| Author |
Message |
    
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 26071
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 - 10:23 pm: | 
|
Middle class just keeps paying out
An Albany (NY) Times Union Letter to the Editor
September 7, 2010
My school taxes are going up almost 3 percent this year. I do not know how much my state and federal taxes will go up yet. Why is it considered appropriate for these entities to simply make me pay more because they have spent more?
On my budget, when I do not have enough money we, as a family, do without until we have the money. I do not tell my employer I need a 5 percent raise to cover my spending. The employer would laugh in my face and rightly so.
I do not like to say no to my family or myself, for that matter, but it must be done at times.
Can we please elect some people this fall who will truly represent the working middle class? After all, we are the ones paying for all that our "representatives" are spending, are we not?
In the 30-plus years that I have been working and paying taxes, no one who works for or receives benefits from the government has ever thanked me for working and paying those taxes. Have they ever wondered where they would be without those of us who are working and paying taxes?
Maybe I sound a little tired of the "rob Peter to pay Paul," but I bet I am not the only one.
Peter E. Masti
Ravena
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 26040
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2010 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Putting Race to the Top $ into Perspective
by Robert Lowry / EdVANTAGE Blog
August 30th, 2010
I’ve been fielding questions about when districts might receive funding from the state’s Race to the Top grant and how much.
The short answer is I don’t know and it will likely take some time to resolve.
A longer answer might begin, “We all have other things to focus on while the financial details of the Race to the Top grant get worked out.”
As we tried to indicate to school district leaders considering whether to sign memoranda of understanding in support of the state’s application in January and again in June, the primary reason for doing so should be that the grant would provide financial support for valuable state-level initiatives not available from any other foreseeable source, not for its impact on district finances.
Here are some observations:
* The $696 million grant which the state won is to be received over a four year period.
* The state must still negotiate some details of the grant with the U.S. Education Department over the next 90 days.
* By law, states must allocate one-half their grant amount to local education agencies (LEAs — school districts and charter schools) according to shares under the federal Title I, Part A program.
* The $348 million required to be allocated to LEAs looks like a big number, but in the world of statewide school district finances it is not so big – the cut in state-funded School Aid this year was more than three times as large.
* Because of the requirement to allocate these funds according to Title I shares, New York City could receive about 70 percent of the half that must be distributed to LEAs. A preliminary, “ballpark” estimate of a grant for an individual district might be derived by multiplying its Title I, part A grant by 30 percent. Actual grants might be somewhat higher, because not every district signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to implement provisions of the state Race to the Top plan. Here is a link to a table of estimated Title I allocations for 2010-11.
* Whatever a district’s grant figure, it is the total amount the district will be eligible to receive over the four year period. Districts would NOT receive that grant amount each year for four years.
* Here is an excerpt from SED’s Q&A issued with its June MOU request to districts:
* “Grant funds will be distributed to participating LEAs using the standard grant process employed by NYSED for all federal grants (i.e., the FS-10/25/10F process). This process enables LEAs to draw down funds as needed to pay program costs while minimizing the time that elapses between the draw and disbursement by the subgrantee. Participating LEAs will be accountable for meeting annual performance goals and timelines. USED will award RTTT Phase 2 funds to states in September 2010. States will then have a four-year project period from the time of the award in which to implement their plans and spend their grant money. A similar timeframe will apply for participating LEAs.”
* The funds will only be allowed to be used to support initiatives in the state’s Race to the Top plan, not general ongoing operating costs.
* New York’s application promised that the state would use $129 million from its half of the grant to make additional grants to LEAs for specific initiatives. These funds will be allocated primarily through competitive processes and so no district funding estimates are possible at this time. Districts not receiving Title I, part A funds could receive funding through these initiatives.
* While the $348 million required to be allocated to districts is modest when measured against annual swings in School Aid, the $219 million to be used for direct state purposes is comparatively huge. The Education Department now receives only $42 million in state tax dollars to support its operating budget (staff salaries, travel, equipment, supplies, and contractual services). The part of the grant to be retained for direct state purposes exceeds the entire budget from all funding sources for SED’s office handling preschool through high school.
As we suggested in our statement on the state’s winning application, the Race to the Top grant provides an “otherwise unobtainable boost” to efforts to update and improve the infrastructure of the state’s education system – standards, assessments, curriculum, training for teachers and school leaders, data systems to track student progress, and programs to turn-around chronically struggling schools.
Details on the planned expenditures from the state’s grant are available here [pdf], starting on the page numbered “348 of 449″ or page 353. . . .
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 26008
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 10:47 pm: |
|
State Education Department posts 2010-11 School Aid estimates, including federal Education Jobs Fund allocation
by Robert Lowry / EdVANTAGE Blog
August 24th, 2010
The State Education Department has posted projections of 2010-11 School Aid under the state budget as it stands today.
The projections include district allocations from the state’s $607 million share of the federal Education Jobs Fund approved by Congress and President Obama earlier this month.
To see district specific figures, go here: https://stateaid.nysed.gov/output_reports.htm and enter the district name or six-digit “BEDS” code number. Then click “View District Data,” then “Estimates of 2010-11 State Aid.”
At the bottom of the report for each district is the caution, “NOTE: BY PART A, CHAPTER 313 OF THE LAWS OF 2010, THE ABOVE STATE AID AMOUNTS (EXCL FEDERAL FUNDS) MAY BE REDUCED BY APPROX 1%.”
As I have written previously, because the state is scheduled to receive less than the full $1.085 billion in supplemental federal Medicaid support the enacted budget assumed, the provisions of a contingency plan approved by Governor Paterson and the Legislature kick-in.
That legislation calls for equal percentage reductions in most areas of local assistance spending to cover the federal Medicaid shortfall, now estimated at about $280 million. Given its share of the affected spending, School Aid could face mid-year cuts of around $100 million, or about 1 percent. Payments beginning on or after September 16 could be reduced by that percentage.
It is customary for School Aid projections to include figures for the “base year;” in this case that would be the 2009-10 school year.
Those figures are omitted from these reports because the Governor and Legislature still have not decided whether to enact a freeze on data used to calculate aid for 2009-10.
Consistent with a proposal by the Governor, the Legislature was prepared to freeze the data used to calculate 2009-10 aid based on what was on file at the time the Governor released his proposed budget back in January.
In some aid categories such as special education, accurate data is not available to districts until after January.
Adopting the data freeze would require some districts to repay aid they have already received, because the state changed the law after the fact — after paying districts according to the laws it had in place when the payments were due.
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25997
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Point-counterpoint on charter school funding
by Robert Lowry / EdVANTAGE Blog
August 18th, 2010
One of the hanging issues left by the Governor’s veto of the budget bill amending provisions of law dealing education is that a freeze on required school district payment levels to charter schools was not extended. This creates much larger costs for districts, most notably Buffalo and Albany, than they were expecting when their local budgets were adopted.
The Governor vetoed the bill because of overall cost concerns, not the charter school tuition freeze, which he included in his proposed budget.
The Buffalo News has run point-counterpoint columns on charter school funding.
A charter school advocate argues, among other points, that charter schools are more efficient than district schools and receive only two-thirds of the per-pupil public funding of district schools.
The chief financial officer of the Buffalo public schools argues that, “The fundamental flaw in the charter tuition formula is the assumption that district costs are variable and follow the student. To the contrary, 86 percent of the district’s operating budget is fixed or mandated.”
 That's just ridiculous. Could it be possible that if every student left the Buffalo public schools for charter schools that the public schools would still be spending 86% of their full-enrollment budgets plus their transfers to charter schools? Of course not. This is just another example of public employees not telling you the whole truth. Go read the article. The chief is essentially arguing that since public school costs don't change when 1 student leaves they don't change no matter how many students leave. It's a blatant logical fallacy, and a practical lie. Why do our public employees persist in misleading the public?
She explains that the district carries substantial “legacy costs,” such as retiree health insurance, which must be paid, and has a more experienced and therefore more expensive workforce than charter schools.
The assertion that that charter schools receive only two-thirds the per-pupil funding of district schools is recited often and it is wrong.
The actual expenditure base used to calculate charter school tuition is between 75 percent and 80 percent of total district expenditures, on average. On top of the basic tuition payment, charter schools also benefit from public funding for transportation, various instructional materials, and some special education services.
One of our repeated criticisms [pdf] of the charter school law is that the funding mechanism virtually assures an adversarial relationship between charter schools and district schools, because the tax dollars going into charters come out of district schools and districts rarely, if ever, achieve savings to wholly offset that cost.
It is true that charter schools do not have an entitlement to public assistance in paying for facilities.
The law also discourages a district from collaborating with a charter school, for example by providing space, because it loses control over a portion of its budget: if spending cuts become necessary, the district cannot require a charter school to contribute to cost reductions, it must pay the tuition prescribed by law.
The tuition freeze is an attempt to address that reality.
Did public schools freeze their revenues? Certainly not. They have continued to ramp them up faster than inflation. Freezing charter school funding is simply another assault in a long series by public schools to hobble the competition.
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25969
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Tax cap bad for state's neediest students
By Charles S. Dedrick / Albany (NY) Times Union
August 14, 2010
A tax cap is a popular idea in New York these days, and education leaders certainly understand the need for property tax relief.
They "understand," but they are wholly unwilling to do anything about it. Sure, a tax cap is a bad idea. But taxing people out of their homes is a worse idea. Every plan creates winners and losers. Unless educators are willing to cut costs, they're going to have to hurt someone, and you can bet it won't be the ones who have disproportionately benefited from the way things are.
But before we embrace a tax cap as the cure-all, lawmakers must realize the unintended catastrophic consequence it would have on our most vulnerable school districts. There needs to be a better, fairer way to help New York's taxpayers without hurting our neediest students.
There it is folks. NY Educators are the biggest deceivers on the planet. No matter what the plan to control costs, it's devastating. It's catastrophic. And that, folks, is conclusive proof that educators are not willing to tell you the truth. Other states have tax caps. There are no reported catastrophes in these school systems. Tax caps do not determine how state aid is distributed. The disproportionate impact of tax caps can be offset by adjustments to state aid--if the legislature wants to do it. There is no impending doom here.
This past spring, school districts proposed budgets which, on average, achieved lower spending increases than the year before. Yet, they found it necessary to request somewhat higher tax increases.
Why did this occur? Because of what was happening with the third major piece in school budgets -- state aid.
That was part of it. Another part was inflation-busting increases in salaries. Another part was inflation-busting increases in benefits. Another part was inflation-busting increases in pension contributions. And there are many other parts, but you won't hear about them from educators who don't want to tell you the truth.
Understanding the role of state aid in school budgets helps illustrate some of the problems with a tax cap.
Imagine two districts, each with a $40 million budget. District A is a low-poverty district. So it receives 20 percent or $8 million of its revenues in state aid and raises the remaining $32 million for its budget through property taxes.
District B is a high poverty district and receives 60 percent of its revenues from state aid. It collects $16 million in property taxes.
Imagine that both districts develop budgets for next year that call for a 1 percent increase in spending -- a modest increase for any budget, but particularly as schools are faced with ever-increasing standards for student achievement.
This is utter crap on two levels. First, standards aren't increasing. They're simply being restored to their initial levels a decade ago after educators predictably gamed the testing system to create the appearance of improvement without actually producing it. Second, meeting standards does not have to cost more money. What you need is better thinking.
quote:You don't need massive amounts of money to make certain that there is a strong curriculum. You need to think about what it is we're asking children to learn. Strong teaching practices are not something you send away for, that you buy. . . . We have to think our way out of these problems.
--Richard Mills, New York Education Commissioner, October 23, 2001.
If the amount of state aid stays the same (possibly an optimistic assumption in our sluggish economic recovery), both districts would need to raise an additional $400,000 through property taxes to cover the 1 percent spending increase.
If New York adopted a 2 percent tax cap, as proposed by some, District A could balance its budget, raising up to an additional $640,000 through property taxes (2 percent of $32 million). But District B could only raise an additional $320,000 in taxes (2 percent of 16 million). It would be forced to make further cuts to balance its budget because it is able to raise an astounding 50 percent less than District A. This gap would grow exponentially, as year after year the tax cap would prevent District B from increasing its tax levy at the same dollar amount as District A.
Yes, and since the problem is so obvious, it is easily fixed with adjustments to state aid. Since educators control the legislature, how hard can it be to make the changes?
How is it fair that our neediest students should be in communities that are at the financial losing end of such a tax cap? How is that education for all?
Before a tax cap can be enacted, a fair and transparent funding formula needs to be created. Until then, the best way to truly help districts keep tax increases in check is to provide them with what they have requested for years: mandate relief. Examples of mandates to repeal have been offered in great detail by the New York State School Board Association, New York State Council of School Superintendents, the Suozzi Commission and others. Few if any have been enacted.
A red herring. Why? Because the whole public education enterprise is one giant unfunded mandate. Also because educators and school board associations have lobbied legislators to impose the mandates. Like salary steps, health insurance, pensions and more. Very few mandates of any budgetary significance have been imposed on schools without the implicit approval of educators, if not their explicit demand. So, why do educators and school boards keep harping on "mandates"? First, many in the public ignorantly buy it, and second, they want bargaining leverage. This isn't about controlling costs. It's about getting more of the mandates that benefit them and less of those that require them to work at the jobs they've been hired to do. Just look at Greece.
New Yorkers should not have to choose between high-quality education and property tax relief. If lawmakers can provide mandate relief and a school aid formula that is fair and equitable, then we can talk tax cap.
Always delay. There is no aid formula you can ever propose that doesn't help some more than others. There is no way to treat every district fairly because people disagree over what constitutes fair treatment. Consequently, what the writer is saying is that there are no conditions under which a tax cap can be an acceptable policy.
Until then, let's not doom our most vulnerable students to more years of failing funding formulas.
DOOM! DESPAIR! TRAGEDY! DEVASTATION! How can people with doctorate degrees be so stupid? I can tell you. An Ed. D. isn't worth a B.S. in lots of disciplines.
Charles S. Dedrick, Ed. D., is district superintendent of Capital Region BOCES.
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25960
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Popular tax cap faces Assembly, labor hurdles
By RICK KARLIN / Albany (NY) Times Union Capitol Bureau
August 8, 2010}
ALBANY -- When Gov. David Paterson talks about the need for a property tax cap in New York, he has people like Jim Burkhart in mind.
"That's why I moved out of New York," said the former Saugerties resident. "Between the property taxes and taxes on my income, I couldn't afford to live there anymore."
After his property taxes hit $3,400 in 2007, Burkhart left his hometown and headed for Huntersville, N.C.
A plumber, Burkhart found a job and a larger house on a bigger lot than he had in New York. He pays $900 in property taxes.
"Schools down here are excellent," he added. Burkhart says he has all of the government services he needs.
One grown daughter has already joined him, and he's trying to get another to come. Since he left, Saugerties' rates have risen. He was among the 1.5 million New Yorkers who left the state between 2000 and 2008, according to census data, making it the largest outflow among states.
* * *
Last week, as the state budget was being finalized, the Senate once again approved Paterson's tax cap proposal, which would limit to 4 percent or 120 percent of inflation -- whichever is less -- the amount that schools and local governments could increase their taxes each year.
This isn't a tax cap. It's a guaranteed annual increase in taxes masquerading as a tax cap. It's exactly the kind of dirty dealing, deceptive manipulation that has come to epitomize the worst state government in the USA. Every senator who voted for the "cap" should be booted out of office. We need a real "cap" that limits the total property taxes annually collected to 2% of the full property value with exceptions for voter overrides. Anything less is duplicity.
* * * *
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25953
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2010 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Local school districts welcome federal funds
Money still a stop-gap, officials warn
By George Basler • Binghamton (NY) Press Connects
August 5, 2010
Welcome news.
That's how some local school officials reacted Thursday to reports that schools across New York are in line to get more than $600 million in new education money under a federal aid package nearing final approval in Washington.
At the same time, they were cautious, noting that this is one-time funding that only delays a financial crunch that could come in the 2011-12 school year when districts are expected to face another bleak budget cycle.
One time funding? This is the third year in a row that the feds have boosted education funding.
My question is this: Will the federal funding be used to bump up the contingency budget for next year? If it does, the fed has just forced us to locally fund its generosity in perpetuity at the rate of inflation plus 20%. Who needs "gifts" like that?
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25950
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2010 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Pressure on state assembly to back property-tax cap
By Joseph Spector • Elmira (NY) Star-Gazette Albany Bureau
August 4, 2010
* * *
Assemblyman Gary Pretlow, D-Mount Vernon, Westchester County, said taxpayers go to the polls every year to vote on school budgets, which represent more than 60 percent of a homeowner's tax bill. They can have their say that way, he explained.
"I think that taxes are capped by the people already," Pretlow said. "I get kind of upset when I hear the complaints of people about high property taxes. By and large, those are school taxes, which they already voted on."
We vote IN RIGGED ELECTIONS! We don't get a FAIR vote. In most states NO means NO. There is no such thing as a NO vote in NY. You either vote for the budget or for a spending increase that is 120% of the rate of inflation.
Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, D-Ithaca, said she was against the Senate bill, saying, "I want to relieve property taxes, but I don't want to destroy our schools."
I'm convinced that when 28th century archeologists unearth evidence of our century, they'll be forced to conclude that we were electing baboons to public office. To force school districts to live within the means of their communities is nothing close to destruction. Every little nip and tuck from school budgets is portrayed as a catastrophe by educators and their supporters. The hyperbole is designed to quash discussion and castigate proponents of fiscal reasonableness.
Silver said Tuesday that there isn't enough support among Assembly Democrats to bring the issue to the floor for a vote.
* * * *
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25949
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2010 - 10:56 pm: |
|
Good news, for a change — federal help on the way for Medicaid and schools
by Robert Lowry / EdVANTAGE Blog
August 5th, 2010
If you're a banker, an auto maker or an educator, you gotta love recessions, don't you? The rest of you slobs not only have to deal with your own job losses and compensation reductions, you're also going to be handed the tax bill to pay for this. I guess that's what some people call social justice, or economic fairness, or something like that. I call it a scandal.
You will frequently read about school administrators and school board members decrying the loss of local control whenever the state or the feds want them to do something they don't want to do. But you don't hear a peep over the loss of local control of school budgets when it comes to shoveling tons of money into their budgets. They love out-of-control spending, as long as it comes their way.
Earlier in the week I reported that the Assembly and Senate had both approved Governor Paterson’s proposal to authorize equal, across the board reductions in most areas of state spending, including School Aid, in order to accommodate a feared loss of $1.085 billion in anticipated additional federal help in paying for Medicaid.
Yesterday, however, there was a breakthrough in the U.S. Senate, which approved an amendment continue some of this additional federal aid. The same legislation also authorizes an “Education Jobs Fund,” to help school systems create or maintain positions in the current school year.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass corresponding legislation early next week. The House has previously approved similar initiatives, so passage is deemed certain.
I estimated that the state’s contingency plan for handling the federal Medicaid shortfall could have translated into a $300 to $400 million current-year reduction in School Aid, based on its share of total state spending subject to the reductions.
The timing and amounts of additional Medicaid help are not completely clear, but it appears the state can count on at least $800 million in its current fiscal year. This would reduce the need for across the board reductions by more than 70 percent.
As noted, the legislation also includes funding for a long-discussed “Education Jobs Fund.” It is estimated that New York would receive over $600 million from this initiative for use in the current school year.
School districts would be required to use the funds
...only for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees, in order to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services.
Schools would be prohibited from using the aid for, “…general administrative expenses or for other support services expenditures as those terms were defined by the National Center for Education Statistics…”
The funding is to be allocated among districts according to the”…primary elementary and secondary funding formulae or based on local educational agencies’ relative shares of funds under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965…”
I am reputed to be one of the handful of people in our state who understand New York’s School Aid formulas. I am at a loss to identify what are now “the state’s primary elementary and secondary funding formulae.”
The legislation includes some complicated requirements for states related to maintaining their effort in funding education and higher education, and meeting various assurances concerning education reform efforts. It also prohibits states from placing the aid into “rainy day funds” or using it to reduce state debt.
The state is required to submit an application for the funding within 30 days after it is enacted into law.
At this moment my assumption is that the Legislature will need to reconvene to approve an appropriation and an allocation method.
Here is a report from the Associated Press on the legislation.
|
Jerry Moore (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 25937
Registered: 01-2000
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Legislature approves state budget contingency plan authorizing mid-year School Aid cuts and payment delays.
by Robert Lowry / EdVANTAGE Blog
Aug. 3, 2010
You'd be well advised not to skip the last sentence in this entry.
Today the Assembly and Senate approved an “FMAP contingency plan” proposed by Governor Paterson. The plan authorizes across the board mid-year reductions in most areas of state spending — including School Aid — in anticipation of a shortfall in federal Medicaid funding.
The same bill also authorizes a delay in School Aid payments scheduled to be made on or by the first business day in September. Instead, the payments would be made on or by September 30.
FMAP is the acronym for the Federal Medical Assistance Program, commonly referred to as Medicaid.
Like most other states, New York was counting a continuation of an increase in the federal share of Medicaid costs first enacted as part of last year’s stimulus plan. There are mounting fears that Congress will not approve that extension.
The contingency plan authorizes pro-rata reductions in most areas of state spending beginning on September 16, 2010 and continuing until the state has accumulated a savings of $1.085 billion – the full amount of additional federal Medicaid help the state was counting on receiving.
Some areas of spending are exempt from the reductions: public assistance payments to individuals, debt service payments which the state is constitutionally or contractually obligated to make), state agency operations (the Governor may cut that spending without legislative action and has done so), payments required by court orders or judgments, and payments to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority related to the Mobility Tax.
School Aid is not among the exempt categories.
School Aid comprises about 25 percent of total “state funds” spending – expenditures supported by the General Fund and special revenues (e.g., fees, the Lottery, other non-tax revenues).
But when the areas exempt from reductions are excluded, School Aid’s share of the remaining spending could approach 40 percent, suggesting that schools could face current-year aid cuts totaling around $400 million.
As I read the law, STAR property tax relief reimbursement payments would also be reduced.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
