|
|
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 and Full
Board |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
Regents 2005-06 Proposal on State Aid to School
Districts |
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
October 22, 2004 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Discussion |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
Policy Development |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 2 and 5 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
Attachment A
is a draft of your 2005-06 conceptual proposal for State Aid to school
districts. It presents the concepts
and rationale underlying your multi-year proposal for a new funding system based
on a Foundation Aid for general education instruction, first introduced last
year. The Board's complete
proposal, with the recommended dollar amount, will be submitted for action at
your December meeting.
Attachment B
lists the schedule of topics discussed and Regents meetings used in the
development of your State Aid proposal.
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
REGENTS 2005-06 PROPOSAL ON
STATE AID TO SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
Introduction
This proposal expands upon a Regents proposal on State Aid to
school districts, advanced last year.
It provides a detailed description and rationale for a new funding system
based on a Foundation Aid program.
The new system links education funding to the cost of successful
education, targets State Aid to school districts with the greatest educational
need, and recognizes variation in purchasing power around the State. The proposal is also responsive to the
court mandate of Campaign For Fiscal Equity, et al. v. State of New York, et
al. in that it:
(1)
ascertains the cost of providing a sound basic
education;
(2)
reforms the current system of school funding to ensure students
have the opportunity for a sound basic education; and
(3)
proposes a system of accountability to measure whether proposed
reforms actually provide an opportunity for a sound basic
education.
This proposal is a simple and comprehensive solution to
closing the student achievement gap and providing all students the education to
which they are entitled. It also
makes explicit the ways in which the Regents proposal is responsive to the CFE
court order noted above.
I. The Regents
Proposed Foundation Formula Effectively Drives Funding to Educational
Need.
The Regents propose that the current State aid system be
abandoned, and a new system adopted statewide that focuses on identifying
student need and targeting funds to that need.
There are several possible approaches to school aid
reform. After careful
consideration, the Regents decided on a Foundation Formula approach. The Regents Foundation Formula replaces
29 existing formulae with one that has only four components. By design, it is simple, predictable,
and easily understood by the public.
The Foundation Formula first calculates the average cost of
educating a general education student in New York State (i.e., the “Foundation
Cost”). The Foundation Cost is then
adjusted by two indices, the “Pupil Need Index,” which accounts for the
additional cost of educating disadvantaged students, and the “Regional Cost
Index,” which accounts for cost disparities in different geographic areas. The
State’s share of aid is then calculated by subtracting from the adjusted
Foundation Cost an “Expected Local Contribution” from each district, and
multiplying that result by a pupil count.
The Foundation Formula is represented as:
Foundation Formula Aid = [Foundation Cost x
Pupil Need Index x
Regional
Cost Index] - Expected Local Contribution
There are, of course, alternatives to the Foundation Formula
approach (e.g., matching grants, expense-based aids, close-ended matching
programs)[1],
but the Regents considered and rejected these approaches in favor of the
Foundation Formula. 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.
A.
The Regents Plan
Accurately Measures The Cost Of Student Success.
The first element of the Foundation Formula, the “Foundation
Cost,” is the starting point for determining cost. The Regents Plan uses a “successful
schools” methodology to determine Foundation Cost. This method identifies actual schools
that meet a defined standard and then estimates per pupil spending in those
schools.[2] The “defined standard” set by the
Regents as a proxy for sound basic education has three components. The Regents standard selects school
districts where students were achieving an average of 80 percent success on
seven required examinations (English and Math at the elementary level and five
Regents examinations — Math A, Global History, U.S. History, English and Earth
Science) in 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02.
This standard reflects student achievement at both the elementary and
secondary school levels, avoids atypical results of any one year by averaging
data from three years, and provides evidence that a large number of students are
offered the opportunity to achieve Regents standards. Applying this standard, the Regents will
identify what successful schools are spending per pupil for general education
instruction.
1.
The Regents Plan
Adjusts Cost To Account for Pupil Need.
Because some students require additional time and help to
achieve the State learning standards, the Regents Plan adjusts the Foundation
Cost by a “Pupil Need Index.” The
Pupil Need Index recognizes the additional cost of providing extra time and help
for high-risk students to succeed. Thirty years of research has proven that
there are additional costs associated with educating students in poverty and in
schools that are small because of geographic isolation. Applying the Index increases the
Foundation Cost for districts with more needy pupils.
The Regents Pupil Need Index is based on the number of
students eligible for free and reduced price lunch and students living in
geographically sparse areas of the State. The Pupil Need Index employs a formula
that increases the weighting for poverty as the concentration of poverty
increases. This enhances the cost-effectiveness of the aid system by targeting
dollars to educational need.
The specific index chosen by the Regents is based on SED
research. A September 2003 State
Education Department study of educational need[3]
examined how to establish an additional weight for educational need. It found that states use additional
weightings of from 0.25 to 1.0 based on the availability of funds. It also
reported that additional weightings from 1.0 to 2.0 are recommended by experts
to raise students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to the achievement
levels of their more advantaged peers.
The study concluded that New York should use an additional weighting of
1.0 for each needy pupil in districts with the highest concentrations of student
need.
2.
The Regents Plan
Properly Adjusts Cost To Account For Differences In Purchasing
Power.
Because the purchasing power of a dollar varies in different
parts of the State, the Regents Plan further adjusts the cost figure by a
“Regional Cost Index.” The
Regional Cost Index operates to standardize costs across the geographic areas in
which school districts operate.
The Regents Regional Cost Index is based on wages of
non-school professionals in each of nine labor regions of the State, as defined
by the New York State Department of Labor.
Labor regions are composed of groupings of contiguous counties. The Regents Plan uses regions
rather than school districts because job seekers tend to access an entire region
when seeking employment and do not necessarily limit themselves to a single
school district.
Teachers are purposefully excluded because school districts
exercise unusual market influence over the price they pay for teaching services,
which may distort the free market costs the index is intended to represent. The
varying salaries paid teachers may reflect the preference of an individual
district to pay more than an adjacent, competing one, rather than economic
factors beyond the district’s control.
The Regents Regional Cost Index was developed after a review
of national research on adjusting school aid for variation in costs[4]. The index also reflects the
recommendations of several New York State special legislative commissions
charged with making recommendations to improve New York State’s school funding
system: Fleischmann in 1972; Rubin in 1982; and Salerno in 1988. SED used wage data from the 2001
Occupational Employment Statistics Survey collected by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for 63 non-education professional job titles that required at least a
Bachelor’s degree for employment and thus could be expected to compete with the
teaching profession. Median hourly
wage data were provided for each title statewide, as well as for each of nine
labor regions. SED then weighted
these occupational wages in each region to mirror the workforce mix of the 63
titles statewide. The index chosen
ranges from 1.0 for the North Country labor force region to 1.496 for the
combined New York City-Long Island labor force regions.
B.
The
Regents Plan Derives State Aid By Subtracting From The Adjusted Foundation Cost
An Expected Local Contribution.
School funding is a State and local partnership, and
localities must contribute their fair share of education spending. Thus, once
Foundation Cost is determined, the Regents Plan subtracts an “Expected Local
Contribution” to arrive at the level of aid the State will supply. The Expected Local Contribution is an
amount school districts are expected to spend as their share of the total cost
of general education. The Regents
Plan measures it by multiplying the district property tax base by an expected
tax rate, adjusted by district income per child. The Regents Plan adjusts the tax
rate by district income per child to assess the fiscal capacity of school
districts by their income wealth as well as their property wealth. This method
preserves both measures of district wealth (income and property) and the
structure of the Foundation Formula.
Under the Regents Plan, the Expected Local Contribution is
not a mandated tax rate, but a way of determining an equitable local share in
order to calculate State Aid. The
plan avoids mandating a local contribution because it is difficult to enforce
without penalizing students. The
plan holds districts accountable
through public reports of student performance and school district local
effort. If a district does not
adequately fund its share, but student performance remains high, there need be
no consequence. If student
performance suffers, however, State intervention will be triggered through the
State Accountability System.
C.
The
Regents Plan Properly Accounts For The Number of Students
Aided.
Once the per-pupil State aid is determined for each district,
that amount is multiplied by a count of pupils in the district to determine the
total aid the State will pay to each district. The Regents proposal recommends
counting students enrolled in school districts (i.e., average daily membership)
rather than those actually attending (i.e., average daily attendance) as is done
in current formulae. By relying on
average daily membership, the Regents proposal eliminates any disadvantage
high-need school districts may suffer due to poor attendance.
II.
The Regents
Proposed Foundation Formula Consolidates Many Aids, But Retains Several Separate
Categorical Aids.
The Regents Plan recommends some consolidation of aids for
basic school operation.
Specifically, the Regents propose to consolidate a number of aids into
the Foundation Formula.
Consolidation simplifies the formula, allows for increased equity, and
gives districts greater flexibility in spending. The Regents Plan also retains
certain aids separately.
Special Education
Aid
Whether to consolidate aid for special education into the
Foundation Formula is a complex question.
As a beginning step, the Regents conducted a series of forums around the
State to receive public comment on this.
Educators, advocates, parents and others expressed a variety of
views. For the most part, forum
participants expressed a desire to retain special education funding as a
separate aid. They voiced concerns
about the consistency of data from school district to school district and the
need to adequately fund extra time and help needed by all students prior to
referral. They raised the issue of
the ability of districts to cope with rising costs, including those associated
with certain integrated program models and costs for high cost students with
disabilities, especially those who move into the district during the school
year.
The Regents have asked staff to explore options for
simplifying special education funding, while retaining it as a separate aid
program. Once recommendations
are developed, staff will elicit public comment on identified approaches. For this year, the Regents will retain
special education funding as a separate aid and advance a proposal that provides
current-year aid for new high cost students with disabilities.
Universal Pre-K
Funding
In the 2004-05 proposal, the Regents maintained separate
categorical grants to support Pre-K education. Advocates for early childhood learning
have argued that incorporating Universal Pre-K funding into the Foundation
Formula will allow the State to continue to make progress toward offering the
program universally. Research has
documented long-term achievement benefits for students. While these may be arguments for folding
funding for universal pre-k programs into the Foundation Aid program, there is
not currently the capacity in all school districts to offer pre-K programs and
K-12 programs. When this capacity
exists, the State should consider consolidating programs for pre-k into the
Foundation Program.
Building
Aid
Because capital costs for school districts can vary
significantly around the State from year to year, this aid should be retained
separately. For example, school construction costs may be high for a district
for a number of years for a project and then small or nonexistent
afterward. Aid for school
construction is provided based on approved expenses, a different basis than that
used for Foundation Aid.
Regents recommendations concerning Building Aid and other
State support for school construction will help overcome barriers to
instructional improvement posed by inadequate school facilities. Early grade
class size reduction, pre-kindergarten programs and science laboratories are
examples of instructional programs that are dependent on the availability and
quality of school space. These recommendations will simplify capital planning,
reduce severe over-crowding in schools, help fund extraordinary incidental costs
beyond the control of the school district, reduce school construction costs, and
improve the maintenance and repair of school facilities.
Recommendations to simplify planning and to ensure Building
Aid is equitable:
·
Simplify the maximum cost allowance formula for State
Building Aid. The State sets a reasonable cost ceiling for all capital projects.
The current system is an overly complex inefficient process that, in some cases,
forces a district to compromise the desired educational goal to achieve maximum
reimbursement or to label the room as necessary to generate aid, only to change
the room label once the building is in service. It is proposed 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.
Allowable costs would be updated
monthly by the current New York State Labor Department Cost Index. A simplified
formula would offer greater educational flexibility and ease of understanding
and transparency.
·
Building Aid review of preliminary and final plans and
specifications for all new proposed school facilities in New York City prior to
the awarding of construction contracts. All other school districts in the State
benefit from an aidability review by the State Education Department that
provides the information necessary for a district to maximize State Building Aid
on school construction projects. Aidability reviews would reduce the more than
25 percent gap in aidable new building costs between New York City and the rest
of the State.
Recommendations to relieve overcrowding:
·
Provide a supplemental cost allowance to recognize
extraordinary site acquisition costs beyond the control of the school district,
environmental remediation in dense urban areas, and building demolition
necessary to build new school buildings to relieve severe
overcrowding.
·
Provide a supplemental cost allowance for the increased
costs associated with the construction of multi-story fire-resistive buildings
in compliance with applicable building codes in dense urban areas where erecting
one or two-story buildings is not practical.
Recommendations to improve the cost-effectiveness of school
construction:
·
Eliminate the Wicks Law. A provision of State Law, known
as the Wicks Law, requires municipalities, including school districts, to employ
four separate prime contractors for school construction projects of $50,000 or
more. A general contractor can effectively manage these separate functions. New
York City already has this benefit. No other State mandates separate contracts
for public works. Making the Wicks Law optional could reduce project costs by an
average of 5 to 10 percent.
·
Allow school districts access to the Dormitory Authority
of the State of New York for basic construction services to ensure they receive
the quality construction they are paying for.
·
Eliminate State Building Aid for energy performance
contract capital construction. Energy performance projects are required by law
to demonstrate that the cost of the capital investment is repaid within 18 years
without the benefit of State Aid from the savings generated from the energy
efficiencies installed. These projects do require voter authorization under the
presumption that there is no net cost to the taxpayer. The Department approves
an average of approximately $50 million of energy performance contracts
annually. Last school year, the
number was down to $21 million in energy projects.
Recommendation to protect the investment in school
facilities:
·
Provide resources for minor maintenance and repair of
school facilities. Facilities maintenance and operating budgets are generally
the first target for budget cuts during difficult fiscal times when districts
are striving to maintain educational programs and offerings. Studies show that
one dollar spent on maintenance can save six dollars in future capital
construction costs. This program will pay for itself in reduced State Building
Aid. School districts would be required to maintain their financial effort to
maintain and repair their facilities.
Regional Services and
the Big Five City School Districts
BOCES were established in 1948 to provide educational
programs and services to school districts on a regional basis to reduce costs
and promote excellence, especially in small rural school districts with
declining enrollments. BOCES have
developed considerable expertise in offering programs of professional
development, career and technical education, and information technology. Demographic changes of increasing
poverty and declining tax bases in large city districts have resulted in growing
demand for such services in our large cities. For reasons of efficiency and
effectiveness, the Regents now find that it is in the public interest to share
services for use in city school districts.
This proposal recommends that the existing practice of excluding large
city school districts from accessing BOCES services be discontinued on a trial
basis. It recommends that the large
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. It further recommends
that:
- Services
provided be limited to critical need areas that are weak in cities and strong
in BOCES;
- The
Commissioner’s guideline that no one district receive more than 60 percent of
any shared education service be waived on a case-by-case basis, as
needed;
- An
Advisory Implementation Group including District Superintendents be
established to help guide development of this program;
- Aid
be provided to city school districts for (1) planning and development up to
one year, (2) shared educational services, and (3) an administrative surcharge
to be paid by the city school district to the BOCES on a fee-for-service
basis;
- The
Special Services Aid formula be amended to provide aid on a level comparable
to that provided by BOCES Aid to school districts in the rest of the
State.
For the New York City school district, the enriched Special
Services Aid would be provided to support regional services in critical need
areas within the city school district.
Aid For Limited
English Proficient Students
The Regents Plan retains aid for the education of limited
English proficient students and bilingual education grants as separate
categorical programs. This proposal recognizes that services for limited English
proficient pupils are different in nature from academic intervention
services. As school accountability
systems improve, providing disaggregated achievement results for separate groups
of students including limited English proficient students, consideration can be
given to folding these aids into the Foundation Formula.
III. New
York’s System of Accountability Should Be Enhanced to Ensure That Resources Are
Being Used to Provide A Sound Basic Education.
The courts have held that State defendants must institute a
system of accountability that measures whether the reforms adopted actually
provide students with the opportunity for a sound basic education. In the Regents view, the State does not
need a different accountability structure, a new accountability “office”, or a
new independent oversight panel, to comply with the Court’s order. The current system of accountability
need only be enhanced and funded, as described below, to satisfy the Court
mandate.
New York State’s current system of accountability 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. It is comprehensive, rigorous and it
works. The system has resulted, for
example, in improvement overall in English language arts and mathematics
achievement since 1999 and in a decline of the number of extremely
low-performing schools in the State.
Approximately 70 percent of New York State schools now achieve Adequate
Yearly Progress (“AYP”) under the NCLB.
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.
A.
School Accountability
Under the present system, the Commissioner of Education
evaluates schools on a continuum of criteria to determine if they are in good
standing or will be subject to intervention. When a school performs below the State
standard in English language arts or mathematics, the district is required to
develop and implement a plan to improve student results.
In addition to assessing whether schools are achieving State
learning standards, the Commissioner also determines annually whether every
public school and district is making AYP in English language arts and
mathematics at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. When a school fails to make AYP
for two consecutive years, the school is identified as either a School in Need
of Improvement (“SINI”) if the school is subject to sanctions under Title I of
the NCLB, or as a School Requiring Academic Progress (“SRAP”) if the school does
not receive Title I, Part A funds and therefore is subject solely to the
requirements of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Among other things, these schools must
develop a two-year school improvement plan that is annually updated. In addition, SINI schools are required
to offer parents the option to transfer their children to other public schools
within the district.
Once the Commissioner identifies schools as needing
improvement or academic progress, a series of increasingly rigorous sanctions is
triggered if failure continues.
Schools designated as SINI that fail to make AYP must offer eligible
students supplemental educational services. In addition, school districts are
required to initiate one of several corrective actions for schools designated as
needing improvement or academic progress that fail to make AYP for a second
year. When a school has failed to
make AYP for four consecutive years after being identified as a school needing
improvement or academic progress, the Commissioner requires the district to
restructure or close the school.
The Commissioner also identifies for registration review
schools that fail to make AYP and are farthest from State standards and most in
need of improvement. Once
identified for registration review, the Regents assign 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
it to develop a corrective action plan.
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 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.
B.
District Accountability
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 No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act, 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 will begin,
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 will be designated as rapidly
improving.
To comply with the Court’s order, the State and local
districts must devote more resources to sustained and persistent reform
efforts. More schools in danger of
becoming low-performing must be included in the reform effort, and reform must
be comprehensive, systemic and permanent.
The Regents recommend that the State build upon and strengthen the
current system in several significant ways.
Enhance Technical
Assistance and Support
First, the State should enhance its system of technical
assistance and support for schools.
This would be accomplished through Regional School Support Centers
“RSSC”), Academic Intervention Teams and BOCES.
There are seven RSSCs across the State, located in eastern
New York, Long Island, the Hudson Valley, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and New
York City. These regional centers
provide technical assistance and instructional advice to low-performing
schools. They identify best
practices and disseminate information through technology; work with academic
intervention teams assigned by the Commissioner; help analyze student
performance data; and develop district and school improvement plans. The work of these regional centers
should be expanded with additional funding and staff to reach more
schools.
Academic Intervention Teams help build the capacity of local
schools and districts to take their own corrective actions. Building capacity at the local level is
indispensable to embedding reform into the school culture. These teams are staffed by distinguished
educators to help improve specific areas, such as reading and mathematics. Expanded teams would work with every
school district in the State identified for corrective action and each SURR
school. They would consist of
experts covering all aspects of successful schools: educational management;
instructional leadership; curriculum and assessment; academic intervention and
support services; parent and community involvement; educational assessment; and
improvement of classroom instruction.
These teams would conduct comprehensive reviews of district and/or school
operations, including the design and operation of the instructional program, and
develop recommendations for implementation by the schools and/or
districts.
BOCES and the District Superintendents who lead the BOCES
could also be used more effectively in school improvement efforts. There are 38 BOCES throughout the State
that work with schools in need of improvement. The State should provide additional
funds to offset the local district expense associated with school improvement
services provided by BOCES, and make BOCES services available to the Big Five
districts, which would benefit significantly.
A.
Financial Condition Indicator System
The State must also improve data and information systems to
support school improvement. The
State needs a school district financial indicator system (“FCIS”) that would
ensure proper stewardship of dollars that pay for public education. The FCIS would include an early warning
system for school districts to prevent financial distress; fiscal benchmarks and
best financial practices; a public reporting tool providing information about
the management of public funds to achieve educational goals; and a long-range
financial planning tool for school districts.
Currently no such system exists. The Department’s Office of Audit
Services collects data to assess the short-run financial condition of school
districts, but this does not assess long-term financial condition and cannot be
used as a tool for long-range planning by school districts. Information available on school district
finances does not incorporate professional judgments so the public lacks the
necessary knowledge to interpret fiscal data.
B.
Student Data
Information System
A statewide student data system must be implemented to assess
if reform is taking root. SED has
already begun to build such a system, which will create greater capacity to
track students, measure their progress, and thus raise the achievement of all
students in New York. These efforts
could be accelerated with additional funds. The current system can only analyze
information for entire groups of students, but the tracking of individual
students over time will allow us to follow individual students through the
system and analyze the effectiveness of State strategies and programs. For example, we will be able to measure
the benefit of using smaller class sizes with certain groups of students. Such
programs often involve the allocation of billions of education dollars without
reliable data on their impact on student achievement. An individual record system will also
help us to better meet many federal reporting requirements, including those of
NCLB.
C. State
Aid and Grants Management Systems
The Regents also propose that the State develop a unified
State aid management system to address the shortcomings of the current
system. This improved system would
provide a single point of access to all State aid data, and be capable of
analyzing districts’ fiscal needs.
It would enable SED to more effectively collect information from school
districts across the State, and would streamline the method for distributing to
districts State and federal funds.
The proposed system would provide timely feedback to users in school
districts and SED and would facilitate modeling of State aid formulae for the
Legislature and Executive Branch. The current system is a mix of older systems
that are not efficient, flexible or as exacting as the proposed system.
An improved data system would include two final components:
an update of the web-based system to improve the efficiency of the grant awards
process and provide improved reporting capability, and the elimination of
redundant State reporting requirements, freeing districts to engage in more
comprehensive planning and reporting.
Streamlining plans, applications and reports that school districts submit
to SED will reduce administrative burden and increase the focus of planning and
reporting to support real gains in student achievement.
The Regents Plan calls for enhanced State oversight of school
district fiscal transactions to ensure the integrity of district finances. SED would significantly expand its
current audit capacity to: conduct more random audits of districts that have no
known problems or issues; focus more resources on districts with indications of
poor student performance, fiscal stress, or inadequate management controls; and
conduct more frequent audits of school districts and review of school district
financial statements. The Regents
Plan also calls for strengthening protocols for annual school district
independent audits conducted by CPAs and increased training on the fiscal
oversight responsibilities of school officials and personnel.
Finally, to be effective, these enhancements to the current
accountability system must be funded.
The Regents expect to provide additional information on the cost of these
enhancements at a future date.
ATTACHMENT B
Schedule for Regents Meetings for Developing the
Regents State Aid Proposal for
2005-06
|
Date |
Reports/Topics |
|
May
2004 |
Special education
funding Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
June
2004 |
Update on State budget
(as available) Reaffirm proposal
goals Education Finance
Research Consortium: Synthesis of school finance symposium and update on
Consortium Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
July
2004 |
Compressed meeting (no
item on State Aid) |
|
August
2004 |
Meeting of Education
Finance Advisory Group |
|
September
2004 |
Meetings with
educators and public forums on special education funding: Long Island
(9/20/04); Rochester (9/23/04); New York City (9/27/04); and Albany
(9/29/04) Proposal preliminary
directions Primer presentation on
State Aid Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
October
2004 |
Meeting of Education
Finance Advisory Group Review conceptual
proposal directions Report on focus forums
on special education funding Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
November
2004 |
Meeting of Education
Finance Advisory Group Review draft of
conceptual proposal Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
December
2004 |
Action on final
proposal with the dollar amount recommended and the overall distribution
of aid Schedule of reports
for developing the 2005-06 proposal |
|
January 2005 – April
2005 |
Legislative advocacy
|