THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:

The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

FROM:

James A. Kadamus

COMMITTEE:

Subcommittee on State Aid

TITLE OF ITEM:

A Comparison of Proposals on State Aid to School Districts for 2004-05

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

February 17, 2004

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Information

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

Policy Implementation

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

In the interest of updating the Board concerning other studies and proposals for school aid for the coming year, the following analysis provides a comparison of the Regents proposal with that of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity on State Aid to school districts for school year 2004-05.

 

Synopsis

 

The Regents proposal and the CFE proposal are similar in that they both employ a cost study and heavily weight student poverty for the distribution of aid.  They also come up with dollar amounts that are similar.  However they are different in a few important respects.  The most important difference is that the Regents proposal is focused on State Aid to school districts and the CFE proposal is focused on total cost, including State, federal and local sources of funding.  The proposals are also different in what they cover: The Regents proposal focuses on funding general education instruction and excludes costs of pre-k, education of English language learners and students with disabilities, while the CFE study includes all of these.  Both proposals exclude costs for school facilities and transportation in their cost studies.  The Regents proposal makes a recommendation for grants for overcrowded schools and CFE has convened a School Facilities Task Force to study and make recommendations in this area in the future.  Finally, the Regents proposal is complete and the CFE proposal is preliminary and incomplete in many key respects, such as the expected local contribution and other distributional details.


 

 

 

Factor

Regents Proposal

CFE Proposal

OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS

What is it?

Full proposal with foundation level based on a cost study

Mostly preliminary cost study with a few additional details

Status

Approved December 11, 2003; technical supplement available January 9, 2004

Preliminary Report on Cost Study issued 2-4-04; Final report to be released in March.  Not clear if final report will include full proposal details.

Active Participants

NYSED’s State Aid Work Group

NYSED leadership

Board of Regents

NYS educational community

Campaign for Fiscal Equity

NYSSBA

American Institutes for Research

Management Analysis and Planning, Inc.

Educators participating in a Professional Judgment Process

NYS educational community

Formula Approach

Foundation Formula

Unstated

Increase Proposed

State Aid only

$880 million (2004-05)

$6 billion (2004-05 if Foundation Aid fully implemented)

Total statewide spending (federal, State and local)

$2 billion (State down payment for 2004-05)

$7 billion (2004-05 full implementation)

Phase in Period

7 years

3-4 years

What’s covered?

Year 1: all computerized aids

Full Implementation: Foundation Aid only (for general education instruction; increases in other aid categories, including costs for pupils with disabilities, school transporta-tion and school facilities are not included)

Total instructional costs (special and general education), excluding costs for school transportation and school facilities.

Targeting to New York City

$12,252 per pupil (total foundation cost at full implementation, excluding school transportation and facilities, special education and other costs associated with categorical aid programs such as LEP and UPK)

$13,373 per pupil (total cost excluding school transportation and facilities, but including special education and early childhood education)

 

Year 1: 43% of State Aid increase ($281 million)

Year 1: unstated part of $2 billion (State only)

 

Full Implementation: 64% of State Aid increase ($3.83 billion)

Full implementation: $3.62 billion (State, federal and local 2001-02 dollars)

Targeting to high need school districts

Year 1: 84% of increase in computerized aids ($880 million)

Year 1: unspecified part of $2 billion (State only)

 

 

Full Implementation: 88% of increase for Foundation Aid ($5.98 billion)

Full implementation: unspecified part of $7 billion (State, federal and local)

Targeting basis

Student poverty

Geographic sparsity

Regional cost differences

Student poverty

English language learners

Special education students

Geographic cost differences

Expected local contribution

Based on Actual (property) Value and income per pupil

Unstated (State should pay “lion’s share”)

Basis for cost increases

2% per year of phase-in period

5% (2001-02 – 2003-04) and 6% (2004-05)

Other recommenda-tions

Grants for overcrowded schools

Incentives for integration of students with disabilities

Year of public discussion on, including special education funding in the foundation formula

Transition adjustment (limits increases and losses)

Cost includes funding for half-day programs for 3-year olds and full-day programs for 4-year olds and kindergarten.

Small class sizes

Extended day and year programs

Full inclusion of 90-95% of students with disabilities

Recommendations on staffing, including specialists in art and music

 

 

 

COST STUDY

Type of Study

Successful Schools (expenditure per pupil in school districts meeting the standards)

Model Schools (as defined by an expert panel of approximately 60 educators around the State in a Professional Judgment Process and costed out by the research team)

Cost of What?

General Education instruction (K-12)

General and special education instruction (age 3 – grade 12)

Performance standard

An average of 80% passing on 7 State examinations (grade 4 and commencement level)

Regents diploma standards

Efficiency

Assesses costs in the 50% most efficient districts

Unstated