Amy Ellen Schwartz - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Amy Ellen Schwartz

Description:

Amy Ellen Schwartz. New York University. Ross Rubenstein. Syracuse ... About 13% from myriad categorical grant programs. 8. Allocation Basics - Teachers ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:67
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: steinha
Category:
Tags: amy | ellen | fair | grant | new | schwartz | state | york

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Amy Ellen Schwartz


1
Why 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
  •  
  • October 5, 2007

http//steinhardt.nyu.edu/iesp/
2
In 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?

3
3
4
The 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.

5
The 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.

6
Outline of Talk
  • Background on School Resource Allocation
  • Analyses of School Spending in New York City
  • Implications for Policy

7
Four 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.

8
Where 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.

9
Allocation 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.

10
How 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.

11
Advanced 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.

12
Empirical 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.

13
Data
  • 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

14
Five 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

15
R2 0.08 Slope 27.3 n682
16
R2 0.08 Slope 19.9 n682
17
R2 0.01 Slope -5.1 n682
18
R2 0.61 Slope 15.6 n682
19
R2 0.29 Slope 9.4 n682
20
Total Spending
Gen Ed Spending
Tax Levy and State Operating Aid
Other Revenues
Title I Revenues
21
Regression 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)

22
Poverty Coefficients
23
Key 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.

24
Weighted 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.

25
Cautions
  • 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.

26
Agenda 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com