|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF | ||
|
TO: |
Full Board and Subcommittee on State Aid |
| |
|
FROM: |
Jean C. Stevens |
| |
|
SUBJECT: |
Regents 2007-08 Conceptual Proposal on State Aid to
|
| |
|
DATE: |
September 29, 2006 |
| |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
2 and 5 |
| |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
| |
SUMMARY
Issue for Action
Does the Board of Regents approve its conceptual 2007-08 State aid to schools proposal?
Reason(s) for Consideration
Review of policy.
Proposed
Handling
This question will come before the Subcommittee on State Aid and the full Board at the October meeting.
Procedural
History
The development of the Regents proposal began in February and has been discussed by the Subcommittee on State Aid and full Board of Regents in the ensuing months. In September, the Board reviewed the conceptual proposal and it has been revised based on the comments provided by Board members. The Subcommittee Chair and SED staff also met with the Department’s Education Finance Advisory Group to discuss the conceptual proposal. The conceptual proposal is before the Regents for approval in October. An addendum to the conceptual proposal detailing the proposed funding recommendations will be embargoed and provided to the Regents prior to the October meeting.
Background
Information
For the fourth year, this will carry forward a multi-year proposal to establish a foundation aid program that adjusts for differences in school district pupil needs and regional costs. Its goal is to close the achievement gap in a manner that is adequate, effective and efficient.
Recommendation
VOTED: That the Board of Regents approve the attached proposal as its conceptual proposal on State Aid to school districts for school year 2007-08.
Timetable for
Implementation
Once the Regents approve their conceptual
and detailed State Aid proposal, they will have the opportunity to advocate for
its inclusion in the Executive’s budget proposal and in enactment of the
Legislative budget signed into law by the Governor. The Regents State Aid proposal will be
updated as new data from school districts becomes available in late fall.
Attachment A
Regents Proposal on State
Aid to School
Districts
For School
Year 2007-08
CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL
The
Regents State Aid proposal for 2007-08 will request the resources and funding
system needed to provide adequate resources through a State and local
partnership so that all students have the opportunity to achieve State learning
standards. This is the fourth year
the Regents have refined and advanced a multi-year proposal recommending
transition to a foundation program based on the costs of successful educational
programs.
Statement of Need
This
proposal pursues two Regents goals: to close the gap between actual and desired
student achievement; and to ensure that public education resources are adequate
and used by school districts effectively and
efficiently.
The
Regents Annual Report to the Legislature and Governor on the Educational Status
of the State’s Schools (Chapter 655 Report) cites numerous examples of
improvement in student achievement since 1996 when the Regents began to raise
standards for all grade levels and imposed graduation requirements aligned with
the new standards. For example, the
report notes[1]:
§
More
eighth-graders are demonstrating that they have achieved the standards in
mathematics.
§
The percentage
of Black and Hispanic fourth-graders demonstrating proficiency increased by
about 20 percentage points in both mathematics and
English.
§
The percentage
of graduates earning Regents diplomas increased from 42 to 57
percent.
§
Even in large
urban districts that serve the largest percentages of poor and minority
students, more students are earning Regents
diplomas.
§
Between 1996–97
and 2003–04, the number of students scoring 55 or higher on the Regents English
exam increased from 113,000 to 171,000.
While
there have been many positive changes in the last 17 years since the Regents
have reported on the educational progress of the State’s schools, one disturbing
aspect of the report has remained the same. The report continues to document a
pattern of high student need, limited resources, and poor performance in many
districts. Generally, these districts can be described as having high student
needs relative to their capacity to raise revenues. These high-need districts include the
Big 5, 46 smaller districts with many of the characteristics of the Big 5, and
157 rural districts. Large gaps in performance exist between these high-need
districts and low-need districts, those which both serve children from more
affluent families and have generous local resources to draw
on.
The
results of the 2004 middle-level mathematics assessment illustrate these
performance gaps between high- and low-need districts. There were significant improvements in
total public school results and in results for each Need/Resource Capacity
Category of school districts and for each racial/ethnic group. Nevertheless, the
performance gap between low- and high-need districts, such as
§
While the percentage
of
We can relate this contrast to the resources
available to schools in each group:
§
Let’s look first
at the proportion of middle-level mathematics teachers who are not appropriately
certified: 18 percent in
§
In addition to
having fewer qualified teachers than students in low-need districts, students in
But the differences between
§
$12,896 per
pupil in
§
The median
teacher salary in
Similar relationships among performance, resources,
and student need can be seen in comparisons between the performance of White
students and that of Black and Hispanic students. White students were about twice as
likely as Black or Hispanic students to be proficient in middle-level
mathematics.
§
71 percent of
White students met the middle-level mathematics
standards.
§
33 percent of
Black students and 37 percent of Hispanic students met those standards.
The majority of Black and Hispanic students attend
high-minority schools; the majority of White students attend low-minority
schools. One reason that students in low-minority schools are more successful is
that they spend more time in school.
In addition, high-minority schools had
a:
§
Higher teacher
turnover rate (26 vs. 15 percent); and
§
Less experienced
teachers (10 years vs. 12 years).
The significance of these gaps in performance and
resources between high- and low-minority schools is heightened by the fact that,
while overall public school enrollment decreased by nearly 3,000 students
between Fall 1998 and Fall 2003, enrollment in high-minority schools increased
by 47,000 students.
Figure 1
shows that the State Aid increase school districts have experienced has had a
relatively small impact on the share of total State Aid that each district
category receives. Despite increases to many high-need school districts, the
relative share of education revenues received by groups of high-need city school
districts has increased by approximately one to three percentage points over the
past nine years. The relative share
declined for high-need rural school districts (almost one percentage point),
average need school districts (approximately four percentage points), and for
low-need school districts (about half a percentage point).
Four
principles guide this Regents proposal.
Adequacy—Effective
distribution across all districts will ensure adequate resources for acceptable
student achievement.
Equity— The funding system must be fair for students and
taxpayers. State resources should
be allocated on the basis of fiscal capacity, cost and student needs. The
emphasis is placed on providing a set of inputs to educate
students.
Accountability—The
education system will measure outcomes and use those measures to ensure that
financial resources are used effectively.
As part of the Regents goal that education resources will be used or
maintained in the public interest, the Regents employ a two-prong strategy. The Department will give greater
flexibility to districts with acceptable student achievement and will work
closely with districts not yet meeting State standards to ensure the most
efficient and effective use of resources.
Balance—The
State should balance stability in funding and targeting aid to close student
achievement gaps. It should drive
aid based on current needs, and use hold-harmless provisions that provide
stability.
Enact a Foundation Program
The
proposed Foundation Aid would
consolidate approximately 30 existing aid programs and adjust the consolidated
aid for regional cost differences and pupil needs. It would identify an expected local
contribution for each school district, based on ability to pay. The foundation level is based on the
cost of educating students in successful school districts. An expected
local contribution is calculated based on each district’s actual value per
pupil, adjusted by income per pupil.
State Aid is calculated as the foundation cost less the expected local
contribution. The proposal would
hold school districts harmless against loss for the group of aids combined into
Foundation Aid and would be phased in
over five years.
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.
The
foundation formula has four components:
- A
foundation amount which assessed the cost of an adequate
education;
- A
regional cost index that measures relative purchasing power of regions around
the State;
- A
pupil needs index to assess the amount of pupil need in each district;
and
- An
expected local contribution to represent a fair local share from each
district.
Two components of the foundation equation have been updated with more recent data.
The
Regional Cost Index
In order to adjust for geographic variations in
the cost of educational resources, the Regional Cost Index was generated
following a methodology similar to one developed by Rothstein and Smith[2] for the state of
The
Foundation Amount
The Regents propose a Foundation Aid program, with a
foundation amount based on the average per pupil cost of general education
instruction in successful school districts. Empirical estimates of the cost of
an adequate education typically begin by investigating districts that are
already achieving a desired state of academic performance; 465 districts were
identified in the update of the successful districts study. These districts had, on average,
80 percent or more of their students passing seven State examinations, two at
the elementary level and five at the high school level, for three years in a
row.
Special Education Funding
The
Regents explored options for improving the funding of special education in a
series of meetings around the State with educators and the public. Participants considered how funding can
best support program goals of improved student achievement and education of
students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Three options were discussed that
provide special education funding separate from the foundation program and
respond to policy concerns voiced at public forums on special education
funding.
Current laws
provide
§
That Excess Cost Aid varies with differences
in school district wealth and requires a substantial local
contribution;
§
That Excess Cost Aid is based on the average
spending on all students in the district but provide more aid for higher levels
of service to students with disabilities;
§
A
substantial minimum aid, regardless of wealth;
§
Extra aid
for high-cost students and students integrated with their nondisabled peers;
and
§
Aid for
students with disabilities placed in approved nonpublic special education
schools.
The proposed approach maintains a separate special
education funding stream based on a count of students with disabilities. It aligns that funding with the Regents
proposal for foundation aid for general education instruction.
The general direction of the proposal is this:
Calculate the foundation amount for general education students (e.g., General
Education Foundation Cost x Pupil Needs Index x Regional Cost Index). This would
be divided into an expected local contribution and State Aid to provide support
for general education instruction, as it was proposed in the 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07 Regents State Aid proposals.
For Public
Excess Cost Aid, that same foundation amount would be multiplied by a single
weighting for all classified students with disabilities to determine an expense
upon which to base excess cost aid per pupil. Thus, each student with a disability
would generate operating aid based on a portion of the general education
foundation amount and, separately, excess cost aid based on a portion of the
special education weighted general education foundation amount. The Excess Cost Aid would be tied to the
cost of education in successful districts by basing it on the foundation amount
from our updated successful school district study. High-cost Aid and Private Excess Cost Aid would be
continued separately. The Regents recommend current-year aid for new high-cost
students with disabilities.
The following is an example of this proposal in a
hypothetical school district. The amounts used are made up and are intended to
illustrate how the formula might work and not its specific details.
Foundation Aid. Calculate the foundation amount for
general education students (e.g., $1,000 x Pupil Needs Index x Regional Cost
Index or by example a district with moderate pupil needs and moderate costs,
$1,000 x 1.5 x 1.2 = $1,800/pupil). Divide this into State Aid and an expected
local contribution to provide State support for general education
instruction. For this hypothetical
school district, assume the expected local contribution was $1,000 per pupil and
State Aid was $800 per pupil.
Excess Cost Aid. Take the same foundation amount
($1,800/pupil) multiplied by a single weighting for all classified students with
disabilities to determine excess cost expense per pupil. (For example, $1,800 x
1.1 = $1,980 of excess cost expense per special education pupil.) A State and local share of this expense
can then be calculated. Thus, each
student with a disability would generate Foundation Aid and Excess Cost Aid.
Regional Services for the Big Five City School Districts
This
proposal recommends that the existing practice of excluding large city school
districts from accessing BOCES services be discontinued. It recommends that the large four city
school districts (
A
program should be established authorizing the Big Four city school districts to
participate in BOCES and purchase services from BOCES. A corresponding increase in aid
should be provided to the
§
Arts
and cultural programs for students;
§
Career
and technical programs for students;
§
Alternative
education for students, including those who are in secure and non-secure
detention centers within the city boundaries;
§
Staff
development as part of a district required professional development plan and
annual professional performance review;
§
Technology
services provided through BOCES;
§
Regional
teacher certification; and
§
For
the 2007-08 school year, planning and development activities necessary to
implement these programs in the following school
year.
Funding Early Childhood Education
The Benefits
of Quality Early Childhood Education
The use of pre-kindergarten as a cornerstone program
to building strong statewide early childhood programs is a high priority for the
Board of Regents and school districts.
It is a well-researched and effective educational strategy for closing
the achievement gap. Research has
shown that children who participate in quality pre-kindergarten programs have
less need for special education and remediation throughout schooling and earn
more and are incarcerated less in adulthood. The investment in pre-kindergarten is a
cost-effective strategy that pays dividends to society and to the children who
participate. The New York State
Governor and Legislature made the decision to move toward the provision of
universal pre-kindergarten education in 1997.
While much of the focus on strengthening early
childhood has concerned the education of three- and four-year olds, the
provision of full-day programs to kindergarten pupils is also a statewide policy
concern. Estimates are that
approximately 20,000 students are in half-day programs and 14,000 pupils are not
enrolled in full-day kindergarten.
If quality early childhood education is to be successful, its provision
must continue beyond pre-kindergarten, into full-day kindergarten and
successfully transition students into quality elementary school
programs.
The Regents
Goal
The Regents recommend that all young children have
access to quality early childhood programs from age three on and that the
Governor and Legislature continue to phase in State support for such programs.
Regents
Policy
In January 2006, the Regents adopted a policy on
early childhood education. It
recommends:
--
Statutory authorization for voluntary, statewide universal
pre-kindergarten for three- and four-year olds.
-- Local
education agencies continued collaboration with community-based programs as
required by current law.
--
Combined funding streams for universal pre-kindergarten, targeted
pre-kindergarten and supplemental pre-kindergarten
programs.
-- A
consistent funding stream for universal pre-kindergarten through a
Funding
Issues
The Governor and Legislature must ensure that the
program is available to all districts and four-year-olds. For pre-kindergarten to become an
integral part of a pre-kindergarten through grade 12 public school system,
action regarding the funding mechanism is as important as the level of
funding. The Regents have grappled
with two important issues.
First, there is a need to streamline and focus
funding to make the most of public resources. The program has been implemented as an
experimental grant program for decades. In 1997, the Governor and
Legislature added a second grant program known as Universal
Pre-kindergarten. In 2006, the
Governor and Legislature added a third grant program in addition to the first
two. Now with three separate grant
programs, each with their own funding components and distribution, the Regents
recognize that the grant process, although it has been a successful way to phase
in the program, may not be the most effective way to sustain the program for the
future.
Second, how should the Governor and Legislature phase
in quality early childhood education from age three on? Specifically, the
Regents considered whether to phase in this program as a program targeted to
at-risk children or to all children.
Programs designed to serve all children ensure access. Research shows
that targeted programs do not close the achievement gap as at-risk children
cross many socio-economic groups (Garcia, 2005). Programs targeted for at-risk
students are also more likely to be frozen, cut or eliminated. Another disadvantage is that programs
targeted for at-risk children often lack the participation of other children
that may be crucial to the educational process.
The advantage of phasing in quality early childhood
education for all students regardless of risk status is that the program will
have the support and participation of all.
The disadvantage is that programs for all are more costly. Further, Regents discussion of these and
other policy issues is planned to occur in the near
future.
Regents
Recommendations for 2007-08
The Regents goal is to make funding available to
allow school districts to adopt programs to make pre-kindergarten programs
universally available. The Regents
recommend that funding for early childhood education be streamlined into one
funding stream and that the distribution of funding be equalized on the basis of
school district fiscal capacity and the level of student need. Funding for early childhood education
should be separate from but aligned with funding for kindergarten through grade
12. Funding for pre-kindergarten
through grade 12 should provide school districts with the resources needed to
give all students the opportunity to meet State learning standards.
Pending further discussion of outstanding policy
issues by the Regents, funding should be phased in over time to provide Early Childhood Foundation Aid for all
three- and four-year olds. In
addition, the Regents recommend that aid for instructional materials be revised
to allow aid for those that promote early learning, as provided for in the
following section.
To address the need for full-day kindergarten
programs, the Regents recommend planning grants for the additional classrooms
needed. Beginning in 2008-09, the
Regents will advance recommendations to phase in the funding for all
kindergarteners to participate in full-day programs over a three-year
period.
Provide Flexibility in Aid for Instructional
Materials
Although the Governor and Legislature have provided
support for instructional materials in the form of Textbook Aid and Software Aid, changes in education
suggest the need for commensurate changes in State Aid.
First, instructional materials are increasingly
available electronically so Textbook
Aid was recently amended to allow textbooks in electronic format to be
eligible for aid. This change blurs
the distinction between Textbook Aid
and Software Aid.
Second, schools throughout the State are designing
science and mathematics curricula to provide an inquiry-centered instructional
approach that involves the use of relevant equipment, professional materials,
supplies and science kits or mathematics manipulatives, rather than
textbooks. Such experiential
learning has helped students master State standards and has supported State and
national efforts to strengthen student preparation in mathematics and science.
Textbooks may not be the most appropriate
instructional materials for kindergarteners. Instead of textbooks, early childhood
educators use developmentally appropriate educational games and hands-on
manipulatives that promote early literacy, numeracy, scientific inquiry, and
social learning.
The
Regents recommend that
the Governor and Legislature consolidate Textbook Aid and Software Aid into a new Instructional Materials Aid. The definition of eligible instructional
materials should include equipment, materials, supplies, kits and other
manipulatives used in the instruction of K-12 mathematics and science, and for
kindergarten only, educationally-based materials such as developmentally
appropriate games and hands-on manipulatives that promote early
learning.
Increase Library Materials Aid to
Close the Gap in Student Achievement
The
Benefits of
The impact of school libraries with strong print
collections on raising student performance levels is well researched. Studies of more than 3,300 schools
across the country demonstrate that, while there are many characteristics that
define a strong school library, the number of books per student is one very
significant factor. [3]
Additional research has found that access to
educational resources outside of school varies considerably by socio-economic
background and contributes to lasting achievement differences of
children.[4] Some of these studies focused on the
access of children to library books and found “dramatic disparities in three
communities, ranging from high to low income.”[5] The high income community had
significantly more library books for children to interact
with.
High performing schools have school libraries with
significantly more resources per student than low performing schools. The investment in school library
materials is a cost-effective strategy for addressing the persistent pattern of
high student need, limited resources, and poor performance in many
districts.
School library collections are funded in part by
State school Library Materials Aid
which has been $6.00 per pupil since 1998, despite a 30 percent increase in the
cost of the average library book since 1999 to $21.60. Currently, school districts in
The recent Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign
for Fiscal Equity case regarding State funding of public schools determined
adequate school libraries to be part of a “sound, basic education.” The Court urged the Governor and
Legislature to provide funding for up-to-date school libraries as one important
means of achieving equitable access to a basic education for students in
low-income communities.
The Regents have made closing the gap in achievement
a priority. The Governor and
Legislature must ensure that youngsters in high-need districts, which are most
dependent upon State school Library
Materials Aid, have access to school libraries with adequate collections.
Funding
Recommendation
The Regents recommend that school Library Materials Aid be increased to
enable school libraries in high-need communities to provide a comparable level
of collections to their students as those in successful school districts.
Enact a Simplified Cost
Allowance for
The Regents
recommend that the Governor and Legislature simplify the maximum cost allowance
formula for
Cost
Allowance = Projected Pupil Enrollment x Allowed Square Feet
Per Pupil x
Allowed Cost per Square Foot x Regional Cost Factor
The current
New York State Labor Department Cost Index would be used to update allowable
costs on a monthly basis. Unlike the Regents Regional Cost Index proposed for Foundation Aid, which is fundamentally a
professional wage index, the New York State Labor Department cost index is based
solely on the wages of three major occupational titles critical to the building
industry. A simplified formula
would offer greater educational flexibility, ease of understanding and
transparency.
Strengthen Accountability for the Use of Funds
Since
1996 when the learning standards were implemented, the number of high school
graduates has increased by more than 16,000 students. During that time, school expenditures
have increased by more than 60 percent.
How do we know if resources are well spent? How can we accelerate the progress that
is occurring?
The
New York State Education Department has developed a school accountability system
which is a nationally recognized model for student performance
accountability. Approximately 70
percent of
As schools have
improved or closed, the system has resulted in fewer schools identified for
improvement. The progress that has
occurred can be accelerated and improved with more State oversight, support for
school-by-school reform and tools that process data and aid and help school
districts monitor their financial condition. Attachment B describes the current
accountability system and the details for making a good system an excellent
one. Funds to implement the
proposals that are described are requested as part of the Department’s budget
request.
Attachment
B
Accountability for Student Success
The Current
System
The
Commissioner determines annually whether every public school and district is
making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in English language arts, mathematics,
elementary-middle level science and graduation rates. When a school fails to make AYP
for two consecutive years on the same accountability measure, the school is
identified as a School Requiring Academic Progress (“SRAP”) and, if the school
receives Title I, Part A funds, as a School in Need of Improvement (“SINI”).
Among other things, these schools must develop a two-year school improvement
plan that is annually updated. In
addition, all schools in improvement status under Title 1 are required to offer
parents the option to transfer their children to other public schools within the
district. If a school is not
identified as requiring academic progress or as in need of improvement but fails
to achieve the State standards in English language arts or mathematics, the
district must develop a Local Assistance Plan for the
school.
Once
the Commissioner identifies schools as needing improvement, a series of
increasingly rigorous sanctions is triggered. In each subsequent year that the
school does not make AYP on the accountability measure for which it was
identified, it advances to the next accountability level. Schools in need of improvement that
subsequently fail to make AYP in their area(s) of identification must offer
eligible students supplemental educational services. School districts are required to
initiate one of several corrective actions for schools that fail for two years
subsequent to identification to make AYP in their area(s) of
identification. The Commissioner
requires the district to restructure or close schools that have failed to make
AYP for four years following identification.
The
Commissioner also identifies for registration review schools that are farthest
from State standards and most in need of improvement. Once identified for registration review,
the Commissioner assigns 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 this 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 itself 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.
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 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 needing
improvement.
As
part of the Department’s process of determining the performance status of
schools and school districts, the Commissioner began, 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 were designated as rapidly improving.
Strengthening
Accountability
The
Regents have advanced a budget request to strengthen accountability. Its goals are to accelerate progress in
increasing high school completions, eliminate the student achievement gap and
ensure that resources are well spent.
The State should:
§
Engage
schools in efforts to increase graduation rates;
§
Hold
schools accountable through monitoring, oversight and audits
§
Improve
tools for school oversight; and
§
Prevent
fraud, waste and abuse of school resources;
.
Increase Graduation
Rates
Increase student performance growth
with academic intervention teams and distinguished educators ($13 million, first
year; $39 million full implementation).
The
Commissioner will assign an academic intervention team to each school and
district in the State that is identified for corrective action. The purpose of the intervention teams is
to build capacity of local educational agencies to successfully undertake
corrective actions that result in improved student achievement consistent with
State standards. Teams made up of
administrators and content experts will provide targeted technical assistance in
at-risk schools.
Hold Schools Accountable
Provide program staff to meet
monitoring requirements for federal and State funding and to drive improvement
($3.1 million).
In May
2006, Education Secretary Spellings issued a policy letter expressing concern
that state education agencies are not sufficiently monitoring schools to ensure
compliance with Supplemental Education Services (SES) and School Choice
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. This policy letter followed
federal audit exceptions concerning Title I funds. The federal government
expects states to significantly increase their monitoring of schools to ensure
both fiscal and program compliance.
In order to meet new federal program monitoring expectations and ensure
the flow of federal education funds, the SED will need to increase staff to
conduct on-site program and fiscal monitoring of schools each year. This in turn will leverage State funding
in support of school improvement.
Improving Tools for School Oversight
Develop an Early Warning System to prevent
fiscal stress ($300,000 first year; $2.7 million full
implementation).
An Early Warning System will help the
public to know their school’s financial status, will help school boards engage
in long-range financial planning and will allow State Education Department staff
to anticipate and help prevent school district fiscal
stress.
Develop a State Aid Management System to streamline school funding ($5
million, first year; $15 million full
implementation).
The
development of a unified State Aid Management System will address 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 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.
Prevent Fraud, Waste and
Abuse
Assist school district officials
with implementing internal controls to prevent fraud, waste and abuse of
district resources ($1.0 million).
Additional staff are requested to provide
expert support and monitoring for fiscally stressed school districts. They will help the State ensure that
fiscally stressed school districts implement a plan to restore themselves to
sound financial condition, that districts maximize revenues they are entitled
to, and that they use resources in a manner to maximize student achievement
gains. Staff will also ensure that
school districts have in place procedures that comply with laws concerning the
fiscal oversight of school districts.
Provide audit
staff to help ensure resources are used effectively and that data are accurate
and reliable ($2.6 million).
The
Department will use a risk-based system to focus additional audits on districts
with indicators of poor student performance and fiscal stress, or those where
concerns have been expressed. Such
audits will complement audits conducted by the Office of the State Comptroller
of school districts, BOCES and charter schools. 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.
Resources requested to strengthen school
accountability will be presented in the State Education Department’s budget
request, rather than in the Regents State Aid proposal. Requested resources are $25 million in
2007-08, $25.6 million in 2008-09, $26.2 million in
2009-10. Over these three years, a
total of $76.8 million will provide the tools and oversight to substantially
strengthen school accountability in