school funding in new york state n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
School Funding in New York State PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
School Funding in New York State

School Funding in New York State

184 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

School Funding in New York State

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. School Funding in New York State A stroll through one of the nation’s least equitable school finance systems Bruce D. Baker Rutgers University

  2. National Perspective Which States are Most/Least Fair in their School Funding?

  3. Funding Fairness across the U.S. Special update (with adjusted poverty measures)

  4. Least Equitable States

  5. New York Perspective Formulas that Undermine Equity and Adequacy

  6. How States Make Things Worse

  7. Total Adjustment Excluding NYC = $2.47 billion

  8. Total Adjustment Excluding NYC = $2.47 billion

  9. $991 Million $692 Million

  10. Gap = $2,300 Gap = $1,100

  11. Gap = $2,300 Gap = $1,100

  12. Severe Underfunding of 11-12 Targets

  13. Conceptual & Empirical Basis for the Foundation Formula & Implications for Adequacy Even if it was funded, it’s still screwed up!

  14. What’s wrong with the Foundation Formula? • Generally bogus method • “Successful schools” analysis is not a real cost analysis method average (instructional) spending of some districts ≠ operating cost per pupil of others • Use of efficiency filter removes nearly all downstate districts • Adding back in the RCI doesn’t cover the difference • Assumes only instructional spending is necessary • SS model counts only average instructional spending per pupil. But foundation formula never adds back in the rest! • Uses deflated standards • Re-analysis & adjustment of math cut scores suggests that 95% level 3 or higher would have been more appropriate (closer to what 80% should have been)

  15. Operational Definition of “Adequacy” …an adequate education was operationally defined as a district: With a simple, unweighted average of 80 percent of its test takers scoring at Level 3 or above on eight examinations (Fourth Grade English Language Arts, Fourth Grade Mathematics, high school Mathematics A, Global History, U.S. History, English, Living Environment and Earth Science) in 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Note that, given this operational definition, a district could have less than 80 percent of its test takers with a score at Level 3 on one or more of the tests and still be providing an adequate education. 518 school districts met this standard, including: 6 High Need Urban/Suburban districts, 90 High Need Rural districts, 290 Average Need districts and 132 Low Need districts. (2009 Technical Final)

  16. Adjusting Standards & Implications for Adequacy “We see that students with Regents Math A passing scores of 65 typically do not meet the CUNY cut-score for placement into college-level Mathematics courses. Indeed, these students may have only a little better than a 50-50 chance of earning a grade of “C” or higher in CUNY’s remedial Mathematics courses.” Everson, H.T. (2010) Memo to David Steiner: Relationship of Regents ELA and Math Scores to College Readiness Indicators. July 1, 2010

  17. It would have taken a 95% pass rate with previous cut scores to equal an 80% pass rate after the adjustment! What that means is that “adequacy” should have been estimated with respect to a 95% pass rate. 95%, 80% 80%, 55% 60%, 30%

  18. Percent of Successful Districts Included when Efficiency Filter is Applied(before & after adjusting for RCI & PNI) Most districts in these regions excluded when filter applied!

  19. Statewide Average Instructional Expenditures per Pupil 2007-08*Adjusted for PNI and RCI & No Efficiency Filter Much Higher when Lower Half not Excluded *NYSED FARU Fiscal Profiles IE2% x Total Expenditures per Pupil 2007-08

  20. Legitimate Cost Model Based on 2006-07 Performance Outcomes Estimated by William Duncombe, Syracuse U.

  21. Total Expenditures

  22. Instructional Expenditures

  23. Cost of 90% Level 3 or 4 2006-07

  24. Fully Funded Foundation

  25. 30 Worst Funded and Best Funded Districts in NY State

  26. How STAR and Foundation Adjustments Drive Money to the Best Funded Districts

  27. Consequences for Curriculum & Opportunities What are the ground level effects of these funding gaps/disparities?

  28. Q1: Resource poor high performer Q2: Resource rich high performer Outcomes (relative to Mean) 0 Expected Values Q3: Resource rich low performer Q4: Resource poor low performer 0 Cost Adjusted per Pupil Expenditures (Standardized)

  29. Distribution of New York State Districts

  30. Winners & Losers

  31. Persistent Disparities in Select Assignments

  32. Persistent Disparities in Select Assignments

  33. AP Participation in Two Disparate States

  34. In Conclusion • NY remains one of the least equitably funded states in the nation • NY actually squanders a great deal of state financing on making things worse rather than better • Even if fully funded (a first step), the foundation aid formula is woefully inadequate for high need districts, based on bogus methods, bad assumptions and false measures. • The effects of inequitable funding can be seen at the ground level in the distribution of curricular opportunities & staff to deliver them.