Linking School Performance to Resource Allocation.

Public school districts, like most government entities, are attracting increasing scrutiny from stakeholders seeking to hold them accountable for their use of tax dollars. Prior to the 1990s, however, evaluation of school districts was mostly informal, based on impressions rather than objective performance measures. State and federal aid, meanwhile, was typically contingent upon wealth ratios, property values, and the number of students requiring remedial or special education support. In effect, the more economically and educationally disadvantaged the school district, the more likely that school district was to receive state and federal aid. These funding formulas indirectly promoted substandard performance by providing financial incentives for certain failing schools.

Today, school districts are expected to demonstrate their level of adherence to established standards of scholastic achievement. Test scores and attendance, suspension, and graduation rates are routinely reported in the context of local and national performance standards. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, all 50 states now engage in some form of standardized testing. [1]

Educational reform at the federal level only promises to accelerate the trend toward accountability. Under a Bush administration proposal, all states receiving federal aid would be required to develop accountability systems to improve and demonstrate school performance. States that improve student performance would be rewarded with additional federal aid while those failing to do so would have a portion of their aid withdrawn. [2]

Educational Accountability in New York State

In New York State, test data for each school and school district is reported in a document called the School Report Card. The news media report the results of these tests, often ranking schools in ascending order and focusing on the lower performing schools. Data from the School Report Card is taken seriously, since it has clear financial repercussions. Real estate agents and local business bureaus use the data to promote properties and municipalities, while local school boards use it to evaluate the performance of school superintendents and principals. The results also affect the ability of districts to raise revenues, and influence property values and population trends.

Despite the movement toward accountability, the direct and indirect consequences of standardized testing make it a topic of continued debate. Many school administrators and teachers question the validity of standardized testing and are reticent to accept the results as the ultimate measure of a school's success or failure. Still, most recognize the value of such data in developing and refining curriculum and other programs. [3]

Incorporating School Testing into the Budget Process. Results from the School Report Card play an important part in the budget process. School officials use the data to allocate resources where they are most needed and most deserved, thus making schools and school districts fiscally accountable for scholastic performance. The federal government and state education departments, meanwhile, are taking accountability one step further. In their applications for federal and state aid, school districts are required to identify how dollars are being spent to improve student achievement--especially where the results of the School Report Card do not meet performance standards. In New York State, many school districts have chosen to participate in a planning/budget model called the Comprehensive District Education Plan (CDEP). This model facilitates application for federal and state aid through a document that demonstrates how that aid is linked to educational outcomes.