Fixing the Resource and Achievement Gap in Small City School Districts

Fixing the Resource and Achievement Gap in Small City School Districts November 2018

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the New York State Association of Small City School Districts and superintendents, business officials, and board members from small city school districts for their contributions to this report. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 2

Introduction This paper explores trends in student need, financial resources, and student achievement in small city school districts as well as opportunities for improvement in these districts. Small city school districts, especially highneed ones, face enormous challenges and must work to overcome them with fewer resources than other state school districts. This paper opens with an overview of small city school districts in New York State, followed by trends in enrollment and student demographics, student achievement, school finance, and a description of debt limit requirements for small city and other districts. It concludes with a set of recommendations for improving the financing of small city school districts, especially those that have high student poverty and limited financial capacity. Figure 1. The 57 Small City School Districts Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 3

Part One: Overview of Small City School Districts Of New York s 674 major school districts, 57 are classified as small city school districts. 1 These school districts serve approximately 221,000 students and have 1.5 million residents. The map in Figure 1 identifies the small city school districts and Figure 2 shows their regional concentration. All areas of the state have small city school districts, though they are not equally distributed. In five regions, small city school districts make up more than ten percent of districts, while in Long Island small city school districts make up only two percent of school districts. Figure 2. Regional Distribution of Small City School Districts Region Number of Small City School Districts Share of All Districts in the Region Capital District 10 14% Central New York 5 10% Finger Lakes 3 4% Hudson Valley 11 11% Long Island 2 2% Mohawk Valley 7 15% North Country 3 5% Southern Tier 7 9% Western Region 9 11% Small city school districts are geographically smaller and are situated within communities with fewer fiscal resources than non-city school districts, however, there are significant differences between small city school districts in terms of geography, student need, and local resources. New York classifies school districts into need/ resource-capacity categories based on incidence of student need and local income and property wealth; the six categories are: New York City, the Big Four (city school districts in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers), high-need urban and suburban, high-need rural, average-need, and low-need school districts. Small city school districts span the latter four categories, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Need/Resource-Capacity of Small City School Districts Category Number of Small City School Districts Share of Small City School Districts High-Need Urban/Suburban 25 44% High-Need Rural 11 19% Average-Need 20 35% Low-Need 1 2% 1 A small city school district is a school district where any part of its boundary encompasses a small city. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 4

When analyzing differences among small city school districts, this paper will differentiate between high-need districts, which includes 36 high-need urban and suburban and high-need rural school districts, and other districts, which covers 21 average-need and low-need districts. The distinction between high-need and other small city school districts is important as some policy recommendations are responsive to needs and trends in high need small city school districts. Figure 4 compares data on school district geographic area and local resources. Non-city and the other small city school districts have similar fiscal profiles, while high-need small city school districts have significantly fewer local resources to draw upon. The lower property wealth and income in high-need small city school districts means that local property taxes produce relatively fewer resources while having a much greater financial impact on community residents. Figure 4. School District Profiles Median District Size (in Square Miles) Median Property Value per Student Median Income per Student High-Need Small City School Districts Other Small City School Districts Non-City School Districts 25 $327,897 $124,981 34 $595,864 $187,949 60 $592,559 $179,459 In 2017-18, small city school districts enrolled 220,831 students, while non-city districts enrolled 1,222,105 students. Like most school districts in the state, small city school districts are faced with declining enrollment, however, they are seeing smaller rates of decline, as shown in Figure 5. In the 10-year period between 2007-08 and 2017-18, small city districts experienced a 7 percent decline in enrollment, while non-city school districts saw an 11 percent decline. New York City experienced the smallest decline, as enrollment fell three percent. The Big Four school districts experienced a six percent decline in enrollment in this time period. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 5

Figure 5. School District Enrollment Trends, 2007-08 to 2017-18 (in thousands) The next section of this paper compares levels of student need present in small city school districts with other school districts in the state. We examine results separately for high-need small city school districts (high-need SCSD) and other average and low-need small city school districts (other SCSD). Part Two: Student Need in Small City School Districts This section explores demographic trends in small city school districts, which experience higher levels of student need than non-city school districts. The analysis focuses on three forms of need: economic hardship, students with disabilities, and English language learners. All three forms of need require schools to invest additional resources in order to provide an adequate education. Economic Hardship in Small City School Districts Students living in poverty face tremendous challenges that impact their educational experiences. Student poverty spiked in the aftermath of the Great Recession and has only recently begun to decline, though current levels of poverty still remain higher than pre-recession levels. The US Census Bureau calculates school district level poverty numbers in the annually released Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). Figure 6 shows overall SAIPE student poverty rates. There is a clear divide between the large city and high-need small city school districts and the other small city and non-city school districts. In fact, school age poverty rates in high-need small city school districts are now slightly higher than the school age poverty rate in New York City. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 6

Figure 6. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2003-2016 The state uses a school district s poverty level in the Foundation Aid formula, however it does not use current data. Instead of using annually produced SAIPE estimates, the Foundation Aid formula uses a state s poverty level in the 2000 decennial census. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, there was not a significant difference between the small fluctuations in the annual poverty rate and the poverty rate measure in the 2000 Census. However, using antiquated data means that the rapid growth in student poverty since the onset of the Great Recession has not been recognized in the Foundation Aid formula. Figure 7 shows that this impact is widespread as the majority of all school districts have higher poverty levels now than they did in the 2000 Census. Figure 7. Comparing School Age Poverty Rates High-Need Small City School Districts Other Small City School Districts Non-City School Districts 2000 Census Poverty Rate 2016 Poverty Rate Percent of Districts with Higher Poverty Rates in 2016 25% 27% 58% 13% 13% 67% 8% 11% 77% New York City 34% 26% 0% The Big Four 38% 34% 50% Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 7

While school age poverty is a serious challenge for public schools, many children who live outside of the technical poverty classification still face significant economic hardship that impacts their education. US education policy recognizes this with expanded thresholds for free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, which are, respectively, 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level. Figure 8 shows examples of the poverty and free and reduced-price lunch thresholds for the 2018-19 school year. Figure 8. Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Thresholds, 2018-19 School Year (Continental US) 2 Family Size Poverty Rate Free Lunch Reduced-Price Lunch 3 $20,780 $27,014 $38,443 4 $25,100 $32,630 $46,435 5 $29,420 $38,246 $54,427 Figure 9 shows the percentage of K12 students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch from 2005-06 through 2016-17. The trends with the free and reduced-price lunch rate mirror changes in the poverty rate: significant growth following the Great Recession and much higher rates in Small City School Districts. Figure 9. Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility, 2005-06 to 2016-17 2 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/fr-2018-05-08/pdf/2018-09679.pdf Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 8

Students with Disabilities in Small City School Districts Statewide, the share of enrollment made up by students with disabilities has been growing, a trend seen in both small city and non-city school districts. Like with economic hardship, large cities and high-need small city school districts have the highest rates of students with disabilities. Currently, as shown in Figure 10, students with disabilities make up 15 percent of enrollment in high-need small city school districts, 14 percent in other small city school districts, 13 percent of enrollment in non-city school districts, and 17 percent of enrollment in the large cities. While the gap in percentage points is fairly small, its impact on school district finances is significant. Figure 10. Students with Disabilities as Share of Enrollment, 2007-08 to 2016-17 English Language Learners in Small City School Districts Demographic trends with respect to the enrollment of English language learners follow the broader pattern of economic hardship and students with disabilities, though with a much larger gap between the large cities and other school districts. Figure 11 shows that English language learners are most frequently found in New York City and the Big Four, but also make up an increasing share of school enrollment in small city and non-city school districts. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 9

Figure 11. English Language Learners as Share of Overall Enrollment, 2007-08 to 2017-18 However, the distribution of English language learners is significantly more concentrated than other forms of student need, as shown in Figure 12. In 50 percent of high-need small city, 62 percent of other small city, and 69 percent of non-city school districts, English language learners make up less than 2 percent of overall enrollment, while for 28 percent of high-need small city, 14 percent of other small city, and only 7 percent of non-city school districts, English language learners make up at least 10 percent of enrollment. Figure 12. School Districts by English Language Learner Share of Enrollment, 2017-18 District Type English Language Learner Share of Enrollment, 2017-18 <1% 1% - <2% 2% - <5% 5% - <10% 10% + High-Need Small City School Districts Other Small City School Districts Non-City School Districts 31% 19% 11% 11% 28% 29% 33% 10% 14% 14% 56% 13% 16% 8% 7% Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 10

Part Three: Student Achievement in Small City School Districts Small city school districts face the dual challenges of relatively lower levels of local fiscal capacity and higher levels of student need, spanning economic hardship, students with disabilities, and English language learners. The double crunch of fewer resources and higher need significantly affects small city school districts ability to provide an adequate education to all of their students without additional help from the state. This is especially true for high-need small city school districts. The state annually tests students in grades three through eight in English language arts and math. Figures 13 (English language arts) and 14 (math) show the combined proficiency rates for students in grades 3 through 8. There is a consistent pattern in both subjects over time, with a significant gap between proficiency rates in Big Four and high-need small city school districts on the lower end, and other small city school districts, and noncity school districts on the upper end. Figure 13. Proficiency Rates on Grades 3-8 English Language Arts Assessments, 2012-13 to 2017-18 60% ELA Proficiency, Grades 3-8 50% 48% 47% 45% 40% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 0% 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 High-Need SCSD Other SCSD Non-City NYC Big Four Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 11

Figure 14. Proficiency Rates on Grades 3-8 Math Assessments, 2012-13 to 2017-18 60% Math Proficiency Rates, Grades 3-8 50% 50% 48% 43% 40% 30% 25% 20% 19% 10% 0% 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 High-Need SCSD Other SCSD Non-City NYC Big Four The proficiency gap in English language arts and math examinations is reflected in differing graduation rates between groups of school districts, except New York City s graduation rate is grouped with high-need small city school districts and the Big Four. Figure 15 shows the persistent achievement gap endures, even as graduation rates have increased statewide. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 12

Figure 15. Four-Year Graduation Rates, 2007-08 to 2016-17 Part Four: School Finance and Small City School Districts Foundation Aid New York state created the Foundation Aid formula to ensure that all school districts, regardless of their levels of student need or local fiscal capacity, would have sufficient resources to provide an adequate education to all children. Through a cost study of successful schools, the state calculated the per student cost of providing an adequate education and appropriate weights for varying categories of student need, then determined the amount that a district could raise locally. It is important to emphasize that Foundation Aid is an empirically developed formula based on the cost of providing an education, rather than an amplification of existing funding levels. The fully implemented formula is designed to help small city school districts overcome their lower levels of local resources and higher levels of student need. Through a fully funded Foundation Aid formula, every school district should have enough resources to provide the opportunity for an adequate education to all of its students. However, the state has yet to fully fund the Foundation Aid formula and the districts that most need Foundation Aid are also those that have the most Foundation Aid still due to them. Figure 16 shows the gap between the Foundation Aid amount calculated and the amount awarded over time. While Foundation Aid still due has been generally decreasing, for many districts it increased significantly in the 2018-19 enacted budget. High-need small Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 13

city school districts and the Big Four have significantly more per Foundation Aid still due, resources that are needed if these districts are to close the achievement gaps shown above. Figure 17 shows median per spending for fiscally independent school districts, based on 2018 property tax report card filings. In 2017-18, the median high-need small city school district spent $4,385 less per than the median non-city school district did, meaning that the unpaid Foundation Aid has a disproportionately large impact on the districts that most need it. Even if Foundation Aid were fully funded, per spending in high-need small city school districts would be less than in non-city school districts. Figure 16. Foundation Aid Still Due per Pupil, 2012-13 to 2018-19 3 Figure 17. Median per Pupil Spending, 2017-18 Median Spending 2017-18 High-Need Small City School Districts $21,337 Other Small City School Districts $22,089 Non-City School Districts $25,722 While the state is currently $3.5 billion short of fully funding the Foundation Aid formula, not all districts have Foundation Aid still due. Currently 40 percent of school districts statewide receive their full Foundation Aid, but as Figure 18 shows, more than one-third of high-need small city school districts receive less than 80 percent of their Foundation Aid calculation. New York City and the Big Four all receive between 80 and 90 percent of their Foundation Aid calculation. 3 Enrollment numbers are from the school year during which the enacted budget passed (e.g., 2018-19 Foundation Aid still due is divided by 2017-18 enrollment). Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 14

Figure 18. School Districts by Percent of Foundation Aid Funded, 2018-19 Enacted Budget High-Need Small City School Districts Other Small City School Districts Non-City School Districts < 80% Funded 80% - <90% Funded 90% - <100% Funded Fully Funded 34% 36% 17% 14% 24% 14% 33% 29% 25% 15% 18% 42% Debt Limit for Small City School Districts The state provides Building Aid to school districts based on their local fiscal capacity with the purpose of ensuring all districts are able to maintain quality physical infrastructure, creating a safe environment conducive to student learning. However, constitutional and legal barriers related to debt limits and public votes make it more difficult for small city school districts to take full advantage of this aid and maintain their school infrastructure properly. In New York, local residents vote on capital projects to authorize school districts to seek a bond. Capital projects that comply with the debt limit require a majority approval, while those that exceed the debt limit require a supermajority approval of 60 percent. However, not all districts determine their debt limits in the same way. Non-city school districts have a debt limit that is 10 percent of their actual property value in the most recent year and are allowed to take anticipated state aid into account when calculating their debt ceiling. Small city school districts face a number of limitations. Their debt ceiling is five percent of the five-year average actual property value in their district and they cannot deduct anticipated state aid. Figure 19 shows the median debt limits for small city and non-city school districts. Small city school districts generally have larger building aid ratios, to compensate for lower levels of wealth in their communities. However, methodological differences in calculating debt limits greatly favor non-city schools. The median per debt limit for small city school districts is $18,736, 4 while the median per debt limit for non-city school districts is $159,036. Small city school district superintendents and board members report 5 that the restrictive debt limit requirements provide a significant barrier to constructing facilities vital to providing an adequate education for all students in small city school districts. Particularly since the implementation of the Tax Cap, voters have been reluctant to provide the supermajority approval of 60 percent or more needed to override the debt limit. In an ASBO New York survey of small city school districts, one-third of respondents indicated their debt limit has made them hesitate to pursue a capital project, while a quarter of respondents most recent projects exceeded the cap and required supermajority approval. While the five percent and five-year average value for small cities are present in the state constitution, there are no constitutional restrictions on the consideration of state aid. Therefore, we propose the state enact a law 4 While high-need small city school districts have lower per debt limits than other small city school districts, this section looks at small city school districts as a whole, since the methodological limits they face have similar effects. 5 Small city school district session at the annual NYSSBA Convention in New York City, October 25, 2018. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 15

Figure 19. Building Aid Ratios and Debt Limit Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 16

allowing small city districts to factor anticipated building aid into their debt limit calculations, as is done for non-city districts. Small city school districts debt limit would be five percent of the five-year average value after accounting for expected state aid. Using this calculation, the median small city school district debt limit would be $74,201 per student. This would provide a benefit to these school districts to assist them in maintaining their school infrastructure to support a quality education. It is important to emphasize that increasing the debt ceiling only changes the threshold at which a school district needs supermajority approval of capital expenditures, it does not change actual spending. Under our proposed change, which aligns with constitutional restrictions on small city school districts, the median small city school district debt limit per student would still be less than half of that of the median non-city school district. Part Five: ASBO New York Proposals To strengthen small city school districts so they can provide quality education to all of their students, ASBO New York makes the following recommendations: 1. The state should commit to full funding of the Foundation Aid formula and other strategic investments such as early learning and career and technical education. As part of a multi-year implementation, Foundation Aid should be targeted to high-need school districts and school districts furthest from full funding. There is significant overlap between these school districts and small city school districts, particularly high-need small city school districts. 2. Allow all small city school districts to include anticipated state building aid in their debt limit calculations. While the five percent and five-year average value are present in the state constitution, there are no constitutional restrictions on the consideration of state aid. Therefore, we propose the state enact a law allowing small city districts to factor anticipated building aid into their debt limit calculations. Small city school districts debt limit would be the anticipated local share of five percent of the five-year average value after accounting for expected state aid. 3. Strengthen student safety and wellness with a new aid program to support the non-capital needs of all school districts to provide community school programs, support school resource officers, and other initiatives to strengthen student safety and meet the social and emotional needs of students. The Community Schools Setaside within Foundation Aid would be folded into this separate categorical aid program, leaving Foundation Aid as unrestricted general purpose operating aid. 4. Provide stability by paying for already approved expenses. The state should maintain critical support for expense based aids, and pay off prior year adjustments more quickly. 5. Redirect savings to teaching and learning through incentives for shared transportation, staggered building condition surveys, streamlining internal audits, excluding local BOCES capital expenditures from the Tax Cap, a TRS reserve, and funds to support grants for strategic resource use. 6. Provide certified school business officials in small city school districts the same tenure protections available to certified school business officials working in non-city school districts. Small city school districts should not face unfair barriers to attracting the highest quality employees. 7. School districts should be attentive to potential intra-district inequities. School districts with multiple schools should explore whether approaches like weighted student funding and other methods to strategically invest resources in schools to support student learning. Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 17

Conclusion Small city school districts face several challenges, including high levels of student need, scarce local resources, and inadequate state aid. Although New York has 57 small city school districts, there are striking differences between high-need small city school districts and average and low-need ones. As this analysis of demographic, achievement, and fiscal data shows, high-need small city school districts often have similar profiles to the state s Big Four city school districts, facing a serious resource and achievement gap. In addition to the challenges found in high-need small city school districts, all small city school districts face more onerous requirements when pursuing capital projects. In order to realize the state s constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education to all children, the state needs to realize its role in providing needed resources and removing barriers to small city districts ability to update their aging infrastructure. Sources New York State Education Department. Enacted budget databases for 2012-13 through 2018-19, available generally in April each year from 2012 through 2018. New York State Education Department. Grade 3-8 Results in English Language Arts and Math. 2012-2018. New York State Education Department Graduation Results. 2007-2018. New York State Education Department Information and Reporting Services. BEDS Day Enrollment Data. 2007-2018 New York State Education Department. School District Fiscal Profiles. 2005-2017 United States Census Bureau. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. 2003-2016. The following staff contributed to the writing and production of this report: Deborah H. Cunningham, Ph.D., Director of Education and Research Andrew Van Alstyne, Ph. D., Deputy Director of Education and Research Joel Tirado, Education and Research Coordinator A publication of the Association of School Business Officials of New York 2018 ASBO New York. All Rights Reserved. For use of ASBO New York data or analyses, please use the following source citation: SOURCE: Association of School Business Officials of New York, Albany, NY 12205, November 2018, www.asbonewyork.org Contact: Michael J. Borges, Executive Director Association of School Business Officials of New York (ASBO New York) 453 New Karner Road, Albany, NY 12205 518-434-2281 www.asbonewyork.org Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 18

Appendix 1: List of High-Need Small City School Districts Albany Amsterdam Auburn Batavia Binghamton Cohoes Cortland Dunkirk Elmira Fulton Geneva Gloversville Hornell Hudson Jamestown Lackawanna Little Falls Middletown Mount Vernon Newburgh Niagara Falls Norwich Ogdensburg Olean Peekskill Plattsburgh Port Jervis Poughkeepsie Rensselaer Rome Salamanca Schenectady Troy Utica Watertown Watervliet Appendix 2: List of Average and Low-Need Small City School Districts Beacon Canandaigua Corning Glen Cove Glens Falls Ithaca Johnstown Kingston Lockport Long Beach Mechanicville North Tonawanda New Rochelle Oneida City Oneonta Oswego Rye Saratoga Springs Sherrill Tonawanda White Plains Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 19

Appendix 3: Small City School District Regional Breakdown Number of School Districts 73 School-Age Poverty Rate 13% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 14% Spending $23,311 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $667,645.53 English Language Learners (ELL) % 0% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 40% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $- Debt Limit $155,750 Capital District Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Albany Yes 28% 10% $21,155 $431,761.04 15% 58% $3,389 $19,948 Cohoes Yes 19% 16% $21,427 $427,162.40 1% 63% $926 $19,391 Watervliet Yes 19% 15% $19,684 $333,843.61 6% 71% $2,291 $16,776 Hudson Yes 21% 18% $26,901 $764,702.57 11% 68% $- $36,619 Rensselaer Yes 23% 15% $20,923 $383,174.15 8% 75% $3,243 $18,871 Troy Yes 31% 15% $23,915 $358,600.93 4% 74% $2,917 $17,731 Mechanicville No 10% 14% $18,478 $576,468.48 0% 40% $873 $25,545 Saratoga Springs No 6% 11% $19,064 $1,051,894.19 2% 21% $- $49,672 Schenectady Yes 29% 18% $19,319 $200,887.25 4% 84% $4,394 $10,727 Glens Falls No 18% 15% $20,888 $551,445.11 0% 44% $- $26,812 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 20

Number of School Districts 49 School-Age Poverty Rate 15% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 14% Spending $23,183 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $409,136.65 English Language Learners (ELL) % 1% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 45% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $650 Debt Limit $157,756 Central Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Auburn Yes 19% 13% $18,012 $390,677.53 0% 54% $1,197 $18,958 Cortland Yes 20% 11% $20,606 $390,226.95 1% 55% $654 $19,198 Oneida City No 23% 15% $22,038 $355,234.11 1% 52% $299 $17,934 Fulton Yes 22% 16% $20,679 $216,878.65 1% 60% $2,201 $10,870 Oswego No 21% 16% $22,511 $376,544.88 1% 50% $4,291 $28,779 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 21

Number of School Districts 70 School-Age Poverty Rate 13% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 12% Spending $23,505 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $407,393.27 English Language Learners (ELL) % 1% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 44% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $746 Debt Limit $159,546 Finger Lakes Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Batavia Yes 20% 10% $22,464 $373,611.34 1% 57% $1,940 $18,202 Canandaigua No 12% 14% $21,341 $656,360.67 1% 35% $212 $31,531 Geneva Yes 25% 13% $24,262 $400,394.28 12% 63% $- $19,087 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 22

Hudson Valley Overview (median district data) Number of School Districts 101 School-Age Poverty Rate 8% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 13% Spending $28,852 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $990,342.23 English Language Learners (ELL) % 3% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 25% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $1,043 Debt Limit $158,268 Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Beacon No 14% 19% $23,820 $707,208.93 3% 47% $894 $35,086 Poughkeepsie Yes 27% 17% $22,769 $382,355.01 9% 81% $2,271 $19,714 Middletown Yes 20% 16% $23,942 $373,959.34 17% 26% $6,004 $17,792 Newburgh Yes 22% 17% $24,399 $373,104.97 15% 70% $3,873 $18,399 Port Jervis Yes 20% 19% $27,153 $373,011.23 1% 61% $3,630 $18,736 Kingston No 19% 19% $26,854 $648,417.87 7% 58% $1,486 $32,835 Mount Vernon Yes 19% 17% $29,689 $552,379.54 10% 78% $911 $26,400 New Rochelle No 13% 12% $24,223 $856,001.35 13% 48% $1,980 $42,556 Peekskill Yes 18% 18% $26,527 $459,126.67 24% 79% $3,626 $21,583 Rye No 3% 6% $25,834 $2,312,716.25 3% 2% $- $101,531 White Plains No 13% 11% $30,139 $1,221,553.20 16% 42% $1,499 $56,299 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 23

Number of School Districts 121 School-Age Poverty Rate 6% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 13% Spending $29,014 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $1,108,677.63 English Language Learners (ELL) % 5% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 22% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $704 Debt Limit $160,655 Long Island Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Glen Cove No 16% 14% $25,575 $1,118,902.40 20% 62% $3,197 $54,977 Long Beach No 8% 16% $36,974 $1,590,781.27 5% 38% $- $78,022 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 24

Number of School Districts 46 School-Age Poverty Rate 17% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 13% Spending $23,937 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $441,141.16 English Language Learners (ELL) % 0% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 50% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $- Debt Limit $158,404 Mohawk Valley Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Gloversville Yes 27% 19% $23,010 $244,704.32 1% 62% $981 $11,998 Johnstown No 16% 12% $21,388 $349,346.34 0% 46% $- $16,031 Little Falls Yes 24% 15% $18,986 $273,203.60 0% 58% $2,104 $13,387 Amsterdam Yes 33% 15% $19,165 $288,424.49 6% 66% $3,448 $14,125 Rome Yes 24% 16% $21,183 $267,061.45 1% 63% $1,978 $13,503 Sherrill No 11% 12% $20,056 $360,280.15 0% 44% $1 $17,588 Utica Yes 42% 14% $16,147 $144,088.17 19% 81% $4,021 $7,044 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 25

North Country Overview (median district data) Number of School Districts 59 School-Age Poverty Rate 20% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 15% Spending $24,761 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $547,842.62 English Language Learners (ELL) % 0% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 49% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $- Debt Limit $156,233 Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Plattsburgh Yes 21% 21% $23,617 $523,630.50 1% 44% $- $26,074 Watertown Yes 30% 15% $17,844 $417,401.43 2% 64% $1,306 $20,779 Ogdensburg Yes 22% 17% $28,017 $226,719.66 0% 61% $- $11,330 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 26

Number of School Districts 74 School-Age Poverty Rate 19% Students with Disabilities (SWDs) 15% Spending $25,271 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per Pupil (Property Wealth) $435,303.43 English Language Learners (ELL) % 0% K-12 Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility 54% Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $8 Debt Limit $155,570 Southern Tier Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Binghamton Yes 38% 15% $21,733 $278,119.84 5% 74% $2,064 $14,219 Elmira Yes 28% 13% $20,457 $268,118.30 0% 63% $1,349 $13,031 Norwich Yes 22% 18% $23,578 $318,853.05 0% 38% $- $15,651 Oneonta No 17% 16% $22,089 $617,592.75 1% 43% $124 $29,642 Corning No 13% 16% $22,395 $452,029.48 2% 41% $63 $21,406 Hornell Yes 26% 16% $23,128 $231,303.89 0% 63% $1,232 $11,019 Ithaca No 13% 12% $23,381 $890,367.04 5% 37% $154 $41,549 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 27

Number of School Districts 80 School-Age Poverty Rate 16% Students with 14% Disabilities (SWDs) Spending $22,600 2016 Actual Value (AV) Per $428,519.00 Pupil (Property Wealth) English Language 0% Learners (ELL) % K-12 Free and Reduced-Price 48% Lunch (FRPL) Eligibility Foundation Aid (FA) Still Due $425 Debt Limit $159,529 Western Overview (median district data) Small City School Districts in the Region School District High Need? School- Age Poverty Rate SWDs Spending 2016 AV per ELL% K-12 FRPL FA Still Due per Per Debt Limit Olean Yes 22% 15% $19,469 $300,198 0% 61% $2,185 $14,543 Salamanca Yes 25% 13% $27,771 $172,625 1% 61% $212 $8,712 Dunkirk Yes 34% 10% $21,248 $261,569 17% 60% $2,631 $12,676 Jamestown Yes 35% 13% $18,399 $161,596 5% 67% $1,694 $8,046 Lackawanna Yes 35% 14% $19,050 $235,075 22% 87% $5,672 $10,027 Tonawanda No 14% 14% $18,978 $375,472 2% 48% $11 $18,310 Lockport No 17% 17% $21,214 $341,573 2% 57% $2,079 $15,824 Niagara Falls Yes 29% 17% $19,608 $217,661 1% 72% $2,154 $10,500 N. Tonawanda No 12% 21% $20,813 $405,341 1% 44% $- $19,129 Association of School Business Officials of New York Small City School Districts: Needs, Trends, and Opportunities 28