fixing the resource and achievement gap in small …...trends in enrollment and student...

Fixing the Resource and Achievement Gap in Small City School Districts

November 2018

Association of School Business Officials of New York | Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 2

We would like to thank the New York State Association of Small City School Districts and superintendents, business officials, and board members from small city school districts for their contributions to this report.

Acknowledgments


Introduction

This paper explores trends in student need, financial resources, and student achievement in small city school districts as well as opportunities for improvement in these districts. Small city school districts, especially high-need ones, face enormous challenges and must work to overcome them with fewer resources than other state school districts. This paper opens with an overview of small city school districts in New York State, followed by trends in enrollment and student demographics, student achievement, school finance, and a description of debt limit requirements for small city and other districts. It concludes with a set of recommendations for improving the financing of small city school districts, especially those that have high student poverty and limited financial capacity.

Figure 1. The 57 Small City School Districts


Part One: Overview of Small City School Districts

Of New York’s 674 major school districts, 57 are classified as small city school districts.1 These school districts serve approximately 221,000 students and have 1.5 million residents. The map in Figure 1 identifies the small city school districts and Figure 2 shows their regional concentration. All areas of the state have small city school districts, though they are not equally distributed. In five regions, small city school districts make up more than ten percent of districts, while in Long Island small city school districts make up only two percent of school districts.

Small city school districts are geographically smaller and are situated within communities with fewer fiscal resources than non-city school districts, however, there are significant differences between small city school districts in terms of geography, student need, and local resources. New York classifies school districts into need/resource-capacity categories based on incidence of student need and local income and property wealth; the six categories are: New York City, the Big Four (city school districts in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers), high-need urban and suburban, high-need rural, average-need, and low-need school districts. Small city school districts span the latter four categories, as shown in Figure 3.

1 A small city school district is a school district where any part of its boundary encompasses a small city.

RegionNumber of Small City

School DistrictsShare of All Districts

in the Region

Capital District 10 14%

Central New York 5 10%

Finger Lakes 3 4%

Hudson Valley 11 11%

Long Island 2 2%

Mohawk Valley 7 15%

North Country 3 5%

Southern Tier 7 9%

Western Region 9 11%

CategoryNumber of Small City

School DistrictsShare of Small City

School Districts

High-Need Urban/Suburban 25 44%

High-Need Rural 11 19%

Average-Need 20 35%

Low-Need 1 2%

Figure 2. Regional Distribution of Small City School Districts

Figure 3. Need/Resource-Capacity of Small City School Districts


When analyzing differences among small city school districts, this paper will differentiate between high-need districts, which includes 36 high-need urban and suburban and high-need rural school districts, and other districts, which covers 21 average-need and low-need districts. The distinction between high-need and other small city school districts is important as some policy recommendations are responsive to needs and trends in high need small city school districts.

Figure 4 compares data on school district geographic area and local resources. Non-city and the other small city school districts have similar fiscal profiles, while high-need small city school districts have significantly fewer local resources to draw upon. The lower property wealth and income in high-need small city school districts means that local property taxes produce relatively fewer resources while having a much greater financial impact on community residents.

In 2017-18, small city school districts enrolled 220,831 students, while non-city districts enrolled 1,222,105 students. Like most school districts in the state, small city school districts are faced with declining enrollment, however, they are seeing smaller rates of decline, as shown in Figure 5. In the 10-year period between 2007-08 and 2017-18, small city districts experienced a 7 percent decline in enrollment, while non-city school districts saw an 11 percent decline. New York City experienced the smallest decline, as enrollment fell three percent. The Big Four school districts experienced a six percent decline in enrollment in this time period.

Median District Size (in Square Miles)

Median Property Value per Student

Median Income per Student

High-Need Small City School Districts

25 $327,897 $124,981

Other Small City School Districts

34 $595,864 $187,949

Non-City School Districts

60 $592,559 $179,459

Figure 4. School District Profiles


The next section of this paper compares levels of student need present in small city school districts with other school districts in the state. We examine results separately for high-need small city school districts (high-need SCSD) and other average and low-need small city school districts (other SCSD).

Part Two: Student Need in Small City School Districts

This section explores demographic trends in small city school districts, which experience higher levels of student need than non-city school districts. The analysis focuses on three forms of need: economic hardship, students with disabilities, and English language learners. All three forms of need require schools to invest additional resources in order to provide an adequate education.

Economic Hardship in Small City School Districts

Students living in poverty face tremendous challenges that impact their educational experiences. Student poverty spiked in the aftermath of the Great Recession and has only recently begun to decline, though current levels of poverty still remain higher than pre-recession levels. The US Census Bureau calculates school district level poverty numbers in the annually released Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). Figure 6 shows overall SAIPE student poverty rates. There is a clear divide between the large city and high-need small city school districts and the other small city and non-city school districts. In fact, school age poverty rates in high-need small city school districts are now slightly higher than the school age poverty rate in New York City.

Figure 5. School District Enrollment Trends, 2007-08 to 2017-18 (in thousands)


The state uses a school district’s poverty level in the Foundation Aid formula, however it does not use current data. Instead of using annually produced SAIPE estimates, the Foundation Aid formula uses a state’s poverty level in the 2000 decennial census. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, there was not a significant difference between the small fluctuations in the annual poverty rate and the poverty rate measure in the 2000 Census. However, using antiquated data means that the rapid growth in student poverty since the onset of the Great Recession has not been recognized in the Foundation Aid formula. Figure 7 shows that this impact is widespread as the majority of all school districts have higher poverty levels now than they did in the 2000 Census.

Figure 6. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2003-2016

2000 Census Poverty Rate

2016 Poverty RatePercent of Districts with Higher Poverty

Rates in 2016


25% 27% 58%


13% 13% 67%


8% 11% 77%

New York City 34% 26% 0%

The Big Four 38% 34% 50%

Figure 7. Comparing School Age Poverty Rates


While school age poverty is a serious challenge for public schools, many children who live outside of the technical poverty classification still face significant economic hardship that impacts their education. US education policy recognizes this with expanded thresholds for free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, which are, respectively, 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level. Figure 8 shows examples of the poverty and free and reduced-price lunch thresholds for the 2018-19 school year.

Figure 9 shows the percentage of K12 students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch from 2005-06 through 2016-17. The trends with the free and reduced-price lunch rate mirror changes in the poverty rate: significant growth following the Great Recession and much higher rates in Small City School Districts.

Figure 8. Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Thresholds, 2018-19 School Year (Continental US)2

Family Size Poverty Rate Free Lunch Reduced-Price Lunch

3 $20,780 $27,014 $38,443

4 $25,100 $32,630 $46,435

5 $29,420 $38,246 $54,427

Figure 9. Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility, 2005-06 to 2016-17

2 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-08/pdf/2018-09679.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-08/pdf/2018-09679.pdf


Students with Disabilities in Small City School Districts

Statewide, the share of enrollment made up by students with disabilities has been growing, a trend seen in both small city and non-city school districts. Like with economic hardship, large cities and high-need small city school districts have the highest rates of students with disabilities. Currently, as shown in Figure 10, students with disabilities make up 15 percent of enrollment in high-need small city school districts, 14 percent in other small city school districts, 13 percent of enrollment in non-city school districts, and 17 percent of enrollment in the large cities. While the gap in percentage points is fairly small, its impact on school district finances is significant.

English Language Learners in Small City School Districts

Demographic trends with respect to the enrollment of English language learners follow the broader pattern of economic hardship and students with disabilities, though with a much larger gap between the large cities and other school districts. Figure 11 shows that English language learners are most frequently found in New York City and the Big Four, but also make up an increasing share of school enrollment in small city and non-city school districts.

Figure 10. Students with Disabilities as Share of Enrollment, 2007-08 to 2016-17


However, the distribution of English language learners is significantly more concentrated than other forms of student need, as shown in Figure 12. In 50 percent of high-need small city, 62 percent of other small city, and 69 percent of non-city school districts, English language learners make up less than 2 percent of overall enrollment, while for 28 percent of high-need small city, 14 percent of other small city, and only 7 percent of non-city school districts, English language learners make up at least 10 percent of enrollment.

Figure 11. English Language Learners as Share of Overall Enrollment, 2007-08 to 2017-18

Figure 12. School Districts by English Language Learner Share of Enrollment, 2017-18

District Type English Language Learner Share of Enrollment, 2017-18

<1% 1% - <2% 2% - <5% 5% - <10% 10% +


31% 19% 11% 11% 28%


29% 33% 10% 14% 14%


56% 13% 16% 8% 7%


Part Three: Student Achievement in Small City School Districts

Small city school districts face the dual challenges of relatively lower levels of local fiscal capacity and higher levels of student need, spanning economic hardship, students with disabilities, and English language learners. The double crunch of fewer resources and higher need significantly affects small city school districts’ ability to provide an adequate education to all of their students without additional help from the state. This is especially true for high-need small city school districts.

The state annually tests students in grades three through eight in English language arts and math. Figures 13 (English language arts) and 14 (math) show the combined proficiency rates for students in grades 3 through 8. There is a consistent pattern in both subjects over time, with a significant gap between proficiency rates in Big Four and high-need small city school districts on the lower end, and other small city school districts, and non-city school districts on the upper end.

27%

45%

48%47%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

ELA Proficiency, Grades 3-8

High-Need SCSD Other SCSD Non-City NYC Big Four

Figure 13. Proficiency Rates on Grades 3-8 English Language Arts Assessments, 2012-13 to 2017-18


The proficiency gap in English language arts and math examinations is reflected in differing graduation rates between groups of school districts, except New York City’s graduation rate is grouped with high-need small city school districts and the Big Four. Figure 15 shows the persistent achievement gap endures, even as graduation rates have increased statewide.

25%

48%50%

43%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Math Proficiency Rates, Grades 3-8

High-Need SCSD Other SCSD Non-City NYC Big Four

Figure 14. Proficiency Rates on Grades 3-8 Math Assessments, 2012-13 to 2017-18


Part Four: School Finance and Small City School Districts

Foundation Aid

New York state created the Foundation Aid formula to ensure that all school districts, regardless of their levels of student need or local fiscal capacity, would have sufficient resources to provide an adequate education to all children. Through a cost study of successful schools, the state calculated the per student cost of providing an adequate education and appropriate weights for varying categories of student need, then determined the amount that a district could raise locally. It is important to emphasize that Foundation Aid is an empirically developed formula based on the cost of providing an education, rather than an amplification of existing funding levels. The fully implemented formula is designed to help small city school districts overcome their lower levels of local resources and higher levels of student need. Through a fully funded Foundation Aid formula, every school district should have enough resources to provide the opportunity for an adequate education to all of its students.

However, the state has yet to fully fund the Foundation Aid formula and the districts that most need Foundation Aid are also those that have the most Foundation Aid still due to them. Figure 16 shows the gap between the Foundation Aid amount calculated and the amount awarded over time. While Foundation Aid still due has been generally decreasing, for many districts it increased significantly in the 2018-19 enacted budget. High-need small

Figure 15. Four-Year Graduation Rates, 2007-08 to 2016-17


city school districts and the Big Four have significantly more per pupil Foundation Aid still due, resources that are needed if these districts are to close the achievement gaps shown above. Figure 17 shows median per pupil spending for fiscally independent school districts, based on 2018 property tax report card filings. In 2017-18, the median high-need small city school district spent $4,385 less per pupil than the median non-city school district did, meaning that the unpaid Foundation Aid has a disproportionately large impact on the districts that most need it. Even if Foundation Aid were fully funded, per pupil spending in high-need small city school districts would be less than in non-city school districts.

While the state is currently $3.5 billion short of fully funding the Foundation Aid formula, not all districts have Foundation Aid still due. Currently 40 percent of school districts statewide receive their full Foundation Aid, but as Figure 18 shows, more than one-third of high-need small city school districts receive less than 80 percent of their Foundation Aid calculation. New York City and the Big Four all receive between 80 and 90 percent of their Foundation Aid calculation.

Figure 16. Foundation Aid Still Due per Pupil, 2012-13 to 2018-193

Figure 17. Median per Pupil Spending, 2017-18

Median Per Pupil Spending

2017-18

High-Need Small City School Districts $21,337

Other Small City School Districts $22,089

Non-City School Districts $25,722

3 Enrollment numbers are from the school year during which the enacted budget passed (e.g., 2018-19 Foundation Aid still due is divided by 2017-18 enrollment).


Debt Limit for Small City School Districts

The state provides Building Aid to school districts based on their local fiscal capacity with the purpose of ensuring all districts are able to maintain quality physical infrastructure, creating a safe environment conducive to student learning. However, constitutional and legal barriers related to debt limits and public votes make it more difficult for small city school districts to take full advantage of this aid and maintain their school infrastructure properly.

In New York, local residents vote on capital projects to authorize school districts to seek a bond. Capital projects that comply with the debt limit require a majority approval, while those that exceed the debt limit require a supermajority approval of 60 percent. However, not all districts determine their debt limits in the same way. Non-city school districts have a debt limit that is 10 percent of their actual property value in the most recent year and are allowed to take anticipated state aid into account when calculating their debt ceiling. Small city school districts face a number of limitations. Their debt ceiling is five percent of the five-year average actual property value in their district and they cannot deduct anticipated state aid.

Figure 19 shows the median debt limits for small city and non-city school districts. Small city school districts generally have larger building aid ratios, to compensate for lower levels of wealth in their communities. However, methodological differences in calculating debt limits greatly favor non-city schools. The median per pupil debt limit for small city school districts is $18,736,4 while the median per pupil debt limit for non-city school districts is $159,036.

Small city school district superintendents and board members report5 that the restrictive debt limit requirements provide a significant barrier to constructing facilities vital to providing an adequate education for all students in small city school districts. Particularly since the implementation of the Tax Cap, voters have been reluctant to provide the supermajority approval of 60 percent or more needed to override the debt limit. In an ASBO New York survey of small city school districts, one-third of respondents indicated their debt limit has made them hesitate to pursue a capital project, while a quarter of respondents’ most recent projects exceeded the cap and required supermajority approval.

While the five percent and five-year average value for small cities are present in the state constitution, there are no constitutional restrictions on the consideration of state aid. Therefore, we propose the state enact a law

Figure 18. School Districts by Percent of Foundation Aid Funded, 2018-19 Enacted Budget

< 80% Funded80% - <90%

Funded90% - <100%

FundedFully Funded


34% 36% 17% 14%


24% 14% 33% 29%


25% 15% 18% 42%

4 While high-need small city school districts have lower per pupil debt limits than other small city school districts, this section looks at small city school districts as a whole, since the methodological limits they face have similar effects.5 Small city school district session at the annual NYSSBA Convention in New York City, October 25, 2018.


Figure 19. Building Aid Ratios and Debt Limit


allowing small city districts to factor anticipated building aid into their debt limit calculations, as is done for non-city districts. Small city school districts’ debt limit would be five percent of the five-year average value after accounting for expected state aid.

Using this calculation, the median small city school district debt limit would be $74,201 per student. This would provide a benefit to these school districts to assist them in maintaining their school infrastructure to support a quality education.

It is important to emphasize that increasing the debt ceiling only changes the threshold at which a school district needs supermajority approval of capital expenditures, it does not change actual spending. Under our proposed change, which aligns with constitutional restrictions on small city school districts, the median small city school district debt limit per student would still be less than half of that of the median non-city school district.

Part Five: ASBO New York Proposals

To strengthen small city school districts so they can provide quality education to all of their students, ASBO New York makes the following recommendations:

1. The state should commit to full funding of the Foundation Aid formula and other strategic investments such as early learning and career and technical education. As part of a multi-year implementation, Foundation Aid should be targeted to high-need school districts and school districts furthest from full funding. There is significant overlap between these school districts and small city school districts, particularly high-need small city school districts.

2. Allow all small city school districts to include anticipated state building aid in their debt limit calculations. While the five percent and five-year average value are present in the state constitution, there are no constitutional restrictions on the consideration of state aid. Therefore, we propose the state enact a law allowing small city districts to factor anticipated building aid into their debt limit calculations. Small city school districts’ debt limit would be the anticipated local share of five percent of the five-year average value after accounting for expected state aid.

3. Strengthen student safety and wellness with a new aid program to support the non-capital needs of all school districts to provide community school programs, support school resource officers, and other initiatives to strengthen student safety and meet the social and emotional needs of students. The Community Schools Setaside within Foundation Aid would be folded into this separate categorical aid program, leaving Foundation Aid as unrestricted general purpose operating aid.

4. Provide stability by paying for already approved expenses. The state should maintain critical support for expense based aids, and pay off prior year adjustments more quickly.

5. Redirect savings to teaching and learning through incentives for shared transportation, staggered building condition surveys, streamlining internal audits, excluding local BOCES capital expenditures from the Tax Cap, a TRS reserve, and funds to support grants for strategic resource use.

6. Provide certified school business officials in small city school districts the same tenure protections available to certified school business officials working in non-city school districts. Small city school districts should not face unfair barriers to attracting the highest quality employees.

7. School districts should be attentive to potential intra-district inequities. School districts with multiple schools should explore whether approaches like weighted student funding and other methods to strategically invest resources in schools to support student learning.


The following staff contributed to the writing and production of this report:

Deborah H. Cunningham, Ph.D., Director of Education and ResearchAndrew Van Alstyne, Ph. D., Deputy Director of Education and Research

Joel Tirado, Education and Research Coordinator

A publication of the Association of School Business Officials of New York© 2018 ASBO New York. All Rights Reserved.

For use of ASBO New York data or analyses, please use the following source citation:

SOURCE: Association of School Business Officials of New York, Albany, NY 12205, November 2018, www.asbonewyork.org

Contact: Michael J. Borges, Executive DirectorAssociation of School Business Officials of New York (ASBO New York)

453 New Karner Road, Albany, NY 12205 | 518-434-2281 | www.asbonewyork.org

Conclusion

Small city school districts face several challenges, including high levels of student need, scarce local resources, and inadequate state aid. Although New York has 57 small city school districts, there are striking differences between high-need small city school districts and average and low-need ones. As this analysis of demographic, achievement, and fiscal data shows, high-need small city school districts often have similar profiles to the state’s Big Four city school districts, facing a serious resource and achievement gap. In addition to the challenges found in high-need small city school districts, all small city school districts face more onerous requirements when pursuing capital projects. In order to realize the state’s constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education to all children, the state needs to realize its role in providing needed resources and removing barriers to small city districts’ ability to update their aging infrastructure.

Sources

New York State Education Department. Enacted budget databases for 2012-13 through 2018-19, available generally in April each year from 2012 through 2018.

New York State Education Department. Grade 3-8 Results in English Language Arts and Math. 2012-2018.

New York State Education Department Graduation Results. 2007-2018.

New York State Education Department Information and Reporting Services. BEDS Day Enrollment Data. 2007-2018

New York State Education Department. School District Fiscal Profiles. 2005-2017

United States Census Bureau. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. 2003-2016.

http://www.asbonewyork.org

http://www.asbonewyork.org


AlbanyAmsterdamAuburnBataviaBinghamtonCohoesCortlandDunkirkElmiraFultonGenevaGloversvilleHornellHudsonJamestownLackawannaLittle FallsMiddletownMount VernonNewburghNiagara FallsNorwichOgdensburgOleanPeekskillPlattsburghPort JervisPoughkeepsieRensselaer

RomeSalamancaSchenectadyTroyUticaWatertownWatervliet

Appendix 1: List of High-Need Small City School Districts

BeaconCanandaiguaCorningGlen CoveGlens FallsIthacaJohnstownKingstonLockportLong BeachMechanicvilleNorth Tonawanda

Appendix 2: List of Average and Low-Need Small City School Districts

New RochelleOneida CityOneontaOswegoRyeSaratoga SpringsSherrillTonawandaWhite Plains


Appendix 3: Small City School District Regional Breakdown

Number of School Districts 73School-Age Poverty Rate 13%Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 14%

Per Pupil Spending $23,311 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $667,645.53

English Language Learners (ELL) % 0%

K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 40%

Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due Per Pupil $-

Per Pupil Debt Limit $155,750

School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending

2016 AV per pupil ELL%

K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil

Per pupil Debt Limit

Albany Yes 28% 10% $21,155 $431,761.04 15% 58% $3,389 $19,948 Cohoes Yes 19% 16% $21,427 $427,162.40 1% 63% $926 $19,391 Watervliet Yes 19% 15% $19,684 $333,843.61 6% 71% $2,291 $16,776 Hudson Yes 21% 18% $26,901 $764,702.57 11% 68% $- $36,619 Rensselaer Yes 23% 15% $20,923 $383,174.15 8% 75% $3,243 $18,871 Troy Yes 31% 15% $23,915 $358,600.93 4% 74% $2,917 $17,731 Mechanicville No 10% 14% $18,478 $576,468.48 0% 40% $873 $25,545 Saratoga Springs No 6% 11% $19,064 $1,051,894.19 2% 21% $- $49,672

Schenectady Yes 29% 18% $19,319 $200,887.25 4% 84% $4,394 $10,727 Glens Falls No 18% 15% $20,888 $551,445.11 0% 44% $- $26,812

Capital District

Overview(median district data)

Small City School Districts in the Region






Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due Per Pupil $650


School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Auburn Yes 19% 13% $18,012 $390,677.53 0% 54% $1,197 $18,958 Cortland Yes 20% 11% $20,606 $390,226.95 1% 55% $654 $19,198 Oneida City No 23% 15% $22,038 $355,234.11 1% 52% $299 $17,934 Fulton Yes 22% 16% $20,679 $216,878.65 1% 60% $2,201 $10,870 Oswego No 21% 16% $22,511 $376,544.88 1% 50% $4,291 $28,779

Central










School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Batavia Yes 20% 10% $22,464 $373,611.34 1% 57% $1,940 $18,202 Canandaigua No 12% 14% $21,341 $656,360.67 1% 35% $212 $31,531 Geneva Yes 25% 13% $24,262 $400,394.28 12% 63% $- $19,087

Finger Lakes








Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due Per Pupil $1,043


School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Beacon No 14% 19% $23,820 $707,208.93 3% 47% $894 $35,086 Poughkeepsie Yes 27% 17% $22,769 $382,355.01 9% 81% $2,271 $19,714 Middletown Yes 20% 16% $23,942 $373,959.34 17% 26% $6,004 $17,792 Newburgh Yes 22% 17% $24,399 $373,104.97 15% 70% $3,873 $18,399 Port Jervis Yes 20% 19% $27,153 $373,011.23 1% 61% $3,630 $18,736 Kingston No 19% 19% $26,854 $648,417.87 7% 58% $1,486 $32,835 Mount Vernon Yes 19% 17% $29,689 $552,379.54 10% 78% $911 $26,400

New Rochelle No 13% 12% $24,223 $856,001.35 13% 48% $1,980 $42,556 Peekskill Yes 18% 18% $26,527 $459,126.67 24% 79% $3,626 $21,583 Rye No 3% 6% $25,834 $2,312,716.25 3% 2% $- $101,531 White Plains No 13% 11% $30,139 $1,221,553.20 16% 42% $1,499 $56,299

Hudson Valley





Per Pupil Spending $29,014 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $1,108,677.63





School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Glen Cove No 16% 14% $25,575 $1,118,902.40 20% 62% $3,197 $54,977 Long Beach No 8% 16% $36,974 $1,590,781.27 5% 38% $- $78,022

Long Island










School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Gloversville Yes 27% 19% $23,010 $244,704.32 1% 62% $981 $11,998 Johnstown No 16% 12% $21,388 $349,346.34 0% 46% $- $16,031 Little Falls Yes 24% 15% $18,986 $273,203.60 0% 58% $2,104 $13,387 Amsterdam Yes 33% 15% $19,165 $288,424.49 6% 66% $3,448 $14,125 Rome Yes 24% 16% $21,183 $267,061.45 1% 63% $1,978 $13,503 Sherrill No 11% 12% $20,056 $360,280.15 0% 44% $1 $17,588 Utica Yes 42% 14% $16,147 $144,088.17 19% 81% $4,021 $7,044

Mohawk Valley










School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Plattsburgh Yes 21% 21% $23,617 $523,630.50 1% 44% $- $26,074 Watertown Yes 30% 15% $17,844 $417,401.43 2% 64% $1,306 $20,779 Ogdensburg Yes 22% 17% $28,017 $226,719.66 0% 61% $- $11,330

North Country










School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Binghamton Yes 38% 15% $21,733 $278,119.84 5% 74% $2,064 $14,219 Elmira Yes 28% 13% $20,457 $268,118.30 0% 63% $1,349 $13,031 Norwich Yes 22% 18% $23,578 $318,853.05 0% 38% $- $15,651 Oneonta No 17% 16% $22,089 $617,592.75 1% 43% $124 $29,642 Corning No 13% 16% $22,395 $452,029.48 2% 41% $63 $21,406 Hornell Yes 26% 16% $23,128 $231,303.89 0% 63% $1,232 $11,019 Ithaca No 13% 12% $23,381 $890,367.04 5% 37% $154 $41,549

Southern Tier




Number of School Districts 80School-Age Poverty Rate 16%Students with Disabilities (SWDs)

14%

Per Pupil Spending $22,600 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth)

$428,519.00

English Language Learners (ELL) %

0%

K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility

48%

Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due Per Pupil

$425


School District

High Need?

School-Age

Poverty Rate SWDs

Per Pupil Spending


K-12 FRPL

FA Still Due per

pupil


Olean Yes 22% 15% $19,469 $300,198 0% 61% $2,185 $14,543 Salamanca Yes 25% 13% $27,771 $172,625 1% 61% $212 $8,712 Dunkirk Yes 34% 10% $21,248 $261,569 17% 60% $2,631 $12,676 Jamestown Yes 35% 13% $18,399 $161,596 5% 67% $1,694 $8,046 Lackawanna Yes 35% 14% $19,050 $235,075 22% 87% $5,672 $10,027

Tonawanda No 14% 14% $18,978 $375,472 2% 48% $11 $18,310

Lockport No 17% 17% $21,214 $341,573 2% 57% $2,079 $15,824 Niagara Falls Yes 29% 17% $19,608 $217,661 1% 72% $2,154 $10,500 N. Tonawanda No 12% 21% $20,813 $405,341 1% 44% $- $19,129

Western



fixing the resource and achievement gap in small …...trends in enrollment and student...

Documents