Show me the money

How should New York spend billions in education funds? Top policymakers start to give their answer.

PHOTO: Monica Disare
The New York State Board of Regents

They’re making their list and checking it twice.

On Monday, New York’s top education policymakers began the annual rite of requesting funding for education projects they want lawmakers to bake into the state budget, which included $25.8 billion for education last year. The requests are still preliminary; next month, they’ll submit a final version.

A main focus of the state Board of Regents is funding the major new school-improvement plan that each state was required to create under federal law. They’re also seeking money to help schools crack down on bullying, to make free online courses available to more districts, and to create new exams.

The state education department has not yet requested a specific total amount of school funding, but draft documents say a top priority is to increase funding for high-needs schools. Last year, the Regents, which oversee the education department, asked for a $2.1 billion boost in school aid. In the end, the legislature approved a $1.1 billion increase.

Board members on Monday also addressed the looming issue of potential federal budget cuts and an impending $4.4 billion state deficit, according to projections by the governor’s office. State officials suggested Monday that those shortfalls could force them to pare down their funding requests.

“Let’s just really figure out how to do this in a way that makes us look realistic, mindful, thoughtful, and advances the things that we care about,” Chancellor Betty Rosa said.

Here are four things to know about the board’s budget requests:

1.) They focus on four key policy areas.

A state document outlines four main funding priorities: early-learning programs, supports for English learners, expanding career and technical education, and carrying out the state plan created under the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

New York’s ESSA plan provides a roadmap for how it evaluate and intervene in struggling schools.

2.) They call increased funding for high-poverty districts a “core priority.”

The Regents want districts with many poor students to get more funding — though they didn’t say how much.

In a draft document, department officials threw their weight behind the “foundation aid” formula, which is designed to give more funding to high-poverty districts.

The formula was created in response to a lawsuit that claimed the state had violated students’ rights by providing districts with too little funding to offer them a solid education. Last year, the state education department estimated that total school aid was $4.3 billion short of what is required by the formula — though Gov. Andrew Cuomo says the formula is a goal, not a requirement.

In its latest budget request, the department says a “core priority” is to push for money promised by the formula to be delivered on an “aggressive timeline.” However, the board on Monday did not float specific amounts it will seek in “foundation aid” or total state funding this year.

3.) They want to award new grants to help cut down on bullying and expand online classes.

The Regents hope to launch an $8 million grant program that would help schools track their school culture and safety, which they hope will help prevent bullying. Another $3 million request would expand online coursework options, with a goal of providing more advanced courses for needy school districts that may not be able to afford traditional courses. Both initiatives are part of the state’s ESSA plan.

The board included other new asks as well, including $100,000 to stream its meetings online.

4.) They want to create new types of tests.

The board wants to develop new types of tests, including foreign-language Regents exams and project-based assessments, which would mark a departure from paper-and-pencil multiple choice tests.

However, the requests will likely be smaller than last year.

They asked for $5 million last year for foreign-language Regents exams in Spanish, French, Italian and Chinese, but said they could shrink the number of languages this year. Similarly, the state documents says more time and research is needed to determine how much it will cost to create project-based assessments.

Getting through college

KIPP Memphis gets $40,000 to start fund that helps college students pay for unexpected costs

PHOTO: (Mike Brown/The Commercial Appeal)
A KIPP Memphis Collegiate Middle school 8th-grader Cameron Guy, 13, dances in front of his class in 2014.

A charter school network in Memphis is getting into the college scholarship game with the help of a national grant.

KIPP Memphis Collegiate Schools was one of four charter networks nationwide selected for a $40,000 grant to launch a “college persistence fund,” which will provide small, emergency grants to help KIPP Memphis graduates pay for college.

“Sometimes, an increase in room and board or an unexpected lab fee may leave a college student unable to pay their tuition bills, and possibly lead to them dropping out,” a KIPP spokeswoman said in a statement.

The Memphis network runs seven schools, one of which is a high school. KIPP Memphis Collegiate High School saw 80 percent of its graduates last year go on to a post-secondary institution. That’s 20 percentage points higher than the district average.

KIPP Bay Area Public Schools, KIPP NYC Public Schools, and KIPP Philadelphia Public Schools were also selected by the Ludwig Family Foundation to receive grants. The DC-based foundation launched a similar college fund with KIPP DC in 2014.

The DC KIPP chapter has seen success with the small grants, the KIPP Foundation’s leader, Richard Barth, wrote on Monday in a column for Forbes. Over the last four years, KIPP DC has offered 39 persistence grants to alumni in college, and 95 percent of those grant recipients are still in college or have graduated.

“These awards, which average around $3,200, provide critical support, like helping KIPP alumni take summer courses to fill credits and accelerate towards graduation or covering living expenses that can derail a college degree,” Barth wrote.

Indiana's 2019 legislative session

As Indiana’s teacher pay debate heats up, some lawmakers say schools spend too much outside the classroom

PHOTO: Allen Underwood, Courtesy of Wayne Township Schools
A teacher helps a student during classroom instruction at McClelland Elementary School.

Facing a tight budget year and widespread calls for teacher pay raises, some Indiana politicians are questioning whether school districts are spending too little of the funding that they already receive in the classroom and too much on administration.

The lawmakers point to statistics from the Office of Management and Budget showing that 57 percent of the $11.9 billion state dollars schools spent in 2016 were used in the classroom. And a report using data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows personnel hiring across the country has dramatically outpaced enrollment, with non-teacher hiring dwarfing that of full-time teachers.

“While the number of teachers and students in our public schools have essentially flatlined, administration and non-teaching staff have ballooned,” House Speaker Brian Bosma, a Republican from Indianapolis, told fellow lawmakers in November.

But school districts — eager to receive more money for teacher pay increases that will make them competitive with neighboring states — are pushing back on the characterization that they aren’t using funding as efficiently or responsibly as possible. Trimming administrative payroll alone won’t be enough to raise money for higher teacher salaries.

“When people make broad brush stroke comments about funding, it’s easy to take a shot at administrators,” said Flora Reichanadter, superintendent of Pike Township schools. “There’s this misconception … that (districts) just kind of squandered their money, which is an absolutely inaccurate statement.”

But just figuring out how much of what Indiana spends on schools directly affects students is a complicated endeavor — and figuring out what share goes solely to teachers is even harder. We know that in 2015, the most recent year available, 38 percent of Indiana’s K-12 staff members were full-time teachers. But Rep. Bob Behning, chairman of the House Education Committee, said Indiana can’t isolate teacher salaries and benefits from those of other licensed educators in order to see how much schools and districts spend on them alone.

“Part of our discussion has been trying to isolate those numbers and trying to figure out exactly what that is,” Behning said. “We’ve had difficulty getting data … The fact that teacher by definition is not just a classroom instructor, but could be a librarian or any number of things.”

During last month’s ceremonial first day of the legislative session, Bosma said lawmakers and education advocates, including the state teachers unions, were working on a plan to ensure teacher raises are part of the state’s next two-year budget — mirroring efforts underway to raise teacher pay across the nation. Gov. Eric Holcomb said he also plans to address teacher compensation — in the short- and long-term — though it’s not yet clear whether that means any action in 2019.

But numerous interests are fighting for limited state budget dollars this year, so lawmakers are scrutinizing how existing state funds are being spent by school districts.

“I think we need to have an open discussion about how do we have efficiencies and drive dollars to the classroom,” Behning said. “There’s no question there are things we can do … how do we do more to streamline the operations of the system?”

As an example of cost savings, Behning said that many districts, some of them small and rural, have their own bus depots and maintenance teams — services that could be combined with other districts or cities and towns to reduce spending.

A 2017 report from EdChoice, a national pro-school choice organization based in Indianapolis, criticized school districts for increasing spending on non-teaching staff instead of using the dollars on teacher salaries. Marty Lueken, director of fiscal policy and analysis for EdChoice, questions whether that has helped students.

“Whenever I hear someone say that schools are struggling with large classes, or need more resources for schools or classrooms, or teachers should be paid more, I think about these hiring practices,” he added. “We could have had those other things, like smaller classes or higher take-home pay for teachers, if district leaders made different personnel decisions.”

But only looking at staffing and comparing spending on full-time teachers and to spending on non-teacher leaves a lot out of the picture, said Dennis Costerison, executive director for the Indiana Association of School Business Officials. On its face, that comparison underestimates what schools spend on other adults, such as counselors and principals, who work directly with students, and part-time instructors, who are often cheaper and easier to hire than full-time educators.

“Administrator,” too, is a finicky term, Costerison said. Sometimes, the term includes department heads, who might also be full-time teachers.

Money not spent on teacher salaries also funds resources necessary to ensuring clean and safe schools, such as custodians, accountants, human resources staff, and school safety officers.

Reichanadter, who previously led Franklin Township schools, said school funding has not kept pace with the cost of living, and even if it had, cutting administrative positions isn’t enough to add up to teacher raises.

“There’s only so much you can cut,” she said. “There’s only one of me. There’s 500 teachers. Divide my salary up between 500 teachers and we’re talking about maybe a cup of coffee.”

Administrators, she cautions, also do work that otherwise would fall to principals or teachers, who should be spending their time in the classroom or guiding instructions, she said, not doing payroll or buying supplies. And while some administrative work seems far removed from student learning, the tasks add up to an environment and a system where learning can be the priority, she said. Plus, she added, some non-teaching roles have naturally increased as schools have added services for vulnerable students, such as nurses, occupational therapists, and interpreters.

“It’s ludicrous for some of the legislators to conclude that we didn’t pay attention to this,” Reichanadter said. “I have to be a really good steward of my resources because if I don’t and I don’t compete with my local area, then I’m going to lose teachers and have a lot of turnaround … and that affects learning.”

Costerison added that a portion of a district’s non-teaching costs are the result of mandates made by the very legislature that is critiquing school spending, such as requirements around school safety, testing, and teacher training.

“Whenever bills are passed and laws are enacted, some of them do have repercussions from the standpoint of additional staffing and additional responsibilities for administrators and teachers,” Costerison said.

The state’s most recent 2016 report on classroom spending from the Office of Management and Budget estimates about 57 percent of state dollars go to the classroom — a figure that includes teacher and principal salaries, dollars spent on materials and textbooks, and pay for counselors and similar staff. But that percentage not spent on classrooms includes funding that state law currently says can’t be spent on instruction, Costerison said.

Those off-limits categories include money for building maintenance and debt service — money that, until changes in the state laws about district budgeting take effect next year, couldn’t go toward teacher salaries even if districts wanted.

Lawmakers will have a tough time come January deciding which funding asks to prioritize in the face of shrinking state revenue and several urgent competing issues, including the need to better fund the Department of Child Services.

“When you look at the revenue that exists, the funding, quite frankly, isn’t there at the moment,” said Sen. Jeff Raatz, the new chairman of the Senate Education Committee. “The reality is that we have some significant hurdles we have to overcome to get where we need to go.”