Public Policy-Making: Public School Funding

Public Policy-Making: Public School Funding (K-12) in New York State The objective of this work is to demonstrate an understanding of the policy process as well as key policy terminology and policy concepts. Additionally this work will demonstrate an understanding of some subtle issues in the policy making process. According to the work "Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities: Best Collaborative Section 4: Facilities Funding" published in May 2005 the responsibility of every U.S.

state is to guarantee that each student has "access to a quality education." (Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities, nd) Inclusive in this as stated in court rulings and related within this report schools are now responsible as well to assure that the facilities of the schools fall within what constitutes a "quality education." Recommended Policies for Public School Facilities, nd) in the past it has been traditional for school districts to delegate and regulate the facility provision.

There are many states reported in the study to increase "funding to local districts" as well as putting policies in place that set standards including technical assistance in enabling the facility provision adequate for education standards. I.

BEST (Building Educational Success Together) In 2001 it is reported that the 21st Century School Fund (21CSF) upheld by the support of the Ford Foundation collaborated in BEST or 'Building Educational Success Together." Partners include: (1) 21 CSF; 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 (State University of New York at Stony Brook" (Ibid) Developed by BEST is a 'four-part policy agenda' as follows: 1) Increase public participation in facilities planning; 2) Create and support schools as center of community that offer school-based supports to children to 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." (Ibid) 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." (Ibid) School facilities policies may be utilized in the endeavor of: (1) assessing state and local policy matter and in making comparison of recommended policy matter in state and local school district; or to (2) "facilitate a discussion among teachers, parents, students, principals, facility mangers, community and business leaders, about any 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 that require local school districts to engage in best practice for school facility condition, design and utilization."(Ibid) II.

STATE of AFFAIRS in NEW YORK STATE SCHOOLS Policy issues in New York State Schools are inclusive of use of chemical and pesticides in school and recently Education Law 409-I has been enacted which establishes the department as being responsible to report "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) Policy such as this is shaped by the stated needs of certain socio-political view and in one such case the need for facility alignment for quality education is upheld by educators.

A February 2004 report published by the Department of Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation author Jack Buckley reports 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. Because of the importance of this issue, there is a large empirical literature that investigates why teachers quit and how they might be better induced to stay. Here we build upon this literature by suggesting another important factor: the quality of school facilities.

We investigate the importance of facility quality using data from a survey of K-12 teachers in Washington, D.C.

We find in our sample that facility quality is an important predictor of the decision of teachers to leave their current position." (Buckley, 2004) the research is stated to have been supported "in part by the Ford Foundation and the 21st Century School Fund through its BEST program." (National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, nd) the problem of retaining teachers is a problem in schools in many areas of the country and if New York State is to retain quality teachers and provide quality education then it is certain that the school environment plays a major role.

Stated in the work of Buckley is: "In addition, some qualitative research indicates that more general factors, including government policies, portrayal of teachers in the mass media, and community attitudes, also influence teachers' general esteem and status in society, which features largely in their professional commitment and morale." (Buckley, 2004) It is related by Buckley that the work of Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin state that it is not always the salary that keeps a teacher from leaving but salaries in lower amounts might be more acceptable for teachers in exchange for working conditions that were superior to the school, which they left.

Another factor that is related to school environment is the resource- availability levels and it is found in research that lack of resources "contributes to teacher job dissatisfaction." (Ibid) Buckley states that it may be that the 'No Child Left Behind' Act (NCLB) has actually worked "against the improvement of the nation's stock of quality teachers." (Buckley, 2004) Education policies of the government are held by Buckley to have been "erratic" and the bureaucracies to have been "unresponsive...[and a],,source of frustration for teachers." (Buckley, 2004) Buckley relates that while "myriad factors affect teacher retention..." because school and teaching take place at a certain place (within the school) and the quality of that place has the capacity to impact the teachers in terms of: "...the ability to teach, teacher morale, and the very health and safety of teachers." (Buckley, 2004) Poor indoor air quality is cited as well as the fact that this is a "widespread" problem and results in schools suffering from "sick building syndrome." (Buckley, 2004) the ability to maintain control over temperatures in the classroom have been cited by teachers as important in student and teacher performance.

Lighting in the classroom plays a large role in the performance of teachers and students according to Buckley (2004). Illumination in the nation's schoolrooms are seeing a return to natural lighting stated to have been the norm prior to the decade of the 1950s which witnessed a decline in costs of power and a decline in use of natural illumination in schools as well. For the impact this policy being set would have in all schools across New York State in terms of costs this would certainly be sound policy agenda.

Added to the reduction in electricity and power costs is the fact that a synthesis of 53 studies was conducted by Lemaster (1997) relating to school facilities and student behavior and achievement as related to daylight exposure and state that daylight "fosters higher student achievement." (Buckley, 2004) Teachers state that while receiving exposure to the natural light that teachers report not being able to see through the windows in the classroom. Next related in the work of Buckley relating to school facility adequacy is the noise levels that are present in certain schools.

Buckley states that research exists which links acoustics to learning and that this research is "consistent and convincing: good acoustics are fundamental to good academic performance." (Buckley, 2004) III. INEQUALITY in QUALITY of CLASSROOM PROVISION The inequality in funding for school district in New York State was challenged in 1978 by "a group of property-poor school districts, joined by the five large urban New York districts, filed Levittown v.

Nyquist, to challenge the state's education finance system." (Hunter, 2004) the decision rendered in 1982 439 N.E.2d359, the Court of Appeals - the highest Court in New York State was a ruling that "while substantial inequities in funding did exist, the state constitutions 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) in 1993 the case CFE v.

State was filed and made the assortment 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 what is termed a 'landmark' decision the Court of Appeals, in 1995, remanded the Levvittown ruling for trial.

The trial lasted seven months and Justice Leland Degrasse rendered his decision, 719 N.Y.S.2d 475 on January 10, 2001, in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the state to ensure that all public schools provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to their students." (Hunter, 2004) Entered, as part of this decision was a "costing-out study as the threshold task in developing a new school funding system." (Hunter, 2004) the intermediate-levels appeals court overturned the decision of the trial-court and made the claim that the New York State Constitution required only an eighth-grade education.

The decision was appealed by the Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals sent down its decision (CFE II) which ruled for the favor of the plaintiff and New York State was given until the 30th July 2004 to: (1) make determination of the cost of the provision of a sound basic education; (2) fund these costs in each school; and (3) establish an accountability system to ensure the reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound basic education." (Hunter, 2004) the deadline set by the court went by with no action from the state with the remand judge appointing a panel "of three special master to hold hearings on the matter and make recommendations to the court." (Hunter, 2004) the panel issued its report and recommendations on November 30, 2004 and compelled the court to "order the state to enact legislation within 90 days that would: (1) provide an additional $5.63 billion for annual operating aid, phased in over a four-year period; (2) undertake a new cost study every four years to determine the cost of a sound basic education; (3) provide an additional $9.2 billion for building, renovating, and leasing facilities, phased in over a five-year period; and (4) undertake a facilities study every five years, in accordance with the methodology used by CFE in its facilities analysis to develop the BRICKS Plan." (Hunter, 2004) Prior to the June 2003 Court of Appeals order that made a costing-out study a requirement the CFE and the New York State School Boards Association "announced Costing Out: A New York Adequacy Study, which was undertaken by leading national experts and included public engagement across the state." (Hunter, 2004) the governor announced that the Commission on Education Reform" would be formed in September 2004 which was an initiative in which experts from the outside were hired to "perform a cost study" both of which were released sometime in spring of 2004.

Additionally a cost study was released by the New York State Board of Regents in 2004 considered a part of the funding proposal submitted annual for the school.

All three cost studies made a recommendation for annual funding increases ranging from $2.5 billion to $9.0 billion in pre-k-12 education spending (26.5% increase) with all three reports developing "similar recommendations for changes in the policies and practices of the state's school funding system and urging the state to do the following: Match school resources to student needs; Adopt a foundation-based approach; Provide "state aid" based on enrollment, instead of attendance; Supply regional-cost adjustments; Direct most of the 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 combining many of the almost 50 separate state aid formulas into one "operating aid" foundation formula." (Hunter, 2004) As in the case of traditional cost studies all three of the studies reported were in exclusion of the school facilities capital costs.

The intermediate appeals court ordered New York State to make an increase in operating funds of approximately $4,7 billion "per year to be phased in over four years, and provide an infusion of at least $9.2 billion facilities funding, to be accomplished within five years. The state missed the April 1 deadline set by the court and in n November 2006, the 2003 decision of he Court of Appeals was reaffirmed and the state was ordered to provide approximately $2 billion additional to its annual operating aid to the public schools.

The New governor proposed reforms in education finance and accountability in January 2007 and statewide increases of $7 billion in annual state aid...phased in over four years." On April 1 the recommendations of the governor were passed by the state legislature. IV.

POLICY ADOPTION RECOMMENDATIONS of the THREE AGENCIES the report entitled; "New York Adequacy Study: Providing all children with full opportunity to meet the Regents Learning Standards" (2004) made the recommendations of: (1) aligning funding with needs of students; (2) adoption of a foundation-based approach; (3) stated 'pre-kindergarten education programs as well as extended day and summer school programs' as critical to the 'educational success of children living in poverty.'; (4) adjustment of resources for geographic cost differences; and (5) adjustment of resources for geographic differences in costs.

(Hunter, 2004; paraphrased) This report was completed at the request of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity and the New York State School Boards Association who collaborated with 28 other organizations throughout the state. The focus of the policy agenda was moving the state ahead on the lawsuit, which challenged the funding system in the state as being unconstitutional. (CFE v. State, 2004) This was funded by a.I.R and MAP foundation grants.

(Hunter, 2004) In the New York Fact Sheet entitled: "Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education" recommendations made were for: (1) targeting state aid to educational need; (2) enactment of foundation -- based approach; (3) focus on "strengthening teaching because teaching affects student achievement significantly; (4) adjustment of resources for regional cost differences; (4) implementation over a seven years period beginning in 2004-05; and (5) reliance on New York State assessments aligned with the Regents Learning Standards, on some of which students must score 'proficient' or above to receive a high school diploma." (Hunter, 2004) The funding suggested was $6.0 billion additional in state funding in 2003-2004.

The New York Fact Sheet entitled: "Resource Adequacy Study for the New York State Commission on Education Reform" suggests that $2.5 to $5.6 billion additional funding in 2004 dollars, based on the 'cost efficient' school districts identified as 'successful' should be allocated. The major recommendations include: (1) alignment of resources with student need; (2) target additional resources to teacher quality and preschool programs; (3) adopt a foundation-based approach; (4) adjust resources for geographic cost differences; and (4) no particular implementation period suggested.

(Hunter, 2004; paraphrased) There was absolutely no public input on these recommendations and as well the cost study team failed to conduct outreach to stakeholders or the public. (Hunter, 2004) V. FISCAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The fiscal policy recommendations of each of the recommending agencies were stated as follows: New York State Board of Regents $6.0 billion additional state funding in 2003-2004 dollars. The other studies do not designate where the funding would originate, i.e., state and/or local.

(Hunter, 2004) New York State Commission on Education Reform Between $2.5 billion and $5.6 billion additional funding in 2004 dollars, based on the "cost efficient" "successful." (Hunter, 2004) The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Ford Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Between $6.2 and $8.4 Billion additional funding Funding in 2001-02 dollars An increase of 19.6 to 26.5%. (Hunter, 2004) VI. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS COMPARISON The following sections show a comparison of the recommendations made by each agency for New York State Schools.

In each of these it is recommended that the needs of the students be matched by the resources provided by the state. A 'foundation-based' approach is recommended by the New York State Board of Regents and the Atlantic Philanthropies, Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a.I.R. And MAP. Whereas the New York State Commission of Education recommends 'targeting of resources toward quality in teachers and preschool programs.

State aid based on enrollment (rather than attendance) is recommended by the New York State Board of Regents whereas the second agency places a focus on teaching enabling student achievement. Regional cost-adjustments are recommended by all three-agency reports and each of these agencies recommends directing funding increases into New York City School District. It is interesting to note the fact that the New York State Commission on Education Reform fails to set out any policy implementation plans.

New York State Board of Regents Match school resources to student needs; Adopt a foundation-based approach; Provide "state aid" based on enrollment, instead of attendance; Supply regional-cost adjustments; Direct most of the 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 combining many of the almost 50 separate state aid formulas into one "operating aid" foundation formula." (Hunter, 2004) The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Ford Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Institute for Research (a.I.R) and Management Analysis and Planning (MAP) Targeting state aid to educational need; Enactment of foundation -- based approach; Focus on "strengthening teaching because teaching affects student achievement significantly; Adjustment of resources for regional cost differences; Implementation over a seven years period beginning in 2004-05; and Reliance on New York State assessments aligned with the Regents Learning Standards, on some of which students must score 'proficient' or above to receive a high school diploma." (Hunter, 2004) New York State Commission on Education Reform Alignment of resources with student need; Target additional resources to teacher quality and preschool programs; Adopt a foundation-based approach; Adjust resources for geographic cost differences; and No particular implementation period suggested.

(Hunter, 2004; paraphrased) VII. IMPACT of FEDERALISM on POLICY-MAKING PROCESS The work of Cameron and Hofferbert (1973) entitled: "The Impact of Federalism on Educational Spending: Patterns Within and Across Nations" states a research focus on "educational policy and determining whether differing degrees of centralization affect the outcomes of the policy process. Five hypotheses were tested with nation-level data for 17 countries in Europe and North America and with subnational data for four federal and four nonfederal systems.

A systematic difference was found between the federal and the non-federal systems in policy performance, with little indication that federal systems either equalize or redistribute the aggregate resources of society, perpetuating the regional disparities.

While it seems true that the dominant role of the central government in a non-federal system may reduce the magnitude of intra-national variation of education spending, it is nevertheless evidenced that the aggregate allocation of funds to education relative to resource base is highest in the federal nations." (Cameron and Hofferbert, 1973) the work of Hans Keman entitled: "Politics, Policies and Consequences: A Cross-national Analysis of Public Policy-formation in advanced Capitalist Democracies (1967-1981)" states that there is a "...growing dissent and tension with regard to the relationship between political factors, public policy-formation and the consequences" of policy formation.

This study made investigation of "to what extent political variables matter and which other factors may account..." For the relationship between the growing dissent and the formation of policy, the political factors and the consequences associated with this. Stated is the fact that: "The main result is that, apart from the impact of 'politics', the existence of a corporatist mode of interest-mediation and.