Huge budget cuts released for our schools; call the City Council to tell them no!

 June 7, 2022

Yesterday, school budgets for next year were released, and many if not most schools are facing MILLIONS of dollars in cuts compared to this year.  A good article about these proposed cuts is here.

You can find out how much your school’s budget has been cut by plugging its 4 digit DBN code into the DOE webpage here; and compare your school’s total Galaxy budget from 2022 to 2023 by scrolling to the bottom of the page and checking the Grand Total. (If you don’t know your school’s 4 digit code, you can find it by putting its name on the school search page here.  The first letter refers to the borough; then there is a three digit number that follows.)  Some schools, like Fort Hamilton HS in D20, will be cut by as much as $8 million; Forest Hills HS by $4 million.   

Now DOE has been telling reporters that some budget lines will be added later in the summer and fall -- but those are for small and specialized programs, and principals are told to plan staffing based on this budget now.  Already, we're hearing of teachers being excessed as a result, and the DOE itself projected the loss of thousands of teaching positions based on these cuts in the Executive budget.

If enacted, these cuts will make class sizes increase sharply and cause the loss of essential services to kids.  Clearly, neither the Mayor nor the Chancellor are planning to abide by the language or the intent of the new state law passed last week requiring smaller classes.    Meanwhile, it has been reported that the Council may announce a budget deal with the Mayor as early as this week that would cement these cuts in place. 

What can parents and teachers do?

1.Call your Council Members today and tell them to vote against any budget deal that includes these egregious cuts, and to let the Speaker know now that they will vote against a city budget that contains them.  These cuts will tremendously hurt schools and the kids in their districts, and especially in light of the new state class size law, they are potentially illegal. You can find their phone nos. here.   

2. Then call the Speaker Adrienne Adams and leave the same message: 212-788-6850.  

3. Then ask your principal if they are willing to talk on or off the record to me or a reporter about the likely impact of these cuts. So far, many teachers are expressing their outrage on twitter, but so far, I’ve seen no principal speak out. If they are willing, have them email us at info@classsizematters.org Their confidentiality will be protected.

But please make those calls today!

Thanks, Leonie

 

Last night's PEP meeting on Verizon contract and its "Norma Rae" moment

Last night's meeting of the Panel for Educational Policy meeting was exhilarating, stirring, and depressing all at once.   Over a thousand parents, teachers, and striking Verizon workers showed up for the pre-meeting rally, and hundreds more filled the auditorium afterwards at Murry Bergtraum HS, chanting, booing Walcott and the DOE, and speaking up passionately for the need for more caring education priorities, and against the $120 million Verizon contract, which will steal even more resources from our children and the company's workers.

This contract had at least  five strikes against it, each of which would have convinced any individual with a conscience to oppose it, but was nevertheless rubber-stamped by the mayoral appointees (known collectively as the Panel of Eight Puppets, though the chair, Tino Hernandez, was absent), with  four borough reps all voting no.  

This, at a time when our school budgets are being slashed to the bone for the fifth year in a row, and while spending on testing, technology, consultants, bureaucrats, and private contracts like this one are ballooning into the billions.  The resulting cuts are forcing principals to raise class sizes to thirty (even in grades 2 & 3) teach classes themselves, and patrol the halls, as today's  Times article makes clear.

Here is some media coverage of the meeting from the Times, Daily News, Post, NY1.  None of it really captures the intensity of the evening, though the NY1 video comes closest.

Two unmentioned yet electric moments: Patrick Sullivan, Manhattan rep to the PEP and blogger here, revealing  that the Verizon contract actually releases the company from any legal obligation to fulfill their duties in case of a strike(!).  Also,  Dmytro Fedkowskyj, Queens rep, who, in response to DOE counsel Michael Best droning on how Verizon has agreed to pay back any profits they inappropriately received through the fraudulent scheme masterminded by Ross Lanham,  pointed out that the letter the company executives sent yesterday to the PEP contradicts this, as it claimed that they did nothing wrong.  Dmytro called this "insulting," and Walcott admitted that he did not "appreciate" the letter. (!!)

See below, for a "Norma Rae" moment, as Amy Muldoon, a passionate Verizon striker and mom, calls out the DOE for their contempt for workers, kids, and NYC taxpayers, while holding her baby in her arms.

No Test Left Behind--Courier it!

Thanks to Juan Gonzales’ sleuthing, we learn that DOE has become a client of private courier services to the tune of $5 million a year (see today's Daily News). What needs to be transported so urgently and securely? The periodic assessments mandated by Klein, for one. The Office of Accountability will be spending $2 million or so this year alone to pick up the tests from schools and deliver them to DOE for processing.

One of those tests was delivered to Stuyvesant High School, where yesterday students took an assessment of their “readiness” to take the Integrated Algebra Regents (successor to Math A). The Office of Accountability deemed this necessary even though Stuyvesant's New York State School Report Card shows not a single one of the 2756 Stuyvesant students who took Math A during the reported 3-year period got below 65; indeed, depending on the year, 98%, 99% and 100% of students got 85 or better. This kind of performance, basically repeated for all Regents, had spared Stuyvesant students from the mindless Tweed assessment machine. No more—it seems they will now be taking “readiness assessments” for all the required Regents.

Absolutely no educational purpose is achieved by measuring Stuyvesant students’ readiness to take any Regents test. Even if they were sent by pack mule, tests cost the system real money and this utter waste at a time of fiscal emergency is unconscionable. Ironically, as the kids were dutifully taking the superfluous assessment, Stuyvesant's Principal was informing the School Leadership team that next year’s budget will not have enough money to allow students to register for the 8 or 9 classes they traditionally take.

What are Klein’s priorities? Educating our kids or lining the pockets of private contractors?

Paola de Kock

Manhattan President Scott Stringer -- Letter on PEP Budget Vote

THE CITY OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN

SCOTT M. STRINGER
BOROUGH PRESIDENT

June 26th, 2008

Dear Manhattan Public School Parents:

On Monday, June 23rd, the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) voted
on the executive budget for New York City public schools. As may
already know, my appointee to the PEP, Patrick Sullivan, voted
against the proposed budget, and I am writing to share with you the
reasons that Patrick and I felt it necessary to vote no.

The state law is clear from my perspective. The PEP is
supposed to "approve an estimate of the total sum of money deemed
necessary for school operations in the next fiscal year." The
budget presented by the Chancellor of the Department of Education
(DOE) would require cuts to all schools, some ranging from five
percent or higher. The proposed budget with these cuts would, in my
view, not be sufficient to fund school operations. Consequently,
pursuant to the PEP's duties as outlined in state law, Patrick and I
felt he simply could not approve of the proposed budget.
Furthermore, rather than propose an estimated budget that sets forth
the funding to meet schools' needs, it appears that the Chancellor's
budget instead starts with the funding provided by the Mayor and
reduces expenditures until a balance is achieved. This is not the
way state law dictates the budget should be presented to the PEP,
the Mayor and the City Council for approval.

My concern is that the proposed budget will require cuts to
essential programs such as academic intervention and tutoring,
including programs for those students at risk of being held back
under the third, fifth, seventh, and eighth grade retention
policies, arts, music, sports, enrichment programs, advanced
placement courses, after school programs, professional development,
technology, libraries, and classroom supplies. Many schools facing
the deepest cuts would likely lose teaching staff as well.

The lack of disclosure and transparency also made it extremely
difficult to assess the sufficiency of the budgeted funding. DOE
refused to provide budget code level detail (which would provide
information about the cuts or lack of cuts taking place at the
central level) or respond in writing to Patrick's questions about
cost increases.

What we do know about DOE's itemized $963 million in cost increases,
however, is cause for concern. DOE has embarked upon a series of
initiatives that are all extremely expensive including the retention
of thousands of students, the ramp-up in standardized testing and
test prep, the creation of charter schools, the expansion of
collaborative team teaching (CTT) classes, and the restructuring of
large high schools into small high schools. While some of these
programs are clearly beneficial and the efficacy of others is
subject to debate, the fact is that each one alone costs hundreds of
millions of dollars annually. The decision to proceed
simultaneously with many expensive initiatives while the mayor has
asked DOE to reduce its budget by $428 million raises questions
about the fiscal management of the school system. While we are
fortunate to have an additional $608 million in state funding, our
oversight of finances must be rigorous if we are to avoid harmful
cuts to the classroom.

My hope is that the Mayor and City Council can work together to
achieve an education budget that does not affect the quality of
education provided to Manhattan's children. I will join parents in
asking that the final budget restore the cuts and thus the City's
commitment to its children.

Very truly yours,
Scott M. Stringer

Manhattan Borough President

MUNICIPAL BUILDING
1 CENTRE STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
PHONE (212) 669-8300
FAX (212) 669-4305
www.mbpo.org
bp@manhattanbp. org

Every day in June: Littlest Protestors "Storm" DOE

Public school kids will protest at Tweed every day in June to protest the budget cuts.

Here is the line-up for this coming week:

Monday, June 9th – PS 75M students arrive at Tweed Courthouse, 12:30 PM

Tuesday, June 10th – Central Park East II –10:00 AM

Wednesday, June 11th – TBA

Thursday, June 12th – Six Schools from District 2 – 12:30 PM

Friday, June 13th – High School Kids Express Solidarity Murrow/Stuyvesant – 4:00 PM

To join or find out more: contact the Kids Protest Project

An open letter to Anthony Weiner

Dear Mr. Weiner,

You are quoted in the Daily News as supporting Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein in blaming the state for the school budget cuts. I know that you wish to be Mayor, and thus preserve mayoral options, but I would suggest that position is inappropriate in this case.

The funds that the city is receiving under the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (C4E) are received as the result the settlement of a lawsuit. The settlement included the agreement by the city that it would not reduce its funding of the schools if the state increased its funding. i.e., It could not offset city funds with state funds. Further, there was an agreement that a certain part of the increased state funds were to go to low performing schools.

Thus, when Mayor Bloomberg reduces the actual school budget by so much as a penny, and when Chancellor Klein accepts this, the city is in violation of terms that it agreed to when the state provided several billion dollars of additional funds.

Further, when Chancellor Klein argues that he should be able to spend these funds as he wishes, he knows perfectly well that even if the state permitted him to do so, he would then be in violation of the terms of settlement, and would thus reopen the lawsuit.

I think that there are only two possible conclusions that may be drawn from Chancellor Klein's arguments. Either he is an incompetent lawyer or a liar. Neither one is flattering to the schools chancellor.

As for the Daily News "hyped up arguments" of "school advocates" I don't understand how they can say that cutting over a million dollars from a school budget will not have a significant effect. In the case of LaGuardia High School, the Board of Ed website says that the budget will be cut $1,323,806 from what it was at the start of this school year! Where does that kind of money come from, other than brutally cutting programs?

The News talks about budget increases for the schools over many years, citing a 63% increase. That is not quite the truth. l know, budgets must increase merely to cover the cost of increased salaries and the price of materials that the schools buy. That does not provide money for the schools to do any more than they did before.

And we have no idea how much money went to the schools, and how much went to Tweed (headquarters), outside consultants (often under no bid contracts), how much was give away to charter schools, how much was squandered by hiring additional bureaucracy for "small" schools, and spent in other areas of the system but not the schools. When we are provided with this data, perhaps we can determine the actual percentage increase that real city schools received.

--Eugene Falik, parent at La Guardia High school

Fierce budget battle at City Hall

The headlines tell the story. Chancellor Talks of Cuts for Schools, Amid Hissing; City Council spanks Chancellor Klein over school aid cuts; School Budget Cuts Controversy Boils Over; Hundreds Of Parents Ejected From City Council Hearing.

Yesterday, it was standing room only at City Hall, as Chancellor Klein and Dept. Grimm testified for nearly four hours before the City Council on the budget cuts for schools proposed for next year.

Klein was uncharacteristically subdued, as he was gently but firmly admonished by Speaker Quinn, angrily confronted by Education committee chair Robert Jackson and strongly challenged by nearly every other member of the Education and Finance Committees.

Quinn began by saying that the Council “cannot in good faith support” the amount of cuts to the classroom proposed by the administration. “We are going to work hard to find other places to cut to get monies back to the classroom” she said; “we have no more important job.” She asked Klein, “Aren’t there choices to be made that would have less impact on schools?” and suggested reductions in the private contracts budget, which is slated to rise another $250 million next year. Several members said testing might be another place to look. At one point, Kathleen Grimm admitted that the city's “diagnostic assessments” were costing $24.1 million a year.

Robert Jackson said the actual hit to schools was “more than $180 million” rather than the $99 million as first suggested in news accounts, and that the schools actually need $200 million just to keep services level, given increased costs. And why, he asked, did the city need to go back on its promise made last year to fully fund the CFE decision, given a city budget surplus of $4-5 billion– while the State fulfilled its promise, despite a large deficit?

Several members echoed these concerns, pointing out how difficult it would be to go back to Albany next year, and demand another funding increase when the city had reneged on its side of the bargain. John Liu also mentioned the possibility of tinkering with the property tax rebate of $400, which will cost the city another $250 million. (Not to mention the planned reductions in the property tax rate, which will cost another $1 billion in revenues.)

Many were critical of the way in which the Chancellor appeared to be manipulating the situation, pitting parents against each other by threatening to cut high performing, mostly white schools by a large percentage if Albany didn’t give him more “flexibility” with the Contract for Excellence funding meant to go primarily to low-performing schools.

Jackson said Klein was “holding a gun up to Albany’s head” and called it a "divide and conquer" strategy: "Some people would say rich versus poor...those that are white majority versus minority."

The Chancellor’s presentation (in pdf) showed increased funding for schools from the city in past years; a point he returned to several times in trying to justify the cuts for next year. (This excuse is a little like a student saying, “I did my homework last year; why should I have to do it this year?”) Needless to say, the Council wasn’t buying his line.

Speaker Quinn asked Klein directly what extra funding would be needed to avoid any cuts to schools – the $99 million he says he is taking directly from school budgets, or the $190 million that the Council analysis shows is actually being imposed in “back door” cuts, as new expenses are going to be shifted to the school level, such as computer repairs and the food consumed by students whose parents don’t fill out free lunch forms.

The Chancellor replied he would need an extra $400 million to avoid any cuts to schools– a figure that made no sense to any one. In fact, Council Member Oliver Koppel said at one point, "To tell you the truth, I don't believe you…You should hire a new accountant.”

There were a lot of other discrepancies in the accounting. Instead of the $200 million in cuts Klein claimed to be taking “centrally and in other non-school budgets”, the analysis by the City Council staff posted here shows that only about $12 million is to be cut directly from Tweed, primarily through a hiring freeze. (Meanwhile, see this blog posting from Eduwonkette which shows a steady increase in the headcount at Tweed over the last four years.)

Klein also admitted that his personal staff of 8 was costing $968,000 – averaging $121,000 each, rather than the $1,117 total claimed in the budget submitted to the Council, and that the accountability office now has a head count of 97, rather than only 18 staffers, as was in the same document.

The Chancellor added that there would be a substantial increase next year -- $154 million – in the so-called “indispensable initiatives” of the administration, most of which were unspecified, but include even more new small schools, the Leadership Academy, etc. (By the way, this does not include the increased payments to charter schools – which have totaled nearly $100 million more in funding over the last two years.)

It was a difficult day for the Klein, who usually likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Martin Luther King and Brown Vs. Board of Education, as he tried to explain why he wants to change the rules so that the portion of state aid allocated through the Contracts for Excellence should be allotted to high-performing schools in the exact same ratio as struggling schools. He seemed to claim that with his highly-flawed “Fair student funding” formula he’s done everything necessary to help these schools -- and to narrow the achievement gap.

Clearly this is an administration that has run out of new ideas – and run out of excuses.

There were hisses and boos from the audience throughout, and at one point, a large contingent of parents in the balcony started chanting “Chancellor Klein, don’t cut a dime” and was ejected by the guards.

See NY Times, Daily News, CBS news, NY1 and video clips from ABC news.