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