Public School Funding Policy in New York State: K-12 Analysis

Introduction: State Responsibility for Quality Education

According to "Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities: Best Collaborative Section 4: Facilities Funding," published in May 2005, it is the responsibility of every U.S. state to guarantee that each student has "access to a quality education." Court rulings have reinforced this standard, and schools are now responsible not only for instruction but also for ensuring that their physical facilities meet what constitutes a "quality education."

Traditionally, school districts have delegated and regulated facility provision independently. However, many states have moved to increase funding to local districts and to establish policy standards — including technical assistance — that enable facilities to meet adequate educational requirements.

BEST: Building Educational Success Together

In 2001, the 21st Century School Fund (21CSF), supported by the Ford Foundation, collaborated in the formation of BEST — Building Educational Success Together. The partnership included: (1) 21CSF; the Education Law Center (Newark, NJ); (2) Neighborhood Capital Budget Group (Chicago, IL); the KnowledgeWorks Foundation (Cincinnati, OH); (3) the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Washington, DC); (4) the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (Washington, DC); (5) New Schools Better Neighborhoods (Los Angeles, CA); (6) New Visions for Public Schools (New York, NY); and (7) Mark Schneider of the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

BEST developed a four-part policy agenda:

1) Increase public participation in facilities planning; 2) Create and support schools as centers of community that offer school-based supports to children, eliminate barriers to success, and serve the broader community; 3) Improve facilities management, including maintenance and capital improvement programs; and 4) Secure adequate and equitable facilities funding.

The BEST report states: "State policy reform is one tool for affecting the planning, design, construction, maintenance and funding practices and processes at the state and local school district levels. However, state level standards and control must be carefully developed and applied, so that creativity, public participation, and local priorities can drive the facility planning and design outcomes."

State of Affairs in New York State Schools

School facilities policies may be utilized to: (1) assess state and local policy matters and compare recommended policies at the state and local school district levels; (2) facilitate discussion among teachers, parents, students, principals, facility managers, community members, and business leaders about policy barriers to well-maintained, educationally adequate school facilities; (3) identify policy or funding incentives that can be adopted to support high-quality educational facilities for all children; and (4) build consensus for state-level mandates requiring local school districts to engage in best practices for school facility condition, design, and utilization.

Policy issues in New York State schools include the use of chemicals and pesticides. Education Law 409-I was enacted, establishing that the department is responsible for reporting "on the status of utilizing environmentally sensitive cleaning and maintenance (green) products in all public and nonpublic schools by June 1, 2007" (University of the State of New York: School Operations and Management Services, 2007). Such policy is shaped by the stated needs of certain socio-political viewpoints, including the need for facility alignment in support of quality education.

A February 2004 report by Jack Buckley of the Department of Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation found that "the attrition of both new and experienced teachers is a great challenge for schools and school administrators throughout the United States, particularly in large urban districts." Buckley argues that facility quality is "an important predictor of the decision of teachers to leave their current position" (Buckley, 2004). The research was supported in part by the Ford Foundation and the 21st Century School Fund through its BEST program.

Buckley also notes that broader qualitative factors — including government policies, media portrayals of teachers, and community attitudes — influence teacher morale and professional commitment. Drawing on the work of Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin, Buckley observes that salary is not always the primary reason teachers leave; some teachers would accept lower salaries in exchange for superior working conditions. Inadequate resources also contribute to teacher job dissatisfaction.

Buckley further argues that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) may have actually "worked against the improvement of the nation's stock of quality teachers," characterizing government education policies as "erratic" and bureaucracies as "unresponsive" and a "source of frustration for teachers" (Buckley, 2004). Because teaching takes place within a physical space, the quality of that space affects teachers' ability to teach, their morale, and their health and safety.

Poor indoor air quality — a "widespread" problem resulting in "sick building syndrome" — is cited as a concern. Teachers also identify temperature control and classroom lighting as important to both student and teacher performance. Illumination research shows a return to natural lighting, which was standard before the 1950s. A synthesis of 53 studies conducted by Lemaster (1997) found that daylight "fosters higher student achievement" (Buckley, 2004). Additionally, research on acoustics is described as "consistent and convincing: good acoustics are fundamental to good academic performance" (Buckley, 2004).

The inequality in school district funding in New York State was formally challenged in 1978 when a group of property-poor school districts, joined by the five large urban New York districts, filed Levittown v. Nyquist to contest the state's education finance system. The 1982 Court of Appeals decision (439 N.E.2d 359) ruled that while "substantial inequities in funding did exist, the state constitution does not require equal funding for education." However, the court also held that the state constitution guarantees students the right to the opportunity for a "sound basic education" (Hunter, 2004).

Inequality in Quality of Classroom Provision

In 1993, the case CFE v. State was filed, asserting that New York State was "failing in its constitutional duty to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to hundreds of thousands of its schoolchildren" (Hunter, 2004). In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals remanded the Levittown ruling for trial in 1995. After a seven-month trial, Justice Leland DeGrasse rendered his decision (719 N.Y.S.2d 475) on January 10, 2001, in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the state to ensure that all public schools provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. A costing-out study was ordered as a threshold task in developing a new school funding system.

An intermediate appeals court overturned the trial court's decision, claiming the New York State Constitution required only an eighth-grade education. The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals issued its decision in CFE II, ruling for the plaintiff. New York State was given until July 30, 2004 to: (1) determine the cost of providing a sound basic education; (2) fund those costs in each school; and (3) establish an accountability system to ensure reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound basic education (Hunter, 2004).

The state missed this deadline. The remand judge appointed a panel of three special masters to hold hearings and make recommendations. Their November 30, 2004 report compelled the court to order the state to enact legislation within 90 days that would: (1) provide an additional $5.63 billion in annual operating aid, phased in over four years; (2) undertake a new cost study every four years; (3) provide an additional $9.2 billion for building, renovating, and leasing facilities, phased in over five years; and (4) undertake a facilities study every five years in accordance with the methodology used by CFE in its BRICKS Plan (Hunter, 2004).

Prior to the June 2003 Court of Appeals order, the CFE and the New York State School Boards Association had already announced "Costing Out: A New York Adequacy Study," undertaken by leading national experts with public engagement across the state. In September 2004, the governor announced the formation of a Commission on Education Reform, which hired outside experts to perform a cost study. A third cost study was released by the New York State Board of Regents in 2004. All three studies recommended annual funding increases ranging from $2.5 billion to $9.0 billion in pre-K–12 education spending — representing a 26.5% increase — and made similar recommendations for changes in the state's school funding system, urging the state to:

Match school resources to student needs; adopt a foundation-based approach; provide state aid based on enrollment rather than attendance; supply regional cost adjustments; direct most increased funding — between 62% and 88% — to the New York City School District and most of the remainder to other districts educating high-need students; and simplify the funding system by consolidating nearly 50 separate state aid formulas into one "operating aid" foundation formula (Hunter, 2004).

As is traditional with cost studies, all three reports excluded school facilities capital costs. The intermediate appeals court ordered New York State to increase operating funds by approximately $4.7 billion per year, phased in over four years, and to provide at least $9.2 billion in facilities funding within five years. The state missed the April 1 deadline. In November 2006, the 2003 Court of Appeals decision was reaffirmed and the state was ordered to provide approximately $2 billion in additional annual operating aid to public schools. In January 2007, the new governor proposed education finance and accountability reforms including statewide increases of $7 billion in annual state aid phased in over four years. On April 1, 2007, the state legislature passed the governor's recommendations.