2008 TESTIMONY of The NYS Association

TESTIMONY of The NYS Association of Small City School Districts

Joint Legislative Hearing on 2008-09 Executive Budget
(Elementary and Secondary Education)

February 4, 2008

Presented by: Norma Barton, President, NYSASCSD
and Member and former President, BOE, Canandaigua CSD

On behalf of the New York State Association of Small City School Districts and the quarter of a million children and
1.5 million residents we serve, we welcome this opportunity to comment on the 2008-09 Executive Budget.

TARGETING OF STATE AID

Last year, through enactment of historic education reforms, the Legislature began the work of addressing the many funding
inadequacies plaguing small city school districts and the more than 200 similarly situated high poverty, low wealth districts. The 2007-08 State Budget enacted a remarkable set of school funding and accountability reforms that largely erased road blocksto adequate funding which had been imposed for decades by regional and class politics. These reforms have already begun eliminating some of the root causes for the chronic failures that many of our schools experience.

For decades, political considerations, not educational needs, drove the distribution of education aid. For example, from 1996 to 2006, small city school districts, poorer than the state average by 20%, received lower than average increases in education aid (See Exhibit A). The shortfalls in aid wreaked havoc on small city district programming and tax rates. Cumulatively, this shortfall caused the loss of many hundreds of millions of dollars in State Aid and taxes in these districts soared in comparison to wealthier districts.

The resulting disparity in school tax rates can be clearly demonstrated: in some wealthy districts tax rates are $5/$1000 of
assessed value while in many small city districts rates are as high as $26/$1000. This gross disparity is a direct result of the decades long failure of traditional school aid formulas. This disparity effectively crippled the capacity of the poorer communities to meet the needs of their school children.

Like the Governor’s Budget in 2007-08, this year’s Executive Budget has been thoughtfully crafted to recognize the disparities between wealthy and poor districts, to target aid to those students and districts with the greatest need and to achieve educational excellence for all by beginning to correct those disparities.

However, we are deeply concerned that, through Budget negotiations, the targeting of State Aid to those neediest districts will be blunted, just as it was last year with the addition of High Tax Aid and other compromises such as the Adjusted State Sharing Ratio. Last year under the Executive Budget, small city school districts and similar districts were targeted to receive a State Aid increase 3% above the state average increase. When the State Budget was finally approved, the margin between these poorer and wealthier districts was reduced by 33%, from 3% to 2%. The enactment of High Tax Aid and Sharing Ratio options were largely responsible for this diminution in targeting.

This year under the Executive Budget, due to the $4 billion State deficit, the margin between poorer and wealthier districts is less than was proposed in 2007-08. We are worried that the progress made in 2007-08 will largely evaporate once political pressure is applied and that poorer districts will once again fall behind their suburban neighbors. We urge the Legislature to insure that any amendments to the Executive Budget are scrutinized so that targeting of aid necessary to keep faith with the commitment to provide additional funding for those students who are not now adequately supported is not jeopardized. The Legislature must keep its eye on the task at hand; targeting State Aid to insure that a quality education for all students is provided, regardless of where they live or how well-off their families are.

FOUNDATION AID SAVE HARMLESS

The proposed 2% save harmless increase in Foundation Aid is far too low for most our districts. On the basis of a recent survey, our districts are experiencing between 5 and 8% increases in the basic cost of doing business, without making any staffing or programmatic improvements. A 2% base increase in State Aid would erode the extra funds intended for new programs or drive double digit tax rate increases, particularly in those districts most heavily dependent on State Aid, i.e. poor districts. The minimum increase in State Aid should be based upon graduated scale depending upon wealth up to a ceiling of 6%. (See Exhibit B for suggested bill language.) Several high need small city districts are in special need of relief from the save harmless, including Ogdensburg, Auburn, Mt. Vernon, Peekskill and Hudson. Several of these are hurt by the Foundation Aid formula where enrollments are declining. (See Exhibit C.)

CONTRACT FOR EXCELLENCE

The Executive Budget has also continued to address the critical issue of accountability, i.e. how can we be assured that the State’s significant investment in children will be used most effectively and will result in meaningful progress toward explicit educational goals. The experience this past year of the 19 small city Contract for Excellence (C4E) districts was difficult but nonetheless instructive. Our C4E districts are committed to making the accountability system work but they discovered that greater flexibility than they currently have in the use of funding is necessary. They also discovered that they need help in planning and in setting realistic and achievable goals. We have developed several recommendations which are necessary to insure that the C4E reforms do not gut existing effective programs. (These recommendations are contained in Exhibit D.)

CHARTER SCHOOLS

We are also deeply concerned about the effect that Charter Schools have had on Albany CSD, and to a lesser extent, on Schenectady, Troy and Lackawanna CSDs. The Transition Aid enacted last year is woefully inadequate and makes an assumption which is not true, i.e. that the stranded costs of serving students attending Charters will phase out. We believe that districts losing students to charter schools will experience increases in costs equal to 2/3 of the AOE per child on an indefinite basis. These increases in costs are a direct tax on the local property taxpayer, who in small city districts is already overburdened. (See Exhibit E which contains suggested bill language.)

CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT CEILING:

Non-city districts have debt ceilings which are 4 times as great as in small city school districts. We ask that debt ceiling reform for Small City School Districts be enacted by approving legislation authorizing a Referendum to repeal the ceiling, by excluding amounts received in Building Aid from computation under the debt ceiling as is currently applicable to non-city districts or by providing that debt incurred by small city districts through the New York State Dormitory Authority be excludable from debt ceiling computations.

CONCLUSION

The Governor and Legislature are to be greatly commended for their staunch support of the students we serve. We also commend both Houses of the Legislature for their long standing commitment to improving our educational system. As we noted last year, we all have a once in a generation opportunity to move education in New York into a new era, where all children will have the support necessary to fulfill their potential. Our state has the unique chance of becoming a lighthouse for the nation, a lighthouse showing the way to provide excellence in education for all. We look forward to working with the Legislature in any way we can to make this remarkable opportunity a reality.

EXHIBIT A

2006-07cumulative analysis of state aid

Small City School District Computerized Aid Analysis
Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Through Fiscal Year 2006-2007

10 Year Average Actual Total Aid Increases
	1996-1997	2006-2007	% increase	10yr avg % increase
SCSD Total	$ 982,654,238	$ 1,601,102,664	62.94%	6.29%
NYC total	$ 3,383,492,023	$ 6,477,901,841	91.46%	9.15%
State total	$ 9,692,966,884	$ 16,890,735,224	74.26%	7.43%
State-(NYC+SCSD)	$ 5,326,820,623	$ 8,811,730,719	65.42%	6.54%
State-NYC	$ 6,309,474,861	$ 10,412,833,383	65.03%	6.50%
State-SCSD	$ 8,710,312,646	$ 15,289,632,560	75.53%	7.55%

EXHIBIT B

1. Each district should receive an additional amount of save harmless foundation aid computed as follows:

plus an additional  per cent calculated as the product of three percent multiplied by the positive remainder 
of one and 3 tenths minus the district’s combined wealth ratio.

2. Following are examples of city districts that are now on a 2% minimum compared to using an equalized 3% supplemental minimum (above). This would also prevent large tax increases in many low wealth non-city districts that are now on a flat minimum.

		2.00%		1.3	3.00%
City districts on minimum	Exec. Budget Minimum	New Basic Minimum	CWR for 07-08 Aid	Multiplier	Supplemental Minimum	Total Minimum	Change From Exec. Budget
Ogdensburg	2.0%	2.00%	0.400	0.900	2.7%	4.70%	2.70%
Plattsburgh	2.0%	2.00%	0.665	0.635	1.9%	3.91%	1.91%
Hudson	2.0%	2.00%	0.672	0.628	1.9%	3.88%	1.88%
Glen Cove	2.0%	2.00%	2.082	-	0.0%	2.00%	0.00%
Long Beach	2.0%	2.00%	2.057	-	0.0%	2.00%	0.00%
Saratoga Springs	2.0%	2.00%	1.165	0.135	0.4%	2.41%	0.41%
Mount Vernon	2.0%	2.00%	0.909	0.391	1.2%	3.17%	1.17%
New Rochelle	2.0%	2.00%	1.600	-	0.0%	2.00%	0.00%
Peekskill	2.0%	2.00%	0.871	0.429	1.3%	3.29%	1.29%
Rye	2.0%	2.00%	4.728	-	0.0%	2.00%	0.00%
White Plains	2.0%	2.00%	1.952	-	0.0%	2.00%	0.00%
Yonkers	2.0%	2.00%	1.052	0.248	0.7%	2.74%	0.74%

EXHIBIT C

Because the new Foundation Aid formula is based on equalizing principles, most property poor school districts are on the formula itself and are not affected by the minimum provision. Most of the districts on the minimum provision are wealthy. Because of their healthy tax bases and low percentage of state aid, it does not take a large tax increase to compensate for a low aid increase in a wealthy district. However, there are some unusual situations in which very poor districts are not receiving a significant increase from the formula.

One factor that can eliminate an aid increase is a declining enrollment due to a depressed economy. Small districts can lose 20-30% of their enrollment over several years without being able to close an entire building. Thus, a substantial layer of cost remains many years after the students have left. Some costs, like retiree health coverage, will remain for decades. The Foundation formula does not now recognize the cost of these long term losses.

As a result, a community that has a weak tax base, a depressed economy and a declining enrollment may have 5% cost increases, but only a 2% increase in Foundation Aid under the formula minimum. Because it is a poor district, Foundation Aid may represent as much as 75% of its instructional funding. In a wealthy district, Foundation Aid represents only 20% of its instructional funding. Following is one illustration from the North Country. Data were taken from 2007-08 Aid Claims.

Ogdensburg needs to tax at $26.02 per $1,000 of taxable property value in order to raise $7,219,278 or $3,404 per pupil. Colton-Pierrepont taxes at only $17.57 per $1,000 yet raises $12,608 per pupil without any state aid. Ogdensburg’s base Foundation Aid is $16,917,538, representing 75% of its operating funding. If the district’s costs rise at 5%, but its largest source of funding rises at only 2%, the balance falls on the tax levy, causing a tax increase of 11.0%.

By contrast, the lost purchasing power of the Foundation Aid in Colton-Pierrepont causes less than a 1% increase in the tax levy. Even though it spends much more, its loss per pupil is less than half that of Ogdensburg.

The remedy for this is straightforward. If the minimum percentage increase in Foundation Aid varies with the property wealth of the community, the impact of the minimum would be relatively equal. A minimum increase of 5% times the local property wealth aid ratio would protect poor communities from the few conditions not yet handled by the formula itself. This change should not be expensive to the state since most poor communities are not on the minimum and most wealthy communities would not benefit from the wealth equalization.

Causing double-digit tax increases in visibly poor communities was never an intended outcome of school aid reform. It can easily be avoided by equalizing the impact of the minimum aid increase.

	Ogdensburg	Colton-Pierrepont
Tax Levy	7,219,278	5,320,600
Full Value	277,441,190	302,873,097
Tax Rate	26.02	17.57

Approved Operating Expense	22,663,727	5,832,707
Tax Levy/Operating Expense	31.9%	91.2%
TAFPU	2,121	422
AOE/TAFPU	10,685	13,822
Tax Levy / TAFPU	3,404	12,608

2007-08 Foundation Aid	16,917,538	1,615,792
Percent of Operating Cost	75%	28%

Percent increase in expenses	5.0%	5.0%
Total funds to be raised	1,133,186	291,635
	15.7%	5.5%
Percent increase in Foundation Aid	2%	2%
Funds from Foundation Aid	338,351	32,316
Tax saving from minimum	4.7%	0.6%
Balance to be raised from taxes	794,836	259,320
Resulting tax increase	11.0%	4.9%

Sliding scale Minimum based on RWADA Aid Ratio	0.852	0.242
Equalized minimum	4.26%	1.21%

New minimum funds from Foundation Aid	720,687	19,551
Balance from taxes	412,499	272,084
Resulting tax increase	5.7%	5.1%

Tax Increases Resulting from Minimum Aid Increase	Poor	Wealthy
Proposed 2% Minimum	11.0%	4.9%
Equalized 5% Minimum	5.7%	5.1%

	Ogdensburg	Colton-Pierrepont
Foundation aid to equal 5% cost	845,877	80,790
2% minimum increase	338,351	32,316
Lost Purchasing Power	507,526	48,474
Per Pupil	$239	$115
Added Percent on Tax Levy	7.0%	0.9%

Following is a list of city districts that ended up with a minimum 2% increase along with the change that would occur using a wealth-based minimum. Two property-based aid ratios give slightly different results.

Basis is:			5%	Equalized		5%
City districts on minimum	Current Minimum	Trans Aid RWADA Entry18	New Minimum	Gain	BOCES RWADA, Entry 1	New Minimum	Gain
Ogdensburg	2.0%	0.876	4.38%	2.38%	0.852	4.26%	2.26%
Plattsburgh	2.0%	0.724	3.62%	1.62%	0.683	3.42%	1.42%
Hudson	2.0%	0.690	3.45%	1.45%	0.646	3.23%	1.23%
Glen Cove	2.0%	-	0.00%		-	0.00%
Long Beach	2.0%	0.001	0.01%		-	0.00%
Saratoga Springs	2.0%	0.498	2.49%	0.49%	0.432	2.16%	0.16%
Mount Vernon	2.0%	0.574	2.87%	0.87%	0.517	2.59%	0.59%
New Rochelle	2.0%	0.250	1.25%		0.157	0.79%
Peekskill	2.0%	0.579	2.90%	0.90%	0.523	2.62%	0.62%
Rye	2.0%	-	0.00%		-	0.00%
White Plains	2.0%	0.031	0.16%		-	0.00%
Yonkers	2.0%	0.458	2.29%	0.29%		0.00%

EXHIBIT D

CONTRACT FOR EXCELLENCE AMENDMENTS

Nov. 20, 2007 by REB for NYSASCSD

  40    §  12.  The  education law is amended by adding a new section 211-d to

    41  read as follows:

    42    § 211-d. Contract for excellence.  1.  Every school district that  has

    43  at  least one school currently identified as requiring academic progress

    44  or in need of improvement  or  in  corrective  action  or  restructuring

    45  status  shall  be  required  to prepare a contract for excellence if the

    46  school district receives an increase in total foundation aid compared to

    47  the base year in an amount that equals or exceeds either fifteen million

    48  dollars or ten percent of the amount received in the base year, whichev-

    49  er is less, or receives  a  supplemental  educational  improvement  plan

    50  grant is required to prepare a contract for excellence for the district.

    51  In  school  year  two  thousand  seven--two thousand eight such increase

    52  shall be the amount of  the  difference  between  total  foundation  aid

    53  received  for  the  current  year  and the total foundation aid base, as

    54  defined in paragraph  (j)  of  subdivision  one  of  section  thirty-six

    55  hundred two of this chapter. In a city school district located in a city

    56  of  one  million or more inhabitants, a contract for excellence shall be

        S. 2107--C                         13                         A. 4307--C

     1  prepared for the city school district and each community  district  that

     2  meets the above criteria.

     3    2.  a. (i) Each contract for excellence shall describe how the sum of the

     4  amounts apportioned to the school district in the current year as  total

     5  foundation  aid  and as supplemental educational improvement plan grants

     6  for the two thousand seven--two thousand eight school year and thereaft-

     7  er, in excess of one hundred three percent plus an additional  per
 cent calculated as the product of three percent multiplied by 
the positive remainder of one and 3 tenths minus the district’s 
combined wealth ratio of the district's  foundation

     8  aid  base,  as adjusted for additional amounts payable as charter school

     9  basic tuition over such amount payable in the base year, shall  be  used

    10  to support new programs and new activities or expand the use of programs

    11  and activities demonstrated to improve student achievement.

              (ii) For the purpose of this section new programs 
and new activities shall include those programs and activities
 established not earlier than two years prior to the base year
 which have been mandated by the department or which have been 
commenced expressly to improve student performance.

    12    b.  (i)  The  contract  shall specify the new or expanded programs for

    13  which additional amounts of such total foundation aid, or grant shall be

    14  used and shall affirm that such  programs  shall  first benefit those
 areas of student and school performance that resulted in the 
school or schools being identified as requiring academic progress

   or in need of improvement  or  in  corrective  action  or 
 restructuring status, and only to the extent needed to restore that 
school or schools to non-identified status; and , next, provided
 that the district graduation rate after five years is below 65%,
 the contract shall affirm that such programs shall  predominately  benefit

    15  students  with the greatest educational needs including, but not limited

    16  to, those students with limited English proficiency, students in poverty

    17  and students with disabilities; and for all other districts,  
the contract shall affirm that such programs shall benefit 
students as in the discretion of the district may be in greatest
 need, provided however, that for districts with tax rates in 
excess of 120% of the assumed tax rate provided under the foundation 
aid formula, the contract may provide for local tax relief.

    18    (ii) In a city school district in a city having a  population  of  one

    19  million  or  more inhabitants such contract shall also include a plan to

    20  reduce average class sizes, as defined by the commissioner, within  five

    21  years  for the following grade ranges: (A) pre-kindergarten-third grade;

    22  (B) fourth-eighth grade; and (C) high school. Such  plan  shall  include

    23  class size reduction for low performing and overcrowded schools and also

    24  include  the methods to be used to achieve such class sizes, such as the

    25  creation or construction of more classrooms and  school  buildings,  the

    26  placement  of  more than one teacher in a classroom or methods to other-

    27  wise reduce the  student  to  teacher  ratio;  provided,  however,  that

    28  notwithstanding  any  law,  rule or regulation to the contrary, the sole

    29  and exclusive remedy for a violation of the requirements of  this  para-

    30  graph shall be pursuant to a petition to the commissioner under subdivi-

    31  sion  seven of section three hundred ten of this title, and the decision

    32  of the commissioner on such petition shall be final and unreviewable.

    33    c. The contract for excellence shall state, for all  funding  sources,

    34  whether  federal,  state  or  local,  the instructional expenditures per

    35  pupil, the special education  expenditures  per  pupil,  and  the  total

    36  expenditures  per  pupil,  projected  for  the current year and actually

    37  incurred in the base year.

    38    3. a. The commissioner shall adopt regulations establishing  allowable

    39  programs  and  activities  intended to improve student achievement which

    40  shall include and be given priority in funding but not be 
limited to class size reduction, programs that increase student

    41  time on task, teacher and principal quality initiatives,  middle  school

    42  and  high school re-structuring, and full-day kindergarten or prekinder-

    43  garten. Provided, however, that districts may use up to fifteen  percent

    44  of  the  total additional funding above the foundation aid base they
  receive  for  experimental  programs

    45  designed to demonstrate the efficacy  of  other  strategies  to  improve

    46  student  achievement  consistent with the intent of this section and, in

    47  school year two thousand seven--two thousand eight and thereafter, up 
to thirty million

    48  dollars or twenty-five percent of such total additional funding above the
  foundation aid base, whichever  is

    49  less,  may  be  used  to maintain investments in programs and activities

    50  listed in this subdivision.  Any such district seeking to  implement  an

    51  experimental  program  shall  first  submit  a  plan to the commissioner

    52  setting forth the need  for  such  experimental  program  and  how  such

    53  program will improve student performance.

    54    b.    The  commissioner  shall assist school districts that include in

    55  their contract for excellence the implementation of  incentives,  devel-

    56  oped  in  collaboration with teachers in the collective bargaining proc-

        S. 2107--C                         14                         A. 4307--C

     1  ess, for highly qualified  and  experienced  teachers  to  work  in  low

     2  performing schools to ensure that such incentives are effective.

     3    4.  a.  A district's contract for excellence for the academic year two

     4  thousand eight--two thousand nine and  thereafter,  shall  be  developed

     5  through  a  public  process,  in consultation with parents or persons in

     6  parental  relation,  teachers,  administrators,  and  any  distinguished

     7  educator  appointed  pursuant  to  section  two hundred eleven-c of this

     8  chapter.

     9    b. Such process shall include at least one public hearing. In  a  city

    10  school  district  in a city of one million or more inhabitants, a public

    11  hearing shall be held within each county of such city. A  transcript  of

    12  the  testimony  presented at such public hearings shall be included when

    13  the contract for excellence is submitted to the commissioner, for review

    14  when making  a  determination  pursuant  to  subdivision  five  of  this

    15  section.

    16    c. In a city school district in a city of one million or more inhabit-

    17  ants,  each community district contract for excellence shall be consist-

    18  ent with the citywide contract for excellence and shall be submitted  by

    19  the community superintendent to the community district education council

    20  for review and comment at a public meeting.

    21    d.  For the two thousand seven--two thousand eight school year, school

    22  districts shall solicit public comment on  their  contracts  for  excel-

    23  lence.

    24    5.  Each  contract  for excellence shall be subject to approval by the

    25  commissioner and his or her certification that the expenditure of  addi-

    26  tional  aid  or  grant  amounts is in accordance with subdivision two of

    27  this section.

    28    6. The school district audit report certified to the  commissioner  by

    29  an independent certified public accountant, an independent accountant or

    30  the  comptroller  of the city of New York pursuant to section twenty-one

    31  hundred sixteen-a of this chapter shall include a certification by  such

    32  accountant  or  comptroller in a form prescribed by the commissioner and

    33  that the increases in total foundation aid and supplemental  educational

    34  improvement  plan  grants have been used to supplement, and not supplant

    35  funds allocated by the district in the base year for such purposes. Use 
of aid and grants in accordance with the contract shall be 
prima facie evidence that the requirement of this sub-paragraph
 has been satisfied.

    36    7. The trustees or board of education of each school district  subject

    37  to this section, or the chancellor in the case of a city school district

    38  in  a  city of one million or more inhabitants, shall assure that proce-

    39  dures are in place by which parents or persons in parental relation  may

    40  bring  complaints  concerning  implementation of the district's contract

    41  for excellence.

    42    a. In a city school district in a city of one million or more inhabit-

    43  ants, such procedures shall provide that complaints may  be  filed  with

    44  the  building  principal with an appeal to the community superintendent,

    45  or filed directly with the community superintendent, and that any appeal

    46  of the determination of a community superintendent shall be made to  the

    47  chancellor.

    48    b.  In  all  other districts, such procedures shall either provide for

    49  the filing of complaints with the building principals with an appeal  to

    50  the  superintendent  of  schools or for filing of the complaint directly

    51  with the superintendent of schools, and shall provide for an  appeal  to

    52  the  trustees or board of education from the determination of the super-

    53  intendent of schools.

    54    c. The determination of the trustees or a board of  education  or  the

    55  chancellor may be appealed to the commissioner pursuant to section three

    56  hundred ten of this title.

        S. 2107--C                         15                         A. 4307--C

     1    8.  School  districts  subject to the provisions of this section shall

     2  publicly report the expenditure of total foundation aid in the form  and

     3  manner prescribed by the commissioner which shall ensure full disclosure

     4  of the use of such funds.

     5    9.  The  department  shall develop a methodology for reporting school-

     6  based expenditures by all school districts subject to the provisions  of

     7  this section.

     8    § 13. This act shall take effect immediately.

EXHIBIT E

Charter School Reforms

a. State funding for stranded costs- such costs are at minimum 2/3 of the AOE paid to Charter Schools. Failure of the State to aid these costs results in significant local tax increases. The current level of funding is woefully inadequate and assumes that these costs disappear with time. This is not the case- such costs are the fixed costs of infrastructure and operations which do not vary appreciably with student census

b. Separate tuition rates for elementary and secondary Charter Schools- there is a significant difference between the cost of elementary and secondary education. Charters are paid at AOE which is a blend of those costs. Most Charter Schools operate only at the elementary level and receive significantly more dollars than actual costs justify. This surplus has been simply drained off into private pockets by private companies and officers operating these Schools. This rip off of public education dollars is a fraud on the public. We recommend that Charter Schools be paid an AOE which is separately computed for elementary and secondary programs.

  c. NYSASCSD suggested amendments to Transition Aid

Section 3602 of the education law is amended  by  adding  a  new

    45  subdivision 41 to read as follows:

    46    41.  Transitional  aid for charter school payments. In addition to any

    47  other apportionment under this section, for the two thousand  eight--two

    48  thousand  nine  school  year and thereafter, a school district shall be

    49  eligible for an apportionment in an amount equal to the sum of

50    (a) the product of (i) the product of eighty percent multiplied by the

    51  charter school basic tuition computed for such school district  for  the

    52  base  year  pursuant  to  section twenty-eight hundred fifty-six of this

    53  chapter, multiplied by (ii) the positive  difference,  if  any,  of  the

    54  number  of  resident  pupils  enrolled in the charter school in the base

    55  year less the number of resident pupils enrolled in a charter school  in

    56  the  third year  prior  to  the  base  year,  provided, however, that a school

     1  district shall be eligible for an apportionment pursuant to  this  para-

     2  graph  only  if  the  number  of its resident pupils enrolled in charter

     3  schools in the base year exceeds  two  percent  of  the  total  resident

     4  public  school  district  enrollment of such school district in the base

     5  year or the total general fund payments made by such district to charter

     6  schools in the base year for resident pupils enrolled in charter schools

     7  exceeds two percent of total general fund expenditures of such  district

     8  in the base year, plus

     9    (b)  the product of (i) the product of sixty percent multiplied by the

    10  charter school basic tuition computed for such school district  for

    11  base  year  pursuant  to  section twenty-eight hundred fifty-six of this

    12  chapter, multiplied by (ii) the positive  difference,  if  any,  of  the

    13  number  of  resident  pupils  enrolled in the charter school in the fourth year

    14  prior to the base year less the number of resident pupils enrolled in  a

    15  charter  school  in the year two years prior to the base year, provided,

    16  however, that a school district shall be eligible for  an  apportionment

    17  pursuant  to  this  paragraph  only if the number of its resident pupils

    18  enrolled in charter schools in the year prior to the base  year  exceeds

    19  two  percent  of the total resident public school district enrollment of

    20  such school district in the year prior to the base  year  or  the  total

    21  general  fund  payments  made by such district to charter schools in the

    22  year prior to the base year for  resident  pupils  enrolled  in  charter

    23  schools  exceeds  two  percent of the total general fund expenditures of

    24  such district in the year prior to the base year, plus

    25    (c) the product of (i) the product of forty percent multiplied by  the

    26  charter  school  basic tuition computed for such school district for the

    27  base year pursuant to section twenty-eight  hundred  fifty-six  of  this

    28  chapter,  multiplied  by  (ii)  the  positive difference, if any, of the

    29  number of resident pupils enrolled in the charter school in the year fifth

    30  year[s] prior to the base year less the number of resident pupils enrolled

    31  in a charter school in the year three years  prior  to  the  base  year,

    32  provided,  however,  that  a  school  district  shall be eligible for an

    33  apportionment pursuant to this paragraph only if the number of its resi-

    34  dent pupils enrolled in charter schools in the year two years  prior  to

    35  the  base  year  exceeds two percent of the total resident public school

    36  district enrollment of such school district in the year two years  prior

    37  to  the  base  year  or  the  total  general  fund payments made by such

    38  district to charter schools in the year two years prior to the base year

    39  for resident pupils enrolled in charter schools exceeds two  percent  of

    40  the  total  general  fund  expenditures of such district in the year two

    41  years prior to the base year, plus

    50    (d) the product of forty percent multiplied by the

    51  charter school basic tuition computed for such school 
district  for  the  52  base  year  pursuant  to  section 
twenty-eight hundred fifty-six of this

    53  chapter, multiplied by the

    54  number  of  resident  pupils  enrolled in the charter 
school in the base year.

    42    (e) For purposes of this subdivision the number of pupils enrolled  in

    43  a  charter  school shall not include pupils enrolled in a charter school

    44  for which the charter was approved by  a  charter  entity  contained  in

    45  paragraph  a of subdivision three of section twenty-eight hundred fifty-

    46  one of this chapter.