Dear Ms. Haimson,

Thank you for sending questions about Fair Student Funding. I
received more than 80 questions from you and have answered as best I
can.

DOE staff have already been responding to questions about the
proposal for nearly two months. Since announcing the initiative in
January, we have spoken with thousands of parents, answered hundreds
of e-mailed questions and concerns, and met with dozens of community
leaders from across the city. And we are adjusting our proposal in
response to many comments—while at the same time remaining firmly
focused on improving outcomes for all of the children in New York
City.

Although some of the questions contain gross mischaracterizations,
many others get at real issues. I'd like to make four points by way
of introduction. Most of these are laid out in greater detail in a
document that I would encourage list-serve members to read. [See
Link 1 at the end of the document.]

First, our current funding system is unfair and opaque. Two schools
with the same number and mix of students can receive budgets that
differ by more than $1 million. That has a real impact on students:
The school with less funding is likely to have fewer teachers, less
experienced teachers, less enrichment for the students and teachers,
or all of the above. The reasons for the unfairness are complex,
but two stand out. Right now, budgets are based on subjective
decisions made long ago. Sometimes these decisions were made for
legitimate reasons that are now outdated, sometimes because of
politics. The result is that schools have different levels of
funding for reasons that no are longer related to the needs of the
school's current students. The second factor is that we budget for
most teachers in terms of positions rather than how much they
actually cost. As a result, two schools' enrollment levels give
them each 100 teachers, but if the teachers at one school have
average salaries of $70,000 and teachers at the other school have
average salaries of $60,000, then we will have provided $1 million
less to the school with lower average teacher salaries. The system
is also very confusing, with more than 90 funding streams, each with
its own rules for allocation and use. Readers may want to take a
look at our budget allocation memoranda. [Link 2 at the end]

Second, the new system will be simpler and fairer. Once fully
phased in, we will be able to show most of schools' budgets on a
single page. We will budget schools not through subjective
judgments or politics, but based on students and their
characteristics. And when we make decisions, those decisions will
be clear on that page and open to public scrutiny.

Third, budgeting involves tough tradeoffs, and we are trying to make
those tradeoffs as clearly as possible. At the end of the day, we
have only so much money. And that means that every time we give
more money to one priority, there is less money for another. That
is not about ideology; it is about math. So we can give extra money
to schools based on their ability to accumulate senior teachers, but
the consequence is less money for schools (generally higher-need)
less able to draw senior teachers. We can protect the status quo,
but that leaves less money to pursue equity. We can guarantee more
money for specific positions as guidance counselors, but that means
less money for specific positions as teachers. These choices have
been happening for years, often without much discussion. We are
bringing those choices out into the open.

Finally, we propose a gradual implementation and regular adjustment
of the new system, based on experience. We recognize the importance
of preserving stability for our children. That is why we have
proposed a very gradual implementation. Every one of our 1,400-plus
schools will be able to keep their current teachers, no matter how
senior, at no additional cost. We will implement the weighted
system gradually, avoiding radical shifts. We will set up
monitoring mechanism to see how the new rules are affecting kids and
to make adjustments in response. We will be responsive to the needs
of kids.

Now to the questions.

Staffing formula

Q. Right now, the major source of differences in per-pupil city
spending between schools is that some schools have more experienced
teachers who by contract have to be paid more. If this proposal is
adopted, schools will no longer be reimbursed for the actual
salaries of their teaching staff over time. If the budgets of these
schools are cut back, they will be unable to pay their teachers
less; instead, they will have no choice but to further increase
class size and/or slash other necessary services. Couldn't this
destabilize these schools, and cause even more families to flee the
public school system or the city as a whole?

A. This question is, unfortunately, full of mistaken assumptions.

First, it's not true that differences in teachers' experience level
are the major driver of inequities. The major driver of inequities
is differences in the numbers of teachers and the levels of services
at schools. Fair Student Funding will address these important
inequities as well as the challenge posed by salary charging.

Second, the question exaggerates the level of change introduced by
this proposal. It's already true that schools effectively pay the
actual salaries for many of their teachers—for example, those funded
from categorical sources. So as to these teachers, schools already
largely operate under the system we are describing.

Third, we've been very clear that we will hold schools harmless for
the costs of all the teachers currently at their schools – in other
words, the policy will have no effect on teachers currently on
schools' budgets. So teachers currently on school budgets have
nothing to worry about.

Finally, as to the future, successful schools will continue to be
able to afford effective teachers, including experienced teachers.
When these schools consider the costs of teachers, they will
consider the whole picture—a good experienced teacher contributes
enormously to achievement and provides mentoring for younger
teachers; a new teacher has no proven expertise and needs additional
supports that cost money. And schools spend less than 60% of their
budgets on teaching positions, so they will have the funding to
continue to afford, experienced teachers.

Even more important for children, effective schools will have the
funding to afford effective teachers. In some neighborhoods,
effective schools have hundreds of applications for every position.
And our very best schools do not employ only 20-year veterans; they
employ a mix of teachers with different levels of experience.
Indeed, many of our highest-achieving schools have teachers with
below-average salary costs. All of our schools, including those
currently employing experienced teachers, will remain able to hire
an effective teaching staff.

Q. Doesn't your proposal penalize all schools who want to hire and
retain experienced teachers, no matter what the status or poverty
level of their students? Couldn't it be that certain schools are
high performing because excellent leadership, smaller classes,
and/or a successful school culture cause conditions that lead to
teacher retention? If so, why would you want to discourage this by
forcing such schools to cut their budgets?

A. It is not a "penalty" to tell anyone that they have to pay the
real costs of the personnel they employ. It is accurate. The
consequence of the current system is to deliver less than equal
value to schools with inexperienced teachers—schools that are
disproportionately high-poverty, high-need schools. When we tell
two schools that they both get 100 teachers, and one school has
teachers that cost $10,000 more on average than the other, we have
just delivered $1 million more to that school. That is a penalty –
at the high-need school.

The DOE is not alone in taking this view. This past summer, the
Fordham Foundation produced a report endorsing weighted student
funding and charging teachers for actual teacher salaries. Please
see Link 3. The signers of that report included a participant in
this list-serve, Diane Ravitch. Other signers included individuals
with very different ideological perspectives, including Michael
Dannenberg, former education aide to Senator Ted Kennedy and
Director of Education Programs, New America Foundation; Kati
Haycock, Director, Education Trust; Jim Hunt, former Governor of
North Carolina; John Podesta, former Chief of Staff to President
Bill Clinton and President, Center for American Progress; Delia
Pompa, Vice President of Education, National Council of La Raza; and
Andrew Rotherham, former Clinton education advisor and Co-Director,
Education Sector

Q. You were quoted in the NY Times as saying that this system would
maximize the amount of control that principals have over their
budgets, allowing them "to retain their most experienced teachers if
that is what they want to do." How do you propose that principals
get rid of their experienced teachers, if that's what they would
prefer?

A. Principals always need to manage staffing decisions carefully,
consistent with their legal and contractual obligations.

Q. How will the weighted funding system drive "quality' teachers in
hard to staff schools, or in certain shortage subjects?

A. The system will allow hard-to-staff schools to cut class sizes,
provide more professional development, or provide other supports for
their teachers. These are all particular concerns in high-need
schools, can help create a better environment at the schools, and
can in turn help attract more teachers to the schools.

Q. Isn't there a better way to attract experienced qualified
teachers to high needs schools without forcing principals to make
choices between experienced teachers and other key resources? i.e.:
improved working conditions- smaller class size/ additional guidance
counselors/more PD/teacher prep time/better physical facilities/etc?

A. See above—the proposal will allow high-need schools to provide
many of these things.

Q. At 25%, NYC already has almost twice the teacher attrition rate
of any other school district in the state. Even the Mayor has
admitted that our high teacher turnover rate is one of our biggest
problems –why should this proposal improve this problem?

A. The first sentence is not accurate. Ten to twelve percent of
New York City teachers separate in any year for any reason. The
proposal will help reduce attrition at high-need schools for the
reasons outlined above.

Q. Doesn't there need to be other means to pro-actively attract
good, experienced teachers to poor communities? For example, when
Medicaid was introduced it was expected to create high-quality
health care options in poor communities because the money would
follow the client. In fact, highly skilled doctors still avoided
poor communities and instead Medicaid mills developed. How can the
lessons of Medicaid be applied to avoid a similar outcome?

A. I do not know if the statements about Medicaid are true or not.
But yes, attracting good teachers to poor communities requires a
multi-pronged approach. For example, we have the lead-teacher
initiative, which allows high-need schools to bring in higher-paid
teachers who earn more and serve as mentors to other teachers.
Chancellor Klein has supported additional financial incentives to
attract teachers to poor communities. And of course, we need to
make those schools more appealing—something that this initiative and
the empowerment initiative can do.

Q. How will the system cope with differing principal salaries,
based on different levels of seniority? Will schools also be
penalized for having more experienced principals?

A. Again, the "penalized" characterization is inaccurate. Schools
will pay actual costs as they do now.

Q. How will the funding formula be affected by an eventual CSA
contract? Will the formula be increased proportionally?

A. Yes, funding levels increase with collective bargaining
agreements.

Budgets and overall funding

Q. If there is a need to "equalize" budgets, why shouldn't the
formula equalize school budgets upwards, rather than downwards –
esp. since the Court found that our schools already were severely
underfinanced and unable to provide our students with an adequate
education? Doesn't this proposal, in essence, cause parents and
schools in our underfunded public schools fight over scraps?

Do you believe, on the other hand, that there is real fat in some
schools' budgets – leading to the funding unnecessary services or
programs? If so, could you provide the example of an actual NYC
public school and show us where the budget could be cut without loss
of educational quality? If not, why do you assume that this is
possible?

Why can't you promise that no school's budget will be cut, since
overall spending on education is supposed to rise by over $1 billion
next year, and by over $5 billion over the next four years -- and
the city has a budget surplus of over $4 billion? Furthermore, the
Chancellor says he intends to drive proportionally more funds to
schools and classrooms – if this were indeed to occur, wouldn't that
mean that all schools' budgets would increase significantly?

A. We are not certain about next year's schools budget right now
because the state's budget has not passed. We do not yet know how
much money the schools will receive or what strings will be attached
to them. And we have not completed our analysis of different budget
scenarios. So, for many reasons, many of these questions do not yet
have answers.

What the Mayor and the Chancellor have said is that they are
committed to ensuring stability and protecting core programs at all
schools. Schools will be held harmless for the salaries of teachers
now on their budgets. Changes will be very gradual.

While new funding is a wonderful and important thing, it does not
eliminate tough choices about school budgets. Whether or not our
best-funded schools have "real fat," there is no question that they
have more resources proportionally than our worst-funded schools.
This creates a tradeoff between stability and equity.


Q. As the Chancellor has said that overall, only $110 million of
the $1.1 billion in anticipated additional spending for next year
will go to schools, what will the more than $900 million be spent on?

A. More than $110 million will go into schools next year.

Q. It was recently announced that $67 million will be cut from
Project Arts, forcing schools to fund arts out of their own school
budgets. Will the $67 million be added to the $110 million provided
to principals in discretionary funds, or will arts programming have
to be financed from the $110 million provided to schools overall?

A. Unrestricted dollars would be sent to schools.

Q. Are there other dedicated or discretionary funding programs that
will be cut next year that principals will have to make up for in
their budgets?

A. Principals will not have to "make up" for the elimination of
programs next year. Unrestricted dollars will be sent to schools,
and total funding in schools next year will increase significantly.

Q. What will the projected $5.3 billion in additional education
funds over the next four years be spent on?

A. The Department has not completed budgeting for 2008 so I cannot
give a breakdown.

Q. What is the estimated cost of purchasing all the new tests,
interim assessments, and time lost to teachers doing test
prep/administering/ grading tests?

A. We will have cost estimates on periodic assessments later in the
spring. These formative assessments provide teachers with quicker,
more timely access to diagnostic information about all children,
increasing the teachers' ability to give each child the instruction
he or she needs. These assessments save time otherwise needed to
diagnose student needs and design responses.

Q. How much will it cost taxpayers to purchase the ARIS
program/hardware? What is the estimated annual cost to maintain the
system? Who will be responsible for inputting the data to create the
ongoing evaluation of pupils, teachers, principals and schools?

A. ARIS will cost approximately $80 million. About 10% of the
funds will be spent on hardware and about 10% on Help
Desk/maintenance.


Class size

Q. NYC has by far the largest classes in the state and some of the
largest in the country. In the CFE case, the courts found that one
major reason for the systemic failure of our schools was that class
sizes were too large to provide our students w/ an adequate
education. Why does the administration deny the need to reduce
class size and make the sort of systemic reforms that would make
smaller classes a reality?

The fair funding pamphlet says the following: "Those closest to the
students should get to make the key decisions about what will best
help their students succeed." Yet parents and teachers are closest
to our students, and according to many surveys, both groups
overwhelmingly agree that the most effective way to ensure that more
students succeed would be to reduce class size. Why shouldn't
parents and teachers have the right to help decide how the bulk of
the additional $5.3 billion should be spent, if you admit that those
closest to students should be able to make the key decisions?

The Chancellor and others have argued that if principals believed
smaller classes were important, they could use their discretionary
funding to provide them. But doesn't this ignore the fact that in
most schools, there is no room to do reduce class size, and the DOE
doesn't intend to create enough room for smaller classes in any
grade higher than 3rd?

A. This is a recent statement from the Department on class size
reduction: "Reducing class size is one factor that can help improve
student outcomes, but mandating class size isn't a silver bullet. We
know this because we've learned from other districts' experiences
with failed class size reduction mandates. As I've said before, we
must balance our desire to reduce class size with other factors,
most importantly, ensuring that all students have high-quality
teachers. No parent would choose a class of twenty with a poor
teacher rather than a class of 25 with a great teacher. Right now,
we're in the midst of a $13.1 billion school construction plan that
will eliminate overcrowding in our schools and create the space we
need to significantly reduce class size. As we do this, we are also
giving principals substantially more authority to use their budgets
in ways that will help students make academic progress. Already,
principals are choosing to use their resources to reduce class size.
These efforts will help us to continue reducing class size across
the City. Since the Mayor took charge of the schools, we have
reduced class size at every grade level."

To build on the point about principals already using extra resources
to reduce class size: Empowerment school principals used 60 percent
of their discretionary money to purchase additional teachers. We
expect a similar spending distribution under fair student funding.
Fair Student Funding, together with empowerment, will reduce class
size.


Q. Also, in those empowerment schools where there was room to
reduce class and principals actually used their discretionary funds
to hire more teachers for this purpose, Tweed simply sent them more
students, which restored class size to their previous level. You
yourself admitted that this had occurred at a CPAC meeting. Isn't
controlling a school's enrollment necessary to reduce class size,
and if a principal is unable to do this, how can s/he be considered
accountable for the school's success or failure? Does the
administration intend to do anything differently in the future to
prevent this from occurring again?

A. If a principal uses discretionary dollars to buy teachers rather
than computers or assistant principals, then it is troubling if we
assign more kids to that school simply because of the principal's
decision. The principal—and, more important, the kids—aren't
getting the benefit of the investment she made.

On the other hand, the underlying situation makes for tough
choices. We have a responsibility to educate thousands of children
who arrive at schools throughout the school year. And we have a
responsibility to try to serve elementary and middle-school students
in their zoned schools. If a principal in a zoned school decides to
reduce class size, then we have a dilemma: Either send the kids out
of the zone, or fill the classes to contractual size limit.

Over the long run, building more classrooms can help—so the capital
program is important. In addition, we recognize the need to create
new tools to help placement staff honor principal decisions when
they have been made. As one example, the Office of Student
Enrollment Planning and Operations (OSEPO) is sharing responsibility
with all elementary, middle school and high school principals for
their schools' enrollment projections for the 2007/08 school year.
These projections will create a common target that principals and
OSEPO can use to reduce misunderstandings and reach the best results
for all kids.

Weightings

Q. Couldn't the weighted funding proposal lead to more students
being labeled as "special education" because of the extra funds they
would bring?

Is the special education range in three categories of concentration
sufficient to encourage schools to increase number of special
education seats given the NCLB sanctions?

A. We have aimed to provide the funding needed to educate the kids—
neither more nor less. We are constructing weights based on costs
of the teachers needed to educate kids in different configurations
(12:1, 12:1:1, etc.). Our goal is neither to encourage nor to
discourage special education placement, but to enhance the
discretion of principals (working with parents and within the law)
to develop IEPs that meet children's unique needs, rather than
forcing children into particular classroom configurations based on
our funding patterns. There will also be audit procedures to ensure
that students are classified as accurately as possible.

Q. Already, schools that land on the SURR list and receive more
state funds to improve educational services then suffer a loss of
these funds when they improve, often causing them to slip backwards
into failure again. Why wouldn't this proposal do something
similar, by offering extra funds for level one students – which
would then be eliminated when they reach level two?

A. Part of our proposal is to fund kids based on being level 1 at
school entry, and then to let those kids keep the dollars even if
their level increases. This is the low academic achievement
weight.

Q. Why aren't there any additional "weights" attached to general
ed. students needing extra academic services who are not level one?
How are schools to provide the extra help to bring level two
students up to grade level?

A. This is good point—we could weight level 2s as well. That money
would need to come from somewhere. We could take it from the level
1 pot, reducing funds for level 1 kids. Or we could take it from
the general education pool, reducing funds for level 3 and level 4
kids. We initially chose to focus on the level 1 students only, but
we are considering different approaches.

Q. The funding weights you have proposed do not differentiate
between students at different grade levels – and yet the union
contractual maximums differ according to grade. How are schools
supposed to keep to the legal limits, if they are not reimbursed for
the actual staffing levels required?

A. We looked at the different contractual maximums. We found that,
under the weighting ranges we have proposed, there is enough money
for schools to meet the contractual/policy class size limits. In
other words, the per-student cost of a teacher in a given school is
well under our per-student weight.

Q. How did you measure the base "cost' assigned to each pupil? Was
this based on the minimum cost to educate a child? Has anyone at
Tweed actually tried to cost this out? Or is the amount merely
derived from current per-pupil spending, which has been found by the
Courts to be insufficient?

A. We took several different approaches to this question. As noted
above, we looked at different contractual requirements. We also
looked at the costs proposed in various costing-out studies, like
CFE's. We looked at our current spending. And we looked at our
class size ratios to "build up" spending.

Q. San Francisco adopted weighted funding, but kept teacher
salaries out of the funding formula. As one SF teacher noted, " If
WSF used real salaries instead, many of the more successful schools
in the district — which typically attract more senior staff with the
higher salaries — could not afford their staff. They would be faced
with classroom consolidations that would violate state law and the
local contracts. Collective bargaining rules would not allow them to
push staff out for budgeting reasons, nor would anyone want that
power." http://www.sfschools.org/2006/09/comments-on-san-franciscos-
weighted.html Why shouldn't we be afraid that these sort of
outcomes might occur in NYC as well? Does the administration pledge
that class sizes will not increase in individual schools or
systemwide?

A. We spoke extensively with Arlene Ackerman, superintendent in San
Francisco when we implemented weighted student funding. Although
she did not move in the direction of actual salary charging there,
she has been supportive of our effort to do so. One of our
principals, David Weiner, was in San Francisco during the shift to
WSF and we have also consulted extensively with him. He has made
some thoughtful suggestions about FSF, which you can read online.
Please see Link 4.

Q. Will the weights be inflation or otherwise indexed? If not,
won't they quickly become outdated and a continuous uphill political
struggle required to raise them?

A. We will review the weights each year. The political battle will
be to ensure that the budget rises sufficiently each year. That is
no different from the struggle we face today.

Q. What will be the effect on equity when different schools receive
additional dollars from the Federal govt., i.e.: Title One/Title
3/etc, NY State programs or CBOs providing free vs. paid afterschool
or tutoring programs?

A. Schools will continue to receive all of these funds outside of
FSF. We considered whether to take them into account but chose not
to do so for two reasons: first, there are legal constraints (e.g.,
the "supplement not supplant" rules in Title I); and second, there
are incentive concerns (if we took money from schools when they are
CBO-funded, CBOs would have less reason to support those schools).
We are conducting a comprehensive review of other government funding
streams in order to maximize equity and transparency.

Theory and proof of effectiveness

Q. Joel Klein has disparaged program-based reforms
are "incremental" – which I suppose means centrally-driven reforms.
But why would the separate decisions of over a thousand different
principals about what changes to implement in their schools likely
be much more incremental – w/ very little if any progress
systemwide? With 49% of NYC principals in their jobs 3 years or
less how can we expect these individuals are suddenly able to assume
the new managerial-type responsibilities? What happened to principal
as educator/leader not business manager?

The Chancellor said that principals will continue to support the
arts in their schools even after the elimination of Project Arts
because arts contribute to student success. If he really believed
that for arts leads to higher student achievement, , why shouldn't
the DOE continue its support of the arts rather than leave this up
to the discretion of individual principals – again, forcing them to
choose between providing arts and other necessary programs?

Why are other programs and spending mandated centrally for all
schools, for example, parent coordinators. Does Tweed believe that
parent coordinators are more important for student success than
either smaller classes or arts?

Is this system based on an idea of competition or differing levels
of efficiency among education providers – and that a free market
system will necessary lift all boats? If so, what is the evidence
for this theory? How do you respond that this is a backdoor
proposal to favor charter schools or vouchers?

Can you name any school system that has improved significantly after
adopting the weighted funding proposal? In Seattle, the proposal has
not reduced "the disproportionate number of dropouts, discipline
referrals, or below-grade-level students," according to a recent
letter to Ed Week. [Do not include San Francisco, which has the
lowest differentiated weights between categories of students – and
even more importantly, kept teacher salaries out of the funding
formula. See above]

Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, adopted the WSF system over twenty
years ago, and yet has experienced little if any improvement in
terms of outcomes. In fact, in 2003, Alberta initiated a province-
wide program to reduce average class size in all grades, to be
phased in over five years. Doesn't this make it clear that neither
weighted funding nor the flexibility that this system was supposed
to provide solved the most basic problems in Edmonton's schools?

The main studies claiming that districts that adopted WSF have
improved were by William Ouchi, a professor at the UCLA business
school, whose work was funded by the Fordham Institute and the John
Olin Foundation, two conservative think-tank, and never published in
peer-reviewed journals. Here is how Ouchi's work was described by
Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas and Scott Thomas of the
University of Georgia:

[These studies] simply compare the average test scores of major
cities like Houston and Seattle which use weighted student formulas
to cities like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles which do not, are
grossly oversimplified and empirically flawed. Two basic rules of
thumb apply to evaluations of the effects on student learning of
specific educational reforms. The first is the "all else equal" rule
of thumb. Clearly, aside from the organizational and management
structure of these systems, all else is not necessarily equal across
the districts under investigation in terms of student demographics,
total resource availability and other exogenous conditions affecting
the cost of education. Further, the comparisons never validate that
cities using a WSF actually allocate funds more progressively with
respect to student needs than those not using WSFs.

How do you respond to this critique?

A. I am not an expert on all of the changes we are pursuing but
suffice to say: Our "theory" is that schools should be accountable
for improving student achievement, and then should be empowered to
determine how best to reach that goal. That's because we think the
people in the schools know better than the people in the central
organization how to meet the needs of their kids. We do think that
differentiation better serves kids than uniformity, and that
allowing leaders to pursue different paths will yield innovations
that top-down mandates can't. We're not trying to do vouchers or
private school choice; we're trying to do something based on common
sense.

It's not obvious to me why we should "not include San Francisco."
No two cities are the same; no two weighting systems will be the
same; people from San Francisco (including superintendent Arlene
Ackerman) have helped advise us on this initiative.

Bill Ouchi (whom the DOE does not pay) offers this answer to the
rest of the comments.

"Only so many districts have implemented WSF. The evidence from
many is positive, as outlined in my work.

"It is not correct to assert that Seattle has not improved under
WSF: Seattle scores on the ITBS for 3rd and 5th grade math have gone
from the 51st percentile in 1997 to the 63rd percentile in 2001.
Reading scores for those grades have gone from 48th percentile in
1997 to 57th in 2001. Scores on the WASL state test have also risen
from 1998 to 2001 for all grades tested (4, 7, and 10) for math,
reading, and writing. For 10th graders, the available data show that
WASL scores rose from 25% of students meeting state standard in math
in 1999 to 34% in 2001, with a rise in reading over that period from
36% to 50% for 10th graders. However, after 2001, under new
leadership, the Seattle district reversed its commitment to school
empowerment and reduced the percent of the total school budget that
was allocated through WSF. From 2001 to the present, scores for all
groups have been basically flat on both the ITBS and the WASL.

"It is also not correct to assert that Edmonton has not improved,
although with a high-school diploma exam passing rate of 85% and a
parent satisfaction score of 89 (out of 100), the improvements each
year are modest. It is true that Edmonton scores at about the
provincial average on most standardized tests. However, Edmonton is
the most heavily low-income, racially diverse, and single-head-of-
household-family of any in the province. Any urban district in the
U.S. would be considered a raging success were it to produce average
scores that meet the state average.

"It is also not correct to assert that there is no evidence that the
WSF districts have actually allocated funds in a more equitable
fashion. Several papers by Marguerite Roza and her colleagues make
it clear that WSF districts have allocated funds more equitably, but
other of her papers also point out that unless "actual salaries" are
used, large inequities will remain.

"Finally, it is not correct to say that my work has not appeared in
peer-review journals. My major article, "Power to the Principals"
appeared in Vol. 13, No. 2, of Organization Science, the official
journal of organizational studies of INFORMS, the society of the
management sciences. The December, 2005 issue of The Academy of
Management Journal, the flagship journal of the 17,000 scholars of
management and behavioral sciences, includes sixteen articles that
discuss my research, all of them in a very positive way. I also
wrote a book, Making Schools Work, published in 2003 by Simon &
Schuster.

"My research is a study of the organization of large school
districts and of the effect that decentralization has on internal
organization of a district and ultimately on student performance. In
order to do research of this sort, it is necessary to gather a large
body of very detailed data within each district that is under study.
The limitations of time and money dictate that these studies never
have large samples of organizations. That is a defect of
organizational research, always. Nonetheless, time has shown that
these small sample organizational studies have produced powerful
insights that have played a major role in the improvement of
companies and of government agencies throughout the U.S. and in many
countries of the world."

From a parent in Brooklyn

Q. What are schools supposed to do if the proposed funding formula
falls far short of covering basic operating costs? (which it does
for our school PS 107K; at the proposed $3600 or so each child would
bring, our school's budget will be about $300,000 less than it has
been this past year.)

A. We are committed to ensuring that schools can meet their
operating budgets. All of our runs suggest that schools will have
enough to do so even under a fully implemented formula. What's
more, we are proposing a gradual implementation so schools will not
see big swings next year.

Q. Our school will have only 3 students registered for our self-
contained special education class next fall. Typically, the
remaining 8 students trickle in over the course of the year as they
are sent to us from other zones. With funding tied to individual
students, rather than to a classroom, we will not have sufficient
funds at the start of the year to pay for their teacher or
paraprofessional. How will the DOE deal with this situation?

A. We are not going to ask a principal to open a 12:1 class with 3
students and then provide funding for only 3 children. We will make
sure such a heavy burden does not fall on principals. We are
exploring different approaches that can meet the goal of encouraging
student-based flexibility under the law while at the same time
ensuring adequate stability in school budgets.

That said, we continue to explore different ways to provide supports
to special education students so they can receive the best possible
education in our schools. One of the goals of FSF is to provide
flexibility in programming for special education students – to
encourage principals, through the Individualized Education Program
process, to develop tailored approaches to meeting students' needs,
rather than feeling compelled to fit programming within the
categories that we fund. So, for example, we would like to allow
principals to make greater use of part-time CTT or multiple sessions
of Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) in IEPs, if
that is what will best serve students. Per-student funding permits
such personalized approaches to special education funding based on
the number of periods a day because a student receives special
education classroom support as opposed to a specific model of
support.

We also want principals to understand how special education students
contribute to the general school budgets; under our proposal, every
special education student with a characteristic that is weighted
(poverty, ELL, Level 1, etc.) would carry dollars for those weights
in addition to special education dollars.

Q. Why isn't any "weight" attached to students at the high end of
the academic spectrum, who also require additional services to meet
their educational needs, such as pull-out reading or math
instruction or other enrichment?

A. On the other hand, if extra funding is given to schools for
their gifted and talented students, as measured by test scores,
wouldn't this tend to favor schools with large numbers of white and
upper middle class students who tend to test higher at the expense
of poor and minority students?

We think it is possible to create good supports at both the top and
the bottom of the academic achievement spectrum. We are not
proposing a "gifted and talented" weight for this year because of
administrative issues (not all kids take the test and we do not want
to weight kids based on an assessment not available to all, nor can
we say now that all kids should take a test). We will still have
gifted and talented programming, and we also will fund our
specialized high schools (Stuyvesant, etc.) at a higher level to
support their special programming.

But there is no question that you have hit on a real tension.


From a charter school administrator

Q. Are the weights sufficient to make a difference in a small
school environment? In other words, if the numbers of students
qualifying for specific weights are low, will the aggregated per
student amounts be sufficient to pay for needed services?

A. Small schools will receive adequate funding. The Fair Student
Funding plan preserves a "foundation" for each school, providing a
greater per capita benefit in smaller schools.

Q. How will the system of funding affect start-up schools which may
have only 80 students in the first year? Will the formula allow for
the core of experienced teachers essential to a start-up? Even after
start-up, won't the budget pressure of one or two highly-paid
teachers in a small school put a lot of pressure to go with less
experienced teachers, which can be especially detrimental to
students in poor communities?

On the other hand, large schools have disproportionate numbers of
needy students, more overcrowding, and unlike small schools and
charters, are unable to cap enrollment, cap class size, and/or
subsidize their school budgets with private funds. Why should small
schools and charters receive additional economic benefits through
the funding formula?

You have laid out the small-school vs. large-school issue well. The
per-student formula will provide enough funding for all schools to
hire a strong team of teachers. The start-up allocation for new
schools, which is time-limited and designed for quasi-capital
purchases, will also continue.

Q. Will there be a requirement for sharing of revenue supplements
by parents associations or other private donations, rather than
having them simply benefit the individual school? If not, what will
keep schools with wealthy parent bodies from by-passing the funding
formula and finding ways to continue to compete for highly-paid
teachers in ways that schools in poor communities can't? Won't this
reproduce the funding inequalities in other forms and accentuate the
impact of private wealth on the public system?

On the other hand, what about those charter schools and/or small
schools that currently supplement their budgets through private
fundraising? If these schools are allowed to continue private
fundraising, why doesn't this reproduce funding inequalities in
other forms?

A. This is not an easy issue. If we required revenue-sharing as
you suggest, we would likely reduce the contributions from non-
government entities and risk making everyone worse off. We have
proposed not to do that. But again, this is not an easy issue.

School funding before/after FSF

Q. On page 3 of the FSF booklet, what specific factors contributed
to the discrepancies in funding of the two schools? Teacher
salary/class size differentials?

A. Yes, both, and also differences in supplemental services.

Q. On p. 5 of the booklet, school ABC- what will its budget look
like after FSF?

A. That is meant to be a picture of what most of its budget would
look like.


Lack of transparency, accountability, and overall risk of approach

Q. As reported in the NY Times, the Chancellor said that there were
330 Title One schools (with 75% or more students at poverty level)
likely to get a greater share of funding under this proposal, with
323 such schools likely to suffer cuts, and that there were 130
schools which would get cut where less than 50% of the students are
at poverty level, and 129 which would receive more funding.

Can you release this list of schools, since the analysis has been
done? Why not, if you believe in openness and transparency?

If not, when will you reveal the list of schools that will face
budget cuts?

A. The data underlying those reports are already accessible on the
web. However, we hope to release the data in a more accessible form
in the near future. Note that it is NOT possible to surmise impacts
based on any such data because impacts are dependent on weight
ranges that have not been decided. As noted earlier, it is also
premature to speculate about future budgets but the Mayor and
Chancellor have been clear about numerous ways we will hold schools
harmless and phase in changes.

Q. The ostensible fairness in the implementation of this proposal
as well as the accompanying accountability/grading system will
depend on the trustworthiness of DOE's data, and yet the quality of
this data is extremely variable and in many cases lacks credibility.

For example, the no. of poor students in D1 schools varies widely
depending on what DOE report one examines. Average class sizes in
NYC differ significantly according to the State Education Dept,
DOE's own class size reports, and the Mayor's Management report.
The state finds graduation rates in NYC 15% lower than the DOE
reports. In an audit, the State comptroller found that DOE only
formed 20 additional classes with the state class size reduction
funds, rather than the 1586 that the city claims. How can we trust
that the data and weightings that DOE will use to fund individual
schools and give grades to schools will be objective and reliable,
if DOE is unable to accurately report class size?

A. Many of these differences reflect differences in statistical
methodologies (e.g., how to calculate graduation rates), not
differences in underlying data. That said, we can always strengthen
our data systems and are currently engaged in extensive auditing and
quality assurance efforts. Bad data are a problem whether or not we
do fair student funding.

Q. During the City Council hearings, the Chancellor said that one
of the individuals he consulted before proposing this system was
Michael Barber, formerly Tony Blair's top education advisor. In
2003, when a similar school funding system was introduced in the UK,
supposed to be simpler, fairer and more flexible, with sufficient
resources to ensure that no school would be negatively affected, it
instead led to massive teacher layoffs, and in some areas, students
being sent home after only four days of school. Emergency
supplementary funding had to be appropriated in order to counteract
some of the reform's most destructive effects, but not before it
provoked what was widely perceived as one of the largest educational
crises in that nation's history. (For more on this, see
http://www.classsizematters.org/greatbritainfundingreform.html )
Why shouldn't parents be afraid that this proposal might lead to a
similar crisis in NYC schools as well?

A. Michael Barber responds:

"During the Blair era, funding for schools has increased
significantly above the rate of inflation every year since 1998; the
number of teachers in England risen from around 400,000 to over
440,000; and the number of support staff has also increased very
significantly. Recruitment into to teaching is the strongest ever a
period of steady growth in the economy. Teachers' pay has been
increased by more than 15% in real terms (i.e., after inflation is
taken into account), and the vast majority of school buildings after
two generations of neglect have been improved, refurbished, or in
many cases completely rebuilt.

"Most importantly, the quality of teaching and the performance of
students have both demonstrably improved, though of course the
system still faces significant challenges. The website of the Office
for Standards in Education - the independent inspectorate in
England - has extensive data to support these points. Please see
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk."


Q. During these hearings, Klein noted that Arlene Ackerman, the
former superintendent of San Francisco, also provided him advice.
Yet even in SF, with a much more modest weighted funding proposal
that had very small differential weights and in which staffing
levels and salaries were excluded from the formula, the system was
field-tested in a small number of schools before imposing it system
wide.

In contrast, Chancellor Klein has chosen to implement changes
simultaneously across the entire system, without any consultation of
parents and teachers. When corporations implement changes they
normally pilot them in geographic area, observe and fix problems
before rolling out changes more globally The busing fiasco is the
most infamous example of a new system put into place without any
attempt to field test it, although there have been many other
changes that DOE has implemented across the city, with unanticipated
and negative impacts.

Given the experience of the past, wouldn't it be wiser to field test
this proposal in a limited set of schools, or in one district,
before implementing it systemwide, as SF did?

A. Again, there are some factual errors in the question. While the
question says this initiative has been implemented "without any
consultation." we have been getting feedback on the proposal for
nearly two months now. In that process, we have visited 27 CECs and
scores of organizations. We have spoken with thousands of New
Yorkers. We have exchanged hundreds of emails. And this process is
shaping our work.

The question says corporations "normally" pilot programs in a
geographic area, but cites no evidence. Although I am no expert on
corporations, my guess is that they roll out different changes
different ways. This same is certainly true for government
agencies. The point is to implement a new policy in a way that is
responsive to the reality on the ground. We are doing that.

*****

I appreciate the opportunity to answer questions. Some people
speculated that I joined this list-serve to monitor your
discussions. Please trust I didn't. I will stick around for a
couple days to see any responses and then drop off. Having replied
to dozens of questions here and hundreds elsewhere, I cannot promise
answers to follow-ups because I need to focus on generating budgets
for next year. If you have further comments, please email
FairStudentFunding@.... We will note your suggestions
or concerns and do our best to respond. Thanks very much.

Robert Gordon

LINKS

[1]

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5CB3AEFA-8DB5-40B9-B1F4-
DD5161B1C64D/17943/Fair_FundingWEBfinal.pdf

[2]

http://schools.nyc.gov/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/allocationmem
o/fy06_07/sam01_10.html

http://schools.nyc.gov/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/allocationmem
o/fy06_07/AM_FY07_pg1.html.

[3]

http://www.edexcellence.net/fundthechild

[4]

http://edreform.blogspot.com\2007\02\important-comment-on-fair-
student.html