1. Contracts for Excellence (C4E) Supporting the link : Funding and Achievement Charles A. Szuberla, Jr. Deborah H. Cunningham New York State Education Department www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/C4E/

2. 2 What is C4E?  C4E is a comprehensive approach to targeting State Foundation Aid to raise the achievement of the neediest students.  Portion of new Foundation Aid subject to C4E restrictions for 39 districts in 2008-09

3. 3 Key elements of C4E  Target fiscal resources to serve neediest students  Implement programs which are research based to support student success  Measure performance gains

4. 4 Mandated Public Process  Public involvement in development of plan  Public posting on district website  Public hearing  Assessment of public comment  Process for parent complaints

5. 5 Total C4E Funds  Total Foundation Aid (for 39 participating districts) subject to C4E restrictions in 08-09: $479 million  07-08 Foundation Aid (56 districts) subject to C4E Restrictions was $428 million

6. 6 Fiscal Resources  Districts are subject to C4E restrictions on new Foundation Aid if:  10% increase in 2007-08 or 2008-09, and/or;  20% increase over both years, or;  $15 million increase in a single year, and;  Schools or district in accountability status.

7. 7 39 Contract for Excellence Districts in 2008-09 2008-09 District Newly DistrictNewly Name Identified NameIdentified ALBANYODESSA MONTOURNEW AMSTERDAMOSWEGO ARLINGTONPORT JERVIS BINGHAMTON ROCHESTER BUFFALOSCHENECTADY COPIAGUESOUTH COLONIE DUNKIRK SPENCERVAN ETTEN ELMIRA SYRACUSE FULTONUTICA GENEVAVALLEY-MONTGOMERY GLOVERSVILLE NEWWAPPINGERS GREECE WATERTOWN HANNIBAL WATERVLIET HAVERSTRAW-STONEY POINTWHITE PLAINS HYDE PARK YONKERS MASSENA MEXICO NEW MIDDLETOWN MONTICELLO NEW YORK CITY NEWBURGH NORTHEASTERN-CLINTON NORWICH OSSINING

8. 8 Characteristics of 2008-09 C4E districts  26 of 39 are high need districts  5 are large city districts  13 are high need urban/suburban districts  8 are high need rural districts  13 are average need districts  English Language Learners range from 0 to 14 percent of pupils  Students with disabilities range from 7 to 21 percent of pupils  Poverty ranges from 5 to 70 percent of pupils

9. 9 C4E District Demographics: Student Need

10. 10 C4E Online System  C4E is completed online and submitted through the State Education Department’s On-line Services Portal  System enhancements in 2008-09, include link with accountability data and reports

11. 11 Key Components of On-Line System  Narratives  Maintenance of Effort from Prior Year  School Allocations  Program Expenditures, Options and Metrics  Performance Targets  Comprehensive Improvement Planning

12. 12 Maintenance of Effort  C4E expenditures from 2007-08 must be maintained in 2008-09, or reallocated to a new or expanded program in 2008-09.  Districts continue to receive 2007-08 funds, in addition to 2008-09 funds, and are allowed a percentage for inflationary increases.

13. 13 Inflation Factor and Flexibility  The 3% inflation factor and the 25% (or $30 million) flexibility factor to continue prior programs: NYC, Rochester and Buffalo  Yonkers & Syracuse: 4% inflation factor and 50% flexibility to continue prior programs  Other than the Big 5: 4% inflation rate and varying flexibility based on accountability status of schools

14. 14 C4E Approved Programs  Research based programs demonstrated to improve student achievement  Class Size Reduction  Additional Instructional Time, “Time on Task”  Middle School/High School Restructuring  Teacher/Principal Quality Initiatives, professional dev.  Full Day Kindergarten/Prekindergarten  Model Programs for English Language Learners (ELLs)  Experimental Program

15. 15 Model Programs for ELLs  New C4E program in 08-09, includes:  Native language support for students with interrupted formal education and prekindergarten  Dual language programs  Programs that support integration of students with disabilities into bilingual education programs  New immigrant programs  Recruitment and retention of appropriately trained teachers  Development of a career ladder for bilingual aides in collaboration with higher education institutions  District support for the teacher credentialing process and professional development  Parent involvement

16. 16 Program Accountability  Programs are measured by both their inputs and outputs  Inputs: program options, essential elements and metrics  Outputs: student performance improvement

17. 17 Inputs: Options, Expenditures and Metrics

18. 18 Outputs: Student Achievement  C4E Performance matrix linked to SED accountability and reporting system  Districts project reduction in gap for student subgroups in accountability status, and others, served by C4E programs  Targets also set for students not subject to State assessments

19. 19 Online System: Performance Targets Matrix Using State Assessments

20. 20 Performance Targets not subject to AYP or no State Assessment, page 1 of 2

21. 21 Performance Targets not subject to AYP or no State Assessment, page 2 of 2

22. 22 District Summary of School Allocations

23. 23 Allocations: Targeting by Need  Allocations, including District-wide programs, shown at the school level  Schools in accountability status must receive pro rata share of funds and predominately benefit neediest students  Predominately is defined in regulations as 75% of funds to targeted students (for all non Big 5 districts)

24. 24 Targeting by Student Need  Big 5 school districts must target 75% of funds to neediest students in top 50% of needy schools, rank ordered from greatest to least need

25. 25 Summary Reports Generated by Online System  Contract Narratives  Maintenance of Effort  Fiscal Summary Report  Options, Expenditures and Metrics  Performance Targets (Matrix)  Performance Targets (Narratives)  Integrated Planning Report  Need Targeting Report

26. 26 Monitoring C4E  Program Monitoring  Performance Monitoring  Fiscal Accountability

27. 27 Program Monitoring  Compliance Measured, i.e., district spent C4E funds as planned  Rest of State: SED Office of Regional School Support Services  New York City: SED Office of School Improvement and Community Services

28. 28 Performance Measures  Assessment of district performance targets and subsequent improvement  Analysis will focus on funding, program options and student progress in making achievement gains

29. 29 Fiscal Accountability  Reporting of C4E expenditures tied to Uniform System of Accounts  Expenditures must be traceable throughout the system and able to be disaggregated  Part of a district’s independent audit

30. 30 Example of Specific Contract Planning and Spending: Buffalo City School District  English Language Learners identified as subgroup in need of support in 07-08 with 2,240 students failing to meet their Annual Measurable Objective for 3 consecutive years  Native language speaking support staff, programs for ELL parents, and high quality professional development will be added to address achievement gaps for this subgroup  Spending $1 million out of total $15.1 million with 2,302 ELL and LEP students benefiting  Performance target improvements set for student subgroup in 9 out of 21 schools

31. 31 Summary  It is anticipated that an evaluation of C4E efforts will reveal that targeted expenditures focused on research based programs serving low achieving subgroups will show positive gains for students

32. 32 Some Potential Issues for C4E Districts  In good fiscal times, easier to incorporate new programming with new funds  Balance student needs and tax increases  Rapidly rising costs in many areas, e.g., salary steps, retirement, health care and energy, strain district budgets  Must balance continuing and new initiatives; supplanting problems with C4E funds  How much professional development is enough? Too much?

33. 33 Opportunities for Improvement  Need to connect C4E data with other systems, such as assessment data and accountability system; uniform system of accounts; and state aid, including charter expenditures  Need to connect performance data to planning  Need quality data to help improve monitoring and auditing  Need quality research and program evaluations for guidance

34. 34 Discussion Questions  Is there value in linking funding and achievement, as in C4E?  Should allocation of district resources be part of State’s role?  Should a district’s allocation of resources be a public process, as in C4E?