Our current funding system is unfair and hard to understand or explain. Two schools with the same number and mix of students can receive budgets that differ by more than $1 million.


Similar Schools, Different Funding

• fewer teachers;
• less experienced teachers;
• less enrichment for students;
• less enrichment for teachers; or
• all of the above.

The reasons for the unfairness are complex, but two stand out. First, budgets often carry forward subjective decisions made long ago. Sometimes these decisions were made for legitimate reasons now outdated, sometimes because of politics. Whatever the reason, schools receive different levels of funding for reasons unrelated 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, for example, 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. We know that across our system it is the neediest kids who have the least experienced teachers.

This system is wrong for our principals and teachers, whom we ask to meet the same high standards for improving student achievement. Even more important, it is wrong for the kids who haven’t gotten a fair chance for success.



How We Came Up With The Plan

We’ve based these budget reforms on extensive public outreach in New York City, conversations with school leaders in other cities, and research on education funding and results.

Public Input in New York City

Beginning in late January 2007, Department of Education leaders attended more than 100 meetings with almost 6,000 people in all five boroughs. These meetings included conversations with hundreds of principals, 27 Community Education Councils, roundtables with community groups in each borough, and discussions with faith and community leaders. The Department also trained all 1,400-plus parent coordinators in Fair Student Funding so they would be equipped to answer families’ questions. We also communicated with hundreds of additional parents, community and religious leaders, teachers, and principals by e-mail.

These interactions resulted in many modifications to improve the final FSF plan. Many of these changes are spelled out in the following chapters.

We conducted extensive analyses of our current budgeting practices, including the methodologies in current funding approaches: for example, use of staffing ratios and assumptions about breakage, coverage, and the “curriculum index.” We examined contracts and policies governing class sizes to ensure our compliance. And we studied the disparities among schools that have arisen from current funding patterns. Our “weights” — the additional dollars that will follow different types of students to their schools — reflect what we learned.

National and International Experience

We spoke with current or past leaders in several of the other communities that have implemented plans similar to Fair Student Funding, including officials or former officials in San Francisco and Oakland, California; Seattle, Washington; Edmonton, Canada; and Great Britain. We also consulted with researchers who have studied these funding reforms in these and other locations. We formed an external advisory group that helped us launch the initiative, including the following individuals:

Arlene Ackerman, former superintendent, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, and former assistant superintendent in Seattle; Chester Finn, president, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; fellow, Hoover Institution; William Ouchi, professor, Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA; John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff to President Clinton, and president and CEO, Center for American Progress; Marguerite Roza, professor, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington; and Michael Strembitsky, former superintendent, Edmonton, Canada.

A Research Base