June 2005 Vol. XIX, No. 4                   

ASSOCIATION
HOSTS
19^TH ANNUAL
CONVENTION
IN SARATOGA

The Association held its 19^th annual convention in Saratoga Springs on May 22^nd and 23^rd. This year’s theme was “Education Finance Reform” and speakers included Senator Neil Breslin – D (Albany), Frank Mauro, Executive Director of the Fiscal Planning Institute, Rockefeller College and Michael Rebell, Executive Director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity.

Mike Rebell opened the seminar on Monday. He outlined the status of the CFE litigation and the legislative effort to treat the problem as a statewide problem. The Court of Appeals ordered compliance by 7/30/04 which order the Legislature failed to meet. As a result, Special Masters were appointed. A hearing was held, testimony was taken and a report was issued. In February, the Trial Court issued an order adopting the Special Masters’ recommendation of $5.6 billion increase in aid to NYC. The Governor waited the full 30 days to appeal and an automatic stay of enforcement, pending appeal, has taken effect preventing implementation of the Trial Court order. CFE has moved the Appellate Division to lift the stay. This motion was denied but the appeal was ordered to be expedited and should be heard in October. The Governor’s appeal is a showing of a lack of good faith and disregard of a valid judicial order by the highest court in the State. In the meantime, CFE has drafted and is making introduction of a statewide reform bill called the Schools for Future Act. The Act is based on the CFE/NYSSBA costing out study which recommends an $8,000 per pupil foundation grant formula with weighting of 0.5 for poverty and 1.1 for special education. Under this ACT, 500 of 680 districts would receive aid increases.

Frank Mauro continued the presentation by saying the State has misconstrued the Standard and Poors’ report commissioned by the Zarb Commission for the Governor. The report recommended a 35% weighting for poverty which is much too low. The Regents and AIR/MAP additional weightings of 1.0 were considered by the Special Masters who ultimately adopted an extra 1.5 weighting plus a 2.1 for special education and 0.2 for English language learners. Below is an excerpt of the Q&A portion of this presentation.

Q: (Charlie Winters) What is the impact of this proposal (the Act) on budget voting and austerity budgets?

A: (Mike Rebell) Conceptually, an austerity budget cap will rise to allow spending to level required for a sound basic education. I will check on draft language.

Q: (Daniel Lowengard) How can we help your efforts?

A: (M.R.) The bill will be introduced in the Assembly; we need NYSASCSD support, also help in the Senate. The Institute on Taxation and Policy has a grant to study on how to raise the necessary revenues without hurting business (on CFE website).

Q: (Robert Biggerstaff) Was the STAR revenue distribution considered by AIR/MAP?

A: (Frank Mauro) No. The decision was made to consider STAR as a local revenue.

Q: (Vito DiCesare) Isn’t the Governor correct on the separation of powers issue?

A: (M.R.) The Court only got into specifying aid increases when the Legislators and the Governor failed to act by July 30, 2004.

Q: (Raymond Fashano) Were negotiations with the Governor ever close to being successful?

A: (M.R.) Not really.

Other presenters included Michael Fancher, Director of Economic Outreach, College of Nanoscience and Engineering, SUNY at Albany and Director of Albany Nanotech. Dr. Fancher spoke to the group Sunday at dinner. He defined what nanoscale science and engineering is, presented what its impact is on business and the economy could be, outlined its potential impact on every day lives and described efforts being made to coordinate with the education community. It was suggested that a Superintendents’ Nanotech Academy be established to acquaint chief administrators with the opportunities presented by nanoscience and engineering developments.

Other topics included, Understanding Your District’s Benchmarking Report and was presented by Edwin Darden, CUSP Director, NYSSBA, Heather Adams, AdvisorySolutions, NYSSBA and Charles Winters, NYSASCSD Finance Consultant. This report is a management tool that provides questions and not answers. The report’s unique “similar schools” category is less broad and also more helpful than SED’s “similar group” category. The size and level of poverty have the strongest impact on district expenditures. This report also tells districts how well it is doing in its peer group with its existing resources. NYSSBA’s AdvisorySolutions has applied for a two year, $150,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to underwrite their work with six small city school districts (to be selected). They expect to hear from the Foundation in June whether or not the grant was awarded.

LEGISLATIVE
REPORT
GIVEN
AT THE
ASSOCIATION’S
ANNUAL
MEETING

Below is the Association’s Annual Meeting Legislative Report given by Robert Biggerstaff.

TO:              NYS Association of Small City School Districts
FROM:           Robert Biggerstaff, Esq.
DATE:            May 23, 2005
RE:              Annual Meeting – Legislative Report

For the first time since the late 1970s and 1980s when the Levittown case was making its way through the courts, it is not possible to talk about developments in education without also acknowledging the upheaval in education which will be occurring as a result of state court litigation. For the past fifteen years at least, poorer districts and students in the state have been shortchanged in the State Budget. This year was no different. As many have heard me say, in the last nine years small city districts have received less than the state average increase in education aid. This translates into hundreds of millions in lost aid. Last year alone, correcting this would have given each small city district one million more in aid. The failure of small city school district aid to keep pace has resulted in higher local tax rates and lower per pupil spending than the average district, a trend which will have disastrous results for our children and communities and for the state economy if unabated.

Is this description of small city school district education finance really a “chicken little” analysis? The Association Board of Directors, looking at the political log jam that resulted last summer when Legislators tried to agree on statewide reform and avert appointment of the Special Masters in the CFE case, thought not. They thought that it was clear that education finance reform for small city school districts and for the other poor districts in the State would not occur unless the courts ordered it. They thought that the same political in-fighting, between Republicans and Democrats, between up-state and down-state and between the cities and the suburbs, that caused CFE to go to court in 1993 had not changed and would continue to block fundamental reform.

Only a quick look at state voting patterns and demographics is needed to tell us why this is so. While 2/3 of students are in poorer districts, and the state is heavily Democratic in voter registration, the majority of those students and Democratic voters are in only a relatively few districts, NYC, the Big Four Cities and the 57 Small Cities. These 62 districts alone represent over 50% of the student population and nearly 58% of total residents. Nevertheless, except for Assembly and Senate Districts inside the Big Five Cities, poor school districts are out voted in every one of the 212 Assembly Districts and Senate Districts in the State. As a result, the poorest school districts and children have been disenfranchised by the structure of state legislative voting districts. Poor districts and poor children are political orphans; they are no one’s constituent. This is confirmed by an analysis the Association did on the 2000 general elections which showed that of the 68 state legislative election districts which include small city school districts, only 20 of the Legislators elected received more than 20% of their votes from small city school districts, and, of that number, 5 Legislators were in the minority party of their respective Houses. Small city school districts and other poor districts are therefore marginalized in state politics and their struggles and concerns are largely ignored. In the 1960s and 1970s, the inequality in election districts for voters was confronted in the courts in the so called ‘one man one vote’ cases. Because the then existing political leadership was put in place as a result of the inequitable election districts, that leadership was unable correct the inequities despite the fact that those inequities were screaming for attention. Only the courts could bring about meaningful change.

We are at a similar impasse regarding education funding. Poor children have no resort except the courts. No matter how dire the crisis may be, the State Legislature, which has created the crisis, is structurally incapable of correcting problems in education funding unless it is faced with a court order.

We know that the State Constitution guarantees every child an opportunity for an education. As a result of the CFE case, we know that that education must be a sound basic education, that a sound basic education means a meaningful high school education and that this opportunity must be put in reach of every student no matter what socio-economic problems or other deficits a child has. For example, we now know that special education services are mandated, in effect, by the State Constitution and not just by federal and state statues.

We also know that there is an enormous gap between the level of educational opportunity afforded children in wealthy districts and in poor districts. It is our duty to do what we can to close that opportunity gap. The children in small city school districts are our constituency. It is our job to give those children a voice in the political process. The Association believes that if it requires securing a court order directing the Legislature and Governor to listen, then, despite the long and arduous journey that litigation always requires, we must seek redress from the courts.

Twenty-seven small city school districts have, so far, voted to support the Association law suit. Of those, sixteen have been included as named plaintiffs. And while that is a significant showing of support, the Associations needs, and would welcome, support from all the small city districts. Success in litigation which challenges the state and powerful entrenched interests requires patience, perseverance and significant resources. Such support will increase the ability of the Association to withstand the legal assaults which will undoubtedly occur and will insure that the Association has the stamina to endure the long delays caused by State foot dragging and by other legal tactics. The State has not yet answered the complaint served on them March 18^th and we still have ample time to add plaintiff districts. The Association believes that together we can and will be successful and it asks you to join us in the fight.

ASSOCIATION
WELCOMES
NEW
PRESIDENT AND
BOARD
MEMBERS

At its annual convention, the Association welcomed new president, Joan Purtell, Board of Education member, Binghamton CSD. Also elected were; Judith Johnson, Superintendent, Peekskill CSD as Executive Vice President, Norma Barton, Board of Education, Canandaigua as Vice President, Carmen Granto, Superintendent, Niagara Falls CSD, as Treasurer and Raymond Fashano, Superintendent, Jamestown CSD as Secretary.

The Board of Directors Class of 2008 was unanimously elected and are as follows:

William Lynch, Superintendent, Fulton CSD
Dan Lowengard, Superintendent, Utica CSD
Thomas McGowan, Superintendent, Glens Falls CSD
Robert Greenberg, Superintendent, Long Beach CSD
Scott Wexler, BOE Member, Albany CSD
William Winans, BOE Member, Norwich CSD
Lynn McBride, BOE Member, Mount Vernon CSD 

Congratulations and thank you to all those who have been elected and agreed to serve the Association.