| Printable Version

EPP MONITOR
text only

An Emerging Consensus on Facts, not Policy
By Joan Scheuer & Noreen Connell

This centerfold (see pdf file) compares four proposals for reforming the way state education aid is distributed. All of the plans respond to the decision of the state’s highest court calling for a revised school aid system that would ensure a sound basic education for pupils in New York City—and, as the court said, “if the legislature wishes,” pupils in the rest of the state.
The Trial Court Judge has said that if the legislature fails to comply with the Court of Appeals decision by July 30, 2004, a Special Master will be appointed to decide the case. The Special Master may well interpret the court’s order literally and confine his remedy to New York City alone—a very unappealing alternative for many non-city legislators.
Our comparison shows that the proposals have many features in common. Though their research procedures and calculations differ, they follow similar steps in defining adequacy, determining the costs of providing a sound basic education, and accounting for the differences in pupil needs, regional costs, and the local contribution. All the proposals recognize that compliance with the court’s decision calls for billions of additional dollars in state aid. We include data on recent increases in aid over the last five years that do not look so different from the large new sums required to comply with the court’s decision. All of the plans should be commended for, at long last, establishing some basis for education funding. Learning standards will now determine resources, rather than the reverse. This centerfold is an attempt to ferret out “the devil in the details,” even though we still had to simplify the details to keep the explanations short. A first draft of this table was already reviewed by EPP member representatives. Their main criticism is that we didn’t give a thumbnail description of how the plans differ in terms of their overall objectives. So here is our attempt:

• The CFE/NYS School Boards Association plan is an effort to entice the largest possible number of legislators to support their funding recommendations. Three quarters of all school districts would benefit from additional resources and/or lower property taxes. This is a classic win-win scenario. If this plan does not gain the support of the Republican Senate leadership, it will be proof positive that regional antagonisms are stronger than self interest. It could happen.
• At the other polar extreme is the plan outlined by economists of the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. Devoid of political calculations, it does an honest accounting of the true costs of raising student achievement and retaining teachers in highneed school districts. It even goes so far as to question the extra costs of “save harmless” policies and attempts to target property tax relief to those who need it the most.
• The lower-cost plans of the Regents and the Zarb Commission do not exemplify a political strategy as much as accommodation to political pressures to contain the state’s costs for education funding reform. Both use a sample of low-spending, but successful school districts with few high-need pupils to calculate the “floor” for arriving at adequacy. Then both make adjustments for additional funding with incomplete or low weightings for high-need pupils. Both would be improvements over the current system, but they will leave New York City and high-need suburbs without a high enough level of resources to help their students reach adequacy. This would be a missed opportunity to get it right the first time.

  An Emerging Consensus on Facts, not Policy
  By Joan Scheuer & Noreen Connell

  This centerfold (see pdf file) compares four proposals for reforming the way state education aid is distributed. All of the plans respond to the decision of the state’s highest court calling for a revised school aid system that would ensure a sound basic education for pupils in New York City—and, as the court said, “if the legislature wishes,” pupils in the rest of the state.
  The Trial Court Judge has said that if the legislature fails to comply with the Court of Appeals decision by July 30, 2004, a Special Master will be appointed to decide the case. The Special Master may well interpret the court’s order literally and confine his remedy to New York City alone—a very unappealing alternative for many non-city legislators.
  Our comparison shows that the proposals have many features in common. Though their research procedures and calculations differ, they follow similar steps in defining adequacy, determining the costs of providing a sound basic education, and accounting for the differences in pupil needs, regional costs, and the local contribution. All the proposals recognize that compliance with the court’s decision calls for billions of additional dollars in state aid. We include data on recent increases in aid over the last five years that do not look so different from the large new sums required to comply with the court’s decision. All of the plans should be commended for, at long last, establishing some basis for education funding. Learning standards will now determine resources, rather than the reverse. This centerfold is an attempt to ferret out “the devil in the details,” even though we still had to simplify the details to keep the explanations short. A first draft of this table was already reviewed by EPP member representatives. Their main criticism is that we didn’t give a thumbnail description of how the plans differ in terms of their overall objectives. So here is our attempt:

  • The CFE/NYS School Boards Association plan is an effort to entice the largest possible number of legislators to support their funding recommendations. Three quarters of all school districts would benefit from additional resources and/or lower property taxes. This is a classic win-win scenario. If this plan does not gain the support of the Republican Senate leadership, it will be proof positive that regional antagonisms are stronger than self interest. It could happen.
  • At the other polar extreme is the plan outlined by economists of the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. Devoid of political calculations, it does an honest accounting of the true costs of raising student achievement and retaining teachers in highneed school districts. It even goes so far as to question the extra costs of “save harmless” policies and attempts to target property tax relief to those who need it the most.
  • The lower-cost plans of the Regents and the Zarb Commission do not exemplify a political strategy as much as accommodation to political pressures to contain the state’s costs for education funding reform. Both use a sample of low-spending, but successful school districts with few high-need pupils to calculate the “floor” for arriving at adequacy. Then both make adjustments for additional funding with incomplete or low weightings for high-need pupils. Both would be improvements over the current system, but they will leave New York City and high-need suburbs without a high enough level of resources to help their students reach adequacy. This would be a missed opportunity to get it right the first time.
  
  

Printable Version