to the resources available to schools in each group:

But the differences between New York City and the low-need districts do not stop there.  The average expenditure per pupil in New York City was over $2,000 less than that in low-need districts.

Similar relationships among performance, resources, and student need can be seen in comparisons between the performance of White students and that of Black and Hispanic students.  White students were about twice as likely as Black or Hispanic students to be proficient in middle-level mathematics.

The majority of Black and Hispanic students attend high-minority schools; the majority of White students attend low-minority schools. One reason that students in low-minority schools are more successful is that they spend more time in school. 

In addition, high-minority schools had a:

The significance of these gaps in performance and resources between high- and low-minority schools is heightened by the fact that, while overall public school enrollment decreased by nearly 3,000 students between Fall 1998 and Fall 2003, enrollment in high-minority schools increased by 47,000 students.

Figure 1 shows that the State Aid increase school districts have experienced has had a relatively small impact on the share of total State Aid that each district category receives. Despite increases to many high need school districts, the relative share of education revenues received by groups of high need city school districts has increased by approximately one to three percentage points over the past nine years.  The relative share declined for high need rural school districts (almost one percentage point), average need school districts (approximately four percentage points), and for low-need school districts (about half a percentage point).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Four principles guide this Regents proposal. 

Adequacy - Effective distribution across all districts will ensure adequate resources for acceptable student achievement.

Fairness - The funding system must be fair for students and taxpayers.  State resources should be allocated on the basis of fiscal capacity, cost and student needs. The emphasis is placed on providing a set of inputs to educate students.

Accountability - The education system will measure outcomes and use those measures to ensure that financial resources are used effectively.  As part of the Regents goal that education resources will be used or maintained in the public interest, the Regents employ a two-prong strategy.  The Department will give greater flexibility to districts with acceptable student achievement and will work closely with districts not yet meeting State standards to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources.

Balance - The State should balance stability in funding and targeting aid to close student achievement gaps.  It should drive aid based on current needs, and use hold-harmless provisions that provide stability. 

Enact a Foundation Program 

The proposed Foundation Aid would consolidate approximately 30 existing aid programs and adjust the consolidated aid for regional cost differences and pupil needs.  It would identify an expected local contribution for each school district, based on ability to pay.  The foundation level is based on the cost of educating students in successful school districts.  An expected local contribution is calculated based on each district’s actual value per pupil, adjusted by income per pupil.  State Aid is calculated as the foundation cost less the expected local contribution.  The proposal would hold school districts harmless against loss for the group of aids combined into Foundation Aid and would be phased in over five years.

The foundation formula approach has several advantages.  It sets aid independent of any decisions by districts on how much to spend.  It also provides certainty to districts regarding how much funding they will receive.  And, most significantly, it explicitly links school funding to the cost of educating children and drives dollars where they are most needed. 

The foundation formula has four components:

Two components of the foundation equation have been updated with more recent data.  

The Regional Cost Index  

In order to adjust for geographic variations in the cost of educational resources, the Regional Cost Index was generated following a methodology similar to one developed by Rothstein and Smith[i] for the state of Oregon.   This involved the use of a statewide index based on median salaries in professional occupations that require similar credentials to that of positions in the education field.  In particular, these titles represented categories for which employment at the entry level typically requires a bachelor’s degree. The Regents original Regional Cost Index was based on 63 occupational titles. Fifty-nine titles were used for this edition of the Regional Cost Index.  Education-related titles were excluded in order to ensure that this index be entirely a measure of labor market costs, and not be subject to the tastes or control of districts.  Therefore, we sought to measure genuine labor market costs, not the results of districts’ decisions to hire especially high-quality teachers, or to influence the index value in later years by choosing to pay more for staff.  By basing the index on the wages earned in the labor market by non-educational professionals with similar skills, we have created a measure of costs in the sector of the labor market in which districts compete for teachers and staff, in each region of the State.  Since personnel salaries and benefits make up the vast majority of costs faced by school districts, the Regional Cost Index allows for an individual to compare the buying power of the educational dollar in different labor force regions of the State.

The Foundation Amount 

The Regents propose a Foundation Aid program, with a foundation amount based on the average per pupil cost of general education instruction in successful school districts. Empirical estimates of the cost of an adequate education typically begin by investigating districts that are already achieving a desired state of academic performance; 465 districts were identified in the current update of the successful districts study.   These districts had, on average, 80 percent or more of their students passing seven State examinations, two at the elementary level and five at the high school level, for three years in a row. 

Special Education Funding

The Regents explored options for improving the funding of special education in a series of meetings around the State with educators and the public.  Participants considered how funding can best support program goals of improved student achievement and education of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.  Three options were discussed that provide special education funding separate from the foundation program and respond to policy concerns voiced at public forums on special education funding.

Current laws provide school districts State Aid to help meet the excess costs of educating students with disabilities--that is, districts receive Operating Aid for each student including those with disabilities, and, in addition, Excess Cost Aid for those costs that are above and beyond the costs of a non-disabled student.  In addition, the laws provide:

The proposed approach maintains a separate special education funding stream based on a count of students with disabilities.  It aligns that funding with the Regents proposal for foundation aid for general education instruction.

The general direction of the proposal is this: Calculate the foundation amount for general education students (e.g., General Education Foundation Cost x Pupil Needs Index x Regional Cost Index). This would be divided into an expected local contribution and State Aid to provide support for general education instruction, as it was proposed in the 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 Regents State Aid proposals.

For Public Excess Cost Aid, that same foundation amount would be multiplied by a single weighting for all classified students with disabilities to determine an expense upon which to base excess cost aid per pupil.  Thus, each student with a disability would generate operating aid based on a portion of the general education foundation amount and, separately, excess cost aid based on a portion of the special education weighted general education foundation amount. The Excess Cost Aid would be tied to the cost of education in successful districts by basing it on the foundation amount from our updated successful school district study. High-Cost Aid and Private Excess Cost Aid would be continued separately. The Regents recommend current-year aid for new high-cost students with disabilities.

The following is an example of this proposal in a hypothetical school district. The amounts used are made up and are intended to illustrate how the formula might work and not its specific details. 

Foundation Aid.  Calculate the foundation amount for general education students (e.g., $1,000 x Pupil Needs Index x Regional Cost Index or for example a district with moderate pupil needs and moderate costs, $1,000 x 1.5 x 1.2 = $1,800/pupil). Divide this into State Aid and an expected local contribution to provide State support for general education instruction.  For this hypothetical school district, assume the expected local contribution was $1,000 per pupil and State Aid was $800 per pupil.

Excess Cost Aid.  Take the same foundation amount ($1,800/pupil) multiplied by a single weighting for all classified students with disabilities to determine excess cost expense per pupil. (For example, $1,800 x 1.1 = $1,980 of excess cost expense per special education pupil.)  A State and local share of this expense can then be calculated.  Thus, each student with a disability would generate Foundation Aid and Excess Cost Aid.  

Regional Services for the Big Five City School Districts

This proposal recommends that the existing practice of excluding large city school districts from accessing BOCES services be discontinued.  It recommends that the Big Four city school districts (Yonkers, Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo) be given the authority to contract with neighboring BOCES for services in critical service areas that are strong in BOCES and weak in the city district. 

A program should be established authorizing the Big Four city school districts to participate in BOCES and purchase services from BOCES.   A corresponding increase in aid should be provided to the New York City school district to allow it to fund similar programs within the city district without BOCES.  Such regional services can include:

Funding Early Childhood Education

The Benefits of Quality Early Childhood Education

The use of pre-kindergarten as a cornerstone program to building strong statewide early childhood programs is a high priority for the Board of Regents and school districts.  It is a well-researched and effective educational strategy for closing the achievement gap.  Research has shown that children who participate in quality pre-kindergarten programs have less need for special education and remediation throughout schooling and earn more and are incarcerated less in adulthood.  The investment in pre-kindergarten is a cost-effective strategy that pays dividends to society and to the children who participate.  The New York State Governor and Legislature made the decision to move toward the provision of universal pre-kindergarten education in 1997.

While much of the focus on strengthening early childhood has concerned the education of three- and four-year olds, the provision of full-day programs to kindergarten pupils is also a statewide policy concern.  Estimates are that approximately 20,000 students are in half-day programs and 14,000 pupils are not enrolled in full-day kindergarten.  If quality early childhood education is to be successful, its provision must continue beyond pre-kindergarten, into full-day kindergarten and successfully transition students into quality elementary school programs.

The Regents Goal

The Regents recommend that all young children have access to quality early childhood programs from age three on and that the Governor and Legislature continue to phase in State support for such programs.

Regents Policy

In January 2006, the Regents adopted a policy on early childhood education.  It recommends:

Funding Issues

The Governor and Legislature must ensure that the program is available to all districts and three and four-year-olds.  For pre-kindergarten to become an integral part of a pre-kindergarten through grade 12 public school system, action regarding the funding mechanism is as important as the level of funding.  The Regents have grappled with two important issues.

First, there is a need to streamline and focus funding to make the most of public resources.  The Targeted Pre-K program has been implemented as an experimental grant program for decades.   In 1997, the Governor and Legislature added a second grant program known as Universal Pre-kindergarten.  In 2006, the Governor and Legislature added a third grant program in addition to the first two.  Now with three separate grant programs, each with their own funding components and distribution, the Regents recognize that the grant process, although it has been a successful way to phase in the program, may not be the most effective way to sustain the program for the future. 

Second, how should the Governor and Legislature phase in quality early childhood education from age three on? Specifically, the Regents considered whether to phase in this program as a program targeted to at-risk children or to all children.  Programs designed to serve all children ensure access. Research shows that targeted programs do not close the achievement gap as at-risk children cross many socio-economic groups (Garcia, 2005). Programs targeted for at-risk students are also more likely to be frozen, cut or eliminated.  Another disadvantage is that programs targeted for at-risk children often lack the participation of other children that may be crucial to the educational process.

The advantage of phasing in quality early childhood education for all students regardless of risk status is that the program will have the support and participation of all.  The disadvantage is that programs for all are more costly.  Further Regents discussion of these and other policy issues is planned to occur in the near future.

Regents Recommendations for 2007-08

The Regents goal is to make funding available to allow school districts to adopt programs to make pre-kindergarten programs universally available.  The Regents recommend that funding for early childhood education be streamlined into one funding stream and that the distribution of funding be equalized on the basis of school district fiscal capacity and the level of student need.  Funding for early childhood education should be separate from but aligned with funding for kindergarten through grade 12.  Funding for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 should provide school districts with the resources needed to give all students the opportunity to meet State learning standards. 

Pending further discussion of outstanding policy issues by the Regents, funding should be phased in over time to provide Early Childhood Foundation Aid for all three- and four-year olds.  In addition, the Regents recommend that aid for instructional materials be revised to allow aid for those that promote early learning, as provided for in the following section.

To address the need for full-day kindergarten programs, the Regents recommend planning grants for the additional classrooms needed.  Beginning in 2008-09, the Regents will advance recommendations to phase in the funding for all kindergarteners to participate in full-day programs over a three-year period.

Provide Flexibility in Aid for Instructional Materials

Although the Governor and Legislature have provided support for instructional materials in the form of Textbook Aid and Software Aid, changes in education suggest the need for commensurate changes in State Aid. 

First, instructional materials are increasingly available electronically so Textbook Aid was recently amended to allow textbooks in electronic format to be eligible for aid.  This change blurs the distinction between Textbook Aid and Software Aid. 

Second, schools throughout the State are designing science and mathematics curricula to provide an inquiry-centered instructional approach that involves the use of relevant equipment, professional materials, supplies and science kits or mathematics manipulatives, rather than textbooks.  Such experiential learning has helped students master State standards and has supported State and national efforts to strengthen student preparation in mathematics and science.

Textbooks may not be the most appropriate instructional materials for kindergarteners.  Instead of textbooks, early childhood educators use developmentally appropriate educational games and hands-on manipulatives that promote early literacy, numeracy, scientific inquiry, and social learning.

The Regents recommend that the Governor and Legislature consolidate Textbook Aid and Software Aid into a new Instructional Materials Aid.   The definition of eligible instructional materials should include equipment, materials, supplies, kits and other manipulatives used in the instruction of K-12 mathematics and science, and for kindergarten only, educationally-based materials such as developmentally appropriate games and hands-on manipulatives that promote early learning. 

Increase Library Materials Aid to Close the Gap in Student Achievement

The Benefits of Strong School Library Collections

The impact of school libraries with strong print collections on raising student performance levels is well researched.   Studies of more than 3,300 schools across the country demonstrate that, while there are many characteristics that define a strong school library, the number of books per student is one very significant factor. [ii]

Additional research has found that access to educational resources outside of school varies considerably by socio-economic background and contributes to lasting achievement differences of children.[iii]  Some of these studies focused on the access of children to library books and found “dramatic disparities in three communities, ranging from high to low income.”[iv]  The high income community had significantly more library books for children to interact with.

High-performing schools have school libraries with significantly more resources per student than low-performing schools.   The investment in school library materials is a cost-effective strategy for addressing the persistent pattern of high student need, limited resources, and poor performance in many districts.  

New York State School Library Funding Issues

The State funds school library collections in part with Library Materials Aid which has been $6.00 per pupil since 1998, despite a 30 percent increase in the cost of the average library book since 1999 to $21.60.  Currently, school districts in New York State spend[v] on average approximately $13 per pupil on school library materials. However individual district expenditures vary greatly, with high need districts spending the least.  Successful school districts, identified for the development of the Regents State Aid Foundation Proposal, which have an average of 80 percent of their students passing seven State tests over three years, spend on average $17 per pupil for school library materials.   Large gaps in performance between high need and low-need districts are well documented[vi].  The result is that students who would most benefit from a strong school library with adequate collections are the least likely to have access to such resources.

The recent Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case regarding State funding of public schools determined adequate school libraries to be part of a “sound, basic education.”  The Court urged the Governor and Legislature to provide funding for up-to-date school libraries as one important means of achieving equitable access to a basic education for students in low-income communities.

The Regents have made closing the gap in achievement a priority.   The Governor and Legislature must ensure that youngsters in high need districts, which are most dependent upon Library Materials Aid, have access to school libraries with adequate collections.

Funding Recommendation

The Regents recommend that Library Materials Aid be increased to enable school libraries in high need communities to provide a comparable level of collections to their students as those in successful school districts. 

Enact a Simplified Cost Allowance for State Building Aid

The Regents recommend that the Governor and Legislature simplify the maximum cost allowance formula for State Building Aid. The law sets a reasonable cost ceiling for all capital projects. However, the current system is an overly complex and inefficient process that, in some cases, forces a district to compromise the desired educational goal in order to achieve maximum reimbursement.  The Regents propose that the State calculate a cost allowance based on a certain allotment of space and cost per enrolled pupil, according to the following formula:

Cost Allowance = Projected Pupil Enrollment x Allowed Square Feet

Per Pupil x Allowed Cost per Square Foot x Regional Cost Factor

The current New York State Labor Department Cost Index would be used to update allowable costs on a monthly basis. Unlike the Regents Regional Cost Index proposed for Foundation Aid, which is fundamentally a professional wage index, the New York State Labor Department cost index is based solely on the wages of three major occupational titles critical to the building industry.  A simplified formula would offer greater educational flexibility, ease of understanding and transparency.  

Strengthen Accountability for the Use of Funds  

Since 1996 when State learning standards were implemented, the number of high school graduates has increased by more than 16,000 students.  During that time, school expenditures have increased by more than 60 percent.  How do we know if resources are well spent?  How can we accelerate the progress that is occurring? 

The New York State Education Department has developed a school accountability system which is a nationally recognized model for student performance accountability.  Approximately 70 percent of New York State schools are making adequate yearly progress.  The other 30 percent of schools need varying levels of support and assistance to close the gaps.  These low-performing schools are the focus of intensive State efforts.

As schools have improved or closed, the system has resulted in fewer schools identified for improvement.  The progress that has occurred can be accelerated and improved with more State oversight, support for school-by-school reform and tools that process student achievement data and school district claims for aid and help school districts monitor their financial condition.  The Technical Supplement describes the current accountability system and the details for making a good system an excellent one.  The Regents have requested the funds to implement the proposals that follow as part of the Department’s budget request.

Technical Supplement

Accountability for Student Success
Need/Resource Capacity Definitions
High Need School Districts for the 2006-07 School Year
Aids and Grants to be Consolidated Under the Regents Proposal
Formula Components
Update to Successful School District Study
Assessing an Adequate Education
Update to the Regents Regional Cost Index
Summary of Aids and Grants as Requested in the 2007-08 Regents State Aid Proposal
Analysis of Aid Changes Under the 2007-08 Regents State Aid Proposal

Accountability for Student Success

The Current System 

New York State’s public reporting and accountability system establishes a framework that recognizes the dual responsibility of local districts and the State to ensure that public dollars are spent effectively to provide all students the opportunity for a sound basic education.  New York’s public reporting and accountability system is comprehensive, rigorous and successful.  The system has resulted, for example, in improvements in English language arts and mathematics achievement since 1999 and in a decline of the number of extremely low-performing schools in the State.  In 2005-06, 84 percent of New York State schools were in good standing under the accountability system.  The system responsible for this progress identifies low-performing schools and districts and imposes a series of graduated actions at the local level and interventions at the State level to improve student achievement.  Where results do not improve, consequences follow.

The Commissioner determines annually whether every public school and district is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in English language arts, mathematics, elementary-middle level science and graduation rates.   When a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years on the same accountability measure, the school is identified as a School Requiring Academic Progress (SRAP) and, if the school receives Title I, Part A funds, as a School in Need of Improvement (SINI). Among other things, these schools must develop a two-year school improvement plan that is annually updated.  In addition, all schools in improvement status under Title 1 are required to offer parents the option to transfer their children to other public schools within the district.  If a school is not identified as requiring academic progress or as in need of improvement but fails to achieve the State standards in English language arts or mathematics, the district must develop a Local Assistance Plan for the school.

Once the Commissioner identifies schools as needing improvement, a series of increasingly rigorous sanctions is triggered. In each subsequent year that the school does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was identified, it advances to the next accountability level.  Schools in need of improvement that subsequently fail to make AYP in their area(s) of identification must offer eligible students supplemental educational services.  School districts are required to initiate one of several corrective actions for schools that fail for two years subsequent to identification to make AYP in their area(s) of identification.  The Commissioner requires the district to restructure or close schools that have failed to make AYP for four years following identification.

The Commissioner also identifies for registration review schools that are farthest from State standards and most in need of improvement.  Once identified for registration review, the Commissioner assigns the school performance targets that it is expected to achieve within a specified time or risk having its registration revoked.  After being placed under registration review, the school is visited by an external team that audits planning, resources and programs.  The school uses the report of the external team to develop a comprehensive education plan, and the district uses this report to develop a corrective action plan.

Local school districts, regional school support centers, distinguished educators, and SED staff provide schools that are identified for improvement with additional assistance and support.  In general, the State Education Department itself focuses its efforts on Schools Under Registration Review (“SURR schools”). Regional school support centers and distinguished educators provide critical support to schools designated as SURR and SINI.

In addition to individual school accountability, the State Education Department is also responsible for determining whether each school district achieves AYP.  As in the case of schools, school districts that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years are designated as Districts In Need of Improvement (DINI) and must develop district-wide improvement plans. Pursuant to the NCLB, the Commissioner must take corrective action against a district that receives Title I funds if it fails to make AYP for two years after being designated as needing improvement.

As part of the Department’s process of determining the performance status of schools and school districts, the Commissioner began, after the 2003-04 school year, to designate schools and districts that meet specific criteria as high-performing. Starting with the 2004-05 school year, certain schools and districts were designated as rapidly improving. 

Strengthening Accountability

The Regents have advanced a budget request to strengthen accountability.  Its goals are to accelerate progress in increasing high school completions, eliminate the student achievement gap and ensure that resources are well spent.  The State should:

Increase Graduation Rates

The Commissioner will assign an academic intervention team to each school and district in the State that is identified for corrective action.  The purpose of the intervention teams is to build capacity of local educational agencies to successfully undertake corrective actions that result in improved student achievement consistent with State standards.  Teams made up of administrators and content experts will provide targeted technical assistance in at-risk schools. 

Hold Schools Accountable

In May 2006, U.S. Education Secretary Spellings issued a policy letter expressing concern that state education agencies are not sufficiently monitoring schools to ensure compliance with Supplemental Education Services (SES) and School Choice requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. This policy letter followed federal audit exceptions concerning Title I funds. The federal government expects states to significantly increase their monitoring of schools to ensure both fiscal and program compliance.  In order to meet new federal program monitoring expectations and ensure the flow of federal education funds, the SED will need to increase staff to conduct on-site program and fiscal monitoring of schools each year.  This in turn will leverage State funding in support of school improvement. 

Improving Tools for School Oversight  

An Early Warning System will help the public to know their school’s financial status, will help school boards engage in long-range financial planning and will allow State Education Department staff to anticipate and help prevent school district fiscal stress.

The development of a unified State Aid Management System will address shortcomings of the current system by providing: a single point of access to State Aid data; the means for enabling the Department to collect information from school districts across the State more effectively; the capability to analyze districts’ fiscal needs; a streamlined method for distributing funds to school districts; and modeling capability during the annual State budget process to inform and assist the Executive and the State Legislature as they address State education funding. 

Prevent Fraud, Waste and Abuse

Additional staff are requested to provide expert support and monitoring for fiscally stressed school districts.  They will help the State ensure that fiscally stressed school districts implement a plan to restore themselves to sound financial condition, that districts maximize revenues they are entitled to, and that they use resources in a manner to maximize student achievement gains.  Staff will also ensure that school districts have in place procedures that comply with laws concerning the fiscal oversight of school districts.

The Department will use a risk-based system to focus additional audits on districts with indicators of poor student performance and fiscal stress, or those where concerns have been expressed.  Such audits will complement audits conducted by the Office of the State Comptroller of school districts, BOCES and charter schools. In addition, some of the audit resources will be devoted to conducting random audits of school districts that have no known problems or issues.  Audits will assess the adequacy of the school district's management and focus on seven key areas: governance and planning, accounting and reporting, revenue and cash management, purchasing and expenditures, facilities and equipment, student services, and student-related data. 

Resources requested to strengthen school accountability will be presented in the State Education Department’s budget request, rather than in the Regents State Aid proposal.  Requested resources are $25 million in 2007-08, $25.6 million in 2008-09, $26.2 million in 2009-10.  Over these three years, the total of $76.8 million will provide the tools and oversight to substantially strengthen school accountability in New York State.

Need/Resource Capacity Category Definitions 

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[1] (expressed in standard score form) to the Combined Wealth Ratio[2] (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. 

Need/Resource
Capacity Category

Definition

High N/RC Districts

 

     

New York City

New York City

     

Large City Districts

Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers

     

Urban-Suburban

All districts at or above the 70th percentile (1.188) which meet one of the following conditions:  1) at least 100 students per square mile; or
2) have an enrollment greater than 2,500 and more than 50 students per square mile.

     

Rural

All districts at or above the 70th percentile (1.188) which meet one of two conditions:  1) fewer than 50 students per square mile; or 2) fewer than 100 students per square mile and an enrollment of less than 2,500.

Average N/RC Districts

All districts between the 20th (0.7706) and 70th (1.188) percentile on the index.

Low N/RC Districts

All districts below the 20th percentile (0.7706) on the index.

 

High Need School Districts for 2005-06 School Year

Albany County

010100  ALBANY             
010500  COHOES
011200  WATERVLIET

Allegany County

020601  ANDOVER
020702  GENESEE VALLEY
020801  BELFAST
021102  CANASERAGA
021601  FRIENDSHIP
022001  FILLMORE
022101  WHITESVILLE
022302  CUBA-RUSHFORD
022401  SCIO
022601  WELLSVILLE
022902  BOLIVAR-RICHBG

Broome County

030200  BINGHAMTON
030501  HARPURSVILLE
031301  DEPOSIT
031401  WHITNEY POINT
031502  JOHNSON CITY 

Cattaraugus County

041101  FRANKLINVILLE            
041401  HINSDALE
042302  CATTARAUGUS-LI
042400  OLEAN
042801  GOWANDA
043001  RANDOLPH
043200  SALAMANCA
043501  YORKSHIRE-PIONE 

Chautauqua County

060401  CASSADAGA VALL
060601  PINE VALLEY
060701  CLYMER
060800  DUNKIRK
061501  SILVER CREEK
061503  FORESTVILLE
061700  JAMESTOWN
062301  BROCTON
062401  RIPLEY
062601  SHERMAN
062901  WESTFIELD 

Chemung County

070600  ELMIRA

Chenango County

080101  AFTON
080601  GREENE
081003  UNADILLA
081200  NORWICH
081401  GRGETWN-SO-OTS
081501  OXFORD
082001  SHERBURNE-EARL

Clinton County

090201  AUSABLE VALLEY
090301  BEEKMANTOWN
090901  NORTHRN ADIRON
091200  PLATTSBURGH

Columbia County

101300  HUDSON 

Cortland County

110101  CINCINNATUS
110200  CORTLAND
110304  MCGRAW
110901  MARATHON 

Delaware County

120401  CHARLOTTE VALL
120701  FRANKLIN
120906  HANCOCK
121401  MARGARETVILLE
121601  SIDNEY
121701  STAMFORD
121702  S. KORTRIGHT
121901  WALTON 

Dutchess County

130200  BEACON
131500  POUGHKEEPSIE 

Erie County

140600  BUFFALO
141800  LACKAWANNA  

Essex County

150203  CROWN POINT
150901  MORIAH
151501  TICONDEROGA  

Franklin County

160801  CHATEAUGAY
161201  SALMON RIVER
161501  MALONE
161601  BRUSHTON MOIRA
161801  ST REGIS FALLS

Fulton County

170500  GLOVERSVILLE
170600  JOHNSTOWN
171001  OPPENHEIM EPHR 

Genesee County

180300  BATAVIA

Greene County

190401  CATSKILL

Herkimer County

210302  WEST CANADA VA
210501  ILION
210502  MOHAWK
210601  HERKIMER
210800  LITTLE FALLS
211003  DOLGEVILLE
211103  POLAND
211701  VAN HORNSVILLE
212001  BRIDGEWATER-W 

Jefferson County

220301  INDIAN RIVER
220909  BELLEVILLE-HEN
221301  LYME
221401  LA FARGEVILLE
222000  WATERTOWN
222201  CARTHAGE 

Lewis County

230201  COPENHAGEN
230901  LOWVILLE
231101  SOUTH LEWIS 

Livingston County

240901  MOUNT MORRIS
241101  DALTON-NUNDA 

Madison County

250109  BROOKFIELD
250301  DE RUYTER
250401  MORRISVILLE EA
251501  STOCKBRIDGE VA  

Monroe County

261600  ROCHESTER

Montgomery County

270100  AMSTERDAM
270301  CANAJOHARIE
270701  FORT PLAIN
271102  ST JOHNSVILLE

Nassau County

280201  HEMPSTEAD
280208  ROOSEVELT
280209  FREEPORT
280401  WESTBURY 

New York City

300000  NEW YORK CITY

Niagara County

400800  NIAGARA FALLS 

Oneida County

410401  ADIRONDACK
410601  CAMDEN
411800  ROME
412300  UTICA 

Onondaga County

421800  SYRACUSE 

Ontario County

430700  GENEVA

Orange County

441000  MIDDLETOWN
441202  KIRYAS JOEL
441600  NEWBURGH
441800  PORT JERVIS 

Orleans County

450101  ALBION
450801  MEDINA 

Oswego County

460102  ALTMAR PARISH
460500  FULTON
460701  HANNIBAL
461801  PULASKI
461901  SANDY CREEK  

Otsego County

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

Rensselaer County

490601  LANSINGBURGH
491200  RENSSELAER
491700  TROY 

Rockland County

500402  EAST RAMAPO 

St. Lawrence County

510101  BRASHER FALLS
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 

Schenectady County

530600  SCHENECTADY 

Schoharie County

540901  JEFFERSON
541001  MIDDLEBURGH
541401  SHARON SPRINGS 

Schuyler County

550101  ODESSA MONTOUR 

Seneca County

560501  SOUTH SENECA
561006  WATERLOO CENT  

Steuben County

570101  ADDISON
570201  AVOCA
570302  BATH
570401  BRADFORD
570603  CAMPBELL-SAVON
571502  CANISTEO-GREEN
571800  HORNELL
572301  PRATTSBURG
572702  JASPER-TRPSBRG

Suffolk County

580105  COPIAGUE
580106  AMITYVILLE
580109  WYANDANCH
580232  WILLIAM FLOYD
580512  BRENTWOOD
580513  CENTRAL ISLIP 

Sullivan County

590501  FALLSBURGH
590901  LIBERTY
591302  LIVINGSTON MAN
591401  MONTICELLO 

Tioga County

600101  WAVERLY
600903  TIOGA 

Tompkins County

610901  NEWFIELD 

Ulster County

620600  KINGSTON
622002  ELLENVILLE 

Warren County

630918  GLENS FALLS COMMON
631201  WARRENSBURG 

Washington County

640601  FORT EDWARD
640701  GRANVILLE
641301  HUDSON FALLS 

Wayne County

650101  NEWARK
650301  CLYDE-SAVANNAH
650501  LYONS
651201  SODUS
651501  N. ROSE-WOLCOT
651503  RED CREEK        

Westchester County

660900  MOUNT VERNON
661500  PEEKSKILL
661904  PORT CHESTER
662300  YONKERS 

Yates County

680801  DUNDEE


 

Aids and Grants to be Consolidated and Other Aids Under the 2007-08 Regents Proposal

Aids and Grants Replaced by the Proposed Regents Foundation Formula
 
2006-07 Aids and Grants Regents Proposal for 2007-08
Computerized Aids
Comprehensive Operating Aid
Computer Hardware Aid
Early Grade Class Size Reduction
Educationally Related Support Services Aid
Enrollment Adjustment Aid
Extraordinary Needs Aid
Flex Aid
Gifted and Talented Aid
High Tax Aid
Minor Maintenance and Repair Aid
Operating Aid
Operating Growth Aid
Operating Standards Aid
Operating Reorganization Incentive Aid
Small City Aid
Sound Basic Education Aid
Summer School Aid
Supplemental Extraordinary Needs Aid
Tax Effort Aid
Tax Equalization Aid
Tax Limitation Aid
Teacher Support Aid
Transition Adjustment/Adj. Factor

Other Aids and Grants
Categorical Reading Programs
CVEEB
Fort Drum Aid
Improving Pupil Performance Grants
Magnet Schools Aid
Shared Services Savings Incentive
Tuition Adjustment Aid
Urban-Suburban Transfer Aid
 		 Foundation Aid

 

Other Aids Separate from Foundation Aid
Bilingual Education Grants
BOCES Aid
BOCES Spec Act, <8, Contract Aid
Building Aid
Building Reorganization Incentive Aid
Bus Driver Safety Training Grants
Chargebacks
Computer Software Aid/Textbook Aid
Division for Youth Transportation
Education of Homeless Youth
Education of OMH/OMR
Employment Preparation Education Aid
Engineers of the Future
Fiscal Stabilization Grants
Full Day Kindergarten Conversion Aid
Full Day Kindergarten Planning Grants
Incarcerated Youth
Institutes of Mathematics and Science
Learning Technology Grants
Library Materials Aid
Limited English Proficiency Aid
Native American Education
Native American Building Aid
Prior Year Adjustments
Private Excess Cost Aid
Public Excess Cost Aid
Roosevelt
Special Act Districts Aid
Special Services – Career Education
Special Services – Computer Administration
Student Health Services
Teacher Centers
Teacher-Mentor Intern
Teachers of Tomorrow Grants
Transportation Aid
Universal Pre-Kindergarten Aid		 Bilingual Education Grants
BOCES Aid
BOCES Spec Act, <8, Contract Aid
Building Aid
Building Reorganization Incentive Aid
Bus Driver Safety Training Grants
Chargebacks
Computer Software Aid/Textbook Aid
Division for Youth Transportation
Education of Homeless Youth
Education of OMH/OMR
Employment Preparation Education Aid
Engineers of the Future
Fiscal Stabilization Grants
Full Day Kindergarten Conversion Aid
Full Day Kindergarten Planning Grants
Incarcerated Youth
Institutes of Mathematics and Science
Learning Technology Grants
Library Materials Aid
Limited English Proficiency Aid
Native American Education
Native American Building Aid
Prior Year Adjustments
Private Excess Cost Aid
Public Excess Cost Aid
Roosevelt
Special Act Districts Aid
Special Services – Career Education
Special Services – Computer Administration
Student Health Services
Teacher Centers
Teacher-Mentor Intern
Teachers of Tomorrow Grants
Transportation Aid
Universal Pre-Kindergarten Aid


2007-08 Regents Proposal Formula Components Foundation Aid

Foundation:  Foundation Operating Aid is the greater of $500 or Formula Foundation Aid multiplied by Selected Total Aidable Pupil Units (TAPU).  The Foundation Aid is the product of $5,258, the Regional Cost Index (see explanation following) and a Pupil Need Index, less the Expected Local Contribution.  The Pupil Needs Index, which ranges from 1.0 to 2.0, is the sum of 1.0 plus the product of the Extraordinary Needs percent (changed to exclude a Limited English Proficiency count) multiplied by the concentration factor.  The concentration factor (maximum of 85.5 percent) is 42.75 percent + (42.75 percent x [(EN percent - 10 percent)/70 percent]).  The Expected Local Contribution is the product of 0.013 multiplied by the Alternate Pupil Wealth Ratio multiplied by the Selected Actual Value (AV) per 2005-06 TWPU.  Selected AV is the lesser of the 2004 AV or the average of 2003 AV and 2004 AV.  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 continue the 0.12 weighting for summer school pupils (in TAPU).  TWPU excludes weightings for students with disabilities.  TAPU for Expense applies a single 1.41 weighting for students with disabilities.  Aid for New York City is on a citywide basis.  Resident Weighted Average Daily Attendance (RWADA) is used only for Building Aid.

The following aids and grants are eliminated, as well as four aids and grants that do not appear on the computerized aid estimates, Tuition Adjustment Aid, Urban-Suburban Transfer Aid, County Vocational Education Extension Board (CVEEB) and Shared Services Savings Incentive:

Categorical Reading Programs
Comprehensive Operating Aid
Computer Hardware Aid
Early Grade Class Size Reduction
Educationally Related Support Services Aid
Enrollment Adjustment Aid
Extraordinary Needs Aid
Flex Aid
Fort Drum Aid
Gifted and Talented Aid
High Tax Aid
Improving Pupil Performance Grants
Magnet Schools Aid
Minor Maintenance and Repair Aid
Operating Aid
Operating Growth Aid
Operating Reorganization Incentive Aid
Operating Standards Aid
Small City Aid
Sound Basic Education Aid
Summer School Aid
Supplemental Extraordinary Needs Aid
Tax Effort Aid
Tax Equalization Aid
Tax Limitation Aid
Teacher Support Aid
Transition Adjustment/Adj. Factor

Transition Adjustment:  The base includes the 2006-07 aids listed above which appear in the computerized aid estimates.  All districts are guaranteed a 2 percent increase over their 2006-07 consolidated base aids.  A district's Foundation Aid is capped at a need-adjusted 10.50 percent over 2006-07 aids.  The cap is: 0.1050 x (Need/Resource Index, but not less than 1.0) with a minimum of 0.1050 and a maximum of 0.1125.  The Need/Resource Index is the district’s Extraordinary Needs Ratio (i.e., district Extraordinary Needs percent divided by the State average of 51.8 percent) divided by its Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR).

Support for Extra Time and Help 

Limited English Proficiency:  Aid is based on the 2006-07 LEP pupils multiplied by Foundation Operating Aid per pupil multiplied by 0.152.

Full Day Kindergarten Conversion:  For eligible districts, aid is based on Foundation Operating Aid per pupil multiplied by the increase in full day kindergarten enrollment from the base year to the current year.

Universal Pre-Kindergarten:  The grant per pupil for unserved four-year olds is based on 0.50 multiplied by the 2007-08 Foundation Operating Aid per pupil.  The unserved count is phased-in at the product of the unserved four-year olds multiplied by a variable phase-in percent.  The variable phase-in percent ranges from 35 percent for districts with a Free and Reduced-Price Lunch percent (FRPL) of 35 percent or less, to 85 percent for a district with a FRPL percent of 80 percent or more.  The phase-in percent (minimum of 35 percent) is 35 percent + (111.1 percent x [FRPL percent - 35 percent]). If the resulting count is at least 1.0, the district is eligible to receive aid.  No district receives less than the sum of its 2006-07 Universal Pre-kindergarten and Supplemental Universal Pre-kindergarten grants and the 2006-07 allocations for Targeted Pre-Kindergarten (including summer).

Support for Students with Disabilities

Excess Cost - Public:  Basic Public Excess Cost Aid equals the foundation operating aid per pupil multiplied by weighted students with disabilities.  A single 1.41 weighting is provided for pupils who require special services or programs, consistent with an Individualized Education Program (IEP), for: 60 percent or more of the school day; at least 20 percent of the school week but less than 60 percent of the school day; and, direct or indirect consultant services at least 2 hours per week.  Pupils are aided by district of attendance.  Declassification Aid is included based on 50 percent of the basic Public Excess Cost Aid per pupil. All districts are guaranteed a 2 percent increase over their 2006-07 aid per pupil, excluding high cost aid.  A district's basic and declassification aids are capped at a need-adjusted 10.50 percent over 2006-07 aid per pupil, excluding high cost aid.  Aidable high cost expense per pupil must exceed 2.41 times the greater of district 2005-06 Approved Operating Expense/TAPU for Expense or the foundation expense per pupil.  Tier 1 high cost aid per pupil is the product of: (a) tier 1 ratio (i.e., district foundation aid per pupil divided by district foundation expense per pupil) and (b) tier 1 expense (i.e., the lesser of district aidable high cost expense per pupil or the State average aidable high cost expense per pupil).  Tier 2 high cost aid per pupil is the product of: (a) aidable high cost expense per pupil in excess of tier 1 expense per pupil and (b) tier 2 ratio, with a minimum of .25 and maximum of .90 (i.e., [1 + (aidable high cost expense per pupil/State average aidable high cost expense per pupil)] x tier 1 ratio).  High Cost Aid is the sum of tier 1 and tier 2 high cost aids per pupil.  No additional aid is provided for students in integrated settings (i.e., 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 non-disabled students).

The calculation of the additional 1.41 weighting for students with disabilities used in the Excess Cost Aid formula is based on the set of 465 districts meeting the Regents criteria for successful school districts identified in the Regents state aid proposal for 2007-08. That proposal established a foundation amount based on the average cost per pupil for general education among those 465 districts. For the 2007-08 proposal, the ratio of special education expenditure per pupil to general education expenditure per pupil for these 465 districts was calculated, yielding an additional 1.41 weighting per student receiving special education services.  That is, a pupil with a disability will be counted as 1.0 for Foundation Aid and 1.41 for Excess Cost Aid, resulting in a total pupil count for aid purposes equal to 2.41.

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).

BOCES/Career and Technical Education

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 2006-07 administrative and service expenses and the higher of the millage ratio or the AV/2005-06 TWPU Aid Ratio:  (1 - (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)) with a .36 minimum and .90 maximum.  The millage ratio factor remains 8 mills.  Rent and Capital Aids are based on 2007-08 expenses multiplied by the AV/2005-06 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 higher of the millage ratio or the AV/2005-06 TWPU Aid Ratio (1 - (.51 * Pupil Wealth Ratio)) with a .36 minimum multiplied by approved expenses not to exceed the maximum of $67.30 multiplied by the Fall 2006 public school enrollment with half-day kindergarten weighted at 1.0. 

Special Services Career Education:  Career Education Aid equals the higher of the millage ratio or the Aid Ratio (1 - (.51 * PWR)) with a .36 minimum multiplied by $5,258, multiplied by the 2006-07 Career Education pupils including the pupils in business and marketing sequences weighted at 0.16. 

Instructional Materials Aids 

Instructional Materials:  Aid is based on 2006-07 approved textbook and computer software expenses up to the product of $72.28 multiplied by the 2006-07 public and nonpublic enrollment.

Library Materials:  Aid is based on 2006-07 approved library materials expenses up to the product of $10.00 multiplied by the 2006-07 public and nonpublic enrollment. 

Expensed-Based Aids 

Building:  Aid is equal to the product of the estimated approved building expenses multiplied by the highest of the 1981-82 through the 2006-07 AV/RWADA Aid Ratios or the Current AV/RWADA 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/RWADA 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 a statewide average interest rate.  The low income aid ratio option is discontinued, however the high need supplemental building aid ratio option is continued.  Aid is not estimated for those prospective and deferred projects that had not fully met all eligibility requirements as of the fall 2006 database.

Simplified Building Aid Calculations:  The Regents propose to simplify the calculation of the maximum cost allowance that is used to determine Building Aid.  The changes described below will allow school administrators to accurately predict Building Aid prior to building design. The new formula would be: 

     Maximum Cost Allowance = Projected Enrollment X Allowed Square Feet per Student X Allowed Cost per
Square Foot x Regional Cost Factor 

  1. The projected enrollment would continue to be the enrollment projected five years out for grades PreK-6, seven years for grades 7-9 and ten years for high school.

  2. The “allowed per square feet per pupil” is based on the median values of New York State school buildings constructed in the last five years.  The values are:

  3. The “allowed cost per square foot” is set at a level to ensure reasonable construction costs for instructional facilities will be fully covered – the average maximum cost allowance for new buildings will not change under the new simplified formula. The values are:

The allowed cost per square foot would be adjusted monthly by the change in the construction cost index. The construction cost index can be found at: http://www.nysed.gov/fmis/facplan/projects/costind.htm.  

  1. The current regional cost factor methodology would remain unchanged. The construction cost regional cost factors can be found at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/facplan/articles/rci03-04.html.  

Recognition of Extraordinary Construction Costs:  The formula would include adjustments to recognize the increased costs of building in extremely dense urban areas.  Extraordinary costs related to multi-story construction, site security, increased costs due to constricted traffic flows and limited staging areas, and the site acquisition and environmental remediation of sites in high-density urban areas will be eligible for aid even when such costs are in excess of the maximum cost allowance.

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

Transportation:  Non-capital aid is based upon estimated approved transportation operating expense plus capital expenses multiplied by the selected Transportation Aid Ratio with a .9 maximum and a .065 minimum.  Aid for capital expenses (regular and summer) is computed as above but based on the assumed amortization of purchase, lease and equipment costs over five years, at a statewide average interest rate.  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 21 minus the district’s 2005-06 enrollment per square mile, divided by 317.88.  The State Sharing Ratio is the 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.

Summer School Transportation:  Transportation Aid for summer school programs is based on estimated approved transportation operating expense 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.  This proposal combines summer school and regular transportation aid.  Aid is shown separately in a subsequent table for the purpose of comparison to the base year.

Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education  

One of the traditional principles in school finance which has guided Regents Proposal development in past years has been a wealth and need equalization principle.  This principle was designed to drive greater amounts of aid per pupil to school districts with limited fiscal capacity and high concentrations of pupils in need.  The focus of school finance, particularly in New York State, has shifted from equity to the provision of an adequate education[3].  By the term adequate education is meant the greater equalization of academic outcomes (not resource inputs) so that all children are provided the opportunity to receive an education, which will subsequently allow them to lead meaningful and productive adult lives.  

Purpose 

The purpose of this report is to describe the methodology that was used to estimate the likely additional expenditures needed by districts with lower academic performance to achieve educational outcomes that demonstrate that an adequate education is being provided.    

Methodology  

The Empirical Approach:  Empirical estimates of the cost of an adequate education typically begin by identifying districts that are already achieving a desired state of academic performance.  The most straightforward application of the empirical method starts with an examination of  the spending patterns among all such districts to determine the average expenditure per pupil of the successfully performing districts. Since districts that perform at high levels often enjoy a very substantial wealth base, and therefore can choose to spend at very high per pupil levels, concerns about spending levels well beyond what is strictly necessary are characteristic of this method.

A traditional response to this concern is  to constrain  the selection of districts to be analyzed.  For example, the districts for which the average expenditure per pupil of successful school districts that would be established could be restricted to the lowest spending 50 percent of such adequately performing districts.

Three Critical Methodological Questions  

As the methodology was developed,  researchers answered three questions involving very specific operational definitions of major concepts. The questions were: 

  1. How should academic performance be measured?  

  2. How should pupil need be addressed? and, 

  3. Should there be a regional cost adjustment?

Measurement of Academic Performance 

A critical methodological issue addressed by the study concerned the measurement of academic performance. New York State is presently utilizing a series of tests designed to measure academic performance at various grade levels.  Examples of such examinations include: 

Use of Fourth Grade Tests.  Fourth grade test results can be grouped into four categories or performance levels.  These performance categories are:

High School Regents Examinations. Several important issues had to be addressed in using the results of high school examinations as components in the operational definition of an adequate education.  First, results on Regents exams are given as a numerical score only.  Scores are not automatically translated into levels of performance.  However, it is clear that a score of 65 on a Regents exam meets the standard. Therefore, tests scores of 65 and above were treated as the equivalent of Level 3 or above. 

Data on Regents High School examinations were collected for five tests. The tests were:

A potential problem with using single-year test results, of course, is that academic outcomes in any one year may be atypical and more reflective of a one-time phenomena rather than representative of academic outcomes over a multi-year period. This traditional critique  was addressed for this study by using a three-year average of test results.  Test results used in the study were from the 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years.

Upon reaching this decision, the study still had to address three questions.  The questions were:

  1. What level of achievement should be reached?  

  2. What percent of students should attain the specified outcome? And, 

  3. What tests should be used?

If a district is providing the opportunity for an adequate education, it would seem that the vast majority of its students should be capable of achieving the Regents standards.  This means, on whatever tests one uses for defining academic outcomes, the vast preponderance of students should be scoring at the equivalent of level 3 or level 4. So for this study, it was determined that if a district had on average 80 percent of its students scoring at level 3 or higher on the specified tests, the district would be providing an adequate education.

Finally, the study had to determine which specific  examinations would be used in developing the cost estimate.  It was decided:

Missing Data.  An important issue from a methodological perspective was how to treat a district if it were missing data. Missing data could occur because of several factors.  These factors include:

  1. Grade configuration of a district.  A K-6 district would not have eighth grade or high school results.  Conversely, a central high school district would not have any fourth grade results.  In a sense, the district wasn’t missing data as much as the data were non-existent for the district. Grade configuration was a major factor in missing data.  For example, of the five districts without any data for either of the fourth grade tests, four were central high schools. 

  2. Data were truly missing.  No test data exists for one district. Other data may be missing due to administrative error or a particular test was not given in a district for one or more years. 

Based on these circumstances, the following decisions were made:

Operational Definition of an Adequate Education

Based on all of the considerations described above, an adequate education was operationally defined as a district:

With a simple, unweighted average of 80 percent of its test takers scoring at Level 3 or above on seven examinations (Fourth Grade English Language Arts, Fourth Grade Mathematics, high school Mathematics A, Global History, U.S. History, English and Earth Science) in 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Note that, given this operational definition, a district could have less than 80 percent of its test takers with a score at Level 3 on one or more of the tests and still be providing an adequate education. 

465 school districts met this standard, including: 7 High Need Urban/Suburban districts, 67 High Need Rural districts, 259 Average Need districts and 132 Low Need districts.

Student Need 

If student need is believed to be an important issue in understanding academic performance two methodological questions concerning the quantification of need must be addressed.  The questions are:

What Pupil Count Should be Used to Measure Need?  An assortment of measures could be used to estimate student need.  Each of the possible counts possesses strengths and weaknesses.  A common measure used to identify student need among the 50 states is the percent of students eligible for a free and reduced price lunch.  Indeed, in New York State, the K-6 percent of students eligible for a free or reduced price lunch is one of the pupil counts used to allocate a supplement to Flex Aid to help districts meet the needs of at risk students, known as Sound Basic Education Aid.  For these reasons, the study concluded student need could best be measured by the percent of K-6 pupils eligible for a free and reduced price lunch.

The count of K-6 students eligible for a free or reduced price lunch, however, is subject to wide variation in some districts.  For this reason, average counts reflecting three school years were used.  Such an average would minimize the possibility of grossly misidentifying a district’s poverty rate due to a unique circumstance. K-12 districts that did not provide a school lunch program in 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 were given a K-6 free and reduced percent of zero.  Central high school districts were given the average count of their components.  

What Should Be the Additional Weighting for Need?  To incorporate “need” into a student count requires the development of an additional weighting.  In school finance, the term additional weighting is usually associated with the quantification of the extra costs associated with providing a specified service.  These extra costs are then translated into an additional weighting.  The additional weighting selected is extremely critical in determining the cost of an adequate education. 

Although a wide range exists in the research literature in terms of the appropriate additional weighting for student need, most of the literature suggests an additional weighting of at least 1.0.  While other weightings and pupil counts were considered, both separately and in combination, the use of an additional 1.0 weighting for the free and reduced price lunch proportion of the student population was continued.

Cost Adjustment   

For a number of years, the Board of Regents in its State Aid proposal has also endorsed the concept of adjusting State Aid to reflect the variation in regional cost found to exist in New York State.  It has done so due to the dramatically different costs associated with educating students in various geographic regions of the State.  This supplement describes the method for incorporating regional costs into cost estimates for an adequate education in the section titled Update of the Regents Regional Cost Index on page 55.

Expenditures Per Need-Adjusted Pupil 

The final approach was to develop an "expenditure per need-adjusted pupil" model, which compared the expenditure pattern of districts with acceptable academic performance to districts with educational performance below the stated standard.  Expenditures were defined as general education instructional expenditures[4] (including an estimated amount for fringe benefits) as adjusted by the Regents Regional Cost Index calculated in 2006.  The pupil count used was the same count used for general education instruction as defined in statute for the Fiscal Supplement to the School Report Card.3 This count was then adjusted to reflect student need by weighting the K-6 free and reduced price lunch count at an additional 1.0. 

A graph of this prototype is shown in Figure 1.  Under this approach, the first step was to identify districts providing an adequate education.  As noted earlier, such districts were defined as districts in which an average of 80 percent of the students taking the seven previously identified examinations had a score that was at Level 3 or above.  Districts in which on average 80 percent of the students tested did not score at levels 3 or 4 were identified as districts which may need to increase instructional expenditures in order to improve academic performance. 

The next step in the methodology was to calculate the mean need and cost adjusted instructional expenditure per pupil for all districts classified as providing an adequate education. These districts were then ranked from high to low on need and cost-adjusted instructional expenditures per pupil. The mean expenditure per pupil was calculated for the lower half of these districts.

The selection of the lower-spending 50 percent of performing districts is designed to serve as an “adequacy filter.” The filter is meant to distinguish between those districts offering an adequate education and those districts offering an enriched educational program. There is no intention to discourage districts from offering enriched programs. However, it is necessary, for the purpose of determining a foundation amount, to distinguish somehow between what is necessary and what goes beyond.

For each district with less than 80 percent of its students scoring at Level 3 or Level 4, a spending-per-pupil analysis was conducted.  The need and cost-adjusted instructional expenditure per pupil of a district was compared to the mean expenditure per pupil of districts classified as providing an adequate education described above. 

If a district had a need and cost-adjusted instructional expenditure per pupil that was greater than the per pupil expenditure of lower spending, performing districts, it was assumed that the district was spending sufficient funds to achieve the standard.  No estimate of needed additional expenditure increases would be calculated. However, if a district had a need and cost-adjusted instructional expenditure per pupil that was less than the per-pupil expenditure of the lower spending, performing districts, the additional expenditures needed by a district would then be estimated. This difference in per-pupil expenditures was viewed as a “spending gap.” The calculation of the additional adequacy cost estimate required three steps.  The steps for each of the districts with academic outcomes below the desired standard were the following:

  1. First, the “spending-per-pupil gap” (i.e., the difference required to achieve adequacy) was multiplied by the number of estimated need-weighted pupils in the district; and,

  2. The above result was then multiplied by the Regional Cost Index so that the result could be expressed in actual, purchasing-equivalent dollar terms; and,

  3. The actual purchasing-equivalent dollars needed by districts with academic outcomes below the desired level were then summed in order to calculate the statewide additional cost total.

Thus, the procedures followed by the study to estimate the amount of additional instructional expenditures required to achieve adequacy can be figuratively expressed as shown in Figure 1.