FUNDING LEGISLATION FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL

CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION- 07/08 vs. 08/09  8%- Federal funds  State funds07/08  43%- State funds07/08   49%- Local funds  6%- Federal funds  State funds08/09  45%- State funds08/09   49%- Local funds

FEDERAL LEGISLATION  No Child Left Behind - Title Programs - Title Programs  IDEA

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND   Signed on January 8, 2002   Reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the primary federal law affecting kindergarten through high- school education  Governs elementary and secondary education  Mandates educational standards  Holds states, school districts and schools accountable

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND   Parents: children’s strengths and weaknesses; school performance; options and resources for helping children if their schools are chronically in need of improvement.   Teachers: training and resources, using well- developed curricula; annual testing lets them know areas in which students need extra attention.   Principals: information to strengthen weaknesses; put into practice methods and strategies   Superintendents: high performing and low performing schools   School boards: measure how their districts are doing; more and better information   Chief state school officers: know how the schools in their states are doing; pinpoint guidance and resources   Governors: yearly report card on states’ schools performance highlight accomplishments; target help   Community leaders and volunteer groups: information to guide members in efforts of support

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND  Since enactment, funding is more than $56 billion below the amount authorized  Financial burden shifted to states  New York: expenditures for testing have more than doubled since NCLB—from $14 million to $32 million

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

TITLE PROGRAMS   Title I Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged   Title II Preparing, Training and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals   Title III Language Instruction of Limited English   Proficient and Immigrant Students   Title IV 21st Century Schools   Title V Promoting Informed Parental Choice and   Innovative Programs   Title VI Flexibility and Accountability   Title VII Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native   Education   Title VIII Impact Aid Program   Title IX General Provisions

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABLITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)  Ensures services to children with disabilities  Early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities  Follows NCLB requirements

STATE AID  Foundation Aid Program was added to 07/08 budget- target education needs, fairness and equity   $19.6 billion for the school year (increase of $1.8 billion )   $21.4 billion for the school year (increase of $1.75 billion)   Estimates: $2.2 billion increase for school year $2.3 billion increase for school year   Reimbursement for categorical programs, ex. Transportation   more than $100 million was added to this budget at the insistence of the State Senate Majority in order to accommodate the demands of the Long Island Senate delegation for so-called Long Island “shares”

ACCOUNTABILITY   The state law requires that the Contracts for Excellence funds be spent within five programmatic areas: Class Size Reduction Student Time on Task Teacher and Principal Quality Initiatives Middle School and High School Restructuring Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten

HOW THE STATE AID FORMULA WORKS

STATE AID- 08/09

MULTI-YEAR STATE AID PLAN

LOCAL- “FAIR” PLAN  2008 Budget-  2008 Budget- 50% cut in the sales tax funds that support schools   Justification- state aid increases   Stipulations with state aid and more demands each year

LOCAL “FAIR” PLAN   Suburban districts- filed suit against the county for its rightful share of sales-tax revenues   Decision on 12/19/07- ruled in favor of the county in a lawsuit that sought to re-claim money lost by schools in the FAIR plan.   Districts appealed decision   Decision on 3/21/08- Supreme Court New York ruled against the Monroe County Legislature holding that the county cannot legally take sales tax away from area school districts   The county was ordered to share the entire amount of revenue collected in the county with the school districts, not the amount that it retains after it pays for Medicaid under the Medicaid intercept   County plans to appeal