  |
|
|
|
Testimony of Alan B. Lubin on the Proposed 2005-06 Executive Budget for K-12 Education February 14, 2005.
Testimony of Alan B. Lubin Executive Vice President NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS to the Senate Finance Committee and Assembly Ways and Means Committee February 14, 2005 Good afternoon Chairman Johnson, Chairman Farrell, and honorable members of the Senate Finance Committee and Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I am Alan Lubin, Executive Vice President of the New York State United Teachers. NYSUT is a statewide union representing more than 500,000 members. Our members are pre-k to 12th grade teachers, school related professionals, higher education faculty, and other professionals in education and health care. I thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding the Executive Budget for 2005-06. My testimony is going to broadly outline NYSUT's concerns regarding the Executive Budget proposal for public education. As always, in the days ahead, our members and staff will be meeting with you and your staff to expand on these concerns and seek your help in addressing them. In an ordinary year, NYSUT would have called the K-12 budget increase of $526 million in general support for public schools a good start. However, as you know, this year is not an ordinary year. Two Court of Appeals decisions are hanging over our heads - ours, yours and the Governor's. On one hand we still face the challenge of solving the dilemma presented by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. On the other, faced with the Court of Appeals decision in Pataki v. New York State Assembly, the Legislature is still grappling with how to go about negotiating the budget this year. The Executive Budget for elementary and secondary education is a major improvement over his proposal last year, and for that we are encouraged. The budget proposes the largest increase of school aid ever proposed by a Governor - an increase of $526 million in general support for public schools. In addition, full funding is provided for several major teacher iniatives - Teacher Centers, Teacher Support Aid and the Teacher Mentor Intern Program are all funded at last year's level. This is a first. We are also pleased to see $2 million in funding for the excess teacher turnover grant program for our special act and 853 schools. We are thankful that this year represents the 6th successful year of obtaining this funding to help these schools recruit and retain certified teachers to the state's most difficult education institutions. Also, several other programs are fully funded or increased, including -
In the past, NYSUT has sought the support of our friends in the Legislature to ask for full funding of these vital programs. You in the Legislature have always understood their importance and we are very pleased that the Governor finally sees eye-to-eye with us. However, there are still several major areas where the Executive Budget falls short. Every year there is one item we have to come to the Legislature to ask to restore. The budget calls for a cut in BOCES of $20 million from last year and a redefining of what will qualify as an aidable expense. This cut is particularly egregious as once again the Governor proposes cutting BOCES aid to school districts for services they have already received. We oppose the proposal that would eliminate BOCES aid for routine administrative services; require BOCES to demonstrate cost efficiency in their contracts for telecommunications and other services by comparing their contracts to existing state contract prices available through OGS and; encourage districts to participate in share services arrangements with counties and other local government agencies. The Executive Budget goes one step further and eliminates aid for services provided by BOCES where costs are in excess of equivalent services under state contract. NYSUT opposes the Executive Budget proposal eliminating aid for certain shared services provided by BOCES. This proposal would eliminate aid for professional development and curriculum development service BOCES provides, as well as other non-instructional services such as substitute teacher coordination and collective bargaining services. We know the Governor has never been a friend of BOCES, but these proposals fly in the face of a primary purpose of BOCES - to provide cost efficient services to districts, services that oftentimes the district would not otherwise be able to access. The elimination of aid for administrative services would be particularly damaging to small rural school districts which gain from the economies of scale that BOCES are able to provide. This would cause swift and severe cost shifting consequences as local property taxes will rise as a result of it. I urge you once again to stand with us and stand in support of the 38 BOCES programs statewide and reject the language in the Executive Budget that is so destructive to BOCES services and local property taxes. The Governor makes a change in the formula for Private Excess Cost Aid - he reduces the state's contribution to Private Excess Cost Aid to reflect the current state aid ratio of the Public Excess Cost Aid. The reduction of the percentage of the state's share - from 85% to 49% results in a severe decrease to Private Excess Cost Aid. The $96.4 million dollar cut leaves only $114.32 million for private special education aid. I urge you to reject this cut. Special education programming is expensive to provide no matter who provides the service - whether it's the school district itself or a school sending a child to private providers or BOCES - providing this education is a costly venture. Reducing this aid would reduce the ability of districts to be able to educate these students by sending them to other providers. Somehow the district would have to make up the difference in raising additional local revenue or reducing other programs in order to provide special education. Both are unacceptable solutions. For example, this cut dramatically impacts small rural locals.
If a new high needs special education student were to move into these school districts, the district would be faced with the dilemma of how to finance the cost. Incidentally, these are poor school districts in rural areas where raising local revenue is a particular hardship. Putting geography aside, let's examine what happens in one county facing private excess cost cuts - look at Dutchess County. There are 13 school districts in Dutchess county ranging in wealth from the lowest - Poughkeepsie -- to the highest - Rhinebeck. Overall, the county faces a $2.4 million cut or 46%. However, the 6 poor school districts take a $1,338,000 million cut or 40%. The 7 above average wealth districts only lose around $1,025,000 million. The cut in Dutchess County is going to impact on the poorest districts, which are heavily dependent on state aid. Once again, local taxpayers would have to pick up the burden. In the past, NYSUT has urged the Board of Regents and the Legislature to consider increasing the state supported share for all special education programs. Local districts and local taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden of these high cost programs alone. When it comes to high cost of special education placements, whether private or public, NYSUT believes that the cost of these programs should be substantially supported by the state. In fact, the state should fund 85% of both aids. This would bring about a lowering of costs to property tax payers - a novel approach. Since the enactment of the New York Charter Schools Act in 1998, charter schools have had ample time to prove themselves as being the innovative and creative educational institutions they claimed they would become. Yet, the data that has been collected by both the New York State Board of Regents and the United States Department of Education, indicates that the charter schools have not distinguished themselves from general educational schools in terms of innovative technique, nor by raising the level of achievement on State assessment tests. In fact, in many cases, charter school students are performing below those students in general public education. The Governor continues to expand a program that has not shown positive results. In addition, school districts are required to pay an amount equal to their average cost per student for each of their residential students enrolled in charter schools. The result - charter schools are not only failing to raise student achievement, they are also placing a heavy financial burden on the local school district taxpayer. An immediate moratorium should be placed on the number of charter schools created in New York State so that local school districts do not have to continue to bear this financial drain. The Executive Budget allocation of $26 million for charter schools would be more appropriately re-directed and re-invested into the general public school system. We continue to encourage your efforts to ensure that the Education Department has sufficient numbers of qualified staff to administer the various programs for which they are responsible. In that regard, we oppose the transfer of cultural education programs and about 400 positions from the State Education Department, including the State Museum, State Library and State Archives - to a new entity called the New York Institute for Cultural Education (NYICE). NYSUT opposes transferring 750 positions and VESID to the Department of Labor. We are opposed to the budget proposal to put a charge-back on local school districts for the cost of the State Education Department in conducting teacher tenure hearings. Finally, NYSUT opposes transferring the responsibility for the state's age 0-3 deaf and blind children from the State Education Department and 4201 schools to the Department of Health's early intervention program. Even though the Governor provides a substantial $526 million increase to school aid- this does not come close to meeting the current obligations of our public schools. In fact, this amount falls $163 million short of the school aid approved in last year's enacted budget. In addition, school districts are still facing steep increases in fixed costs for health insurance, retirement system contributions and energy costs. The costs of insurance, other goods and services increase every year as well. Again, the Governor has proposed $325 million in funding to be part of the state's response to the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. While the proposal is a good first step, the increase does not come close to addressing the substantial down payment necessary to provide a sound basic education for all of New York's public school students. The litigation surrounding CFE began twelve years ago. A child in kindergarten twelve years ago is about to graduate high school. We have failed more than an entire generation of New York's public school students. Everyone agrees - the Governor, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, three special masters, all of the education advocates - everyone agrees that CFE needs to be solved on a statewide level. CFE needs to be a statewide solution that does not take away aid a school district already receives from the state (Robin Hood). Everyone has placed their own solutions on the table. Now is the time to address a real solution for CFE - we cannot start down the path towards failing another generation. CFE has demonstrated the need to address the issue of school finance reform in New York. Another issue where everyone agrees. Support needs to be driven to all high need districts in the state. You may ask - what do I mean by "high needs?" Poverty, the number of English language learners and low wealth factors including income and poverty wealth are all factors that need to be considered in developing school finance reform. In fact, New York has the highest funding gap in the nation! School districts with the lowest child poverty rates spend $9,980 per student. School districts with the highest child poverty rates spend $7,365 per student, reflecting a funding gap of $2,615 (from The Education Trust, Fall 2004 - amounts reflect state and local revenue per student in 2001-02). Not only is this the highest gap in the nation, for New York, the gap increased $463 dollars per child over the year before! We must move beyond rhetoric, make real and measurable progress that will serve as the foundation for a continuing commitment towards school finance reform. I ask you to provide the funding and structure necessary to close New York's gap and to make a commitment to provide support to all of New York's high need students. Support invested now begins to save our children today, not tomorrow and not twelve years from now. The question becomes - how does the state fund CFE? First, I would urge you to reject the Executive Budget proposal to eliminate the income tax surcharge on incomes over $100,000. Second, NYSUT and the Better Choice campaign answered that question last year. We put several options on the table including;
With these limited proposals alone, the state could generate over $2.6 billion in revenue. I understand that the Better Choice campaign is due to come out with their revenue options for 2005-06. This year's proposal reflects the same options available last year with two additions that will generate a minimum of $2.5 billion more. Just to illustrate the problem further - let's examine what would happen to New York's revenue if we were to recreate the state's tax structure in 1972. Not only would the state raise $7.7 billion in revenue, but this reversion would reduce taxes for 95% of New Yorkers! I'm sure you will be hearing more about these various options over the coming weeks and I encourage you to act on all of these revenue opportunities. Another issue that surfaces in the discussion of CFE is educational accountability. NYSUT, like most public education advocates, supports the concept of educational accountability; however, the Governor's proposal has several flaws. We understand the need to account for significant additional resources provided by the state to address the constitutional requirement of providing all children with a sound basic education. Accordingly, NYSUT supports comprehensive planning in order to help students meet the Regents' standards and should be required of all school districts - assuming considerable additional resources are provided by the state. In fact, NYSUT supports a comprehensive plan that would clearly reflect how specific resources are allocated to schools and the specific programs provided in that district to help all of their students achieve. NYSUT opposes the creation of a new Office of Educational Accountability and Efficiency. Creating another layer of bureaucracy more often than not results in less accountability. Furthermore, the State Education Department and the Office of the Comptroller already serve the functions of this new office as proposed by the Executive. The State Education Department should have the authority to provide strong and active management of the accountability system across all school districts in New York. SED already monitors student success and the performance and improvement of poorly performing schools. Again, we support SED being provided sufficient additional resources in order to manage the state's accountability system across all school districts. In addition, the $2.9 million funding for school audits would be more appropriately directed to the Comptroller's office, rather than to this new bureaucratic entity. NYSUT opposes the Governor's outline of sanctions to be imposed by the Office of Educational Accountability and Efficiency. NYSUT opposes sanctions other than those already in place under current NCLB and SURR dealing with poorly performing schools. In addition, sanctions, including those where a school is closed and reopened, should be consistent with existing collective bargaining agreements and tenure laws. NYSUT unequivocally opposes the Executive Budget proposal to expedite 3020-a proceedings. Shortening time periods already in current law for tenure hearing related proceedings is not only insulting, it's impractical. Especially egregious is the proposal to shorten the timeframe for hearings to occur and decisions to be rendered. With around 400 arbitrators on the list statewide, these individuals already have very taxed schedules. 3020-a is already the vehicle to remove incompetent teachers. The Executive proposal for an alternative procedure is unnecessary. No one, not even the teachers' union, would argue that it is appropriate for inept teachers to remain in the classroom. That is why the tenure statute provides the vehicle for school districts to make their case to remove these individuals. This is also why NYC has the Peer Intervention Program to counsel teachers out of the profession. NYSUT does support the maintenance of effort requirement in the Executive Budget that would apply to other Big 5 city school districts, including, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, in the same manner that New York City already has a required maintenance of effort. The proposal would prohibit city government from reducing their support of local schools unless the overall city budget was reduced. NYSUT supports the concept of school board training that is mentioned in the Executive Budget. In fact, for years NYSUT has had legislation that addresses this very issue and we hope this year you and your colleagues will consider that bill as it moves through the committee process (S.1218/A.2348). NYSUT opposes the Executive proposal to include the Mayor or ex-officio member(s) appointed to school boards by the Mayor in Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. NYSUT opposes forcing bond votes on the same day as a school budget vote. This proposal could prevent districts from being able to take advantage of the summer construction season. This provision could also create more controversy over bonding and potentially lead to school budgets not being passed. Further, upon defeat of a bond vote, a school district would have to wait another full year to consider another bond proposal. NYSUT is opposed to the Governor's proposal allowing for alternative certification of teachers. Allowing individuals to work as teachers without passing any of the required examinations is a significant reduction to entry standards. The Executive Budget proposal diminishes the importance of pedagogical coursework and training as the language is silent on that issue. New York should be proud of its ranking among the top 15 states in efforts to improve teacher quality (Education Week's Quality Counts report for 2005) -- any effort to dismantle teacher certification requirements would only constitute a step backward. If the Governor's alternative certification proposal is intended to address teacher recruitment and retention, he misses the mark. SED already has alternative certification programs and transitional certificates. Further, there are other factors that influence the issue such as competitive salaries and working conditions. One factor always cited in the recruitment and retention discussion is the value of recognizing teaching as a profession. One program that does exactly that - the Al Shanker National Board Certification Grant -- provides financial assistance to teachers who want to achieve National Board certification. When the Governor issued his line item vetoes last August, this vital program that encourages excellence in teaching, lost funding. Line item veto #69 would have provided $500,000 in funding to the Al Shanker/National Board Certification program. With the aid of one reappropriation, the program has been able to continue. However, that funding is about to run out. I urge you to include $500,000 in funding for the Al Shanker grant program. One of the [other] major impediments in our efforts to attract and retain quality teachers is the early retirement penalties imposed upon our senior teachers. In addition to facing the escalating costs of higher education and modest starting pay, individuals who want to become teachers are also confronted with the fact that they must work until they are 62 or have 30 or more years of service to retire without dramatically reduced pension benefits. For new teachers who are working hard to meet the increasing demands of their profession, this daunting prospect is a strong disincentive to remain in teaching. For many dedicated senior teachers who have already served long careers in education, these harsh penalties are simply demoralizing. As with other public employees who serve in physically and mentally taxing capacities, we must recognize the highly stressful environment and demands placed on teachers in the classroom. Therefore, I urge you to eliminate the current "pension penalty" imposed on teachers in tiers II, III and IV. We do not anticipate that there will be a flood of retirements with the elimination of these onerous penalties. Rather, a member who is 55 years of age with 25 years of service would have the option to retire at the current benefit of 50% of salary or to remain in service accruing additional pension credit. We are only asking that after many years of service teachers be able to retire with adequate financial security. As I mentioned earlier, this year is not an ordinary year. But we cannot allow the problems in Albany to fail another generation of public school children. We have worked well together with the Legislature in the past. Given the challenges we face, it is important now, more than ever, for us to work together. In the coming days and weeks ahead I am available, as well as NYSUT staff, to work together with you to support a state budget for elementary and secondary education that will take a significant step toward providing a sound basic education for the public school children of New York state. |
|
|
|