Can’t Get There From Here
Budgeting challenges call for new directions in state policy to help schools raise student achievement
2nd Annual Survey of New York State School
Superintendents on Financial Matters
November 2012
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
1
Table of Contents
Page Highlights………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Introduction………………………………………………………….………………….. 3
Overall Fiscal Condition……….….…………………………….………………….. 7
Budgeting Choices………………..………………………….………………………. 13 Personnel………………………….………………….……………………………..… 14 Instruction…………………………………….….……………………………………. 15 Other direct student services…………………..………………..……………. 16 Operations, maintenance and construction……………….…………….. 16 Other actions…………………..……………………………………………………… 16
Impact of 2012-13 Budget Decisions…………………………..………………. 17
Adapting to the Tax Levy Cap……………………………………………………… 21 Assessing the impact……………………..…………………….…………..…….. 21 Tax levy cap impact on collective bargaining…….………………..…….. 22
Implementing Evaluation Reforms……...……………………….….…………. 24 Anticipated cost impact………………..………………………….………………. 24 Demands on administration.……..…….…………….………..………………. 25
Looking Ahead………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Anticipated cost pressures………………..…………………….……….………. 28 Tax cap or state aid – which is the greater concern?...................... 29 Priorities for mandate relief…….…………………………………….…….……. 30 Priorities for new funding……………………………………………..…….……. 33
About the Survey: Between August 16 and September 3, 2012, the New York State Council of School Superintendents conducted an online survey of its members who are superintendents on budgeting concerns for their districts. The survey was conducted using the services of K12 Insight, a strategic partner of the Council.
A total of 249 superintendents submitted complete responses, a response rate of 40.4%. Incomplete submissions from 47 superintendents were also included in the results.
Superintendents serving the Big 5 Cities (New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, and Syracuse) and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services were not included in the survey because their systems’ budgets are not subject to voter approval and consequently do not report some of the financial data available for small city, rural and suburban districts.
The Council conducted a similar survey in 2011, with a similar response rate. In some instances, we compare results between the two years. However, the samples are different, since some of the superintendents responded in one year and not the other.
Finally, K12 Insight’s survey tools permit extensive cross-tabulations and we do report some findings broken down by region or district character (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural). Particularly when examining regional results, it is possible that the districts whose superintendents responded are not fully representative of their region. We do find some regional results to be more positive than anecdotal exchanges with district officials would have caused us to anticipate.
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
2
HIGHLIGHTS
The survey: The Council of School Superintendents conducted an online survey of its members on school fiscal matters; 249 superintendents (40.4%) submitted complete responses. Partial responses from 47 superintendents were also counted. Because their school budgets are not subject to voter approval, superintendents serving the Big 5 Cities and BOCES were not included in the survey. The Council conducted a similar survey in 2011.
Overall condition: 52% of superintendents say their district’s financial condition is worse or significantly worse than a year ago. In 2011, 75% of superintendents said their districts’ condition had worsened. The share of city superintendents reporting their districts’ financial condition is poor or very poor rose sharply, from 24% to 43%.
Reliance on reserves: 83% of superintendents are concerned or very concerned by their district’s reliance on one-time resources (reserves) to fund recurring costs. Without the use of fund balance this year, districts would have needed to raise taxes by 7 percent more than they actually did, or make cuts of corresponding magnitude.
Financial insolvency: 9% of superintendents say that within two years, given current trends, their districts may become unable to ensure some financial obligations will ever be paid. This share would equate to roughly 60 districts. Altogether 41% foresee reaching that condition within 4 years. North Country superintendents foresee the most immediate threats.
Educational insolvency: 18% of superintendents say that within two years, given current trends, their districts may become unable to fund all state and federal mandates for instruction and student services. 77% foresee reaching that condition, either within 4 years or beyond. Again, concern is most immediate in the North Country.
Job cuts: Districts reduced their workforce by an average of 3.9% this year, on top of 4.9% in 2011-12. Reductions were generally steepest among city and rural districts and in non-teaching student support positions.
Salary and benefit concessions: 35% of superintendents report a cost saving agreement with their teacher union this year, the highest percentage in 3 years. 45% percent report agreeing to freeze their own salary or make another cost saving adjustment – as in 2011, this is a higher share than for any other employee category.
Instructional cuts: 59% of districts increased class sizes this year, compared to 48% in 2011-12. 31% reduced summer school. 31% reduced or deferred purchases of instructional technology– at a time when technology is seen as a key to improving outcomes and reducing costs.
2012-13 budget impact: More than 40% of superintendents said their district’s budget this year had a negative impact on core elementary school instruction, extra help for students who need it, operations and maintenance, extracurricular activities, athletics, and administration
Tax levy cap: 67% of superintendents said that the new property tax levy cap led their district to adopt a spending level below what would have been done otherwise. 60% said the cap caused their adopted budget to have a more negative impact on programs than would have otherwise occurred. 59% said the cap makes it more likely that they will be able to negotiate cost savings with their teacher union – or that it had already had that impact.
Teacher/Principal Evaluations: 70% of superintendents said new requirements for teacher and principal evaluations will require their districts to spend significantly more than under prior practices. Professional development (training) needs are seen as the biggest cost-driver followed by new student assessment costs. 40% of superintendents say teacher evaluations will now consume more than 40% of a typical principal’s time, raising concerns about how to balance other responsibilities.
Tax cap or state aid – which is a greater concern?: Asked which is the greater financial concern for their districts – the tax levy cap or possible future state aid levels – 44% picked state aid (up from 23% in 2011), 13% chose the tax cap (down from 25%), and 43% said they are of equal concern. In poorer upstate regions away from the Hudson River, only 5% of superintendents now pick the tax levy cap as the greater concern.
Priorities for mandate relief: Superintendents’ top mandate relief priority is to amend the Triborough law’s guarantee of “step” increases after a collective bargaining agreement has expired. Actions to reduce health care costs and stop unfunded mandates were other leading priorities.
Priorities for new spending: As in 2011, providing more extra help for students who need it emerged as the top priority should new funding become available.
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
3
Introduction
This is a report chiefly about the financing of
education. But the real business of schools is
learning, preparing young people to thrive in life
beyond school.
The surveys we summarize in this report explain
the financial obstacles that school leaders foresee in
their efforts to deliver that result for all the children
and young people they serve.
The challenge and the mission New York is a hugely diverse state, in ways that
can inspire or discourage. Those disparities appear in
schools, as well as other aspects of our state.
We are home to some of the nation’s absolute best
public schools. Perennially, we dominate the Intel
Science Talent Search. We rank second among the
states in percentage of high school graduates earning
a three or better on Advanced Placement exams.
At the same time, by one measure, we rank 44th in
high school completion rate for African-American
students, and 45th for Hispanic students.
We usually lead the nation in per pupil spending,
along with our neighbors in the northeast. Yet we
also have among the widest gaps in spending between
high and low poverty school districts, exceeding all
our neighbors.1
Now the long quest to lift all students to high
school completion by has been joined by a new goal –
not just in our state, but across all states: to
guarantee every graduate finishes school prepared to
succeed in college, a career, or both.
That goal ought to be a common sense propo-
sition: if a son or daughter meets the expectations
schools and the State of New York have set for
earning a high school diploma, that achievement
should attest he or she is prepared to succeed in the
next steps toward adult life.
The goal also matches the promise of the state
constitution – “…a system of free common schools,
wherein all the children of this state may be
1 Education Law Center, Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card. June 2012.
educated.” Courts have interpreted the promise to
mean schooling that prepares students for the adult
responsibilities of competitive employment and civic
participation, voting and jury service.
High rates of remedial class-taking in college
provide one piece of evidence that we have work to do
to guarantee real readiness for adult challenges.2 It is
true that if this shortfall could be fixed in an instant,
colleges would strain to adapt. Also, America’s
generosity with second chances is a national strength.
But the demands that an aging population will pose
on public resources in years to come require all our
public enterprises to become more efficient.
There is another practical imperative. Middle skill
jobs have been disappearing, consigning workers to a
choice of extremes and contributing to a widening in
income inequality.3 More than ever, a future worth
aspiring to demands educating for higher skills.
Our surveys illustrate one set of obstacles in our
path to that destination.
Two surveys, a common theme: alarm for the future A year ago, the New York State Council of School
Superintendents published results from our first-ever
comprehensive survey of our members about their
districts’ budgeting choices and financial prospects.
Stressing that districts had already been through two
difficult years before the survey, the report noted,
“Concern over the accumulating impact of past
budget choices is compounded by what lies on the
horizon for schools – rising expectations combined
with diminished revenues.” The report found “near
universal alarm about future prospects.”
THE COUNCIL conducted a second finance survey
just before the start of this school year. We conclude
that the level of alarm over the future has not
diminished, although the pace of deterioration in
school finances may have slowed.
2 For example, see Testimony of Drew Matonak, president of Hudson Valley Community College, New NY Education Reform Commission, July 10, 2012. 3 Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Regional Economic Press Briefing on Job Polarization and Rising Inequality (May 30, 2012).
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
4
Last year vs. this year Comparing results on questions posed in both
years, a reader might conclude that, since smaller
percentages of superintendents gave negative
responses this year, conditions are improving. A key
point, however, is that negative impacts accumulate,
making future budgeting challenges greater.
For example, for 2011-12, superintendents
reported eliminating an average of 4.9 percent of
school positions. For 2012-13, that figure declined to
3.9 percent. But the implication is that districts have
eliminated an average of 9 percent of their positions
over the past two years, and would face more painful
personnel choices if future budgets demand more
cuts.
Insolvency New questions asked in the 2012 survey draw into
focus the financial threats school leaders anticipate.
In recent years, warnings that school districts and
municipalities are threatened by insolvency have
swelled. We asked superintendents, “Do you foresee
a point at which your district would be unable to
ensure that some of its financial obligations will ever
be paid?”
Statewide, 9 percent of superintendents anticipate
their districts could reach that position within two
years. That share would equate to roughly 60
districts. Altogether, 41 percent of superintendents
foresee facing that definition of insolvency within
four years.
Retaining the capacity to give all students a
meaningful education is an even wider concern than
just preserving financial solvency.
Statewide, 18 percent of superintendents foresee
their districts reaching a point within two years
where funding all state and federal instructional and
student service mandates will no longer be possible.
Half of all superintendents anticipate their districts
will fall into that state within four years.
Insolvency fears are especially acute in the North
Country, for example. Within two years, 25 percent
of North Country superintendents see their districts
facing financial insolvency, and 50 percent anticipate
educational insolvency.
Why? Why do school district leaders look to the future
with such alarm? We see at least five reasons.
First, schools have already been through a
prolonged stretch of difficult budgeting. The “low-
hanging fruit” – easier budget balancing options –
have already been implemented.
Most state aid was capped in 2009-10, then cut in
both 2010-11 and 2011-12. Districts typically did not
turn to local tax increases to offset the austerity in
state aid to the extent they did in prior periods.
Proposed tax increases during the recent span
averaged 2.9 percent – more than five points below
the 8.2 percent average increases proposed in 2003,
the last time aid was cut.
Second, some large and hard to control costs
have been surging.
We estimated that pension and health insurance
costs alone would have driven up total school
spending an average of 2.5 percent in both 2010-11
and 2011-12, even if all other costs could have been
frozen. These are hard to control costs: schools
cannot reduce pension obligations except by cutting
jobs and, like all employers, they struggle with health
care costs. Actual overall school spending increases
proposed by districts averaged under 1.4 percent both
years, indicating that districts cut other expenses to
absorb those costs.
Growth in pension costs slowed some for the
current year, but last month the State Teachers
Retirement System projected that employer
contribution rates will need to increase from 11.84
percent to between 15.5 and 16.5 percent in 2013-14.
8.2%8.7%
7.5%
6.1%
4.3%3.7%
2.1%
3.2% 3.4%
2.2%
4.8%
6.9% 6.6% 6.3%6.1%
5.3%
2.3%
1.4% 1.3%
1.7%0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Perc
ent c
hang
e ov
er p
rior
yea
r
Schools were holding down taxes and spending before the tax cap
% Change in proposed tax levy % Change in proposed school spending
SOURCE: Council analysis of NYSED Property Tax Report Card data ; Big 5 Cities not included
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
5
The contribution rate is applied against the payroll
for employees in TRS, so the rate increase is equiva-
lent to mandating districts to absorb a cost equal to
giving all those employees 3.6 to 4.6 percent raises,
on top of any actual raises. Had the size of this
increase been known at the time of our survey,
results might have been even more pessimistic.
There are other costs to absorb. A rule of thumb is
that “step” increases in collective bargaining agree-
ments – additional pay for an additional year of ser-
vice – are commonly around 2 percent. With payroll
typically accounting for half of school spending, a 2
percent increase in salaries alone would translate into
a 1 percent increase in overall spending. The state’s
Triborough law guarantees payment of these
increases even after a collective bargaining agreement
expires. Superintendents see Triborough as an
obstacle to negotiating both restraint on salary
growth and actions that could save on health
insurance. In the survey, superintendents identify
amending Triborough and prescribing minimum
employee contributions for health insurance as their
two top priorities for mandate relief.
Third, at least from a district-level perspective,
state government’s appetite for mandates on schools
has not been satisfied.
The Board of Regents and State Legislature have
approved limited changes in special education man-
dates. District sharing opportunities through Boards
of Cooperative Educational Services and joint pur-
chasing have been expanded. But these are small
steps. Governor Cuomo’s “Tier VI” pension reform
proposal was enacted and will significantly shift the
balance of costs from districts toward employees, but
its near-term savings impact is limited.
At the same time, THE COUNCIL’s surveys find
schools straining under new mandates arising from
the Regents Reform Agenda and the state’s commit-
ments under its federal Race to the Top grant.
In our 2011 survey, 77 percent of superintendents
said the cost of implementing Race to the Top items
would significantly exceed their funding from that
grant. This year, 70 percent said that new teacher
and principal evaluation requirements will require
significantly greater expenditures than past practices.
Beyond the monetary costs, the demands new
mandates create for school administration are
causing alarm too. Statewide, 73 percent of superin-
tendents predict that conducting teacher evaluations
will now require more than 30 percent of a typical
principal’s work week, raising concerns about their
availability to handle everyday student and family
issues. At the same time, our surveys indicate that
districts have cut their administrative staffs by an
average of 12 percent over the past two years.
Fourth, schools have been drawing from reserves
to avert actions that would have had even greater
negative impacts on students, local taxpayers, or
both. Barring a reversal in other financial trends,
that option will be exhausted.
The State Education Department has reported
that school district “rainy day” reserves shrank from
$2.76 billion in 2009-10, to $1.21 billion in 2012-13.4
Without use of “appropriated fund balance” in their
budgets this year, districts would have needed to
raise taxes by 7 percent more than they proposed (by
9.2 percent, instead of 2.2 percent), or make cuts of
corresponding scale. Among the poorest 10 percent
of districts, tax increases averaging 21 percent would
be needed to replace these temporary resources. In
open-ended comments, several superintendents
warned that their districts’ financial condition will
deteriorate rapidly as reserves are eliminated.
Fifth, approximately 92 percent of school district
revenues – local taxes and School Aid – are now
subject to state imposed growth limits.5
The property tax levy cap makes it harder for
school districts to gain voter approval for local tax
increases, and imposes harsher consequences if voter
approval is not obtained – districts are foreclosed
from any increase in tax levy.
As the chart on page 4 showed, school leaders
were holding down tax and spending increases even
before the cap became law. The cap has caused
4 New York State Education Department, “2012 Regents School Finance Symposium: Improving Student Learning in Fiscally Challenging Times,” September 11, 2012. 5 New York State Education Department, ibid.
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
6
further restraint, however. Responding to our survey,
67 percent of superintendents said the cap had led
their districts to adopt a lower budgeted spending
level than would have otherwise occurred.
The test of a budget is not only whether it attains a
numerical balance, but whether it advances larger
purposes as well. Statewide, 60 percent of
superintendents believe the tax levy cap caused their
districts to adopt budgets with a more negative
impact on programs and services than would have
happened without it.
Supporters have characterized the tax levy cap as
a blunt instrument that will ultimately force tighter
budgeting at the local level and action on mandate
relief at the state level. Fifty-nine percent of
superintendents do foresee the cap providing
leverage to negotiate savings agreements in collective
bargaining with their teacher unions.
Less known is that the other major school revenue
source – state aid – is also subject to a cap now. Tied
to yearly changes in the total personal income of state
taxpayers, the cap provided for a 4.1 percent ($805
million) increase in School Aid this year and is
expected to allow for a lesser increase in 2013-14.
Below is a chart comparing the per pupil increases
in general purpose state aid in the 2012-13 state
budget and the “Gap Elimination Adjustment” cut to
overall aid in the 2011-12 state budget. Districts are
sorted by property wealth per pupil. Three points
are worth noting:
The 2011-12 aid reductions were regressive,
generally imposing larger per pupil cuts on poorer
districts.
The 2012-13 increases are more progressive.
This year’s restorations are critical, but remain
small in comparison to what districts lost. Despite
the increase, 83 percent of districts are still
receiving less state aid than they did in 2008-09.
It should also be recalled that this year’s state aid
increase was partly offset by the end of the federal
Education Jobs Fund.
Our survey a year ago revealed striking differences
across regions over which revenue item was the
greater concern. More affluent regions picked the tax
levy cap, while poorer areas cited future state aid
levels. “Some districts,” we said, “ were capped by
circum-stances before they were capped by law” – so
property poor that no plausible local tax increase
could offset the combined impact of state aid cuts and
employee benefit increases.
Source: Council analysis of NYSED School Aid data
Our 2012 survey shows roughly a 20 point shift in
the direction of state aid as the greater revenue
concern across nearly all regions. As we speculated a
year ago, the tax levy cap raises the stakes over the
distribution of state aid for all districts.
Finally, the remaining 8 percent of school
revenues – federal aid – is not capped by state law.
But it is more likely to shrink than grow as Congress
and the President wrestle to construct long-term
deficit reduction plans.
Conclusion This report illustrates profound concerns super-
intendents share over the finances of the school
systems they lead. But they have larger challenges as
well – preparing new generations for the demands
adult life will present them in the decades ahead.
Whatever the prospects school leaders and voters
might have for balancing district finances, meeting
their greater goal at the same time will require help
from state leaders – changes in rules so that schools
produce more learning for their students with the
resources their taxpayers provide, and more consis-
tent financial support from the state, especially for
those serving the poorest children and communities.
-$978
-$1,472
-$1,487
-$1,298
-$1,185
-$812
-$1,096
-$1,070
-$805
-$536
-$400
-$944
$318
$342$292
$250
$186
$195
$147
$160$113
$54
$21
$189
-$1,500 -$1,000 -$500 $0 $500
(Poorest 10%) 12345
NYC6789
10NYS
Per pupil change in aid
Per pupil change in major School Aid elementsDistricts grouped by property wealth per pupil
2011-12 Gap Elimination Adjustment 2012-13 General purpose aid restorations
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
7
Overall Fiscal Condition THE COUNCIL’s survey asked superintendents
several questions related to the overall fiscal
condition of their district. Some questions were
repeated from the 2011 survey, to allow analysis of
year-to-year change.
New questions posed this year add to the wave of
warnings about insolvency threatening schools and
municipalities. For example, more than 75 percent
of superintendents can foresee a time when their
districts could be unable to ensure that some of their
financial obligations would ever be paid.
Writing of our 2011 findings, we said, “The survey
reveals widespread alarm about the financial outlook
for the state’s public schools.” Questions repeated in
the 2012 survey give continuing cause for alarm, with
only a few faint signs of improvement from last year’s
survey.
Insolvency
About three years ago, school district leaders
began warning of possible financial insolvency and
asked whether it is possible for a district to declare
bankruptcy.6 More recently, leaders have begun to
speak of “educational insolvency” – envisioning
schools reaching a point where they would be unable
to provide students an adequate education. This
year’s survey explores both concerns.
To learn about fears of financial insolvency, we
asked,
Given current revenue and expenditure trends,
and current reserve levels for your district, do
you foresee a point at which your district
would be unable to ensure that some of its
financial obligations will EVER be paid?
Statewide, 9 percent of superintendents said they
anticipate their districts could face insolvency under
that definition within two years. That may appear to
6 The short answer is no, there is no legal mechanism for a school district in New York State to declare bankruptcy.
be a low share, but the figure would translate into
roughly 60 school districts.7
Alarmingly, 41 percent of superintendents believe
their districts may face financial insolvency within
four years, and another 36 percent fear it could come
at some point beyond four years. Only 15 percent of
superintendents said they did not foresee their
districts threatened by insolvency.
Superintendents of rural districts were most likely
to anticipate possible financial insolvency for their
school systems within the next two years.
7 A recent report by the New York State Association of School Business Officials (A Tale of Two Insolvencies, September 6, 2012) found that 215 lower wealth districts are on track to begin to exhaust all savings by 2015. District leaders will attempt to avert or delay actual insolvency, however.
1%
2%
6%
32%
36%
15%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Yes, we are currently unable
Yes, within 1 year
Yes, between 1 and 2 years
Yes, between 2 and 4 years
Yes, beyond 4 years
No, I do not foresee that time
Unsure
Do you foresee a point at which your district would be unable to ensure that some of its financial obligations will EVER be paid?
9%
7%
4%
11%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Total
City
Suburb
Rural
% of districts foreseeing financial insolvency within 2 years
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
8
By a wide margin, superintendents in the North
Country region8 were most likely to foresee the
possibility of financial insolvency in their district’s
nearer-term future.
8 The regions used in this report are defined as follows:
Long Island: Nassau and Suffolk Counties
New York City
Lower Hudson Valley: Putnam, Rockland, Westchester
Mid-Hudson Valley: Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster
Capital Region: Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, Washington
Mohawk Valley: Fulton, Herkimer, Montgomery, Oneida, Schoharie
Central New York: Cayuga, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga, Oswego, Tompkins
North Country: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence
Southern Tier: Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Delaware, Otsego, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga
Finger Lakes: Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, Wayne, Wyoming, Yates
Western New York: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara
“Educational Insolvency”
Inability to fund the components of a basic
education is a more immediate threat for districts
than financial insolvency.
The survey defined educational insolvency in
terms of ability to fund state and federal
requirements and asked,
Given current revenue and expenditure trends
and current reserve levels for your district, do
you foresee a point at which your district
would be unable to fund all the instructional
and other student service requirements
established by laws or regulations approved
by the state and federal governments?
Statewide, 5 percent of districts reported they are
already unable to fund mandated instructional and
other student services. A total of 19 percent of
districts anticipate falling into this state of
educational insolvency within two years, and 51
percent of superintendents believe their districts
could reach that state within four years.
Consistent with other indicators of overall finan-
cial outlook, concern about educational insolvency
was greatest in the North Country. In that region, 50
percent of superintendents said they foresee their
districts becoming unable to meet state and federal
student service requirements within two years, and
18 percent say their districts are currently unable to
do so.
9%
0%
6%
0%
15%
7%
6%
25%
8%
6%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Total
Long Island
Lower Hudson Valley
Mid-Hudson Valley
Capital Region
Mohawk Valley
Central New York
North Country
Southern Tier
Finger Lakes
Western New York
% of districts foreseeing financial insolvency within 2 years
5%
5%
9%
32%
33%
12%
4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Yes, we are currently unable
Yes, within 1 year
Yes, between 1 and 2 years
Yes, between 2 and 4 years
Yes, beyond 4 years
No, I do not foresee that time
Unsure
Do you foresee a point at which your district would be unable to fund all the instructional and other student service requirements established by laws or regulations approved by the state and federal governments?
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
9
Superintendents of rural districts were most likely
to predict educational insolvency within two years.
Other measures of overall fiscal condition
One of the most striking findings in the 2011
survey was the near universal worry about reliance on
reserves: 89 percent of superintendents said they
were somewhat or very concerned by their district’s
use of reserves to pay recurring costs. For 2012, a
similar share of superintendents expressed concern
(83 percent), but the proportion saying they are very
concerned declined from 66 percent to 43 percent.
Statewide, 52 percent of superintendents describe
their districts’ financial condition as somewhat or
significantly worse than a year ago, down from last
year’s 75 percent figure.
Despite grave worries for the future, few superin-
tendents were willing to characterize their district’s
current fiscal condition as poor or very poor, either
last year or this year.
Comments volunteered in response to open-ended
questions suggest superintendents focused on the
immediate financial condition of their districts in
their answers. For example, one downstate suburban
superintendent wrote, “Our current strong financial
health is simply current - I will not be able to describe
us as strong in a year or two.”
Comparing regions and types of communities
As in 2011, there were variations across types of
districts and across regions in the assessment of
overall fiscal condition and trajectory.
In both years, urban superintendents were more
likely to view their district’s financial condition as
poor. The share of city superintendents assessing
their district’s financial condition as either poor or
very poor jumped sharply – from 24 percent to 43
percent.
19%
11%
17%
14%
22%
14%
12%
50%
8%
15%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Total
Long Island
Lower Hudson …
Mid-Hudson Valley
Capital Region
Mohawk Valley
Central New York
North Country
Southern Tier
Finger Lakes
Western New York
% of districts foreseeing educational insolvency within 2 years
19%
14%
18%
21%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Total
City
Suburb
Rural
% of districts foreseeing educational insolvency within 2 years
66%
23%
6%
5%
49%
34%
11%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned, our use of reserves is limited
Our district is not drawing upon reserves to pay for recurring operating
expenses
To what extent, if at all, are you concerned that your district is drawing upon reserves to pay for recurring operating costs?
2011 2012
1%
6%
41%
42%
10%
1%
2%
23%
53%
22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Significantly better
Somewhat better
About the same
Somewhat worse
Significantly worse
Compared to one year ago, how has the financial condition of your district changed, in terms of its ability to fund
services meeting expectations of parents in the community?
2011 2012
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
10
Superintendents leading urban districts were also
more likely to say their district’s financial condition
had worsened from a year ago, and to express
concern about reliance on reserves. Ninety-five
percent of city superintendents said they were
somewhat or very concerned by their district’s use of
reserves to fund continuing costs, compared to 83
percent for suburban superintendents and 82 percent
for rural superintendents.
Looking across regions of the state, results are
mixed. Generally, superintendents in the North
Country and Southern Tier appear to have the
greatest concerns about overall financial condition
and outlook.
Digging into reserves
The practice seems to have diminished, but for a
time it was popular for elected officials and news
sources to condemn schools for “excessive” reserves
and call on them to drain those accounts to avert
layoffs or property tax increases. There have always
been at least three problems with this strategy.
First, schools are more limited by law in the
reserves they are allowed to maintain than other
public entities in New York State.
School districts are permitted to maintain an
unrestricted fund balance equal to up to 4 percent of
their budget. Municipalities have no percentage limit
and the Government Finance Officers Association
recommends maintaining an unreserved fund
balance of between 5 and 15 percent of general fund
revenues, or up to two months’ expenses. So what
New York school districts are permitted to maintain
as a maximum rainy day fund is less than what
experts deem adequate as a minimum.
Second, reserves run out. Eventually, a district
must either permanently reduce expenditures to align
them with its reliably recurring revenues, or raise
taxes to match revenues with spending. The deeper
the reliance on reserves, the more painful the day of
reckoning when they run out.
As noted in the introduction, the State Education
Department has reported that school district “rainy
day” reserves shrank from $2.76 billion in 2009-10,
to $1.21 billion in 2012-13.
Third, year-in and year-out, schools already use
reserves to manage turbulence in their financial
operations, some of which arises from swings in the
state’s fiscal posture.
For example, in the Property Tax Report Cards
filed for their May 2012 budget votes, school districts
reported using “assigned” fund balances totaling over
$1.2 billion. Without these funds appropriated out of
existing reserves or current year operating surpluses,
districts would have had to raise taxes or cut
spending by an equivalent sum.
To put that figure in perspective, to match what
they used from fund balances in their 2012-13
budgets, districts would have had to raise local taxes
24%
12%
20%
17%
43%
10%
18%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
City
Suburb
Rural
Total
% Responding Poor or Very Poor
How would you describe the current financial condition of your school district, in terms of its ability to fund services meeting the expectations of parents in your community?
2011 2012
Various measures of fiscal condition, by region
Region
Financial condition
poor/very poor
Financial condition
worse than 1 year ago
Reserves less than
adequately funded
Concerned about
reliance on reserves
Total 17% 52% 31% 82%
Long Island 2% 43% 21% 75%
Lower Hudson Valley 13% 34% 32% 77%
Mid-Hudson Valley 7% 53% 33% 73%
Capital Region 27% 59% 42% 81%
Mohawk Valley 18% 56% 30% 89%
Central New York 20% 35% 25% 70%
North Country 39% 54% 39% 94%
Southern Tier 27% 65% 49% 87%
Finger Lakes 6% 48% 13% 87%
Western New York 17% 64% 29% 88%
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
11
by 6.8 percent more than they actually proposed (9
percent, rather than 2.2 percent). Or they would have
had to cut spending by an average of 4.1 percent from
what they actually budgeted.
By these measures, poor districts depended on
reserves the most in putting together their 2012-13
school budgets. Without what they appropriated
from fund balance, the poorest 20 percent of districts
(measured by property wealth per pupil) would have
had to raise taxes by an additional 21 percent.
The mandated low percentage limit on
unrestricted reserves for school districts may have
made sense when school revenues were more stable
and predictable from year-to-year. But as state
government became increasingly dependent on
receipts from Wall Street-related activities, School
Aid entered an era of boom and bust cycles,
increasing financial uncertainties for all districts, and
especially for poor, heavily aid dependent school
systems.
SOURCE: Council analysis of NYSED Property Tax Report Card data
-14%
-31%
-23%
-9%
-18%
-22%
-10%
-9%
-12%
-4%
-7%
7%
21%
17%
11%
10%
11%
8%
6%
5%
3%
3%
-35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25%
Total State
1 (Proorest 10%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
What happens when reserves run dry?Districts grouped by property wealth per pupil
Change in unrestricted fund balance from 2011-12 to 2012-13
Additional tax increase which would be needed without use of fund balance (i.e., appropriated fund balance as % of tax levy)
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
12
In their own words: Overall Fiscal Condition…
We are at our breaking point. Classrooms are full, 27 -30 students in most 7-12 classrooms and 19-24 students in elementary classrooms. We have cut all the low hanging fruit, and climbed the tree for the rest. Our next step is to start cutting off branches, which means we will be cutting off chunks of the learning we yield as an institution. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
No matter how much we have in reserves, TRS/ERS, health insurance, and Triborough along with meager NYS aid, makes the financial model unsustainable. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Our district is not able to offer the level of intervention services that our students need academically. We are getting by through under-spending our budget, being lean administratively and unfortunately not offering the depth of intervention serves our students need. ~ Upstate city superintendent
We have developed a plan to burn reserves over the next three years and making significant cuts in each of those years to arrive at a point where we will stabilize. The reserves that we do have will provide us with the time make those cuts until we stop burning our fund balance. However, we will have to significantly reduce our ability to meet the educational needs of our community because of diminishing resources. ~ Downstate city superintendent
We are currently using a significant amount of reserves as recurring revenue. The reserves are soon to expire. I have no good plan as to how we will replace this lost revenue stream. We have already eliminated 17% of our faculty and staff. People are complaining about class size now. Class size will only increase in years to come. Programs will be eliminated and down-sized. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
The fluctuating unknown costs of Special Education make it almost impossible to create a sound budget in a small, rural school district. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are not meeting the state and federal requirements for academic intervention services now, particularly at the high school level. We are straining to provide the necessary resources for our elementary and middle school children, because we know that in the long term children will not be successful without emphasis on
early literacy. We have consciously chosen to forestall fiscal disaster by cutting everything possible and being out of compliance with older children. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We have cut about 15% of staff in the last four years. However, we are using 400% more fund balance and reserves than in 2008. It is not sustainable and I fear that within two years we will be financially insolvent. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are in "ok" shape for now. No doubt many, many others are not. It's a slippery slope. Even if results show some districts like ours are "ok" - that will change before we know it. And what does that say for others who are already decimated. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
While we are solvent now, the tax cap will erode away at our fiscal stability. Uncontrollable expenses such as increases in retirement contributions, health care costs, unfunded mandates, fuel, etc. are eating away at our ability to deliver program. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are a Special Act School District and are rate based. BUT, funding remains an issue as our rate has not increased in 5 years and we are not allowed by law to carry a fund balance. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
If the gap elimination adjustment remains unaltered, we will not be able to accomplish our educational mission in the 2013-14 school year. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The local community cannot support additional contributions to funding the educational programs offered their children, yet each child in New York State should have opportunity and access to a sound educational program. We have been operating by not filling positions due to attrition for the last 10 years… Offering two languages was given up over 8 years ago. Three elementary buildings with a total of 600 students share 1 art teacher - that happened 5 years ago - we can't meet the mandates for PE at the elementary level. The HS offers 3 AP classes - the list goes on, but when someone retires, the position wasn't filled. Right now we are waiting for a retirement in the guidance staff, or we will have another reduction of a person. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
13
Budgeting Choices The core of THE COUNCIL’s survey is an exploration
of the budgeting choices schools have made over the
past three years.
General observations about school budgets As in last year’s report, we stress three points
before presenting the survey’s findings on the specific
actions districts took in putting together budgets.
First, “You can’t cut what you don’t have.” Poor
districts are less likely to report that they eliminated
advanced classes because they are less likely to have
them in the first place. A district conducting all
classes in a single building will not report that it
closed a school, unless it takes the extreme step of
“tuitioning out” all its students to a neighbor.
Related, “You cannot cut what you have already
decimated.” In last year’s survey, for every specific
budget action we identified, the proportion of
superintendents saying their district had used it
increased every year. That is not true this year;
smaller percentages of districts exercised some
options this year than in the year before. This could
happen if a district’s financial condition has improve-
ed. But another explanation could be that a district
has already cut the function as much as prudent, or as
much as permitted by law – our next point.
Second, some items cannot be cut because they
are mandated by Albany or Washington. For
example, the operation of special education services
is heavily prescribed by state and federal mandates
and over multiple years, special education is seen as
less negatively affected by budget decisions than any
other service. In the same vein, the demands of the
state’s new teacher evaluation requirements have
raised concerns about maintaining the administrative
capacity necessary to comply.
Third, understanding where schools can cut
requires recognizing where their spending goes to
start.
One way to break down school spending is by the
commodities it buys; another is by the purposes it
serves. Personnel – salaries and benefits – comprises
about three quarters of school spending by
commodity. Instruction consumes a comparable
share by purpose.
Source: Council analysis of NYSED School District Fiscal Profile data (2009-10); Big 5 Cities not included
Source: Council analysis of US Census Bureau data (2009-10); Big 5 Cities not included
Personnel As noted, 70 to 80 percent of spending in a typical
district is devoted to personnel. That means 70 to 80
percent of any cuts needed to achieve a balanced
budget are likely to come from personnel. Although
the impulse of school leaders and voters may be to
“cut things before people,” that becomes harder and
harder after a series of lean years exhausts less
painful options.
There are two ways to reduce personnel costs:
employ fewer people, or spend less per employee.
Like it or not, districts have more latitude to exercise
the former option than the latter – salaries and many
benefits are locked-in by contracts, and pension
contributions are prescribed by state law and retire-
ment system calculations. Nonetheless, THE
COUNCIL’s survey found districts using both
approaches.
Instruction, 74.1%
Operations & maintenance,
6.5%
Debt service, 6.6%
Other, 5.4%
Transportation, 5.1%Central
Office, 2.3%
Where school spending goes -- by purpose
Salaries & wages, 54.5%
Employee benefits,
20.2%
Everything else, 25.2%
Where school spending goes -- by commodity
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
14
Teacher compensation is the largest single item in
virtually every district’s budget and reducing teaching
positions was the most commonly reported personnel
cost reduction. Statewide, 67 percent of superintend-
dents said their districts reduced teaching positions
this year, down from 72 percent in 2011-12.
We estimate that districts reduced their teaching
staffs by an average of 3.6 percent, this year, down
from 4.3 percent in 2011-12.
Fewer districts also report cutting administrative
positions this year – there are fewer to eliminate.9
But districts continued to cut these positions more
steeply than teaching jobs, eliminating an average of
5.2 percent of their administrative positions.
9 By law, districts are required to report compensation for all administrative positions carrying the title superintendent, or deputy/associate/assistant superintendent, or any other certified administrative position (e.g., principal) paying more than $123,000. For 2012-13, 301 districts – 44 percent of the total – report only one position meeting the criteria – their superintendent. Some may have other central office positions bearing different titles and paying below the reporting threshold, but this measure does give some indication of how administratively lean many districts are.
Position reductions are down across all categories
compared to 2011-12. But it is essential to recognize
that the impact is cumulative – this year’s 3.9 percent
reduction in total positions comes on top of last year’s
estimated 4.9 percent cut. Further, data compiled by
the Gannett News Service Capitol Bureau10 shows
that districts outside the Big 5 cities reduced total
staffing by another 3.9 percent in the two preceding
years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Compounding all these
figures suggests that school districts have eliminated
roughly 12 percent of their positions since 2008-09.
As in 2011-12, job cuts tended to be deeper in city
and rural districts than in suburbs. City districts
reported cutting total positions by an average of 5.2
percent, compared to 4.4 percent in rural districts
and 3.3 percent in suburbs.
10 “School enrollment, staff continue to decline,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, August 20, 2012.
PERSONNEL 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
At least once in last
3 yearsSalary freeze or other cost reduction in salary or benefits for superintendent 45% 59% 34% 79%Cost-reduction concession in salaries or benefits for other central office administrators 36% 50% 22% 69%Cost-reduction concession in salaries or benefits for building level administrators 35% 45% 20% 66%Cost-reduction concession in salaries or benefits agreed to by teacher union 35% 31% 15% 54%Cost-reduction concession in salaries or benefits agreed to by any other union 30% 28% 13% 48%Reduction in central office administration positions 22% 25% 22% 47%Reduction in building-level administration positions 18% 25% 20% 43%
Reduction in teaching positions 67% 72% 62% 87%Reduction in other instructional support or student services positions 56% 60% 46% 76%
Reduction in other positions 59% 60% 47% 79%
Other reduction in personnel costs 38% 33% 27% 47%
Layoffs Attrition
Total Positions
Eliminated
Classroom teachers 2.2% 1.4% 3.6%Other instructional or student support personnel 3.9% 2.0% 5.9%Administrators 3.1% 2.1% 5.2%Other Employees 1.7% 1.0% 2.7%TOTAL 2.4% 1.5% 3.9%
Percentage of positions eliminated by category, 2012-13
4.3%
8.0%
7.5%
3.6%
4.9%
3.6%
5.9%
5.2%
2.7%
3.9%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
Teachers
Other Student Support
Administrators
Other
Total
Percent reduction in positions by category, 2011-12 and 2012-13
2011-12 2012-13
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
15
INSTRUCTION 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
At least once in last
3 years
Increased class size 59% 48% 30% 67%
Reduced non-mandated art classes 16% 18% 11% 31%Reduced non-mandated music classes 20% 19% 9% 33%
Reduced advanced or honors classes 17% 13% 7% 24%
Reduced summer school 31% 27% 20% 44%Reduced extra help for students during the regular school day or year 22% 23% 14% 32%Reduced student enrollment in career and technical programs 18% 12% 7% 23%Reduced/deferred purchase of instructional technology 31% 26% 20% 42%Reduced/deferred purchase of textbooks 18% 13% 8% 21%Reduced/deferred purchase of library materials 17% 13% 9% 22%
Eliminated prekindergarten 1% 0% 1% 3%
Reduced prekindergarten 5% 2% 1% 8%
Eliminated kindergarten 0% 0% 0% 1%Moved from full-day to half-day kindergarten 0% 0% 0% 2%
Other reduction in kindergarten 0% 1% 0% 3%Combined grade two levels in a single classroom 4% 2% 1% 7%
Other reduction in instruction 34% 23% 14% 38%
Superintendents led other categories of employees
in accepting salary freezes or agreeing to other
compensation changes to save money for their
districts: 49 percent of superintendents report taking
such steps in 2012-13, and 79 percent said they had
done so at least once in the past three years.11
Cost-saving concessions have been less common
among unionized employees. Nonetheless, the per-
centages have grown. For example, 35 percent of
superintendents report a cost-reduction agreed to by
their teacher union in 2012-13, up from 15 percent
two years ago (2010-11). As discussed below, the
property tax levy cap may have an impact on
collective bargaining in some districts.
Instruction While personnel is the largest area of school
spending measured by commodity, instruction is the
greatest expense area measured by purpose,
accounting for 74.7 percent of total spending
according to the State Education Department’s
School District Fiscal Profiles. Accordingly, when
cuts are necessary, it is hard for schools to spare
either of these large areas.
By a wide margin, the most common cost reduc-
tion in instruction this year has been to increase class
sizes, reported by 59 percent of districts, up from 48
percent in 2011-12. Next most common were reduc-
ing summer school and reducing or deferring the
purchase of instructional technology, each reported
by 31 percent of superintendents. Then came reduc-
11 According to administrative compensation data reported to the State Education Department, the statewide average superintendent salary has been roughly flat for the past three years – $165,577 in 2010-11,$165,464 in 2011-12, and $165,953 in 2013-13. In addition, in each of the past two years, over half the state’s districts report paying their superintendent the same or less compared to the prior year.
ing extra help for students during the regular school
day or year. As explained elsewhere in this report,
assuring extra help for students emerges as a top
concern for many superintendents.
This year’s survey added questions asking
specifically about actions affecting early childhood
education – kindergarten and prekindergarten.
Although there have been warnings that some
districts are forced to consider cutting kindergarten,
it appears few have done so – yet.
One superintendent reported that his or her
district eliminated kindergarten in 2010-11. In each
of the three years asked about, one superintendent
reported a district scaling back from full-day, to half-
day kindergarten. This suggests that over the past
three years, a total of 2 percent of districts have made
that reduction in kindergarten services.
For the current year, 5 percent of superintendents
reported reducing prekindergarten, and 1 percent
reported eliminating the service altogether. Not all
districts offer pre-K, however, so the prevalence of
cuts would be higher if counted against districts
which actually had a program to cut.
Total positions eliminated, by category and type, 2012-13
City Rural Suburb Total
Teachers 4.8% 4.2% 3.1% 3.6%
Other Student Support 7.7% 6.0% 5.4% 5.9%
Administrators 4.0% 6.1% 5.0% 5.2%
Other 3.5% 3.5% 2.1% 2.7%
Total 5.2% 4.4% 3.3% 3.9%
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
16
Other direct student services THE COUNCIL survey finds that districts have
continued to make cuts to other student services. The
proportions of superintendents saying their districts
reduced sports or other extracurricular activities
declined from 2011-12, after sharp jumps in reported
cuts to those areas last year. The share saying they
had reduced special education rose. In all of these
areas, over half of superintendents said their districts
had made cuts at least once in the last three years.
Operations, maintenance and construction Operations and maintenance costs comprise only
6.5 percent of total school spending on average, but
in striving to “cut things rather than people,” districts
have continued to be aggressive in seeking savings
from this area.
Of all the budget actions across all areas,
implementing some form of energy conservation (57
percent) was the third most common, behind the
connected actions of cutting teachers (67 percent)
and increasing class sizes (59 percent). The share of
superintendents reporting their districts have
deferred maintenance is rising, from 26 percent in
2010-11, to 40 percent this year.
An apparently small proportion of districts
anticipates deferring a capital project this year (16
percent). But not all districts need to take on a
capital project in any given year.
Other actions Our survey also allowed superintendents to check-
off an assortment of miscellaneous budget cutting
strategies.
At least 40 percent of superintendents reported
reducing funding for staff travel and professional
development, reducing participation in BOCES
services, making other shared service arrangements
outside of BOCES, and reducing reserves.
Some of the districts which reported reducing use
of BOCES services said they had also increased their
use of these services. From past anecdotal
information gathering efforts, we have found districts
scaling back participation in BOCES special educa-
tion programs, choosing to serve students with
disabilities in-house instead. At the same time,
districts also reported making more aggressive use of
BOCES administrative services, including cooperative
purchasing, shared business offices, and energy
management, for example.
The survey also shows steady growth in shared
service arrangements outside of BOCES, reaching 40
percent in 2012-13.
Statewide, 14 percent of superintendents report
that their districts closed a school building at least
once in the past three years. As observed above, “you
can’t cut what you don’t have.” Small districts
operate fewer schools, so, not surprisingly, only 2
percent of districts with fewer than 500 students
closed a building. But 29 percent of those with over
5,000 students report having done so.
OTHER DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
At least once in last
3 years
Reduced interscholastic sports 34% 41% 27% 57%Reduced other extracurricular activities (other than interscholastic sports) 34% 39% 22% 55%Changes in special education which reduced costs 41% 37% 22% 52%Reduced other direct student services 27% 22% 12% 32%
Reduced pupil transportation 28% 28% 12% 42%Other reduction in student services costs 21% 16% 11% 24%
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
At least once in last
3 years
Deferred maintenance 40% 36% 26% 47%
Any form of energy conservation 57% 48% 33% 66%
Delayed a capital project 16% 14% 10% 24%Outsourced custodial/ maintenance work 2% 2% 2% 4%Reducing or deferring purchases of supplies, other than those related to instruction 41% 36% 26% 48%Other reduction in operation, maintenance or construction costs 39% 32% 22% 45%
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
17
Impact of 2011-12 budget decisions Our survey also asked superintendents to assess
the impact of their districts’ 2012-13 budget upon
various functions. More than 40 percent of superin-
tendents anticipated that the adopted budget would
have a negative impact on these functions:
• operations and maintenance (50 percent),
• extracurricular activities (49 percent),
• extra help for students who need it (48 percent),
• administration (46 percent),
• athletics (45 percent), and
• core instruction in elementary grades (41 percent).
Percentages of superintendents anticipating that
their districts’ 2012-13 budget would have a negative
impact were down modestly across all service
categories. Few superintendents anticipate positive
impacts, however.
“Extra help for students who need it” drew the
highest share of superintendents foreseeing a severe
negative impact from the district budget, with 9
percent.
Budget impacts by district type Rural superintendents were more likely to
anticipate negative effects on basic instruction from
their districts’ adopted budgets than were their city
and suburban counterparts.
City superintendents exhibited widespread
concern about extra help for students who need it, as
well as operations and maintenance, administration,
and extracurricular activities, with over 60 percent
foreseeing negative effects in each area.
Among rural superintendents, extracurricular
activities (53 percent) and extra help (52 percent)
were most commonly seen as negatively affected.
Impact on administration was the most common
concern among suburban superintendents (49
percent), followed by operations and maintenance
(46 percent).
Conversely, between 10 and 15 percent of
suburban superintendents anticipate their districts’
2012-13 budgets will have positive effects on core
elementary, middle or secondary instruction.
OTHER ACTIONS 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
At least once in last
3 years
Closed a school building 5% 7% 3% 14%Change in school schedule for the purpose of reducing costs (e.g., discontinuing block scheduling) 14% 10% 4% 23%
Reduced funding for staff travel 52% 48% 35% 61%
Reduced participation in professional development by administrators 44% 41% 28% 54%
Reduced participation in professional development by teachers 42% 40% 26% 51%Reduced participation in professional development by other staff (other than teachers and administrators) 32% 30% 20% 38%Reduced participation in BOCES services 42% 36% 23% 51%Increased participation in BOCES services 25% 21% 9% 31%Increased participation in other shared services arrangements (not through BOCES) 40% 25% 13% 43%Reduced or eliminated undesignated reserves 52% 43% 26% 58%Reduced or eliminated designated reserves 47% 41% 22% 53%
Changed purchasing practices 36% 28% 16% 42%
Other 8% 7% 4% 11%
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2011 Instruction in English, mathematics, science, and soc. studies
2012 Core instruction in elementary grades
2012 Middle level instruction in English, math, science, and soc. studies
2012 High school instruction in English, math, science, and soc. studies
2011 Extra help for students who need it
2012 Extra help for students who need it
2011 Advanced or enrichment classes
2012 Advanced or enrichment classes
2011 Instruction in art
2012 Instruction in art
2011 Instruction in music
2012 Instruction in music
2011 Special education
2012 Special education
2011 Athletics
2012 Athletics
2011 Other extracurricular activities
2012 Other extracurricular activities
2011 Student transportation
2012 Student transportation
2011 Other student services
2012 Other student services
2011 Operations and maintenance
2012 Operations and maintenance
2011 Administration
2012 Administration
2011 Other district operations and services
2012 Other district operations and services
Impact of 2011-12 and 2012-13 budgets on selected school operationsSevere negative impact Some negative impact No change from prior year Positive impact
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
19
Budget impacts by region Long Island and the Lower Hudson Valley are the
state’s most affluent regions, measured by property
wealth or resident income per pupil. Superinten-
dents in those regions were less likely to anticipate
negative consequences from 2012-13 school budgets
than their colleagues in other regions. Yet Central
New York is one of the poorest regions and its
superintendents were also more optimistic on
average than colleagues elsewhere.
Superintendents in the North Country, Western
New York, and the Mohawk Valley were more likely
to foresee negative impacts from their district
budgets. Seventy-four percent of North Country
superintendents believe extra help for students who
need it will be negatively affected by their school
budget, the highest negative share for any service in
any region.
Once again, “you can’t cut what you don’t have” –
or what you have only in minimal quantity. This may
explain the low negative impact anticipated for
advanced classes in the Southern Tier, or art and
music in the North Country.
Total City Rural SuburbCore instruction in elementary grades
41% 33% 43% 39%
Instruction in English, math, science, and social studies in the middle level grades
33% 33% 36% 29%
Instruction in English, math, science, and social studies in high school
37% 40% 42% 28%
Extra help for students who need it -- any level
48% 73% 52% 37%
Instruction in art -- any level 27% 23% 27% 26%
Student transportation 33% 57% 34% 27%
Advanced or enrichment classes 35% 50% 39% 28%
Special education 20% 14% 23% 15%
Athletics 44% 43% 47% 40%
Other extracurricular activities 48% 62% 53% 39%
Instruction in music -- any level 26% 23% 32% 19%
Other student services 34% 15% 39% 31%
Operations and maintenance 49% 80% 48% 46%
Administration 46% 69% 40% 49%
Other district operations and services
43% 57% 43% 43%
Percentage of superintendents anticipating some or severe negative impact from 2012-13 budget decisions on various school operations -- by district type:
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
20
In their own words: Budgeting Choices…
We were forced to take drastic budget measures in the 2010-2011 school year. During that year, we reduced our staff (all areas) by 10%+. We continue to operate at a skeleton level of services for our students. As a rural school district, we already offer a many fewer program-matic opportunities than our wealthier colleagues. Any further reductions in programs and/or services would severely limit the educational prospects of our students. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We have been routinely reducing administration (25% over three years) and were forced to go deeper at central office this year to avoid further reductions in the buildings. Set minimum class sizes at HS and allowed class sized to be larger than previous years in acceler-ated and advanced courses. Reduced the heck out of O and M [operations and maintenenance]. Outsourced leadership for O and M. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Because of the reduction in administration at the central office level a few years ago, we are all doing more with fewer personnel, including sharing secretaries. We have not had much impact on serving our AIS students be-cause the board has been adamant re no cuts. We also support kids via federal grants. Our class sizes in HS and MS are nearing 30 so we could have smaller class sizes in the elementary grades, i.e., 22-24/class. We have cut all the non-instructional we can. We really don't know where we can cut yet again, it will be the fifth year in a row. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
We had little to cut since major cuts were undertaken before the 2010-11 school year. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are struggling with the reductions to this point but will make it through the year. However, without support from the state even for low need schools we will be forced to continue to challenge the cap or eviscerate program components as operational components can no longer be cut and maintain the district operations. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
The lack of cuts to administration is not because of excess administrators, it is because we have one Principal in the elementary school, a middle school Principal that is also the CSE (committee on special education) chair and one HS Principal. There are no other central office administrators besides the
superintendent, so there is no place to cut. With the increased requirements under 3012-c (teacher/ principal evaluations), it will be difficult at best to complete the new requirements. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Because of the massive layoffs required to pass the 2011-12 budget, the board decided to exceed the tax levy limit in our first budget vote. We did not pass. We reduced to the tax levy limit, and passed on the second vote. The entire process was contentious funding reduc-tions and somewhat divisive. We need some sort of "consideration" from our teachers unit, but have yet to receive it. This is harming our ability to gain community support for our budget. As a superintendent, my salary has been frozen for the fourth year, I am paying more for my health insurance, I have a smaller administra-tive team with which to work, and I am having a hard time keeping people motivated and positive – partic-ularly given the rapid pace of change in regulations from NYSED. As a small rural district, we do not have the capacity that other districts do, and our effectiveness is slowly being eroded as a result of funding reductions. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
In my opinion we are out of magic. We have eliminated over 51 positions through attrition over the past three years. We have closed 2 schools. We have doubled our appropriated fund balance and will be under the 4% allowable amount. We have squeezed all that can be squeezed. We do not spend anywhere what we need for technology. We are postponing capital projects. We have kept spending under 1% and the levy increase under 2% for each of the three past years. My salary has been frozen twice and the administrators have made serious concessions. However, CSEA and NYSUT employee costs ---and they are 90% of our work force---continue to increase well in excess of 2% per year. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are experiencing an increase in enrollment but are constrained in the addition of teaching and student sup-port positions because of the tax cap and the current economic situation. Our classes and our programs are at capacity and I am really concerned because my honest assessment is that we are stretching people and programs too far. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
21
Adapting to the tax levy cap Districts developed and adopted their budgets
under the state’s new property tax levy cap law for the
first time this past spring.
Actual proposed budget figures and our survey
responses point to the same conclusion: the cap led
districts to propose lower spending and tax increases
than would have occurred under the old rules.
In the first round of voting, districts proposed
budgets with spending increases averaging 1.7
percent and tax increases averaging 2.2 percent.
Budget vote day brought the second highest known
approval rate – 96.5 percent12, including 99 percent
of districts proposing increases within their levy limit.
Almost two-thirds of the districts attempting to
over-ride their levy limit were successful in obtaining
the 60 percent of voters needed for approval.
Ultimately, only two districts were required to
adopt a contingency budget, with no increase in tax
levy over the prior year, as required by the new law.
Assessing the impact
For the state as a whole, 67 percent of
superintendents said that the tax levy cap had led
their districts to adopt budgets with spending levels
below what would have been done without the cap.
Included in that share were 17 percent of
superintendents who described their districts’
adopted spending level as significantly lower.
Asked to appraise how the tax levy cap affected
programs and services, 60 percent said it caused their
adopted budget to have either a somewhat more
negative impact (50 percent), or significantly more
negative impact (10 percent) than would have
occurred without the cap.
Impact by region Looking at the perceived impact of the tax levy cap
by region, it is hard to identify patterns. With some
reflection, however, it becomes apparent that there
are multiple considerations which might interact to
affect how the cap would influence budget impact.
12 The highest pass rate was 97.3 percent in 2009; the State Education Department has figures going back to 1969.
Poorer districts tend to be more heavily
dependent on state aid for two reasons. First, state
aid does have progressive elements which direct
greater revenue per pupil to poorer districts. Second,
they have less property wealth to tax – with identical
tax rates, a poor district will raise less local revenue
than a wealthy district.
So local taxes typically comprise a larger share of
total revenues for wealthy districts, suggesting they
would be more likely to ascribe budget impacts to the
tax levy cap. But even with a tax increase within the
levy limit, a wealthier district will raise more revenue
than a poor district levying at the same rate.
Further, rich or poor, local political considerations
also affect judgments about how large a tax increase
taxpayers might support. Last, while exemptions
from the cap might allow districts a higher tax levy
limit, many local leaders ruled out seeking increases
greater than 2 percent, believing their voters would
apply that widely cited number as a benchmark.
Among regions, superintendents in the Lower
Hudson Valley, with the greatest property wealth per
pupil, ascribed the least impact on spending levels to
the cap. Perhaps their ability to raise relatively
larger sums at any given tax rate cushioned the
impact of the tax levy cap.
On the other hand, the North Country, with many
low wealth districts, had a high rate of perceived
impact on spending. This may reflect the limited
sums many of these districts can raise at any tax rate.
There were similar results for these two regions on
the questions about how the tax levy cap affected
programs and services.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TotalLong Island
Lower Hudson ValleyMid-Hudson Valley
Capital RegionMohawk Valley
Central New York North Country Southern Tier Finger Lakes
Western New York
Impact of tax cap on budgeted spending levels
Somewhat lower Significantly lower
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
22
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TotalLong Island
Lower Hudson ValleyMid-Hudson Valley
Capital RegionMohawk Valley
Central New York North Country Southern Tier Finger Lakes
Western New York
Impact of tax cap on programs and services
Somewhat negative Significantly negative
Though often cited as a model, Massachusetts’s
tax levy cap is more generous to local governments
and schools than New York’s version. Massachusetts
communities may increase their tax levy by up to 2.5
percent without seeking voter approval, and may
over-ride that cap with a simple majority of voters.
New York’s law forbids schools any increase in tax
levy without approval by at least a simple majority of
voters, and requires 60 percent of voters to over-ride.
Yet although Massachusetts’s law is more
favorable to local governments, one study13 concluded
it had more adversely affected poor communities –
they were less likely to attempt over-rides and less
likely to succeed when they did try. THE COUNCIL’s
analysis of past school district budget votes suggests
similar risks – high need small city and suburban
districts seem likely to have the greatest difficulty
winning over-ride votes. But with so few unsuc-
cessful votes this year, it is not yet possible to draw
reliable conclusions about future over-ride prospects.
As a group, high need rural districts proposed the
lowest tax increases, made the least use of exemp-
tions, and were least likely to attempt over-rides.
13 "Hidden consequences: Lessons from Massachusetts for states considering a property tax cap." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 May 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2012.
Tax levy cap impact on collective bargaining
Some tax levy cap proponents described it as a
“blunt instrument” which would force state officials
to get serious about enacting mandate relief, and
compel local leaders to manage more efficiently and
negotiate more aggressively with employee unions.
Our survey asked superintendents for their
impression of how the tax levy cap might affect
collective bargaining with their local teacher union.
We singled out teacher unions and did not inquire
about other employee categories in order to limit the
overall length of the survey, and because teacher
compensation is the largest expense in virtually every
district budget.
Statewide, 59 percent of superintendents said that
they thought that the tax levy cap increased the
likelihood that their district would be able to
negotiate a cost saving concession with their teacher
union, or that it had already contributed to achieving
savings. Thirty-one percent thought the cap would
not affect the prospects for negotiating cost savings,
while 10 percent said doing so was not a priority. A
superintendent might give the latter answer if the
district had previously negotiated savings, or if it is
believed that its teacher compensation is not
competitive.
In response to our invitation for open-ended
comments, a couple superintendents said that the tax
cap had had a negative impact on bargaining
prospects.
2012-13 Tax levy decisions by SED Need/Resource Category
Need/Resource Capacity CategoryProposed
Tax Increase
Proposed Tax Levy as % of
Levy Limit
% Attempting Tax Cap
Over-Rides
High Need Small Cities and Suburbs 2.2% 99.4% 6.5%
High Need Rural 1.8% 97.9% 5.8%
Average Need 2.1% 99.4% 8.6%
Low Need 2.4% 99.7% 7.5%
TOTAL STATE 2.2% 99.4% 7.6%
SOURCE: Council analysis of NYSED Property Tax Report Card and budget vote data
31%
10%
40%
5%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
No impact
Negotiating savings not a priority now
Somewhat more likely
Significantly more likely
Already contributed to negotiating savings
Perceived impact of tax cap on chances of negotiating cost-savings
with teacher union
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
23
In their own words: Contemplating the Tax Cap…
We may be able to go on for three more years only without additional funding. A two percent increase yearly only nets us a little over 40 thousand dollars. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The impact of the tax cap was softened this year by the savings from a significant number of teacher retire-ments in response to an incentive. We expect to face an ongoing imbalance in expenses vs. revenue after this year. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Significant fund balance and reserves were used to get to the 2% tax levy increase. We chose to stay at 2% even though our allowable increase was 3.8%. The feedback we were getting was that anything over 2% wouldn't pass due to the large amount of publicity of the 2% and misunderstandings around this idea. ~ Upstate city superintendent
The tax cap has achieved its intended result - which was to curtail the salaries and benefits to employees. Long term consequences of this have yet to be determined. Class sizes are "creeping up" - while still manageable, may be a problem within two or three years ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
Poor rural districts could never balance a budget or make up for lost state aid through an increase of the local tax levy. We have been near or under 2% for years. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Community assumption - no more than 2% tax levy increase. We feared a defeated budget if we raised it to our limit, about 8%. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
This year, the tax cap was near our traditional offering to the public. At $33,000 per 1% of the levy, the tax cap has minimal impact with a passed budget under the cap level. We do have concerns if a budget goes to contingency... ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We are entering a second year without a teachers' and administrators' contact and the tax cap is not recognized at the table as a concern on their part. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent Our teachers union does not want to hear anything about the tax levy limit- they believe that either we
should crumble, or utilize every last cent of reserves before they should be asked to give anything back. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
It is difficult to compare options under the tax cap when you raise less that $15, 000 with 1% increase on the tax levy. We share multiple services and have tried to consolidate every way possible. Districts needs a choice beyond the concept of a merger. The Regional High School (if done right) could give multiple new opportunities for kids as well as a positive choice for communities. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The cap may not assist in negotiations when the contracts are governed by Triborough. Most situations will guarantee large raises and maintain benefits under Triborough and there is really no impetus to move if Triborough gives you a great deal to maintain the status quo. Luckily not all districts have to deal with a militant unit and can reach some type of a solution that can benefit all. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent Our tax levy was under 2% for the three years before the tax cap so significant cuts were already made. The cap will leverage some short term advantages in bargaining with this 3-year trend that preceded it - but this is all short term. It will come back to haunt us and everyone unless other mandates are removed and the state gets its priorities straight. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
Our district raises about $76,000 per 1% increase in the tax levy, making foundation aid the critical element in our budgeting process. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
We completed contract negotiations with the teachers last spring. The tax cap contributed to the discussion but was not the sole reason we successfully controlled costs through negotiations. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
The Gov has touted Massachusetts for its "workable" tax cap. We need to make sure that people know that NYS has not matched the same levels of funding that MA did. There is a lot of misinformation and our politicians have not helped. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
24
Implementing evaluation reforms In the 2011 survey, we posed two questions
regarding “Race to the Top” (RTTT) – the Obama
Administration’s education reform initiative which
promises New York State nearly $700 million over
four years to support systemic improvements in
standards, assessments, data systems, teacher and
leader quality, and low-performing school
interventions.
In 2011, 91 percent of superintendents said that
the costs of implementing RTTT activities would
significantly exceed the amount of aid their district
would receive through that federal grant. The
average basic grant to school districts outside the “Big
5” cities is estimated to be around $100,000 – to be
paid over four years.
In the other RTTT question a year ago, 81 percent
of superintendents agreed with the statement that
cost considerations will prevent their districts from
implementing new teacher and principal evaluation
requirements in a manner that would best serve
students.
This year we chose to focus on one dimension of
the Race to the Top agenda – the efforts to imple-
ment changes in teacher and principal evaluation
practices, as required under state legislation enacted
in 2010 and revised in 2012. Some district leaders
have referred to the initiative as “the mother of all
unfunded mandates.”
Anticipated cost impact Statewide, 98 percent of superintendents said
compliance with the new “Annual Professional
Performance Review” (APPR) requirements will cost
their districts more than what it would have
traditionally spent on evaluations – the highest
statewide response percentage of any question in our
survey. An overwhelming majority (70 percent) of
superintendents offered that the new APPR
requirements will significantly increase evaluation
costs in their districts compared to what was spent
under prior practices.
This mandate complicates school finances across
the state, no matter region. Mid-Hudson Valley
districts anticipate the greatest fiscal impact from the
new APPR: 93 percent of the region’s superintend-
dents said complying with the new APPR law would
significantly increase spending while the remaining 7
percent said compliance would somewhat increase
spending. Lower Hudson Valley superintendents
were least negative in appraising cost impact, with 56
percent concluding the new requirements would
significantly increase costs. Nonetheless, every
superintendent in that region anticipated some
additional cost impact.
70%
28%
2%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Significantly increase spending
Somewhat increase spending
No signicant effect
Reduce spending
To what extent did complying with the new APPR requirements require your district to increase what it
expects to spend on teacher and principal evaluationbeyond what it would have traditionally spent?
70%
68%
56%
93%
67%
67%
63%
79%
65%
76%
64%
28%
29%
44%
7%
30%
33%
38%
14%
35%
24%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
Long Island
Lower Hudson Valley
Mid-Hudson Valley
Capital Region
Mohawk Valley
Central New York
North Country
Southern Tier
Finger Lakes
Western New York
Cost impact of new teacher evaluation requirements
Significant increase above past cost Somewhat increase above past cost
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
25
Only a few districts statewide stated that
compliance with APPR would not significantly affect
costs over what has traditionally been spent on
teacher and principal evaluation. The overwhelming
majority of districts who indicated APPR would not
significantly affect costs are small, with less than 500
students.
It might fairly be asked why, if schools have been
evaluating teachers and principals all along, would
new requirements impose added costs? So we asked
superintendents what they identify as the largest cost
drivers within the new evaluation mandate.
Professional development for teachers and
principals were listed as the first and second largest
new cost components, followed by new student
assessment costs.
By better than a two-to-one margin over any
other item, superintendents picked teacher
profession development as the single largest cost-
driver, and 74 percent of superintendents chose it as
one of the top three cost drivers. Professional
development for principals and other administrators
followed, with 65 percent of superintendents
identifying it as one of the top three cost drivers.
There has been considerable debate about new
student assessment demands required by APPR, both
on budgets for school districts, and instructional time
for students.14 Purchasing of tests from vendors was
listed as the third largest cost driver for APPR,
followed closely by development of additional student
assessments by district staff.
14 The new procedures require that 20 percent of
an evaluation be based on student growth on state assessments, and 20 percent on locally assessed measures of student performance, with the percentages shifting to 25 percent state/15 percent local once the Board of Regents approves a value added measure. For teachers in subjects not covered by state assessments, districts are required to develop “Student Learning Objectives” which will commonly require pre- and post-instruction tests to determine student growth.
Demands on administration
Administrative expenditures by school districts
are often a popular target. But policymakers depend
on school administrators to ensure that all the
mandates they impose are faithfully executed. At the
same time, our survey shows that administrative
positions have been cut more steeply than teaching
jobs across the state. We estimate that over the past
two years districts have eliminated an average of 12
percent of their administrator positions. Not
surprisingly then, many district leaders are alarmed
by the challenges they foresee in administering the
new APPR mandate.
Statewide, 73 percent of superintendents
estimate that more than 30 percent of their
principals’ or other administrators’ time will be spent
conducting teacher evaluations in accord with the
new mandate. Within that total, more than 40
percent predict completing teacher evaluations will
consume over 40 percent of an administrator’s time.
Some superintendents caution that devoting 40
percent of the work week to evaluations (for example)
may be appropriate, but questions arise over how
time is spent. Do districts have adequate capacity to
do evaluations well and meet other administrative
demands? Can they strike a good balance between
complying with evaluation protocols for every teacher
and focusing on those who need the most attention to
be successful?
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Weighted
Score
1. Professional development for teachers 86 58 38 412
2.Professional development for principals and other administrators 40 79 42 320
3.Purchase of additional student assessments from vendors 51 37 26 253
4.Development of additional student assessments by district staff 27 28 62 199
5.
Paying current staff for additional time needed to implement APPR (for purposes other than development of additional student assessments) 18 20 39 133
6.Purchase of other materials (not student assessments) from vendors 11 14 11 72
7 Additional staffing 9 4 7 42
8. Consultant costs 3 6 15 36
9. Other costs 2 1 7 15
Looking at the list below, what do you believe will be the largest components of any additional costs for your district in implementing the new APPR requirements? Please rank the top 3 items.
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
26
Administrative time spent on APPR evaluations
varies by district type. Superintendents from city
school districts foresee the greatest administrative
demands from APPR evaluations: 73 percent of city
superintendents indicate more than 40 percent of
their principals’ time will be spent on APPR
compared to 24 percent of suburban superintendents.
By region, administrative time spent on teacher
evaluation is slightly varied. But again the
overwhelming majority of all regions seem to indicate
that more than at least 30 percent of a principal’s
time will be spent on complying with the new APPR
requirements. Superintendents, educators and
parents have often voiced their concern the time
principals will be spending on complying with APPR
will remove them from their needed instructional role
in school buildings. These survey results seem to echo
this sentiment.
With the advent of state-imposed limits on the
two major revenue sources for schools – property
taxes and School Aid – new state-imposed costs
almost inevitably require reductions in other school
functions. This is true for the new teacher and
principal evaluation mandates. Some of the
monetary costs they require are transitional, and will
diminish as new procedures become established. But
there is no reason to anticipate any appreciable
diminution in the pressures they impose on school
administration. Principals now will also be called
upon to play pivotal roles in carrying out new state
mandates to thwart bullying and cyber-bullying.
0%
8%
19%
32%
41%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Under 10%
More than 10%, up to 20%
More than 20%, up to 30%
More than 30%, up to 40%
More than 40%
Approximately what percentage of a typical principal or other administrator's timedo you anticipate will be spent on conducting teacher evaluations in compliance with the new
APPR requirements?
19%
13%
26%
15%
32%
7%
38%
30%
41%
73%
24%
49%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
City
Suburb
Rural
Shares of districts projecting principals will need to spend more than 20% of their time on teacher evaluations -- by region
More than 20%, up to 30% More than 30%, up to 40% More than 40%
19%
32%
29%
7%
7%
13%
19%
25%
13%
21%
12%
32%
37%
41%
20%
41%
13%
13%
32%
25%
32%
42%
41%
18%
18%
47%
48%
60%
56%
43%
54%
41%
45%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
Long Island
Lower Hudson Valley
Mid-Hudson Valley
Capital Region
Mohawk Valley
Central New York
North Country
Southern Tier
Finger Lakes
Western New York
Shares of districts projecting principals will need to spend more than 20% of their time on teacher evaluations -- by region
More than 20%, up to 30% More than 30%, up to 40% More than 40%
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
27
In their own words: Evaluation Mandate…
The APPR has been the largest unfunded mandate and has had the most impact to my budget since I became Superintendent 7 years ago. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
This new APPR which would otherwise be a positive thing for schools, has turned into a fiasco between the time it has taken to negotiate new terms and conditions regarding its implementation and the cost of the implementation. All of these issues have had a negative impact on the annual budget because we have continually gone back to the BOE for approval of things which were not budgeted for initially in order to deal with the implementation of the new APPR. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
Impossible to properly implement APPR due to limited number of administrators - Too many other administrative demands already exist, not enough time - the current 60 hour week for administrators can't be expanded. To conduct APPR properly, more administrative positions are needed, yet the community can't support such. It is humanly impossible. ~ Upstate city superintendent
We continue to cut administrative positions each year as we add on more and more daily responsibilities. While evaluation and student management should always be top priorities, there is a limit to what a person can accomplish in any given day … The cost to meet the SED standards is significant as we will now be required to purchase outside vendor products for evaluation. Our former model was clinical, research based, and fair. I do not believe the new expensive system will change our decisions in regard to what employees are terminated due to poor performance. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
I think that principals must be instructional leaders. I agree their time should be spent IN classrooms. What has not been taken into consideration are the management duties for principals. If principals are in classrooms, who manages the building? Who deals with all of the parent issues? Student issues? Approval of purchase requisitions... the list goes on and on … ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The new APPR, as negotiated in my district, requires me to be available for appeals. As a result, I cannot do any formal observation of teachers. This results in my principal taking the full burden. I normally observe 25-33% of the staff annually. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Once again, capacity and scale impact our ability to do this work. We developed a quality APPR plan, but are currently at impasse with teachers, as they will not settle without a salary agreement. Even with what was quality work, there are improvements that need to be made in our evaluative approach and process, that will not be made for some period of time, because of all of the other items that are taking the time and attention of the administrators. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
I have no idea how our principals are going to be able to sustain themselves working under these conditions. They were worked to exhaustion prior to these changes, now between APPR and the Dignity Act, I truly have no idea how this work will get done. Hiring "help" is not an option. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The entire APPR process is misguided. It is costing the district enormous amounts of resources in time, money, and personnel. The emphasis on testing is taking away from precious classroom instructional time. The emphasis on training for lead evaluators and multiple formal classroom evaluations as well as summative evaluations will severely and negatively affect the ability of admin-istrators in all districts who "wear numerous hats" to be effective administrators in other areas of their job per-formance (discipline, leading curriculum development/ implementation, budgeting, hiring/firing, etc.). Ill-conceived from start to finish. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
It is going to take more effort and time for administra- tion to properly evaluate staff. I know that the current configuration of administration will not be able to keep up with the new APPR particularly the implementation of TIPs if done properly. More staff is needed, but the community will not support it because they value lower class sizes over anything else in the budget. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
28
Looking ahead Our survey concluded by asking superintendents
to think ahead – to estimate how much spending
would need to increase to cover baseline costs, to
gauge which might have greater significance for their
districts – the tax levy cap or future state aid levels, to
cite priorities for mandate relief, and to say what they
would prioritize if new revenue became available for
their districts.
Anticipated cost pressures In the recent past, it been common to hear school
district leaders warn that their district’s spending
would increase by 4 or 5 percent or more under a
“roll-over budget” – a budget continuing existing
service levels while adjusting projected expenses to
reflect foreseeable changes in costs, such as
negotiated salary increases. THE COUNCIL has
estimated that pension and health insurance costs
alone would have driven up overall spending by 2.5
percent in each of the two years prior to this, even if
all other costs could have been frozen.
Yet over the past four years, the school budgets
actually proposed to their voters would have raised
spending by an average of less than 2 percent per
year. Superintendents and boards cut from baseline
spending levels in order to hold down tax increases
while accommodating austerity in state funding and
surges in employee benefit costs.
In both the 2011 and 2012 surveys, we asked
superintendents to
estimate the approximate percentage change in
your district's spending if it adopted a budget
maintaining current services, given collective
bargaining agreements, enrollment changes,
and other cost considerations.
Comparing results from the two years suggests
slowing of baseline spending growth for schools.
In 2011, 56 percent of superintendents said their
district budget for the following year would need to
rise by more than 3 percent in order to accommodate
foreseeable costs. In the 2012 survey, that share has
fallen to 40 percent.
But there is reason to suspect that these expend-
iture projections may be optimistic. This month –
after the survey was conducted – the State Teachers
Retirement System projected a much larger increase
in its employer contribution rate for 2013-14 than
districts had to absorb in their current year budgets.
The rate increased by 0.73 percentage points for
2012-13 school budgets (from 11.11 to 11.84 percent).
But for 2013-14, TRS estimates the rate will need to
rise at least by at least 3.6 percentage points, to
between 15.5 and 16.5 percent. District contributions
are determined by multiplying this rate by the payroll
for employees in TRS. So the new projected rates
will require districts to absorb a cost equivalent to
giving the covered employees raises of at least 3.6
percent, and perhaps as much as 4.6 percent.
2012-13 2013-14Spending would be reduced below 2011-12 level 11% 2%There would be no change or almost no change in spending 4% 7%
Spending would increase by up to 1% 3% 4%Spending would increase by more than 1%,up to 2% 9% 18%Spending would increase by more than 2%, up to 3% 13% 24%
Spending would increase by more than 3%, up to 4% 25% 20%Spending would increase by more than 4%, up to 5% 17% 12%Spending would increase by more than 5%, up to 7% 11% 7%Spending would increase by more than 7%, up to 10% 5% 3%
Spending would increase by more than 10% 2% 2%
Percent of districts
Looking ahead to next year , please estimate the approximate percentage change in your district's spending if it adopted a budget maintaining current services, given collective bargaining agreements, enrollment changes, and other cost considerations.
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
29
Tax Levy Cap or State Aid – which is of greater
concern? One of the most striking findings in the survey is a
sharp increase in the importance attached to state aid
as a revenue source for schools.
Both last year and this year we asked superintend-
dents,
Thinking about the future financial prospects of
your school district, which is of greater concern
to you – the property tax cap or possible future
state aid levels?
This year’s results show a 19 percent jump in the
percentage of superintendents citing state aid as the
greater concern.
As with the 2011 survey, the question yielded
divergent reactions across regions, with poorer, more
state aid dependent areas more likely to cite state aid
as the greater concern in both years. Nonetheless,
the 2012 survey shows superintendents across all
regions assigning greater priority to state aid.
For example, in the Lower Hudson Valley, the
percentage of superintendents citing state aid as the
greater concern for their districts moved slightly,
from 5 percent to 11 percent. But the share
identifying state aid and the tax cap as of equal
concern soared, from 30 percent to 67 percent.
In contrast, across the poorer Upstate regions
away from the Hudson River, only 5 percent of
superintendents now cite the tax levy cap as the
greater fiscal concern for their districts.
A year ago we observed that “some districts were
capped by circumstances before they were capped by
law”– they simply could not ask their taxpayers for
local tax increases great enough to offset cuts in state
aid, surges in employee benefit costs, or both.
According to data filed in “property tax report
cards” last spring, 20 percent of the state’s school
districts would raise less than $50,000 through a 1
percent tax increase. Obviously, some of these
districts are very small. But even a small district will
need to spend $50,000 or more to pay salary and
benefits to retain a single professional position.
Among superintendents foreseeing the possibility
of financial insolvency within two years, 71 percent
identified possible state aid levels as the greatest
revenue concern, compared to 44 percent for all
superintendents.
7.63%6.19%
8.62%
11.11% 11.84% 15.50%
16.50%
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
School fiscal year
Employer Contribution Rate for Teachers Retirement System
Actual contribution rates Projected range for 2013-14
SOURCE: Compiled by Council from NYS TRS Administrative BulletinsSOURCE: Compiled by Council from NYS TRS Administrative Bulletins
25%
13%
52%
43%
23%
44%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2011
2012
Thinking about the future financial prospects of your district, which is of greater concern to you -- the property tax cap, or possible future state aid levels?
Tax Cap Equal Concern State Aid
49%
49%
44%
38%
9%
33%
43%
44%
41%
64%
18%
8%
13%
21%
27%
0% 50% 100%
Insolvency within 2 years
Between 2 and 4 years
At some point beyond 4 years
Do not foresee a time when my district would not meet obligations
Unsure
When superintendents foresee insolvency and what is the greatest revenue concern for their district
Possible state aid levels Roughly equal concern Property tax cap
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
30
These results should not be interpreted to suggest
that after one year with the tax levy cap, school
leaders have concluded it’s not so bad. More
probably, superintendents see the tax levy cap as a
fact of life, unlikely to be lifted or amended in the
near-term. Therefore, they now attach more
importance to securing additional help for their
schools through state aid.
In last year’s report we observed,
…even if the property tax cap is the greater
concern for a district, greater state aid is a way
to address that concern. By reducing access to
local revenues, the tax cap has the potential to
raise the stakes in competition for state aid.
Just one year of experience with the tax cap seems
to have brought that dynamic into sharper focus.
Priorities for Mandate Relief In the debates over whether to enact the tax levy
cap, we said THE COUNCIL’s position could be
expressed in just 10 words: A tax cap will hurt
schools. There are better options.
As examples of “better options,” we urged state
leaders to repeal or amend mandates so that schools
could control costs and gain more impact from their
spending. We also said the state needed to become a
more reliable partner in supporting public education
through School Aid.
Now that the tax levy cap is in place, the need for
action to deliver both forms of state help is more
urgent.
This year’s survey includes a new question, asking
superintendents to choose from 25 options and
identify their top five priorities for actions the state
could take to help schools reduce or control costs or
gain more impact from their spending.
Three priorities stand out in the results.
Amending the Triborough Law, setting mandatory
minimum employee and retiree contributions for
health insurance, and stopping new unfunded
mandates were chosen among top five priorities by
more than half the superintendents responding to the
survey. No other option received support from more
than a third of superintendents.
Triborough: Under the Triborough law,
provisions of an expired collective bargaining
agreement remain in force until a successor
agreement is negotiated, including step increments
which provide salary increases for an additional year
of service. Seventy-three percent of superintendents
picked amending Triborough to eliminate automatic
step increases under an expired contract as one of
their top five priorities and 43 percent picked it as
their number one priority.
Superintendents believe Triborough removes
incentives for unions to settle contracts since
negotiated benefits remain in place and most
members continue to receive raises. THE COUNCIL
advocates eliminating the guarantee of step increases
but leaving benefit protections in place when a
collective bargaining agreement expires.15
15 For the record, if a superintendent’s contract expires and is not renewed, he or she will be out of a job.
RegionProperty Tax Cap
Equal Concern State Aid
2011 25% 52% 23%
2012 13% 43% 44%
2011 49% 44% 7%
2012 44% 46% 10%
2011 65% 30% 5%
2012 22% 67% 11%
2011 25% 50% 25%
2012 13% 53% 33%
2011 21% 64% 14%
2012 12% 46% 42%
2011 21% 47% 32%
2012 0% 36% 64%
2011 8% 58% 33%
2012 0% 38% 63%
2011 17% 60% 23%
2012 7% 46% 46%
2011 12% 69% 19%
2012 4% 38% 58%
2011 17% 50% 33%
2012 6% 26% 68%
2011 19% 39% 42%
2012 9% 39% 52%
Total
Long Island
Lower Hudson Valley
Mid-Hudson Valley
Western New York
Thinking about the future financial prospects of your district, which is of greater concern to you -- the property tax cap, or possible future state aid levels?
Capital Region
Mohawk Valley
Central New York
North Country
Southern Tier
Finger Lakes
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
31
Options 1 2 3 4 51 Amend the Triborough law to eliminate
automatic salary increments if a collective bargaining agreement has expired
107 30 20 9 14 747 73%
2 Establish mandatory minimum employee and retiree contributions for health insurance
48 69 20 13 7 609 64%
3 No new unfunded mandates 30 22 22 19 43 385 55%4 Reduce the role of seniority in layoff
decisions (i.e., modify "last in, first out")
9 27 19 17 12 256 34%
5 Require all public employees in a region to belong to a single health insurance program
11 22 20 3 3 212 24%
6 Authorize the State Education Department to order school district mergers, without voter approval, based on considerations including local financial capacity and inability to maintain comprehensive educational services, following a review with local input
9 5 15 10 9 139 20%
7 Revise middle school requirements 3 5 11 18 13 117 20%8 Authorize regional high schools to
serve students from multiple school districts
6 8 10 8 5 113 15%
9 Other change in health insurance 2 6 14 8 8 100 15%10 Revise special education class size
requirements4 3 12 10 11 99 16%
11 Streamline procedures for tenured teacher hearings ("3020a reform")
1 6 12 12 8 97 16%
12 Reduce reliance on "seat time" requirements in high school by allowing students to earn credit by demonstrating proficiency in a subject instead
0 7 6 13 21 93 19%
13 Other special education changes 2 3 11 12 13 92 17%14 Other state actions to help schools
reduce or control costs or gain more impact from spending
5 4 3 10 14 84 15%
15 Expand opportunities for districts to share sertvices through BOCES
2 6 4 13 11 83 15%
16 Revise due process procedures for resolving special education disputes between districts and parents
1 5 9 9 7 77 13%
17 Revise evaluation requirements for making special education placements
1 5 6 10 6 69 11%
18 Reduce mileage limits for mandated transportation of nonpublic school students
2 2 11 6 4 67 10%
18 Amend the ""Wicks law" to reduce or eliminate the requirements to use multiple prime contractors in construction
0 3 7 11 12 67 13%
20 Align teacher certification and tenure areas
2 0 3 6 3 34 6%
21 Streamline procedures for voluntary school district consolidation while retaining a requirement for local voter approval
1 2 1 7 2 32 5%
21 Require districts to collaborate in providing out of district pupil transportation
0 2 2 6 6 32 7%
23 Revise requirements for Academic Intervention Services
0 1 3 6 6 31 7%
24 Expand opportunities for students to satisfy graduation requirements through career and technical education (CTE) options
0 1 3 5 6 29 6%
25 Require districts below a minimum size to share some administrative functions
0 2 2 4 1 23 4%
% Citing as a Prioriity
Looking at the list below, what would be your top five priorities for actions the state could take to help your district reduce or control costs, or gain more impact from its spending?
Rank WeightedScore
Although the specified change to Triborough
would affect only salaries and would come into play
only as a union contract reaches or nears expiration,
it would be a pivotal reform, creating greater balance
in collective bargaining and giving districts greater
capacity to gain changes across the full range of
issues subject to negotiation.
Health Insurance: Establishing mandatory
minimum contributions toward health insurance by
employees and retirees was the second leading
mandate relief priority, chosen by 64 percent of
superintendents as one of their top five options. As
part of the Let New York Work coalition, THE
COUNCIL has supported capping employer
contributions so employees pay at least 15 percent for
individual coverage and 25 percent for family
coverage.
This change would reduce costs for districts now
paying a larger share of health insurance costs. It
would have broader effects as well: if union members
must pay a higher share of costs, they may become
more receptive to changes in plans which would
lower total costs.
But requiring greater employee and retiree
contributions toward premiums would not directly
address the most fundamental issues with health
insurance – that its cost is too great and is growing
too fast. Another option offered in the survey is to
require all public employees in a region to belong to a
single health insurance plan, presuming that larger
coverage pools would ultimately result in lower costs
for both employers and employees. This option was
the fifth most favored priority.
Past surveys by THE COUNCIL have found districts
moving to join health insurance consortia. But an
impediment to maximizing the potential of this
strategy is that health insurance benefits typically are
collectively bargained and those contracts expire at
different times. A state requirement would advance
implementation of the strategy.
Unfunded mandates: 55 percent of
superintendents chose “no new unfunded mandates”
as one of their top five priorities. As one example
noted above, there is widespread frustration over the
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
32
cost of the new teacher and principal evaluation
procedures required by the state.
THE COUNCIL has supported legislation to limit the
growth of unfunded mandates, for example, by
requiring three-fifths approval by both houses of the
Legislature before new ones may be adopted. There
have also been proposals to enact a prohibition by
amending the state constitution.
Although the notion is popular, it is hard to enact
into policy, in part due to the complexities of defining
what is a mandate (is Triborough a mandate?) and
establishing whether one imposes costs which are not
completely funded. Also, any law to bar new un-
funded mandates could be circumvented simply by
passing a new law. The complexities of establishing
what constitutes an “unfunded mandate” could make
a constitutional prohibition an invitation for endless
legal quagmires.
But there is one simple way state officials could
stop unfunded mandates – by pledging to neither
propose nor approve any new unfunded mandate.
Reduce the role of seniority in layoff
decisions: Under state law, when teacher layoffs
are implemented, the must be done strictly on the
basis of seniority, a policy summed up as “last in, first
out,” or LIFO. Reducing the role of seniority would
give districts latitude to retain higher performing
newer teachers. This was the fourth most popular
option, chosen as a priority by 34 percent of
responding superintendents.
School district consolidation and
regionalism: The sixth most popular cost saving/
resource optimizing option might be a surprise. As
one of their top five priorities, 20 percent of superin-
tendents would “authorize the State Education De-
partment to order school district mergers, without
voter approval, based on considerations including
local financial capacity and inability to maintain
comprehensive educational services, following a
review with local input.”
Another interpretation of this result is that 80
percent of superintendents did not choose that option
as a priority.
Nonetheless, in some regions of the state superin-
tendents see a need for their districts to join in mer-
gers and are frustrated by the process for consolid-
ation and by the common outcome – voter rejection.
Often superintendent support is motivated just
partly by financial considerations, if at all. In com-
munities which have suffered steep and steady
enrollment losses, superintendents see their districts
losing the capacity to provide students with comp-
rehensive educational opportunities, especially at the
high school level.
At the same time, promoting consolidation is not a
realistic option for the state as a comprehensive
financial survival strategy for public education.
First, assembling combinations of small, poor
districts only results in larger poor districts. Also, the
aggregate savings to taxpayers is small by definition.
Second, administrative costs comprise a very
limited portion of most school budgets – particularly
in small and poor districts – and any savings in that
function has typically been more than offset by the
cost of “leveling-up” compensation established by the
previously separate districts and their unions.
Third, some of the districts which are lowest in
wealth and smallest in enrollment are also largest in
geographic area. For example, the average North
County district serves under 1,000 students but
occupies over 170 square miles. So merging pairs of
districts in this region would necessitate transporting
some students over areas bigger than New York City
(322 square miles).
Fourth, there are other states with comparable
numbers of school districts and they do not spend at
New York’s per pupil levels (Illinois and Texas for
example). So the number of school districts oper-
ating in New York does not explain our higher costs.
Other options for regional collaboration won
support. Expanding opportunities for districts to
share services through BOCES and authorizing the
establishment of regional high schools were chosen as
priorities by 15 percent of responding superintend-
dents. These options would allow communities to
retain control over local elementary schools while
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
33
saving on overhead costs and enhancing the ability to
maintain more complete high school programs.
Requiring districts below a certain size to share
certain administrative functions finished last among
the offered options.
Special education: Special education is
frequently cited as a major cost-driver for schools and
an area where New York State mandates significantly
exceed what federal law requires. Four different
special education mandate relief options won support
from at least 10 percent of the superintendents.
Laws and regulations governing how these
services are determined and delivered are extremely
complex. THE COUNCIL has long called for an
independent study to recommend changes, or merely
to identify how New York diverges from common and
effective practices in other states.
Pension Reform: As explained above, pension
costs have been a major cost driver for schools. We
did not offer a pension reform proposal among the
options, however, because the bitter debate over
Governor Cuomo’s “Tier VI” proposal made it seem
unlikely that the Legislature would revisit this topic
over the near-term. However, the previously
described 3.6 to 4.6 percentage point increase in
employer contribution rates for the Teachers Retire-
ment System will rekindle interest in finding ways to
level-out cost increases.
TRS estimates that Tier VI will dramatically shift
the employer/employee shares of long-term costs.
Where the old Tier IV split costs 89 percent for
employers and 11 percent for employees, Tier VI will
divide them 49 percent/ 51 percent. But near-term
savings will be small, both because districts typically
are cutting jobs rather than rather than filling them
now, and those that are filled are done by recalling
laid-off workers who are entitled to continue in one of
the earlier, more costly tiers.
Priorities for new funding We closed our survey with a hopeful question,
asking superintendents what they would prioritize,
“…if your district were to receive an increase in
funding beyond what would be needed to fund state
mandates and your current level of services?” They
were invited to name three top priorities.
As with the 2011 survey, increasing extra help for
struggling students was the top choice, and by a wider
margin than a year ago. Reducing the local tax levy
came in second, but with 19 percent fewer
superintendents citing it as a priority, perhaps
reflecting the impact of the tax levy cap. Increasing
advanced or enrichment classes jumped three places
(from 6th to 3rd). Reducing class sizes, increasing
reserves, and expanding professional development
each moved down one place to round out the top six.
The priority attached to increasing extra help
aligns with the finding that the highest percentage of
superintendents cited it as an area negatively affected
by current year budget actions.
2011 2012
Increase extra help for struggling students 64% 66%
Reduce property tax levy 57% 38%
Increase enrichment/advanced classes 23% 37%
Reduce class sizes 30% 26%
Increase funding of reserves 29% 27%
Expand professional development 28% 28%
Increase other student support services 24% 21%Strengthen administration (district or building level) 9% 17%
Purchase technology 12% 16%
Improve maintenance 10% 8%
Purchase other instruction-related materials 10% 7%
Expand extracurricular activities or athletics 3% 5%
Other 2% 3%
Purchase other equipment 0% 2%
If your district were to receive an increase in funding beyond what would be needed to fund state mandates and your current level of services, what would be your top three priorities for the use of that funding?
% of superintendents choosing as a priority
Can’t Get There from Here: A survey on school fiscal matters | November 2012
34
In their own words: Looking Ahead…
Over the past two years we have cut almost 15% of staff. Depending primarily on TRS, ERS and health insurance we will have to cut another 5-10% of remaining staff for 2013-14. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
At the pace we are going we will be bankrupt within three years. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Mandated cost increases for pensions and health insurance, combined with the 2% tax cap threaten the long-term capability of our instructional programs ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Our district is not able to offer the level of intervention services that our students need academically. We are getting by through under-spending our budget, being lean administratively and unfortunately not offering the depth of intervention serves our student s need. ~ Upstate city superintendent
The District and the community have worked together to reduce expenses for four years with budget to budget increases of 1% to 1 1/2%. Even with these continued cuts to services and programs we cannot make up the massive loss of revenue as a direct result of the GEA (Gap Elimination Adjustment). Multiple years of this state aid cutting formula has put us in a position which will now force us to cut academic programming that will directly impact achievement results. Programs such as UPK, Kindergarten, and Summer School. The "Tax Cap" will serve its purpose and begin to control costs, but to implement this new law and continue with the GEA is simply a recipe for disaster. We are out of strategies and out of time. The GEA needs to be addressed now! ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Three years of using reserves, cutting 120 staff members, seeking and receiving major concessions from bargaining units, and continuing to have deal with GEA, withdrawal of ARRA [i.e., federal stimulus aid], and flat state aid at the best have taken a draconian toll on our district. There is really nothing left that this district can do except finish dismantling an outstanding educational institution. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Our district is on a downward spiral. It is difficult to think of the gravity of the situation facing us next year and in the near future. To fund the escalating costs of
health insurance, special education and liabilities for ERS/TRS, it will take significant cuts to do so, given the constraints of the tax cap and the diminished State Aid funding over the past several years. Unless something changes, children will be denied a free and APPROP-RIATE education. Their exposure and experiences in extracurricular activities will go by the wayside to ensure we comply with MANDATES first. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
We are just "getting by," living from year to year. We will not be able to keep pace with community expectations in the future. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
Our district is one year away from having to cut extra-curricular and interscholastic offerings as well as having to increase class size across the district. Subse-quent years will bring about additional cuts to program. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
The issue is not the near term expenses or revenues but the long term rate of growth of healthcare and retirement costs relative to my districts expected increases in revenues from local taxes and state aid. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Spending is not the problem, lack of revenue is. State Aid formulas and the GEA have devastated our revenue, all reserves and fund balance have been dipped into, and the tax cap is the final right hook. It is obvious that our state government is limiting our revenues in an effort to choke off smaller schools that are more dependent on State Aid. This is shameful… They are perpetuating a system where education is the great equalizer only if you live in the right school district. ~ Upstate rural superintendent
Special Education costs / mandates are out of control. Cost should be an allowed consideration, just as it is for regular education students. ~ Upstate suburban superintendent
Require every legislative action related to education to include a cost-benefit analysis; a cost-per-district estimate; and a benefit/impediment analysis prior to vote. For example: 1)APPR and $700 million RTTT does not reveal real costs to districts; 2) The new cyber-bullying off campus law will raise extreme costs in administrator time, legal fees, and police time/expenses. ~ Downstate suburban superintendent
NEW YORK STATE
COUNCIL OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
7 Elk Street, Third Floor Albany, New York 12207
518.449.1063 www.nyscoss.org