Title: Amy Ellen Schwartz
1Why Do Some Schools Get More and Others Less?An
Examination of School-Level Funding in New York
City
A.E. Schwartz presentation, Research Partnership
for NYC Schools
- Amy Ellen Schwartz
- New York University
- Ross Rubenstein
- Syracuse University
- Leanna Stiefel
- New York University
- Â
- October 5, 2007
http//steinhardt.nyu.edu/iesp/
2In 2003-2004, the typical NYC elementary school
budget was roughly 13,000 per pupil
- But
- some schools received as little as 9,000.
- others more than 15,000.
- Why?
- Differences in the needs of students?
- Differences in costs?
- Or is it just unfair and inefficient?
33
4The Answer Matters
- If differences are driven by differences in the
needs of students then they may be both fair and
efficient. - If they arent, then redistributing resources
will be critical for improving equity and can
improve student performance.
5The Time is Ripe
- NCLB reauthorization focuses attention on
resources, outcomes and accountability at the
school level. - CFE vs. New York State brings similar focus and
additional state funds to NYC schools. - NYCDOE is reforming their budget allocation
processes in their Fair Student Funding (FSF)
Initiative.
6Outline of Talk
- Background on School Resource Allocation
- Analyses of School Spending in New York City
- Implications for Policy
7Four Lessons from Prior Research
- Disparities in spending across schools within a
district are common. - Large districts are more likely to have large
disparities. - Schools with poorer children have less
experienced, less educated and less expensive
teachers. - School budgets largely reflect position-based
formulas and teacher sorting.
8Where does the money come from?
- City, State and Federal funds.
- In 2003-4 the average elementary school budget
was - Almost 80 City Taxes and State Operating Aid.
- About 7 from the Federal Title I program that
targets high poverty schools - About 13 from myriad categorical grant programs.
9Allocation Basics - Teachers
- Teacher positions are allocated based upon
- Enrollment
- Class size maximums (depends on grade level)
- e.g., 100 first grade students would mean 5
teachers if the district class size max is 20. - Salaries are determined by district schedule and
money budgeted to the school depending upon the
teachers hired.
10How Does Budgeting Teacher Positions Affect
School budgets?
- Schools with higher paid teachers get funding to
cover those positions schools with lower-paid
teachers do not receive similar amounts. - Position-based budgeting concentrates experienced
teachers in schools where needs are lower. - Higher staff turnover concentrates new teachers
in low-performing schools, meaning they have
lower budgets.
11Advanced Resource Allocation
- Overhead allocations for administration and
building services - Specialized formulas target students with special
needs. E.g. Poor, English Language Learners,
Learning Disabilities - Targeted funds based upon school characteristics
(e.g., school size) or special programs. - Hold Harmless provisions limit change.
12Empirical Analyses
- Examine the distribution of funding across
schools - By source (taxes and state aid, Title I)
- By grade level (elementary vs middle)
- Examine changes over time
- Goal is to shed light on the factors that drive
disparities and provide a benchmark to gauge the
impact of policy changes.
13Data
- NYC Department of Education, Annual School
Reports and School-Based Expenditure Reports,
2000-01 to 2003-04 - School-level spending variables by source of
funds - Key school-level variables on student/school
needs - Eligible for free lunch
- Limited English proficient
- Enrollment (school size)
- Resource room and special education
- Recent immigrant
- Student performance percent level 1 fourth and
eighth grade - Sample N 911 in 2003-04
14Five Measures of Resources
- 1) Total spending per pupil
- 2) General Education Funding per pupil (includes
PTSE funds) - 3) Tax levy and state operating aid - Gen Ed
- 4) Title I Gen Ed
- 5) Other Gen Ed
15R2 0.08 Slope 27.3 n682
16R2 0.08 Slope 19.9 n682
17R2 0.01 Slope -5.1 n682
18R2 0.61 Slope 15.6 n682
19R2 0.29 Slope 9.4 n682
20Total Spending
Gen Ed Spending
Tax Levy and State Operating Aid
Other Revenues
Title I Revenues
21Regression Analyses Describe the Determinants of
Spending
- First using only school and student
characteristics for 2003-04 (Cross-sectional) - Including Pct Poor, LEP, PTSE and school size
- Next examining change over time
- Between 2002-03 and 2003-04 (Short)
- Between 2000-01 and 2003-04 (Long)
22Poverty Coefficients
23Key Results
- Funding reflects student need
- i.e., a 1 point increase in the pct. PTSE is
associated with 69 more in funding per pupil - Higher poverty means more Title I and Other
funds less Tax Levy/Operating Aid. - Change matters but the response is sluggish.
- Last years funding is an excellent predictor of
this years funding - Much variation is unexplained.
24Weighted Student Funding (WSF)?
- Resources follow the student.
- Allocates dollars and not positions.
- Amount depends upon student needs
(characteristics) with higher weights given to
students with greater needs. - Transparent targeting of resources
- Effectively reduce unexplained variation.
25Cautions
- No adjustments for concentration
- Economies/diseconomies of scale ignored
- Transparent incentives may have unintended
consequences. - Getting weights right is critical
- Evidence base is thin.
- Rapid change can be difficult
- Implications for teachers.
26Agenda for Further Research
- We need to know the cost of student needs.
- Should there be a weight for immigrants?
- For student mobility?
- We need to understand (dis)economies of scale.
- We should learn from experience
- Does Title I money get where its intended and
does it improve student performance? - What was the impact of the recent changes in
seniority transfer rules? - Evaluation of FSF has to start now to study
implementation and school responses.