Align resources with student need.

Target additional resources to teacher quality and preschool programs.

Adopt a foundation-based approach.

Adjust resources for geographic cost differences.

No particular implementation period suggested.

The scope of the Commission's request to the S&P study team was to:

1) identify the spending levels in the better-performing districts;
2) account for additional resources needed for students with special needs;
3) consider regional cost differences; and
4) calculate equivalent funding levels by extrapolating the data from better-performing districts.

Attempts to make transparent all of the important assumptions in the study.

Not yet implemented

This study formed part of the basis for the Final Report from the "New York State Commission on Education Reform," appointed by Governor Pataki. The Commission's recommendations included funding increases between $2.5 billion and $5.6 billion, a variety of accountability measures, and a five-year implementation period. It did not include the S&P study's recommendation that most of the increased funding be directed to the districts educating high-need children.

The study identified "successful districts," analyzed spending in those districts, translated the spending into 2004 dollars, and calculated spending gaps (that is the amount by which schools are under-funded).

First, the study used four separate sets of criteria from up to three years of data to identify successful districts:

1) Top Performers: used the average of 15 indicators–test passing rates and graduation and retention rates; chose districts in top 25% of the states' districts IF they were also above the state average on each indicator. Identified 102 districts.
2) 2006 Achievement Targets: districts that have already met the state's 2005-06 Performance Index targets (six tests) under the federal NCLB Act, per the State Education Department (SED), and have Regents Diploma rates and dropout rates better than the state average. Identified 180 districts.
3) 2008 Achievement Targets:districts that have already met the state's 2007-08 Performance Index targets (six tests) under the federal NCLB Act, per the SED, and have Regents Diploma rates and dropout rates better than the state average. Identified 108 districts.
4) Regents Criteria:districts where 80% of test takers score Proficient or above in grade 4 and where the simple average scores on five Regents exams are each 65 or above. Identified 281 districts.

Student demographics in the identified districts vary markedly from state averages, that is, they educate much lower percentages of low-income and ELL students and somewhat lower percentages of special education students.

Comment: This raises the question whether using these districts to estimate costs for districts with dramatically different student demographics is reasonable or appropriate.

Forty-four (44) school districts were identified as successful under all four scenarios.

Next, the study looked at spending in the identified districts and adjusted for geographic cost differences, additional spending for students with special needs and "cost effectiveness." Because achievement in the "successful districts" was similar for the top 50% of spenders and the bottom 50%, the study eliminated the top 50% as "inefficient" and used the average of the bottom 50% to calculate the funding needed in districts not identified as "successful."

Comment: This may skew the study's results because the study did not determine whether the "inefficient" label was accurate. Because salaries and benefits are the bulk of school funding (especially when facilities and transportation are not included, as they are not in these studies) and districts have minimal control over the seniority of their employees, the higher spending districts may simply have more experienced teachers and staff relative to the lower spending districts. Some other studies have used average spending from "successful" districts after excluding only the top and bottom 5% to eliminate outliers.

Finally, the study translated the calculated spending into 2004 dollars and computed the statewide spending gaps, that is, the amount by which districts are under-funded. Using the New York Regional Cost Index, the statewide spending gap is from $4.6 billion to $5.6 billion across the four scenarios. The bottom end of the range dropped to $2.5 billion when the study used the Geographic Cost of Education Index.

None. The Commission on Education Reform, for which the study was conducted, held public hearings. But the cost-study team itself conducted no outreach to stakeholders or the public.