NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
|
February
2003 Vol. XVII, No. 2
Governor’s Budget Cuts to Education Set Record
The Executive Budget for 2003-2004 was unveiled on Wednesday last week, surprising even the most pessimistic in the depth of the proposed reductions to state aid to education. More than $1.2 billion would be lost in the so-called combined aids when compared to the 2002-2003 budget. These unprecedented cuts were necessitated, according to the Governor, by the size of the impending state deficit and by the need to choose between an increase in taxes and the economy of the state. Four hundred million in cuts was achieved through consolidation and reduction of nine computerized aids including comprehensive operating aid, ENA, public excess cost aid and operating standards aid. These aids would now be called consolidated operating aid. Other major cuts include elimination of prekindergarten aid, class size reduction aid, minor maintenance aid and full day kindergarten aid. Other reductions were achieved by down-sizing teacher support aid, private excess cost aid, BOCES aid and factoring in last year’s changes and proposed changes in the building aid formula. The Division of Budget has reported that the Executive Budget provides an overall 8.49% loss in state aid. And while the Governor has said that the cuts are “equalized,” which they are to some extent in the category of operating aid, the broader effect, we have been told, hurts small city districts the most. The cruel irony of the Executive Budget is that, because of the overlapping state and school fiscal years, the $1.2 billion dollar cut to schools only generates $600 million in lowered expenses for the state in its struggle to address the $11 billion deficit. The board, in November, urged the Division of Budget and the Executive to insure that any reductions were equalized and that Hurd Aid remain frozen. If there was any good news in the Executive Budget it is that the “second floor” was responsive to both those requests. Board
meets with Commissioner Mills
The Board of Directors met with education Commissioner Richard mills in January 30th in Albany, one day after the governor's budget was unveiled. In attendance were Peekskill Superintendent Judith Johnson, Binghamton Superintendent Peggy Wozniak, Binghamton board member Joan Purtell, Glens Falls Superintendent Thomas McGowan, Utica Superintendent Daniel Lowengard, Oneida Superintendent Peter Tamburro, Albany board member Scott Wexler, Executive Deputy Commissioner James Kadamus and Association Counsel Bob Biggerstaff. The Commissioner began discussions with a strong appeal to small city school districts to join with the whole education community to fight the cuts to education proposed in the governor's budget. He said he didn't believe that legislators fully appreciated the box that schools are in and that vivid demonstrations were needed to make the case. Peggy Wozniak said that we needed to show what the cuts would do to kids. She recently came to Binghamton from the California school system and watched what proposition 13 had done there to dismantle the education system and how class sizes of 30 and up are commonplace. James Kadamus shared a chart developed by the department showing the inequity among school districts in the governor's education cuts. Dan Lowengard said that small cities have small fund balances and that in Utica, cuts to the pre-kindergarten program will be very hurtful. Scores in the district are up as a result of the pre-k programs which now will be dismantled under the executive budget. James Kadamus observed the irony that small city school districts have realized the greatest gains in the statewide tests but are experiencing the greatest cuts under the governor's budget. The Commissioner stated that the main problem now is how to craft a message to unite the education community. Scott Wexler said that the Commissioner needs to head the effort. Dan Lowengard said that the Governor has stated that his cuts are equalized. Jim Kadamus responded that with respect to operating aid that is true, but with respect to other cuts it isn’t, they are not equalized. Dan Lowengard said that his Senator says that the cuts will stimulate economic development, but Dan is concerned about the effect laying off 150 teachers will have on a small city. Judith Johnson said that the effect of the budget on class size will be enormous. The Commissioner asked what was being done to " rally the troops." Peggy Wozniak replied that she has heard people say that the Legislature will turn it all around. Of course this may be the year that does not happen. Judith Johnson said she feared that the cuts will affect the effort to improve performance. The Commissioner said that backing off the effort to achieve higher standards will only work to justify the cuts. Dan Lowengard said that we needed to quantify the effect of the cuts in terms of jobs lost, people out of work and increases in tax rates. The Commissioner asked how can we quantify these effects. Bob Biggerstaff replied that the Association was already developing data on the effects of a freeze in state aid on small city tax rates and will expand that to show the effects of the governor's budget. Joan Purtell felt that districts needed to communicate through frequent newsletters to the Legislature and the community on the issues. Scott Wexler observed that districts have to deal with their budgets by April first and will not have the luxury of waiting until a state budget is finalized. The Commissioner asked how districts would respond to this. Tom McGowan said that many districts will be on contingency budgets, will shut schools at 3:00 pm and eliminate all adult programs. The Commissioner asked how the education community could come up with creative solutions to insure educational standards are maintained. Dan Lowengard suggested addressing unfunded mandates, for example. The Commissioner then addressed the issue of raising the minimum passing score from 55 to 65. He said the Regents will be debating this issue during the year and probably reach a decision late in the year. The data suggests that the decision might be mixed, that is, some courses may have a different passing score from others. With respect to flexibility of providing academic intervention services, currently districts have the option to go to progress monitoring for level 2 students. This allows districts to look at how a student performs in class before requiring AIS. Tom McGowan asked about mentoring programs. The Commissioner said they will be in effect in 2004. Tom McGowan said that they are very expensive programs to administer. James Kadamus said that the Regents will be looking at the mentoring program and about the issue of increasing the time to obtain a master's from three to five years. Tom McGowan also asked whether the department was looking at the difference between federal no child left behind and state definitions of a highly qualified teacher. James Kadamus said department was looking at this issue. Scott Wexler said that as a parent of the fifth grader and an eighth grader, the eighth-grade assessments seem "out of whack" when compared with fourth-grade. James Kadamus said that that the department was looking at that issue as well. Tom McGowan observed that in his district 75 percent passed the mathematics A exam, including all of the students in category 2 except one. He surmised that it might be that the staff and the students are now taking the Regents tests more seriously because graduations depend on them. The Commissioner and Executive Deputy Commissioner James Kadamus were then invited to the small cities legislative breakfast on March 25th, and the invitation was graciously accepted. A First Look At The Governor’s Education Budget
By
Charles Winters To
understand the Governor’s budget it is necessary to look both at the
distribution of the cuts themselves and at their impact on spending and tax
increases for local communities. While
the distribution of cuts somewhat favors poorer districts, the impact of these
cuts on programs and taxes is devastating to poor districts, but quite
manageable in the wealthiest districts. In
order to make these comparisons, I combined the information from the Executive
Budget aid runs with the budget voting information submitted on the internet by
each district last May. Following is the contrast between a very wealthy suburban
district and a very needy small city:
The
percentage aid cut is greater in the wealthy district, indicating that there
were some equalized features in the proposal.
However, since aid represents a much smaller portion of the finances of a
wealthy district, the impact of the cut is much greater on the poor district
that depends more heavily on state aid for its spending.
It is critical for local districts to make sure that their legislators
understand this key difference and therefore make targeted restorations that
create a fairer impact. Simply
restoring a few of the cuts across the board, as the legislature may wish to do,
may result in spending more scarce state money without improving the overall
outcome. While
the legislature is required to balance its budget, it must also bear in mind
that state aid enacts public policy for schools.
Requiring greater spending cuts or tax increases in the state’s poorest
districts is not a public policy that any group would support, yet this is
exactly what is now proposed. What
would be needed from the legislature to bring an equal level of sacrifice to all
districts? If the sacrifice took
the form of 2% of school spending for all schools, this would be the result:
If
the sacrifice took the form of an amount equal to 2% from all taxpayers, this
would be the result:
Since
it is generally held that high need schools like Poughkeepsie have a greater
need for resources than low need schools such as Great Neck, even these
across-the-board cuts seem regressive, yet they are far better than what is now
proposed. Details on the Cuts Because
small city school districts are generally poorer than the state average they
follow the above pattern—they did slightly better on the percentage of aid
cut, but would fare much worse on the impact of the cuts.
The absence of any cut on Small City Aid was particularly helpful.
Other major areas follow: Consolidated
Operating Aid The
Governor proposes to consolidate nine general aids into one category.
While this might provide some relief from useless reporting demands,
particularly in Educationally Related Support Services (ERSS), its major effect
is to eliminate the growth in Public Excess Cost Aid, and substitute a cut with
a minimum aid loss of 2% and a maximum aid loss of 8.75%.
The cut formula uses both the K-6 Free Lunch Percent and the Combined
Wealth Ratio, producing a larger cut for wealthier schools.
The statewide cut is 4.0%; 3.7% in small city schools; 2.7% in the Big-5;
4.9% in upstate central schools and 6.4% in downstate central schools.
BOCES
Aid Here
the Governor proposes an across-the-board cut of 25% of whatever aid would have
been generated by the existing formula. While
this is slightly more sensible than prior freezes that did not even recognize
increases and decreases in prior commitments, the cut hits poorer schools much
harder than wealthy schools. The
Regents had recommended a reform of the millage branch of this aid formula that
would have targeted the cut on the wealthiest districts to preserve aid for the
poorest. That recommendation could be usefully pursued by the
Legislature. Private
Excess Cost Aid The
Governor recommends conforming this formula to the same calculation as that used
in Public Excess Cost in the name of neutrality.
Here again, new costs and placements are still recognized.
Since Private Excess Costs Aid is a richer formula, this also produces a
substantial cut of nearly 44% statewide in this category.
However, since richer formulas benefit richer districts, the cut is over
70% in wealthy districts, but nearer to 25% in poorer districts.
Thus, it is a highly equalized cut.
Transportation
Aid Unlike
BOCES and Private Excess Costs Aids, this is a pure freeze except for any
district that submitted a decrease in expenses, in which case it freezes that
decrease. This type of cut severely
punishes any district with the misfortune of rapidly rising costs or erroneous
data, regardless of wealth. Since this is an equalizing formula, these increases would
have been equalizing had they been allowed to run.
Other
Cuts Many
other categories, including many in the Special Aid Fund, were entirely wiped
out. The impact of these cuts
depends upon how important the underlying costs are to individual districts.
Many of them hit the Big-5 particularly hard, and undid some of the
underlying equity in the Consolidated Operating Aid cut. Where To Go From Here? As
can be seen above, not all cuts are equally undesirable, and not all
restorations are equally desirable. From an equity standpoint, the Private Excess Cost Aid reform
might be the best cut to retain, while the Transportation Aid freeze and BOCES
Aid cut might be the best targets for restoration, or for genuine reform as
proposed by the Regents. The
Consolidated Operating Aid should run from an extension of the existing
formulas, not from last year’s base, and a much better equalization of any
cuts could be derived from the principle of taxpayer equity or spending equity,
or both, as illustrated from the sample districts above. Small
City Schools definitely need to work on the Legislature’s understanding that
the impact of aid cuts on schools is a much more important public policy issue
than the percentage distribution of the cuts themselves.
Looking at aid runs without impact calculations is highly misleading, and
the same result of balancing the state budget can be achieved in a much fairer
way for families and taxpayers alike.
DATES TO REMEMBER March 25, 2003 Legislative Breakfast and Seminar -- 8:00 am at Fort Orange Club, Albany June 6, 2003 Association Board Meeting -- 12:00 pm at DeGraff-Foy, Albany August 10 and 11, 2003
Summer Conference, Annual Meeting and Board Meeting |
Albany
|