|
In an effort to
encourage and empower small city legislators to identify and act as a
group the Association has begun to issue weekly “Did You Know?” fact
sheets for all SCSD legislators. These fact sheets are also being
distributed to news outlets around the state in order to bring SCSD
issues to the public.
The first two
fact sheets are below.
If you would
like more information regarding these fact sheets, or have an issue you
feel should be included, please contact our office (518-475-9500,
518-475-7677 fax, reb@biggerstaff-firm.com).
To: Small City
School District Legislators
February 27, 2006
Did you know
that there are 57 small city school districts located in every part of
the State from Long island to Niagara Falls?
Did you know
that small city schools serve over a quarter of a million students which
is 2/3 of the total of urban students outside NYC and twice as many as
served by the Big 4 school districts?
Did you know
that while the cities may be small, their school districts are large,
over twice the size of the average district and that the small cities,
defined as cities with ‘less than (sic) 125,000 population’, contain 1.5
million residents?
Did you know
that small city school districts, with an average combined wealth ratio
and per pupil spending which are approximately 20% below the
state average, have tax rates which are 20% above the state
average?
Did you know
that over the past eight years small city districts have received state
aid increases far below the average increase for all districts? If small
city districts had received just average increases over that period they
would have gotten $175 million, or 16.5%, more in aid in 2005-06. Each
small city district would have had an additional $3 million in aid this
year alone. The impact on tax rates and programming of this chronic
under-funding is astounding.
Did you know
that the Governor’s Budget for 2006-07 actually worsens this chronic
under-funding despite its rhetoric about helping high need districts?
The Combined Aids Run for the Governor’s 2006-07 Budget shows that small
city districts are scheduled to receive increases that are 25% below
increases to be received by the average district.
Once again,
state education funding is going entirely in the wrong direction,
leaving the poorest schools and children behind. Small city children and
tax payers desperately need your help this year to stop the steady
erosion in education resources and upward pressure on already excessive
tax rates. Please begin the process this year of directing funding
sufficient to provide the education small city children deserve and
small city property tax payers can no longer afford.
To: Small City
School District Legislators March
6, 2006
Did you know
that
under the STAR program wealthy districts receive twice as much aid as
small city school districts and other low wealth districts? In 1997, the
Governor and the Legislature enacted a school tax relief program (STAR)
pursuant to Chapter 389 of the laws of 1997. STAR was intended to
relieve the local taxpayer from the growing burden of school taxes and
provided for reductions in school tax bills to property owners and
reimbursement of the amounts of such reductions to the school districts
by the State. The STAR program was, in effect, a way of increasing state
aid to education but avoiding the basic operating aid formula which
targeted aid to those districts with the greatest student need and
lowest property wealth. The STAR program instead targeted state aid to
the wealthiest districts: under this program wealthy districts receive
twice as much funding per student as poorer districts. The program was
phased in over a number of years and now diverts nearly $3 billion in
state aid from the operating aid formula. The result of this program is
that enormous sums of state revenues each year are distributed to
wealthier districts which are on “save-harmless” provisions of the
education law, districts that would not be otherwise entitled to any
increases under the basic operating aid formula.
Did you know
that
almost all charter schools are located in or near cities including a
number of small cities. The relative size of the charter schools in the
small cities is far larger than the size of schools located in New York
City or in the other so-called Big Five cities. The result of this is
that the cost of charter schools in the small cities has had a
significantly greater impact on small city school budgets and local tax
rates. School districts experience little or no reduction in operating
costs when a child attends a charter school and the cost of charter
school tuition becomes an added expense to the district. Moreover, the
funding provided to all charter schools comes from the average operating
expense of the district, including expenses from kindergarten (the
least) through high school (the most). However, charter schools in small
cities are all elementary schools that cost the least to operate.
Charter schools draw, therefore, a highly disproportionate amount from
the public school in favor of the charter school. Nevertheless, no
additional state aid has been appropriated to defray the cost of the
charter school payments and the school districts making such payments
have increased their tax levies to accommodate those costs.
Did you know
that
small city school districts are subject to restrictive debt ceilings
which in many cases have prevented or slowed replacement and renovation
of aging educational infrastructure. Small city school districts are
subject to a constitutional 5% debt ceiling as opposed to the statutory
10% debt ceiling applicable to non-city districts. Moreover, non-city
school districts can take advantage of Local Finance Law section 121.20
which allows those districts to exclude any amounts received as state
building aid from the computation of debt under the ceiling. This same
provision does not apply to small city school districts. Since building
aid pays for at least 60% of all capital projects the effective amount
of the debt ceiling in non-city districts is three to four times as high
in non-city districts as in small city school districts.
Did you know
that
since 1997 small city school districts have been required to submit
their school budgets to the voters for approval each year, that they are
twice as likely to experience budget defeats and that they are more
vulnerable to the adverse effects of an austerity budget because they
have less strength built into their programming. If a budget is not
approved by the voters, an austerity budget becomes effective, often
requiring the firing of teaching staff, reductions in already weakened
programming and elimination of extra curricular activities. Districts
working under two or more consecutive budget defeats experience
irreparable harm to the quality of their programs and to the education
of their students.
Once
again, state education funding is going entirely in the wrong direction,
leaving the poorest schools and children behind. Small city children and
tax payers desperately need help this year to stop the steady erosion in
education resources and upward pressure on already excessive tax rates.
Small city school districts need additional funding to enable them to
provide the education small city children deserve and small city
property tax payers are increasingly unable to sustain. |
