This article was originally published in Chalkbeat.
New York’s school funding formula is based on outdated information and “reflects an outdated concept of what public school districts are supposed to do.”
That’s according to a more than 300-page report released this week by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy think tank based at SUNY. As part of the April budget deal between Albany lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul, the state charged the organization with issuing a series of recommendations to overhaul Foundation Aid, the formula that sends roughly $24.9 billion to school districts — including more than $9.5 billion to New York. York City Schools.
First implemented in 2007, Foundation Aid uses decades-old data to calculate district needs, such as relying on 2000 Census figures to measure student poverty. Other factors that influence district spending, including the number of students living in temporary housing, are not factored into the current formula at all. (The Aid Foundation only received full funding from the state in recent years – after a protracted battle by education advocates.)
Put students first: support journalism that exposes the truth and inspires action. Donate to The 74
While the institute’s recommendations are not binding, its proposals could influence debates over how to update the formula when lawmakers return to Albany in January.
Sen. Shelley Mayer, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Education Committee, emphasized that “any decision on how to change the formula will rest with the Legislature and the governor.”
“The Rockefeller Institute report offers a series of recommendations — some good, some concerning — to begin a robust conversation about how to fix the Foundation Aid Formula,” Mayer said in a statement Tuesday. “Furthermore, we are not limited by what is proposed in the Rockefeller Institute report.”
Read the Rockefeller Institute report here.
Recommendations: School funding formula needs ‘significant change’
In its report, the Rockefeller Institute called for “significant change” in the formula. Schools today offer many more services than when the formula was initially created, the organization noted, pointing to school-based mental health services, language instruction for English learners and a growing reliance on schools as a “community hub.”
The recommendations include adjusting the way the formula accounts for inflation, changing and updating the data used to determine student poverty, and creating more nuanced calculations for funding based on students with disabilities, among other changes.
One suggestion is already drawing resistance from some lawmakers and the governor: phasing out 50% of “save hold harmless,” a policy that protects districts with declining enrollment from losing funding.
During the last budget cycle, Hochul attempted to effectively end this provision, but the proposal was rejected by state lawmakers.
In a statement on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Hochul’s office distanced the governor from the Institute’s proposal to phase out the policy.
“As we prepare the upcoming executive budget, the Governor believes we should avoid proposals that would negatively impact school budgets, such as eliminating the non-hazardous provision of the Foundation Aid formula,” the spokesperson said.
Comments: The formula needs to be revised, not adjustments, some argue
Some observers worry that the institute’s proposals don’t go far enough to overhaul the formula and don’t take into account the major issues impacting New York City schools.
Michael Rebell, executive director of the Center for Educational Equity at Columbia University’s Teachers College and the attorney who led the landmark case against the state that paved the way for Foundation Aid, argues that changing aspects of the formula is not enough . He believes that the state’s current approach does not meet the constitutional mandate to provide ‘decent basic education’.
“We need a process that takes a completely new look at what students need in 2024 and 2025, and doesn’t tweak and patch something that was written in 2006,” he said. “If you don’t look at the overall impact of whether children in each district get a fair chance – whether they get the opportunity for a solid primary education – then what have you achieved?”
Some advocates expressed mixed feelings about the report, noting that it failed to address several important issues in New York City, including the needs of schools to assist students in temporary housing. In New York City, the number of homeless students grew to more than 146,000 last school year.
“We are disappointed that there are no recommendations to add weights for students experiencing homelessness and students in foster care so that schools can better meet their needs; providing per-pupil funding for 3K and pre-K students; or to help NYC comply with the new class size limits required by state law,” Kim Sweet, executive director of Advocates for Children, said in a statement.
Senator John Liu, a Queens Democrat who chairs the Senate Education Committee in New York City, expressed concern about the report’s exclusion of the city’s mandate to reduce class sizes.
“This must be absolutely considered to provide our schoolchildren with a constitutionally required, healthy primary education,” he said in a statement.
Impact: How proposals could affect New York schools remains unclear
It is difficult to determine how the report’s proposals might impact students in a particular school district because they cannot be considered in isolation, Rebell said.
For example, a recommendation that the formula stop using federal free and reduced-price lunches as a basis for measuring student poverty could result in less funding for New York City schools, he said. At the same time, a proposal to update how the formula takes into account differing costs between regions could lead to more state funding for the city’s students.
And because the state is not required to adopt any of the Rockefeller Institute’s recommendations, it remains unclear what the report could mean for students.
“I can look at aspects of this formula and say, ‘This would help New York City. That would hurt New York City, but that’s not the way to do it, Rebel said. “The way to do that is: What do kids in New York City need? What do children in these rural areas need? How can we put together a package that responds to all of this?”
The city’s education department and the teachers union both reviewed the report.
“We continue to review the report and the impact of the proposals, and look forward to moving forward with the Governor and Legislature,” Department of Education spokesperson Jenna Lyle said in a statement.
Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said: “Some ideas sound promising. Others are cause for concern.”
He was focused, he said, “on what changes need to happen if we are to better support our city’s students, teachers and school communities.”
Looking ahead, the formula needs regular updates, the report said
Regardless of how state officials choose to update Foundation Aid, the Rockefeller Institute noted that more regular reviews of the school funding formula are critical. The report notes that student populations and needs, state learning standards and other measures of academic performance can change from year to year.
“Assuming policymakers quickly implement some of the recommendations, they should not wait another 17 years to examine the Foundation Aid formula for additional necessary revisions,” the report said. “A key part of this reform effort should be a commitment to review the Foundation Aid formula every three to five years.”
Julian Shen-Berro is a reporter covering New York City. Contact him at jshen-berro@chalkbeat.org.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site about educational changes in public schools.
