THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
James A. Kadamus
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
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:
Goals 1 and 2
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.
New York State Education Department Strategy for Improving Student Performance and the Accountability and Fiscal Integrity of School Districts
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.
SYSTEM OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS
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
to work on-site in highest need
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
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
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
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
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
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
· 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.
· Seek necessary l O
· Tadvocate for to
Aid to Localities Grants
· Require each district and school receiving services from
an academic intervention team to implement the comprehensive plan recommended by
is expected that high need districts will receive substantial increases in a
revised State Aid formula.
Districts/schools should use
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
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
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
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
· Include the following fin
for full implementation in the 2005-06 school year that
Integrate Department data systems to r.
Use system to
districts. District superintendents should be
actively involved in identifying school districts with the potential for fiscal
stress, for training aimed at improving financial and
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.
Financial Indicator System To enhance the
fiscal oversight and integrity of school districts, the EMSC Office of
Educational Management Services will m onitor 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.
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 t he 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.
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 development a unified State Aid
Management System to be 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 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
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
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,
$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
Additional funds for start up to implement a system to help school districts maintain good financial
standing to support quality educational programs for students -
(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
all school districts to engage in