Final Report: Evaluation of the Performance Driven Budgeting Initiative of the New York City Board of Education

Autonomy and School Improvement

“…For example, researchers described how staff across participating schools routinely engaged with data and other evidence to identify struggling students. Some schools used that information to alter the mix of programs and practices within their schools to align with their improvement plans (Siegel et al, 2000;Siegel & Fruchter, 2002;Stiefel et al, 2003).…”

“…The creation of the new system also prompted central office administrators to change policies and practices in budgeting and accounting to support school decision making over budgets. For example, in response to the new budgeting system, the central purchasing department adjusted their procedures to allow schools to control their own purchasing (Siegel & Fruchter, 2002). Absent such cross-cutting changes in purchasing procedures in other districts, schools found that they had limited discretion in how they use their funds for purchases (Honig, 2009b).…”

“…For example, over time, the Oakland central office became the primary Educational Policy 26(3) executor of the Incubator that appeared so consequential to building participating schools' capacity in that district (Honig, 2009a). Similarly, central office staff in New York City helped schools to improve their capacity for school-wide planning and budgeting as part of the performance-based budgeting initiative (Siegel et al, 2000;Siegel & Fruchter, 2002). In CPS, a retired school administrator, hired back into the district as a central office administrator, coached school principals on their academic programs (Honig, 2009a).…”

“…Likewise, in New York City, central office administrators created an entirely new budget allocation and financial management system for all schools that researchers claimed enabled school-level budgeting and autonomy as part of their performance-based budgeting initiative (Siegel et al, 2000;Siegel & Fruchter, 2002). The new budgeting system allowed principals flexibility to "match dollars to needs" (Siegel & Fruchter, 2002, p. 68) by awarding nearly their entire budget allocation as unrestricted funds rather than as line items or specific positions.…”

Allocating Resources within a Big City School District: New York City after Campaign for Fiscal Equity V. New York

“…In 1997, the district began an experiment in school-based budgeting termed the Performance-Driven Budget (PDB) initiative (Siegel and Fruchter 2002). Under the plan, schools established School Leadership Teams with discretion "to combine multiple funding sources to split-fund staff; hire people full-time, part-time or on a per-session or per diem basis; and move money between and among personnel and non-personnel categories, activities and programs" (Siegel and Fruchter 2002, iv).…”