Meeting of the Board of Regents | May 2007
|
|
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT/ THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
|
|
FROM: |
Johanna Duncan-Poitier |
|
SUBJECT: |
Background for Development of the Regents 2008-09 Proposal on State Aid to School Districts |
|
DATE: |
May 1, 2007 |
|
STRATEGIC GOAL: |
2 and 5 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY
Issues for Discussion
Are the needs of school districts adequately represented in Attachment A as background for the development of the Regents 2008-09 state aid proposal?
Does the primer provided as Attachment B adequately describe State Aid to school districts for school year 2007-08 as background for the development of the Regents 2008-09 state aid proposal?
Reason(s) for Consideration
Review of policy.
Proposed Handling
These questions will come before the Regents Subcommittee on State Aid in May.
Procedural History
The development of the Regents 2008-09 State Aid proposal began in February 2007 when the Subcommittee discussed the Executive budget proposal in relation to the Regents 2007-08 proposal. The Subcommittee will continue to develop its proposal for 2008-09 in June and September and the Full Board will discuss it in July and approve it in October 2007.
Background Information
The report on the condition of school districts presents the latest available data on a variety of factors that affect school district need for State Aid (see Attachment A). It examines changes that have occurred in the condition of school districts over eight years from school years 1997-98 to 2004-05. The report presents data on overall school district spending, spending for general and special education, school district fiscal capacity, income and property wealth, the share of education revenues, and student poverty. Attachment B provides a primer on State Aid as it exists for 2007-08. The primer is titled State Aid to School Districts in New York State: An Overview Based on the Laws of 2007. These reports are provided as background to begin the discussion of State Aid needs for development of the Regents 2008-09 State Aid proposal.
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Regents Subcommittee discuss the material presented in the attached reports to inform the development of the Regents 2008-09 State Aid proposal.
Timetable for Implementation
The Subcommittee will continue to develop its 2008-09 State Aid proposal in June and September. The proposal will be discussed with the Full Board in July and be submitted for Regents approval in October.
Attachment
ATTACHMENT A
Trends in the Condition of
New York State School Districts
1997-98--2004-05
_
Selected Findings and Conclusions
- Statewide income per pupil has increased 47 percent and property value rose 22 percent. These increases were primarily a result of increases in fiscal capacity for New York City and low need school districts.
- Although statewide property value increased approximately $55,000 per pupil, property wealth declined in the Big 4 city school districts more than $9,000 per pupil.
- New York City now spends noticeably more than the statewide average on general education but less on special education. Total expenditures for New York City are comparable to the statewide average.
- General education enrollments dropped nine percent for high need rural school districts and high need urban/suburban districts.
- Enrollment in special education increased statewide approximately three percent. New York City and the Big 4 saw an increase in special education enrollment despite a decrease in general education enrollment.
- An analysis of student achievement shows that city districts are not improving at the same rate as other districts.
- A widening wealth gap and sluggish student achievement growth in the cities support the need to strengthen resources and accountability, especially for city school districts.
�
State Aid Work Group
New York State Education Department
Albany, New York
May 2007
This report presents a snapshot of the condition of school districts in New York State. It examines changes over an eight-year period from 1997-98 to 2004-05. It examines measures of school district spending, ability to raise revenues locally or fiscal capacity, income and property wealth, the share of education revenues held by different need groupings of school districts, student poverty, and general and special education spending. The data source is the 2004-05 school district fiscal profiles available on line at http://oms32.nysed.gov/faru/Profiles/profiles_cover.htm .
Table 1 presents data on total expenditures per pupil in 1997-98 and 2004-05 and the change in expenditures that occurred over that period. It presents data for school districts grouped into need/resource capacity categories.
|
Table 1 |
|||
|
NEED/RESOURCE CAPACITY CATEGORIES |
TOTAL EXPENDITURES/PUPIL |
||
|
|
97-98 |
04-05 |
difference |
|
NYC |
$8,933 |
$15,025 |
$6,092 |
|
Big 4 |
$10,103 |
$15,267 |
$5,164 |
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
$10,428 |
$15,212 |
$4,784 |
|
Hi Need Rural |
$9,002 |
$13,907 |
$4,905 |
|
Average Need |
$9,795 |
$14,260 |
$4,465 |
|
Low Need |
$12,443 |
$17,045 |
$4,602 |
|
Total Public |
$9,809 |
$15,035 |
$5,226 |
Table 1 shows that:
- Spending per pupil has increased considerably over the last eight years.
- Without adjustments, there is no “spending gap” between New York City and the statewide average in 2004-05.
- The spending gap between New York City and low need districts narrowed over this eight-year period by $1,400 per pupil. The remaining gap between New York City and low need school districts is about $2,000 per pupil.
- It is interesting to note that the average need districts are now below average spenders and the gap for high need rural districts has increased.
Table 2 presents data on Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR) over this period. Combined Wealth Ratio is a measure of school district fiscal capacity based equally on the income of school district residents and the value of property in the school district.
|
Table 2 |
|||||
|
NEED/RESOURCE CAPACITY CATEGORIES |
CWR |
||||
|
|
97-98 |
04-05 |
difference |
||
|
NYC |
0.950 |
1.005 |
0.055 |
||
|
Big 4 |
0.641 |
0.510 |
-0.131 |
||
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
0.665 |
0.632 |
-0.033 |
||
|
Hi Need Rural |
0.514 |
0.480 |
-0.034 |
||
|
Average |
0.934 |
0.871 |
-0.063 |
||
|
Low |
1.864 |
1.887 |
0.023 |
||
|
Total Public |
1.000 |
1.000 |
0.000 |
||
Table 2 shows that:
- Change in the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR) varied dramatically for different groups of school districts.
- Although rises in property values have received the most publicity, statewide income-per-pupil values have risen at a greater rate (roughly 22 percent for property and 47 percent for income).
- Only New York City and low need districts experienced an increase in Combined Wealth Ratio.
- The fiscal capacity of high need rural districts continues to erode, such that they now have less than half the average Combined Wealth Ratio in New York State.
Tables 3 and 4 present information on Actual (property) Value and Income per pupil (Total Wealth Pupil Units) for the Big 4 city school districts and the State as a whole. Actual Value per pupil increased substantially in the State as a whole (by $55,600 per pupil or 22 percent) but declined (by $9,568 per pupil or 6 percent) in the Big 4 city school districts. Income per pupil increased 47 percent for the State as a whole and 21 percent for the Big 4 city school districts over this period. Since Combined Wealth Ratio values are relative to a statewide average, a district with slowly rising property and/or income values may lose ground in relation to others. The Big 4 (as a group) endured a substantial decrease in Combined Wealth Ratio and in property wealth.
|
Table 3 |
|
Table 4 |
|||||
|
Big 4 |
AV/TWPU |
INC/TWPU |
CWR |
|
STATE |
AV/TWPU |
INC/TWPU |
|
2004-05 |
$146,811 |
$66,278 |
0.510 |
|
2004-05 |
$306,700 |
$122,100 |
|
1997-98 |
$156,379 |
$54,937 |
0.641 |
|
1997-98 |
$251,100 |
$83,000 |
Table 5 presents the share of revenue from State sources provided to each category of school districts over the period from 1997-98 to 2004-05. 1997-98 was the year before the State introduced the STAR program. Since that time, STAR has become a substantial source of revenue to school districts, totaling more than $3 billion in 2004-05.
|
Table 5 |
|||||
|
NEED/RESOURCE CAPACITY CATEGORIES |
NYS SHARE OF REVENUE |
||||
|
|
97-98 |
04-05 |
difference |
||
|
NYC |
43.0% |
42.3% |
-0.7% |
||
|
Big 4 |
57.0% |
67.2% |
10.2% |
||
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
51.5% |
54.1% |
2.6% |
||
|
Hi Need Rural |
62.3% |
66.2% |
3.9% |
||
|
Average |
39.5% |
45.3% |
5.7% |
||
|
Low |
15.8% |
22.6% |
6.8% |
||
|
Total Public |
40.0% |
43.5% |
3.5% |
||
Table 5 shows that, overall, the State share of total district revenues, including all aids, grants and STAR payments, has increased by 3.5 percentage points. However, if STAR tax relief payments are excluded, State aid constitutes 36.4 percent of revenue (rather than 43.5 percent) and the State share has decreased more than 3 percent since 1997-98.
Table 5 also shows that:
- The Big 4 experienced the greatest increase in the State share at ten percentage points.
- Low need districts experienced the second greatest increase at nearly seven percentage points.
- For New York City, which showed the highest increase in expenditures per pupil, the State share dropped by close to a full percentage point.
Table 6 presents the percent of pupils eligible for free- and-reduced-price lunch programs for all public school districts and by need/resource capacity groupings of school districts.
|
Table 6 |
||||
|
Percent of Pupils Eligible for Free- and Reduced- Price Lunch |
||||
|
NEED/RESOURCE CAPACITY CATEGORIES |
1997-98 |
2004-05 |
||
|
NYC |
0.7979 |
0.8095 |
||
|
Big 4 |
0.8172 |
0.7908 |
||
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
0.6119 |
0.6508 |
||
|
Hi Need Rural |
0.4807 |
0.4938 |
||
|
Average |
0.2497 |
0.2453 |
||
|
Low |
0.0614 |
0.0552 |
||
|
Total Public |
0.5135 |
0.4970 |
||
Table 6 shows:
- The K-6 free- and reduced-price lunch ratio, a poverty measure, has fallen slightly statewide.
- None of the various need/resource capacity (NCR) categories demonstrated a drastic change, although the high need urban/suburban districts demonstrated a noticeable increase in poverty.
Table 7 presents data on the number of children in general education instruction and expenditures over the period.
|
Table 7 |
||||||
|
GENERAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENDITURE/PUPIL |
||||||
|
NRC CATEGORIES |
1997-98 |
2004-05 |
CHANGE |
|||
|
|
pupils |
$ |
pupils |
$ |
pupils |
$ |
|
NYC |
1,049,050 |
$4,830 |
1,015,840 |
$9,271 |
-3.17% |
91.95% |
|
Big 4 |
127,321 |
$5,729 |
122,279 |
$8,179 |
-3.96% |
42.76% |
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
250,677 |
$5,865 |
227,418 |
$8,744 |
-9.28% |
49.09% |
|
Hi Need Rural |
192,816 |
$5,228 |
174,937 |
$7,691 |
-9.27% |
47.11% |
|
Average |
882,786 |
$5,771 |
857,677 |
$8,006 |
-2.84% |
38.73% |
|
Low |
356,855 |
$7,608 |
401,261 |
$9,936 |
12.44% |
30.60% |
|
Total Public |
2,792,430 |
$5,625 |
2,799,412 |
$8,787 |
0.25% |
56.21% |
Table 7 shows that:
- Statewide, the pupil count is essentially unchanged for this period, although the recent trend is downward.
- Only low need districts increased their general education population.
- Both the high need rural districts and the high need urban/suburban districts had a drop of nine percent, indicating a widespread decrease in general education enrollment for upstate districts.
- Spending is up more than 56 percent statewide, representing an annualized growth of seven percent over eight years.
- After experiencing the highest growth in spending among these groups, New York City now spends noticeably more than the statewide average.
- High need rural districts spend the least per pupil, despite a drop in student count which, all things being equal, would tend to increase spending per pupil.
Table 8 presents the number of children in special education2 and trends in special education expenditures.
|
Table 8 |
||||||
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENDITURE/PUPIL (Age 5-21) |
||||||
|
NRC CATEGORIES |
1997-98 |
2004-05 |
CHANGE |
|||
|
|
pupils |
$ |
pupils |
$ |
pupils |
$ |
|
NYC |
141,850 |
$13,894 |
150,687 |
$17,661 |
6.23% |
27.11% |
|
Big 4 |
22,554 |
$11,585 |
24,019 |
$17,977 |
6.50% |
55.17% |
|
Hi Need Urban/Suburban |
38,675 |
$11,090 |
36,459 |
$20,476 |
-5.73% |
84.63% |
|
Hi Need Rural |
27,614 |
$9,350 |
26,888 |
$16,306 |
-2.63% |
74.40% |
|
Average |
118,070 |
$11,662 |
115,945 |
$19,944 |
-1.80% |
71.02% |
|
Low |
44,341 |
$14,892 |
50,384 |
$25,026 |
13.63% |
68.05% |
|
Total Public |
393,104 |
$12,451 |
404,382 |
$19,320 |
2.87% |
55.17% |
Table 8 shows:
- Statewide, the special education population increased modestly (about three percent). (NOTE: There is a considerable overlap between general education and special education populations.)
- Both New York City and the Big 4 saw an increase in the special education population, despite a decrease in the general education population.
- However, in special education New York City’s growth in expenditure per pupil was slower than others and is now below the statewide average.
- For all other need/resource capacity categories of school districts, the increase in special education expenditure per pupil exceeded the increase for general education.
- The increase in special education population in the low need districts was much more than the statewide average, but similar to the increase in the general education population for this group.
Tables 9 and 10 show the number of school districts that met the Regents student achievement criterion. NYSED established this criterion in order to examine the expenditures of successful school districts to determine the foundation amount needed for success. The criterion was that, on average, 80 percent of a school district’s students passed seven State examinations, two at the elementary level and five at the commencement level for three years in a row. Table 9 shows the updated data in 2006. Table 10 shows the data three years before. The number of districts meeting the standards increased dramatically over the three years, from 316 to 465 districts. The largest gains were among the high need rural school districts and the average need school districts. The city districts (high need urban/suburban, Big 4 and New York City) had the greatest difficulty in meeting the standard.
|
Table 9 Number of Districts That Met the Regents Student Achievement Criterion--2006 |
||
|
|
DISTRICTS |
|
|
|
MET STANDARD |
DID NOT MEET |
|
NYC |
0 |
1 |
|
BIG 4 |
0 |
4 |
|
HI NEED URBAN/SUBURBAN |
7 |
38 |
|
HI NEED RURAL |
67 |
89 |
|
AVERAGE NEED |
259 |
77 |
|
LOW NEED |
132 |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
465 |
211 |
|
Table 10 Number of Districts That Met the Regents Student Achievement Criterion--2003 |
||
|
|
DISTRICTS |
|
|
|
MET STANDARD |
DID NOT MEET STANDARD |
|
NYC |
0 |
1 |
|
BIG 4 |
0 |
4 |
|
HI NEED URBAN/SUBURBAN |
1 |
44 |
|
HI NEED RURAL |
14 |
143 |
|
AVERAGE NEED |
170 |
168 |
|
LOW NEED |
131 |
3 |
|
TOTAL |
316 |
363 |
NYSED groups school districts according to a measure of student poverty and school district fiscal capacity known as the Need/Resource Capacity Index. All school districts are ranked according to this need measure. NYSED considers the Big 5 city school districts and the top 30 percent of school districts ranked on this measure to be high need school districts. NYSED further subdivides high need districts into New York City, the Big 4 city school districts of Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo and Yonkers, high need urban/suburban school districts and high need rural school districts. The bottom 20 percent of school districts are low need school districts and the middle 50 percent are average need school districts. For further details see The Chapter 655 Report: A Report to the Governor and the Legislature onthe
Educational Status of the State's Schools,Need/Resource Capacity Definitions, page 100.
General education and special education pupil counts as developed for the Chapter 655 report.
ATTACHMENT C
Schedule of Reports to the
Regents Subcommittee on State Aid
For the Development of the
2008-09 Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts
|
Regents Meeting |
Topic |
|
February 2007 |
Executive budget proposal |
|
May 2007 |
School district needs Primer on State Aid to school districts (based on the Laws of 2007) |
|
June 2007 |
Goals Early Childhood Education Time on Task |
|
July 2007 |
Accountability and State Aid (full board) |
|
September 2007 |
First full draft |
|
October 2007 |
Detailed proposal |
|
December 2007 |
Update detailed proposal with current data from school districts |