|
October 2007 Vol.
XXI, No. 10 |
|
THE GOVERNOR VISITS JAMESTOWN AREA |
Raymond Fashano, Superintendent Jamestown CSD, was one of about
30 community leaders asked to meet with Governor Eliot Spitzer recently
during his visit to the Jamestown area. Many issues were brought to the
table and Mr. Fashano spoke to the Governor about the realities of his
Contract for Excellence initiative and the newly reconstituted
Foundation Aid. Below is an excerpt of the letter dated September 24th
that Mr. Fashano was asked to write as a follow up to this discussion.
![Text Box: Dear Governor:
…I spoke with Mr. Martin Mack, your Deputy Secretary, after the meeting in Jamestown and he asked me to put my thoughts into writing. Therefore, my concerns for the Foundation Aid and the Contract for Excellence are:
1) We are all in favor of accountability but we need various degrees of it. [Jamestown is] on this Contract for Excellence list and have all the rules applied for three students. This is a far cry from other cities that are on the C4E list for multiple violations in multiple buildings. My point is simply that there needs to be various degrees of penalties not the full force on the C4E provisions for minor infractions.
2) The Foundation Formula essentially does what you wanted it to do – drive money to poor school districts. Located within the formula is an area that uses the Combined Wealth Ratio and the formula uses the lower cap of .50. This is a fallacy because Jamestown Public Schools has a Combined Wealth Ratio of .34. You see we are really poorer that your formula gives us credit for and that means that we lose many thousands of dollars for being “too poor”. My suggestion is to let the CWR be what it really is and let the formula run more dollars to poorer schools…
3) I am sure you are aware…the 3% cap on increases to our operations is very difficult for any school district to do and maintain existing staffing patterns. It always costs more to do business the next year with the same staff as it did from the year before. Then when you add increases in health insurance, retirement systems, utilities increases, wage increases and unfunded mandates that rise from 8-12% each year you can see it is difficult to keep a school budget growing only 3%. We need mandate relief and we need the 3% cap to increase.](october_2007_vol_files/image001.gif)

![Text Box: 4) Also listed in the Foundation Aid is a 25% Maintenance of Effort number to give districts credit for existing programs that they have initiated to help students of need and at risk of failing. I do not feel 25% gives enough credit for the local efforts. In the previous four years when revenues have been low for poor schools due to inequities in the formulas, Jamestown had to lay off over 140 people and raise taxes to balance our budgets. But we made local decisions that influenced our school system such as lower class sizes in our elementary. The 25% rule does not give us enough credit for these “lean year” decision.
5) In 2007-08, with the Foundation Aid in place, and being listed as a C4E School District we had to add about $1.9 million dollars for new programs that focused on the five areas cited in the law such as class size or increased time on task. The question is if the 25% rule for existing programs does not increase for 2008-09 to take into account this new [expenditure] for new programs what is a school district to do? It would mean cutting of new programs and staff just one year old, and adding new programs and the staff for these new programs. This could create massive lay-offs and rehiring each year that becomes a huge personnel issue. This is of grave concern entering the 2008-09 budget year if adjustments are not made to the legislation to accommodate Year 1 of Foundation Aid and Contract for Excellence rules….
Sincerely yours,
Raymond J. Fashano
Superintendent of Schools](october_2007_vol_files/image003.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD SETS PRIORITIES FOR UPCOMING
LEGISLATIVE SESSION |
At the September 26th
meeting of the Board of Directors, legislative priorities for 2008 were
conceptually approved and included four areas: Foundation Aid
amendments, Contract for Excellence amendments, Charter School reforms
and Debt Ceiling reforms.
The Board agreed that
for any Foundation Aid amendments, the regional cost factor needs
adjustment. Robert Biggerstaff also suggested that a continuation of the
25% cola exemption for poor/needy districts resulting in a total
exemption between 3 and 6 percent be supported. The Board also agreed
that amendment to the high tax aid be recommended which makes this aid
category reflective of actual district wealth.
Regarding Contract for
Excellence amendments, the problem of ‘lumping’ all districts in one
category regardless of the actual degree of educational deficiencies was
discussed. The Board agreed that any adjustment in the C4E spending
requirement should reflect the actual severity of a district’s
deficiencies.
The Board agreed that
since the number of Charter Schools has been increased and that these
schools are a reality for the foreseeable future, the Association must
confront the issues presented by Charters. A joint position paper
(Association and effected small city districts) will be developed as a
basis for lobbying in 2008.
Three possible
approaches to debt ceiling reforms were discussed; a Constitutional
Referendum, exclusion of building aid from the debt ceiling calculation
and Dormitory Authority financing of small city school construction
projects outside the ceiling. Which of these will be most likely to pass
in 2008 is not yet apparent.
As always, the
Association welcomes any questions or comments regarding these issues of
interest. |
|
|
|
|
CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
PLANNING UPDATE |
The Center for School Improvement Planning
has been busy these past few months working to gather, analyze and
present a myriad of school fiscal and academic data. The aim of the
Center is to provide districts with a clear picture of its strengths as
well as areas with room for improvement. This picture is a valuable
inventory, especially for those schools asked to create new programs and
account for additional spending under the Governor’s Contract for
Excellence initiative. The Center will also be available as a consulting
resource for districts’ planning and implementing changes.
On October 1st, Lonnie Palmer and
Charles Winters presented the first customized report at Binghamton
CSD. The feedback has been very good. The next step is a return to
the district for further discussion and planning. Below is a generic
table of contents to illustrate the data provided.
|
content |
page |
|
Introduction to reading this report |
1 |
|
Chart: Percent Passing and Demographic Predictor with All
School Districts |
3 |
|
Chart: Percent Passing and Demographic Predictor Schools
Over 2,100 Enrollment Only |
4 |
|
Highlights - Performance Measures |
5 |
|
Chart: District Performance Indicators |
7 |
|
Chart: Overall Achievement and Data-Predicted Achievement |
8 |
|
Chart: 4th Grade ELA |
9 |
|
Chart: 8th Grade ELA |
10 |
|
Chart: 4th Grade Math |
11 |
|
Chart: 8th Grade Math |
12 |
|
Chart: Regents Cohort |
13 |
|
Chart: Factors Associated with Lower Performance |
14 |
|
Chart: Five-Year Graduation Rate |
15 |
|
Chart: Instructional Staff Quantities |
16 |
|
Chart: Instructional Staff Characteristics |
17 |
|
Detail
- Performance and Inputs |
18 |
|
Highlights - Finance Measures |
50 |
|
Chart: Current Spending and Formula Specified Spending |
53 |
|
Chart: Current Tax Effort |
54 |
|
Detail
- Financial Data |
55 |
The next presentation is scheduled for
Jamestown CSD. We will keep you informed of further developments.
Any questions about the Center can be
directed to Bob Biggerstaff at the Association’s offices (518-475-9500,
reb@biggerstaff-firm.com). |
|
|
|
|
BILL STATUS REPORT |
Below is a listing of the Association’s bills
of interest (as of the end of September 2007) that have been either
vetoed or chaptered.
BILLS OF INTEREST - VETOED
|
Veto No. |
Bill No. |
|
|
143 |
S1095 |
SALAND -- Relates to
excluding increased fuel costs from calculation of total
spending increases in a contingency budget |
|
119 |
S6030 |
FARLEY -- Prohibits the
diminution of health insurance benefits of public employee
retirees |
|
120 |
S6031A |
FARLEY -- Prohibits the
diminution of health insurance benefits of certain public
employee retirees |
|
122 |
S6275 |
SALAND -- Requires chair
of committees on special education to provide parents of a child
with a disability with a list of programs and services available
to such child |
|
100 |
S6328 |
MAZIARZ -- Amends part B
of chapter 57 of the laws of 2007 relating to adjusted valuation
for school aid |
BILLS OF INTEREST – CHAPTERED
|
Chapter |
Bill No. |
|
|
238 |
A3249A |
Nolan (MS) -- Increases
the allowable amount of unexpended surplus funds which may be
retained by a board of education |
|
422 |
S691 |
FLANAGAN -- Provides that
expenditures for self-supporting programs shall not be
considered as part of a school district's total spending for
contingency budget purposes |
|
289 |
S2445 |
MORAHAN -- Relates to the
aggregate homestead and non-homestead tax share for certain tax
districts |
|
178 |
S2682 |
LITTLE -- Provides for
notice of changes in real property assessments |
|
445 |
S3577A |
SALAND -- Relates to the
use of monies in the reserve fund established by a school
district |
|
306 |
S3687A |
SEWARD -- Permits a filing
for state aid by the Oneonta city school district |
|
464 |
S4799A |
FARLEY -- Authorizes
granting of the residential investment exemption in certain
school districts |
|
341 |
S5370A |
LITTLE -- Provides uniform
requirements applicable to municipalities and school districts
authorized to incur debt to liquidate operating deficits |
|
220 |
S5747 |
SALAND -- Relates to
chapter 425 of the laws of 2002 amending the education law
relating to safe attendance and chapter 153 of the laws of 2006
amending "No Child Left Behind Act" |
|
670 |
S5973B |
LANZA -- Directs the
commissioner of education to promulgate regulations requiring
school districts identified by such commissioner to minimize
idling of school buses |
|
90 |
S6127 |
SALAND -- Extends the
effectiveness of conditional employment and emergency
conditional employment of prospective employees of school
districts, boards of cooperative education |
|
378 |
S6361 |
SALAND -- Relates to
implementation of the federal individuals with disabilities
education improvement act of 2004; repealer |
|
672 |
S6074A |
GOLDEN -- Requires every
school district and board of cooperative educational services to
provide and maintain nebulizers for use by public and private
school students |
|
|
|
|
|
LITIGATION UPDATE |
The Association Board of Directors met on
September 26th and unanimously voted to continue its support
of the Small City School District litigation and of the individual
plaintiff districts that have decided to re-file the complaint. As
previously reported, the Appellate Division decision in July determined
that BOE members, both officially as members of district boards and
individually as private citizens, lacked the legal standing and capacity
to sue the State on constitutional grounds. The Court also determined
that the complaint must allege separate educational deficiencies for
each district involved in the case rather than summarize those
deficiencies collectively. The Litigation Steering Committee decided not
to appeal that decision and instead it recommended that the Association
support districts wishing to re-file the complaint. To date, nine of the
original plaintiff districts have decided to participate in the re-filed
case. Those districts are Beacon, Corning, Jamestown, Kingston, Mt.
Vernon, Newburgh, Niagara Falls, Salamanca and Tonawanda. Albany,
Dunkirk, Middletown, North Tonawanda and Poughkeepsie are still in the
process of determining whether to go ahead. Four districts, Binghamton,
Cohoes, Glens Falls and Schenectady, have decided not to pursue the case
at this time. Of the eleven Supporting Districts, Lockport has already
agreed to continue its support. Other districts previously supporting
the litigation include Auburn, Batavia, Cortland, Fulton, Hornell,
Hudson, New Rochelle, Peekskill, Plattsburgh and Saratoga Springs.
Please note, that previous non-participation
as a plaintiff district or supporting district does not, of course,
preclude your district from participating now. Nearly half (18 plaintiff
districts and 11 supporting districts) of the small city districts
participated in the first case. This number was impressive, especially
to the Leaders in the Capitol in Albany. As always, any questions,
criticisms, comments and suggestions will be appreciated. It is only
through our collective efforts that we can hope to be successful. |
|
|
|
|
UPCOMING
EVENTS |
October 15, 2007
meeting with Manny Rivera, Deputy Secretary for Education
12:00 pm Fort Orange Club – lunch
1:00 pm meeting in Room 236 Capitol
October 26, 2007
8:00am
annual breakfast in conjunction with NYSSBA Convention
The Cornell Club, NYC
November 1, 2007
meeting with Paul Francis, Director, Division of Budget
12:00 pm Fort Orange Club – lunch
1:00 pm meeting in Room 101 Capitol
November 26, 2007
1:00pm
Board of Directors Meeting and meeting with Commissioner Mills
Fort Orange Club Albany NY
January 20, 2008
1:00pm – 3:30pm
Board of Directors meeting in conjunction with NYSCOSS midwinter meeting
Desmond Hotel Albany NY
March 11, 2008
8am – 12pm
Legislative Breakfast
Fort Orange Club Albany NY
June 1-2, 2008 (tentative)
Annual Conference
The Otesaga, Cooperstown NY (tentative) |
| |
•Albany
•Amsterdam
•Auburn
•Batavia
•Beacon
•Binghamton
•Canandaigua
•Cohoes
•Corning
•Cortland
•Dunkirk
•Elmira
•Fulton
•Geneva
•Glen Cove
•Glens Falls
•Gloversville
•Hornell
•Hudson
•Ithaca
•Jamestown
•Johnstown
•Kingston
•Lackawanna
•Little
Falls
•Lockport
•Long
Beach
•Mechanicville
•Middletown
•Mount
Vernon
•New
Rochelle
•Newburgh
•Niagara
Falls
•N.
Tonawanda
•Norwich
•Ogdensburg
•Olean
•Oneida
•Oneonta
•Oswego
•Peekskill
•Plattsburgh
•Port
Jervis
•Poughkeepsie
•Rensselaer
•Rome
•Rye
•Salamanca
•Saratoga
•Schenectady
•Tonawanda
•Troy
•Utica
•Vernon
Verona Sherrill
•Watertown
•Watervliet
•White
Plains
|