Contracts for Excellence C4E

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
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
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
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
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
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
39 Contract for Excellence Districts in 2008-09

• 2008-09 2008-09
• District Newly District Newly
• Name Identified Name Identified
• ALBANY ODESSA MONTOUR NEW
• AMSTERDAM OSWEGO
• ARLINGTON PORT JERVIS
• BINGHAMTON ROCHESTER
• BUFFALO SCHENECTADY
• COPIAGUE SOUTH COLONIE
• DUNKIRK SPENCERVAN ETTEN
• ELMIRA SYRACUSE
• FULTON UTICA
• GENEVA VALLEY-MONTGOMERY
• GLOVERSVILLE NEW WAPPINGERS
• GREECE WATERTOWN
• HANNIBAL WATERVLIET
• HAVERSTRAW-STONEY POINT WHITE PLAINS
• HYDE PARK YONKERS

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
C4E District Demographics Student Need
10
C4E Online System

• C4E is completed online and submitted through the
  State Education Departments On-line Services
  Portal
• System enhancements in 2008-09, include link with
  accountability data and reports

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
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
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
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
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
Program Accountability

• Programs are measured by both their inputs and
  outputs
• Inputs program options, essential elements and
  metrics
• Outputs student performance improvement

17
Inputs Options, Expenditures and Metrics
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
Online System Performance TargetsMatrix Using
State Assessments
20
Performance Targets not subject to AYP or no
State Assessment, page 1 of 2
21
Performance Targets not subject to AYP or no
State Assessment, page 2 of 2
22
District Summary of School Allocations
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
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
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
Monitoring C4E

• Program Monitoring
• Performance Monitoring
• Fiscal Accountability

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
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
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 districts independent audit

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
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
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
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
Discussion Questions

• Is there value in linking funding and
  achievement, as in C4E?
• Should allocation of district resources be part
  of States role?
• Should a districts allocation of resources be a
  public process, as in C4E?