1 / 12

DRAMATIC RISE IN EDUCATION FUNDING SINCE MAYOR TOOK CONTROL IN 2002

DRAMATIC RISE IN EDUCATION FUNDING SINCE MAYOR TOOK CONTROL IN 2002. Total education funding up more than $8 billion. Only 1% of new dollars funded school administration.

cade-moon
Download Presentation

DRAMATIC RISE IN EDUCATION FUNDING SINCE MAYOR TOOK CONTROL IN 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRAMATIC RISE IN EDUCATION FUNDING SINCE MAYOR TOOK CONTROL IN 2002 Total education funding up more than $8 billion. Only 1% of new dollars funded school administration. This chart does not include increases in other categorical funds, which account for an additional $0.05 billion. FY08 and FY09 are as of the FY09 Executive Budget. Funds include pension and debt service. Figures in bars are rounded.

  2. INCREASES HAVE LARGELY BEEN DIRECTED TO SCHOOLS • Principals’ spending power climbed with a $4.5 billion increase in school-controlled funds • Direct services to schools (e.g., food, transportation) are up more than $2.4 billion * Direct services to schools includes support services, restricted/non-restricted school programs and school admin (SSO, ISC, CSE). **School-controlled funds include teacher salaries, materials, programs for students, school support staff, pension, and fringe.

  3. $350 MILLION PLUS TO SCHOOLS FROM CUTS TO THE BUREAUCRACY SINCE 2002 • Phase I: Prior to 2007, we sent more than $190 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms. • Phase II: Since then, we were able to redirect an additional $174 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms. • Plus: We have sent another $56 million to the schools that principals can use to purchase the academic support services, provided by School Support Organizations, they consider best for their students. Then Now Bureaucracy Schools >$350 million This chart excludes the cost associated with fringe.

  4. FY09 BUDGET: NEW REVENUES This year, despite hard times, the City and State are continuing to increase operating funds to NYC public schools. NEW STATE FUNDS NEW CITY FUNDS $535 million* $129 million* NEW NYC SCHOOL FUNDS $774 million $664 million* * This excludes pension and debt service.

  5. BUT THE DEPARTMENT ALSO FACES NEW COSTS • Each year, costs rise. This year we have $963 million in new costs we must pay. Non-Discretionary Costs That Have Escalated Necessary Improvements to DOE Operations and Public Commitments $809 Million $154 million • Labor • Energy • School food • Enrollment system • Principal and teacher training • Transfer schools

  6. NEW STATE FUNDS $535 million MAKING IT WORSE: WE CAN’T SPEND MOST STATE FUNDS ON NEW NEEDS Because of restrictions created by Albany, new funds are restricted and hard to spend on new needs. This year, only $150 million, or 26% of the State’s new aid is unrestricted, compared to $283 million, or 46% last year. $385 M RESTRICTED STATE DOLLARS $385 million $150 M UNRESTRICTED STATE DOLLARS $150 million Funds subject to C4E $242 million $113 million $30 million New costs eligible for C4E funds Restricted C4E funds “Maintenance of Effort” for existing priorities

  7. FILLING THE GAP: DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SPARE SCHOOLS • We believe in maximizing the power of educators to decide how to spend money to help students learn. That’s why we’re cutting back as much as possible from central and other administrative expenses. • We are cutting $200 million from central and other non-school budgets. • These reductions include: • Identifying areas for operational savings, such as purchasing efficiencies and custodial spending. • Identifying savings in the central administrative budget of 6% and savings in the central headcount of 3%. For example, • Restructuring some of our accountability spending, including: • Transitioning Quality Reviews in house; • Allowing schools with strong outcomes on their Quality Reviews and Progress Reports to have Quality Reviews every 2 to 3 years instead of annually; • Reducing the number of annual periodic assessments in both Math and English Language Arts to 4 from 5. • Reducing program expenditures, such as New York City Teaching Fellows, when we’re confident it won’t have a negative impact on schools. • Identifying savings in the Integrated Service Center and other field offices’ budgets of 3% and identifying headcount savings of 4%.

  8. THIS LEAVES US WITH A GAP OF $99 MILLION WE MUST FILL

  9. IF SCHOOLS SHARED THE BURDEN, ALL WOULD EXPERIENCE A 1.4% REDUCTION • If we could distribute new State funds equitably, all schools would experience a 1.4% reduction in total spending power. Our preference is to distribute the new State money equitably to ensure that the reduction to our schools is the same across the board. • Unfortunately, due to restrictions the State has placed on most of its new operating aid, the impact on individual schools would vary greatly. • Adjusted for changes to teachers’ salaries required by collective bargaining and school register changes, some schools would lose as much as 6% of their spending power, while others would actually experience substantial increases under the State’s mandates.

  10. APPEALING TO ALBANY • We are appealing to Albany to make this more equitable for our schools. • As we work to resolve this issue, we are holding back $63 million in the State’s restricted operating aid. • If this money were distributed to schools according to Albany’s current rules, some schools would see an increase in spending power and some schools would see a decrease. • If distributed in an equitable fashion, these funds would bring all schools to a 1.4% reduction in spending power. We will finalize budgets once this issue is resolved in Albany. Contract for Excellence dollars are preliminary. These funds are subject to a public engagement process and approval by the State Education Department. This means that there could be changes in that budget line.

  11. WE ARE WORKING WITH SCHOOLS TO HELP THEM PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR • We must implement the necessary reductions so they are both fair and manageable for schools. • We are working with the State to get some flexibility so some schools aren’t destabilized in tough times. • ISCs and SSOs will work with principals as they plan for next year. • We are talking to principals directly about budget implications. • We will hold C4E hearings to get public input on how principals should spend contracts money. The goals of Fair Student Funding stay in place: putting as much money as possible in schools, distributing funds fairly, and bringing stability and transparency to school budgeting.

More Related