Task Force On Regional Strategies To Promote School Efficiency ...

www2.esboces.org

Task Force On Regional Strategies To Promote School Efficiency ...

TASK FORCE ON

REGIONAL STRATEGIES

TO PROMOTE SCHOOL EFFICIENCY

AND

COST EFFECTIVENESS

January 2006

(Revised)


Suffolk County School Superintendents Association

P.O. Box 503, Miller Place, NY 11764-0503

Telephone/Fax: 631-331-3112

M E M O R A N D U M

Introduction

BOARD of DIRECTORS

President

Dr. Christopher Gallagher

Southold UFSD

President-Elect

Mr. Neil Lederer

Lindenhurst UFSD

Vice President

Dr. Rosemary Jones

Sayville UFSD

Treasurer

Dr. Thomas C. Shea

South Huntington UFSD

Secretary

Mr. Wendell Chu

Fire Island UFSD

Past President

Mr. Gary D. Bixhorn

Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Cluster Leaders

Mr. Melvin S. Noble

West Babylon UFSD

Dr. Beth Blau

West Islip UFSD

Dr. Charles Kozora

Greenport UFSD

Mrs. Linda J. Rozzi

Tuckahoe CSD

Mr. John Finello

Huntington UFSD

Executive Secretary

Joseph F. Donovan

Long Islanders are proud of their schools and appreciate the high-quality,

comprehensive programs offered by their school districts. Long Island

communities are defined by their schools, and real estate values track

levels of student performance. Long Islanders have traditionally displayed

their support for schools through the annual approval of school budgets at

an overwhelmingly positive rate.

Over the past two years this support has begun to diminish. We believe

that there are three primary factors related to this situation:

Property taxes are increasing at faster rates as a result of a

decrease in the share of school costs assumed by the state.

This has shifted a larger share to local property taxpayers.

Certain school costs beyond the control of local school boards

and administrators are rising rapidly. Among these cost

categories with the most significant budget impact are health

insurance, energy, and mandatory contributions to retirement

systems.

High profile financial scandals involving administrators and other

officials have undermined the traditionally strong level of

credibility of school leaders.

In response to this situation and the array of critical issues facing public

education on Long Island and in New York State, the Suffolk County

School Superintendents Association has prepared this report. The report

is the work product of the “Task Force on Regional Strategies to

Promote School Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness.” The Task Force,

which included representatives of the Association as well as the Nassau-

Suffolk School Boards Association (N-SSBA) and the Suffolk County

Chapter of the New York State Association of School Business Officials

(ASBO), organized itself into subcommittees which addressed the

following areas:

1. Setting the Record Straight About Long Island Education

Are costs out of line? Are outcomes strong?

2. Legal and Legislative Matters Confronting Our Schools

What are the big issues? How do they impact us? What can

we do to respond?

i


3. Taxes and Revenues

What are the underlying issues driving the rapid increase in property tax rates? What

can be done to moderate increases?

4. Practical Solutions for Today

What have schools done to control costs? What else can we do? What can we learn

from each other?

The SCSSA wishes to thank the members of the Task Force (see back cover) and N-SSBA and

Suffolk ASBO for working with us on this important project.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................i-ii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary .................................................................................. 1-2

Setting the Record Straight ....................................................................... 3-6

Legal/Legislative Issues .......................................................................... 7-11

Taxes and Revenues ............................................................................ 12-15

Practical Solutions for Today................................................................. 16-17

Appendix A – LIEC Report Data Tables 1-13 (2/05)

Appendix B – Long Island School District CWR & Enrollment Data

Appendix C – New York State Department of Labor Data

iii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Suffolk County School Superintendents Association’s Task Force on Regional Strategies to

Promote Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness has prepared a report with an array of findings and

recommendations summarized as follows:

Setting the Record Straight

• The average per pupil cost of education on Long Island is below the state median

when costs are adjusted to account for regional differences.

• Despite the fact that costs are greater on Long Island than in other regions of the

state, nearly all state aid is allocated without regard to these differences.

• Despite the fact that Long Island schools enroll 26% of the children in the state

outside of New York City, our schools only receive 19.6% of the state aid

(exclusive of New York City).

Only 25% of all school district revenues on Long Island come from the state, and

almost the entire balance is raised through the property tax.

• Long Island students at all grade levels consistently outperform students statewide

on all SED assessments and Regents exams.

• The average salary of teachers on Long Island is $65,380 at the elementary level,

$68,860 at the middle school level, and $68,250 at the high school level.

• The average Long Island teacher’s salary is comparable to many other

occupations including nurses, accountants, and computer programmers.

• In Suffolk County, nearly 60% of all students are enrolled in school districts that fall

below the state average in wealth (measured by the Combined Wealth Ratio). On

Long Island, nearly 40% of all students are enrolled in such school districts.

Legal/Legislative Issues

• The existing mechanism for funding charter schools redirects excessive levels of

funding from public schools to charter schools. Typically, these are the public

schools that can least afford to lose the funding.

• Changes in the Triborough Amendment would change a key dynamic in collective

bargaining.

• State mandates should not be imposed upon school districts if funding for these

mandates is not provided.

1


• The Wicks Law should be repealed.

• Contingent budget cap requirements should be changed. At the very least, certain

cost increases such as those attributable to pension systems, health insurance,

energy, and tuition should be excluded from cap calculations.

Taxes and Revenues

! The CFE decision should be addressed with a statewide solution that recognizes

that all children in the state are entitled to a sound, basic education. This includes

the children of Suffolk County, many of whom are in “low wealth” districts that do

not receive a fair share of state aid and in wealthier districts that receive almost no

state aid.

• A new state aid formula that is sensitive to regional cost differences, student

needs, and funds a sound, basic education should be established.

• Due to a diminished state share of funding, Long Island schools are too heavily

dependent on the property tax. The state share needs to be significantly

increased. Options to raise more revenues on a statewide basis have been

proposed and should be addressed.

Practical Solutions for Schools

! Long Island schools have a long history of implementing cost-saving measures in an

effort to operate more efficiently. Long Island schools can learn from each other and

replicate successful measures.

The Suffolk County School Superintendents Association is prepared to work with our legislators,

the business community, our colleagues in the educational community, or any other group that

share our commitment to these recommendations, in part or in whole.

2


SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

INTRODUCTION

The Suffolk County School Superintendents Association, the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards

Association, and the Suffolk County ASBO have been active members of the Long Island

Education Coalition since it was established in 1996. The LIEC, which includes member

organizations that represent school administrators, parents, teachers, and board members, has

worked collaboratively with the Long Island Association to agree on certain facts about Long

Island education. The facts fall into three major categories:

! Costs

! Local Effort/State Share

! Outcomes

The findings of this Task Force, within these areas, match the findings of the LIEC (Appendix A).

The Task Force considered two other areas that have not been studied by the LIEC, salaries of

school personnel and school district wealth. Salaries are an area that needed to be addressed

due to the substantial share of school costs that are directed to staff compensation. A news

article focusing on teachers with salaries in excess of $100,000 appeared in the regional press

shortly before the May 2005 budget vote, and we thought it was important to present additional

information related to teacher salaries. School district wealth is another area which is subject to

misunderstanding, therefore, we decided to present accurate information related to that area.

New York State Department of Labor data related to teacher salaries and the State Education

Department data related to wealth were used to provide salary and wealth information

(Appendices B and C).

FINDINGS

Costs

! The cost of goods and services on Long Island is approximately 24.7% greater

than in the region at the median (Central New York), and 49.5% greater than the

lowest cost region (North Country). A state aid dollar buys far more in other

regions of the state than on Long Island (Appendix A, Table 3).

! When adjusted by the regional cost of living index, Long Island’s Per Pupil Cost

($9,579) is 50.6% less than the regionally adjusted Per Pupil Cost of the highest

ranked county ($19,394) and 8.1% less than the median county, $10,422

(Appendix A, Table 4).

3


! Over the past ten years (from 1993-94 to 2002-03), Per Pupil Costs on Long

Island have increased approximately 1.9% annually compared to an annual

percentage increase of 3.2% for counties at the median, and an average annual

increase of approximately 13.5% for the county with the highest percentage

increase in per pupil spending over this time period (Appendix A, Table 5).

Local Effort/State Share

! Long Island educates 26% of all public school students in the state (excluding New

York City boroughs) but receives only 19.6% of the state aid to schools, again

excluding aid to New York City (2003 enrollment and 2002 state aid data

[Appendix A, Table 7]).

! On Long Island, only 25.5% of school district revenues come from state aid

(Appendix A, Table 7).

! Long Island accounts for 29% of the state sales tax revenues and approximately

36% of state income tax revenues collected from all counties statewide (excluding

New York City), but receives only 19.6% of state aid to schools, again excluding

New York City (2001 Taxation and Finance, and 2002 state aid data [Appendix A,

Tables 8 and 9]).

Outcomes/Enrollment

! Long Island’s elementary, intermediate, and secondary students consistently

outperform students statewide on the ELA, Science, Math and Social Studies

Assessments, and the Regents exams (Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2).

! Along with dramatic increases in student enrollment (19.1% from 1993-94 to 2002-

03), Long Island has also experienced increases in the percentage of students

requiring additional educational support arising from Limited English Proficiency

(Appendix A, Tables 6 and 10).

! Long Island (2003 data) ranks above the statewide median (63%) in the

percentage of students graduating with a Regents diploma (69%), (Appendix A,

Table 11).

! Long Island (2003 data) reports high percentages of high school graduates

continuing their education at post-secondary institutions (90% compared to the

state median, 81.8% [Appendix A, Table 12]).

! Long Island (2003 data) schools report relatively low percentages of dropouts. For

the past five years, the dropout rate on Long Island has remained at or below 2%.

The median dropout rate in counties around the state is 2.6% (Appendix A, Table

13).

4


Salaries

! The average salary for an elementary school teacher on Long Island is $65,380.

An average entry level salary is $42,090, while experienced teachers earn an

average salary of $77,020.

! The average salary for a middle school teacher on Long Island is $68,670. An

average entry level salary is $46,200, while experienced teachers earn an average

salary of $79,650.

! The average salary for a secondary school teacher on Long Island is $68,250. An

average entry level salary is $44,280, while experienced teachers earn an average

salary of $80,240.

Average wages for the following occupations on Long Island are comparable with

that of teachers ($65,000 - $70,000):

Business Operations Specialist $65,050

Accountants & Auditors $65,840

Budget Analysts $67,700

Financial Analysts $67,320

Computer Programmers $64,690

Network Analysts $65,350

Operations Analysts $66,070

Architects $67,020

Landscape Architects $65,990

Industrial Engineers $69,030

Market Analysts $67,680

Urban and Regional Planners $65,890

Arbitrators $68,530

Court Reporters $68,140

Fashion Designers $66,480

Registered Nurses $65,470

Physical Therapists $69,160

Landscaping Supervisor $68,540

Wholesale Sales $67,130

Sales Engineers $69,370

Mechanical Supervisor $67,000

Gas Plant Operator $66,580

Ship Engineer $67,150

! The source of all salary data is the New York State Department of Labor

(Appendix C). Wage data is based upon the Occupational Employment Statistics

(OES) survey, which collects information from approximately 57,000 businesses.

Data was collected in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 and then updated to the

second quarter of 2005 by making cost of living adjustments.

5


Wealth

! Long Island has several very wealthy school districts based upon an analysis of

combined wealth ratios (CWR). However, several of the “wealthy” districts are

small while there are many “poor” large districts (Appendix B).

Accordingly, there is a wide gap between perception and reality when it comes to

the wealth of Long Island schools.

The percentage of students in districts of below average wealth (CWR =


LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

An array of legislative issues confronts Long Island schools on an ongoing basis. The SCSSA

Legislative Committee addresses these issues on an annual basis through the development of a

legislative program. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of issues “on the table”,

the Task Force Subcommittee on Legal/Legislative Issues has identified six major priorities to

address as part of this work on regional strategies. The six issues include Charter Schools,

Charter School Funding, Taylor Law, Unfunded Mandates, Capital Projects, and Contingent

Budget Caps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 – Charter Schools

! Repeal legislation authorizing the establishment of charter schools

Rationale: Charter schools were established in an effort to provide a choice for

parents in selecting the school their children would attend. The theory is that

introducing a market concept (choice) would accelerate the reform of public

schools.

Two problems with this theory have become apparent. First, there is very little

evidence that charter schools are more effective than regular public schools. If

anything, the preponderance of evidence suggests just the opposite, that, in fact,

charter schools are less effective than mainstream public schools.

Second, the theory ignores the historical role the public school has played in

American life. America is largely a nation of immigrants, and Horace Mann argued

(in the 1840’s) that one common school experience was critical in building a nation

of Americans. The middle of the nineteenth century was a period of great

European immigration in our country, and indeed, the public school played an

important role in assimilating the immigrant population and helping build an

American identity. Similarly, the current era is witnessing large scale immigration,

predominantly from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and as before, the need for

assimilation of these immigrants into a common American identity is as great as it

was one hundred and fifty years ago. By establishing a plethora of charter schools,

we ignore this need, and thus we will impede the integration of future generations

of immigrants into the American identity.

7


Recommendation 2 – Charter School Funding Reform

! Align schedule of local district payments to charter school with revenue stream of

property taxes and State Aid payments to local school districts

Rationale: Local school districts are obligated to make six equal payments to

charter schools, beginning on July 1 and every two months thereafter. Local

school districts do not receive state aid until November, and then again in March

and May. Moreover, local school districts do not receive property tax revenue until

after January 1. Therefore, local school districts must borrow money each year to

deal with the late revenue flowing from local taxes and from State Aid. The fact

that at least half of the charter school bills become payable before revenue is

received increases the amount that local school districts must borrow and thus

increases the costs associated with that borrowing. Alternatively, the legislation

could align the schedule of state aid payments to local school districts with the

charter school payment schedule so that schools would receive six equal

installments of their state aid beginning on July 1.

! For charter schools that do not go past Grade 8, the local district should only be

responsible to provide a proportionate share of the approved operating costs per

pupil.

Rationale: The approved operating aid per pupil is determined by a formula that

includes the costs incurred by the local district to educate all its pupils, including

high school students. The high school program is substantially more expensive

than the elementary program. Therefore, for elementary charter schools, the

current system of funding provides more than is necessary to operate the school,

and at the same time unnecessarily subtracts more funds from the local district.

This in turn has a negative impact on the instructional program for the local district

students.

! Exclude transportation costs in determining the per pupil costs to be allocated to

charter schools

Rationale: For charter schools that are within 15 miles of the regular school

district, the district remains responsible for providing transportation from the district

to the charter school. Since students going to charter schools are already

receiving transportation services, the funds associated with that service should not

also flow to the charter school. Transportation costs should not be included in

determining the operating cost per pupil.

Recommendation 3 – Taylor Law Reform

! Amend the Triborough Amendment (Section 209-a(1)(e)) of the Civil Service Law

so that in the event that a collective bargaining agreement expires, any provision

for continuing salary increases (e.g., a step schedule) also expires.

8


Rationale: At one time, the state saw the wisdom of establishing salary schedules,

and, in fact, in the 1960’s it was the State government that initiated the

establishment of a teacher salary schedule, largely because such a schedule

served an important public purpose. Salary schedules addressed the historic low

compensation for the teaching profession, and there is an important social

purpose fulfilled when talented individuals are drawn into the teaching profession.

The current compensation levels in the public sector are substantially higher than

they were 40 years ago. While it is true that beginning teacher salaries remain

relatively low, teachers with experience are fairly compensated. When a collective

bargaining agreement expires, the Taylor Law requires the automatic

advancement on the existing schedule in the absence of a collective bargaining

agreement. This requirement tilts the balance of negotiating power towards the

labor side of the table, depriving management of the leverage to bring personnel

costs under control.

School districts have attempted to negotiate changes in this automatic

advancement, but even when successful, these changes have been short lived.

For example, several years ago there were some Long Island school districts that

successfully negotiated the end of salary schedules with their unions. This

occurred in but a handful of districts, but those districts soon found that they were

losing valuable staff members to other districts that had retained salary schedules.

In an effort to contain costs, they had negotiated themselves into a competitive

disadvantage in terms of attracting and retaining staff. Given this experience, it is

clear that a statewide legislative solution is necessary. If salary schedules could

expire when a collective bargaining agreement expires, boards of education would

have more negotiating power, and thus are in a better position to contain costs.

Recommendation 4 – Unfunded Mandates

! Any and all legislation that is enacted must provide sufficient funds for any action,

program, or service that the legislation mandates

Rationale: For more than a decade, educators have requested that the legislature

provide sufficient funding to support the mandates contained in legislation. These

requests have been ignored. In fact, recent years have seen a sharp increase in

requirements for school districts. Below are listed examples of recent unfunded or

underfunded mandates.

1. K-12 Academic Intervention Services (1999) - Schools are required to

provide additional instructional services to students who are not making

acceptable progress; significant staffing costs with moderate support for

economically poor districts and very weak support for middle income

districts. In all cases, the lack of sufficient state and federal funds were

made up by the local taxpayer.

2. No Child Left Behind required assessments and staff qualifications (2002) -

Significant staffing and administrative costs; for example, extensive testing

and data reporting will require additional administrative staff. Federal

legislation has not been adequately funded; several states have initiated

9


suits over this lack of funding. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal

funds were made up by the local taxpayer.

3. ESL Program Requirements Specified (2003) - Significant staffing costs

with very weak support. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal funds

were made up by the local taxpayer.

4. IDEA Re-Authorization of required programs and services for children with

disabilities (2004) - Promised level of federal support (40%) has never

materialized in the thirty years of this legislation. Current level of federal

support is less than 20%. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal

funds were made up by the local taxpayer.

5. Mentoring Program for New Teachers (2003) - Very weak support for this

requirement. For most school districts, there are no funds available for this

requirement. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal funds were made

up by the local taxpayer.

6. Required Professional Development (2002) - No funds available for

administrative costs related to this requirement. Again, the lack of sufficient

state and federal funds were made up by the local taxpayer.

7. Acquisition of defibrillators and associated training and maintenance costs

(2002) - Some funds, typically Member grants, assisted districts in acquiring

defibrillators. No funding support for ongoing training and maintenance

costs. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal funds were made up by

the local taxpayer.

8. Project SAVE committees, reports, required curriculum, and fingerprinting

(2001). No funding provided to meet the administrative or curriculum

requirements. Again, the lack of sufficient state and federal funds were

made up by the local taxpayer.

Recommendation 5 – Capital Projects

• Repeal Section 101 of the General Municipal Law (the Wicks Law)

Rationale: New York is the last state in the union that requires that school

construction projects be awarded to five separate vendors. Such requirement is

responsible for higher than necessary school construction costs. Taxpayers are

forced to pay significantly more for projects that can be accomplished in the

private sector.

Recommendation 6 - Contingent Budget Cap Reform

! When a district adopts a contingency budget, limit the amount the budget may

increase to the increase in the school price index (SPI)

Rationale: Currently, the upper limit of a contingency budget increase is

determined by 120% of the annual increase in consumer prices. In most years,

10


this has amounted to an increase in the 2% to 4% range. During this same period,

health costs often rise more than 10% annually, textbooks and other school

supplies increases usually exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and fuel cost

increases far exceed the CPI. A more realistic index for schools would be the

development of a School Price Index (SPI). An SPI would be figured by including

changes in the prices of commodities and service used by schools, but it would

exclude changes in compensation negotiated in collective bargaining agreements.

The SPI would take into account regional cost differences.

Alternatively, if the upper limit of a contingency budget increase remains 120% of

the CPI increase, the State can permit the exclusion of certain items (fuel,

employer retirement contributions, health insurance premiums) that are beyond

the control of the local district. These items typically have increased at rates that

far exceed the consumer price index.

In the event that the cap is not changed, the Task Force concurs with the

recommendation of NYASBO that language defining allowable contingent

expenses in the Education Law is not necessary and should be eliminated. This

language is inconsistent with the cap that was put in place in 1997.

11


TAXES AND REVENUES

INTRODUCTION

Long Island is painted with a broad brush of being a wealthy suburb of New York City invoking

visions of a lavish lifestyle. In fact, Long Island is a very diverse region that includes some

wealthy areas as well as others that are below the state average in combined wealth. Long

Island educates 26% of the state’s children outside of New York City, almost a half million in 125

school districts. In Suffolk County, 59.4% of all the students are educated in districts below the

state average in combined wealth. When all of Long Island is included, 37.6% of the students

are still in districts below the state average in wealth. Long Island has and will continue to

contribute a significantly larger share of taxes than it receives. Although Long Island accounts

for 29% of state sales tax and 36% of state income tax revenues collected from all counties

statewide, excluding New York City, it receives only 19.6% of state aid to schools. If Long

Island received what it contributed in state aid to public education, the children of the region

would be much better off than today. Long Island is ahead of the rest of the state with regard to

taxpayer fatigue because of the combination of factors of the New York tax system that places a

heavy burden on low and middle-income families. This load is compounded by the reduced

purchasing power of a dollar in the region and the high sales and excise taxes and user fees in

the area. According to NYSED data, local effort to support Long Island schools is 150% of the

state average with Suffolk County’s at 176%. This local effort has increased by 50% over the

past 5 years. Only 25.5% of school district revenues come from state aid on Long Island. This

taxpayer fatigue manifested itself in 21 failed budgets and more than a third of Long Island

school districts needing more than one budget vote this past year. More than half of the districts

on Long Island below the state average in combined wealth needed a second budget vote and a

quarter of those are now on contingency budgets. These districts educate 52,133 students.

Almost a third of all students in districts below the state average in combined wealth are being

educated on contingency budgets. Long Island per pupil expenditures over the past ten years

have increased approximately 1.9% annually compared to approximately 3.2% annual increase

for the median counties in the state and 13.5% average annual increase for the highest county.

When adjusted for regional cost differences, Long Island is below the state median in per pupil

costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 – Craft a Statewide Solution to the CFE Decision

All children, including those in New York City as well as Suffolk County, are entitled to a

“sound, basic education” and, therefore, the state should provide appropriate funding for

that education while accounting for local effort. The CFE decision has made it clear that

the State Aid formula needs to be reformed and additional funding needs to be allocated

to the education of children across the state.

Rationale: Every child in New York State deserves to have the “sound, basic education”

defined by the court as “a meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to

12


function productively as civic participants”. This “meaningful high school education” has

been further defined by the Board of Regents’ graduation standards. Applying these

adequacy guidelines to a statewide solution would avoid additional litigation and a delay

in providing all children in the state with a “sound, basic education”.

Recommendation 2 – State Aid Formula

The state should reform the school aid funding formulas so that regional cost differences,

student needs such as poverty, special education, and limited English proficiency, and

commercial property wealth are factored in for each district. The state aid formula should

reflect adequacy, equity, simplicity, flexibility, and predictability.

Rationale: Regardless of whether the state legislature applies the “sound, basic

education” measure to all school districts or not, a more transparent and simplified state

aid formula needs to be adopted. The factors that drive the cost of education should be

considered in this formula. Costing out studies have determined that the number of

students in poverty, special education, and limited English proficiency affect the cost of

providing a sound, basic education for all students. The additional resources needed to

meet the needs of these students should play a part in the determination of state aid.

Recognition of regional cost differences within the state in the funding formula is very

important and will assure that monies allocated to districts have the desired affect in

terms of purchasing power of goods and services. Both of these concepts of weighting

and regional cost differences have been accepted in principle by the Governor’s

Commission on Costing Out and CFE. The poverty index (federal free and reduced

lunch guidelines) needs to be re-examined to factor in regional cost differences also. The

amount of commercial property in a district plays a factor in two ways. Not only does

commercial property provide a tax base that relieves the residential taxpayer, but it also

exports taxes outside the district to other taxpayers. However, when a district has little or

no commercial property, the entire local contribution for school funding is placed upon

residential taxpayers, and taxes paid by commercial properties in other areas, such as

Verizon or Keyspan, may be paid by the same residential taxpayers. One approach

would be to factor out primary residential property from the combined wealth ratio or

foundation aid formulas. After all, people do not pay property taxes with their property

wealth.

Recommendation 3 – Facilities

The state should ensure through facilities studies that every student in the state has

available facilities sufficient to provide the opportunity for a sound, basic education.

Rationale: Facilities are an integral part of providing children with a “sound, basic

education” and the Court of Appeals referees recommended additional funding for capital

improvements. This also should be applied statewide.

13


Recommendation 4 – Cost-Out Education

The state should re-examine and redetermine the cost of providing a “sound, basic

education” each year using a “successful schools model”. Every four years the state

should undertake “costing out” studies to verify that yearly changes to the cost of

providing a “sound, basic education” are borne out in practice. Facilities studies should

be conducted every five years to determine the need for additional funding, if any, for

capital improvements.

Rationale: Costs for providing a sound, basic education have changed as a result of a

variety of factors over the years and funding needs to be reexamined and redetermined,

if needed, periodically to ensure that the an opportunity for a sound, basic education

continues to be available to the state’s children. Yearly adjustments help to ensure that

high-need districts that receive the bulk of their funding through state aid are able to

maintain the ratio of state aid to local effort over time. Costing out studies need to be

conducted to validate the “successful schools” approach periodically.

Recommendation 5 – Taxing Strategies

The state should adopt taxing strategies to achieve adequacy and provide fairness.

Rationale: The additional funding needed to provide the children in the state with a

“sound, basic education” can be derived from a variety of sources. The need for

additional funding and proposals for raising these funds are subject to dozens of

proposals that have been advanced by various groups over the years. The Institute on

Taxation and Economic Policy Report, “Achieving Adequacy: Tax Options for New York

In Wake of the CFE Case”, makes the argument that New York’s tax system makes low

and middle-income families bear a larger burden as a percentage of income for the

education of children than upper-income families. It also provides a number of options to

move New York to a progressive tax system. Some of these suggestions include making

the 2003 temporary income tax rate hike permanent, enacting a progressive commuter

tax, changes in sales taxes, and enacting means-tested STAR exemption. New York

State United Teachers has also proposed a progressive income tax structure that returns

the 1972 tax brackets adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living over the past 30

years, closing corporate loopholes, and reforming the corporate alternative minimum tax.

These two examples are illustrations of the ideas that have been developed by those

seeking to address the problem. It is time that these and other proposals are seriously

considered. The focus of any reforms should keep both adequacy and fairness in mind.

Recommendation 6 – Total Tax Liability

The local contribution rate as a percentage of total personal income should be essentially

the same throughout the state.

14


Rationale: Local taxpayers in school districts throughout the state should be expected to

contribute at a relatively similar rate. This contribution rate as a percentage of the

aggregate personal income in the district will ensure fairness in supporting education and

provide for an additional basis for state aid.

15


PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR TODAY

INTRODUCTION

Suffolk County schools have implemented cost-saving measures and efficiencies on an ongoing

basis for many years. During the early 90’s, when State Aid to Long Island schools was cut

dramatically, schools were forced to examine all areas of operation and cut costs. The mindset

established at that time continues to exist today, as our schools continually look for opportunities

to operate more cost effectively. The subcommittee on Practical Solutions for Today has

compiled this list of cost-saving strategies within the following categories:

Instructional Initiatives

Energy Initiatives

Fiscal Initiatives

Each initiative has been considered in one or more school districts in the county. In the event

that you are interested in further information regarding an initiative and the name of a district

contact person, please contact Neil Lederer at nlsupt@optonline.net.

INITIATIVES

Instructional Initiatives

• Evaluate shared services for cost effectiveness

• Monitor field trip costs

• Use grants to improve instruction

• Score state assessments on non-instructional time

• Monitor counselor caseloads

• Cluster scoring of state assessments

• Teacher center cooperative (fiscal support for district instructional initiatives)

• Utilize internal staff for professional development

• Flexible schedule for teachers

• Gifted/talented – after school (stipend payment)

• Monitor class size

Energy Initiatives

• Develop or enhance energy savings plan

• Refurbish all HVAC/boiler systems

• Reduce thermostat settings – daytime

• Locked covers on thermostats

• Dual fuel (oil and gas) heating systems – use fuel that is less costly

16


• Energy consultation firm

• Cooperative fuel oil purchases

• Cost avoidance savings

• Night temps set-backs

• Cut lighting – all classroom lights off after dismissal

• Energy performance contracts

• Install energy saving devices

Fiscal Initiatives

• Encourage cooperative purchasing

• Monitor number of students on each bus

• Consolidate bus runs

• Evaluate costs under municipal contracts

• Evaluate lease vs. purchase of technology equipment

• Monitor overtime costs

• Evaluate phone system costs

• Flexible custodial scheduling to minimize overtime

• Evaluate insurance and banking consortiums

• Evaluate self-insurance for worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance

• Explore educational foundation with community

• Refinance bond issue/call feature

• Computerize lunch program

- increase student participation

• Maximize e-rate funding

• Monitor substitute costs

• Monitor travel and conference budgets

• E-mail information on sex offenders rather than mailing

• Evaluate borrowing timelines

• Monitor usage of cell phones

• Limit the number of district charge cards

• Monitor use of district vehicles

• Evaluate meeting costs

• Evaluate savings from retirement incentive

• Health insurance containment

- Evaluate increase in employee contributions

- Evaluate incentive for declination of health insurance

- Evaluate retiree contributions

17


APPENDIX A


Table 1

LONG ISLAND ELEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE ASSESSMENTS

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT LEVELS 3 AND 4

% OF ALL STUDENTS TESTED

ASSESSMENTS LONG ISLAND NEW YORK STATE*

Grade 4 ELA

Grade 4 Mathematics

Grade 4 Science

79.0

90.3

84.0

(above State Designated Level)

64.3

78.3

70.0

(above State Designated Level)

Grade 5 Social Studies 89.1 71.4

Grade 8 ELA

Grade 8 Mathematics

Grade 8 Science

Grade 8 Social Studies

59.8

69.2

84.2

70.3

45.2

51.4

72.0

50.8

Description: The percentage of all 4th, 5th and 8th grade students who scored at levels 3 and 4 on the New

York State Assessments, 2002-2003. *Includes Long Island and New York City.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

79.0%

64.3%

90.3%

84.0% 89.1%

84.2%

78.3%

70.0%

71.4%

69.2%

72.0%

59.8%

45.2% 51.4%

70.3%

50.8%

Long

Island

New York

State

Gr. 4 ELA

Gr. 4

Mathematics

Gr. 4 Science

Gr. 5 Social

Studies

Gr. 8 ELA

Gr. 8

Mathematics

Gr. 8 Science

Gr. 8 Social

Studies

Key Fact:

1. Long Island’s 4th, 5th and 8th grade students exceeded statewide levels of performance on all

assessments administered during the 2002-2003 academic year.


Table 2

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SCORING 65+ ON REGENTS EXAMS

% OF ALL STUDENTS TESTED

ASSESSMENTS LONG ISLAND NEW YORK STATE

English 87.5 76.3

Mathematics Course A

Mathematics Course B

Sequential Mathematics III

76.0

76.5

75.0

62.0

69.0

72.4

Global History and Geography

US History and Government

85.0

91.5

72.4

84.0

Earth Science

Living Environment

Chemistry

86.5

89.0

74.5

78.2

80.0

66.3

Description: The percentage of all secondary students who scored 65+ on the New York State Regents, 2002-

2003.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July 2004.

Percentage of Students Scoring 65+ on Regents Exams

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

87.5%

76.3%

76.0%

62.0%

76.0%

69.0%

85.0%

75.0%

72.4% 72.4%

91.5% 86.5% 89.0%

84.0%

78.2% 80.0%

74.5%

66.3%

Long

Island

New York

State

English

Math Course

A

Math Course

B

Sequential

Mathematics

III

Global

History and

Geography

US History

and

Government

Earth

Science

Living

Environment

Chemistry

Key Fact:

1. Long Island’s percentage of students scoring 65+ on Regents exams exceeded the percentage for the

state as a whole on the 2002-2003 Regents administration.


Table 3

COST OF LIVING

Range

North Country

Long Island

LABOR FORCE REGION

RANK

1

9

COST OF

GOODS &

SERVICES

$1.00

$1.50

Median

Central New York 5 $1.13

Long Island 9 $1.50

Description: This table presents the relative cost of living in Labor Force Regions statewide.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts for School Year-05: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/stateaid

workgroup/2004-05%20RSAP/RSAP0405.htm.

Method of Ranking: The nine Labor Force Regions (excluding New York City boroughs) were ranked on the

cost of goods and services using a cost of living index derived from the New York State Education Department

(2004) Regents State Aid Proposal, 2004-05. Those Labor Force Regions with the lowest cost of living are

ranked closest to 1.

Key Facts:

1. Long Island has the highest statewide cost of living as determined in the regional cost index.

2. Each dollar’s worth of goods and services purchased in the North Country Labor Region, the region with

the lowest cost of living, can be purchased for approximately $1.50 on Long Island, which has the highest

cost of living.

3. Goods and services on Long Island cost at least 24.7% more than counties at the median.


Table 4

ADJUSTED TOTAL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES

COUNTY

Range

Dutchess

RANK:

UNADJUSTED

15

ADJUSTED

$8,159

RANK:

ADJUSTED

1

Hamilton

56

$19,394

56

Median

Rensselaer 41 $10,422 28

Long Island 53 $9,579 14

Description: This table reports the adjusted per pupil expenditures for Long Island compared to the other 55

counties (excluding New York City boroughs) with the lowest, highest, and median adjusted per pupil

expenditures in the state.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts for School Year-05: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/stateaid

workgroup/2004-05%20RSAP/RSAP0405.htm.

Method of Ranking: Counties were ranked from lowest (1) to highest (56) on total per pupil expenditures

regionally adjusted by a cost of living index derived from The Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts

for School Year-05.

Key Facts:

1. Regionally adjusted per pupil expense by county in New York State ranges from a low of $8,159 in

Dutchess to a high of $19,394 in Hamilton.

2. Long Island ranks 14 th (adj. exp. $9,579) in regionally adjusted per pupil expenditure.

3. Long Island’s regionally adjusted per pupil expense is approximately 8.1% below the regionally adjusted

pupil expenditure of the median county.


Table 5

PERCENT CHANGE IN PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES (1993-94 TO 2002-03)

Range

Schoharie

COUNTY

RANK

1

%

CHANGE

+134.8

Yates

56

-2.5

Median

Broome 28 +32.4

Long Island 52 +19.0

Description: The percent change in per pupil expenditures on Long Island and the other 55 counties of New

York State over the ten-year period from 1993-1994 to 2002-2003 is reported in this table.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004 (for 2000-01 per pupil expenditures) and Financial Data for School Districts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (for

1993-94 per pupil expenditure).

Method of Ranking: Long Island and the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New York City

boroughs) were ranked from those with the highest ten-year percentage increase in per pupil expenditures (1)

to those with the lowest ten-year percentage increase (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island was among the five counties showing the lowest overall percentage increase in this ten-year

period.

2. Long Island averaged a 1.9% increase per year in per pupil expenditures. The annual percentage increase

for counties at the median was approximately 3.2%.

3. The county showing the highest percentage increase in per pupil expenditures during this ten-year period

averaged an increase of approximately 13.5% annually.


Table 6

PERCENT CHANGE IN STUDENT ENROLLMENT (1993-94 to 2002-03)

Range

Westchester

COUNTY

RANK

1

%

CHANGE

+26.9

Hamilton

56

-14.6

Median

Oswego 28 -3.7

Long Island 3 +19.1

Description: This table reports the percent increase (or decrease) in student enrollment for the years between

1993-94 and 2002-03.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004 (for 2002-03 enrollment) and Financial Data for School Districts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993, NYS Office of

the State Comptroller, July 1994 (for 1993-94 enrollment).

Method of Ranking: Long Island and the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New York City

boroughs) were ranked from those with the highest enrollment increases over the decade (1) to those with the

lowest enrollment increases (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island experienced some of the highest enrollment growth rates of any county in the state over the

last decade. Long Island is ranked 3 rd in percent enrollment increase.

2. While Long Island was experiencing double-digit percentage increases in student enrollment over the last

decade, 66.1% of the other counties (37 counties) experienced no growth or decline in student enrollment.

3. With a student enrollment of 471,086, Long Island educated 26% of the state’s total 2002-03 student

population (excluding New York City enrollments).


Table 7

STATE AID AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES

Range

Allegany

COUNTY

RANK

1

%

OF

STATE

SHARE

67.0

Hamilton

56

11.4

Median

Clinton 28 55.2

Long Island 52 25.5

Description: This table contrasts the percentage of school district revenues coming from State aid in various

counties and Long Island.

Source: Comptrollers Special Report on Municipal Affairs School District Finances (2002).

Method of Ranking: Long Island and the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New York City

boroughs) were ranked from those whose school districts receive the greatest percentage of State aid revenue

(1) to those receiving the smallest percentage of State aid revenues (56).

Key Facts:

1. The State share of school district revenues in Long Island is among the five smallest in the State.

2. State aid accounts for 25.5% of all school district revenues on Long Island. This State aid to Long Island

school districts represents 19.6% of all State aid to New York State public school districts (excluding aid to

New York City).

3. While receiving only 19.6% of State aid to public school districts (excluding New York City boroughs), Long

Island educates 26% of the State’s public school students (again excluding New York City revenues).


Table 8

ANNUAL TAXABLE SALES AND PURCHASES

Range

Hamilton

COUNTY

RANK

1

ANNUAL

TAXABLE SALES

(reported in

thousands)

$68,939

Long Island

56

$38,371,089

Median

Wayne 28 $749,601

Long Island

Nassau

Suffolk

56 $38,371,089

$19,089,737

$19,281,352

Description: The total annual sales and purchase statistics for the year between March 2000 and February

2001 on Long Island and the other New York State counties (excluding the five New York City boroughs) are

summarized in this table. New York State imposes a 4% sales and compensating use tax (state sales tax).

Source: Taxable Sales and Purchases, County and Industry Data, 3/2000-2/2001. New York State Department of Taxation

and Finance.

Method of Ranking: Long Island and the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New York City

boroughs) were ranked from those with the lowest annual taxable sales and purchases (1) to those with the

highest (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island ranks the highest in the state in annual taxable sales and purchases.

2. Long Island generates 51 times the annual taxable sales and purchases as the median county in the state.

3. Long Island accounts for 29% of the annual state sales tax revenues for all counties in the state (excluding

New York City boroughs).

4. Given the 4% state sales tax rate, Long Island’s annual sales and purchases generate approximately $1.53

billion in state revenues.


Table 9

TOTAL STATE INCOME TAX LIABILITY OF FULL YEAR RESIDENTS

Range

Hamilton

COUNTY

RANK

1

TAX LIABILITY

(reported in

thousands)

$2,514

Long Island

56

$4,127,787

Median

Clinton 28 $41,372

Long Island

Nassau

Suffolk

56 $4,127,787

$2,373,619

$1,754,786

Description: The total state income tax liability for full year residents (tax year 2001) by county (excluding the

five New York City boroughs) is reported in this table.

Source: New York State Adjusted Gross Income and Tax Liability: Analysis of State Personal Income Tax

Returns by Place of Residence, County Tables 2001. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

Method of Ranking: Long Island and the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New York City

boroughs) were ranked on the total state income tax liability of full year residents from the lowest (1) to the

highest (56).

Key Facts:

1. Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester are the three counties with the highest income tax liability of all counties

in the state (excluding New York City boroughs).

2. Long Island accounts for 36% of state income tax paid by residents of the state outside of New York City

boroughs.

3. Nassau County’s state income tax liability is 57 times the median for all counties and Suffolk County’s state

income tax liability is 42 times the median for all counties.

4. Long Island residents paid approximately $4 billion in state income taxes in 2001.


Table 10

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

COUNTY RANK %

Range

Hamilton and Schuyler

Westchester

1.5

56

0.0

7.8

Median

Cortland 28 .5

Long Island 54 4.4

Description: This table reports the number of public school students with Limited English Proficiency divided

by the total public school enrollment of the region, 2002-03. Students with Limited English Proficiency typically

require more intensive support services in order to assure success in school. Ranks closer to 1 indicate

smaller percentages of students with additional support needs arising from Limited English Proficiency.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Method of Ranking: The percentage of LEP students on Long Island was compared to the percentage of LEP

students in the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding the 5 New York City boroughs) by ranking from

the lowest percentage of Limited English Proficiency students (1) to the highest percentage (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island educates nearly nine times the percentage of LEP students than the median counties, serving the third

highest percentage (4.4%) of LEP students compared to all other counties statewide.

2. Outside of New York City, only Westchester and Rockland serve a greater percentage of LEP students than Long

Island school districts.


Table 11

PERCENT GRADUATING WITH A REGENTS DIPLOMA

COUNTY RANK %

Range

Montgomery

Schoharie

1

56

81

49

Median

Cattaraugus, Oneida, and Chautauqua 27.5 63

Long Island 7 69

Description: This table reports the percentage of 2002-03 high school graduates who satisfied the

requirements established by New York State for award of a Regents Diploma. The requirements for awarding

the Regents diploma consist of the completion of appropriate credits, coursework, and Regents examinations

as outlined in Section 100.5 of NYSED Regulations.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Method of Ranking: The graduation outcomes of Long Island school districts is compared to the outcomes in

55 counties of New York State (excluding the 5 New York City boroughs) by ranking from those with the highest

percentage of students graduating with a Regents Diploma (1) to those with the lowest percentage (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island ranks above the statewide median in the percentage of high school students graduating with a Regents

diploma.

2. The percentage of high school graduates who earned a Regents Diploma has increased progressively since 1993-94

and is now more than 1.6 times as great as ten years ago (between 40-42%).


Table 12

PERCENT OF GRADUATES CONTINUING POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

COUNTY RANK %

Range

Rockland

Chemung

1

56

92.1

68.0

Median

Sullivan and Warren 28.5 81.8

Long Island 2 90.0

Description: This table compares the percentage of 2002-03 high school graduates entering post-secondary

educational settings (4-year, 2-year and other post-secondary institutions) as reported in the summer of 2003

by high school principals on Long Island and in counties statewide.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department, July

2004.

Method of Ranking: Long Island was compared to the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding the 5

New York City boroughs) by ranking percentage of graduates continuing post-secondary education from

highest (1) to the lowest (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island ranks 2nd in the percentage of graduates continuing post-secondary education.

2. Only 10.1% of Long Island graduates do not plan to continue their education after high school graduation.


Table 13

DROP OUT RATE

COUNTY

RANK %

Range

Hamilton

Montgomery

1

56

0.0

5.1

Median

Oswego

Wayne

28

29

2.6

2.6

Long Island 14 2.0

Description: The drop out rate statistic indicates the percentage of students enrolled in high school (grades 9-

12) who left school in 2002-03 prior to graduation without entry into another school or alternative program.

Areas with the smallest percentage of students who do not complete high school are ranked closer to 1.

Source: Statistical Profiles of Public School Districts, Chapter 655 Report, New York State Education Department July

2004.

Method of Rankings: Long Island is compared to the other 55 counties of New York State (excluding New

York City boroughs) by ranking the percentage of drop outs from lowest (1) to highest percentage (56).

Key Facts:

1. Long Island falls below the county median in the percentage of high school students reported as dropping

out of school.

2. Forty-two counties statewide report a higher drop out rate than Long Island.

3. The reported drop out rate for Long Island has remained at or below 2% since 1995-96.


APPENDIX B


School District

2004-05 2003-04

CWR Enrollment

Eastern Suffolk BOCES

1 Brentwood 0.452 17,189

2 William Floyd 0.473 10,648

3 Central Islip 0.578 6,773

4 Middle Country 0.706 11,328

5 Rocky Point 0.720 3,651

6 Patchogue - Medford 0.757 9,143

7 Longwood 0.759 10,179

8 South Country 0.806 4,752

9 East Islip 0.848 5,307

10 Eastport - South Manor 0.859 3,515

11 Center Moriches 0.861 1,435

12 Comsewogue 0.877 3,983

13 Sachem 0.915 15,542

14 Miller Place 0.923 3,097

15 Bay Shore 0.948 5,795

16 West Islip 0.953 6,012

17 Islip 0.953 3,699

18 Sayville 0.977 3,642

Unadjusted Data

Source:

2004-05 General Formula

Aid Output Report (GEN)

published on SED State Aid

website

19 Mount Sinai 0.983 2,448 128,138 73.49%

20 East Moriches 1.029 752

21 Connetquot 1.052 7,280

22 Bayport - Blue Point 1.085 2,519

23 Shoreham - Wading River 1.140 2,710

24 Riverhead 1.205 5,096

25 Three Village 1.307 8,056

26 Greenport 1.557 677

27 Hauppauge 1.642 4,195

28 Hampton Bays 1.687 1,793

29 Mattituck - Cutchogue 2.134 1,578

30 Southold 2.333 1,007

31 East Quogue 2.461 443

32 Port Jefferson 2.837 1,205

33 Springs 3.043 574

34 Tuckahoe 3.433 319

35 Westhampton Beach 3.841 1,750

36 Oysterponds 3.909 108

37 Sag Harbor 3.978 1,001

38 Remsenburg - Speonk 4.457 189

Unadjusted Data


School District

2004-05 2003-04

CWR Enrollment

39 Montauk 5.335 394

40 East Hampton 6.890 2,018

41 Southampton 6.931 1,717

42 Shelter Island 8.070 277

43 Fishers Island 15.222 57

44 Quogue 16.243 115

45 Amagansett 18.012 97

46 Bridgehampton 18.164 153

47 Fire Island 22.743 46

48 Little Flower No Info. 97

49 New Suffolk No Info.

50 Sagaponack No Info.

51 Wainscott

Eastern Suffolk BOCES

No Info.

174,361

Western Suffolk BOCES

1 Wyandanch 0.370 2,347

2 Lindenhurst 0.746 7,786

3 North Babylon 0.765 5,334

4 Copiague 0.784 5,049

5 West Babylon 0.867 5,012

6 Deer Park 0.987 4,426 29,954 32.67%

7 Amityville 1.193 3,119

8 Commack 1.240 7,612

9 Babylon 1.261 2,047

10 South Huntington 1.331 6,156

11 Elwood 1.341 2,543

12 Kings Park 1.345 4,038

13 Smithtown 1.433 10,254

14 Harborfields 1.464 3,600

15 Half Hollow Hills 1.821 9,634

16 Northport 2.008 6,450

17 Huntington 2.149 4,187

18 Cold Spring Harbor 3.755 2,098

Westren Suffolk BOCES 91,692

Nassau County

1 Hempstead 0.561 7,212

Unadjusted Data


School District

2004-05 2003-04

CWR Enrollment

2 Roosevelt 0.597 3,028

3 Freeport 0.764 7,147

4 Elmont 0.916 4,080 21,467 10.12%

5 Levittown 1.041 8,111

6 Uniondale 1.090 6,618

7 Franklin Square 1.105 1,958

8 Island Trees 1.112 2,838

9 North Bellmore 1.112 2,538

10 Plainedge 1.117 3,639

11 Westbury 1.123 3,914

12 Sewanhaka 1.135 8,662

13 Valley Stream 30 1.158 1,508

14 Baldwin 1.160 5,458

15 Valley Stream 13 1.161 2,121

16 Wantagh 1.171 3,586

17 Valley Stream CHD 1.179 4,625

18 East Meadow 1.186 8,189

19 Valley Stream 24 1.244 1,076

20 Farmingdale 1.245 6,580

21 Malverne 1.284 1,872

22 Floral Park 1.285 1,511

23 Seaford 1.290 2,723

24 North Merrick 1.293 1,312

25 Bellmore-Merrick 1.311 5,893

26 East Rockaway 1.365 1,269

27 Bellmore 1.420 1,261

28 Oceanside 1.448 6,484

29 Lynbrook 1.468 3,177

30 Merrick 1.489 1,974

31 Massapequa 1.540 8,310

32 West Hempstead 1.553 2,387

33 New Hyde Park 1.565 1,711

34 Bethpage 1.594 3,041

35 Plainview 1.618 5,001

36 Hicksville 1.810 5,230

37 Rockville Centre 1.848 3,619

38 Carle Place 1.858 1,512

39 Long Beach 1.958 4,283

40 Glen Cove 1.961 3,161

Unadjusted Data


School District

2004-05 2003-04

CWR Enrollment

41 Herricks 1.989 3,952

42 Mineola 2.221 2,756

43 Hewlett Woodmere 2.223 3,200

44 Syosset 2.255 6,659

45 Port Washington 2.639 4,792

46 Garden City 2.685 4,157

47 Island Park 2.701 805

48 East Williston 2.730 1,817

49 Roslyn 2.779 3,248

50 North Shore 2.934 2,715

51 Lawrence 2.983 3,661

52 Jericho 3.204 3,221

53 Great Neck 3.606 5,998

54 Locust Valley 4.019 2,302

55 Oyster Bay 4.614 1,546

56 Manhasset 4.618 2,726

Nassau County 212,174

Long Island Students Being Educated in School Districts

with CWR's < 1.000

Suffolk County 158,092 59.42%

Eastern 128,138 73.49%

Western 29,954 32.67%

Nassau County 21,467 10.12%

Long Island 179,559 37.55%

Unadjusted Data


APPENDIX C


New York State Department of Labor - Workforce Industry Data

Unemployment

Benefits

Career

Services

Business

Services

Workforce NY

Partners

Workforce &

Industry Data

Worker

Protection

Forms and

Publications

Home

Enter Keywords

gfedc Search this section only

Workforce Industry Data

View Map

Select a Region

Island Home

Go

Long

A to Z Index

Wages

Jobs in Demand

Employment

Unemployment

Job Training

WDSuite

Affirmative Action/EEO

Unions

What's New

Forms and Publications

FAQs

Contact Us

! Average Wages

" By occupation

" By industry

Wages

Shortcuts:

Management Occupations

Business and Financial Operations Occupations

Computer and Mathematical Occupations

Architecture and Engineering Occupations

Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Community and Social Services Occupations

Legal Occupations

Education, Training, and Library Occupations

! Prevailing Wages

" For Unemployment Insurance

" For Public Work contracts

" For an H-1B professional worker

Occupational Employment Statistics

New York State, Labor Market Regions and Metropolitan Areas

Source: Occupational Employment Statistics Survey

Wage data by occupation are based on the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES)

survey, which collects information from approximately 57,000 businesses. Data were

collected in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, and then updated to the second quarter of

2005 by making cost-of-living adjustments. Occupational wages are presented for New

York State and labor market regions.


New York State Department of Labor - Workforce Industry Data

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations

Healthcare Support Occupations

Protective Service Occupations

Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations

Personal Care and Service Occupations

Sales and Related Occupations

Office and Administrative Support Occupations

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations

Construction and Extraction Occupations

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations

Production Occupations

Transportation and Material Moving Occupations

Long Island Region

Wage data are from the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 OES survey, and have been

adjusted to second quarter 2005 by making cost-of-living adjustments.

SOC

Code

Title

Annual Wages ($)

Mean Median Entry * Experienced**

00-0000 Total, All Occupations $42,710 $33,380 $18,400 $54,870

11-0000 Management Occupations $110,040 $97,820 $57,140 $136,500

11-1011 Chief Executives >$145,600 n/a $97,530 >$145,600

11-1021

General and Operations

Managers

$117,130 $101,910 $55,700 >$145,600

11-1031 Legislators $88,130 $87,470 $56,280 $104,060

11-2011

Advertising and Promotions

Managers

$107,300 $91,970 $58,610 $131,650

11-2021 Marketing Managers $113,940 $106,950 $69,860 $135,980

11-2022 Sales Managers $135,970 $127,190 $75,660 >$145,600

11-2031 Public Relations Managers $94,060 $85,030 $53,520 $114,330

11-3011

11-3021

Administrative Services

Managers

Computer and Information

Systems Managers

$91,890 $82,980 $54,680 $110,490

$115,260 $111,350 $76,040 $134,860


New York State Department of Labor - Workforce Industry Data

21-2099 Religious Workers, All Other $15,920 $13,800 $13,040 $17,360

23-0000 Legal Occupations $82,170 $76,470 $39,310 $103,600

23-1011 Lawyers $105,490 $92,850 $67,490 $124,490

23-1021

23-1022

23-1023

23-2011

Administrative Law Judges,

Adjudicators, and Heari

Arbitrators, Mediators, and

Conciliators

Judges, Magistrate Judges,

and Magistrates

Paralegals and Legal

Assistants

$91,520 $83,130 $63,480 $105,540

$68,530 $69,990 $53,580 $76,000

$125,050 $131,080 $96,970 $139,080

$46,810 $43,420 $31,340 $54,540

23-2091 Court Reporters $68,140 $68,770 $44,520 $79,950

23-2092 Law Clerks $31,040 $28,480 $24,730 $34,200

23-2093

23-2099

25-0000

25-1021

25-1042

25-1071

25-1072

25-1194

25-1199

25-2011

Title Examiners, Abstractors,

and Searchers

Legal Support Workers, All

Other

Education, Training, and

Library Occupations

Computer Science Teachers,

Postsecondary

Biological Science Teachers,

Postsecondary

Health Specialties Teachers,

Postsecondary

Nursing Instructors and

Teachers, Postsecondary

Vocational Education

Teachers, Postsecondary

Postsecondary Teachers, All

Other

Preschool Teachers, Except

Special Education

Kindergarten Teachers,

$43,650 $39,120 $28,460 $51,240

$44,060 $43,580 $37,760 $47,210

$51,150 $46,540 $22,120 $65,670

$62,940 $59,450 $40,150 $74,340

$91,530 $83,420 $54,520 $110,030

$83,180 $71,020 $56,570 $96,490

$82,290 $81,660 $69,790 $88,530

$50,970 $46,420 $27,830 $62,540

$66,280 $58,350 $37,540 $80,650

$24,890 $23,750 $17,300 $28,690


New York State Department of Labor - Workforce Industry Data

25-2012 Except Special Education $66,350 $63,840 $38,830 $80,110

25-2021

25-2022

25-2023

25-2031

25-2032

25-2041

25-2042

25-2043

25-3011

25-3021

25-3099

Elementary School

Teachers, Exc. Special

Educ.

Middle School Teachers,

Except Special and Vocatio

Vocational Education

Teachers, Middle School

Secondary School Teachers,

Except Special and Voca

Vocational Education

Teachers, Secondary School

Special Education Teachers,

Preschool, Kindergarte

Special Education Teachers,

Middle School

Special Education Teachers,

Secondary School

Adult Literacy, Remedial

Education, and GED Teache

Self-Enrichment Education

Teachers

Teachers and Instructors, All

Other

$65,380 $63,000 $42,090 $77,020

$68,670 $64,860 $46,720 $79,650

$75,360 $77,410 $48,660 $88,700

$68,250 $64,390 $44,280 $80,240

$69,880 $67,060 $50,570 $79,540

$63,350 $60,290 $42,500 $73,770

$75,180 $77,280 $51,810 $86,860

$71,730 $70,740 $49,500 $82,840

$52,990 $52,640 $37,160 $60,900

$44,360 $41,170 $21,140 $55,970

$33,640 $30,770 $24,990 $37,970

25-4011 Archivists $41,770 $39,970 $30,270 $47,520

25-4012 Curators $54,670 $50,530 $34,980 $64,520

25-4021 Librarians $53,030 $48,180 $36,540 $61,280

25-4031 Library Technicians $24,390 $21,200 $14,950 $29,100

25-9011

Audio-Visual Collections

Specialists

$45,440 $36,340 $22,770 $56,780

25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $72,190 $62,170 $34,670 $90,950

25-9041 Teacher Assistants $22,420 $20,590 $15,070 $26,100

25-9099

Education, Training, &

Library Workers, All Other

$61,200 $64,250 $31,210 $76,190


TASK FORCE ON REGIONAL STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE

SCHOOL EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

Setting the Record Straight

William Bernhard, Babylon UFSD

Gary Bixhorn*, Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Lorraine Deller, Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association

Donald James, Center Moriches UFSD

Isabel Madison, East Hampton UFSD

Peter Scordo, Hauppauge UFSD

Legal & Legislative Matters

Susan Bergtraum, Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association

Frank Carasiti**, Three Village CSD

Joseph Dragone, Harborfields CSD

Raymond Fell, Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Chris Gallagher*, Southold UFSD

James Kaden, Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association

Katherine Salomone, Remsenburg-Speonk UFSD

Taxes & Revenues

Wendell Chu*, Fire Island UFSD

Shane Higuera, Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Susan Lipman, Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association

Mike Mostow, Patchogue-Medford UFSD

Melvin Noble, West Babylon UFSD

Carol Perkins, Hauppauge UFSD

Judy Wooster, Amagansett UFSD

Practical Solutions for Today

Robert Gorman, Lindenhurst UFSD

Fran Greenspan, Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association

Neil Lederer*, Lindenhurst UFSD

Joanne Loewenthal, Hampton Bays

Joseph Myers, Western Suffolk BOCES

Stan Packman, Eastern Suffolk BOCES

Helen Smith, Western Suffolk BOCES

Alan Van Cott, Islip UFSD

**Task Force Chair

*Subcommittee Chair

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines