Testimony of Michelle Bodden before the City Council Public Hearing on the FY 2008 Preliminary Budget: March 19, 2007
Mar 19, 2007 12:30 PM
Under normal circumstances, testifying on this budget should be a pleasure. A $3.9 billion city surplus (and probably larger by June), some $640 million more in state aid and $530 million more from the city – It sounds like an opportunity to make a meaningful dent in the many unmet educational needs of our million-plus students. But for reasons I’ll get into in a moment, we have great concerns.
This year we don’t even need to make the case that our children need a much broader, deeper and richer education, because the Court has confirmed that. That this city and nation need it as well is a case that Mayor Bloomberg himself made just last week in Washington.
“We have a competitiveness problem in this country, not just in finance (he was at a Treasury Dept conference), but in medicine and in science and in education and even in the art world,” he said. And he blamed public education for the fact that too many young people have not been given the skills essential for a technologically advanced economy.
Science, technology, art – these are the very things we would urge you to fund with almost a billion new dollars next year, along with a long-promised boost for our middle schools and universal pre-k and, above all, smaller classes in all grades – which the original CFE decision specifically cited. Our classes are larger by 5 to 10 students, even in Regents classes -- despite the administration’s obsession with tests and test scores. Massive research proves the benefits of smaller classes not just for better learning, but also for safety, for parent involvement and for preventing dropouts. But unfortunately, this administration has no intention of reducing class size except for the mandated early grades. As we pointed out in our capital budget testimony last week, even the $13 billion 5-year capital plan makes no accommodation for smaller classes beyond the third grade.
As for our other priorities for funding, they include the following:
1) A Marshal Plan for middle schools – clearly our weakest link -- such as the one outlined by the Coalition for Educational Justice, that includes a full, well-rounded curriculum and guidance, career exploration and other support services. The new SURR list released last week just underscores the need to focus on this critical link in our school system where the ground is laid for later success or failure. As Randi said, “We used to give struggling schools resources and support so they could become functioning, high-performing schools. Now, all the DOE does is play this reorganizational shell game where they close a school, reopen it with a new name, new principal and new staff and do nothing to really turn it around and help children get a first-rate education.”
2) Career and Technical Education – is one of the most effective proven ways to raise the graduation rate (and provide students with job skills or preparation for college). Yet, there is no extra funding for it in the city budget. It all comes from state and federal sources. We need to expand the number of programs in our regular high schools and attract more students; we need a much more aggressive teacher recruitment effort; and we need to open more schools to train adults
3) Dedicated Arts Funding - The school system is not meeting the minimum New York State requirements for arts education. Hundreds of schools lack an arts specialist mostly because of the narrowing of the curriculum we’ve seen in recent years, and the situation is likely to get worse under the proposed new funding system. We recommend that Project Arts should be continued for at least one more year as a categorical program until an alternative plan can be devised to ensure arts education in our schools.
4) Supplies and Equipment - In addition to these, we urge you to restore funding for Teacher’s Choice, which has been such an important supplement to our under-supplied schools, and to continue to provide funding for workstations and furniture for teachers’ rooms. Science lab supplies for labs that often operate without Bunsen burners and beakers are also in desperate need.
These are what we see as the system’s major priorities. However, here’s our concern: Even if you provide these funds, they may not be used as you or we envision.
That’s because, under the school funding system that the administration is planning to start next school year, it’s the principal who decides what the budget priorities are for his or her school. With a lump-sum amount based on a per-capita formula, even the programs the DOE favors are up for grabs.
· Lead teachers? The chancellor has touted this program but it’s up to the principal to find the money in the budget for these experienced master teachers.
· Smaller classes? Only if the principal can jerry-rig the budget to sacrifice something else and hire more teachers.
· Art? The mayor may believe in the power of art, but he’d have to convince 1,400 individual principals to use any part of their budgets for it.
Under the latest reorganization, our so-called system will hardly qualify as a system at all. It will be more like what we learned in social studies is called a confederation of 1400 loosely connected but basically autonomous schools. Some principals may, of course, consult their staffs and involve parents in setting priorities; others may not.
Our members regularly report violations of funding guidelines and disproportionate amounts spent on administrative and out-of-classroom positions. Here are some of the decisions that principals have made this year even under the discretion they have had since the community school districts were dismantled.
An elementary school in Brooklyn receiving Early Grade Class Size Reduction Money with eight 1st grade classes over the 20 pupil average required by that funding source—the principal used that money to fund a cluster teacher who serviced the entire school. She also added an additional AP bringing her total to 3. (That same principal has increased her own per session hours this school year as she approached retirement)
A High School in Manhattan did not form Collaborative Team Teaching classes, which were required by students’ IEPs and for which it received funding, and thus denied the mandated services to those special education students. That same principal has under-spent (not scheduled) her allocations by $200,000.
An elementary school in the Bronx had 8 out of classroom positions, 8 teachers who were not directly responsible for serving students, while at the same time the school did not offer physical education because they have no phys ed teacher.
I don’t think principals make these decisions maliciously, but managing a $5 or $10 or $15 million dollar budget requires skill and training most don’t have And under the reorganization, they will have far less guidance and support in this area. Probably hundreds of principals will, or should, seek private outside help in financial management. This will surely become a cash cow for legions of consultants, depriving our kids of valuable instructional dollars.
We urge the strictest oversight of this no-strings-attached spending. Accountability cannot wait until student test scores are in, and we cannot tolerate an “ends-justify-the-means” budget philosophy, wherein anything goes as long as the scores go up. Everything we expect of our schools and our teachers cannot be measured in test scores.
And to top it all off – and this may be the worst effect -- the change in the funding formula will make it harder for principals to hire the most qualified teachers for their schools.
That’s because thrown into the mix of all the unrestricted money principals have to spend is money for teacher salaries. Under the current system, each school is allotted a number of teachers based on its enrollment, its special programs, etc. and then receives funding for those teachers’ salaries, whatever they are. In other words, when a principal hires a teacher, he or she considers the qualifications of the applicants and the fit with that school and hires the person who best fills the need. The principal doesn’t have to worry about seniority or salary or anything but getting the best person for the job.
Under the proposed so-called Fair Student Funding plan, no separate money is allocated for teacher salaries. Schools are funded on a per-student basis. That per-capita amount is calculated to cover the cost of an average teacher salary. So if fourth graders are assumed to be in classes of 32, the per-capita includes one-thirty-second of an average teacher’s salary.
I think the problems with this approach are evident:
First, if the principal wants smaller classes than 32 – or if the school’s 4th graders don’t divide evenly into 32 so some classes are smaller -- there is not enough money unless he cuts back somewhere else – say eliminating the library teacher or the literacy coach.
Second, if the fourth-grade teacher is more experienced or has higher credentials than the “average” teacher in the system, the principal has to cut back on some other spending in order to pay for that teacher.
Or, if it’s a new hire, the principal has to weigh the cost of the applicants against their qualifications. The cheaper the teacher the more money he has to spend on something else. With a less experienced teacher, maybe he can afford that arts program or (if it’s a high school) that advanced placement class that will have only 12 students. But he can do that only if he hires the new teacher based on her low salary rather than on her qualifications.
Now you tell me, if that were your fourth-grader. which teacher would you want the principal to hire – the one most qualified or the cheapest one?
Hiring teachers based on their salaries – or even worse, based on their age (because older teachers tend to earn more) may be OK in corporate America, but it’s NOT OK in schools – any schools, whether in a poor community or one that’s better off. More important, hiring teachers based on salary may be good for the bottom line, but it hurts kids – and for parents and teachers THAT’s the bottom line!
· Should schools that serve more kids with extra-cost needs get more money? Of course they should!
· Do we know that kids from low-income families sometimes enter school less prepared and needing more intense instruction? Of course we do!
· Should all children have the best teachers we can find? Absolutely!
That’s why, of all the US cities that are using the weighted student formula that the chancellor is proposing, only one funds schools for only average teacher salaries. Every other city – Seattle, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Houston, among others – makes adjustments for schools that are able to attract and retain a stable, experienced workforce.
And that’s what we want, don’t we? A stable staff? Yet, this formula rewards turnover. The more a principal can churn his staff, the lower the school’s salaries and the more money he gets to use for other things. Again, that’s not good for any school – rich or poor. And the more a school improves, and its staff stabilizes, the greater the pressure to get rid of the very teachers who turned the school around.
If the designers of this formula had thought beyond the first year or two, they would see the devastation it will cause. Yes, middle class parents may complain first. But very soon so will parents from poorer communities as they see their schools caught in the same destructive cycle! Many have seen it already, and are asking the chancellor to stop, look and listen before plunging ahead.
Now, I understand the chancellor’s desire to bring experienced teachers to the neediest students. Despite his frequent derision of the value of experience, I am glad he recognizes that teachers do improve with practice. So why is he proposing a funding formula that will actually discourage, not encourage the hiring and retention of experienced teachers when there are many direct and effective ways to attract experienced teachers to high-poverty schools without all these negative effects?
Some of these things we’ve done or are doing. For example:
· The former chancellor’s district, which provided smaller classes, a more collaborative way of operating, and a 15% salary incentive, was very successful at attracting certified teachers with more than 5 years experience – and students flourished.
· Recent changes in the teacher transfer plan (only in effect one year) have transformed the movement of teachers around the city.
· The short-lived “Corridor” budget system, a recent DOE attempt to rationalize school funding, eliminated many of the worst inequities.
But all of these either have just begun or were dismantled before having a broader effect, victims of the leadership’s disdain for “incremental” change.
In addition, many high-poverty schools have been very successful at attracting and retaining an experienced work force. Some benefit from reputations as having a collegial, respectful climate. Some have things like location or parking that serve as incentives. Some offer small classes, good professional development and lots of support.
In other words, given decent conditions, most teachers do not shy away from challenging schools. Improving teaching and learning conditions is the key to bringing experienced teachers into hard-to-staff schools. We would be happy to sit down with the chancellor to discuss these options.
I know my time is limited, so rather than go into our concerns about the system’s financial practices, let me just second Controller Thompson’s recent statements about the lack of public information on alleged administrative savings, no-bid contracts, the cost of the second reorganization and so on. These are just symptomatic of the administration’s totally top-down, unilateral approach to school decision-making, decisions that profoundly affect not just teachers but more important children and their parents. A couple of weeks ago, more than 1200 parents, teachers, students and elected officials raised their voices to say, “Put the public back in public education! We second that call.
