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."

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.

State of Affairs in New York State Schools

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).