STATE BUDGET INFO

October 6, 2006

Dr. Rebecca Cort
Deputy Commissioner
NYS Education Department
1 Commerce Plaza, 16th floor
Albany, NY 12234

Dear Deputy Commissioner Cort:

            Your office suggested that we write to you about questions that have emerged from EPP’s analysis of special education staffing data provided by the NYC Department of Education to the NYS Education Department for the annual preparation of VESID’s PD-6 report on “Special Education Personnel Current and Projected Needs.” As you may remember, EPP’s interest in these PD-6 reports stems from the inclusion of this type of data in Vermont’s annual education report and the possibility of EPP’s recommending that a similar public reporting on special education staff be included in the annual New York, the State of Learning. More importantly, PD-6 reports serve as the basis for statements by education officials and experts that New York City’s special education staff-to-student ratios are higher than school districts in the rest of the state and in other urban school districts. Dr. Thomas Hehir’s report, Comprehensive Management Review and Evaluation of Special Education of September 2005 relies on PD-6 data to make such an assertion.

           Here is our question: Why is there so little correspondence between special education staffing levels in the NYC public schools as reported in PD-6 reports and changes in tax-levy expenditures for special education or staffing plans reflected in the city’s adopted budgets by the NYC Department of Education? The attached “Summary A” reflects the totals in Table B, our spreadsheet for the last three PD-6 reports, as well as for two prior years. Table C summarizes actual tax-levy expenditure data for special education by units of appropriation and IDEA revenue received by NYC (part of categorical funding) for the same three years from the NYC Comptroller’s Annual Financial Report. Table D compares funded positions as reflected in the city’s adopted budget. Here is how the PD-6 staffing data, tax-levy expenditures, IDEA revenue, and expected special education staffing levels in the city’s adopted budget line up:

While EPP would not expect a direct relationship between positions and tax-levy expenditures, there should be more of an impact on special education staffing levels from the dramatic $445 million drop in special education tax-levy expenditures in the 2003-04 year. In Table C EPP also looked at tax-levy personnel expenditures only and found that of the $445 million reduction, $436 million is attributable to reductions in personnel spending. We also compared IDEA revenue for these years. While the increase in IDEA revenue of $38.5 million in the 2003-4 school year reverses some of the impact of the decrease of $445 million in tax-levy spending, it not enough to make up for the shortfall. Even more perplexing, the city’s adopted budget summary of positions to be funded by unit of appropriation lists far fewer special education staff than the PD-6 reports, even accounting for the possibility that many of the titles under services and evaluation may be consultants or contractors. It may be that the additional staff positions are funded by IDEA and are included in the city budget’s unit of appropriation for categorical positions.

          As you may know, the 2003-04 school year was a year of re-structuring under the new governance system of mayoral control in New York City. District special education positions were eliminated by the beginning of the school year. The transition for special education programs was particularly difficult. In a survey of 200 school psychologists and administrators during the 2003-04 school year conducted by the NYC Public Advocate’s Office, 74 percent of the respondents stated that there was a backlog of students who had not been placed or given services. Worse, the survey found that special education staff were being pressured by school administrators to keep down the rates of student evaluations and placements. During this first year of restructuring, the Department of Education’s budget office had allocated funding for teachers using a formula that did not adjust for the smaller class sizes of special education teachers. Even though this mistake was corrected for the 2004-05 school year, principals still were reluctant to create special education classes. In the 2005-06 school year, after a series of focus group meetings with principals, the budget office began allocating funds for special education teachers based on class formation, not a student-to-teacher ratio. Thus, for a two-year period there were problems and disincentives in forming the requisite special education classes at the school level. This experience conforms to the pattern of special education expenditures as reported by the NYC Comptroller, but not the report on staffing in PD-6 reports.

          EPP has shared our comparison of expenditures from the NYC Comptroller’s reports with the Department of Education budget staff on two occasions. Their most recent response is included. Essentially, Ms. Olds and Ms. Sittenfeld state that there was a coding error that occurred in FY 04 and then again in FY 05. This was not mentioned in an earlier meeting that Dr. Joan Scheuer and I had with Mr. Feig, the former CFO, whose main objection to our expenditure comparison was that EPP had included special education administrators in the category we called “instruction.” At the end of this discussion there was agreement that the units of appropriation for special education were a “mess.” The “mess” could very well have included this coding error. If so, there still is a remaining mystery as to the special education staffing levels reflected in the city’s adopted budget in comparison with staffing levels reflected in PD-6 reports to the state. Do IDEA-funded positions make up this difference?

          Here are additional questions we have for you:

1. Has the NYS Education Department at any time verified the reliability of PD-6 staff reports?

2. Is it possible that the NYC Department of Education is listing “funded positions” rather than “filled positions” in PD-6 reports? Even though positions fall vacant, they remain “funded” so as to calculate contributions for unemployment insurance and other benefits.

3. Is it possible that the NYC Department of Education is including staff of non-public schools in New York City?

4. Is it possible that general education teachers were included in the count of special education teachers in the PD-6 reports? These general education teachers would not have the certificates required for each category of special education teacher.

          Given the frequent use of PD-6 summary data in making comparisons about special education staffing ratios, we would like to understand the cause for the disparities we’ve identified. If our analysis is erroneous, please inform us of where we need to correct our data. If there is no error in our analysis, we urge your Department to review PD-6 data over this three-year period. From your October 5th release on school districts “In Need of Assistance or Intervention,” EPP is well aware that your primary focus is to raise the achievement levels of children with disabilities, an effort we fully support. Nevertheless, staffing reports should be a reliable method for tracking changes in instructional services as well as providing basic information to predict future staffing needs and to improve capacity.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Braveman
Chairperson                                                                            

Noreen Connell
Executive Director

CC:      NYS Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi; NYC Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr.; Deputy Superintendent Linda Wernikoff, NYC Department of Education; Hon. Catherine T. Nolan, Chair, NYS Assembly Education Committee; Hon. Robert Jackson, Chair, NYC Council Education Committee; NYC Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum; Jily Levy, President, CSA; Carmen Alvarez, Vice President, UFT; Regent Merryl Tisch; Roger Maldonado

Click here for link to Table A Summary of state special education staff reports for New York City

Click here for link to Table B PD-6 reports for three years

Click here for link to Table C tax levy expenditures in city budget and IDEA revenue

Click here for link to Table D adopted city budget staff positions

Click here for response by DoE

Click here for DoE adjustments to Table C

[ Budget Info | FAQ NYC Students/Schools | State Funding Equity | Smaller Class Sizes | Facilities | Standards | Emergency Campaign Against Vouchers | Historical Facts | Lingo Translations | Best Schools/School Performance ]