Financing K-12 Education in the Bloomberg Years, 2002-2008
Download
Report
Transcript Financing K-12 Education in the Bloomberg Years, 2002-2008
Financing K-12 Education in the
Bloomberg Years, 2002-2008
Leanna Stiefel and Amy Ellen Schwartz
IESP, Wagner and Steinhardt Schools, NYU
New York City Education Reform Retrospective: A Review and Synthesis
of the Children First Initiative, 2002-2000
November 2010
Thanks to Elizabeth Debraggio and Lila Nazar de Jaucourt for excellent research assistance
1
Key Questions
How did public resources change during
Bloomberg’s first two mayoral terms?
◦ Changes in levels or mixes of revenues?
How were resources distributed across
schools in NYC?
◦ Changes over the 2002-2008 period?
What role did private money play?
2
Outline
Examine publicly provided resources in NYC
◦ Compared to the rest of New York State
◦ Compared to other large cities
Examine correlates (drivers) of higher costs
Analyze distribution of resources within NYC
(across schools)
Highlight other sources of school funding
Conclude
3
NYC saw steady increase in total revenues pp
and passed NYS average by 2006
NYC (2008): $19,075 NYS (2008): $18,374
Figure 7: Total Revenue Per Pupil*: New York State (w/o NYC) and New York City
25000
20000
dollars
15000
New York State (w/o NYC)
New York City
10000
5000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
*CPI Adjusted with base year of 2008.
*Total Revenue is the sum of State, Local and Federal Revenues
*Duplicated Combined Adjusted Average Daily Membership
2001
2002
year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
4
2002-2008
NYC’s revenue pp increased by $5,785
Rest of New York State by $3,205
Disproportionately financed by increases in state
and federal funding, not local
total revenue increase
percent increase from:
federal sources
state sources
local sources
NYS
$3,205
NYC
$5,785
2.1%
31.7%
66.3%
7.2%
34.5%
58.2%
PP Revenue to “DOE schools” (not charters or FT
spec. ed. contact) about $5,000
5
NYC: Expenditures pp for classroom grew slowest
Total (‘08)= $17,696 Direct = $15,498 Classroom = $8,734
6
Eight of the 100 largest school districts
spent over $15,000 PP in 2007
Twenty-five Districts with the Highest Per Pupil Expenditures (PPE) among the Largest 100 Public School Districts, 2006-07
state
enrollment
PPE
Boston
MA
56,388
$21,801
New York City Public Schools
NY
999,150
$20,162
District of Columbia Public Schools
DC
56,943
$20,029
Loudoun County Public School
VA
50,383
$18,921
Columbus City
OH
56,003
$16,078
Montgomery County Public Schools
MD
137,814
$15,800
Cleveland Municipal City
OH
55,593
$15,141
Philadelphia City School District
PA
178,241
$15,077
Howard County Public School
MD
49,048
$14,777
Baltimore City Public Schools
MD
84,515
$14,591
Fairfax County Public Schools
VA
163,952
$14,294
Atlanta Public School
GA
50,631
$14,186
Los Angeles Unified
CA
707,627
$13,407
Baltimore County Public Schools
MD
105,839
$13,387
Prince George's County Public Schools
MD
131,014
$13,174
Detroit City School District
MI
117,609
$13,066
Dade County School District
FL
353,790
$12,998
Anne Arundel County Public Schools
MD
73,066
$12,871
Plano Independent School District
TX
52,997
$12,764
Milwaukee School District
WI
89,912
$12,708
Palm Beach County School District
FL
171,431
$12,695
Lee
FL
78,981
$12,449
San Diego Unified
CA
130,983
$12,239
Fulton County
GA
83,861
$11,997
Austin Independent School District
TX
82,140
$11,929
Notes: Total expenditures exclude capital outlays, interest on debt, and payments to private and public charter schools.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Characteristics of the 100 Largest
Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2007-08.
7
Did NYC’s increased spending reflect
higher cost of inputs?
Did the share of special ed students
increase?
Were there increases in poor or LEP
students?
How much did teacher salaries increase?
8
NYC schools, 2002-2008
Share PT and FT special education students up
◦ PT sped: 5.4% to 9.6%
◦ FT sped: 5.2% to 6.2%
Still, $ General Ed PP outpaced $ Special Ed PP
(35% vs. 31% increase)
But level of $ Special Ed PP is much higher than level
$ General Ed PP
Expenditures per pupil, 2008
Total
Citywide Spec Ed
$65,681
Integrated Spec Ed*
$32,710
General Ed
$14,525
*estimated
Direct Classroom
$63,205
$31,971
$31,477
$15,922
$12,348
$7,218
9
Significant changes in teacher salaries
2002-2008
Teacher salaries, on average, increased
nearly 25% in NYC schools (69% increase
in fringe)
Reflects both raises and changing mix of
teachers
Little change in share of poor or LEP
students
10
Across Schools in NYC
Under FSF, NYCDOE proposed budget weights based on student
characteristics
Table 2: Fair Student Funding Weights for the 2008-09 Academic Year
K-5
grade 6-8
grade 9-12
Grade Weights
1.00
1.08
1.03
Need Weights
Academic Intervention
Poverty
Achievement* - well below standards
Achievement* - below standards
ELL
Special Education
Less than 20%
20-60%
Greater than 60% (self-contained)
Greater than 60% (integrated)
0.24
0.40
0.25
0.40
0.50
0.35
0.50
0.40
0.25
0.50
0.56
0.68
1.23
2.28
0.56
0.68
1.23
2.28
0.56
0.68
0.73
2.52
Portfolio Weights
Specialized Audition Schools
n/a
n/a
0.35
Specialized Academic Schools
n/a
n/a
0.25
CTE Schools
n/a
n/a
0.05 - 0.26
Transfer Schools
n/a
n/a
0.40
Note: achievement weights are only given to 4th and 5th graders in elementary schools.
Weights are identical to those for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years.
Source: "See Your School's Budget" on the NYCDOE website
11
Changes in direct expenditures across schools:
Were FSF “factors” emphasized?
Yes, some…
Increased weights for low performance across all school
levels
Also on special education in elementary and middle
schools
Direct expenditures per pupil,changes in weights: 2001 and 2008
Elementary
Middle
High
% free lunch
3.876
-10.034
7.129
% resource room
72.235**
27.212
-64.653
% FT special educ.
107.352***
118.956***
-55
% LEP
4.865
8.53
13.46
% low achieving
29.116*
74.027***
27.706**
observations
1,312
600
510
12
Weights on FSF factors more significant
for classroom spending
(particularly in elementary schools)
Classroom expenditures per pupil,changes in weights: 2001 and 2008
Elementary
Middle
High
% free lunch
4.982*
0.617
6.849*
% resource room
29.933
29.589
-34.251
% FT special educ.
52.683***
72.016***
8.014
% LEP
8.997*
5.563
12.652*
% low achieving
22.416***
51.463***
15.958***
Observations
1312
600
510
13
Higher poverty schools had larger changes
in spending PP
Changes in direct expenditures per pupil (2001-2008), by poverty quintile
Elementary
Middle
High
1st poverty quintile
3,962.38*** 3,436.70***
1,880.70***
2nd poverty quintile
4,451.18*** 4,082.12***
2,904.00***
3rd poverty quintile
4,706.83*** 6,671.72***
5,533.61***
4th poverty quintile
5,237.03*** 6,653.45***
3,837.09***
5th poverty quintile
5,272.94*** 5,723.34***
3,626.30***
observations
612
194
153
14
Lower “class sizes” but similar
average salary in high poverty schools
Changes in teacher salaries and class size (2001-2008), by poverty quintile
Elementary
Middle
High
Tchr Salary Pup-Tch Tchr Salary Pup-Tch Tchr Salary Pup-Tch
1st poverty quintile 22,190.94*** -0.267 19,012.20*** -0.114 23,199.50*** 0.709**
2nd poverty quintile 24,528.35*** -0.491*** 20,035.99*** -0.187 23,404.59*** -0.497*
3rd poverty quintile 23,473.79*** -0.577*** 21,178.33*** -0.924*** 25,690.27*** -1.221***
4th poverty quintile 22,825.21*** -0.816*** 20,225.95*** -0.998*** 22,298.35*** -1.315***
5th poverty quintile 22,076.55*** -0.718*** 19,109.62*** -0.961** 24,290.51***
-0.84
observations
612
612
193
193
153
153
15
Bottom line on Distributions Across Schools
Children First and FSF changed resource
distributions for elementary and middle schools
◦ Weights on special education and achievement increased
◦ Cross-sectional models in 2008 better explained the
variation in expenditures
Higher poverty schools had larger increases in
PPE, larger decreases in class size, but smaller
increases in teacher salaries
The distribution of resources across high schools
still largely unexplained
16
What about private money?
Private/philanthropic support supplements
public funding
◦ Fund for Public Schools (FPS) works with
NYCDOE
◦ Foundations also help education oriented
nonprofits
◦ Alumni and parent organizations, private
philanthropists
17
The Fund for Public Schools (FPS)
Responsible for facilitating private-public
partnerships and soliciting philanthropic
funding
Restructured under Bloomberg and Klein
◦ Predicated on need for “greater leadership and
accountability…to create meaningful partnerships with
the private sector” (FPS, 2005)
◦ Works with NYCDOE priorities
Two broad initiatives:
◦ Securing private funding for education reform
◦ Raising awareness about the needs of public schools
Raised $255 million from 2002 and 2009
18
Private funds also sometimes flow
through intermediary organizations
Table 11: Program Expenses of Select New York City Service Providers or Intermediary Organizations, 2006-2008
Organization
Achievement First
Good Shepherd
Harlem Children's Zone**
New Visions for Public Schools**
Outward Bound
The After School Corporation**
Urban Assembly
Total
2005
2006
2007
Total
$4,273,833
$36,197,537
$26,410,020
$14,363,009
$3,720,135
$28,587,083
$2,411,566
$7,051,904
$44,672,271
$30,506,330
$13,710,069
$4,286,244
$30,561,487
$3,257,934
$9,098,704
$53,291,887
$41,063,619
$18,254,984
$4,286,244
$30,847,880
$4,522,773
$20,424,441
$134,161,695
$97,979,969
$46,328,062
$12,292,623
$89,996,450
$10,192,273
$115,963,183
$134,046,239
$161,366,091
$411,375,513
** Program expenses may include administrative expenses
19
Private dollars comprise a relatively small share
of the direct spending on education in NYC.
20
Key findings
Since Bloomberg assumed office, inflation adjusted
per pupil revenues increased by roughly $5,000
The composition of NYC students changed
◦ Larger share of special education students
◦ Shift from segregated to integrated classes
School characteristics identified in FSF formula
explained more of the variation in intradistrict
expenditures
While private philanthropy may have provided
strategic funding, the shares were quite small
21
Lessons for the future
Real growth in revenue during Bloomberg’s first six
years is highly unlikely to continue
◦ Public awareness of NYS’ structural deficit will likely
result in budget slowdowns
Federal government funds comprise a small share
of total revenues – prospects for federal “bailout”
dim
NYC government faces demand from other areas
(health, infrastructure, etc.)
SPED management could yield savings…
What will teachers receive?
Philanthropy cannot substitute for public dollars
22
Lessons for other districts
NYC experience suggests private money
directly coordinated with district’s mission
may provide flexibility
◦ Is this dependent on corresponding increases in
public dollars to implement?
Importance of garnering support from
teachers and unions
Growth in special education requires
thoughtful decision about most effective
means of service provision
23