Testimony on the FY 2011 executive budget

Good afternoon, Chairman Recchia and distinguished members of the Council. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today about education funding in the city’s executive budget.

My message today is simple: The fact that the Mayor has announced there will be no teacher layoffs is a big victory for our students, but there is still a great deal of work to be done to protect our children and save our schools. That work will require dedication and commitment from each and every one of us — not just educators, not just parents, but the community as a whole. The UFT is ready and willing to do its part.

We are facing a budget gap of between $500 and $750 million, plus the loss of more than 2,000 teachers due to attrition, and any student or parent can tell you that cuts that deep will devastate our school communities. Letting these cuts go forward would mean turning our backs on children in ways not seen since 1976. It would be shameful and wrong, especially when there are reasonable alternatives on the table, including sensible ways to increase revenues and large potential savings at the DOE’s central headquarters.

The projected 4% cut that schools are now bracing themselves for puts an exclamation point on a period of significant disinvestment in our schools and brings the cuts since fiscal year 2008 to 12%. Through April 1 of this year, the school system has lost just shy of $1 billion through seven cuts since the midyear cut in fiscal year 2008. And while some point out that the education budget rose steeply up until 2007, we should point out that much of that increase went to DOE administration and management initiatives, not to classrooms.

I want to be clear that the education of New York City children has already been hurt and compromised by cuts that have been made in the last two years. The losses our kids have already absorbed will only get worse in the fall if these latest cuts are allowed to stand. By losses, we’re talking about programs and services that students depend on, including everything from art, music and after-school programs to tutoring, college prep and academic intervention services.

Over the last three years, we have lost more than 3,000 school-based educators through attrition and last year’s hiring freeze, contributing to the rise in class sizes across the board in each of the last three years. Five hundred school aides were also laid off.

In our budget survey last fall, we heard from hundreds of teachers whose class sizes had grown larger (63% of the elementary and middle school respondents and 70% of high school respondents said their class sizes had grown). That’s despite the fact that the city received nearly $750 million of CFE funding to lower class sizes. Many also reported that their supply budgets were cut to zero, paraprofessionals and aides had all been excessed, ELL and reading recovery classes had been eliminated, and after-school, Saturday programs and Academic Intervention Services (AIS) were all cut way back.

Another 4% cut will eradicate just about every service and program out there, especially those that the neediest students depend on. Programs like the Substance Abuse Prevention/Intervention Specialist (SAPIS) Program in the city’s schools are facing almost complete elimination. Class sizes are also going to further increase.

Now juxtapose that with the picture emerging from the Department of Education, where spending remains unchecked. Just last week, the Daily News found that 45 DOE administrators and other non-school staff got $340,000 in pay hikes. This is on top of $500,000 in pay increases in the April management reshuffling that increased the number of deputy chancellors from four to eight. Outrageous to be sure, but it’s only the tip of a sizeable iceberg.

While central DOE has often spoken about cutting bureaucracy and redirecting the savings to schools, a review of DOE headcount changes shows how misleading those claims really are.

For instance, the DOE has testified that between 2008 and this school year, the administrative budget has been cut nearly 20% and this "included a headcount reduction of 550 positions in central and field offices and comes on top of having redirected more than $500 million in savings to school budgets during brighter economic times." Additional testimony says that "since mid-FY08… we have eliminated 550 central and administrative positions."

But the DOE’s own reporting doesn’t add up. They show 4,663 positions in December 2007 (mid-FY08) in central administration and school support organizations. In April 2010 they had only reduced this to 4,449; a decrease of only 214 positions, or less than 5%. Only 21 positions were reduced from central administration.

Further, the department’s own figures show some central office staffing jumped as much as 30 percent under this administration, with non-pedagogical departments such as assessment and accountability, human resources, public affairs, and information technology growing dramatically. The DOE legal department has nearly doubled in size in the last nine years, and financial operations expanded from 174 to 267 during the same period.

The claims of "redirecting savings" from administration to schools are even more misleading. For instance, between 2002 and 2008 the DOE claims it reduced positions at central, what most people would think of as Tweed and 65 Court Street, by 13% (362 positions).

That headcount reduction was achieved largely by the loss of school lunch aides and low-paid clerical aides, clerical associates and secretaries, not by administrators or bureaucrats. In fact, those headcount changes were greatly outweighed by an increase of 220 managers such as Administrative Education Officers, Administrative Education Analysts and Education Analysts, all titles generally paid more than $100,000 annually.

In addition to the changes at central Tweed, the DOE has also claimed reductions in "field," "facilities" and "food" services, while showing a modest increase in "school-based" positions. More specifically, the DOE says:

• Field (i.e. district offices, etc.) — reduced by 52% (5,179 positions)
• Facilities — reduced by 15% (292 positions)
• Food Services — reduced by 2% (97 positions)
• School-based positions — increased by 7% (8,661 positions)

Let us be clear: The reduction in "field" services that the DOE claims — 5,179 positions — is a misrepresentation. Instead, thousands of people were simply recategorized, even though their job titles and responsibilities did not change. For example, part of that reduction was achieved by shifting 2,112 school secretaries out of "field" services between 2002 and 2008:

… And shifting them into the "school-based" category, as evidenced by the DOE’s own numbers:

The same misleading shifts between different classifications were also used with school aides. 4,209 school aides were simply shifted out of "field" services between 2002 and 2008:

… And into "school-based" services:

Again, these employees did not see changes in their job titles or responsibilities, nor were they moved or redirected from district offices.

It’s also worth noting that in the "field" offices, the loss of 78 principals and deputy superintendents was dwarfed by an increase of 152 Admin Ed Analysts, 25 Admin Ed Officers, 42 Ed. Analysts, 29 Ed. Officers, 41 Local Instructional Supervisors and 60 Research Assistants.

As for the reduction in "facilities," it was not bureaucrats but skilled trades people like 57 carpenters, 60 electricians, 40 plumbers and 25 steamfitters. Due to the loss of the skilled trades, the work has to be done by outside contractors with no savings, as they are subject to pay prevailing wages similar to the employees lost.

The issues with headcount and higher salaries at Tweed are just part of the problem, however. The amount of spending on nonessential initiatives and outside consultants is also rapidly rising. Month after month, the DOE has been entering into more outside vendor contracts, many of them no-bid, even as classrooms face starvation.

Some contracts are essential, to be sure, but many are just plain bad business during an economic downturn. Consider the ridiculousness of paying $5 million to recruit new teachers during a hiring freeze and with layoffs looming. Consider the $3 million being paid to conduct "satisfaction surveys" in city schools. Consider the hundreds of millions of dollars in computer consultant contracts. The list goes on and on.

Again, some initiatives are sound investments, but many others are not, and when our classrooms are in danger of being cut so dramatically, everything should be on the table for discussion. Cutting the big salaries, the excessive testing and assessment initiatives, the outside computer and technology consultants and other waste and nonessential services at the central DOE would save the city millions of dollars.

By contrast, when faced with the city’s doomsday funding projections, the UFT stepped up in several significant ways, just as we have consistently throughout our 50-year history. We worked with the Municipal Labor Committee to create $200 million in annual savings for the city through health care administrative savings, and we came up with another $100 million a year when we made pension modifications. Just months before those landmark agreements, busloads of members went to Washington, D.C. to help secure the federal stimulus funding that injected $1 billion into the state’s coffers. Our April agreement that will lead to the closure of the infamous rubber rooms will also lead to huge savings — over $50 million.

While the economic challenges we face are clearly daunting, there are smart, appropriate, practical solutions on the table that make drastic classroom cuts unnecessary. These ideas come from all parts of our city, from parents, community organizations and educators. There is a broad consensus that layoffs and budget cuts are not the solution.

For starters, the Mayor and the City Council have the power to use a portion of the city’s estimated $3.5 billion surplus to offset reductions in state education funding. That money comes courtesy of better-than-expected tax revenues, and the Mayor should be factoring it in to his calculations.

What’s more, the city could save $200 to $500 million through a retirement incentive. With over 25,000 of my members eligible for early retirement, thousands would no doubt take advantage of one.

Looking beyond those two significant steps, the city could generate $1 billion a year through a 1% tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $1 million. What the city doesn’t need are more regressive taxes and fees. Temporarily taxing the wealthiest 5 percent of New Yorkers so all our students can benefit is a fair and equitable alternative.

The city could also generate $1 billion a year by closing corporate loopholes and improving tax compliance. Both the City Comptroller and the Daily News estimate that billions of dollars were lost in uncollected business taxes and outstanding fines from parking and city code violations. Recouping future losses would require the city to rehire the auditors and collection staff that the Mayor furloughed earlier, but it will be money well spent.

And of course, we must continue to lobby the state for our fair share, and federal lawmakers for the $23 billion federal education jobs bill now making its way through the U.S. Congress. The Mayor and I will be traveling to both Albany and Washington to personally make the case with our elected representatives.

Bottom line: This story can have a reasonably happy ending, even with the economic challenges facing our city. If the DOE puts its own house in order and the city embraces the smart and sensible alternatives for both savings and revenues now on the table, we can save our schools and stop draconian cuts to services that our city depends on.

The Mayor and the Council must do the responsible thing here, because inaction will have long-term — and unacceptable — effects on the quality of education in our city. Our kids will pay the price for years to come in the learning and opportunities they miss.