Elwood’s Board Work Session last night began, comfortably, with a great deal of information about the Special Education component of the annual budget. Over the course of about an hour or so, we saw a presentation that went through details of the changes in our Special Education population over the years, as well as insight into the various laws, regulations, and processes which govern our District, and all others in NY State.
Those of us who have had children who were either temporarily or permanently classified (my own disabled child finished Glenn in 2010), have a pretty good understanding of these matters, but for other parents it may have been a revelation as to its complexity and the year-to-year variability in staffing and/or outside placement costs which are affected by new classifications of existing students or by Special Education students whose families either move into, or out of, our District.
The depth or extent of the disability of a particular child can produce dramatically different expenses between one classified student and another, so those moves of families in and out of our District, and those new classifications of existing students, can produce dramatic swings in expenses from one school year to another. What was not clear, but which I hope will be made available soon, is the amount and percentage of these costs which are annually funded by NY State, so that residents can understand what Albany leaves for residents of our District, and others, to pay for through local property taxes.
As was astutely observed last night by a number of Trustees of the BOE, these are not only services which are mandated by NY State, they are also services which these children need and deserve. And any parent of a Special Ed child would give their right arm, and two legs, to have their own child permanently freed from their own disability and need no more services, and therefore no additional expenditures, than any “normal” child in our school district; it is a need, and not a “want.”
But, after that bit of what I would call adult education, we came to the point where the Superintendent gave his first public response to the Board’s request, at the last Budget Work Shop, for an indication of what would have to be cut, from the initial discussion draft of what I call his “ideal budget,” so that the Board and residents would understand what a Contingent Budget would mean for the education of Elwood students.
Sometime today the District is going to have posted to the website the two page summation, prepared by the Assistant Superintendent for Business, to which Mr. Scordo was referring in his remarks.
The essence of this fiscal shocker is that even if every co-curricular activity was eliminated, and even if all athletics were eliminated, and even if all new equipment and textbooks and workbooks and materials & supplies were eliminated, the effect of the major expenditure categories which are unable to be reduced further would mean that those draconian cuts could only produce about $2.3 million of the $3.5 million which would be required to achieve the reduced expenditures level needed to reach the Contingent Budget number.
The bottom line, which you find at the end of the two page synopsis, is that -- unless the District gets substantial wage and benefit concessions by the union --eighteen teachers would need to be cut.
So, no after school activities, no athletics, no new books or supplies, and still eighteen teachers would need to be cut.
And, to be realistic, it may be reasonably argued by some Trustees, and many parents, that elimination of 100% of those activities and supplies may not be in the interests of our students (perhaps a gross understatement), so the District might have to reach for an even higher number of teacher cuts, again, unless the union agreed to substantial concessions.
Furthermore, as we know, and as you saw Mayor Bloomberg arguing in his Op Ed piece in the NY Times, under current NY State restrictions on school districts, we cannot even accomplish those reductions on the basis of retaining the most effective teachers (regardless of whether they have been with us for twenty years or ten years or five years or whatever). No, instead, a school district in NY State is forced to cut teachers on the basis of who has been employed for the least amount of time.
“Ugly” is the first word that comes to mind, and we will get to hear greater detail at the next Board Budget Work Session, on March 10th.
But “irrational” is the second word that comes to mind when it comes to what the State forces school districts to do when releasing teachers in budget cuts.
Finally, the third word that would come to mind would be “enlightened,” which is what we hope the teachers union would become. If so, the District would be able to reduce staffing by far fewer teachers than would be required if the District was instead forced to pay the current scales of salary and benefits to the smaller number of teachers (i.e., if a majority of the union elected not to do anything to benefit their younger co-workers, as well as our students).
Next week, and the weeks thereafter, should become really interesting, but possibly really tense.
Let’s hope for enlightenment.
Those of us who have had children who were either temporarily or permanently classified (my own disabled child finished Glenn in 2010), have a pretty good understanding of these matters, but for other parents it may have been a revelation as to its complexity and the year-to-year variability in staffing and/or outside placement costs which are affected by new classifications of existing students or by Special Education students whose families either move into, or out of, our District.
The depth or extent of the disability of a particular child can produce dramatically different expenses between one classified student and another, so those moves of families in and out of our District, and those new classifications of existing students, can produce dramatic swings in expenses from one school year to another. What was not clear, but which I hope will be made available soon, is the amount and percentage of these costs which are annually funded by NY State, so that residents can understand what Albany leaves for residents of our District, and others, to pay for through local property taxes.
As was astutely observed last night by a number of Trustees of the BOE, these are not only services which are mandated by NY State, they are also services which these children need and deserve. And any parent of a Special Ed child would give their right arm, and two legs, to have their own child permanently freed from their own disability and need no more services, and therefore no additional expenditures, than any “normal” child in our school district; it is a need, and not a “want.”
But, after that bit of what I would call adult education, we came to the point where the Superintendent gave his first public response to the Board’s request, at the last Budget Work Shop, for an indication of what would have to be cut, from the initial discussion draft of what I call his “ideal budget,” so that the Board and residents would understand what a Contingent Budget would mean for the education of Elwood students.
Sometime today the District is going to have posted to the website the two page summation, prepared by the Assistant Superintendent for Business, to which Mr. Scordo was referring in his remarks.
The essence of this fiscal shocker is that even if every co-curricular activity was eliminated, and even if all athletics were eliminated, and even if all new equipment and textbooks and workbooks and materials & supplies were eliminated, the effect of the major expenditure categories which are unable to be reduced further would mean that those draconian cuts could only produce about $2.3 million of the $3.5 million which would be required to achieve the reduced expenditures level needed to reach the Contingent Budget number.
The bottom line, which you find at the end of the two page synopsis, is that -- unless the District gets substantial wage and benefit concessions by the union --eighteen teachers would need to be cut.
So, no after school activities, no athletics, no new books or supplies, and still eighteen teachers would need to be cut.
And, to be realistic, it may be reasonably argued by some Trustees, and many parents, that elimination of 100% of those activities and supplies may not be in the interests of our students (perhaps a gross understatement), so the District might have to reach for an even higher number of teacher cuts, again, unless the union agreed to substantial concessions.
Furthermore, as we know, and as you saw Mayor Bloomberg arguing in his Op Ed piece in the NY Times, under current NY State restrictions on school districts, we cannot even accomplish those reductions on the basis of retaining the most effective teachers (regardless of whether they have been with us for twenty years or ten years or five years or whatever). No, instead, a school district in NY State is forced to cut teachers on the basis of who has been employed for the least amount of time.
“Ugly” is the first word that comes to mind, and we will get to hear greater detail at the next Board Budget Work Session, on March 10th.
But “irrational” is the second word that comes to mind when it comes to what the State forces school districts to do when releasing teachers in budget cuts.
Finally, the third word that would come to mind would be “enlightened,” which is what we hope the teachers union would become. If so, the District would be able to reduce staffing by far fewer teachers than would be required if the District was instead forced to pay the current scales of salary and benefits to the smaller number of teachers (i.e., if a majority of the union elected not to do anything to benefit their younger co-workers, as well as our students).
Next week, and the weeks thereafter, should become really interesting, but possibly really tense.
Let’s hope for enlightenment.
