|
| Printable
Version
Budget
Alert
April 24, 2003: New Contingency cuts
to the Public Schools
The Mayor's
Executive Budget, released last week, contains a $1 billion "contingency
program" of new cuts to municipal agencies if the state fails to provide
the city with additional funding. The Department of Education's share
of these cuts is surprisingly small, $120 million or 12%.
This is the running
total of projected city budget cuts for the 2003-04 school year (which
does not include state cuts, reoccurring cuts from previous years,
such as the $180 million to school districts, and self-imposed savings
plans):
$200 million (November)
$131 million (January)
$178 million (February, if no savings from unions)
$120 million (April, new contingency cuts, if no extra state funds)
-------------------------------------------------------------
$629
million total
The
good news
The new Maintenance of Effort law (MOE) has kicked in. The city can only
reduce its funding for schools by the same percentage that its own revenues
have declined. In previous rounds of municipal budget cuts for FY 04,
the schools' share ranged from 26% to 29%.
The
bad news
When the previous contingency cuts of $178 million were announced in February,
no details were given on how the Department of Education would absorb
them if unions did not come up with a city-wide savings target of $600
million. The Executive Budget provides details on both the February cuts
and the April contingency program. They seem designed to get the attention
of unions and parents through laying off a large number of low-wage workers
(aides and paraprofessionals), reductions in school supply money, and
the elimination of extra summer and after-school programs affecting students.
(See below for details or go directly to www.NYC.gov
and do an agency search for Management & Budget to get to the OMB
web page where you can download in pdf format sections of the Executive
Budget. The ones that are the most helpful are the Budget Summary
and Summary of Reduction Programs.)
The
very bad news
City budget officials assert that the MOE only applies to the city budget
adopted at the beginning of the fiscal year (July 1) and that the Mayor
has the latitude to further reduce funding to the schools in subsequent
modifications of the city budget. EPP does not know whether this opinion
is shared by state lawmakers, who provided the Mayor with control of the
Board of Education in exchange for the city's maintaining its fiscal effort
for public schools.
Note
on state cuts to education
Despite announcements in the press about restorations to New York City
public schools, we are in a waiting period. EPP has learned that the education
portion of the Assembly-Senate budget will come to the floor of both houses
on Monday, April 21 for a vote. Staffers and lawmakers on both sides of
the aisle indicate that $275 million in funding to pay for the 2002 UFT
collective bargaining contract will be repeated for a second time. It
is not considered part of state school aid. Both sides have also hinted
that a full restoration of the remaining $478 million in the Governor's
cuts to New York City schools may not be possible. The extent of
restorations will depend on whether there is an agreement on new taxes
and new budget gimmicks. It is expected that the Governor will veto this
budget (or most sections of it), so the drama will be if there are sufficient
votes in both houses to override a veto. This may not be the end of the
drama. When revenues decline, budget changes can occur in the fall through
a special session of the legislature.
Details:
The description of the
following cuts are for the $178 million announced in February and the
new contingency cuts of $120 million announced this April. For a fuller
list of all planned cuts, go to the OMB web site.
A.
Layoffs
Almost all of
them appear to be part-time workers with an average net savings in the
range of $15,000 per staff member after the costs of unemployment insurance
benefits are factored in. Therefore, 67 part-time positions have to be
eliminated for every $1 million in savings. Since there is an attrition
rate (people retiring or quitting) for these job categories, some of the
individuals receiving lay-off notices will be able to be reassigned immediately
or within a few months. OMB uses full-time equivalent positions (FTE)
to quantify job eliminations. Over the years, several internal management
studies have concluded that there is overstaffing in some aide and paraprofessional
classifications. EPP parent organizations are concerned about school safety
issues when fewer adults are in the building during the school day. Aides
are especially critical because they remain outside of the classroom during
the school day. The job cuts may be aimed at exerting pressure on the
DC 37 and UFT unions.
$30
million
Elimination of
194 out of 4,000 elementary and middle school paraprofessional positions
and 670 out of 900 high school general education paraprofessional positions.
No early-grade or special education paraprofessionals are included in
this round of layoffs.
$23
million
Elimination of
767 out of 8,100 school aide positions, whose duties include hall and
play-yard monitoring and handling of supplies.
$12
million
Elimination of
327 of 1500 family paraprofessional positions. Some of these duties will
be assumed by the newly created parent coordinator positions.
$11
million
Elimination of
300 out of 5,000 school lunch worker positions.
$9
million
Elimination of
70 out of 600 Substance Abuse Prevention Intervention Specialist positions
(called SAPIS workers).
$6
million
Reductions in
custodial helper positions through changes in allocations to custodians
and reduction of after-school programs. No layoff figures are given because,
technically, these are not employees of the DOE.
New
contingency job cuts:
$25
million
Elimination of an additional
815 school aide positions out of the remaining 7333 positions.
B.
Reductions in programs for students
These cuts impact
children, but they also reduce overtime for teachers (called per-session
pay). In EPP's survey of the nature of education-related constituency
contact with the neighborhood offices of members of the Black, Puerto
Rican & Hispanic Legislative Caucus, the most frequent program-related
inquiry was about after-school. Working parents, in particular, seek out
these programs. Their quality, however, can vary. Unfortunately, some
schools have shifted many of their untested subjects (like physical education
and art) to their after-school program. The impact on students of reductions
in summer school programs is more difficult to evaluate. The six-to-eight-week
program consists mostly of test preparation with highly-scripted instruction.
Research in other cities seems to indicate that there are no long-term
benefits from summer school for at-risk students. On the other hand, many
research studies also show that low-income children tend to lose ground
over the summer months.
$17
million
Reduction of contracts
with CBO's for after-school programs.
$13
million
Elimination of
non-mandated summer school for 29,500 students (these children will be
promoted to the next grade, but need extra academic help).
New contingency program cuts:
$70
million
Elimination of all after-school
educational programs.
$26
million
Elimination of
summer school for 42,321 early-grade students who are not tested, but
whose teachers have judged them as in need of extra academic help. Within
this figure is a $6 million reduction in administrative costs, including
transportation, planning, and assessments.
C.
Other cuts
Many of them seemed
to be targeted to cutting programs that are popular with teachers.
$35
million
Reduction in the
number of sabbaticals granted.
$16
million
Elimination of
Teachers' and Principals Choice'. In many schools this is the major source
of funding for paper supplies. These costs will be shifted to parents
and teachers. Given the importance of supplies at the school level, it
is disheartening that these programs are repeatedly chosen for the chopping
block.
$9
million
Reduction in central
administration allocations.
End
note. Two EPP member organizations have reported that in recent meetings
with City Councilmembers, there have been denials that their Fiscal 2004
Preliminary Budget Response includes additional cuts to the Board of Education
and meager restorations. Judge for yourself by going to www.council.nyc.ny.us
clicking on the link "Reports" and downloading Part V (see pages 8 to
11) and Part I (see pages 18 to 27).
|
