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:

EMSC-VESID Committee joined by Subcommittee on State Aid

TITLE OF ITEM:

Strategy for Improving Student Performance and the Accountability and Fiscal Integrity of School Districts

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

August 25, 2004

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Discussion

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

Policy Development

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

In May 2000, the Regents approved a State system of accountability for student performance.  The system of accountability was then updated when New York State's accountability plan under NCLB was approved by the U.S. Department of Education in January 2003.

 

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) court order requires the State to:  (1) ascertain the cost of providing a sound basic education in New York City; (2) reform the current system of school funding to ensure that every school in New York City has the resources to provide students with the opportunity for a sound basic education; and (3) institute a system of accountability to measure whether reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

 

On August 10, 2004, Counsel Kathy Ahearn, on behalf of the Regents, provided the panel of CFE referees with the 2004-05 Regents State Aid Proposal that addresses points one and two in the CFE order and an overview of the current accountability system for student performance that addresses point three of the CFE order.  The overview of the current accountability system is based on a description provided to the Regents on May 7 as an attachment to the Commissioner's weekly letter.

 

The overview of the accountability system provided to the panel concludes that the current system is rigorous and has resulted in improvement overall in English language arts and mathematics achievement since 1999 and in a decline in a number of extremely low-performing schools.  It states that the Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) process has helped a large majority of schools identified as such to improve their performance and has resulted in the phasing out or closing of schools where improvement has been insufficient.

 

The overview also concludes that:  "Too many schools have too few students achieving proficiency and large gaps exist in academic performance among students based on geographic location, income status, race/ethnicity and disability or English proficiency status."  The overview then indicates that the Regents have consistently documented these gaps in the Chapter 655 Report and annual studies of standards implementation.  It concludes that: "We will continue to consider enhancements to the accountability system and the State's technical assistance capabilities…"

 

Attached is a paper that incorporates the overview of the accountability system provided to the panel and proposes some specific actions to enhance the system.  These enhancements are in four areas:

 

(1)       Technical Assistance and Support for Schools

(2)               Fiscal Support

(3)               Data and Information Systems

(4)               Oversight of Fiscal Transactions

 

All of these enhancements are familiar to the Regents because they build, for the most part, on existing strategies.  The following lists the strategies and shows how each builds on current initiatives:

 

Enhanced System of Technical Assistance and Support for Schools

 

Regional School Support Centers (RSSCs):  builds on the work of the seven existing RSSCs that provide services to low-performing schools located in the following areas:  Eastern New York; Long Island; Hudson Valley; Mid-State (Syracuse); Mid-West (Rochester); Western New York (Buffalo); and New York City (New York City Department of Education).  The strategy proposes to expand the work of these centers by providing them with additional funding and staff.

 

Academic Intervention Teams:  builds on the current strategy that uses distinguished educators to work with low-performing schools to help them improve in specific areas such as reading and mathematics.  Additional funds will be needed to assign Academic Intervention Teams that will be composed of distinguished educators to provide direct help to schools and districts in corrective action status.

 

District Superintendents/BOCES:  builds on the existing 38 BOCES to enhance their ability to work proactively with schools in need of improvement (SINI) and schools with downward trend results.  The strategy proposes that the State provide additional funds to offset the local district expense associated with school improvement services provided by BOCES.

 

Enhanced Fiscal Support

 

State Aid to School Districts:  based on the 2004-05 Regents State Aid proposal.

 

Aid to Localities Grants:  a new fund that would be established to support implementation of recommendations developed by the Academic Intervention Teams; a similar smaller fund has been used effectively with SURR schools.

 

Improved Data and Information Systems

 

School District Financial Condition Information Indicator System:  proposes to develop a comprehensive system based on a pilot version developed by Syracuse University and LeMoyne College for SED.

 

Student Data System:  fully implements the individual student information identifier system in the 2005-06 school year (already under development).

 

State Aid Management System:  fully implements a system currently under development.

 

Grants Management System:  updates and fully implements a system currently under development.

 

School District Planning and Reporting:  develops a streamlined system proposed in SED's report on planning and reporting issued June 2003.

 

Enhanced Oversight of Fiscal Transactions

 

Enhanced Audit Capacity:   proposes to significantly expand SED's current audit of school districts.

 

            All of these strategies will require a significant amount of additional resources.  If the Regents agree with these enhancements, the Department will develop a budget and staffing proposal for Regents approval as part of the 2005-06 budget request and/or State aid request.

 

 

 

 

Attachment

 

 

 

 

New York State Education Department Strategy for Improving Student Performance and the Accountability and Fiscal Integrity of School Districts

Text Box: New York State has in place a nationally recognized model for student performance accountability. Approximately 70 percent of New York State schools are currently making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  As more rigorous NCLB requirements are implemented, it is likely that some of these schools will not make AYP in the future.  In addition, approximately 30 percent of the State’s schools need varying levels of support and assistance to help them close the gaps in student achievement.  These low-performing schools will be the focus of intensive State efforts.  This report describes New York State’s existing accountability system and the specific actions needed to strengthen it.  It describes the types of schools that need varying degrees of technical assistance and oversight.  This improvement strategy includes: ·        An enhanced system of technical assistance and support for schools ·        Enhanced fiscal support in the form of targeted State Aid, grants for academic intervention teams, and support for BOCES services. ·        Improved data and information systems ·        Enhanced oversight of fiscal transactions
 


 

 

 

 


CONTENTS

 

 

New York State’s Accountability System.................................................. 6

 

Categories of Schools................................................................................ 9

 

Key Strategies ............................................................................................ 10

 

   Enhanced System of Technical Assistance and Support.................... 10

 

   Enhanced Fiscal Support........................................................................ 11

 

   Improved Data and Information Systems............................................... 11

 

   Enhanced Oversight Of Fiscal Transactions......................................... 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK STATE’S ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM

 

New York has been recognized nationally for –

 

q       The strength of its system of pupil assessment and school accountability. Quality Counts has consistently given the State an “A” for its standards, assessments, and accountability.

 

q       Being among the first five states to have its accountability system under the federal No Child Left behind Act (“NCLB”) approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education. 

 

q       Its willingness to refine continually both the methodologies for holding schools and districts accountable and for providing support to and intervening in schools and districts with unacceptably low levels of student academic performance.

 

            New York has built an accountability framework that measures public school performance on State assessments in English language arts and mathematics against specific standards that are publicly reported, identifies schools in need of improvement, and assists those schools.  New York State makes detailed information publicly available on the performance and accountability of each public school and district in the State through school report cards, showing results on student academic achievement, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, limited English proficiency status, disability status, migrant status and gender.  (The school report cards are also available on the Internet.)

 

            The Commissioner of Education evaluates schools on a continuum of criteria to determine if they are in good standing or will be subject to sanctions under the State’s accountability system.  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.  These local assistance plans may be stand-alone documents or may be integrated into other existing district comprehensive or school improvement plans.

 

In addition to assessing whether schools are achieving the State learning standards, the Commissioner also determines, on an annual basis, whether every public school and district is making Adequate Yearly Progress (“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 federal No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”); or as a School Requiring Academic Progress (“SRAP”) if the school 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 must be 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 SRAP or SINI, a series of increasingly rigorous sanctions is triggered if their 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 SINI or SRAP that fail to make AYP for a second year.  When a school has failed to make AYP for four years after being identified as a SINI or SRAP, the Commissioner requires the district to restructure the school.

 

The Commissioner identifies for registration review those schools that fail to make AYP and also are farthest from State standards and most in need of improvement.  Once identified for registration review, the Commissioner assigns the school a set of performance targets that it is expected to achieve within a specified period of time or risk having its registration revoked.  After being placed under registration review, the school is visited by an external team that does a planning, resource and program audit.  The school uses the report of the external team to develop a comprehensive education plan, and the district uses the 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 focuses its efforts on Schools Under Registration Review (“SURR”). Regional School Support Centers and distinguished educators provide critical support to schools designated as SURR and SINI.  While these additional resources are significant, they may not be sufficient to allow low-performing schools in urban districts to provide their students with a sound basic education.  The Regents have consistently documented in their annual report to the Governor and Legislature (Chapter 655 Report) that low-performing, high-need urban schools, even with additional assistance, typically will spend less per pupil and have larger class sizes and lower percentages of experienced, highly qualified and certified teachers than will their counterparts in low-need suburban districts.  The Regents have responded by advocating for increases in State aid to the highest need public schools.

 

In addition to individual school accountability, the State Education Department is also responsible for determining whether each school district has made 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 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 in need of 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.

 

 

New York’s system of support for and intervention in low-performing schools has produced results.  There has been consistent improvement overall in English language arts and mathematics since the introduction of the State’s new assessments in 1999, and the number of extremely low-performing schools has declined in recent years.  The SURR process has helped the large majority of schools identified as such to improve their performance; in those instances where improvement has been insufficient, those schools have been phased-out or closed.

 

Challenges remain.  Too many schools have too few students achieving proficiency and large gaps exist in academic performance among students based on geographic location, income status, race/ethnicity, and disability or English proficiency status.

 

            To build upon the current strong foundation of the State’s accountability system and to continue to reduce the gaps in student achievement in New York City and other urban areas of the State, in July 2004 the Regents discussed five areas for State action:

 

·        Promoting system alignment and coherence;

·        Generating and disseminating instructional knowledge;

·        Creating programs and strategies focused on the needs of students in the gaps;

·        Developing instructional leadership and practices  at all levels; and

·        Enhancing school improvement, accountability and fiscal integrity of school districts.

 

The Regents recognize that comprehensive planning, particularly at the district level, is an important tool for school improvement.  The Department has implemented comprehensive planning approaches with New York City through the District Comprehensive Education Planning process and with the large four city school districts (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers) through joint State/district partnership agreements. The effectiveness of these efforts is measured through student results and by school systems demonstrating progress in such areas as:

 

·        Promoting early learning, particularly in terms of early literacy;

·        Reducing class sizes;

·        Ensuring qualified teachers in the classroom;

·        Providing school facilities that are conducive to educational success, including appropriate access to libraries, gymnasiums, laboratories, and computer technology;

·        Providing academic intervention services to students not meeting State standards; and

·        Ensuring the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, especially in areas of reading and mathematics in accordance with the principles of scientifically-based research.

 

A system of school and district comprehensive planning should ensure that progress is made toward addressing these key areas of learning.  The Regents, through the Chapter 655 Report and annual studies of standards implementation, have documented district progress in these critical areas. In addition, the Department has identified ways to improve comprehensive planning through eliminating, combining or redesigning existing discrete State planning requirements. The Department has reported the results of this work to the Legislature. When performance of schools and districts are consistently poor, the State needs to determine the extent to which the failure to provide the appropriate conditions for learning exist and require redirection of resources.

 

            Although New York’s current accountability system is nationally recognized, the Regents recognize that we still need to build capacity in districts, regions, and in the Department to effect greater change at a more rapid rate.  Our analysis indicates that there are five categories of schools that need varying degrees of technical assistance:

 

CATEGORIES OF SCHOOLS/DISTRICTS

 

1.         Schools that demonstrate acceptable performance

·        May require occasional fiscal audits, periodic data audits, and participate in workshops and training provided by BOCES or the Department on a regional basis.

 

2.         Schools that are in danger of being identified as Schools In Need of Improvement (SINI) because they have not met AYP

·        Would receive technical assistance through a BOCES or directly from the local educational agency.

 

3.         Schools in Need of Improvement, year 1 or year 2

·        Would receive technical assistance through a BOCES or one of the seven Regional School Support Centers located throughout the State.

 

4.         Corrective Action Schools/Districts

·        At the school level, technical assistance would be provided by one of the Regional School Support Centers.

·        At the district level, the Commissioner would assign an academic intervention team to the district.

 

5.         Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) or schools required to implement a restructuring plan

·        An academic intervention team would be assigned by the Commissioner to each school in this category.  Schools removed from registration review would either continue to receive support from an intervention team or be provided support by the Regional School Support Centers.

 

The following sections detail specific initiatives to strengthen New York State’s school accountability system and technical assistance to the five categories of schools.

 

KEY STRATEGIES

 

ENHANCED SYSTEM OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS

 

 

The following information describes the types of assistance each of the service providers would deliver to the above listed schools:

Regional School Support Centers

Funds for Regional School Support Centers (six located upstate and one in New York City) will be allocated proportionately to each Center based on the number of schools in need of improvement and used for the following activities:

 

·        Provide technical assistance and instructional advice to schools in need of improvement in reading, particularly in the early grades; mathematics, and other areas as needed.

·        Work with academic intervention teams assigned by the Commissioner to work on-site in highest need schools.

·        Identify best practices and use a variety of technologies to disseminate these practices, e.g., the Department’s Virtual Learning Space, regional workshops, urban forums.

·        Provide assistance to districts and schools in need of improvement to analyze student performance data and develop district and school improvement plans.

·        Coordinate activities of existing networks – particularly those that support students in low-performing schools such as Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Centers (BETAC) and Special Education Training and Resource Centers (SETRC).

 

Academic Intervention Teams

 

·        Assign an academic intervention team appointed by the Commissioner to each school district in the State that is identified for corrective action and to each school in the State that has been identified for registration review or is required to implement a restructuring plan.  plan. 

·        The primary purpose of such teams is to build the capacity of local educational agencies to successfully undertake corrective actions, redesign and restructuring plans that result in improved student achievement consistent with State standards for school and district performance.

·        They will consist of persons with expertise in educational management and instructional leadership, curriculum and assessment, academic intervention and student support services, parent and community involvement, educational assessment and improvement of classroom instruction for low-achieving students.  students.

·        The teams will conduct a comprehensive review of district or school operations, including the design and operation of the instructional program, and develop recommendations for incorporation into the Results-Based Plans to be developed by districts and the restructuring plans implemented by schools.  Up to 2 FTEs will be hired as consultants to serve each targeted school/district.

 

·        Upon completion of the comprehensive review, member(s) of the intervention team shall be assigned to the district or school to assist as necessary in building the capacity of school and district staff in such areas as: disaggregation of test data and root cause analysis; implementation of professional development programs, including coaching and mentoring of administrators and teachers; implementation of curriculum and effective instructional practices, including the use of technology; and promotion of parental, community and inter-agency involvement with schools.  In collaboration with Department staff, intervention teams will assist local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop or modify as appropriate partnership agreements between the LEA and the Department.schools.

·        The role of the teams will be limited to providers of technical assistance to schools/districts.  They will not be involved in governance or operation or any type of State oversight of the schools/districts.

 

District Superintendents of Schools/Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES)

 

·        Seek necessary legislative agreement for Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) to expand use of school improvement Cooperative Service Agreements (COSERs) to allow a portion of the district expense to be covered through this mechanism.

·        These funds would be used to assist schools in component districts that are newly identified as Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) or which are in danger of identification based on the analyses of assessment data.

 

ENHANCED FISCAL SUPPORT

 

State Aid to School Districts

 

·     To support accountability efforts, advocate for the State to enact recommendations in the Regents proposal on State Aid to school districts.  These include the following key recommendations:

§         Enact a foundation formula that links educational resources to the cost of education students;

§         Simplify the aid system by consolidating 29 aids and grants;

§         Adjust Foundation Aid for regional cost differences and pupil needs to target aid to school districts with the greatest need;

§         Provide aid for regional shared services; and

§         Provide grants for overcrowded schools and a supplemental cost allowance for school construction in New York City.

 

Aid to Localities Grants

 

·     Require each district and school receiving services from an academic intervention team to implement the comprehensive plan recommended by the team.  It is expected that high need districts will receive substantial increases in a revised State Aid formula.  Districts/schools should use team.  these additional funds in the first instance.  If additional funds are still required to implement the comprehensive review recommendations, the school/district will be eligible for a grant to be used for this purpose.  The academic intervention team will assist the district in preparation of an application purpose.

·        for use of these funds.  Implementation grants may be used to support activities such as recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining qualified professionals; improving student support services; improving curriculum, instruction and assessment practices; and involving the whole community in meeting higher standards, including establishing community learning centers.

 

 

Based on their work, the academic intervention teams will:

 

Report, quarterly, to the school principal, school superintendent, Board of Education, and Commissioner on the progress of the intervention team.  The principal and superintendent shall report quarterly to the intervention team and Board of Education on the progress made in implementation of improvement plans.

For schools implementing restructuring plans or plans required for Schools Under Registration Review, assess the school’s progress, annually, and recommend to the Board of Education and the Commissioner whether the school should continue to implement its plan, modify its plan, or close or phase out the school.

For districts in Corrective Action, recommend to the Commissioner, annually, the corrective actions that should be taken by the Department.

In consultation with the local school community, recommend to the Commissioner, annually, whether the school, including a school newly removed from registration review, or district should continue to receive assistance from the intervention team, the Regional School Support Center and/or Department staff.

 

District Superintendents of Schools/Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES)

 

Legislative agreement is necessary for Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) to expand use of school improvement Cooperative Service Agreements (CoSERs) to allow a portion of the district expense to be covered through this mechanism.  These funds would be used to assist schools in component districts that are newly identified as Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI) or which are in danger of identification based on the analyses of assessment data.  This program of prevention and early intervention would complement the work of the proposed academic intervention teams that would focus on Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) and buildings in Corrective Action or restructuring action status under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  Districts with schools identified for this program would be required to:

 

participate in a comprehensive needs assessment conducted by the Regional School Support Center (RSSC);

work with the district superintendent or his/her designee to determine the nature and extent of participation in school improvement CoSERs (i.e. leadership, planning curriculum development, professional development) based on identified needs;

purchase the identified school improvement services with the district expense share paid from the funds allocated to each RSSC and administered by the district superintendents of the region; and

participate in ongoing regional school improvement activities as directed by the district superintendent.

 

In instances where the fiscal integrity, or management of a school district reaches a level of serious concern, the Commissioner of Education should have the option of using the district superintendents to provide technical assistance or supervision and, in some instances, oversight for these IMPROVED DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

 

School District Financial Condition Information Indicator System (FCIS)

 

·        Include the following features in the system: an early warning system for school districts to prevent financial distress; fiscal benchmarks and best financial management 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 district officials.

 

Student Data System

·        Build a statewide student data system for full implementation in the 2005-06 school year that will transform the way educational data are collected, maintained and used and create greater capacity to measure and thus to raise the achievement of all students in New York.

·        Integrate Department data systems to reduce redundant data collection and facilitate reporting.

·        Use system to idistricts.  District superintendents should be actively involved in identifying school districts with the potential for fiscal stress, for training aimed at improving financial and capitalnform educational policy and provide accountability for federal, State and local institution and program management.

 

A comparable mechanism for provision of these services to the large City school districts will also be implemented.  Legislation that would create such a mechanism for Buffalo City School District has been introduced by Assemblyman Hoyt and Senator Volker (A06373/S4355B).

 

State Education Department

 

Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)

 

Fifty-three additional positions are required for EMSC to support the low-performing schools, the work of the academic intervention teams, and to provide fiscal oversight to school districts.  These positions will be deployed in the following areas:

 

Standards, Assessment and Reporting – 8

Curriculum and Instructional Support – 8

School Improvement and Community Services (Regional) – 9

School Improvement and Community Services (NYC) – 15

Bilingual Education – 4

School Operations and Management – 9

 

The individuals in these positions will have expertise in the following areas:

 

proven strategies for raising the achievement of at-risk students;

educational management and instructional leadership;

curriculum and assessment;

student support services;

fostering cross/system (city and State) interagency collaboration to provide information and services to students and families in low performing schools;

educational assessment;

successful school reform models; and

research skills, data collection and analysis.

 

School District Financial Indicator System

 

To enhance the fiscal oversight and integrity of school districts, the EMSC Office of Educational Management Services will monitor school district fiscal health and practices; investigate complaints; provide technical assistance, particularly to at-risk districts identified by the Department, district superintendent, or fiscal indicator system; and train school personnel and school board members in internal controls and best financial practices.

 

The best prevention against fiscal emergencies is regular monitoring of district financial health, and appropriate budget adjustments. A school district Financial Condition Information System (FCIS) will provide a comprehensive overview of a school district’s financial condition and economic environment. Features of the system will include: an early warning system for school districts to prevent financial distress; fiscal benchmarks and best financial management practices; a public reporting tool providing information about the management of public funds to achieve educational goals (The system will educate the public on what constitutes a fiscally sound school district); and a long-range financial planning tool for school district officials.

 

The cost of developing and implementing the FCIS will be far less than that expended by the State on school districts in fiscal stress.  The benefits of implementing the FCIS are: that the measurement of financial condition and use of such data by the public school districts and the State will help improve the fiscal health of schools and the cost-effective use of district resources, and that the system will save taxpayers considerable amounts of money by avoiding the need for special legislative assistance when districts require financial assistance.

 

Student Data System

 

Teachers, school administrators and State officials rely on data to assess the quality and outcomes of the State’s educational system at levels ranging from the individual student to the State as a whole.  Building a statewide student data system will meet a variety of educational and accountability needs, including: transforming the way educational data are collected, maintained and used and creating greater capacity to raise the achievement of all students in New York; reducing redundant data collection and facilitating reporting by integrating Department data systems; and informing educational policy and providing accountability for federal, State and local institution and program management.

 

Office for Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID)

 

Ten additional positions are required for VESID to provide special education technical assistance and support to low-performing schools.  These positions will be deployed in the following areas:

 

Special Education Quality Assurance – 5

Special Education Quality Assurance - NYC – 3

Program Development and Support Services -- 2

 

The individuals in these positions will have expertise in the following areas:

 

proven strategies for raising the achievement of students with disabilities;

educational management and instructional leadership;

curriculum and assessment, including alternate assessment and alternate learning standards

student support services, including Positive Behavioral Intervention Skills (PBIS);

fostering cross-system (city and State) interagency collaboration to provide information and services to students with disabilities and their families in low performing schools;

educational assessment; and

successful school reform models, including integrating general and special education.

 

These regional staff with special education expertise could be assigned to (and employed by) the RSSC or BOCES rather than VESID, if that is likely to be the most effective process.

 

Office of Management Services (OMS)

 

Twenty-six positions are needed in the Office of Audit Services (OAS) to audit all districts on a more frequent basis and review annual school district independent audits. Department staff coordinate their audit work with that of the Office of the State Comptroller.  Some of the Department's audit staff will conduct forensic audits. The Department will use a risk-based system to focus the audits on districts with indicators of poor student performance and fiscal stress, or those where concerns have been expressed.  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.

 

Sixteen positions are needed for IT support for the following applications:  Student Data System, State Aid Management System, School District Financial Condition System and the Grants Management System.  Also for Human Resource and Fiscal Management support.

 

State Aid Management System

 

·        The current mainframe computer system used by the Department consists of over two million lines of code and a complex network of programs that have evolved over the past 20 years to accommodate State aid formula changes introduced by new legislation each year.  The developmentDevelop a unified State Aid Management System tobe able to address the 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 State and federal 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 requirements.

 

Grants Management System

 

·        The Grants Management System is another aspect of accountability. Approximately $3 billion in grants are processed, much of it to schools.  The current system is labor and paper intensive and has limited reporting capability. Update the web-based system to improve the efficiency of the process and provide improved reporting capability. This will also allow the Department to reduce clerical staff but will increase the need for professional staff so that it can move to risk-based auditing as OSC has done. The risk- based auditing will use a combination of audits performed in-house using audit capability.

software and field visits to monitor and provide technical assistance targeted at schools in need of improvement and other high-risk schools. Costs can be shared by Federal and SRO users of the system through a Cost Allocation Plan which, based on recent data, could generate 60% of the costs. 

 

 

Appendix

 

Proposed Budget for New York State Education Department Strategy for Improving Student Performance and the Accountability and Fiscal Integrity of School Districts

 

 

 

 

Regional School Support Centers

 

  Additional funds for 7 centers across the State -          $8,000,000

 

Academic Intervention Teams (Consultants)

 

  Additional funds to support up to 2 FTEs per school/district -      $40,000,000

 

Department Staff

 

  EMSC – Funds for 53 additional positions –            $3,200,000

     Funds for Travel, Equipment, Training              $500,000

VESID – Funds for 10 additional positions               $650,000 

  Funds for Travel, Equipment, Training                $50,000

OMS – Funds for 26 additional positions for audit services       $1,400,000

  Funds for Travel, Equipment, Training                                          $130,000

Funds for 16 additional positions for OMS support

for Human Resources, Fiscal Management and

and IT applications                                     $800,000

Funds for Travel, Equipment, Training                $70,000

 

Student Data System

 

  Additional funds to meet a range of educational and

accountability needs -                   $3,700,000

 

State Aid Management System

 

  Additional funds to address the shortcomings of the

current system -                     $5,000,000

 

School District Financial Condition System

 

  Additional funds for start up to implement a system

to help school districts maintain good financial standing

to support quality educational programs for students -              $300,000

  (Annualized cost estimated at $1.2 million)

 

Grants Management System

 

Additional funds to develop an updated web based system that

will improve the efficiency of the process and provide improved

reporting capability.                  $5,000,000

 

 

 

Proposed State Operations Budget                   $68,800,000   

 

Additional Department Staff  - 105 FTE

 

Aid to Localities Grants

 

  Additional funds for school districts to implement

recommendations of a comprehensive review conducted

by the Academic Intervention Teams -           

 

Proposed Aid to Localities Budget                 $10,000,000

 

 

Grand Total Summary –

 

  State Operations:                  $68,800,000

  Aid to Localities Grants:                $10,000,000

 

                         $78,800,000

 

  Additional Department Staff  - 105 FTE

School District Planning and Reporting

 

·        Streamline school district planning and reporting by requiring all school districts to engage in comprehensive planning and by giving the Commissioner authority to eliminate redundant reporting requirements.

 

ENHANCED OVERSIGHT OF FISCAL TRANSACTIONS

 

Enhanced Audit Capacity

 

·        Conduct audits of school districts on a more frequent basis and review school district financial statements.

·        Focus audit resources on districts with indicators of poor student performance, fiscal stress, or inadequate management controls.

·        Conduct random audits of school districts that have no known problems or issues.

·        Conduct audits of a specific program, function or activity to identify best practices along with issues and recommendations that have statewide applicability.