|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
|
FROM: |
James A. Kadamus |
|
COMMITTEE: |
Subcommittee on State Aid |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
A Comparison of Proposals on State Aid to School Districts for 2004-05 |
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
February 17, 2004 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Information |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
Policy Implementation |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goal 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
In the interest of updating the Board concerning other studies and proposals for school aid for the coming year, the following analysis provides a comparison of the Regents proposal with that of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity on State Aid to school districts for school year 2004-05.
Synopsis
The
Regents proposal and the CFE proposal are similar in that they both employ a
cost study and heavily weight student poverty for the distribution of aid. They also come up with dollar amounts
that are similar. However they are
different in a few important respects.
The most important difference is that the Regents proposal is focused on
State Aid to school districts and the CFE proposal is focused on total cost,
including State, federal and local sources of funding. The proposals are also different in what
they cover: The Regents proposal focuses on funding general education
instruction and excludes costs of pre-k, education of English language learners
and students with disabilities, while the CFE study includes all of these. Both proposals exclude costs for school
facilities and transportation in their cost studies. The Regents proposal makes a
recommendation for grants for overcrowded schools and CFE has convened a School
Facilities Task Force to study and make recommendations in this area in the
future. Finally, the Regents
proposal is complete and the CFE proposal is preliminary and incomplete in many
key respects, such as the expected local contribution and other distributional
details.
|
Factor |
Regents
Proposal |
CFE
Proposal | ||
|
OVERALL
CONSIDERATIONS | ||||
|
What is it? |
Full proposal with foundation level based on a cost study |
Mostly preliminary cost study with a few additional details | ||
|
Status |
Approved December 11, 2003; technical supplement available January 9, 2004 |
Preliminary Report on Cost Study issued 2-4-04; Final report to be released in March. Not clear if final report will include full proposal details. | ||
|
Active
Participants |
NYSED’s State Aid Work Group NYSED leadership Board of Regents NYS educational community |
Campaign for Fiscal Equity NYSSBA American Institutes for Research Management Analysis and Planning, Inc. Educators participating in a Professional Judgment Process NYS educational community | ||
|
Formula Approach |
Foundation Formula |
Unstated | ||
|
Increase
Proposed |
State Aid only $880 million (2004-05) $6 billion (2004-05 if Foundation Aid fully implemented) |
Total statewide spending (federal,
State and local) $2 billion (State down payment for 2004-05) $7 billion (2004-05 full implementation) | ||
|
Phase in Period |
7 years |
3-4 years | ||
|
What’s covered? |
Year 1: all computerized aids Full Implementation: Foundation Aid only (for general education instruction; increases in other aid categories, including costs for pupils with disabilities, school transporta-tion and school facilities are not included) |
Total instructional costs (special and general education), excluding costs for school transportation and school facilities. | ||
|
Targeting to New York City
|
$12,252 per pupil (total foundation cost at full implementation, excluding school transportation and facilities, special education and other costs associated with categorical aid programs such as LEP and UPK) |
$13,373 per pupil (total cost excluding school transportation and facilities, but including special education and early childhood education) | ||
|
|
Year 1: 43% of State Aid increase ($281 million) |
Year 1: unstated part of $2 billion (State only) | ||
|
|
Full Implementation: 64% of State Aid increase ($3.83 billion) |
Full implementation: $3.62 billion (State, federal and local 2001-02 dollars) | ||
|
Targeting to high need school
districts |
Year 1: 84% of increase in computerized aids ($880 million) |
Year 1: unspecified part of $2 billion (State only)
| ||
|
|
Full Implementation: 88% of increase for Foundation Aid ($5.98 billion) |
Full implementation: unspecified part of $7 billion (State, federal and local) | ||
|
Targeting basis |
Student poverty Geographic sparsity Regional cost differences |
Student poverty English language learners Special education students Geographic cost differences | ||
|
Expected local
contribution |
Based on Actual (property) Value and income per pupil |
Unstated (State should pay “lion’s share”) | ||
|
Basis for cost
increases |
2% per year of phase-in period |
5% (2001-02 – 2003-04) and 6% (2004-05) | ||
|
Other
recommenda-tions |
Grants for overcrowded schools Incentives for integration of students with disabilities Year of public discussion on, including special education funding in the foundation formula Transition adjustment (limits increases and losses) |
Cost includes funding for half-day programs for 3-year olds and full-day programs for 4-year olds and kindergarten. Small class sizes Extended day and year programs Full inclusion of 90-95% of students with disabilities Recommendations on staffing, including specialists in art and music
| ||
|
COST
STUDY | ||||
|
Type of Study |
Successful Schools (expenditure per pupil in school districts meeting the standards) |
Model Schools (as defined by an expert panel of approximately 60 educators around the State in a Professional Judgment Process and costed out by the research team) | ||
|
Cost of What? |
General Education instruction (K-12) |
General and special education instruction (age 3 – grade 12) | ||
|
Performance
standard |
An average of 80% passing on 7 State examinations (grade 4 and commencement level) |
Regents diploma standards | ||
|
Efficiency |
Assesses costs in the 50% most efficient districts |
Unstated | ||