SENATE AND ASSEMBLY RESPOND TO GOVERNOR’S PLAN

The state Senate and Assembly have both presented their “One House” budget bills, indicating their respective bargaining positions in state budget negotiations with the governor (and putting out a plan to pay for their approach). One house budget bills are significant in indicating how each house prioritizes various items within the Executive Budget and putting together a fiscal plan that balances any increases with state revenues. (The state budget must be passed by April 1 and must be balanced between expenditures included and revenues projected to be received over the course of the state fiscal year, according to the state constitution.) State revenue projections were recently agreed upon between the governor and legislature as being $1.3 billion more than expected at the time the governor released her Executive Budget plan.

For REFIT school districts, there is good news! Both houses have rejected the governor’s proposal to eliminate Save Harmless from the Foundation Aid formula. They have also both rejected her planned decrease in the inflationary adjustment factor used in the formula. Going a step further, both houses have included a 3% across the board increase in Foundation Aid, while fully funding all existing reimbursable categories (BOCES, Transportation, Special Ed and Building Aid). Both houses also include funding allowing the State Education Department to begin work on a new Foundation Aid formula.

More is known about the Senate approach at this point. That plan includes additional funding for prior year aid claims (which were suspended last year), money for a tax certiorari relief fund, adds $150 million toward Universal Pre-K and provides $125 million more, allowing all schools to participate in the Universal Meals program.

Other items of note in the proposals are language that would allow the Environmental Bond Act to be used toward the purchase of EV buses, the creation of a Zero Emissions Agency Working Group to spearhead the zero-emission bus effort and increasing the allowable aid for BOCES educators over a three-year period (increasing from $30,000 to $40,000 in the first year, $50,000 in the second and topping out at $60,000 in the third year of the phase-in). The houses differ on whether to eliminate the “state share ratio”, with the Assembly continuing to provide additional funding to schools through that line item. The Senate adds $150 million in dedicated additional funding toward Community Schools.

More information and analysis will be provided when the Assembly releases more specific information.

Here's the link to the full Senate one-house resolution for your reference.

REFIT LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST

FORETELLS LEGISLATURE’S APPROACH

On Friday, March 8, over 100 school leaders met with Long Island legislators to discuss school funding, school meals and other issues vital to districts. While there, REFIT took the time to honor east end Member of Assembly Fred Thiele on his three decades of service to public education. Fred has always been a staunch advocate for public education and a partner in advancing island issues to the Assembly. REFIT also honored one of its own; Freeport Superintendent Kishore Kuncham. Kish is a longtime REFIT leader, a superb superintendent and child advocate. Kish’s leadership and effort has made REFIT a visible and influential champion on school funding for high tax-low wealth districts on Long Island. The pending retirement of these two outstanding leaders will pose significant challenges, but instill a heartfelt sense of profound gratitude on the part of REFIT directors and the districts they represent. Simply put, Long Island children are better off for their dedication and we appreciate it beyond words.

The meat of the breakfast meeting (as always) was the sharing of perspectives on issues confronting island schools. The state budget took center stage and the large contingent of legislators was unanimous and bipartisan in their support of public education and the rejection of Governor Hochul’s planned cuts to Foundation Aid. The packed house at the Western Suffolk BOCES Conference Center in Wheatley Heights heard legislators respond to a series of visceral questions posed by Manhasset Assistant Superintendent Dr. Sam Gergis, as well as a message from REFIT Chief Operating Officer Dave Little and President B.A. Schoen.

Legislative responses were prescient, as both legislative houses have just issued their “one house” state budget proposals. Both Assembly and Senate versions agree in rejecting the elimination of the Save Harmless provision, as well as rejecting changes to inflationary calculations that would have cost districts over $300 million in aid. Legislators revealed agreement on an inflationary increase of 3% in both Senate and Assembly versions. All legislators present, and subsequently both houses, support providing funding for a study toward enacting a new Foundation Aid formula that addresses current needs, such as student mental health.

REFIT wishes to thank Western Suffolk BOCES staff, led by Michael Flynn for all of their assistance in planning and running this important event, as well as REFIT’s own Kristel Lazarus for her dedication.

Be ready for a REFIT analysis of the one house budget bills.

2023 REFIT BUDGET ANALYSIS

A MONTH LATE AND (IN PLACES) SEVERAL DOLLARS SHORT

The state budget is finally upon us and so provides a degree of temporary certainty to local district budgeting. Before relaying amounts, here the aid runs:

State Budget School Aid Runs: Click here to view your district’s school aid runs (with thanks to our partners at The Council):

https://www.nyscoss.org/nyscossdocs/Advocacy2223/2305_Enacted_School_Aid_Run.pdf

FINAL STATE BUDGET COMPONENTS AND TOTALS

WHAT THEY DIDN’T DO: Let’s face it…in a year when the state was laying out the final and large payment needed to fulfil its commitment to fund school aid under the existing formula, asking for additional increases for even the most apparent need areas was a challenge and ultimately unsuccessful in many (but not all) instances. Here is what remains to be done and what the legislature rejected:

Increase Career and Technical Education Reimbursement. State leaders failed once again to recognize the need (even in an era that has highlighted that need) to increase reimbursement for CTE instruction. It also failed to raise the Capital Outlay limit. Ignoring this and other pressing budgetary needs is simply easier politically when covered by an overall aid increase of such magnitude.
Increase charters. There is a slight increase in the overall number, with most being in New York City. This is a drastically pared down version of what was originally proposed and avoids a major diversion of funding away from school districts. This is largely the result of reissuing charters to new organizations after old charters had closed or been revoked.
Add clarity to the electric bus requirement. The budget requires districts to begin reporting their progress and needs (existing infrastructure and new electrical needs) and information on bus purchases and transportation staffing. This is simply doing what the state does best…fail to provide clarity or funding for a new mandate, but require new reporting from schools. The hope here though is that the reporting will lead to a recognition by the state that the timeline and financial implications for bus electrification must be addressed prior to the actual requirement taking effect. The reporting requirement kicks in the year after next. Hopefully as we move one more year closer to the deadline, the state will provide some degree of clarity through guidelines (or at least the promised NYSERDA study). In the meantime, districts are flying blindly toward compliance, either on their own or with the help of management companies.
Building level financial reporting. The legislature rejected an extension of the Cuomo era building level reporting requirements. These were an overbroad mandate intended to highlight local district allocations between buildings (based on the fear that large urban districts were shortchanging high need minority schools). On a statewide basis though, it only showed that it was an irrelevant mandate when many districts either had only one building at each level or (if they have more than one) that the buildings are based on geographic location rather than other criteria. Kudos! From this day hence, we can’t say the legislature never repeals a mandate…only that it’s an infrequent occurrence!
High Impact Tutoring. The legislature also rejected the idea that Foundation Aid would include a set aside for High Impact Tutoring. Early on the legislature understood our argument that Foundation Aid is discretionary funding. You can’t claim to fully fund Foundation Aid with funding that comes with attached strings. If you direct it, it’s not Foundation Aid by definition. Secondly, there was the substantive issue of districts not being able to find “high impact” tutors. If we had such highly qualified people waiting in the wings, they’d already be filling teaching positions.
New formula funding. The legislature previously offered $1.2 million to have SED begin a study into a new school funding formula. This was timely, given that every district will now be on Save Harmless upon full funding of the current formula. That formula is now outdated. Omitting funding to study the right way forward is not only a mistake, but indicative of the legislature likely doing nothing next year and simply running the old formula, despite its obvious flaws. That result would be horrific.

WHAT THEY DID: There’s lots to be pleased about in this state budget, despite it not meeting our highest expectations.

Foundation Aid Installment. The legislature included the final installment needed to fully fund the existing Foundation Aid, including a 3% increase for districts already deemed to be fully funded. While there are obvious problems in claiming victory in a battle that should have ended over a decade ago, it is a significant investment in education for the state. Those districts receiving the 3% increase are often finding it to be inadequate, given current inflationary costs. Some districts are also receiving amounts below what they expected, given differences between last November’s data reporting to the more recent one submitted by districts in February. Despite the large overall education increase of $2.6 billion, some districts are facing daunting cuts to programs and staff. That shouldn’t have been unexpected given the fact that we’re fully funding an outdated and often irrelevant formula. Now the race is on to create a more pertinent approach to this generation’s needs.
Reimbursable Aids. BOCES, Transportation, Special Ed and Building Aid will all be fully funded according to existing individual reimbursement rates for districts.
Bullet Aid. Call it “member items”, “legislative initiatives” or just plain pork barrel spending, the legislature tries to address anomalies and disparities in funding through a discretionary fund. In this state budget, they’ve established four pools of funding totaling $19.3 million for the legislature to direct and $20 million at the Division of the Budget’s discretion. If your district is one of those falling below funding expectations, plan to contact state leaders about gaining access to these funding sources.
“Universal School Meals”. Replacing the $280 million cost of the Universal School Meal program left after the federal government ceased its pandemic era support was a heavy legislative lift. Fully funding the program was the intent of both legislative house versions of the budget, with a little less than half of the total making it into the final agreement with the governor. In essence, high need districts will receive funding with $134 million for districts under community eligibility. While it would have been a sigh of relief had the state covered the entire cost, this allocation still addresses those most in need and if this is a first step toward true universality, it’s a great one.
Universal Pre K. Not only does the state budget increase funding for pre k by another $150 million, it removes the language prohibiting districts from using the increase to substitute the state funding for their own. In other words, districts may use their increase to take that amount out of their own budgets and shift that portion of cost to the state. That doesn’t mean of course that costs haven’t increased, so perhaps it’s a distinction without a difference, but trust me, the state allowing local costs to be shifted onto the state ledger is a rarity and welcomed.
Retirement Waiver. The budget addresses the continued need to find qualified staff by continuing the retirement income limitation waiver for another year. For all of us advocating for public education, it was critically important that the state recognize what was happening in our struggle to hire qualified staff. The most accessible pool of qualified staff was districts’ recently retired staff. This was a comparatively easy lift for legislators, given that the cost would affect the retirement systems and not require an appropriation.
Civil Service Reform. The best way to put this is that they made a start. Making Civil Service an actual service to districts and not a tremendous hindrance to hiring and retaining staff is an ongoing effort. In this budget the state recognizes that there are issues and takes its first baby steps toward helping. Districts won’t have to declare that there are an insufficient number of qualified folks available before creating a “continuing eligible” list. Hopefully this allows local commissions to give districts lists in time to avoid including people no longer seeking employment, etc.
Farm to School. Great program -- too bureaucratically burdensome to be effective. That’s the knock on Farm to School. It’s a nationally leading program and wonderful for rural districts with easier access to locally grown food. Processing and storage are practical issues, but the biggest is qualifying for the program at all. Some of the hurdles are removed in this budget and the competitive bidding floor has been increased to $150,000 from $100,000. The hope again is that this is a sincere first step in removing the impression that the state up ‘til now has enjoyed the credit for having such a program without actually having to fund it -- as few districts are able to qualify. It’s too good a program for that, so here’s hoping the reforms allow broader participation.
PTech and Early College High Schools. The budget increases the amount designated for these innovative programs by $20 million.

ANALYSIS

“Crossing the aisle”, “working with both sides of the aisle”…these expressions refer to the fact that in the legislative houses, the major parties sit together on opposite sides of the aisle that separates them. The location of the aisle shifts according to how many are in each party. It also gives rise to the inside expression that on any given issue “where you stand depends on where you sit.” In this state budget, non-education issues created the delays. That in itself is unique. Progressives were miffed at having to adjust bail reforms, housing advocates decried the dropping of bold initiatives to make it more affordable. Fiscal conservatives are upset that the budget spends too much and will lead to an anticipated shortfall of $5 billion next year. Perfect! Everybody’s ticked, which makes for a perfect compromise. But for those of us in public education, it’s a mixed (albeit large) bag. Achieving full funding of the Foundation Aid formula (a decade late) is a significant accomplishment -- one no other set of state leaders could pull off. Doing it without using ploys like directing some of the funding to specific programs (like “high impact tutoring”) or decreasing the amount needed to fully fund promised reimbursement for BOCES, transportation, special ed and buildings is no small thing. They made investments in school meals and pre k, as well as several other practical efforts to make things easier on schools. Well done indeed.

Nobody likes a compliment that comes with an immediate “but”…but…

Fully funding Foundation Aid under the existing formula causes its own set of problems and the legislature and governor knew them going in. Most districts were already “fully funded” and many still had significant needs that have arisen since that formula was enacted. While the formula may be fully funded, it’s still broken for this generation of students whose needs are ignored by this approach. Student mental health isn’t even in this formula and all of the numbers populating the formula are derived from a census that is two decades old. The result is that many districts are left to explain to their communities why (in the midst of the media telling everyone that schools are awash in state and federal funding) their district is decidedly not. Student enrollment weighs too heavily in the current calculation and fails to recognize that there are threshold costs that enrollment calculations confound. So, fully funding Foundation Aid is both a blessing and a curse. Some City-based education advocates screamed for years that you couldn’t tell whether the formula was broken until you fully funded it; knowing full well that the practical implication was that New York City gained the most under full funding of the existing formula. Change it and they might somehow lose (though unlikely given the number of their legislative representatives!). Well the day has arrived. We’re fully funded. Now everyone is on Save Harmless and the flaws in the formula are indeed apparent. In the “fix it or fund it” debate, they’ve chosen to fund it and the fact that it still needs fixing is glaringly obvious.

So, whatcha gonna do now? Future across the board increases would be horrifically inequitable -- institutionalizing already entrenched poverty. Enrollment shifts and regional cost differences cannot simply result in further educational starvation. They must be acknowledged and the state must either come up with an adequate way to fund our schools or find an effective way to offer what’s needed in a different structure.

That said, it’s a comparatively good state budget. It’s my 40th of direct involvement and compared to some, it’s tremendously beneficial -- and not particularly late. For education, the most potentially harmful aspect of late state budgets is our schools not knowing what they’ll get in state support, making it impossible to accurately create and publicize local budgets. While this one was in fact pretty late, we’ve known the aid figures since the beginning of negotiations. Fluctuations didn’t result from the state budgeting process, but from changes to local data most recently submitted to the state. In other words, good funding levels to a now bad formula. It was great at the time but like an aging athlete, it’s past its prime and needs to be retired. If they simply continue to run the existing formula, it serves their political purposes of directing funding to highly populated (read that “large voting block”) areas at the expense of smaller (read that “fewer representatives”) districts. Short of doing the hard and extensive work of creating that new formula, throwing $2.6 billion at the problem is not a bad Plan B for this year. Future years won’t come with such significant increases, but those lowered amounts will still be distributed through outdated and inappropriate criteria. So having been both fully funded and fully exposed for its shortcomings, state leaders should be simultaneously applauded and urged to get to work.

One last observation: Majority party Island legislators won every battle they fought during negotiations. Getting them to lead the fight for the next iteration of school funding is imperative.

STATE BUDGET PASSES

IMPLICATIONS FOR LONG ISLAND SCHOOLS

The state budget has passed with few surprises. It is a mix of stability, predictability and disappointment: Stability as it proceeds with the second of three years of the state’s plan to fully fund Foundation Aid. For this coming year, that requires an increase in aid of $2.083 billion, with a similar amount needed next year to round out the program. With promises from the governor and legislative leaders leading into the budget negotiations, there was an unusual degree of well, stability in knowing there was an agreement on the amount of aid, rather than as in former years of haggling and guessing. Predictability as two out of three years of the plan are now law, making it all but certain that the final year will provide the full and final installment of increased aid. Predictable too as more and more districts become “fully funded” and move to the Save Harmless column, with a modest increase (2% last year with 3% for rural districts, 3% for all districts on Save Harmless this coming year). After a decade of the formula failing to offer any degree of predictability (as it was often frozen, cut, ignored and altered to meet the state’s fiscal and political concerns) there is indeed value in being able to plan -- even if for only a couple of years. Disappointment in that the state failed to seize the opportunity to make long overdue improvements to equity, as well as ignoring sorely needed programmatic changes. Let’s face it, fully funding an outdated, largely irrelevant formula is a less than optimal achievement. The short list of specific disappointments includes the state failing to settle prior year aid claims it owes districts, failure to increase the subsidy for BOCES CTE instructors, not taking back the cost of special education residential placements from districts, not increasing the $100,000 limit on (non-voter approved) capital construction and failure to use the larger than expected state surplus to rectify the state’s historic inequity between needy and wealthy community approaches to funding public education.

That’s not to say that there aren’t new benefits as well. For instance:

*In addition to the increase in Foundation Aid, all reimbursable aids will be paid according to formula. In the past, doing so usually meant that Foundation Aid took a hit. Not so this year.

*Pre-K expansion grants will see an increase of $100 million.

*Revised cost estimates result in an increase of $153 million in aid over January estimates. (The revisions do not result in increases for all districts, particularly ones experiencing recent enrollment loss.)

*The budget finally, after years of affected districts enduring an insufferable gauntlet of political hypocrisy and gamesmanship that resulted in vetoes of individual forgiveness bills, has now officially forgiven errors in Building Aid and Transportation Aid claims. The state’s prior approach of approving forgiveness for politically aligned communities and vetoing most others was unconscionable. To have legislated away the law that required district repayment of aid but taking years to forgive those already affected was not the legislature’s finest effort. Even in forgiveness the state is putting those most recently forgiven at the tail end of the long prior year aid claim list. That said, kudos to state leaders for finally moving away from the former governor’s Machiavellian approach and allowing his Division of the Budget to make de facto educational policy and local taxing decisions. Having agreement between the legislature and governor without discord and brinksmanship is a welcome relief.

*$100 million in grants over two years to help schools recover from the pandemic and to pay for expansion of student mental health, after-school, extended day and year programs and summer learning programs. This is much needed help in an area of great need.

*Districts that fall short of aid expectations (either due to enrollment loss or elimination of Building Aid project eligibility, etc.) may contact legislators directly, as legislative initiatives, bullet aid, member items, pork barrel (a rose by any other name…) will total $13.1 million and will be decided by legislative resolutions. Those districts having majority party representation in particular may find it helpful to contact their representatives with specific projects to include in those resolutions.

*Nearly $50 million in new revenue is included for teacher residency, alternative teacher certification and moving educational paraprofessionals into teaching positions.

*SED will see the largest increase in its operational budget in 15 years (over 10%), which should help with everything from backlogged architectural approvals to improved responsiveness to inquiries.

*The state budget will allow public education retirees to re-enter the workforce without limitations on earnings until June 30, 2023. Retirement system vesting for newer tiers will move from 10 years to 5.

*The timeline for the transition to electric buses will remain 2027 for new bus purchases and 2035 for the complete transition but (as advocated for by REFIT, RSA, NYSCOSS, NYSSBA and others) districts will have the chance to seek up to a two year waiver. If next November’s Environmental Bond Act is approved by voters, $500 million will be reserved for the electric school bus transition. (But if it doesn’t pass, we have a real question, don’t we?) NYSERDA will be required to help districts with technical needs, as well as documenting the availability of electric buses by the end of 2026 and laying out the steps needed to move to all electric buses. What the legislature failed to do was provide specific direction and aid for constructing charging stations, removing fuel depots and other non- traditional transportation costs of the program.

Here are School Aid runs for the enacted budget. (With thanks to NYSCOSS for the link)

ANALYSIS

They say that where you stand often depends on where you sit. So too with the state budget this year. If you’re one of the districts that has been urgently awaiting full funding of your Foundation Aid, then this budget (and next year’s) is for you. If you’re one of the half of all districts already “fully” funded (meaning that you already receive as much or more than the formula dictates) then you’re receiving a 3% increase at a time when inflation is double that level, minimizing your purchasing power. The list of improvements to the state’s approach to funding public education listed above is long and we should be legitimately thankful for their focus on these needed upgrades. Particularly when compared to where we thought we’d be at this time last year (threats of 20% aid cuts, wondering whether Washington would come through with enough to tide us over and then whether we’d fall off the fiscal cliff when it ended), this budget’s multi-billion dollar increase in aid and promise of more to come is just the kind of priority funding we’d want from our state leaders.

On the other hand, it’s truly tough to stomach the kind of failings embedded in this budget. It forces you to ask why the state would choose to put an incredible 15% of its revenue into reserves (and still forbid districts from going beyond 4%!). Those unneeded billions could put a stop to the decades of unjust school funding in our state. It’s enough money to take the burden off of struggling communities and uphold the state’s constitutional obligation to kids. It’s more than enough to pay off the debt it owes to those communities and to shift the cost of expensive programs back where it belongs. It’s more than enough to (brace yourself) pay for the mandates it imposes in this new budget law (for law it is).

No one quarrels that fume-spewing diesel buses (with tailpipes at kindergarten nose level) need to go the way of the dodo. The task is simple; make sure there’s a workable alternative that doesn’t break the bank. If the state wants to advance this laudable goal, simply pay for it. Pay for the charging stations, pay for removing the old fueling stations, buy the buses and pay for the training. Yet, there is no momentum like the status quo and so state leaders took the easy road, paying for new purchases through regular Transportation Aid. That means local districts will be paying the money up front, just like they always have, waiting until the following year to get reimbursed, just as they always have and then having to make another payment. It means needy districts not being able to do it (and thus be out of compliance) while wealthy districts will.

It's been a wonderful reprieve from the norm to not have spent the past few months arguing, jockeying, badgering leaders just to get them to drop a dozen poison pill executive proposals and arrive at a figure that supports our schools. But it’s a nightmare to think that even now, even when they received billions of dollars more than expected from the feds, a better-than-expected state economy and a governor who would rather talk than fight; even now they can’t fix what ails us.

One of our greatest failings in advocacy is expecting lay state representatives to be expert in all things, to have solutions at the ready for all of our ills. Fact is, they don’t. We have to give them those solutions. So, when we are able to give them those solutions and they not only have the money to carry them out, but an executive willing to talk (and more importantly, to listen) then it becomes extremely frustrating to continue to fall further behind. Oh, I know that there are leaders who (as they read this) are saying “Really? We give you over a $2 billion increase and you complain? You used to BEG us for a $2 billion increase!” We’re grateful. We truly are. We have another year to spend our federal funding, the state increase is solid and the one benefit of inflation is that we finally have a real 2% tax levy cap this year. We’re not saying we won’t get through the short term. We’re saying that you’re blowing your chance to do it right. You have the money to fix the nation’s worst school funding scheme without robbing Peter to pay Paul. No political nightmare, just do the right thing and be done with it, because its not just the right thing and its not just the law, it's a constitutional right. You’ve been sued over it, you’ve agreed to it and now that you’ll be making good on it, there is one thing left to do; fix it.

A new generation of COVID affected students will be attempting to recover their learning and social developmental losses in the next few years -- just when a new Foundation Aid formula must be developed. So, on the premise that you never go to a leader with a problem without giving them the solution, here it is…Create a permanent commission to assess what it takes to uphold your constitutional responsibility of providing a sound, basic education to every child. Look at the cost of successful programs or look at how much it costs successful schools, but figure it out. There are national experts who have done nothing but this work for their entire careers. Use them. Once you know what it costs, assess what a community can afford to contribute to that amount and then pay the rest. Every community, every student gets a good education. No one is saying that wealthy communities can’t provide an outstanding education, but as a society and a state we can literally no longer afford to have some children so severely shortchanged while others prosper systemically. The result is that residents leave and don’t return.

Even if you ignore the state constitution, there’s a little thing in the U.S. Constitution called the Equal Protection Clause. Our state budget law is not protecting all citizens equally and we have the chance, even the means to fix it.

One year from now every school district will be on Save Harmless and if the necessary work isn’t done in the meantime, we’ll all be looking at school aid funding that is merely the whim of leaders. No justification, no rationale, no legitimacy (let alone, stability or predictability). As a people, we are better than that …. aren’t we?

EXECUTIVE BUDGET PLAN WOULD FULLY FUND FOUNDATION AID

CLAIMS RECORD INCREASE TO EDUCATION

ANALYSIS: In days of yore, a governor’s Executive Budget proposal was the starting line. In more recent years however, numbers originally proposed have ended up (after negotiation with the state legislature) being close to those proposed today. That proposal includes several key components for public education. Mental Health is also prioritized, with a plan for school-based mental health services.

According to Governor Hochul “In education, we’re breaking records again -- because we have to.” Total state funding for public education amounts to $34.5 billion, including what the governor terms the largest school aid increase ever; fully funding the Foundation Aid formula for the first time. The administration is calling the total aid package a 10% increase and a total increase to education of $3 billion. The proposal also includes a pre-k increase of $125 million like last year and it follows current law (last year’s state budget agreement) for Foundation Aid and fully funds categorical aid at the November filing numbers. The Executive Budget also proposes eliminating the NYC charter school cap.

For many districts, the plan follows a pattern established in last year’s state budget. Changes to most district aid levels in this Executive Budget plan are largely due to changes in enrollment, Free and Reduced-Price Lunch percentages, changes in the Combined Wealth Ratio and the number of English Language Learning students. In other words, unlike plans under prior administrations, there is a degree of predictability and transparency in this proposal. The plan would succeed in fully funding Foundation Aid under the current (albeit severely outdated) formula and everyone (those on Save Harmless) would receive at least a 3% Foundation Aid increase.

There are perhaps unintended and questionable consequences in making this last installment on full funding of Foundation Aid, namely that many of the wealthiest districts in the state receive large increases. This is because fully funding low wealth districts was a priority and now these wealthier districts are the last to receive full funding (and their large percentage increases are often associated with low levels of state aid due to their wealth). Some districts that would not be thought of as high need nonetheless have recently been affected by changes in aid generating factors like FRPL percentage, enrollment, etc. Low need districts in fact receive the highest percentage of increase of any demographic under the plan.

There are a few pleasant surprises beyond finally achieving full funding…There is a plan to fund school based mental health centers. School based services are at the heart of a district’s role as a leader in their community and students certainly need additional mental health services in a convenient and nonthreatening environment. School based services take the least time away from a student’s school day and there is little stigma attached to “going to the office” rather than to an outside provider.

Similarly, there is a large increase of $125 million for pre-k funding (continuing increases that approximate last year’s). This is sorely needed, particularly in high need districts that have lagged behind in building these proven programs due to the inability to provide their own funding up front and wait for state reimbursement.

There are few proposals that would siphon off funding or shift the funding onus to local districts. There are few “poison pill” proposals to divert advocacy efforts away from funding. There is also, sadly little in the way of improvements or additions of programs that would be of help as districts attempt to build their programs back better than they were prior to the pandemic. There is a little more clarity to the electric bus plan, with allowances for longer purchase and leasing provisions and state plans to fund charging stations and other infrastructure needed to accomplish the transition from fossil fuels.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: The issue left unaddressed (whether intentionally or not) is what the state plans to do next year, now that they’ve fully funded Foundation Aid under the current (and old) formula. There was no mention of a task force to study what it will take to educate this generation within the state’s constitutional responsibility to provide a “sound, basic education” for each child. There was no mention of whether the state will simply seek to add an across-the-board percentage next year (as they have done this year and last with those districts on Save Harmless…with every district now on Save Harmless, will they take the easy road and simply say a percentage for all, irrespective of need? This would be the most inequitable method possible -- and the most likely.)

Advocacy must be undertaken to prevent the state from taking the easy road, because not only would it ignore true need, based on today rather than a generation ago, but it would establish across the board increases as the norm. The first year that the state has a downturn and is unable to provide sufficient universal increases (or God forbid a cut), those cuts would have a disproportionate impact on high need districts (that receive the most aid to be cut and rely most heavily on the state for their funding). Our advocacy must now be laser-like in its focus on creating a new and equitable funding mechanism for state Foundation Aid.

One last thought: Also missing from the Executive Budget plan is tax relief. Efforts to stimulate the state economy and attract residents and businesses back into the state (following the nation’s history’s second largest outward migration over the past 12 years) are severely hampered by our high property and income taxes, compared to sister states. Luring them back would be enhanced by tax relief, but there is little mention of it in this year’s plan.

Under the premise that first you do no harm, the 2023 Executive Budget proposal is far superior to those of prior administrations. Even where it falls short, it is straightforward and reflects the administration’s willingness to negotiate in good faith, stay on topic rather than divert attention and force the legislature to “buy back” proposals they wish to reject from the final agreement. This is a fair place to begin the discussion, which is in itself a far cry better than we’ve come to expect in public education.

SCHOOL AID RUNS -- SEE THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET PLAN FOR YOUR DISTRICT HERE:

https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy24/ex/local/school/2324schoolaidruns.pdf

Governor’s Briefing Book: Education Section

The Executive Budget reflects Governor Hochul’s strong commitment to education by providing additional funding and services to meet the needs of students, teachers, and schools amid the pandemic. The Executive Budget provides a $2.1 billion (7.1 percent) annual School Aid increase, for a record total of $31.3 billion, largely driven by the second year of the three-year phase-in of full funding of the Foundation Aid formula.

OVERVIEW • New York State’s 673 major school districts educate approximately 2.4 million children in kindergarten through 12th grade.

• Public education in New York State represents a significant commitment of State and local resources. With total State, local, and Federal spending levels exceeding $75 billion, education is both the largest area of State spending and the largest component of local property taxes.

• New York State has ranked first nationally in school district spending per pupil for 15 straight years, a reflection of the State’s longstanding commitment to provide all students with the opportunity to excel as learners, workers, and citizens.

• With this Executive Budget, School Aid increases will total $11 billion over 10 years – a 55 percent increase over that period. RESPONDING TO THE PANDEMIC Providing Masks and Tests to Schools. In the current school year, the State has distributed more than 4.4 million reusable adult- and child-sized masks to school districts, charter schools, and nonpublic schools statewide. Further, to meet the expanded need for COVID-19 testing in schools due to the Omicron variant, the State has issued over 7.5 million rapid, over-the-counter COVID-19 tests to school districts, charter schools, and nonpublic schools. Promoting Vaccination of Students and School Staff. Under Governor Hochul’s direction, the Public Health and Health Planning Council passed an emergency regulation to ensure that school staff are either vaccinated or tested regularly for COVID-19. The Governor also launched a multi-faceted #VaxtoSchool campaign to support increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates among school-aged children, including pop-up vaccination sites and mobile vaccination buses. Addressing Student Learning Loss and Mental Health. The pandemic created an unprecedented disruption to education in New York State and across the country, leaving students months behind on reading and math and widening existing disparities.

The Executive Budget includes a total of $100 million over two years for a new State matching fund, the Recover from COVID School Program (RECOVS), for school districts with the highest needs to address student wellbeing and learning loss in response to the trauma brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Districts will be required to match these State grants with their federal pandemic relief funds. Historic Funding for Schools to Respond to the Pandemic. In addition to the historic State aid increases provided to school districts in the FY 2022 Enacted Budget and FY 2023 Executive Budget, New York’s public schools were also awarded $14 billion of federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds, available for use over multiple years. School districts were required to create plans for how the Federal funding would be prioritized for expenses such as safely returning students to in-person instruction or purchasing educational technology. Free Meals for Students. Since the start of the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has authorized schools to provide free meals to all students regardless of income eligibility, benefitting approximately 3 million students attending nearly 6,000 public and nonpublic schools in New York State. This flexibility is currently set to continue through the end of SY 2022.

PROPOSED EXECUTIVE BUDGET ACTIONS School Aid. The Executive Budget provides $31.3 billion in total School Aid for SY 2023, the highest level of State aid ever. This investment represents a year-to-year increase of $2.1 billion (7.1 percent) compared to SY 2022, including a $1.6 billion Foundation Aid increase and a $466 million increase in all other School Aid programs.

Foundation Aid. Foundation Aid is the State’s main education operating aid formula. It is focused on allocating State funds equitably to all school districts, especially high-need districts, based on student need, community wealth, and regional cost differences. The Executive 77 Budget provides a $1.6 billion (8.1 percent) increase in Foundation Aid, supporting the second year of the three-year phase-in of full funding of the current Foundation Aid formula and ensuring each school district receives a minimum year-to-year increase of 3 percent.

Expense-Based Aids. The Executive Budget includes full funding of current statutory formulas that reimburse a portion of certain school district expenses, such as school construction, pupil transportation, services from boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES), and the educational costs of certain students with disabilities. In total, these aid categories are projected to increase by $464 million (5.9 percent), largely reflecting the reduced impact of the pandemic on school operations in SY 2022 compared to SY 2021.

Prekindergarten Programs. New York State appropriates over $952 million annually to support public prekindergarten programs, providing access to over 136,000 students statewide, including nearly 125,500 four-year-old children and over 10,500 three-year-old children. Funding has historically been prioritized for students in high-need school districts. The Executive Budget continues current funding for prekindergarten programs.

OTHER P-12 EDUCATION The Executive Budget provides funding for new and recurring initiatives outside of traditional School Aid to help rebuild the school system in New York State. RECOVS Learning and Mental Health Grants. The Executive Budget includes a total of $100 million over two years for a new State matching fund, the Recover from COVID School Program (RECOVS), for school districts with the highest needs to create or expand summer learning, after school, or extended-day and extended-year programs to help students recover academically. It will also support the hiring of mental health professionals, the expansion of school based mental health services, and other evidence-based mental health supports to help students and school staff recover socioemotionally. School districts will be required to match this State grant funding with their Federal pandemic relief funds.

Charter Schools. Approximately 180,000 students attend 331 charter schools in New York State. Charter schools receive tuition payments made by school districts, funded through State and local sources; these tuition rates are established for each school district based on the average annual growth in the district’s spending. The Executive Budget increases New York City charter schools’ per-pupil funding by 4.7 percent. This will allow charter schools to continue to innovate, recruit high-quality teachers and staff, and provide strong educational options for New York’s families and students.

Nonpublic School Programs. Approximately 370,000 students attend roughly 1,700 nonpublic schools statewide. The Executive Budget provides $295 million in State support for nonpublic schools, an increase of $44 million (18 percent), which includes: $193 million in aid to reimburse nonpublic schools for costs of State-mandated activities; $55 million for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) instruction; and $45 million for capital health and safety projects, including critical repair and maintenance of nonpublic schools’ facilities. The Executive Budget also authorizes any unobligated federal Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools funds to be used to reimburse nonpublic schools for allowable pandemic-related costs through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund.

Special Education. Approximately 80,000 preschool-age children with disabilities receive services, 14,000 school-age students with disabilities are educated in private settings and special act school districts during the school year, and 50,000 school-age students with disabilities receive summer services. Funding for these providers is determined through an annual rate-setting process. The Division of the Budget will administratively authorize a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) of 11 percent for the SY 2023 tuition rates, increasing providers’ annual funding by more than $240 million. The State will ultimately reimburse roughly 60 percent of these costs, which are paid in the first instance by school districts and counties.

OTHER BUDGET ACTIONS Zero-Emission School Buses. To improve air quality, the Executive Budget requires that all new school bus purchases be zero emissions by 2027 and all school buses on the road be zero emissions by 2035. The Executive Budget ensures that the State provides Transportation Aid for zero-emission bus infrastructure, including charging stations, and purchasing or leasing electric buses. Additionally, the Executive Budget authorizes school districts to lease or finance zero-emission buses for 10 years, double the current five-year limitation for diesel buses, in order to help districts meet this goal.

Building/Transportation Aid Penalty Forgiveness. The Executive Budget addresses Building and Transportation Aid penalties once and for all by authorizing the State Education Department to forgive all such penalties that the Department deems to be a result of inadvertent clerical errors.

NYC Mayoral Control. The Executive Budget provides a four-year extension of Mayoral control of the New York City school system.

Major Capital Investments in Native American Reservation Schools. The Executive Budget provides $35.7 million for capital improvements to the three State-owned schools on Native American reservations, including the St. Regis Mohawk School ($17.8 million), the Tuscarora School ($11.8 million), and the Onondaga School ($6.1 million). Projected decline on an annual basis under current law is due to a one-time, timing-related increase in basis under current law.

EDUCATION AID TOTALS

FOUNDATION AID-$1.6 billion increase, constituting an 8.1 percent increase (Total of $19.816 billion)

OTHER FORMULA BASED AIDS-$471 million increase, constituting a 5.3% increase (Total of $8.86 billion)

SCHOOL AID ON THE RUN-$2.071 billion, constituting an increase of 7.2% (Total of $28.677 billion)

CATEGORICAL AIDS-$7 million decrease, constituting a decrease of 2.3% (Total of $300 million)

COMPETITIVE GRANTS-$2 million increase, constituting a 0.9% increase (Total of $230 million)

TOTAL SCHOOL AID $2.066 billion increase, constituting an increase of 7.1% (Total of $31.280 billion)

TOTAL STATE BUDGET INCREASE-. Includes a $227 billion total state budget proposal, constituting a 2.7% increase.

2022-2023 Meeting dates, Times and Places

Tuesday, August 9 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Tuesday, September 13 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Thursday, October 6 Annual Meeting 6:00 p.m. The Milleridge Inn, Jericho, NY

Tuesday, October 18 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Cancelled

Tuesday, November 15 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Tuesday, December 13 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Tuesday, January 10 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Tuesday, February 14 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Friday, March 10 Board of Directors 8 -8:30 a.m. WS BOCES, Wheatley Heights Legislative Bkfst 9-11 a.m. (same)

Tuesday, April 18 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m. Virtual

Tuesday, May 9 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m.

Tuesday, June 13 Board of Directors 8:00 a.m.

*Note: Please email refit411@gmail.com to see if Board of Directors meetings will be held in person or if they will be virtual.

“Once in a Generation Opportunity”

2022 REFIT Executive Budget Proposal Analysis

With state coffers flush with federal funds, last year’s increased taxes on the ultra-wealthy and the stock market in full swing, Governor Hochul presented her $216 billion Executive Budget proposal today. Public education and Medicaid take up half of the state’s discretionary spending. The message itself was roughly 20 minutes long, contrasting with the multi-venue 90-minute narratives of her predecessor. Below, please find a link to the Executive Budget Briefing Book. The K-12 education budget can be found on pages 169-180, with Higher Education initiatives immediately following. Here are the highlights:

FULLY FUNDING FOUNDATION AID: The state’s promise to fully fund Foundation Aid ($1.4 billion increase) within three years is upheld in the proposed budget by providing $2.1 billion in total aid, including sufficient Foundation Aid increases to meet next year’s self-imposed deadline for full funding. This amounts to a 7.1% aid increase. However, the Division of the Budget’s claim that “This decision means all schools will now receive equitable resources” is more than suspect, suggesting that more advocacy is needed to create an understanding of how outdated and largely irrelevant the current formula is for many (particularly most rural) school districts.
COLLABORATE WITH FEDS ON CHILDCARE: The governor plans to work with Congressional leaders and the federal administration on a massive investment in childcare and universal pre-K for three- and four-year-olds; if it doesn’t happen, she intends to “meaningfully expand the availability of childcare to New York’s working families.”
TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION: Governor Hochul plans to waive the $35,000 income cap for retirees, hoping to bring back many of the 169,000 retired teachers, school bus drivers and other school workers. These retirees would be able to retain their full retirement benefits, while working full time again in schools.
EXPAND THE ALTERNATIVE TEACHER CERTIFICATION: Aspiring teachers would apprentice in high-need school districts while pursuing a master’s degree in their field. Participants would receive a stipend.
ACCELERATE THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION PROCESS: The Executive Budget proposes that staff be added to SED to shorten the time needed to process teacher certification applications, review coursework, do background checks, etc. Candidates would be able to teach while they wait. Provisional approval would also be extended to school counselors, social workers and other SED-licensed professions with current job market shortages, as well as for retirees with expired licenses in good standing. Additionally, the requirement for SED approval to renew expired licenses for individuals with clean records would be waived, at least during the teacher shortage.
TEACHER RESIDENCY PROGRAM: Teacher residency programs, in which teachers in training are given a mentor and real teaching experience under the mentor’s supervision, have been proven to increase teacher retention rates and improve the experience of educators in the early, toughest years of teaching. Governor Hochul would create the Empire State Teacher Residency Program, which would provide matching funding for local districts to create two-year residency programs for graduate-level teacher candidates. Funded programs would involve SUNY, the City University of New York (CUNY), and/or private colleges partnering with public school districts to provide reduced or free tuition for teaching candidates, including books and fees, mentoring and a stipend to cover living expenses. The program will prioritize diversity among teacher residents and partnering mentors and will place an emphasis on both high-need subject areas and geographic locations with teacher shortages.
FUND NEW COHORTS OF THE MASTER TEACHER PROGRAM: New York’s Master Teacher Program is a professional community of outstanding teachers who are dedicated to supporting the development of the next generation of great educators. Master Teachers foster a supportive environment for pre-service and early career teachers, engage in peer mentoring and share insights into the most innovative practices across all grades and regions. To date, the program has awarded tens of millions of dollars to 1,200 teachers. Currently, the Master Teacher Program focuses on three domains: STEM content; Pedagogy; and Students, Families, and Communities. To expand this successful mentoring model, Governor Hochul will fund new program cohorts, aimed at supporting teachers of color, Career and Technical Education (CTE) teachers, and guidance counselors. Special programming will focus on ensuring that all students have information and opportunities about CTE programs and alternative career pathways.
HELPING TEACHER SUPPORT WORKERS EARN THEIR CERTIFICATION: The Executive budget would provide funding for paraprofessionals to gain skills and credentials to become teachers. The program will cover two years of part-time tuition, fees and books at SUNY and CUNY for those awarded paraprofessionals who remain employed in a school district while pursuing a teaching degree, and it will provide support for participants pursuing a teaching degree. School districts would be required to pair candidates with professional mentors.
REBUILD ACADEMIC AND SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS: Governor Hochul would provide additional mental health grants to school districts and encourage school districts to invest federal funding to address the student trauma brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by providing a new state matching fund, the Recover from COVID School Program (RECOVS), prioritizing districts with the highest needs. This funding will help create or expand summer learning, afterschool, or extended-day and extended-year programs to help students make up academic ground. It will also support the hiring of mental health professionals, the expansion of school-based mental health services, and other evidence-based mental health supports for students and school staff.
CONNECT STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICE CORPS WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS: There are tens of thousands of SUNY and CUNY students in graduate or undergraduate programs in education-related fields such as childcare, counseling, education, social work, etc. Building on a successful model in Puerto Rico, this program would launch an initiative to connect SUNY and CUNY student volunteers with local nonprofit partners to fill critical community needs identified by local stakeholders. Volunteers will focus on providing support in education and tutoring, hunger prevention, mental health, and after-school activities, among other areas. Students would get academic credit and meet weekly hour requirements for providing services, working in concert with providers, local schools, and their colleges.
PILOT PROGRAMS TO CREATE POSITIVE SCHOOL CLIMATES: This proposed program would fund pilot programs to create safe, positive, and supportive climates in high-need schools. Funding will focus on meeting students’ holistic needs, with programs supporting Therapeutic Crisis Intervention for Schools, Response to Intervention, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Welcoming Schools initiative, and the United Federation of Teachers’ Positive Learning Collaborative, among others. Funding could also be used for programs that address other options to improve school climate. To ensure the programs help parts of the state that need it most, funding will prioritize schools with high levels of suspensions coupled with high levels of student poverty, homelessness, special needs students, English language learners, and other vulnerable populations.
HELP TWO THIRDS OF NEW YORKERS EARN A POST SECONDARY DEGREE: The Executive budget would propose reforms to incentivize early college high school programs that are the most successful in matriculating students to college with credits earned in high school (excluding AP and IB credits). The Executive budget would expand the Part-Time Tuition Assistance Program to Serve 75,000 Additional Students. New York’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) is largely unavailable for students studying part time. To be eligible for part-time TAP, students would be required to attend school full time for a year before receiving awards, and they also must have earned 12 credits or more in each of the two previous semesters — with a minimum of 24 credits earned in the previous year. Expanding access to part-time TAP would allow students with work or family responsibilities to attend school without upending their lives. It would also help revitalize community colleges by building enrollment with a new population of students: Expand part-time TAP for New York’s SUNY and CUNY students by eliminating the 24- credit prior-year eligibility requirement and instead make prorated awards available to any individual enrolled in six or more credits of study at a SUNY, CUNY, or not-for-profit independent college. This plan will expand tuition assistance to provide support to 75,000 additional New York students annually. There would be a program to Provide Tuition-Free Workforce Credential Programs at Community Colleges for High-Demand Fields. Non-degree workforce credential programs provide critical skills to New Yorkers seeking jobs in an ever-changing economy, and help employers find workers to meet their needs. Hochul would create a financial aid program that fully funds workforce credential sequences at community colleges in high-demand fields. To ensure the program focuses on the highest-growth areas, Empire State Development (ESD) and the State’s Regional Economic Development Councils (REDCs) will recommend which courses of sequence would be eligible for State funding, based on an analysis of regional industry trends and workforce needs. This analysis will take into account existing offerings that are privately supported, ensuring that the state is investing its resources into areas that truly need state support. The plan would Award Prior Learning Credit Across SUNY and CUNY as part of the Governor’s plan to make it easier for New Yorkers to move between college and career, SUNY and CUNY will adopt a consistent, statewide policy for crediting relevant prior learning and work experience, supporting credit accumulation, certifications, and post-secondary attainment. Under this policy, “all students in SUNY and CUNY schools will have a far more seamless experience returning to school to gain the necessary credentials to move up the career ladder.” Governor Hochul will also work with SUNY and CUNY to establish public-private funding partnerships with employers and trade associations, in which public and private dollars are matched to support the creation and scaling of new internship programs.

ANALYSIS

Folks, this is ambitious. It’s an unheard-of confluence of increased state and federal revenue that allows even fiscal conservatives to grudgingly agree that the state’s economic outlook is rosy, even in the “outyears” to 2027. The Executive Budget puts $5 billion into state reserves and puts most of the other spending into education and Medicaid. With the spotlight no longer on fully funding Foundation Aid (an effort that took 14 years) the plan focuses on specific issues within education like teacher and other staffing shortages and the viability of college credit availability. With inflation over the 2% tax cap rate, schools will be able to tax locally in addition to state aid increases. Whether they feel individually capable of doing so, given local fiscal stress is another matter, of course. Local taxpayers should feel some assurance in knowing that the feds are planning to raise the SALT (State and Local Tax) exemption in federal income tax, as well as planned state relief efforts to accelerate a $1.2 billion middle class tax cut originally planned for two years from now and a $2 billion local property tax rebate program. The cap being higher than usual and state aid being significantly more than usual and coming off of a large increase, should stabilize local finances and allow for district growth in needed programs and services.

The governor’s plans to address the teaching workforce with several programs, support broadband expansion and even support school nutrition programs with needed funding and administrative changes should prove helpful. Additional tuition assistance, mentoring and certification programs should make the teaching profession more attractive and encourage retirees as well as first time teachers to enter the field. Is it all too good to be true?

Well, first remember that this is a proposal given to the legislature for negotiation. Yet, the legislature is also eager to run for re-election next fall on the heels of a “something for everyone” budget (and clearly this falls into that category as the governor pushes to run for a full term). If I had to bet, I’d say that the legislature will push to take some of the funds set aside for reserves ($5 billion) and put them into pet (albeit important) projects -- rather than trying to limit Executive Budget ideas. This proposal is also remarkable for what it does not do: It doesn’t throw in a bunch of detrimental plans with fiscal savings (like cost shifts from the state to local school districts) that the legislature has to “buy back” in order to get to the appropriate total budget figure. This was Governor Hochul’s predecessor’s favorite budgetary gambit and it forced the legislature to authorize spending at the governor’s rate to urge him to allow their education aid increases. Governor Hochul has apparently opted to not engage in this brinksmanship, allowing the legislature to evaluate programs on their merits. It’s quite honestly, a breath of fresh air.

The last time the state tried to fully fund Foundation Aid, the Great Recession intervened. The state budget director pointed out in his post speech briefing that we regularly have events that affect the budget, like 9-11, Hurricane Sandy and COVID; so will this plan hold up? The Division of the Budget says it will…by putting aside reserves to avoid a “fiscal cliff” when federal funds expire and continuing the new, higher taxes on the mega-rich. If a governor is going to go out on a fiscal limb in spending, this looks like the safest time in a generation to do so. And if she’s committed to doing so, she’s focused on public education’s most pressing issues like staffing shortages, student mental health and learning loss, ability to succeed in college and others.

We obviously need to recognize that the unique fiscal circumstances that allow for this increased attention to education face uncertainty. Our traumas seem to happen at fairly regular intervals and there is no question that the pandemic, inflation and world events have the ability (and propensity) to bring the best made plans to a screeching halt. But there is also little doubt that the optimism that fuels this administration and its first Executive Budget plan is grounded in a multi-year fiscal footing that is as solid as the shifting fortunes of states and nations allow.

Here’s the rub: The plan (and the rhetoric used to support it) reveal as much about the administration’s political needs as the state’s social ones. The new governor needs support from large numbers of City voters and several times in her speech and the actual Budget Briefing Book she acknowledges the needs of underserved segments of our population specifically living in minority communities. That doesn’t reflect the blended nature of many Island communities. More needs to be done to educate our leaders about the needs of our schools, students and the communities that host them.

This budget plan fulfills the state’s full funding promise without a plan for education’s own “outyears”. How will the formula be adjusted for poverty, student mental health needs, transience, language needs, etc. or will leaders be content to simply add a percentage increase or decrease onto its now generation old formula? Will it understand that it is committing historic resources to a formula that no longer applies to nearly half of all New York State school districts? Will it forge ahead or rest on re-election victories and kudos for doing the right thing a generation too late for current students? That said, let’s not let the perfect impede the good that is proposed in this document. It’s a generous plan that will help our districts. Advocacy will help refine it and with work, it will emerge at the end of March as a solid and equitable plan that helps get our schools through the current crisis and allows us to begin planning for the next.

Executive Budget Briefing Book

STATE OF THE STATE ANALYSIS

HOCHUL USES FLUSH FUNDING TO ADDRESS LONG STANDING ED ISSUES

With state aid levels scheduled for significant increases in the upcoming state budget, Governor Kathy Hochul used today’s State of the State Message to highlight a new collaborative and open approach to governance, as well as support for tackling some of the state’s most challenging educational issues. “I’m well aware that this is the first time that this address has been given by a woman, but I didn’t come here to make history. I came here to make a difference…. the days of three men in a room are clearly over,” said Hochul as she dove into a series of well-known problems vexing rural schools. But before doing so, the new governor honored superintendents and teachers for their tireless leadership during the pandemic. She also (for the first time) acknowledged the loss of 300,000 New Yorkers who relocated to other states; the highest exodus of any state.

"As we embark on this new era for our state, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and deal with a harsh reality; nearly 300,000 New Yorkers left our state last year," she said. "That is the steepest population drop of any state in the nation. To those who left temporarily because of the pandemic, or are trying to decide their next steps during these uncertain times, I have one message: You do not want to miss what is about to happen next. Right now, in real time, we are building a new New York worthy of your talents and ambitions." This alone was good news for schools who have (for years) had a difficult time getting the administration to address the population loss and its root causes.

Saying “there is nothing more valuable than education in unlocking opportunity” the governor offered several proposals. Here are some of the new initiatives mentioned:

More effective training and support for school staff, a “stronger career pipeline” and a desire to add more mental health professionals in schools to address increased stress on both students and staff.
Accelerate tax cuts for the middle class originally scheduled for 2025 and begin a $1 billion property tax relief program to relieve pressure on local taxpayers.
A pledge to be the most business-friendly and worker-friendly state in the nation
Free tuition for part-time students at SUNY schools and childcare for SUNY and community college students.

The State of the State was followed by a briefing for education advocates by Deputy Secretary for Education Dan Fuller. In that briefing, Dan elaborated on some of the new efforts and identified ones not mentioned. Here are some of those programs that will be included in the Executive Budget proposal, due two weeks from now:

Recognizing that the teacher shortage is one of our biggest challenges and that the virus has exacerbated the problem, the governor plans to raise the income limit for retirees for those wishing to re-enter the workforce as school employees. The old limitation was $35,000 and no new figure was released today.
Also addressing the teacher shortage, alternative certification programs designed to “get other professions into the classroom” will be proposed. Teacher certification will be loosened up for out of state educators; new teachers would be able to take a year to get NYS certified while teaching. The same will go for counselors, psychologists and other school staff.
New teacher residency programs will be offered. Teacher residency (apprenticeships) programs will allow new staff to work under supervision with the intent of having them stay on after their residency.
Perhaps one of the best pieces of news was that the new administration is working on the school bus driver shortage, acting on yesterday’s federal authority for states to eliminate the “under the hood exam” in the bus driver licensing process.
There will be a new grant program for high need districts -- with a local match to encourage “academic recovery/support” (think extension of the school day and/or year, after school programs, etc.).
A new grant program to support student and staff mental health.
Scholarships to bring aides and assistants up to teaching status.
The governor wants to create a SUNY/CUNY Service Corps where students provide support to school districts for credit.
Focusing on CTE, the state plans to offer financial support for master teacher mentoring of new instructional staff.
Recognizing the less-than-optimal results obtained thus far, there will be a new plan to have regional economic development councils and schools collaborate to create a smoother transition from school to work.
New incentives to purchase electric buses will be in the Executive Budget.
The Executive Order allowing virtual attendance at school board meetings is expected to be extended beyond next week.
While not yet providing specifics, there will be a focus on geographic and demographic factors when implementing new teacher shortage programs.

ANALYSIS: Today’s State of the State Message reflected a sea of change in state governance. The fact that it was delivered by a female for the first time, that it intentionally signaled a purposeful change to a more responsive, transparent and collaborative approach to policy-making, that it addressed a longstanding backlog of education issues previously ignored all made the upbeat but realistic address a refreshing beginning to the governor’s first full legislative session. The fact that the state has a budget surplus even into future years helps and allowed Hochul to address specific problems, rather than begin the annual argument over the level of state aid that would be provided to schools.

The governor has a history of sincerity and responsiveness that is well timed when juxtaposed with an optimistic fiscal picture (recognizing that there are historic challenges in facing both the health, educational and economic implications of the protracted pandemic.) Details will emerge shortly with the Executive Budget and we will see whether the rhetoric and program allocations match up. The danger for educational advocates is that while we have always been unified when the discussion was about the total to be spent, we are now forced to zero in on support for specific programs of interest to our respective constituencies. Our challenge will be in forging the needed alliances to actually push public education’s agenda forward, rather than fracturing into smaller and less forceful issue-specific groups.

It feels like a new day -- for better and worse. Certainly, it helps that we have an administration that appears responsive and capable of addressing issues when we are up to our ears in challenges both new and old. REFIT will comb through the State of the State’s accompanying briefing book and supplement this Alert as needed. Stay tuned!

STATE-LITIGANTS SETTLE LANDMARK SCHOOL FUNDING CASE

Let’s review: Well over a decade ago (after years of litigation) the Campaign for Fiscal Equity and the State of New York settled that school funding case - with the state agreeing to pay billions in additional aid to public schools. The state was true to its word for a couple of years until the Great Recession made large funding increases difficult and in fact (using the Gap Elimination Adjustment or GEA) it actually cut billions in school aid. It would take school districts years to return to pre-GEA funding levels.

To force the state to live up to that court settlement, a new and re-formed group called New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights (NYSER) sued again. REFIT is a founding member of that coalition. Last April the state legislature embarked on a plan to fully fund the Foundation Aid formula within three years and in fact made the first payment toward that goal. As a result, yesterday NYSER and the state attorney general signed a stipulation settling the 7-year-old NYSER case, provided that the state fully complies with its commitment to fully fund Foundation Aid ($4.2 billion) over the next two years.

According to NYSER leaders Jay Worona and Michael Rebell “Last spring, the New York State Legislature enacted legislation promising to pay out the long-promised funds sought through the litigation to New York City and other high-need school districts throughout the State. If the State honors its commitments, the case will be dismissed. If not, the Plaintiffs will be able to continue the litigation and seek an expedited trial to secure the promised funding. Plaintiffs believe today’s agreement will be an important enforcement mechanism to ensure that the State lives up to its constitutional obligation to adequately fund a sound basic education for all New York students.”

In announcing the parties’ agreement during a press conference yesterday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul acknowledged that “…the State is no longer pursuing the Foundation Aid lawsuit [NYSER v. State of New York] that occupied many people’s time. …That legal battle is over and…we have officially settled the lawsuit.” Gov. Hochul also announced, “The money was put in the budget last time; we will make sure the money is there going forward.”

Securing educational funding equity doesn’t stop with fully funding the now dated formula, however. As a result of enrollment declines in many areas (among other factors) many high-need school districts are already considered to be fully funded. To address increased poverty, greater student social and emotional needs, as well as differences in costs among the state’s regions, the Foundation Aid formula is in dire need of an overhaul. Michael Rebell, co-counsel for the plaintiffs stated, “Unequal funding has been a blight on education in New York State since DeWitt Clinton was governor. We still have a great deal of work to do. But this was a big first step. The state now needs to update and improve the Foundation Aid formula that was based on a calculation made 15 years ago in order to provide all students the opportunity for a sound basic education guaranteed to them by the state constitution. We need a new system that will ensure adequate and equitable funding for all students on a permanent, stable basis for the future."

REFIT wishes to thank Worona and Rebell for their tireless and generous efforts to bring about this landmark action. As NYSER President and pro bono lead counsel, Worona and Rebell have donated countless hours to attain this goal for New York State students. Similarly, coalition leaders have given years strategizing, providing guidance and advocating with state leaders. REFIT wishes to offer its heartfelt and deepest gratitude to fellow coalition leaders for their efforts on behalf of children and the future of our state.

CONGRATULATIONS AND CAUTION: COMMUNITY PERCEPTION VS. SCHOOL DISTRICT REALITY

HAVING TROUBLE TELLING YOUR COMMUNITY THAT YOUR DISTRICT ISN’T SHARING IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY GRAB?

HERE’S 10 POINTS TO MAKE

Ever since passage of the state budget, the media has served up a steady drumbeat of misinformation about recent changes in state and federal aid provided to school districts. To hear the press’ version, schools have never been so awash in cash. Federal money is arriving in droves with billions in state aid close behind. They report the promise of full funding over the next three years and create the public perception that schools have never had it so good. Politicians have also jumped in, many urging districts to use the funds to lower tax rates. All of this makes it challenging for our school districts to have a rational conversation with their communities. There are a few things the community hasn’t heard and our state leaders have forgotten to mention -- and before we declare a state of educational nirvana, we need to get a few things straight:

Federal stimulus, recovery and relief funding isn’t here yet. Only some of the funding from the first of three federal relief bills have arrived. The great bulk of that help isn’t even in the pipeline, and eligible use of the funds hasn’t been clarified. There’s no application for them and little to any guidance. This reality contrasts sharply with media suggestions that districts can use the funds right now and for whatever ails them. It’s just not true and confuses local communities as they attempt to analyze the upcoming budget vote next month.
The federal money is a “one shot”. It has a time period during which it can be used and restrictions on how it can be used. Districts that use federal funding to begin programs that have long term implications do so at the risk of raising taxes to pay for them once the federal money has dried up (a process of no more than three years at the latest). Sure, there are lots of good uses for those funds but prudent planning (and the nature of a child’s sequential education) demands that we invest in sustainable programs, not add and then eliminate programs and services based on one-time assistance. Suggestion: Investment in the up-front costs of programs that become reimbursable in subsequent years is a particularly good use of the federal money. BOCES, pre-school, full day K, any program that the state forces you to pay start-up costs, then reimburses you the following year.
State Aid. Oh boy…Yes, fully funding Foundation Aid fulfills the state’s commitment made in a court order it agreed to well over a decade ago. Fully funding the existing formula helps many districts that have been waiting a LONG time. State leaders can legitimately take a bow for complying with that court order. That said, it is complying 14 years late and doing so with a one year investment and a promise to complete the project within three years. Anyone else hear the echoes of the Gap Elimination Adjustment and the 12 years it took the state to get back to pre-recession levels of state aid? Asking school districts to rejoice and plan for years of additional funding is asking for a leap of faith across a wide chasm of past experience. Before the Great Recession we had a court order. We had this exact same legislative promise to pay in full over a period of years. We even had the first couple of years of living up to their responsibility under their own installment plan. Then, the economy turned….
Payment of the full funding amount over the next three years assumes the state’s economy can afford to do it. Federal aid to the state will help with the first couple of years, but New York State has always lagged behind its sister states after a recession. Don’t be surprised if three years becomes five, or even ten if the economy is less than robust. The press has bought the “wine and roses” scenario. “This is a new era and schools can expect to be flush for the foreseeable future!” School funding is set up on an annual basis; annual state aid fluctuations, annual local budget votes. Long range planning is hard, particularly when state leaders chose not to increase the percentage of unrestricted fund balance, or add a special education reserve fund.
Districts that concede to demands to lower taxes should also plan for future years of raising them again. New York State aid to education ebbs and flows in regular cycles. A child’s education does not. Lowered taxes now are never remembered or appreciated in future years. If taxes are lowered for two or three years, then (when federal funds and state aid taper off) they’re raised again, the district is left with overriding a tax cap that may be at or near 0 percent. Don’t count on your community remembering that you lowered their taxes a few years ago. They will vote based on what you’re doing at that time.
Fully funding Foundation Aid by 2024 means that the state will have fulfilled its 2007 responsibility 17 years late. From where we stand now, it’s already a 14 year old promise! It’s outdated and the result of shoveling 2021 money toward problems that existed in 2007 means that many school districts are not helped. Indeed, many of our most impoverished districts are set to receive only minute inflationary increases. Districts that have lost student population have been declared fully funded already and only receive the minimal 2 or 3% increase. Conversely, because the state correctly left the wealthiest for last in full funding a decade ago, they are now going to receive huge sums. The result? Under this “historic” infusion of aid, the rich are getting richer and the poor are often getting next to nothing. At the end of this three year program, the gap between the haves and have nots will be more extreme, not reduced. Suggestion: If you’ve lost enrollment, take your student population in 2007 and let your community know what your aid numbers would be if you still have that number of students. It won’t do anything more than lead you into a discussion of what costs don’t decline despite lower student enrollment, but it’s a start.
It’s hard to envision that this was not a planned result. Two years ago New York City based organizations crisscrossed the state testifying at Senate Education Committee hearings demanding that the state fully fund the existing formula rather than fix what everyone recognized as a now flawed way to meet the needs of poor school districts. Why? Because New York City is both high need and has an increasing student population. Using the existing formula would drive enormous sums of aid to the City. It’s done and will continue to do exactly that, to the detriment of all other high need districts.
It is evident that the Foundation Aid formula must be updated. Even the state legislature recognizes it and positioned the state’s use of the federal aid to incorporate new census data, an updated poverty index and brand new regional cost figures. Let’s hope that’s a precursor to their updating the Foundation Aid formula too, because impoverished school districts can’t wait three years watching wealthy districts receive even more while they starve.
Most districts that aren’t getting big aid increases lose out because of student enrollment losses. By basing everything on a “per student count”, these districts are considered to already be receiving their fair share. Nothing could be further from the truth, as schools have fixed costs. It doesn’t matter if your third grade class goes from 30 kids to 15; those 15 still need a teacher. They can’t skip third grade. Meanwhile, kids that remain in those districts are living in communities that have seen tremendous losses in employment, the community’s tax base and overall wealth. They’re poorer, the school is poorer and the state isn’t doing a thing about it. These districts are able to raise the least revenue on their own. The tax cap puts a lid on even miniscule local revenue increases. The formula needs to update its poverty index, regional cost index, sparsity and factor in the increased costs of student mental health needs and English Language Learners.
The state hasn’t provided any structural relief. Despite our love of local control, the fact is that the state set up these school districts and now is deaf to calls to reform them to address student needs. They haven’t made it easier to merge. They haven’t authorized regional high schools. There’s no silver bullet. If they’re going to expect high need school districts to continue, they’ve chosen the most inequitable means of planning for their survival. They’ve created a structure where impoverished students in impoverished districts will be ignored, while wealthy and politically important communities will be showered with help. New York State is already known as having the nation’s most inequitable state aid distribution system. Reform is needed prior to next year’s state budget to alter this unjust course.

Want to talk social injustice? Let’s start with relegating an entire generation of kids to a second class education. The problem isn’t that urban kids will get more. The problem is that in using the formula that accomplishes that, it also drives money to wealthy students who don’t need it, while diverting it away from needy kids who do. Make no mistake, this is a social and political choice that has been made. It’s deplorable and inexcusable. Work to correct that result must begin immediately if we’re to fix it by next year’s installment of aid.

THAT’s what your community needs to know in the face of the press telling them about the state’s once in a lifetime investment in public education. Good luck!

REFIT FEDERAL UPDATE

Revised Heroes Act

Friends, the seemingly endless negotiating (and political posturing) over federal stimulus funding in Congress continues. Recall that the House originally passed the Heroes Act that contained funding for public schools, as well as state and local governments. The Senate then passed its own version, dramatically smaller in total and containing items typically outside the scope of such legislation (corporate and military funding in particular). Having staked out a claim of attempting to help (prior to their elections) substantive negotiations were abandoned. The commonly held assumption is that the parties want to wait to see what happens in November before proceeding. So this new legislation from the House is somewhat of a surprise. It has a lower spending total (theoretically) to entice the Senate to agree. It shifts funding away from state governments and toward public schools, so that even though the total is far less, the amount for schools is more in this bill.

Will this new legislation lead to faster passage of stimulus funding? My guess is that Tuesday night’s debate will begin a month and a half of hardball presidential campaigning; not usually conducive to bipartisan agreements. Perhaps if both houses of Congress and the president all want to appear helpful and decisive prior to the election, a compromise can be reached. For now, this new bill is a sign that hope of federal help is still warranted -- if perhaps still far off.

Here is a summary of what this version would mean for schools, localities and the state.

Summary of new House updated Heroes Act that more than doubles education funding – Tonight the House introduced a new version of the pandemic-relief bill it passed in May that cuts $1.2 billion in total cost but more than doubles the education funding to $225 billion and dramatically increases support for child care, libraries and museums, and broadband access. The education funding includes $182 billion for K-12 schools and nearly $39 billion for postsecondary education. Part of the cost-savings compared with the original Heroes Act comes from cutting in half the funding for state and local fiscal relief (obviously a large portion of state budgets support education), down from $915 billion in the original bill to $436 billion in this version.
Materials (links) –
- Bill text – Education funding starts on page 148.
- Section by section summary – Department of Education is on page 9, in Title VIII. Department of Labor is on page 6, and child care is on page 8, and Institute for Museum and Library Services is on page 10.
- State and local relief summary

Department of Education (ED) funding – The bill includes a total of $225 billion for education. There are some technical clarifications in addition to the following funding provisions:
- $208.1 billion for ED’s Education Stabilization Fund (page 148) – Funding is allocated to states based on a combination of the number of school-aged children and the number of Title 1-eligible children. Funding is not dependent upon schools reopening in person and can be used for the types of services and supplies that were allowed under the CARES Act. Funding is divided as follows:
  - $175 billion for elementary and secondary education
  - $27 billion for public postsecondary education, with 75% based on the number of Pell Grant-eligible students. Funds can be used for an institution’s needs and for grants to students (there is a separate section described below for private institutions)
  - $4 billion for governors to use on education, including restoring state and local education support (pages 150-151)
  - $2 billion for Bureau of Indian Education, tribal colleges and outlying areas
  - Maintenance of effort – states must maintain the percent of their budgets spent on education in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for FYs 2020 through 2022, with further specific assurances for K-12 funding and higher education (pages 154-155).
- $11.9 billion for higher education (page 164) – This section has funding for private institutions of higher education, and the allowable uses reflect those for public institutions in the Education Stabilization Fund. It includes:
  - $3.5 billion for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and for Minority-Serving Institutions
  - $7 billion for private, non-profit institutions of higher education (page 168)
  - $1.4 billion for institutions with unmet need related to coronavirus
  - $20 million for Howard University
  - $11 million for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf
  - $11 million for Gallaudet University
- $5 billion for K-12 school facilities to respond to coronavirus (page 158) – Funds can be used for repairs and improvements to support student health needs, including improvements to allow outdoor teaching. Federal funds are not normally allowed to be used for physical school maintenance cost (the Impact Aid program does have a facilities account).
- $32 million for Institute of Education Sciences (IES) (page 171) – Funding is for the National Assessment of Educational Progress Assessment Act for reading and math assessments in 2021.
- $7 million for the Office of Inspector General
Other education-related funding -
- $57 billion for child care (page 104) – Provides $7 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant for providers and $50 billion for a state Child Care Stabilization Fund
- $12 billion to close the homework gap and $3 billion for emergency home connectivity (page 61-62) – The $12 billion is for schools and libraries to fund Wi-Fi hotspots and devices
- $2.1 billion for worker training (page 83)
- $1.7 billion for Head Start
- $350 million for the Corporation for National and Community Service (page 176)
- $175 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (page 179)
- $135 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (page 179)

If nothing else, this new, more fiscally palatable version may encourage Governor Cuomo to avoid making further cuts, given that the funding discussion appears to be proceeding in earnest -- if not in haste.

All the best,

David Allan Little, Esq.

REFIT COO

REFIT CRISIS UPDATE

STATE OFFICIALS ANSWER LOCAL DISTRICT INQUIRIES

NYSSBA HOLDS SECOND WEEKEND WEBINAR WITH TOP STAFF

This weekend NYSSBA held the second of its Question and Answer webinars with state education officials. The webinar included Interim Commissioner Tahoe and Deputy Secretary of Education Fuller. Below, please find an outlined compilation of questions answered during the session.

Deputy Secretary Fuller: School closure will continue to be done on a two week basis (regionally rather than statewide) based on the circumstances each is facing at the time…the governor is deciding based on “data and science” and will make determinations in a way that should give districts adequate planning time.

Commissioner Tahoe: The State Education Department (SED) is trying to find additional money and flexibility for districts to purchase local technology (Chromebooks, etc.) -- Smart Schools Bond Act board will expedite approval of any applications they receive.

Title 1 funds can be used to meet the crisis. According to the commissioner, it’s worth being in contact with the State Education Department about additional revenue that may have been secured.

The continuity of instruction is being left up to individual districts. All districts should be reaching out to students to be sure instruction is happening -- not easy to find all kids but calling them eases student anxiety. SED isn’t mandating interactive video instruction, however.

Will spring break cancellation mean districts will exceed 180 days or (not having Regents exams could districts end the school year earlier if they’ve done 180 days remotely)? Deputy Sec. Fuller: Cancelling spring break kept kids inside -- not looking for schools to go beyond 180 days. We’re at 130-135 right now. The governor is aware of this issue and is not looking for schools to exceed 180 total days. No Regents exams gives schools an extra week without instruction -- so perhaps we’ll end up trading the spring break week for that week (letting out early so that districts aren’t pressed financially to pay for a week that’s not in their budget).

Initial Special Educational evaluations of children who may have a disability should be done by teletherapy still within the 60 calendar day timeline (for students referred for a special ed evaluation). No flexibility has been granted by the federal government and there has been no federal waiver. However, the 60 days begins from parental consent, so the evaluation can be delayed if the parent says it can wait (given the circumstances). This needs to be a conversation about the legitimate reasons for a delay. If they give consent, perfect. Otherwise, it can be done by teletherapy as best as can be done -- but must be done. That teletherapy evaluation can result in a determination that an additional evaluation(s) must be done when school begins again; but the initial evaluation has to be completed.

How will summer special educational services be done and paid for? SED is working on federal aid to pay for compensatory services. Providing compensatory services is not automatic just because the student missed time during the normal year. This is a separate evaluation. Some will need it due to the layoff but it’s not automatic. Districts will need to document services and student progress or regression. So perhaps more students will be eligible for programming over the summer and into next year, as there may be more regression than usual. SED will expedite applications and there is an established funding stream for those services.

The governor is currently considering the implications of the crisis on tenure decisions and teacher evaluations. (Can they be done by video, should decisions be delayed, etc.). These are currently under consideration. The administration is not looking to add additional stress to districts or teachers.

Do schools pay bus companies while not using them and if they do, does it constitute a gift of public funds? Beyond meal delivery, the federal CARES Act suggests contractors should continue to be paid. Some schools are saying they can’t pay them, as it constitutes a gift. The administration’s response is that it doesn’t want to rush into decisions that will cost money. Districts are varied in whether they’re paying or not. For now, this appears to be a local decision.

The governor’s office is also gathering information about whether districts should pay hourly employees that didn’t in fact work during the cancelled spring break (and who wouldn’t have normally been paid for that week). No determination has been made at the state level.

A decision about the timing of school elections and local school budget votes hasn’t been made and is currently under consideration. SED is trying to provide information to the governor’s office in order to inform the decision (relaying potential adverse consequences). The governor’s office is aware of the importance of the issue.

Schools are neither a business nor a not for profit, so by definition are exempted from the ban on new construction. School construction projects can proceed provided appropriate protections are in place for the safety of workers. If the school district determines the project is vital, it can proceed (with cleaning, social distancing, etc. in place).

Economic forecast for future aid payments: Dep. Sec. Fuller “We’re in an extreme situation.” The federal government should provide additional assistance. New York State has had one of the worst economic impacts from the pandemic in the nation. There is no guarantee that there won’t be cuts. It’s important that people contact their federal representatives to ensure federal aid comes. Otherwise (if revenue doesn’t rebound) there is the possibility of aid cuts.

Is the Executive Order’s statement that schools should attempt to retain staff a prohibition on lay-offs? The governor’s office hasn’t determined that yet.

Is free child care for health care workers permitted or required? Dep. Sec. Fuller: “We haven’t specifically said schools must provide it for free. One of the success stories is how districts have partnered with existing providers. Our intent is to make sure child care and its cost wasn’t an impediment to health care workers doing what needs to be done. We haven’t heard that health care workers have said they can’t afford it currently.” Dan Fuller’s presumption was that whatever arrangements districts have made to this point are working well.

SED may look at the sufficiency of lesson plans if schools stay out longer than originally anticipated.

State officials lauded everyone at the district level for meeting this challenge.

Stay safe and strong, friends,

Dave

David A. Little

Chief Operating Officer

REFIT Executive Budget Analysis

Today Governor Cuomo proposed an $826 million increase in education aid; far short of what is needed to simply continue existing programs and services. Perhaps recognizing that he is midway through his term and has two years to go before facing voters, perhaps also recognizing that the local tax levy cap will be higher than normal this year and finally, that the mass exodus of veteran Republican senators may not require high school aid to ensure a Democratic majority in that house next November, the governor not only proposed a 3% (rather than the customary 4%) aid increase, but he proposes cannibalizing Expense Based (reimbursable) Aids to provide the meager Foundation Aid increase.

The Executive Budget suggests that 85% of the new funds go to high need school districts to create greater equity among districts. “Throw out our existing funding formula. We must use the State’s 40% to achieve educational equity and fund poorer schools.” (A concept REFIT certainly applauds! The reality of its implementation, however, is strikingly harmful.) The governor claims that expense based aids are anathema to funding equity, as wealthier districts have the funds to participate in transportation, special education, building and BOCES aid at higher rates than high need districts and that the state’s obligation to repay those costs drains its ability to equitably distribute Foundation Aid. As a result, he suggests that only $72 million of the hundreds of millions owed to school districts be paid out in this budget and that all reimbursable aids be folded into Foundation Aid within two years. He also proposes capping growth in transportation aid to the rate of inflation, plus enrollment growth. This is certainly no help to districts attempting to expand after school or pre k programs by offering transportation to students.

For Building Aid, Cuomo proposes creating a new (and obviously less generous) tier for capital projects approved from 2020-2021 on.

The Executive Budget suggests the following aid levels:

The state’s 18.4% of share of the cost of Committees on Special Education (CSEs) would be eliminated, for a $25 million cut.
Community School funding (the Community School “set aside”) would be increased by $50 to a total of $300 million.
Pre K funding would see an increase of a mere $15 million, prioritized to districts that don’t yet have a program and targeted to districts with high rates of child homelessness and gang activity (and as such, would surely go only to urban areas.) This would raise the total for pre K to $850 million.
After school programs would see an increase of $10 million.
Early College High Schools would see an increase of $6 million to create 10 new programs.
The planned Comprehensive Education and Workforce Training Center in Syracuse would receive $71.4 million from the state.
The Master Teachers Program would be increased by $1.5 million.
Charter schools would also receive a 3% aid increase, with charters in New York City receiving a 5.3% increase.
Private and parochial school funding would also increase by 3% to a total of $199 million and an additional $5 million for STEM instruction (for a total of $35 million.)
$1 million would be invested in a new statewide school Diversity and Tolerance Curriculum.
Half a million dollars would be given to a new STEM Entrepreneur in Residence Program.

NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The Executive Budget would expand the requirement that school districts disclose funding within their overall budget to be allocated to each individual school building within the district to all school districts in the state (up from 76 the first year and 300 last year.) The requirement is both duplicative of federal requirements and absurd, given the fact that the vast majority of the additional districts needing to report have only one building at each grade level.

ANALYSIS

One can almost hear the collective plea of the new Senate Majority…”Can’t this wait ‘til next year when we don’t have to run and our majority will be carved in stone?” While the governor is free to be bold in lowering his traditional 4% aid increase, as well as his plan to cannibalize the reimbursable aids into Foundation Aid that would then be redirected to high need districts, the legislature does have to run this year and the resulting redistribution of state aid would have a profound impact on school districts in politically sensitive swing legislative districts (where local taxes would have to offset the loss of already spent funding for special education, transportation, building aid and BOCES programs). While REFIT certainly cheers the executive wanting to provide additional resources to fiscally challenged districts, the plan ignores the headaches caused by suddenly pulling the funding plug on state and federally mandated programs like special education, or on approved capital projects where bond holders must be paid. Those costs certainly don’t disappear and many of the districts that would be hardest hit would be the very high need districts the governor purports to help.

There’s no question that obtaining the needed funding to adequately support fiscally challenged districts is difficult when you already spend nearly twice the national average per child and your distribution system relies for nearly two thirds of the funding on local, rather than state funds. Simply put, there has to be another way rather than dropping promised funding for mandated and costly programs. It was clear from the governor’s verbal remarks that his motivation includes not only increasing equity, but in eliminating the state’s “blank check” for these categories. He proposed a similar change last year, but it was ultimately rejected by the legislature.

The governor holds all the cards in our state’s budget negotiations, requiring the legislature to “buy back” any increases they seek from the Executive Budget proposal. Making matters worse, the governor proposed no new revenue increases; meaning that the legislature would be on the political hook for new taxes to pay for any increases they seek in school funding. On the one hand, given that the governor is mid-term, an $826 million increase is not a bad starting point, but when the last couple of years have made the initial proposal and the final figure very close to each other, it becomes problematic for struggling schools (and particularly schools that cannot raise sufficient local revenue under the tax levy cap.)

Eliminating categorical aid funding for seminal programs in order to pay increased Foundation Aid to needy districts begs the question of how the new funds would be distributed. If there are no changes under the formula, the vast majority of the “new” funding would simply go to New York City, which is in fact a “high need” district. If the state doesn’t make the effort to adjust the formula to accurately reflect existing levels of poverty, regional cost, the increased costs of English Language Learners or the mental health needs of students, it will have disrupted and damaged the lives of children for nothing.

The easiest scenario to envision would be for the legislature to reject the elimination of Expense Based Aid funding and thus increase total aid by roughly $1.2 billion (an amount schools have learned to cope with in recent years). Whether the all Democratic legislative majorities have the wherewithal to successfully negotiate this increase with their party’s leader would suggest a break from last year’s initial attempt. The legislature needs local school budget votes to be their usual nonevent, with their usual nearly unanimous passage rate. This would make for easier re-election for the new Senate Majority, who would then be free to have the legislative redistricting plan be created following this year’s U.S. census by only the Democratic Party (helping to ensure the continuation of their majority status for the next decade).

The pending retirements of several veteran Republican senators has made securing the new majority a virtual surety, with or without sufficient education aid. The enactment of the Executive Budget as proposed would cause unnecessary harm that might theoretically be worthwhile in the long run, but devastating in the short term. Both the legislature and the education community have their work cut out for them.

REFIT has already met with the governor’s staff to discuss our concern for the impact of these proposals on stressed districts. School aid runs will be available within 12 to 24 hours, according to the governor’s office. We will forward them as soon as they’re available. In the meantime, a phone call to your legislators explaining the local impact of both the insufficient aid total and the elimination of reimbursable aids (after districts have already spent the money for the often mandated expenses and would now be forced to cut elsewhere to pay for them) would be helpful.

REFIT will meet with legislators, as well as the governor’s education staff and will testify at the Joint Legislative Budget Hearing on Education; all to make clear the potential damage caused by the proposed approach. There is no shortcut to the complex issue of fixing an outdated and manipulated funding formula. Trading one set of inequities for another is no solution and REFIT will work to help leaders arrive at a more workable and affordable approach.

ALBANY ALERT

STATE OF THE STATE RHETORIC CALLS FOR EDUCATION AID REFORM

In recent years, the annual State of the State Message has been delivered in conjunction with the Executive Budget proposal. Not so this year. As a result, we’ll have to wait for the numbers and the specific programs and legal changes proposed to be added. There are seldom (if ever) any reductions in local responsibilities.

This year the State of the State spent only seconds focusing on public education. The governor proposed creating a Science, Tech, Engineering, Arts and Math (STEAM) high school in Syracuse, mentioned the need for internet service for all and then moved on to a brief, but emphatic demand for greater equity in state funding for public education. Explaining that 60% of education funding comes from local taxes, resulting in wealthy districts spending on average three times what other districts are able to pay per child, Governor Cuomo demanded that this year the state use its resources to better fund our fiscally challenged schools.

“Use state funds to raise those at the bottom! Use state funds to raise those at the bottom! Use state funds to raise those at the bottom!” was shouted to thunderous applause by the legislators and other state leaders assembled. The governor demanded that this be the year to decrease the gap in resources between wealthy and fiscally struggling districts. Coming on the heels of statewide legislative hearings on funding reform, the governor visibly put his office behind reform. What that means in actual legislative terms will require our patience in waiting for the Executive Budget. The briefing book that accompanies the State of the State Message says nothing more about the issue than a rehash of the governor’s demand that districts disclose which buildings within their districts receive the most funding. That’s a far cry from what would be needed to actually raise those at the bottom! The state constitution requires his proposed budget plan be sent to the legislature within the next couple of weeks.

The State of the State is a forum for the governor to encourage support for new proposals and highlight past accomplishments. So, the wonderful quote above could mean additional state funding to reduce the gap between local and state funding. It could mean formula reform that adequately addresses poverty and its challenges. It could mean a greater aid total. Yet, it could just as easily mean a cut in funding for established programs and services (like last year’s suggestion that reimbursable program funding like BOCES, transportation, special ed and Building Aid) be reduced to shift existing resources in an attempt to address a state budget deficit.

We know the political environment that allows the governor to recalibrate state funds in mid- term with relative impunity (particularly when compared with legislators who are running this year and will be particularly hesitant to either raise taxes or cause local upheaval). We know that a Medicaid induced deficit will prove challenging and we know that real funding reform (when we already spend far more than other states on public education) is always difficult, but particularly so when money’s tight. So, it’s time to wait and see.

We do have a little foreshadowing, derived from the briefing book. There, the governor lays out plans to increase high need district pre-k funding, increase funding for after school programs in high need districts that are experiencing gang activity, train bilingual teachers and (perhaps most indicative of a lack of awareness of districts with fiscally challenging circumstances) a competitive grant program to train school staff on student mental health. (Having these programs is great, but making the grants competitive when many schools have neither the staff to apply for them, nor the staff to keep and compile the data to make the grant “competitive” often rules out REFIT districts; despite their greater need for the funding.)

As soon as the Executive Budget is revealed, we will provide you with an analysis of its potential impact on REFIT school districts.

“THERE IS NO PLAN TO REOPEN SCHOOLS: PERIOD!”

At his daily pandemic update press conference, Governor Cuomo was asked about the state’s plans to reopen public schools this year. His response? “There is no plan to reopen schools. Period!”

Cuomo indicated that any plan to reopen schools would involve a massive undertaking and the coordination of public health, cleaning protocols, social distancing and other factors that have yet to be assessed. “We’re just not there yet,” said the governor.

Other states that would normally close their schools around Memorial Day have already determined that schools will be shut down for the remainder of their current school year. New York typically holds school nearly a month longer (including Regents testing) than those states. Until now, the governor has been mum on whether schools are likely to remain closed for the entirety of this school year, preferring to make declarations of extensions of the closure order in two week increments.

Earlier, Cuomo broke with his practice by indicating the closure would last until at least May 15th; making the declaration far in advance of prior orders. Today’s statement doesn’t amount to a formal extension of the order to keep schools closed. It was however, an admission that the state is not in a position to reopen the schools and has not yet created the coordinated approach needed to accomplish it. His emphatic statement does serve as the first indication that he may be eying schools remaining closed for the rest of the school year.

Did the governor mean “We don’t yet have a plan ready to reopen schools”? Or did he mean “We don’t plan to reopen schools”? The strident nature of his statement would lead one to (at the very) least interpret the comment as “As of right now, I don’t plan to reopen schools.” His approach in recent days has been to coordinate his actions in collaboration with other states in the Northeast, most of which have indicated schools will remain closed the rest of the year.

REFIT will continue to keep you up to date on developments as they occur.

REFIT SUMMER UPDATE

Here’s hoping you’re enjoying the summer and preparing for an outstanding school year! Despite the legislature being out of session, there is news to share and ways we can prepare for the work needed to reform our school funding formula.

SAME OLD NEEDS-BRAND NEW COMMISSIONER

At the recent SCOPE annual dinner, outgoing Commissioner Elia revealed that political influence had a bearing on her decision to resign at the end of this month. That’s disturbing. Differences of opinion between the commissioner and the Board of Regents is to be expected from time to time, but outside pressure is inappropriate. Our state constitution purposely created an independent State Education Department and Board of Regents in order to avoid just this type of external pressure. The legislature and governor obviously already have the means to set state law affecting public education when they believe it’s warranted, so aside from it being more expedient to pressure the department than to pass laws, there is no justification for strong arm tactics; particularly when they rise to the level of ousting the state education commissioner. This commissioner was attentive to the issue of funding equity. She used her position to highlight the need for all students to receive the means of academic success. Her departure creates a need to assure that a successor is similarly focused. Last January’s change in party leadership in the state senate resulted in a new approach to the selection of members of the Board of Regents. Whereas the senate previously played little role, leaving selection largely up to the Assembly Speaker, there must now be a more mutually acceptable selection among the houses. Please use this recess to meet with your legislators to be sure they’re sensitive to the need for a strong advocate in their selection of the next education commissioner!

LACK OF PREPARATION FOR LEADERS CREATES A CRISIS FOR SCHOOLS

Last spring’s passage of the state budget fell alarming short of the school funding reform promised by the newly elected senate majority. In fact, not only did state leaders not improve the equitable distribution of funding (leaving us once again at the bottom of the nation in terms of equity), it made things worse by creating even more ways to direct funds wherever leaders believed increases were politically (rather than equitably) desirable. To be fair, there were a number of factors working against the new senate leaders. It was an off-election year when aid increases are typically lower. Schools in total had historic levels of reserves on hand and the statewide tax cap limit was higher than normal. The new senate majority had little time to hire staff capable of understanding and negotiating a formula as complex as our school funding scheme. It’s possible they were simply bulldozed in the negotiating process. However, that doesn’t excuse the apparent lack of preparation leading into the next state budget funding cycle. To make the changes needed to the state funding formula (like adjusting for increased poverty of students, higher costs for the increasing number of English Language Learners, student transience, mental health costs, etc.) state leaders need to be working on it now! Where are the hearings of experts and school leaders to identify areas of need, present inequities, regional cost differences, overreliance on the residential property tax? Where are the public hearings, the task force charged with drafting a formula to which leaders can react when the time comes? Where are the cost studies of what it will take to provide underfunded districts the funds to which they are constitutionally entitled? That work should be taking place right now, but there is little evidence that it’s happening. Unless our representatives understand that we expect and demand this action, we can expect little change next April. If we begin our call in January, they simply won’t have time to make significant change and we can expect simple additions or subtractions to current allocations. That’s not good enough and we need to impress that fact on our state representatives.

THE CHILLING EFFECT OF PROPOSED FEDERAL CHANGES

The federal administration has proposed prohibiting those applying for U.S. citizenship from receiving certain public assistance services. Most of the services provided to school children are not included in the ban. However, parents seeking citizenship may not have a complete understanding of which federal assistance programs are included; leading them to simply reject all forms of public assistance. The result could well be a decrease in participation in programs and services provided to students. School food programs, special educational services, etc. might see a drop in student participation, leading to a decrease in school financial resources, as well as depriving students of the means of achieving academic success. The failure to get students the services and/or the food they need has both short term and long term consequences for their success. For schools, it means additional administrative time taken up to counsel families who may have opted out unnecessarily. It also means additional and more expensive remedial services later in a student’s career to address the failure to correct for special needs early on. We will contact you shortly to provide comments on this proposal. In the meantime, please think about how this might play out in your district. Then contact your Member of Congress to provide them with the unintended consequences of the plan.

IDA PROJECTS: DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE OR SCHOOL FUNDING NIGHTMARE?

In an effort to spur economic activity, Industrial Development Agencies have branched out into residential development. There are several recent instances of IDAs funding apartment complexes and other nontraditional projects. The concept of IDA funding allows the project to circumvent tax liabilities to both local government and school districts by negotiating a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement. There are several adverse consequences to these agreements for school districts. First, schools are seldom included in the negotiations and simply informed of their lowered amount under the agreement. Schools have no ability to veto proposed projects due to their financial impact on the district. For instance, if an IDA approves funding for an apartment complex, the PILOT is likely to pay the school district much less than the cost of educating the children likely to reside in that complex. This is happening in Port Jefferson, where the developer is claiming that the one and two bedroom apartments proposed are intended to provide housing to young singles and senior citizens (now there’s an interesting social dynamic!). As a result, they are claiming that the apartments won’t increase the number of students in the school district. A realistic assessment of current demographics would suggest that not only will this not be the case, but the new students are likely to have an increased need for programs and services. It certainly isn’t fair to schools (whose budgets are set outside of the IDA project review process) to have these projects thrust into their midst without either any influence over the approval process or any recourse once a determination has been made. These projects frequently wreak havoc with tax cap calculations as well as throw a monkey wrench into finances and planning between budget cycles. The fact that current law doesn’t provide the school with a say in the process doesn’t preclude a district from holding its own public hearing prior to sending comments to the IDA. It doesn’t preclude your alerting your community to proposed impacts on their tax rates or services provided. IDA projects often have an air of secrecy about them that does not serve the public interest. School districts can improve public awareness about the effect of any given project on a community. REFIT is advocating for improvements in the IDA approval process to include school impacts.

REFIT ANNUAL DINNER

REFIT’S Annual Dinner and district meeting (for member districts) will be held September 18th at 6 P.M. at Southward Ho in Bay Shore. The featured speaker is Michael Rebell, lead attorney for NYSIR vs. State of New York, the school funding adequacy case. Rebell is the state’s leading expert on funding adequacy and equity. Plan to be there to network with colleagues, hear the latest on school funding and a legislative preview from REFIT head, Dave Little.

To register, please contact Kristel Lazarus at refit411@gmail.com if you have not received a registration form or if you would like to become a member.

BEING RIGHT DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN WINNING

Sometimes it hurts to be right. For months REFIT cautioned that several factors were likely to combine to suppress state education aid this year. Among them were:

Immediately following a gubernatorial election, aid is historically lowered, as new governors take advantage of the time before another election. Lower aid in past years can safely be overcome (politically) with higher aid in the next election year. The fact that the legislature also has another year to recover local support compounds the problem.
The newly elected majority in the Senate would need to hire all new staff, leaving them at a disadvantage in budget negotiations. As a result, they would likely be vulnerable to the positions of other leaders, who had seasoned staff to help advance their positions. Despite promises of reform to the state aid formula, the new Senate leadership would need time to establish themselves and the budget process began even before they took the reins.
Our state provides our governor with almost insurmountable budget making authority. This power is enhanced by the fact that he is now the undisputed leader of the political party that controls all facets of the legislative process.
Shortly after negotiations began, the state comptroller identified a spending deficit that put a damper on any potential increases.
A higher than usual allowable tax levy increase, combined with a slightly lower retirement system contribution rate and existing total school reserve levels would convince budget negotiators that no immediate crisis would ensue, should they not provide a historic increase.
Following the Executive Budget proposal, we suggested that the environment would allow the legislature to raise the governor’s projection by perhaps $300 million. Despite fiscal challenges, the governor would have to allow the new leadership a political “win” by increasing his aid totals. Sadly, we were close, as the final increase was $281 million over the Executive Budget’s figures.

Despite fervent protests from those leaders proclaiming that the new era would bring systemic reform (and the long-promised redistribution of aid according to levels of poverty, regional cost, English Language Learners and other measures of school need) Albany’s status quo won out. State aid was distributed in exactly the same regional proportions as last year. The only “reform” was to institute an even more convoluted ten-tiered distribution scheme akin to the Gap Elimination Adjustment repayment plan. This allows state leaders to address local district issues that arise to the level of political imperative by carving out exceptions for what they consider to be problem districts. This doesn’t help fiscally challenged districts as a group.

The result is a mixed bag of insufficient (but not insignificant) aid levels, combined with the helpful rejection of poor policy proposals and the enactment of long sought after and much needed change, like an increase in the BOCES District Superintendent salary cap and (finally!) district authority for the creation of a TRS reserve fund. This pattern was true to form as well, as past leaders have also sought to mitigate lower than called for aid increases with high profile policy change; in order to salve the disappointment.

Fiscally challenged REFIT school districts as a group received uneven aid levels. Some got only a paltry increase that won’t begin to cover even the usual year-to-year inflationary cost increases. To the extent possible, they will rely on fund balance to hold them until next year’s expected legislative election year increase. Others were more fortunate. All were the victim of state leaders’ failing once again to recognize that the usual political and economic calculations often don’t apply in our schools. For instance, allowing an increase in the “tax cap” rate doesn’t help when your local tax base consists largely of residences, rather than commercial property. In many instances, the increase in the tax cap for this year allowed local district tax increases to surge from “negligible” to “insignificant”. As always, as district leaders, you are respectful of local taxpayer concerns, particularly in light of the federal limit on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. As a result, you can’t simply raise local taxes to compensate for the state’s failure to provide sufficient aid.

State leaders are having a hard time understanding the crisis that remains in our fiscally challenged communities. They look at stable state unemployment figures and high regional graduation rates and move on to areas with more visible challenges. State leaders have so far failed to understand that it’s not enough to treat REFIT schools like every other school. They’re simply not like every other school and students in our schools deserve an earnest attempt to overcome their life challenges and the schools’ individual economic circumstances.

Here are state budget items with the biggest impact on REFIT schools:

Equitable Distribution within school districts: The governor’s plan to require school districts to submit equitable budget distribution plans to the state was modified in the final budget agreement. Now, “underfunded or high need” schools within school districts with more than one building at a given level (elementary, middle, high school) will need to submit a report to SED by the first of September, showing how they plan to prioritize funding to those schools deemed to be underfunded in comparison to their counterpart(s) within the district. SED will produce their list of designated schools by the first of May each year. Plans to have the state pre-approve those plans were thankfully, not included in the state budget. While still an overreach by state government, this is a far cry better than the original proposal and an advocacy “win” for the educational community.
Community Schools: Community Schools continue to be one of the most promising means of transforming our schools and the communities that support them. This year the amount set aside within aid for Community Schools increased from $75,000 to $100,000 with a total increase of $50 million. This funding remains flexible for districts and can be used for anything that maximizes academic achievement. The increase should allow the hiring of Community Schools coordinators and other helpful local efforts.
BOCES District Superintendent Salary Cap Increase: Finally! The ability to attract and retain educational leaders to this vital role is crucial to the success of our region’s educational effort. Increases of 6% per year will be allowed, eventually reaching a maximum of $208,000. This should allow BOCES to be competitive in reaching out to the field’s best and brightest and adequately compensate the good folks already serving in those positions.
TRS Reserve Fund: This is another critically important change and one that some of us have worked our entire advocacy careers to obtain for our schools. While the state Employee Retirement System (ERS) has for generations had a reserve fund to offset fluctuations in the employer contribution rate, the same could not be said for the Teachers’ Retirement System contributions. This left school districts vulnerable to market swings; often leaving schools to face large increases just when they had the least money available. Now, when expenses are lower at the end of the year than anticipated, funds can be set aside to protect taxpayers and employees from these large cost swings. This should not only prevent large swings in local taxes, but help assure that district programs and services needn’t be sacrificed to adjust for increased pension costs. Simply put, current education shouldn’t suffer to pay for future costs and now, they’ll be at lower risk of that happening. This is a longstanding legislative priority of the educational community and REFIT is proud of have played a role in obtaining this improvement on behalf of our members.
No Cost Dual Enrollment: It was always a conundrum; go to high school, but be forced to pay for coursework done jointly with local SUNY colleges and universities. Since cost and particularly the cost of remedial coursework is a huge contributor to our college dropout rate, the ability to obtain these courses free of charge is tremendously helpful to students and their families. Authority to offer the courses for free doesn’t necessarily mean its automatic. Districts should coordinate with local higher ed to be sure our students can receive free courses. This new authority is helpful in our partnerships and of great potential benefit to students.
Transportation “Piggybacking”: Akin to cooperative purchasing, school districts can now join sister districts in their transportation contracts. This should provide both administrative relief, as well as cost savings to districts. In our ability to provide afterschool, summer, weekend and other external programming, transportation is the key and so this ability should prove highly beneficial.
APPR: No more requirement to use Grade 3-8 test results, as well as other state exams as part of staff evaluations. No more state growth model. No more including student 3-8 test results in their permanent record. Districts will still need to negotiate their evaluation system with local bargaining units and the student growth measure assessment still stands. The state missed the chance to improve the already passed standalone legislation by eliminating the collective bargaining requirement that will be costly for districts, as well as arrive at an approach that didn’t potentially increase student testing by having (but not using) state tests for evaluative purposes, in addition to local tests that might be used to evaluate staff.
Agency Shop Fee Indemnification: When the U.S. Supreme Court rejected agency shop fees, it opened the potential for past payers to request those fees back from school districts that collected them on behalf of unions and those unions themselves. Now the state budget sets law that prevents that from occurring.

Here are the items we’re glad they rejected:

Capping the Reimbursable Aids: Most REFIT schools would have suffered under this proposal that mirrored the old block grant concept: “We’ll give you a set figure and if you spend more than that, take it from somewhere else in your budget.” For now, districts will continue to receive the reimbursement promised by the state for BOCES, Transportation, Building and 8 other reimbursable aid categories.
Cutting the Building Aid Adjustment: The legislature rejected the governor’s plan to reduce Building Aid reimbursement rates. Building Aid will continue to allow incidental costs to be included in construction project reimbursement.
Seat Belts on Buses: Requiring the use of seat belts on school buses would have been horribly detrimental to students and school districts alike. Districts would have needed added staff to monitor belt use. Students would have been exposed to concentrated impact stress in a collision, as all force would have been directed to the lap belt area -- an area that can cause spinal separation at amazingly low speed impacts.
Division of Human Rights Jurisdiction over Schools: The legislature rejected the governor’s annual bid to subject school districts to the jurisdiction of the Division of Human Rights. School discipline remains right where it should stay; with schools who know their students and have corrective, rather than punitive discipline as their basis for action.
New Curriculum Mandates: Changes to the mandated health curriculum to require instruction on relationships and comprehensive sex education were rejected by the legislature.

Here’s Where They Should Have Left Well Enough Alone:

Permanent Property Tax Cap: By now, most of us are all too aware of the secondary consequences of the property tax levy cap. Adjustments needed to be made to avoid negative tax caps, it needed to simply be a 2% cap as advertised (rather than a much lower cap tied to the inappropriate consumer price index) and others. That didn’t happen and we now have a permanent tax cap; as is. The tax cap institutionalizes the inequities of our public education funding scheme. Communities with a more significant commercial base can throw millions to their schools while those with little remaining tax base struggle to raise a pittance. Perhaps its’ one redeeming quality is that it forces the state to attend to districts that find themselves most in need. If only it would.
Mandated Election Day Leave: Most school staff work less than half of the days in a year. In addition, they have paid leave, negotiated and paid by the school district. Polls are open both before and after the typical instructional day, but the state felt compelled to include schools in requiring that each employee receive three hours at the start or end of the school day to vote. Theoretically, all school employees could elect to take leave for half of the school day that coincides with Election Day. This truly was a solution without a problem and imposes yet another costly unfunded mandate on our schools. At best, it should have been left to collective bargaining.

Missed Opportunities:

State Aid: After years of promising reform of the education aid distribution system, the new Senate leadership not only failed to produce that reform, it compounded inequities through a convoluted ten-tiered approach, once again negotiated the budget in secret and failed to increase aid by the needed amount.
School Bus Stop Arms: Despite increased focus on the tragedies resulting from passing stopped school buses, the state declined to authorize the use of stop arms to prevent drivers ignoring the flashing lights and stop sign of a 60 foot long, bright yellow vehicle!
Final Cost Report Forgiveness: For the governor to allow forgiveness to some school districts and not others was reprehensible, particularly when it appeared for all the world like politics was the only tangible difference between them (he allowed forgiveness of aid penalties for districts before election, vetoed them afterward). The state budget was a chance to make this right once and for all.
Smart Schools Bond Act: Voters authorized $2 billion to be used for upgrading the technology capacity of our schools. There are few issues as important to today’s schools and their students. Yet, the panel that allegedly meets to authorize district plans rarely gets together and little of the authorized money has actually been distributed. The budget could have required a meeting and distribution schedule.
Pre-K Transportation Funding: Nothing would help address the impact of increased poverty on our students like accessible pre-k. Transportation is the key to that accessibility and until the state allows aid on pre-k transportation, our fiscally challenged schools won’t be able to provide it to those who need it most. Pure and simple. State leaders know it and yet ignored this vital change.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT:

If you spend enough time around Albany, certain signs concern you. The prospect of one political party controlling the entire legislative and budget making process raised the prospect of either finally reforming our inequitable state aid distribution system or having the legislature follow the governor as he leads the party in charge. Thus far, the new leadership has followed lockstep behind the governor, mirroring decades of secrecy and political considerations pervading the budgeting process. It’s not encouraging. Next year will bring a new U.S. Census. That census will reflect the hundreds of thousands of New York State residents who have left our state. That means some legislative districts will be expanded to include the same number of voters; which means that many more legislators will come from the City, where population has grown. With the exception of the state comptroller, all of our statewide officeholders and all of our legislative house leaders already come from the City and Westchester. Soon, their respective conferences will be stocked with even more fellow urbanites.

In meetings with legislators and at the Joint Legislative Budget Hearing on Public Education, I raised this very concern. I was promised time and again that they would represent ALL of public education, ALL New Yorkers, ALL students. They failed. They not only didn’t live up to their promises, they made things systemically worse.

We are not alone in this shift of political power toward major metropolitan areas. It’s happening in a number of states, where population has also shifted to the cities. Our lack of collective action in response to being ignored may well result in irretrievable harm; harm in a lack of appropriate help, harm in the failure to consider how policies affect fiscally challenged communities, harm in the treatment of high need district students in a substandard manner, resulting in a diminished quality of life. I once sat next to a legislator on the floor of the Assembly, as he surveyed the room full of vociferous debaters and said “Look at ‘em. They all think this is for real.” Well, it IS real. The decisions of state leaders have very real consequences for the future of REFIT schools. The fact that our new representatives came into office hell bent to change historic inequities and limped out of the state budget process with no reform whatever is disturbing.

Our job of educating is as important in the legislative realm as it is in the classroom if REFIT districts are to survive in this new era. Local stewardship of your district is crucial, but insufficient. Organize district advocacy teams, speak with legislators, write to leaders, make some noise on behalf of your kids’ opportunities and your way of life. Both are disappearing rapidly.

DAVID A. LITTLE, Esq.

Chief Operating Officer

A DEEPER DIVE

The Executive Budget’s Impact on REFIT Schools

NOTE: In past years, your REFIT has tried its best to provide you with an immediate reaction to the governor’s State of the State and Executive Budget presentations. Knowing that others also provide that service, this year REFIT has waited for the dust to settle so that we can provide you with an analysis tailored specifically to Long Island’s fiscally challenged schools. You’ll still get the categories and amounts, but you’ll also get REFIT’s advocacy position on them. Both approaches have value. Let us know which you prefer!

ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY

The 2019 Executive Budget is an iceberg. Stay at the surface and you have a balanced budget that provides an education aid increase of twice the rate of inflation, education aid at one third of all state discretionary spending, an increase of nearly a billion dollars, and a new program to attract teachers to needy schools. You can add to that more funding for Community Schools, continued funding for Farm to School, 70% of new aid directed to high need districts, increases for pre-k and a whopping total of education spending reaching $70 billion; more than the entire U.S. budget for public education! Then, as you approach the iceberg…..DANGER! There are pitfalls below that surface!

An aid increase of $956 million is a wonderful starting off point for budget negotiations, particularly for a post-election year when neither the governor nor legislature are running. Historically, the year after a gubernatorial election is the year within the four-year cycle for the lowest aid increases. So, nearly a billion in increased aid is better than you might expect, particularly when the Assembly has always sought to increase aid during negotiations and the brand new Senate majority has a tremendous incentive to quickly make good on campaign promises of fulfilling the billions owed schools under the CFE court decision. Sadly, a lot of the Executive Budget goes downhill from there.

The governor goes to great lengths in his Budget Briefing Book to delegitimize that CFE court decision. He says we’re past that and that the aid owed to our schools is whatever he and the legislature say it is in any given year. He stops short of doing away with the Foundation Aid formula, as he has suggested in the past but he says it’s really just a number, not an obligation. Then he backs up the rhetoric with proposals that prove he means it, unfortunately. Let’s take a closer look:

STATE AID: Sure $956 million is a lot of money and a grand school spending total of $70 billion would be the envy of any state. We spend the most per child by double the national average. Yet, that’s half of what the Board of Regents and the Educational Conference Board said schools needed next year. Why isn’t it enough? Simple once you break it down and as usual, it’s all about how that money is distributed and who you get the money from. First, there are many, many districts who would only receive the governor’s recommended allocation of 0.25 percent. Let’s read that again! ZERO point two five percent. He’s relying on lower ERS and TRS retirement system contributions and a higher tax cap that will allow districts to get more of their inflationary spending increases locally. That frees the state up to pay for other things (legitimate things to be sure, like health care and infrastructure, but other things nonetheless.) Within that near-billion dollar offering is the fact that only $338 million of that is in flexible Foundation Aid. The reimbursable categories, like BOCES, Building, Transportation and Special Ed Aids will take up a third of the increase, grants and categorical programs that are given to specific districts take up the rest.

DEFLECT, DISTRACT AND DELAY: Aside from being the world’s worst name for a law firm, these are apparently the tactics employed by the Executive Budget to keep the educational community from zeroing in on the fact that years after the state’s recovery from the Great Recession, we’re still billions behind our court ordered funding of schools. First, it deflects: With the press, schools themselves and advocates clamoring for a legitimate increase and an equitable means of distributing state aid, the governor has chosen to deflect our attention to distribution of aid to individual schools within each school district. He says the annual attempt to obtain more aid is a “scam”. He says the real problem isn’t the billions owed by the state to schools, it’s the fact that school districts don’t give each individual school the same amount of money. It’s such a bizarre premise that it’s tough to lay out. Here it is in a nutshell. School districts get enough money, but they choose to shortchange some of their schools by providing too much to others. Why is this illogical? Let me count the ways! First, this state has hundreds of school districts with only one school at each level. His argument doesn’t apply to them -- or shouldn’t. Yet, he wants to expand his funding transparency requirements to nearly half of the school districts in the state. He got his nose under the tent last year with 75 large districts and now wants to shift the argument away from how much the district is provided and instead have the state tell the district how much should be spent in each building. Talk about loss of local control! The State of New York, the state that couldn’t get student testing, teacher evaluation or unfunded mandates right wants to tell local school leaders what is best under their own collective roof. Schools will be forced to submit their budget proposals for review. They’ll have to pass state muster before they even get to the voters. (Those same voters who are expected to shoulder the lion’s share of the cost increases under the plan.) The Executive Budget ignores school district realities like inability to alter contractual obligations (again, because of the state’s Triborough Amendment) including heating and cooling costs that vary between buildings, the extracurricular sports and activities that make high school more expensive to provide than elementary school by its very nature, transportation variations that can swing widely due to the location of out of district special ed programs, not to mention the fact that (especially with enrollment swings) a district can simply have more kids at the elementary, middle or high school level than at the others. The plan may in fact have some relevance in large city school districts where resources can be distributed between several schools at the same level. What he really appears to want to address is shorting schools in poor areas of a school district, while schools in wealthy areas within the same district get the works. However, this plan is either wildly ignorant of how most school districts operate or it is a deliberate attempt to take focus off of the real issue of what is perennially regarded as the nation’s worst education aid distribution system.

Then, there’s the distraction. It’s a well-known negotiating tactic that the governor typically throws in several policy initiatives, just to force the legislature to spend time and money “buying back” cuts to programs and finding new revenue streams that would have been provided by agreeing to harmful new policies included in the state budget. There are several in this year’s Executive Budget. The first is…

CAPPING BOCES, SPECIAL ED, TRANSPORTATION AND BUILDING AIDS. The governor says that capping these payments for amounts already spent by the district on the promise of reimbursement in the following year will free up money for more flexible aid. But rather than alert districts to the prospect of that happening in the future so that they can attempt to curb spending in those areas, he makes the change now (reneging on the state’s promise to pay districts back for money already spent!) He’s tried this before and it’s been rejected by the legislature. Hopefully, they’ll reject it again, but not before they have to give up something else to get it. Great tactic, poor fiscal practice (mainly because schools often have no or little control over these expenses.). For instance, federal and state law dictate special educational services, the appropriateness of which is determined by a group outside the school district. How does the school curb that expense? How do they curb higher diesel prices for buses or contractor cost overruns? But the worst impact would be on BOCES Aid. Let me get this straight…. The state wants schools to merge and consolidate; says there are too many and it’s an administrative waste. Wants us to share services more, in order to become more cost effective. So why in the world would you cap the state incentive to share those services? Feel free to sigh heavily before we go on…..

There are other distractions as well, like making the tax cap permanent. The tax cap hasn’t been fair to school districts because its impact hasn’t matched what the public and schools were told when selling it. 2% tax cap. For most of the years it’s been in place, the cap has been far less than 2%, and in some years it’s created an actual freeze on local spending. Shortchanging school districts (particularly fiscally challenged districts) in their state aid and then forever capping local revenue (on an already diminished local tax base) amounts to pushing Armageddon down the road for the next state leader to deal with. It’s not if, but when. The governor has stated that New York’s loss of a million residents since the last census is due to retirees moving to a more favorable climate (both weather and tax). This is a cruel joke. We aren’t losing retirees, we’re losing employers and their employees are going with them. We’re losing college educated kids with no local job prospects. Those who remain shoulder an even heavier tax burden. According to the Executive Budget, to stem this outward migration the state is expected to legalize recreational marijuana and sports betting. Apparently our public policies coincide directly with our immediate need for cash. Rather than relieve our state of outdated and inappropriate mandates to curb costs, we’ll simply continue to pile one on top of another and pay for it with our collective vices. Redistributing money already within our state is no way to expand the tax base. It’s a shell game, where our kids lose every time.

Finally, there’s delay. One way to control New York’s high educational spending is to simply not give out the promised money. Case in Point: The Smart Schools Bond Act. The $2 billion SSBA was approved by voters way back in 2014. It was supposed to bring broadband access to remote areas, bridge the gap in information access between urban/suburban areas and rural ones. Going into our fifth year after voter approval, only 20% of the money has been released. Lengthy delays between submitted plans and state approval are the norm. Great way to save $1.6 billion, but a poor way to keep all New York students competitive.

MODEST INCREASES: The proposed state budget offers $10 million more for after school programming. This could be big for financially challenged schools, but so far the program has focused almost entirely on urban programming. The state will also pay more for helping students with the costs of AP and IB tests. It throws in $9 million for an additional 15 Early College High School programs, but it targets only schools with low graduation rates. Master Teacher, Recovery High Schools, Refugee and Student Welcome Grants, and early ed math programs all receive very modest increases. The Farm to School program does not receive an increase, but is at least funded at last year’s levels.

The new We Teach NY program attempts to address the teacher shortage by providing $3 million worth of stipends to prospective teachers willing to work in hard to staff schools. The program would guarantee a job when completed. The problem? It only applies to prospective teachers of color, ignoring the severe problem of finding qualified teachers outside of urban areas (where the skin tone of the potential teacher rightly takes a back seat to their qualifications and abilities.)

School Aid Increases

Additional Foundation Aid - $338 million

Community Schools Set‐aside-$50 million

Reimbursement for Expense‐Based Aids - Other $317 million

Fiscal Stabilization Fund - $64 million

Expanded Prekindergarten for Three‐ and Four‐Year‐Olds - $15 million

Empire State After School Program - $10 million

Early College High Schools - $9 million

Smart Start - $6 million

Breakfast After the Bell - $5 million

Expanded Advanced Placement Access - $2.5 million

Other Education Initiatives - $2.5 million

Good Idea-Bad Policy: The planned budget attempts to do the right thing by ensuring that no student goes hungry in school. It goes about it the wrong way. It uses the state budget to enact a law banning what it terms “lunch shaming practices” by mandating that schools provide the same lunch to all students whether they can pay for it or not. It provides no new funding whatever to pay for this and adds new reporting requirements, like a plan to notify parents of low meal account balances, communication procedures to support their enrollment in free and reduced-price lunches and an explanation of the school’s unpaid meal policies. In addition, if a school has 70 % of its students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunches, it would be mandated to provide breakfast during the school day. There is a small increase in aid for schools to make the transition to providing more student meals after the bell.

Bad Idea-Bad Policy: Once again the Executive Budget would change summer school special ed program funding to coincide with the school’s wealth formula, providing a disincentive for schools to run these critically important programs. Can you say “Summer Learning Loss”? I knew that you could… At the same time, the budget plan also provides increases well above the inflation rate to private and charter schools. One would think the state’s priority would be making sure its most vulnerable students succeed before siphoning off funds to provide large increases to those outside of our public school districts.

There are others as well. There’s the shopworn idea to have students sue their schools under the Human Rights Law and another forcing schools to close for elections. There’s also putting schools in the position of seeking the removal of guns from owners if they’re believed dangerous and a student is in the house. Schools are all for safety, but notifying the police would keep everyone in their lane of expertise and responsibility.

No Policy at All: Finally, there are the things the plan ignores completely, like transportation for pre-k that would support the thousands of kids who aren’t able to take advantage of this educational turbocharger…or adjusting the Regional Cost Factor to actually allow schools to purchase goods and programs and services for what they actually cost. The executive and his staff are fully aware of these vital programs. You have to scratch your head over why they never seem to find their way into the governor’s primary legislative agenda.

SO, WHAT’S THE DEAL?

The governor has just been re-elected for the third time. At the end of this term, he will surpass the usual age of retirement. New York’s Junior Senator Gillibrand is running for president, making a run by a second New York State leader unlikely. It’s possible that we are entering a very long (four year) lame duck term by the governor. Attempts by other three-term governors to stretch the job out an additional four years have not been successful lately, including his father’s defeat. If that’s the case, the governor’s motivation will be to either build his lasting public legacy (that is more likely to include election reform, protection of state positions from federal infringement, gun control, etc.) than public education…or…he is using the Executive Budget to set up the newly elected Senate Majority with an easy way to appeal to voters who may be upset by supporting new laws on the items just listed above. Let the new legislators get the credit for increasing his school aid proposal, rejecting aid caps and changes to special ed summer school. That’d go a long way to quieting the madding crowd.

Newly elected Senate majority members have just two short years to prove to voters that putting all of state government into the hands of one party is a good thing. Harder yet will be their ability to sell areas no longer represented by a majority member in either house that they are nonetheless being well served by the new order. The new leadership has until 2020 to solidify their majority status. If they make it, they’re gold for the next decade, as the U.S. Census will allow the current majority in each house to redraw district lines reflecting the loss of population in upstate, rural, historically Republican areas and buoy up districts with newly increased, more Democratic population. If they can hold on by convincing voters two years from now that they’re doing a good enough job, they’ll become as entrenched in the Senate as the Democrats in the Assembly have been for two generations. For that to happen, they need to be perceived as the new champions of (for one thing) state education aid that keeps local taxes down, while providing needed programs and services. You can’t get re-elected while schools slash programs and raise taxes around you. So maybe the Executive Budget is just playing “Bad Cop” for the new Senate Majority members.

The alternative theory is that maybe the governor truly doesn’t understand the needs of fiscally challenged school districts beyond the urban model he grew up in. Maybe the view from the helicopter ride between Queens and Albany doesn’t provide a perspective taking into account how difficult it is to run a school district without qualified teachers, without sufficient state aid, with intrusive state policymakers. Looking at proposals to cap aid for uncontrollable expenses, curtail funding for legally mandated programs and underfund vital initiatives, one has to wonder if the Executive Branch understands life in New York outside of the urban cultural experience, be it New York City or Albany.

If either or both is true, the only available remedy remains the same: Educate our state leaders about what is needed and what must be rejected in this Executive Budget. The new Senate Majority and the governor have both pledged to be the champion for those without a political voice in state government. Let’s hold them to it.

DAVID A. LITTLE, Esq.

REFIT Chief Operating Officer

TOP 10

WAYS THE ELECTION WILL AFFECT

OUR STRUGGLING SCHOOLS

10. Governor Cuomo’s Third Term: Third terms for governors have historically been a mixed bag for public education generally. This next year (being the furthest away from the next election) is traditionally used to “recalibrate” state aid, providing a lower than normal amount. The governor will be faced with brand new Democratic leadership in the Senate, which will allow Cuomo and his staff to assert leadership over the budget making process (while new staff and lawmakers learn the ropes of negotiating and drafting complicated state budget bill language). In recent years, this governor has focused on urban issues. Yesterday’s election solidifies both the governor and the Democratic Party’s stronghold from the Lower Hudson Valley south; meaning that areas largely represented by minority party lawmakers in both houses of the legislature may find it difficult to have their issues gain political traction. Will the governor make a run at the presidency? His rhetorical onslaught against the current administration would suggest it, but pundits have not included him in possible contenders. If he chooses to run, he may be forced to pay more attention to the problems facing residents in high tax communities of New York in order to show he is attentive to that demographic nationally.

9. The House Turns Blue: Democrats took control of Congress’ House yesterday. For public education that means proposed funding cuts to federal education programs will be rejected, there will be increased scrutiny over the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary DeVos, as well as likely rejection of further attempts to privatize public education through voucher and charter programs. Having an opposing party in at least one house of Congress may also have an impact on issues tangential but important to public education, like immigration and health care. It may mean a more moderate approach by the administration, but to date its approach has been to use Executive Orders as its avenue, rather than actual legislation; so perhaps (other than increased oversight by Congress) the “new normal” may simply continue. As the next presidential election nears, with campaigning beginning next year, the House will be loath to provide the president with any legislative victories. Remember that Congress’ approach to the last president was to simply block everything he attempted, rather than to set its own affirmative agenda. Given that approach’s success, the Democrats may now follow suit.

8. New York State Awash in Blue Wave Too: Beginning in January, the New York State Senate will be under Democratic Party leadership for the first time in eight years. The last such shift was brief and unsuccessful, as leadership changed back with the following election. Their short stint as the Majority coincided with the onset of the Great Recession and gave us the infamous Gap Elimination Adjustment and the MTA Tax. This time, the change appears more permanent, as early counts suggest that the split could be as great as 40-23. Democratic Party victories came in the Lower Hudson Valley, Long Island and New York City. Long Island has now split the traditional “Long Island Nine” senate seats, making influence within the leading party difficult for our financially challenged districts. Republicans will find themselves in the new role of being able to criticize policy, because they will have no part in making it. They will become what Britain calls the “loyal opposition”, proposing ideas whose only hope of actual passage is being stolen by the new leadership. New Senate leadership means new senate staff; staff that at first will have difficulty learning the basics of both negotiating legislation and drafting the actual language. It will slow the state budgeting process in particular and the Assembly and governor will no doubt take control of that process. Andrea Stewart Cousins will break the “three men in a room” cycle by virtue of being the first woman in New York to lead a legislative chamber. For the first time, both legislative leaders will have an African American heritage. In a state legislature that usually has less turnover than most monarchies in the world, virtually ¼ of all senators won’t even know where to park. Look for some quick high profile bill passage (shepherded by the governor) to legitimize their new status and then a long, slow grind as they find their own path.

7. New York State Leadership is Urban: The governor is from Queens, the Assembly Speaker from the Bronx, the Senate Majority Leader from Yonkers, the attorney general is from Brooklyn. Starting to see the pattern? Economic development efforts, even with upstate senate representation prior to the election were focused primarily on urban areas (making it harder to raise local school revenue). Now, all facets of state leadership have an additional incentive to bolster the position of urban areas of the state: They were the areas responsible for electing the clean sweep of new Democratic Party state leaders. They will be the areas responsible for keeping those leaders in power and so the needs of those areas must be attended to. The political rhetoric of the new senate leaders has been supportive of more equitably distributed and increased state aid. Whether political reality butts heads against that philosophy remains to be seen, as freshmen legislators will need bolstering quickly in order to gain needed name recognition prior to the next election (only two short years away). Long Island will no longer have a cohesive contingent to demand aid (which may be distributed according to political needs of freshman legislators, rather than a community’s inability to sufficiently pay for its schools).

6. The Census is Coming, the Census is Coming! He who controls the legislature controls the legislative district-making process. Every decade the U.S. Census forces state legislatures to draw new state legislative district lines to accommodate shifts in population. The next census will have an impact on New York’s legislature in 2022, but the process of drawing those new lines will come much sooner. The Democratic Party will now likely control all phases of that process. In prior years, the Republican Senate Majority was able to negotiate its own survival. Now, with an extreme loss of population in upstate rural communities, fewer legislators will represent these areas and more legislators will represent New York City, where population has increased. Once those lines are drawn, it will be extremely difficult for Republicans to retake a majority in the senate, creating a situation much akin to the Assembly, where Republicans have had little to no say in state policy since Watergate. As a practical matter, this leaves communities with high tax school districts with two choices: Look to Washington rather than Albany for help, or follow the trend of electing Democrats who can carry their needs to the new leadership.

5. Teacher’s Increased Influence: In the past NYSUT, the statewide teachers’ union, has supported incumbents of both parties. Frustrated with Republicans in the Senate failing to adopt their approach to APPR reform and following Governor Cuomo’s lead in moving to take control of the senate for the Democrats, NYSUT was a top financial backer of the new Senate Democratic Majority. NYSUT has always had a close working relationship with the Assembly leadership and an off again-on again (some would say love-hate) relationship with the governor. The now unified statewide leaders will look to justify that support and shore up continued support leading into the next election cycle. Look for pressure to increase school funding, as well as blocking any attempts at vouchers, tuition tax credits or raising the limit on the number of charter schools. Look too for teachers to be given increased authority in local school decision making, such as APPR being locally bargained.

4. Pass the Salt: State and local taxes (SALT) are no longer fully deductible under federal law. With only the first $10,000 remaining eligible and efforts to find a “work around” being nixed by the IRS, the state’s new leadership will be confronted with a significant new (old) problem: Ticked off property taxpayers. Less than one month after paying significantly more in income taxes to the federal government, homeowners will be asked what they think of raising taxes to support local school budgets. The result may not be pretty. Lawmakers know it and to the extent the new leaders and their even newer staff can, they’ll likely attempt to offset any increase with state aid. Then again, they don’t have to run this first year and they may wait to see if there is significant political fallout over the issue prior to pumping additional aid into high tax areas. Note that those high tax areas (Long Island, the suburbs of New York City and the Lower Hudson Valley) are the exact same areas that were just responsible for creating the new Democratic leadership in the senate. Conventional wisdom would suggest that they create strong incumbencies in those areas by proving that the new representatives can “bring home the bacon” for their areas. School aid has been used for this purpose for generations and there’s no reason to think the new leaders will be above manipulating the formula to their advantage (or perhaps political survival).

3. You Can’t Tell the Players Without a Scorecard: Not only has the election created a new majority party in the senate, on an individual level all of the players will now play musical chairs for new chairmanship of committees, including the Senate Education Committee. Senate Ed Committee Chair Carl Marcellino lost his re-election bid. Sen. Shelley Mayer (Yonkers) is the current ranking minority member and a likely successor, but Majority Leader Stewart Cousins may have other ideas. Long Island’s Sen. John Brooks has a strong interest in education and may request that position. Composition of the committee may change as well, as Democrats will have more seats at the table and the leader may have specific thoughts on who should be assigned and why. Creating and renewing relationships with former minority party members will be vitally important as they assume new and unfamiliar roles. Education is what we do and we will need to do it well to recreate the relationships that have served the interests of our districts in the past.

Then there is a secondary consequence of this kind of sea change that isn’t usually considered. Former members of the majority party who will now be relegated to minority status may find the game no longer worth playing. After such a strong shift, Republicans who chaired committees or served in high positions of leadership in the senate will return to Albany to find they’ve been moved to new and much, much smaller offices. Funding for their staff will be cut dramatically. Mailings to constituents will be greatly reduced and they will no longer be leading committees, task forces or hold leadership posts. History tells us that many will simply choose to retire or not seek re-election. When those seats aren’t being held by long time incumbents with tremendous name recognition, all bets are off. Since this may well coincide with new legislative district lines, the Blue Wave may well have a ripple effect that further solidifies the new majority’s leadership position.

2. Taxes: If you listened to the Republican side of the pre-election argument, a Democratic Party takeover of the senate would lead to crippling tax increases and a significant shift in public policy to the left. Changes in policy are fairly assured, as the winners are largely from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They were responsible for ousting the Democrat incumbents in 7 primary battles and won several of these races outright. The governor won’t have the Republican Majority to blame for failing to pass his agenda and he’s no stranger to legislative strong arm tactics (just ask the incumbents who lost their seats over his insistence on their voting for the Marriage Equality Act). With no apparent roadblock and his support having been instrumental in taking the senate majority, the governor’s policy agenda will take front and center stage. Will the cost of that agenda lead to higher taxes? Doubtful…At least in the short term. Newly elected Democratic Party legislators made gains in fairly fiscally conservative areas of the state, including the Island. Freshmen can ill afford to quickly move to raise taxes, even to pay for changes they’ve promised on the campaign trail. The result will be incremental change to policy, with little initial impact on taxes. Oh sure, they’ll renew the Millionaires’ Tax, but hopefully they’ve learned from past mistakes like the GEA and the MTA Tax that newfound success can be short lived if middle class voters perceive you as not just liberal, but one of the tax and spend persuasion.

1. And the Number One Impact that the election will have on public education in our region is…..It’ll Take a Village: Oliver asking for more porridge…the wet dog scratching at the door to be let in…pick your image, but our always challenged high tax communities are now facing a monumental political hurdle. The drop in political influence that accompanies the loss of block support from Long Island senators, the fact that all of the new leaders have a different life experience; then there’s the demand to address the political needs of those who got you to your new majority status and you have (as the old song says) an obstacle so high you can’t jump over it, so low you can’t crawl under it, so wide you can’t get around it. Indeed, there’s no getting around the fact that many of our high tax school districts will be on the political “outs” in every aspect of New York State government. But that doesn’t eliminate our leaders’ need to govern for the benefit of all residents, even the ones who are doing the tough work of staying put in communities devoid of tax help from business.

How will we influence them? How do we make them hear our voice in the roar that just swept them into office? The answer is in magnifying the number of voices throughout our communities. Advocates have an important role, but leaders are used to hearing from advocates. Much like the opt-out movement, politicians take notice (especially following an event as consequential as an historic turnover in the state senate) when they hear from the unexpected voter. The senior citizen on a fixed income who isn’t calling to complain about the school raising her taxes, but about the lack of state aid that’s making them do it! Their ears perk up when they get the unexpected letter from a business leader who wants to know what they’re doing about her inability to get competent staffers because the state has continued to ignore needed funding and programs in her community. We will need to incorporate social media campaigns into our advocacy. We will need to enlist the Chamber of Commerce, the volunteer fire department members, the sports boosters, the Rotary. We will need to give them a new message to carry; one that will resonate so loudly that it can’t be ignored -- even by urban centric state leaders. Make no mistake. The political and economic position of New York State’s high tax communities is perilous at best. Left unattended, it could spell the demise of a once proud and flourishing way of life.

There is a time for every season…despite the leafless trees and the encroaching darkness, it’s time to plow and plant: To make new relationships, to educate a new generation of leaders to protect this generation of learners.

Annual Meeting Agenda - October 17, 2018

REFIT Sept 2018 Analysis

HERE COME THE WINDS OF CHANGE

ARE WE ON SOLID GROUND?

They say that if someone else’s grass is greener, it’s time to water your grass. Well, we’ve known that the grass in educational funding in New York State has been greener elsewhere for some time. As the winds of political change sweep over us this fall, it’s time for us to water our grass.

There can be no question that change is in the wind. Up to seven New York State Senate Democrats have lost their seats in the recent primary. Five longtime Republican senators are retiring and other Republican districts are considered politically vulnerable. The U.S. Census will soon be upon us, where new political lines will be drawn based on the loss of upwards of a million residents having left our non-urban communities. While this was happening, New York City was gaining in population. If we were to actually run our state education aid formula as designed, that would mean an even further loss in aid for our region’s schools. (This year, New York City will receive over 50% of the “new money” contained in the aid increase.)

Let’s assess the likely impact of a change in party leadership in the state senate. First, the philosophy of the Democrats is “pro public education” and their platform includes plans to increase aid to address current funding inequities. The Democrat-led Assembly has been closely allied with the state’s teachers’ unions and one would hope they’d continue that approach. The problem comes when philosophy meets political reality. If successful, the new Senate Democratic Majority will have elected new members from some conservative areas, where spending money for education is certainly acceptable, but increasing taxes to accomplish that goal is not. The new senate will need to address New York City’s increasing needs, as their student enrollment is not only increasing, so is their rate of poverty. Then, they’ll need to “take care” of their newly elected members, who may have only one term to prove to voters in more traditionally Republican districts, that they should remain in power.

Once you’ve cut up the aid by 1/3 for the state’s traditional regional “shares”and paid off the state’s obligations for the reimbursable aid categories (BOCES, transportation, special ed and Building Aid), there isn’t much left to distribute. Especially when you begin with a total that is likely to be less than prior years. This coming year will be an “off year” for state elections. Neither legislators nor the governor will have a political need to prevent local unrest resulting from the cuts to school budgets that a low aid figure would cause. They can pin the lack of state assistance on lower retirement system contribution rates, higher than usual local tax caps and state comptroller reports of high levels of reserves being held by districts.

Here’s the problem with their analysis (or rationalization, depending on your perspective). No less than the state comptroller himself has said that retirement system contribution rates are likely to rise shortly to compensate for the retirement fund making less money than in prior eras. Local tax cap increases only help if you have significant local wealth to tax and reserves are great if you have them, but our fiscally challenged districts simply don’t. If we had too much money, we wouldn’t need the aid in the first place. Our struggling schools will likely be asked to rely on a misperception that we have resources that (while they exist within public education generally) our financially challenged districts can’t access. We’ll need a strong, visible push to be recognized in any new discussion of state aid distribution.

That means we may well need to make ourselves known to new state representatives. They will need to know more than the fact that we are in dire need and why. They will want to support investing state money where it can pay big dividends, quickly. BINGO! Nowhere is there a better return on investment than in educating traditionally underserved students. Nowhere can you support an entire community in better fashion than through supporting its schools. Nowhere is there more potential for improving the entirety of New York State’s economic future than in revitalizing our low wealth communities. Remember, 40 years ago it was those very areas of New York that rescued New York City from its economic collapse. Now the City is a juggernaut. A similar state response to the lagging economy of REFIT communities can produce similar benefits.

If after November you have a new senator, meet them. Don’t just tell them your tale of woe, but also the immense possibilities in your communities and the potential of your students. Bring them to school and impress on them the tremendous good your programs are doing (and by implication, the consequences of failing to fund them). In a legislative body known for the longevity of its members, we are likely to see tremendous turnover. Other valid state interests (think elder care, roads and bridges, health care) will not be shy in getting to new senators promptly. But we’re educators. Who better to give our new leaders an education?

Just as importantly, they will need to hear from those they don’t associate with our schools. Business groups, tax packers, volunteer firefighters, local political leaders…anyone who they’d be surprised to learn supports their local school. Let them know that we all hang together and aligning themselves with us early on is in their best interest. Now is the time to do our groundwork on behalf of our students and the communities that support them. REFIT stands ready to help. Don’t go it alone.

All the best,

David A. Little, Esq.

Chief Operating Officer

PLAN TO JOIN US AT THE ANNUAL REFIT MEETING!

There is no better way to help your district than to speak with those in similar circumstances and learn their approaches to similar challenges. Combine that with a presentation from longtime education advocates and a wonderful dinner menu and you have an evening not to be missed! New York State PTA Executive Director Kyle McCauley Belokopitsky and REFIT Chief Operating Officer Dave Little have spent decades advocating for our kids. Together they’ll tell us the news from Washington and Albany, as well as what we need to do about it! On the evening of October 17th we will join together at Southward Ho Country Club in Bayshore. Don’t miss this chance to hear the latest and improve your district! Please email REFIT411@gmail.com to register. Bring the whole board!

REFIT 2018 end of session analysis

REFIT END OF SESSION ANALYSIS:

CONCRETE GREASING THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS

Gridlock. I’ve always said that it’s one thing when leaders won’t do what you believe they need to do. It’s quite another when they’re incapable of doing it. The 2018 legislative session has ended with the legislature’s incapacity on full display.

Oh, there are plenty of reasons why no major legislation (let alone public education-related legislation) was approved prior to the legislature leaving Albany last night. There’s the 31-31 split between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. There’s the pending elections (when Democrats anticipate major gains as a backlash against national presidential policies). They’re biding their time and making sure not to give the other side anything to campaign on. There’s the governor’s challenge within his own party, leading him to back the dissolution of the Independent Democratic Caucus (that was previously relied on by the Republicans in the Senate to reach a working majority on legislation). All of this led us to a true 31-31 split, with no one willing to cross party lines to pass anything of statewide importance.

What’s that mean for our schools? It means we hang on with all we’ve got--for what will surely be a season of changes next January. Five leading Republicans in the Senate are retiring. Their seats are “in play” for the first time in decades. No matter who takes their place, they will be first term legislators with little to any clout, rather than the long tenured leaders who chaired major committees and shepherded important legislation. If the Democrats take control of the Senate, they will control both legislative houses and the governor’s office, a situation not known for productivity. (You’d think it would make things easier to arrive at a shared agenda and advance it, but you’d be ignoring traditional regional loyalties, like New York City representation and the upstate/downstate divide.)

Perhaps most importantly, a shift in power would likely bring the logistical work of the legislature to an early standstill next winter, as old staff is fired and their replacements battle a steep learning curve. Remember the last time this happened, staffers struggled to understand how to physically put the state budget together (how to cross check sections of law to make sure there were no conflicts, etc.). The result was a very unproductive session and an almost immediate shift in power back to the former (and current) status quo. You’ll also remember it was the time that saw the start of the harmful Gap Elimination Adjustment. Will new leadership follow through on their long promised education funding reform or will politics dictate that they play to their traditional power base, so that we get more of the same? Time will tell. History should serve as a warning however, that they should think twice about simply continuing the direction of their predecessors, lest they quickly lose their newfound advantage.

For now, politics means the end of a session short on legislative accomplishments. No substantive change to the Foundation Aid formula (though they did continue the trend of providing most of the aid increase to fiscally challenged districts), no impressive total aid increase (leaving districts to use what fund balance was on hand, combined with a higher than normal tax cap rate to hold on to educational programs), no way to fix the APPR fiasco, as thankfully, the legislation advanced by the two houses was dramatically different and there was no agreement. (The Assembly wanted local school districts to negotiate individually with their unions for a new approach, taking away administrators’ authority. Their bill might well have led to increased, rather than decreased student testing. The Senate wanted to take away school district authority over student discipline by giving it to the Division of Human Rights, eliminate a year of tenure consideration and increase the number of charter schools. There was no “clean” approach to the issue; only politically loaded rhetoric designed to position the parties favorably with their constituencies heading into the fall elections.)

Thankfully, the session also meant no real harm to our schools. The usual onerous suggestions contained in the Executive Budget proposal were rejected by the legislature. Knowing they had failed to provide an aid increase sufficient to even carry over existing programs and services in our schools, leaders were reluctant to gore public education’s ox. No one wants to pick a fight on Election Day, no one wants local discord traced to the actions of state legislators as voters head to the polls. And if truth be told, we played into their hands by doing what we do best…managing crisis to minimize the harm to students. At the local level, we used retirements, reserves, held off on hirings and built local support to offset the tepid state support. By passing almost all of our local school budgets, we spared legislators an election season of angry confrontations with voters. Having lived through the mobilization of the Opt Out Movement, it was a gift for which politicians are truly grateful.

There’s talk that they’ll return soon to deal with the expiration of New York City’s red light camera law, but little hope that a brief reconvening would result in anything of much import to our schools. If the legislature feels comfortable going home without legislation protecting child victims, it must feel it can withstand being labelled as ineffective in improving education for them. There is speculation that Senate Republicans may well have fallen into a trap by rejecting NYSUT’s Assembly version of APPR reform. By rejecting that approach in favor of one that pays homage to Wall Street charter school backers and others, the Republican Majority may have given NYSUT leave to abandon its traditional support of whoever happens to be in power and shift donations and endorsements to Democrat candidates. How long public employee unions can wield that kind of power is in question (as the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down its “Janus” decision on Monday; where experts predict unions will lose their right to require dues from non- member employees). The loss of revenue may make it harder both at the state and national level for unions to advance their agenda and to counteract recent shifts in policy.

For now, we end the school year having successfully protected our students and our educational programs. REFIT was in the thick of it, battling for funding to flow to our fiscally challenged districts, among many others. For every bill we won, we helped defeat a dozen bad ones. In the end, we held your ground. We can’t obsess about the future, but we can plan and act. In a time when it’s impossible to advance specific legislation, we must make ourselves well known; in preparation for the day we need to again act as one. As Tom Rogers once said, we earn our political capital a penny at a time, so that we can spend it a dollar at a time. In the immortal words of Bette Davis “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

REFIT APPR Alert

ALBANY ALERT

LET THESE SHIPS CROSS IN THE NIGHT!

As you probably know, the State Assembly has passed a bill that would “decouple” student testing from teacher evaluations. We’re coming off of a two year moratorium on the use of student tests in those evaluations and our state needs to determine how we will evaluate educators from now on. The Assembly would give schools the authority to refrain from using state tests in the teacher evaluation process. That’s great…but the way they do it is not something we would eagerly embrace. Specifically, the evaluation process would no longer be an administrative decision by school leaders, but yet another issue needing to be collectively bargained with the teachers union. No one wants to throw a good evaluation system into the mix of other negotiated issues within the school district. Secondly, if a school chooses to not use state tests in its evaluation process, what will it use? Will students be subjected to even more (and perhaps duplicative) testing? Commissioner Elia has already said that schools with high opt out rates should use their federal funds to address low participation rates. This obviously prevents schools from using that money for educational purposes.

The Senate has just weighed in with its own approach to the issue and quite frankly, it’s even worse. (S. 8992) It looks for all the world like the Senate is using this legislation to address its various political constituencies leading into the fall elections, rather than simply solve the problem at hand. For instance, while it also allows schools to refrain from using state testing in evaluations of staff, it would take away the district’s ability to address serious student disciplinary issues and give it to the Division of Human Rights. This is probably intended to get the governor on board, as this issue is an unsuccessful Executive Budget staple of the last several years. Allowing the governor to win on this issue is perhaps intended to elicit his support for the rest of the bill (which is truly bad for our schools.)

The bill increases the number of charter schools in New York City and reduces the number of charters available elsewhere. Sounds like a fair trade if taken in a vacuum, but the fact is there’s no real clamor for those charter schools and New York City will snatch up all of the new charters; siphoning off even more funding from our school districts. It also removes the State Education Department’s requirement to regulate parochial school Yeshivas. This is an ongoing issue for Sen. Simcha Felder, the Democrat that conferences with the Republican Majority in the Senate. So…governor’s help? Check. Get the Long Island Opt Out Movement off their backs before the elections? Check. Keep Sen. Felder in the fold? Check. Show the New York City hedge fund billionaire charter school supporters that they are still worthy of their support? Check. Show support for the teacher’s union by requiring evaluations to be bargained for? Check. All great campaign positioning, but poor educational planning.

If it can muster the support within its conference, the Senate will no doubt pass this bill to assure its potential supporters that they are being listened to. That’s a big “if”, since Sen. Croci has left the chamber to serve a military tour, leaving the Majority without the votes needed to pass legislation on its own (hence the legislative nod to the pivotal Sen. Felder). In this scenario, the best our schools can hope for is that each house passes its own version and let Albany dysfunction prevent a compromise version from being passed by both. Please call your legislators and tell them to stick to the issue at hand. Fix APPR without creating a new bargaining monster. Simply give districts the authority to remove state testing as a means of evaluation if they choose. Nothing more, nothing less. Then leave well enough alone. No legislative hash of ancillary issues. Our schools need to evaluate their staff without additional expense or rancor.

Call your Assembly Member today at 518-455-4100.

Call your Senator today at 518-455-2800.

Thank you for all you do on behalf of students!

April 2018 REFIT (about the state aid increase)

WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO US…AND WHY?

OK, big breath. Exhale…..now first, let’s recognize that a state aid increase of over $850 million is nothing to sneer at, especially in a year when the state has a fiscal deficit. In fact, public schools from any other state would be doing handstands and cartwheels over an $850 million aid increase. But this is New York, where $850 million amounts to just over half of what we need to simply keep running our existing programs and services for kids. So how (for yet another year) did we come out of the state budget process without providing adequate resources and without changing (or even updating) the state aid formula?

Let’s look at what we had going for us: It’s a state legislative and governor’s election year. Historically, that’s translated into larger aid increases, as state leaders seek to avoid running in an atmosphere of local unrest stemming from insufficient state aid. When the governor is also on the ballot, it has magnified the effect. This year, when the governor is being pushed by a party primary candidate who is a visible and vocal advocate for public education, one would have thought that both the legislative and executive branches would be pushing for a good increase. Add to that the fact that state leaders had created policy leading to an expectation of a 4% increase in aid and it would be easy to presume a healthy increase this year.

Not so fast, my friends! We had a whole lot going against us in the political tug over limited state funds this year. There was of course, the deficit (which you don’t address by dramatically increasing one of your few discretionary spending categories; particularly one that makes up a third of your budget). Then there was the broadly recognized fact that school districts had a record total amount of reserve funds on hand. Having frozen other state spending (outside of health care) for years, there was an expectation that before they provided a large aid increase, schools should be forced to use those reserves. Now, that sounds fine from a statewide perspective, were it not for the fact that a large total reserve doesn’t mean that every district has them on hand. Far from it and REFIT schools in particular were only beginning to recover from years of cuts and underfunding.

Into the mix, let’s throw in the fact that the dreaded 2% local property tax levy cap is actually 2% this year -- one of the first times since its inception that local districts have actually been able to go up to 2%. Now again, this is helpful from a statewide perspective, but each district’s local situation is different, and REFIT schools in particular have very little left to tax, raise comparatively less under the cap and can ill afford to raise local taxes and exacerbate the flight out of our communities. Nonetheless, what state leaders see in that is “they can make up the aid shortfall by taxing locally this year.”

And of course, there’s politics. Usually, the total aid figure is driven by some factors outside of public education, like New York City and the Long Island region needing to be provided traditional shares of aid increases to support the majorities in the respective legislative houses and the mayor of New York. Not so this year, as the governor (despite New York City experiencing student enrollment increases) is in no frame of mind to prop up his best frenemy, Mayor DiBlasio. His tacit support of the Senate Republican Majority has apparently ended in favor of brokering a deal to reunite factions of the Senate Democrats. Thus, no extra aid to Long Island region as a whole (that traditionally have had the political clout to demand it). All in all, politics created an environment where it was easy to throw out an initial lowball figure and some untoward educational policy proposals (like capping reimbursable costs and shifting special ed summer school to the local taxpayer) and then allow the legislature to declare victory by rejecting those proposals and modestly increasing the final aid figure.

So there you have it. Use your reserves, tax your community and try to get by on half of what you need from the state. Then, come back to us next year (when everyone has just been re-elected and has a diminished political need to provide a funding increase)! You’d think there would be an outcry over this but so far folks, you can hear the crickets chirping in Albany. Oh, there’s noise, but it’s not coming from public education. There’s chatter over the upcoming special elections that have the potential to reshape the Senate. There are whispers over ethics and the reunification of the Independent Democratic Caucus with the mainline Senate Democrats. But public education? Silence.

My guess is that’s because we’re out about our business. We’ll use what we can locally, combine it with whatever we received in state aid and pray for community support of our districts’ budgets. If we get it (in most cases) crisis averted. We’re doing what we should be doing; being good stewards of available resources to plan as wisely as we can for the education of our children. Let’s understand, however, what that means to state leaders who hear nonstop from a broad array of interests each budget season. What that means to state leaders is “we gave them half of what they claimed they HAD to have… and they went away quietly.” It means that next year, when we’ve used whatever reserves we had on hand, when the tax cap may be lower and the retirement system contribution rate may be higher, when there’s no looming election to prod them into generosity or internal political pressure to push them beyond the norm, they will look at education aid and think they can cut back with impunity.

Sure, I understand that there are other legitimate state spending priorities; care for the elderly, fixing our decrepit infrastructure, badly needed economic development, etc. But a child’s education doesn’t take a break. You can’t ever truly make up for prior shortfalls. As a group, public education tends to scream up until April 1st and then go silent until the following January. Friends, if we do that this year, the only thing they’ll be handing us next April is our hat. Talk to your legislators about what you couldn’t do this year, what programs were lost or failed to be reinstated. Talk about what’s happening to your community’s economy. Our schools are the foundation of our communities and they’re suffering from benign neglect. Get to your legislators, get to the governor’s office and demand that they change the formula to recognize the increases in poverty in our schools, the increases in English Language Learners, the impact of transience and the opioid epidemic, the increased need for counseling and measures increasing school safety.

The 2018 budget season didn’t just end -- the 2019 budget season just began. We’re in for the race of our lives. Don’t give them a head start.

Dave Little

Chief Operating Officer

REFIT

REFIT Advocacy Alert

LEGISLATURE’S ONE HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS REFLECT REFIT PRIORITIES

REFIT ANALYSIS: “As it is written, so shall it be done….” Oh, if it were only that simple! If we could wave Harry Potter’s wand and combine the best aspects of each legislative houses’ “One House Budget Resolutions”, then delete the negative aspects of each and Long Island’s fiscally challenged schools would have one heck of a year!

First, start with the Assembly’s doubling of the governor’s state aid figure to $1.5 billion and their promise to fully fund Foundation aid within three years. Mix in the rejection of the school district responsibility to provide building level spending plans (a diversion no doubt intended to distract advocates away from the insignificant amount of aid by claiming that districts don’t equitably distribute the funds anyway). Stir vigorously while adding the rejection of capping BOCES, Building and Transportation Aid and Special Ed Summer School funding…now chant “we accept increases in the BOCES DS salary cap and BOCES teacher reimbursement rate…..school lunch and more flexibility and funding for Community Schools and pre-k…..increase student mental health funding and funding for ELLs…..and rapid reimbursement to districts of charter school payments…as well as state paid mental health counselors and allowing for a variety of improvements to school safety …even providing amnesty for late Building and Transportation Aid filings…and banning unfunded state mandates…and what begins to appear is a spellbinding election year bonanza that closely mirrors REFIT’s legislative and budget priorities!

Oh sure, there are some Slitherin influences, such as increased payments to charter schools, failure to completely reject the governor’s bid to subject schools to the jurisdiction of the Division of Human Rights (instead capping payments for any lawsuits), eliminating the cap on charter schools and many others.

The secret of course, is to conjure up a potion of all of the best ideas advanced by each house, while burning off all of the harmful ones -- and do it all by March 29th, so that our fiscally challenged schools have adequate time to accurately prepare their own budgets. To reach this point, REFIT and its legion of public education advocate colleagues have worked long and hard to have our positions recognized by legislative leaders. Now comes the push to have the house advancing each of the good ideas rule the day with the governor and the other legislative chamber. And with that, friends…you can help.

Call your Assembly Member at 518-455-4100.

Call your Senator at 518-455-2800

Call Governor Cuomo’s Executive Chamber at 518-474-8390

WHETHER YOU CALL OR WHETHER YOU DON’T, MATTERS!

THE ASSEMBLY ONE HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION WOULD:

Provide an All Funds appropriation of $36.51 billion, an increase of $805.07 million over the Executive Budget.

Provide an overall increase to General Support for Public Schools (GSPS) of $1.5 billion or 5.9 percent over the 2017-18 School Year (SY), for a total of $27.1 billion. This reflects an increase in School Aid of $843 million over the Executive Budget, an increase in formula based aids of $1.4 billion or 5.7 percent for SY 2018-19.

Reject district school-level funding plans annually approved by the Division of the Budget and SED.

Maintain the $50 million increase to the Community Schools set-aside, but proposes to limit the set-aside within Foundation Aid to encourage the Executive to create a separate aid category for Community language directing school district use of community schools funding.

Reject the Executive proposal to cap the annual growth in Building, BOCES, and Transportation aids to two percent.

Propose raising the reimbursable salary cap for BOCES teachers in BOCES Aid and to begin reimbursing school districts for ninth graders that are participating in career and technical education in Special Services Aid, starting in SY 2019-20.

Reject the Executive freeze of reimbursable aids, costing $28 million.

Modify the $5 million Breakfast after the Bell program to give schools additional flexibility and to require charter schools to participate as well;

Increase the $250,000 grant for Mental Health Grants for Community Schools to $1.5 million, to expand funding beyond community schools and specify that funding may be used for social workers; and reject the Executive proposal to allocate $22.6 million in direct State funding to New York City Charter Schools.

$15 million in grants for school districts serving large concentrations of English Language Learners or Homeless Pupils;

$1 million to increase Bilingual Education grants, for a total of $16.5 million;

Update the BOCES Superintendent Salary Cap.

Accelerate reimbursement to school districts for supplemental charter tuition for the 2017-18 school year.

THE SENATE ONE HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION WOULD:

Fully fund expense-based aids at $240.4 million

Provide flexibility for Community Schools Funding

Increase school aid by $957 million or 3.8% above the 2017-2018 school year

Modify the Executive proposal to change the definition of an "educational institution" under human rights law to cover public school students by including a cap on any damages awarded under such definition.

Modify the Executive proposal to allow school districts to purchase school bus stop arm cameras, to require such cameras be reimbursable through state aid, and add language to require the money be paid to the school district when pled down. The Senate concurs with the Executive proposal to increase fines for passing a stopped school bus.

The Senate modifies the Executive proposal in order to:

Ban lunch shaming in a less onerous manner on school districts

Provide a $10 million increase in reimbursement when twenty-five percent of lunch products are purchased from NYS farmers, growers, producers, and processors

Advance language to:

Define the term "school mental health services program coordinator" to include a mental health services professional, with qualifications determined by regulation by the commissioner of education, whose role and responsibility shall be to work with students, faculty and other mental health and health care professionals to identify, report and address mental health issues of

students, faculty and administration at any public or non-public school, that could pose a risk to public safety and

Establish a mental health services program coordinator education aid program to reimburse school districts for the hiring of mental health services coordinators.

Advance Language to:

Authorize the Commissioner of the State Education Department to provide full funding for quick capacity smart sensor threat detection and security awareness.

Provide for education aid funding for school counselors, school social workers and school psychologists.

Establish a school resource officer education aid program to reimburse school districts, charter schools, non-public schools and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services for the hiring of a school resource officer.

Define the role of a school resource officer as providing improved public safety and/or security on school grounds

Authorize school resource officers to carry and possess firearms during the course of their duties if licensed to do so

Define the term School Resource Officer to include a retired police officer, retired deputy sheriff, or retired state trooper, or an active duty police officer, deputy sheriff or state trooper

Authorize school districts, charter schools, BOCES or non-public schools, to hire school resource officers, or contract with the state, a county, city, town or village for their services

The Senate advances School Safety language to:

Advance language to require that two of the four annual "Lock-Down Drills" conducted by schools be "active shooter drills", and provide that schools can request school safety improvement teams to provide recommendations on how to conduct lock down and active shooter drills

Advance language to:

Establish a new program to equip teachers and other school personnel with personal safety alarms to be used in cases of emergency

The Senate advances language to:

Modify the Executive foundation aid formula (how, we don’t yet know)

Remove the statewide cap on charter schools

Increase the reimbursement for BOCES teachers providing career and technical education to $35,000 per year

Provide flexibility on teacher certifications for implementing Part 154 regulations relating to English Language Learners

Apply prior year adjustments toward state aid recoveries

Provide amnesty for transportation aid penalties

Provide amnesty for building aid penalties

Provide mandate relief from internal audits

Accelerate state aid payments for special education students that enroll in school after the school year has begun

Ban unfunded mandates

Allow BOCES to share transportation services

Remove the limit on claims for the expense of STEM teachers in non-public schools beginning in 2019-20

Raise the cap for after 4pm busing of students from $17.1 million to $18.6 million

Provide an incentive to districts that enter into a shared superintendents program

The Senate modifies the Executive proposal to:

Require NYC schools to submit a contract for excellence

Require Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers and New York City to submit school level funding plans to the Commissioner of Education

Deny the two percent cap on expense-based aids

Deny freezing school aid claims on the November data

Deny the Executive proposal to reduce state aid for summer school students with disabilities

Modify the proposal for building aid to make such aid permanent

Modify Breakfast after the Bell to allow school districts to receive building aid to implement capital portion of the program

$250,000 for mental health grants in community schools

The Senate denies the Executive recommendation of:

$15 million increase for Expanded Pre-K for three and four year olds

$5 million for the Breakfast after the Bell Program

$10 million for school lunch reimbursement for food purchases from NYS farmers, growers, producers, and processors

Increase Foundation Aid by $717.2 million or 4 percent

Include $265 Million for Drug Prevention and Treatment, Addresses Fentanyl and Other Deadly Synthetics, Protects Children and Adults from Opioid Exposure, Strengthens Enforcement

As always, call us at 518-888-4598 with questions or suggestions!

REFIT 2018 Budget Testimony

Dear State Leaders:

For over a generation, REFIT has advocated for the needs of financially challenged school districts. We appreciate the significant effort you’ve made to restore funding lost to the Gap Elimination Adjustment. We know that other legitimate state priorities have been frozen to support public education. Thank you! Having brought our schools back from the brink, now is not the time to pull back. In fact, your leadership is needed now, more than ever before. Consider this:

The Executive Budget is proposing a state education aid increase amounting to roughly half of what is needed to simply maintain existing programs and services in our schools.
More of our students are living in poverty. For instance, on Long Island alone, there has been a 78% increase in childhood poverty in only the last eight years.
More of our students are learning English as a second language and we have more unaccompanied minors and other homeless children than ever before.

HERE’S WHAT YOUR SCHOOLS NEED TO BUILD A BETTER NEW YORK STATE

A Foundation Aid Formula that is adequate, recognizes student poverty, the increased costs of educating English Language Learners and unaccompanied minors and increased costs in some regions of the state. The Executive Budget is not only insufficient in amount, it fails to adjust a decade old formula that now improperly assesses a school district’s financial and educational needs. The legislature must immediately commit itself to this vital work.
An approach to preschool that allows all school districts to provide this game changing beginning to a child’s education. Research proves that this is the only successful way to overcome learning deficits that so many of our children bring to school. A surprisingly small number of young students on Long Island participate in school-based preschool programs. Schools desperately need transportation aid for preschool, to ensure that students in need have access to this life-altering program. Similarly, transportation aid must be applied to afterschool programs to allow our schools to offset the impact of poverty on many students.
A rational and consistent way for school districts to maintain reserve funds. This would allow them to prevent fluctuations in local property taxes. All other forms of local governments keep reserves far in excess of our schools. If local governments kept to the school district limit, they would be deemed “in fiscal distress.” At the very least, there should be a reserve fund for all school employees; to offset spikes in retirement system payments that damage educational programming and make local property taxes volatile.

HERE’S WHAT WOULD HARM OUR FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING SCHOOLS

Capping expense-based reimbursements for the cost of transportation, BOCES programs and Building Aid. These reimbursements are a promise made to local taxpayers by the state. Local taxpayers have already paid for these expenses and await the state’s fulfilment of its promise to reimburse them. Building Aid in particular results from voter approved debt that would be jeopardized (including payments to bondholders) if the reimbursement were arbitrarily changed after the fact. Artificially capping these reimbursements would wreak havoc on school district finances and local taxes. The result might well be the dismantling of needed programs and services to students.
Shifting the cost of special education summer school programs to local taxpayers. The Executive Budget calls for the deterioration or even dismantling of a vital service provided to our most vulnerable children. Summer programming prevents the loss of learning for those children who work the hardest to make academic gains. Cutting summer school special ed funding forces school districts to scale back on these critically important programs. It forces schools to choose between cutting programs for the general school population or special education students. New York State should not become noted for creating class conflict between our children.

HERE’S OUR CHALLENGE

While New York State spends a great deal on public education, it distributes that money in a horrific manner. Stifling both local and state revenue to already financially struggling school districts prevents children from succeeding. The long term impact of this approach will keep New York State from achieving long term economic viability. We owe both our children and our state a better effort than what is presented in the Executive Budget. That’s not just wishful thinking, it’s a court ordered mandate on state leaders to provide each child their constitutionally protected sound, basic education. Fortunately, we have committed leaders willing to meet the challenge. Thank you for engaging in that vital effort.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID A. LITTLE, Esq.

Chief Operating Officer

REFIT 2018 Executive Budget Analysis

GOVERNOR RELEASES EXECUTIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL AMID CHALLENGES

THE ENVIRONMENT: It’s no picnic. As Governor Cuomo released his Executive Budget for 2018-19, he was forced to factor in several significant challenges facing our state. First, is the $4.4 billion state deficit (which quickly declines to a much more manageable $1.7 billion if the governor simply keeps to his limit of 2% state spending outside of health care and state education aid). That $1.7 billion deficit includes an anticipated state school aid increase of $1.1 billion. Since state agencies have already been directed to once again freeze their spending to reach the 2% level, we can presume that state budget negotiations will actually revolve around the $1.7 billion figure.

The state’s budget is $153.1 billion this year, with state education aid amounting to over $25 billion. Personal income tax revenues lagged behind projections by $66 million for most of the year, until last month when prepayment of taxes and increased tax rate payments by the self- employed boosted revenue in anticipation of the new federal tax code reforms. How those revenues come in leading up to the April 1st constitutional budget deadline will largely determine whether any wiggle room exists for legislators to boost education aid beyond the governor’s initial offer.

Unlike most states, New York pushes off most of the cost of public education to local property taxes. That makes its property tax cap important in a school district’s overall ability to cover costs. For the first time since 2013, the proclaimed “2% tax cap” will actually be 2% (having hovered between 0-1 and a quarter percent the past two years.) That will allow districts to collectively raise about $400 million of the $1.9 billion increase needed to roll over the cost of existing programs and services; leaving a need for roughly $1.5 billion in new state aid.

WHAT REFIT SCHOOLS NEED FROM THE 2018-19 STATE BUDGET: First and foremost, we need reform of the current aid formula. It hasn’t been updated in a decade and needs to be adjusted for the increased poverty, opioid abuse impacts and student mental health needs being experienced in our schools.

Secondly, state leaders need to follow the governor’s directive in allocating most of the new school aid to fiscally challenged districts. They’ve improved on this the past two years and REFIT schools have begun to rebound. Now is no time to alter that course, given the difficulty students from fiscally challenged districts have in competing for spots in higher education and the work force.

The Board of Regents has suggested a state aid increase of $1.6 billion. In a healthy fiscal environment, this would certainly be reasonable, since we are only now approaching pre-Great Recession funding levels. Combined with local increases of $400 million under the tax cap, this would cover existing costs.

The governor has a penchant for providing grant funding and calling it state aid. Many of the programs he offers in this format are absolutely necessary. However, targeted aid (like legislative member items) only helps a few and only for a limited time. The grant funding revenue stream is often only available while the issue is politically “hot” and districts can’t count on it. Since virtually all of these programs require local investment, it’s hard for districts to pony up local funds when sustained state funding is a crap shoot.

THE BUDGETING FRAMEWORK: The 2018-19 Executive Budget fires the first salvo in State Budget Negotiations. In “the old days” it was a starting point for discussions, with the legislative houses adding funding for their respective priorities. That framework is becoming a memory, as increasingly the Executive Budget becomes both the beginning and end of issue deliberations. In New York, the governor has the most powerful set of budget-making rules of any state (or the federal government for that matter!). If the governor has proposed funding at a certain level, the legislature must find its own places to cut to pay for increases; and then get the governor to willingly agree. If he doesn’t, it simply goes back to what he proposed. These factors formed the financial, political and structural framework for today’s Executive Budget Proposal.

THE 2018-19 EXECUTIVE BUDGET PLAN FOR REFIT SCHOOLS

Bottom line? A school aid increase of $769 million, (as stated by the governor in his address) or $961 million (as stated in his budget Briefing Book) with 70% of the increase going to fiscally challenged school districts. This is a 3% increase in state aid (down from the average of 5-6% of the past 5 years). It is a decrease of about $350 million from the state’s own long range spending plan. Saying “This is a very fragile time for New York State’s economy,” the governor proposes increasing Community School funding by $50 million - a plus for fiscally challenged schools (provided we take advantage of the program). He offers a $15 million increase for pre-k programs and $10 million for afterschool programming. He also proposes a $26 million increase for OASIS substance abuse services. He does these things with a $1 billion increase in revenue, largely by taxing the corporate “windfall” from federal tax reform and initiating an across the board internet sales tax.

It is clear that the governor’s focus is on changing our state’s tax approach to counter the impact of new federal laws: (A wage tax on employers rather than a personal income tax, “donations” to education that are deductible, rather than property taxes, etc.) He promises complications - a promise that he can assuredly deliver upon.

Note: There is a fairly significant discrepancy between the governor’s actual speech and the press release and briefing book that accompany the speech. The speech referred to an increase of $769 million in total and an overall 3% increase. The press release points to an increase of $1.1 billion, an increase of 4.4% with an increase of $700 million in Foundation Aid alone. The Briefing Book lists a third number of $961 million.

Division of the Budget Briefing Book Education Aid Increase
Category of Increase
Change (millions)
Additional Foundation Aid $428
$50 Million Community Schools Set-aside
Reimbursement for Expense-Based Aids / Other $333
Fiscal Stabilization Fund $150
Empire State After-School Program $35
Expanded Prekindergarten for Three- and Four-Year-Olds $5
Early College High Schools $5
Other Education Initiatives $5
School Aid Growth Cap $961
Charter School Tuition Reimbursement $22
Smart Schools Debt Service $17
Total Education Aid $1 billion

Community School Funding: School districts will be able to apply Community Schools funds to a wide range of community schools activities, including hiring community school coordinators, providing before-and-after-school mentoring services, offering summer learning activities, and providing health and dental care services.

After School Programs: The FY 2018 Executive Budget increases the State’s after-school investment to $100 million through $35 million in new funding for public after-school programs in the State’s 16 Empire State Poverty Reduction Initiative (ESPRI) communities. This new funding will create an additional 22,000 spots for students in after-school programs, increasing the number of spots in ESPRI school districts by 36 percent. With these new investments, 80,000 students in ESPRI school districts will receive after-school care in the 2017-18 school year.

Prekindergarten: The Executive Budget includes an additional $5 million investment in prekindergarten to expand half-day and full-day prekindergarten for three- and four-year-old children in high-need school districts. Preference for these funds will be given to the few remaining high-need school districts currently without a prekindergarten program.

State Education Department Inspector General. Each governor attempts new ways to gain control over the State Education Department (the only department constitutionally outside the Executive Department). The Executive Budget establishes a new, independent Inspector General to oversee and investigate allegations of corruption, fraud, criminal activity, conflicts of interest, or abuse, by any person within the State Education Department. Unlike other State agencies, the State Education Department is not currently overseen by any investigative entity. This Inspector General would be appointed by mutual agreement between the Senate and Assembly. This was proposed last year, but was rejected by the legislature.

Other Executive Budget Proposals:

Advanced Placement Test Assistance. New York State has one of the highest rates of participation in national Advanced Placement (AP) exams in the country. Unfortunately, Advanced Placement exams can be costly—approximately $93 per exam. While partial subsidies exist, the remaining cost can still be a burden for low-income families. Because of this, the FY 2018 Executive Budget provides $2 million to fund AP exam costs for 68,000 low income students. This funding will provide further access to advanced coursework for low income students, and will promote educational equity across the State.

Extend Mayoral Control of New York City Schools. The existing governance structure for New York City schools would be extended for an additional three years, until June 30, 2020.

Master Teachers Program. Building on the Master Teacher Program which has already awarded more than 800 teachers, the Executive Budget would provide $2 million to fund an additional cohort of 115 master teachers—specifically teachers in computer science. Each master teacher is awarded $15,000 per year for four years ($60,000 total). Those selected as master teachers will pledge to engage in peer mentoring, participate in and lead professional development activities, work closely with pre-service and early career teachers to foster a supportive environment for the next generation of STEM teachers, and ensure the most innovative teacher practices in STEM are shared across all grades and regions.

Empire State Excellence in Teaching Awards. To recognize and honor excellence and innovation in the classroom, the Executive Budget provides $400,000 to fund a second round of Empire State Excellence in Teaching awards. This funding will be awarded on a regional basis and will recognize at least 60 teachers. Awardees receive $5,000 to use for professional development activities, including coursework to enhance expertise, attendance at a state or national education conference, or enrollment in a summer institute or certification program.

Prevent Cyberbullying Initiative. The Executive Budget proposal invests $300,000 to combat and prevent cyberbullying and other forms of online harassment. Funds will be used to provide a wide array of school-based cyberbullying prevention strategies, including cyberbullying professional development for school counselors and school-based public awareness campaigns.

ANALYSIS: IMPACT ON REFIT SCHOOLS

The numbers come up short for public education; below the state’s own long range planning figure of $1.1 billion. That decrease reportedly helps the state cut its $1.7 billion deficit. Within what’s left, the state continues to provide 70% of the remaining increase to fiscally challenged districts, an obvious beneficial focus on REFIT schools. There are comparatively small increases to recently enacted, helpful educational programs like Community Schools and After School Programming.

Thankfully perhaps, there are few policy initiatives in the Executive Budget. This governor is known for attempting to make sweeping legislative changes in the State Budget - last year almost eliminating the need for the remainder of the legislative session (in his estimation). This year the governor includes only a renewal of mayoral control for New York City schools and a now time worn plan to create a State Inspector General to oversee the State Department of Education. No broad based policy changes for public education. This will allow the legislature to focus on “buying back” aid increases without giving in to poor policy proposals.

True to historical form however, the Executive Budget fails to provide much needed reform in funding or in structure. No Foundation Aid changes to address increased student poverty or English Language Learners, no focus on student mental health, no significant opioid fight, no Mandate Relief, no regional cost reform or funds to help with unaccompanied immigrant minors. Economic development plans stay the same. Clearly the governor is reeling from the impact of the federal tax reform on New York State’s economy, which he says is in danger of further outward “tax migration” of businesses and a claimed 25% increase in the individual tax burden.

In sum, this is an expected attempt to continue the status quo while addressing a fragile economy and federal tax challenges. It could of course, have been much worse, as the state has few areas where it spends enough on a discretionary basis to help fill a large deficit. All reimbursable spending is paid in this proposal, meaning that BOCES, Building, Transportation and Special Education Aids will be paid in full. It also means though that things like needed change to the reimbursement rate for BOCES teachers would once again fail to be included.

Assuming the actual aid figure is the $769 referred to by the governor himself, combined with the potential of raising $400 million under the property tax cap, schools get a total increase of $1.169 billion this year. That translates to a cut in existing programs and services of roughly half a billion dollars. Clearly the governor wanted to find a middle ground so as not to incense the public or alienate legislative colleagues in an election year, but also felt compelled to trim back even his own long range fiscal plan for education to address the deficit. If there is any good news in this plan, it is that the amount withheld is within the reach of the legislature to reinstate. Even if they were to add $250 million to the plan, provided it in Foundation Aid and directed it to fiscally challenged school districts, educational progress In New York State might well continue.

Time to Act: In this fiscal environment, it is possible to “win or lose” while staying within the bounds of fiscal reality. There is an old saying that when hikers are facing a bear, you don’t have to outrun the bear…you only have to outrun the other hiker. Here, we only have to outrun the other state spending areas, like health care, state infrastructure, etc.

As they say, the game’s afoot folks. Look at your school aid runs, then immediately call legislators! They need to hear a loud and immediate reaction to the decreased funding. It took years to make up for the GEA. Lower funding doesn’t just delay progress, it puts us in decline. Legislators (in this election year) will be inclined to avoid local anger over school program cuts. Many of the most hotly contested and politically important legislative races are in REFIT areas. On behalf of your students, Go Get ‘Em!

REFIT STATE OF THE STATE ANALYSIS: UPDATE

In addition to the Advocacy Alert provided earlier, the governor’s “policy book” that accompanies his State of the State Message contained proposals for public education unmentioned in the address itself. The address contained almost no mention of public education, beyond indicating that more state aid should flow to financially challenged school districts. The extensive policy paper (more than 400 pages) merely indicates an intent to “expand access to quality educational programming.”

Not mentioned in the speech (but included in the policy book) were several proposals with the potential to help REFIT schools. The degree to which they would help is in question however, given that they are all grant programs that by definition are limited to only certain districts (and they are generally of modest amounts.) That said, the governor has offered the following program and policy changes for public education in the coming year:

Using the Community School model, an additional $250,000 in student mental health support would be provided. Any funding obtained could also be used to combat violence and curtail bullying. Given the small pool, additional work in this area is likely to be limited and would come with questions of sustainability.
$1 million is being proposed to support additional Master Teachers in high need districts. The funding would be used to enhance salaries, encouraging the recruitment and retention of Master Teachers in these districts.
The governor suggests continuing the existing Mentoring Program.
An additional $10 million in grant funding would be provided to support after school programming with a focus on high risk areas and student homelessness.
The Early College High School initiative would receive a $9 million boost under the governor’s plan.
The 2018 State of the State includes a new Smart Start program to bring computer science to grades K-8 in high need districts.
$2 million is included to offset the student cost of taking the Advanced Placement (AP) examination. This program is targeted to financially challenged schools, as is an additional $500,000 for districts needing help initiating AP courses.
The governor also proposed increasing fines for those who pass a stopped school bus.

REFIT REACTION

At this stage, the governor has only offered ideas on new initiatives in our schools. The funding behind the programs is minimal and there is no indication if other areas might be cut to pay for the programs. The governor is continuing his penchant for grant programs, rather than formulaic funding. Unfortunately, this severely limits the ability of fiscally strapped districts to participate; even for programs aimed specifically at high need school districts (as these districts don’t have the staff or the data-keeping capacity to successfully compete for the funding.) As always, State of the State proposals must await the presentation of the Executive Budget for schools to determine the impact on both their academic programming and their finances. The age old question of whether the new programs would “supplement or supplant” existing programs and funding lurks in upcoming state budget negotiations. Will these new programs be offered in an environment of a healthy Operating (Foundation) Aid increase or an across the board cut to education funding? The only thing not in doubt at this point is that this is a year when advocacy will be of paramount importance.

THE 2018 STATE OF THE STATE: WHAT IT MEANS FOR REFIT SCHOOLS

As the 2018 legislative session opens and Governor Cuomo offers his State of the State Message, the fiscal atmosphere for REFIT schools is likely to be challenging. The state faces a well-publicized deficit and the federal administration has proposed cuts that would have implications for state spending. The Board of Regents and the Educational Conference Board have both indicated a need for roughly a billion and a half in additional state aid to keep schools on track academically. Meeting these demands simultaneously will require artful state budgeting, particularly given that recent state budgets have frozen other state spending to provide healthier increases to public education. REFIT will be at the forefront of advocacy efforts to prioritize state spending on our fiscally challenged school districts.

This year’s State of the State Message omits major public education policy changes: Gone are the days of calling for new teacher evaluations and picking rhetorical fights with our schools. What remains is likely to be an intense debate over the level of school funding; both the total amount of any increase (or God forbid, funding cuts) and within the total, who and what is prioritized.

FROM THE GOVERNOR’S LIST OF “STATE OF THE STATE” PROPOSALS

PLANS AFFECTING OUR REFIT SCHOOLS

The descriptions provided are quoted from the governor’s office.

Ban Lunch Shaming Statewide

“The Governor will propose a law that when passed, would immediately end the practice of lunch shaming of any kind. First, it will prohibit any public act to humiliate a student who cannot afford lunch. Second, it will ban alternative lunches and require students to receive the same lunch as others starting in the 2018-19 school year.”

Require Breakfast "After the Bell"

“In order to allow students to have breakfast and to prevent them from going hungry during morning classes, Governor Cuomo will propose requiring schools with more than 70 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch to provide breakfast after the school day has begun for the next school year. In successful breakfast after the bell programs, schools can either serve breakfast in the classroom, or offer nutritious vending machines options to ensure that students have access to breakfast as they start their day. In the city of Newburgh, where Breakfast After the Bell was implemented during the 2015-16 school year, schools have seen their breakfast participation rates increase by more than 100 percent.

To ease the transition, the state will provide technical assistance and capital funds for equipment such as coolers and vending machines to support breakfast after the bell. An estimated $7 million in capital funds will support expanded breakfast for 1,400 schools.”

Expand the Farm to School Program

“New York will double the state's investment in the Farm to School program to support the use of healthy, local, New York foods in school districts across the state. The Farm to School program was created to connect schools with local farmers and offers technical assistance and capacity in the school to source products locally to help schools provide students with nutritious meals from food produced by local farms. Previous rounds of funding for this program have increased access to healthy, farm-fresh food for 324,000 students. This funding can be used for capital costs to support transporting and storing locally produced food, and to hire farm-to-school coordinators and trainings for crops and food preparation.

Governor Cuomo proposes doubling the state's investment to add $750,000 for a total of $1.5 million in Farm to School projects. If passed, the program would serve an estimated total of 18 projects and 328,000 additional students, bringing the estimated total number of students served to 652,000.”

Increase the Use of Farm-Fresh, Locally Grown Foods at School

“To incentivize school districts to use more local farm-fresh products, Governor Cuomo will propose an increase in the reimbursement schools receive for lunches from the current 5.9 cents per meal to 25 cents per meal for any district that purchases at least 30 percent ingredients from New York farms. This is a win-win for students as well as New York's local farms. “

REFIT ANALYSIS

WHAT THE PROPOSALS MEAN FOR OUR REFIT SCHOOLS

Funding, funding, funding. This year, our advocacy will by necessity focus on retaining recent gains in funding for our fiscally challenged schools. But the purpose of the State of the State is to lay out policy, not finances. Fiscal plans will come shortly when the governor presents his Executive Budget proposal. Here’s what we think of the new policies offered by the governor.

Like most legislative proposals, the governor’s student nutrition plans are a mix of helpful funding increases and unfunded mandates. While no one would criticize banning the practice of shaming children who cannot afford to pay for their lunch, the governor’s plan doesn’t explain how schools are to pay to provide high quality lunches to all students without any increase in state reimbursement. His plan to require schools with a student FRPL rate of 70% to offer breakfast after the start of the school day makes no mention of the resulting impact on academic scheduling. Yet, in another part of his plan to improve student hunger issues, the governor proposes paying much more to schools that use locally grown food for at least 30% of their total food consumption. That plan certainly has the potential to improve school finances, student hunger and local agricultural marketing. Similarly, doubling the Farm to School Program to allow more schools to participate can only have a positive impact on those schools that are included.

REFIT is helping to lead New York Grown Foods for New York Kids, a coalition of nearly 70 public health, school, farm, anti-hunger and environmental organizations. REFIT applauds Governor Cuomo’s ‘No Student Goes Hungry’ proposal in the 2018 State of the State. The proposal would double the size of the state’s Farm to School grants program while offering the largest state incentive in the country to help schools purchase healthy food grown on local farms.

Thus, it would provide economic opportunities for regional farmers and job growth in communities while improving the health of the 1.7 million kids eating meals in K-12 schools across New York. According to a recent report by American Farmland Trust and New York Academy of Medicine, if institutions, such as K-12 schools, receiving state funds to buy food spent at least 25% of their food dollars on food grown in New York, it could add another $200 million to the state’s economy while positively impacting the health of 6.6 million New Yorkers.

As advocates for our students, we obviously want a healthy nutritional and emotional environment in our schools. We’re eager to support the programs suggested above, but will need guidance in how we might fully participate without impeding existing academic programs. Since in New York we tend to layer new ideas on top of existing requirements (rather than replace outdated mandates with better ones) we’ll need our state leaders to remember that there’s only so much time in the day and so much money in the budget. Our schools are masters at making the most out of existing resources, but help is always appreciated!

These proposals will affect many of our schools to some degree, but the State Budget will significantly affect all of our schools. We appreciate the ideas and the recognition that issues of hunger and poverty weigh on our children. These proposals may help. The proof of whether the state is committed to helping, however, will be in the level of state aid provided and in whether that aid helps or hurts our state’s most financially challenged school districts.

REFIT Annual Meeting 2017

The 2017 REFIT Annual Meeting was held at The Coral House in Baldwin on Sept. 19, 2017. Members from 18 districts were in attendance. The slate of officers for the board of directors was approved, including President Steve Geller. The guest speaker was the Executive Director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents, Dr. Charles Dedrick.

REFIT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET HEARING ON ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION FEBRUARY 14, 2017

Dear State Leaders:

For over a generation, REFIT has advocated for the needs of financially challenged school districts. We appreciate the significant effort you’ve made to restore funding lost to the Gap Elimination Adjustment. We know that other legitimate state priorities have been frozen to support public education. Thank you! Having brought our schools back from the brink, now is not the time to pull back. In fact, your leadership is needed now, more than ever before. Consider this:

・ The Executive Budget is proposing a state education aid increase amounting to roughly half of what is needed to simply maintain existing programs and services in our schools.

・ More of our students are living in poverty. For instance, on Long Island alone, there has been a 78% increase in childhood poverty in only the last eight years.

・ More of our students are learning English as a second language and we have more unaccompanied minors and other homeless children than ever before.

・ The so called 2% local property tax levy cap has succeeded in dramatically slowing the increase in local tax rates, but it has not come with the kind of either mandate relief or state aid that would allow our schools to succeed. Our current approach is unsustainable and the only way schools are currently allowed to adjust to financial stress is to jettison critically needed programs and services to students. Our schools need the flexibility to spend their funds according to student need, not state mandates.

HERE’S WHAT YOUR SCHOOLS NEED TO BUILD A BETTER NEW YORK STATE

・ A Foundation Aid Formula that is adequate, recognizes student poverty, the increased costs of educating English Language Learners and unaccompanied minors and increased costs in some regions of the state.

・ An approach to preschool that allows all school districts to provide this game changing beginning to a child’s education. Research proves that this is the only successful way to overcome learning deficits that so many of our children bring to school.

・ A rational and consistent way for school districts to maintain reserve funds. This would allow them to prevent fluctuations in local property taxes. All other forms of local governments keep reserves far in excess of our schools. If local governments kept to the school district limit, they would be deemed “in fiscal distress.” At the very least, there should be a reserve fund for all school employees; to offset spikes in retirement system payments that damage educational programming.

・ Common sense revisions to the property tax cap. The 2% cap should be just that: 2%. Consumer inflation bears no relationship to school expenses. Consumers buy food and gas and cars at minimal annual increases. Schools buy double digit employee health care insurance and near double digit state retirement system contributions. At the least, last year’s direction to change the cap to account for PILOT payments and BOCES projects should be codified (since the Division of the Budget has seen fit to ignore your direction.)

HERE’S WHAT WOULD HARM OUR FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING SCHOOLS

・ The proposal to grant the governor unilateral budget reducing authority. History shows that midyear cuts to school aid are incredibly disruptive and damaging to a child’s education. If and when catastrophic reductions in federal aid to New York State were to materialize, it is the shared responsibility of the executive and legislative branches to determine how best to respond.

・ Repealing the Foundation Aid formula. Simply negotiating state aid according to whatever future leaders might deem fit is a dramatic step backward in the equitable and sufficient funding of our state’s public schools. Further, the role of the legislature is undermined in this process. Any semblance of transparency or predictability would be lost and a traditionally inequitable method of distribution would be institutionalized. Our financially challenged school districts require an equitable, adequate, predictable and transparent method of providing aid. Codifying past inequities and shortchanging students is no way to serve our children and build a sound future for New York State.

・ Removing authority to protect students from schools. Currently students are protected under the Dignity for All Students Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, IDEA and the federal Office of Civil Rights. Nonetheless, the Executive Budget seeks to strip authority for dealing with civil rights violations among students from schools and give it to the state’s Division of Human Rights. This proposal adds little to student protection and further inserts the Executive into educational issues, in contravention of state constitutional intent. The proposal would also subject schools (and thus, taxpayers) to additional monetary damages as DHR has a regulatory approach of assessing damages, rather than rectifying violations, keeping the needs of all children at the forefront.

HERE’S OUR CHALLENGE

While New York State spends a great deal on public education, it distributes that money in a horrific manner. Stifling both local and state revenue to already financially struggling school districts prevents children from succeeding. The long term impact of this approach will keep New York State from achieving long term economic viability. We owe both our children and our state a better effort than what is presented in the Executive Budget. That’s not just wishful thinking, it’s a court ordered mandate on state leaders to provide each child their constitutionally protected sound, basic education. Fortunately, we have committed leaders willing to meet the challenge. Thank you for engaging in that vital effort.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID A. LITTLE, Esq.

Chief Operating Officer

Albany Alert! Call to Action

Friends,

With the 2016 New York State Legislative Session winding down, several issues require our immediate advocacy. Please forward this message to all administrators and board of education members:

1. The first rule of obtaining equitable state aid is that you have to receive state aid! Currently, any district that does not submit an APPR plan to evaluate staff by the end of this month, or that does not have their plan approved by September will not receive their state aid. While everyone believes in staff accountability, many districts are reporting difficulty obtaining local bargaining unit “sign off” on their plans. Some are reporting that their plans are ready for submittal but their unions are demanding concessions outside of the APPR plan. Losing state aid (and the programs, services and staff that it pays for) would be a tragic price to pay for untimely compliance with this last vestige of state directives in this arena; particularly in light of this year’s local property tax freeze.

Last week’s legislative and State Education Department meetings revealed that since the linking of the plans to state aid originated with the governor, there appears to be little support there for delaying or eliminating the potential penalty. Nonetheless, legislation to help has been drafted and submitted in the Assembly. It must pass if our schools are to be freed from the threat of either losing aid or “giving away the store” to obtain union sign off on the APPR plans.

Please call your legislators and ask them to support Assembly Bill 10569, by Assembly Education Committee Chair Cathy Nolan!

2. The Senate has introduced legislation to divert state funds that are critically needed by our low wealth districts to private and parochial schools, instead. We’ve been here before, folks. This proposal has been defeated multiple times, but the Senate is forced to once again propose this measure to gain financial support for their fall election campaigns from charter and private school supporters. The funds provided to these schools would siphon off state aid to our low wealth districts.

Let’s face it, in any reconfiguration of state aid, no one is in favor of taking funds from other districts. This makes the availability of state revenue for public education all the more vital. Senate Bill 8135 is an abomination in a year when most state aid was provided to high wealth school districts (in order to eliminate the GEA.)

Please call your legislators and ask them to oppose Senate Bill 8135!
To contact your Senator, call 518-455-2800 and ask to be connected to your Senator's office.

To reach Members of the Assembly, call 518-455-4100 and ask to be connected to their office.

After today, there are only 2 legislative days left in this year’s legislative session. Please call today and tell them the consequences of your school losing its aid or having funds diverted from desperately needed state aid to fund private and parochial schools!

R.E.F.I.T. Consortium of School Districts For An Equitable Distribution of State Aid

Dear State Leader:

To say that public education has been through a lot recently is a dramatic understatement. With changes to testing and accountability, as well as a rethinking of our approach to higher learning standards, our schools are being asked to adjust to an ever changing array of fundamental new directives. Complicating their task is the inability of many of our school districts to muster the financial resources to make the required changes, while providing high quality educational programs and services.

This year their situation was exacerbated by the inability to raise local revenue. We certainly recognize that continuing to tax already overburdened local taxpayers is not the long term solution to educational funding woes. There is only one such solution and that is the creation of a state aid funding formula that accurately assesses the ability of a local community to contribute to the education of its children and then directs the state to provide the amount that bridges the gap between that amount and what is required to uphold the state’s constitutional mandate to provide every child a sound, basic education.

The State of New York is now in sound financial condition. It provided a healthy state aid increase to our schools this year. Yet, its method of aid distribution remains one of the worst in the nation. This results in the inability of the state to address the funding crisis that exists in many of our communities. When a locale is unable to raise sufficient local revenue to meet its educational needs, the state has not come to its aid. Quite the contrary.

This year, in order to meet the traditional “shares” distribution goal, while also eliminating the GEA, our neediest neighbors were the ones left wanting. With comparatively little state aid and no ability even to raise local revenue, our most hard pressed districts found themselves in the worst financial condition (far worse than their wealthier neighbors who received significant aid due to GEA elimination).

The time to create a functional and equitable state education aid formula is at hand. Now that the GEA is a past chapter of our history, we must create a real formula; one that maintains aid to all districts, but that addresses the serious need to increase educational opportunities in our challenged school districts. No less than the future of our great state rests on this effort. With court determinations in the wings, the GEA behind us and financial resources available, there is no reason that the State of New York cannot rise to the challenge of meeting its constitutional imperative.

As we move past this year’s legislative session, please make this vital requirement your top priority. If R.E.F.I.T. or its member school districts can assist you in this critically important effort, please do not hesitate to call on us.

Very truly yours,
David Allan Little, Esq.
Chief Operating Officer

R.E.F.I.T. / Statewide School Finance Consortium / Mid-Hudson School Study Council Joint Breakfast - October 29, 2016

7:30-8:45 am.
$38 pp

This is the year! With the GEA eliminated and court cases pressing the state to action, there is no better time to get together to discuss state aid reform! Your colleagues at R.E.F.I.T., the Statewide School Finance Consortium and the Mid-Hudson School Study Council will be gathering for breakfast to do just that at the NYSSBA convention in Buffalo in October. If you’re planning to attend the convention, why not participate in this important event? To join us, simply let the NYSSBA registrar know when you sign up for the NYSSBA convention or have them add your attendance to your current registration.
See you there!

R.E.F.I.T. Annual Legislative Breakfast – March 6, 2015

The R.E.F.I.T. annual legislative breakfast was held on a cold and icy Friday, March 6 at Western Suffolk BOCES. Despite the weather challenges, the event was attended by many of the R.E.F.I.T Board of Directors, past R.E.F.I.T. presidents and numerous trustees of member districts. This group met with a distinguished group of Long Island legislators that included: Sen. John Flanagan, Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Sen. Philip Boyle, Assemblyman Edward Ra, Ranking Minority Member of the Education Committee, Assemblyman Andrew Raia and Assemblyman Joseph Saladino. In addition, the meeting was also attended by staff members from Congressman Steve Israel, Sen. Michael Venditto, Sen. John Flanagan, Assemblyman Chad Lupinacci, and Assemblywoman Kimberly Jean-Pierre.

The morning’s discussion focused on the troublesome gap elimination adjustment, unfunded mandates, unaccompanied minors and insufficient funding from the state and federal government. School district representatives continually stressed the dire consequences to their students and community caused by the insufficient funding of public education to their school districts. Many shared examples illustrating the disastrous impact of the gap elimination adjustment over the past few years to their instructional and non-instructional programs.

In closing, R.E.F.I.T. is committed to pursuing the appropriate funding that provides a sound basic education to all of our students.

R.E.F.I.T. Joins in Addressing the Political, Financial and Legal Challenges of Pursuing a Sound Basic Education

R.E.F.I.T. joined together with the Mid Hudson School Study Council, Rural Schools Association and Statewide School Finance Consortium to co-host a breakfast at Rosie O’Gradys on Monday, October 27th, 2014, during the New York State School Boards Association Conference in New York City for 215 registered attendees. This year there was a scheduled panel discussion. The panel included Larry Levy, the Executive Dean at the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University and Michael Rebell, Executive Director of the Campaign for Educational Equity and Professor of Law and Educational Practice at Teachers College. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Lynam, the Vice President and Director of State Studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, was scheduled to be a panelist, but had to withdraw from the panel due to a family emergency.

The event began with a welcome and introductions from Dr. Robert Dillon, Executive Director of MHSSC and R.E.F.I.T. Dr. Rick Timbs, Executive Director of Statewide School Finance Consortium, offered remarks on our mission to secure a sound basic education for all children in New York. The moderator for the discussion was David Little, recently appointed Executive Director of the Rural Schools Association. The panelist spent a few moments sharing their respective experiences and how they related to K-12 public education. The balance of the program was spent by the panelist answering questions that were submitted by school board trustees and superintendents in attendance. The discussion concluded with the recommendation from the panel to the audience that advocacy efforts by public education stakeholders is effective and needs to be continued.

CANDID DISCUSSION AT R.E.F.I.T.'S LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST

Dr. Robert Dillon opened R.E.F.I.T.'s March 1 legislative breakfast with an arresting comparison.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed budget, Dr. Dillon pointed out, includes $3.1 billion in spending for the Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision.

"According to my math, it costs the taxpayers $33,769 per client," said Dr. Dillon, R.E.F.I.T.'s executive director. Corrections officials "do not have to submit their budget to the taxpayers for voter approval, nor are they subject to any revenue caps or the undemocratic supermajority approval" that hamstrings school districts that want to pierce the tax cap. "Let’s give our children the same classroom resources that the state provides to those incarcerated, so that the students of today will not become the incarcerated of tomorrow."

Dr. Dillon's was speaking to R.E.F.I.T.'s board and to the state lawmakers -- Sens. Carl Marcellino and John Flanagan, and Assemb. Michael Montesano -- who attended the roundtable breakfast. Others around the table in Western Suffolk BOCES' conference room were representatives of Sens. Boyle, LaValle, Zeldin, and Fuschillo; and Assembs. Raia, Lupinacci, and Sweeney.

R.E.F.I.T. members appreciated Sen. Marcellino's candor, if not what he was being candid about. Of the state budget, Marcellino said schools weren't the only ones getting shafted. "We are cutting everything down to the bone," he said. "There is not a program that has not been cut." He also advised school officials to not lock in a pension rate, as Gov. Cuomo has been proposing, because they may get stuck with too high a rate

Thanks to the tax cap and cuts in state aid, 100 school districts are in danger of becoming insolvent within the next two years, according to an estimate by state superintendents. Have lawmakers come up with a plan to deal with insolvent districts? Sen. Flanagan, who is chair of the Senate Committee on Education, said he has asked State Education Dept. officials this very question "several times" but that "there is no concrete plan."

Sen. Marcellino said the Senate is looking to relax some state laws governing schools, including the ban on advertising on school buses and buildings. But, highlighting the frustrating nature of state government, Assemb. Montesano said if the Senate approves such a measure, the Assembly will push to reduce state aid by the same amount raised by such advertising.

Perhaps the most sobering piece of news was shared by Assemb. Montesano: "The State Education Department doesn't listen to us [legislators], and doesn't talk to us." So if and when legislators agree with educators and school boards, rarely can these lawmakers penetrate the rarified atmosphere of SED to actually make changes.

Superintendents on R.E.F.I.T.'s board gave snapshots of how all these issues play out locally.

Amityville superintendent Dr. John Williams described his "tale of two cities." The largely white, affluent homeowners in Village of Amityville tend to enroll their children in private schools, while the black and growing population of Hispanic children in the hamlet of North Amityville attend public school. Increases in ESL and special education costs -- along with rising costs such as pensions, and cuts in state aid -- means other programs must be cut. And the district cannot even think about piercing the tax cap with the required 60% supermajority, because the private school voters won't approve it.

Dr. James Mapes, Superintendent of Baldwin Schools, said he is asking taxpayers to help bridge the district's $6 million budget gap by piercing the tax cap with a 7% increase on the tax levy. After serious belt-tightening -- including staff layoffs and closing two schools -- Mapes is optimistic that when the choices are explained to the Baldwin community, which sends most of its kids to public schools, it will pass the budget in May with more than 60%.

Freeport Superintendent Dr. Kishore Kuncham said that despite his district's looming budget gap, he is not planning to pierce the cap for next year, but will have to make serious cuts. He urged lawmakers to not to give up on pushing for reform of the Triboro Amendment (guaranteed wage increases even when contracts expire) and Wick's Law (which drives up construction costs by requiring separate bids for each element of a big capital project.)

"No other state has a Triboro-type situation," Dr. Kuncham said. "Wick's Law is only in New York State -- not in any other state." Assemb. Montesano countered that the political muscle from the teacher's union, as well as the police and fire unions, makes amending Triboro unlikely.

Commack Superintendent Dr. Donald James described the frustration of going after mandate relief -- the promised-but-undelivered part of the tax cap law.

"The governor says [to school districts], you come up with proposals for mandate relief," Dr. James said. "But if you do, you get hammered by the public, your board members don't get reelected, and the governor gets reelected." He was referring to politically popular -- but extremely expensive -- unfunded mandates such as Triboro and special education requirements that go beyond federal law.

Dr. Dillon Links School Success to Community Success

R.E.F.I.T. Executive Director Robert Dillon took part in a wide-ranging, thought-provoking Feb. 2 panel, "What is Community?" The panel, -- sponsored by Elmont Online, Highlighting Success, Inc., and the Center for African, Black and Caribbean Studies at Adelphi University -- tackled issues of education, the economy, immigration, and health disparities. The conference was held at Adelphi as part of the university's celebration of Black History Month.

As usual, Dr. Dillon did not mince words, saying the public education system in New York State is in "crisis."

"And it's more glaring for high-need, high-tax, low-wealth districts," he said. "We've seen class size in these districts increase by 20%, there are fewer extra-curriculars in middle schools and less electives at high schools. That just continues to widen the educational gap, the social gap and the emotional gap between high- and low- wealth districts."

Educational success is integral to a community's success, Dillon said. "Businesses don't want to relocate where the schools are not working," he said.

Long Island districts are perceived as wealthy, but several lower wealth districts on the Island are facing insolvency in the next two or three years, Dr. Dillon said, just like their rural upstate counterparts.

The discussion touched on charter schools, often concentrated in minority and low-wealth districts, which undermine public education. And Dr. Dillon also took on APPR, the cumbersome and costly evaluation system imposed by the state. "This is an unfunded mandate, sucking the financial and human resources out of our districts," Dr. Dillon said. "It is not founded on research, it is driven by non-educators…. Never before have local boards of education been so stripped of their rights."

Also on the panel were: Rabia A. Aziz, ceo of the Long Island Minority AIDS Coalition, Inc.; attorney Frederick Brewington; Lucia Gomez-Jemenez, executive director of LaFuente; and Economics Professor Martin Melkonian.

R.E.F.I.T. Participates in Safeguarding Sound Basic Education Conference

R.E.F.I.T. President Deborah Coates and Executive Director Dr. Robert Dillon joined other state-wide educational advocates at Teachers College, Columbia University on Dec. 14 to take part in a full-day program, Safeguarding Sound Basic Education, sponsored by the Campaign for Educational Equity.

The program, led by Michael Rebell, Executive Director of the Campaign for Educational Equity, was divided into two sections. The first focused on deficient resources found in a number of public schools that participated in the study. The second focused on advocacy positions for future state funding.

The study revealed that numerous constitutional requirements, as defined by the Campaign for Educational Equity, were being ignored -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- by the governor and legislature in several specific areas:

Qualified teachers, principals and other personnelSuitable, up-to-date curriculaAn expanded platform of services for at-risk studentsAdequate resources for students with extraordinary needsStudents with disabilitiesEnglish language learnersClass size/instructional groupingsInstrumentalities of learningSafe and orderly environmentAdequate and accessible facilities

The second session involved brainstorming and discussion on the following issues:

Fair distribution of $700 million of the anticipated increase in state aidMaximizing foundation funding for high-needs districtsEliminating the competitive grant programProviding additional categorical funding above the growthFull day/pre-kindergarten; access for four-year-olds from high needs districts, up to $75 million.Implementation of mandated Common Core, APPR, and RTI initiatives, up to $225 million.Sound basic education emergency aid, up to $200 million.Promoting cost-effectivenessIn special education: expanding BOCES authority to promote regional cost efficiencies; lowering subsidies for certain expense based aids, such as building aid and transportation aid.Delaying implementation of APPR

Constitutional Compliance for 2014 and Thereafter

Below are some other recommendations presented at the conference.

The Regents, the state commissioner of education, and the State Education Department should:

Amplify the regulations to ensure the minimums they articulate are being met.Add a requirement that a resource-adequacy analysis be included in all school report cards and progress reports.

The governor should:

Act assiduously to root out inefficiency and promote more cost-effective methods for providing educational services.Include a “sound basic education impact statement” in the annual executive budget.

The legislature should follow the Court of Appeals directive to "determine the cost of providing a sound basic education” and then “ensuring that every school will have the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education” by:

Developing an up-to-date cost study methodology based on the actual cost of providing constitutionally mandated services in a cost-effective manner that properly considers student needs and poverty factors.Conducting a current cost study to determine adequate funding levels for public education.Creating fair funding formulas that ensure increased state aid where local ability to pay is low, and that all schools receive the resources they need to provide all students the opportunity for a sound basic education, without arbitrary caps and hold harmless clauses.

Last Updated on Sunday, 03 February 2013 11:57

R.E.F.I.T.'s Seminar Tackles Tough Topics in Education

It was the first Thursday of summer vacation -- a perfect beach day.

But that didn't stop about 100 school administrators, educators, school board members and PTA officials from filing into a school building. They came for R.E.F.I.T.'s seminar, "How Unfunded Mandates and the Tax Cap Jeopardize A Sound Basic Education," held at Western Suffolk BOCES in Wheatley Heights.

The two-hour seminar kicked off with a presentation on how the state-mandated 2% cap on the tax levy has affected educational programs -- and school budget votes -- all over Long Island. Next came a lively panel discussion that ranged from Gov. Cuomo's new Education Reform Commission, to APPR (one speaker called it "the albatross"), to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the tax cap.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 09:32READ MORE...

Two Studies Spur Call to Action

[Thumbnail image] R.E.F.I.T. recently hosted its annual breakfast at the New York State School Boards Association Conference in Buffalo, and like so many events during the weekend-long convention, a certain gallows humor prevailed. Indeed, with all the talk of reduced state aid, increased unfunded state mandates and the new tax cap, there wasn't much for school officials to cheer about.

Before launching into his sobering keynote speech, Council of School Superintendents Deputy Director Robert Lowry joked that his last name is an adjective that means "dark and gloomy." Lowry went on to share results from his organization's recent study, "At the Edge: A Survey on School Fiscal Matters," which found that 75% of New York State's superintendents said their districts' "financial condition is worse, or significantly worse, than a year ago."

Last Updated on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 15:23