Tonight there’s a PTO Council meeting at Wolfpit Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Monday evening.
I’m posting Superintendent Corda’s opinion piece that appeared in Monday’s Hour.

Creating understanding about the ‘07-08 budget


By SALVATORE J. CORDA
There has been much discussion about the Board of Education’s proposed budget for 2007-08 and the implications of the limitations that the Common Council is recommending be placed on the size of the budget increase. My hope in this document is to create understanding about the status of the budget so individuals can form their opinions based on factual and accurate information and to create support for a position that I think makes sense for the city and the school district.

Current Status

Fact #1

The budget approved by the Board of Education carried with it an increase of 7.77 percent. The issue under discussion is not about reducing the 2007-08 budget below the Board’s 2006-07 budget but about the size of the increase for 2007-08. At this point, based on revised estimates and information that was not available when the Board of Education approved its budget, we believe that we could make reductions to the budget that would necessitate an increase of 6.23 percent.

So Corda is admitting here that the first budget that was submitted had items that could be reduced. Note that he doesn’t say whether they were a) reduced but still increased over ‘06 b) reduced from the amount requested in ‘06 or c) eliminated. What did you do, you are missing an opportunity to show you know how to budget here.

Fact #2Last year, because of the cooperative and collaborative efforts between the Board of Education and the Board of Estimate, the budget increase for 2006-07 was 2.31 percent. Had the Board of Education and the Board of Estimate not agreed to utilize Board of Education surplus that would have been returned to the city in June 2006, last year’s increase would have been 3.99 percent but, the Board of Education’s budget increase for 2007-08 would have been much lower than the original 7.77 percent. This decision was made to provide a lower increase to our taxpayers in 2006-07, and was the right one to make. This decision was also made with the full knowledge and understanding that it would result in a higher than usual increase in the proposed 2007-08 budget.

This is just a rhetorical device. Corda is saying, don’t look at this years increase, let’s average it over two. It’s like NFL football contracts that spead out signing bonuses over years. You are still paying the money. Pay attention to the pea under the cup.

Fact #3

The Common Council approved an increase for the city’s overall budget for 2007-08 of 5.2 percent with a recommendation to the Board of Estimate that the Board of Education’s increase be limited to 3.8 percent.

And there are some budgets, DPW’s for example that are getting 1.something %. Again, you can’t complain about what other departments are getting or not getting, it’s your budget under the microscope Corda.

Fact #4

The Board of Estimate, working within the cap adopted by the Common Council, will adopt a tentative budget with specific amounts identified for each department. For this purpose, the Board of Education is considered a city “department”.

The Board of Estimate sets the tentative budget on April 2. If the tentative budget exceeds the cap, the Board of Estimate has, in fact, requested that the Council increase the cap. After April 2, the Council has the opportunity to adjust the cap, even if the Board of Estimate has not made a specific or implied request to do so. The Council must make any adjustment by April 17. The Board of Estimate will then make a final determination about each department’s budget. This determination may be the same or different from the recommendation that first went to the Council. No decision has yet been made by the Board of Estimate about the total budget.

Why can’t Corda just say, only the Common Council can raise the cap at this point, to allow for a greater increase in the BOE budget. See how easy that sentence was.

Fact #5

As a result of reviewing our estimates and new information about anticipated costs, we have been able to reduce the budget adopted by the Board by $2.3 million dollars without impacting programs resulting in a 6.23 percent. Reducing our proposed budget to the Council’s suggested increase of 3.8 percent will necessitate serious cuts in program and staff. The increase in health insurance costs, because we started from a lower base in 2006-07, represents a 2.6 percent increase and salary increases represents a 3.1 percent increase to the 2006-07 budget. We are facing a 5.7 percent increase from those two sources alone. That does not take into account increases for fuel, electricity, etc. The proposal of limiting our increase to 3.8 percent necessitates finding an additional $3.32 million dollars in cuts. That cannot be accomplished without sharp reductions.

The short summary here, We trimmed some fat, but really don’t want to do anymore.

Opinions-and a Response

the Budget in Context

I have taken the position that, given the unusual circumstances surrounding the budget increase for 2006-07, it is only reasonable to view the change in the Board of Education’s budget over a two-year time frame. With an increase of 6.23 percent for 2007-08, the average increase between 2006-07 and 2007-08 would have been 4.27 percent. Statewide, the average was over 5 percent. I do not believe that our requested increase for 2007-08 is unreasonable or inappropriate given this context. It is not fair to take steps in one year to minimize an increase knowing that it will result in a higher increase the following year, and then forget about that decision in the following year.

He’s back here with the 2 year scope instead of dealing with this year’s budget.

Cut Excess Administrators to Reduce Costs

Some have stated that there are too many administrators in the district. They point to the number of central office and building administrators to support their case.

Response

Size of administrative staff-staffing levels are always a matter of judgment but they should be supported by a sound professional rationale. There are nineteen administrators who work at central office. They include the following positions: Superintendent of Schools, Chief Operating Officer, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, three Directors (Elementary, Secondary, and Pupil Personnel Services) four special education supervisors, the Human Resources Officer, the Chief Information Officer for both Instructional and Administrative Technology, and seven instructional specialists. Of these nineteen positions, two and a half are funded from grant sources. For these positions, there is no cost to the operating budget.

Seven Instruction Specialists? Yipes, he said there were 5 at the BET meeting. They must have gone through some mitosis action or something. Which positions are funded by grants, and when do those grants run out? What on earth is an education supervisor? Do they supervise the instruction specialists? Do you see where I’m heading here? I want a hierarchical organization chart, Corda. Show the reporting lines, this should be interesting.

Every district of our size has a Superintendent of Schools, an Assistant Superindendent for Instruction, a Chief Operating Officer (or equivalent title), a Director (or equivalent title) for Special Education or Pupil Personnel Services, and a Human Resources person. One might expect to see a variance in the remaining positions. Let’s take a look districts comparable in size to us.

But mom, johnny jumped off the bridge, why can’t I?

As the above chart shows, Norwalk, in comparison with districts similar in size to ours, actually has fewer administrators even allowing for the spread in enrollment. Some of these districts have even more administrators but there is no comparability in title to our district.

At this point, Corda should have realized the comparing apples and oranges wasn’t a good way to support his program, oh wait…

Responsibilities of administrative staff: We have a comprehensive accountability system for our central office and building administrators. Nineteen building principals are evaluated and supported by two directors. The Director of Pupil Personnel Services is responsible for the four Special Education supervisors and the overall program for more than 1,100 students that includes an array of required services. The work of curriculum development, its implementation, professional development, and the implementation of the School Growth and District Improvement Plan rest heavily on the instructional specialists who have expertise in academic content areas. Without these positions, this District would not have undergone a total curriculum revision and textbook replacements in the last five years, nor would there be the support needed for school and district improvement plans. Without these positions, the Norwalk public schools will find itself in the same place it was in 2001 where the systematic reduction of central office staff prevented the District from continually renewing itself.

And yet this crack staff managed to spend money on math text books only 3 years ago that need to be replaced in this year’s budget. And note that he doesn’t say that he also refused to hire from within, thereby escalating recruitment costs and forcing some of the most qualified teachers Norwalk had to look elsewhere for career advancement.

Housemasters at the high school level and assistant principals at the middle and elementary levels support the work of building principals. Apart from the myriad managerial tasks that must be completed, we expect our administrators to be instructional leaders and to supervise and evaluate our teachers using a comprehensive model that provides accountability and improves performance. This cannot be done at the level expected for consistent improvement in academic achievement without adequate administrative support and housemasters or assistant principals available to share in that responsibility.

It’s fat. And during times of fiscal stress, this is where you cut, and make do.

The role of administration in improving student achievement is as critical as that of our teaching staff. Without these positions, the work of implementing school growth plans and the District improvement Plan, required under the No Child Left Behind legislation, would be next to impossible. With that said, we will, nevertheless, not fill one administrative vacancy as a means of reducing costs for next year.

Because having teachers working at improving student achievement is …? This is like GM saying, hey we need more supervisors on the line so we can produce more cars.

Using Scare Tactics

I have been accused of using scare tactics to mobilize public opinion in favor of securing a budget increase at the 6.23 percent level. I have identified several areas, none of them acceptable or popular, that would be in jeopardy if we have to find $3.3 million dollars in reductions from our proposed budget. Some have said these would not be necessary.

Response

I am not sure what the final list of reductions would look like or what, ultimately, would be acceptable to the Board of Education if reductions have to occur. The elimination of the new positions that I recommended for the high school will still keep enrollment in study halls high, but this may be a better alternative than eliminating all academic support staff. Reducing some academic support staff will impact our efforts to close the achievement gap, but may be a better alternative than completely eliminating our interscholastic athletic and co-curricular programs. Reducing the number of literacy specialists will impact our ability to provide the level of support we would like, but may be a better alternative than reducing the number of elementary assistant principals that would impact our capacity for accountability and support for all elementary staff. Eliminating elementary academically talented teachers will impact our ability to serve our brighter students, but may be a better alternative than eliminating some advanced placement courses.

Of course you won’t know what the final list will look like because you are using scare tactics. If you presented a more detailed budget and made an honest attempt to reign in costs, instead of just passing through increases without investigating and identifying cost savings, you wouldn’t even be in this position. It’s the lack of accountability and compromise that your BOE has created. How many months did it take you to respond to the 32 questions from the BET? You had hoped to ignore it, are being called on the carpet for it, and now resent it. Welcome to the real world Corda.

None of these choices are acceptable and none have been finalized, but one cannot find $3.3 million dollars unless one cuts programs. In all of the budget analysis by our own Board, by the City’s Finance Committee, and by the Board of Estimate, there have been no areas identified where our estimates of expenditures are identified as excessive. We are prepared to live on the financial edge. We are not prepared to gut our programs without acknowledging that it will impact our students and asking people to make that choice out loud and for all to hear.

No areas identified as excessive? We can start with your outside consulting costs.

In the Final Analysis — A Request for Support

Norwalk Public Schools provide outstanding educational opportunities for students. Our achievement has been steadily improving, but we have a long way to go. We need to pay close attention to the achievement gap. We need to take the steps that will increase our progress to the point where we no longer have the designation of “In Need of Improvement.” We need to protect the academic, co-curricular, and interscholastic programs that make Norwalk so special.

Honoring our request for a 6.23 percent increase would necessitate finding an additional $3.3 million dollars to the increase currently proposed by the Common Council. According to the City’s Finance Director, adding that amount would increase the median tax bill by an additional $65 a year. This is a figure he uses because he believes it more accurately reflects the impact on the typical taxpayer. Clearly, for some it would be higher, and for some it would be lower. To be fair, this median figure applies to the central part of Norwalk. If one were to use the average figure across Norwalk, the increase would be about $85. Again, some would be higher. Some would be lower. Let’s make it an even $100 to try to cover the outliers. $100 — $2 a week! Put in that context, I believe that most people would say, “I can find $2 a week. It’s worth the effort.”

Hey how about looking at what your ‘06 budget was versus actual and determine where you overspent and under spent first. And why muddy the waters with median versus average. hey I can do bad math too, $100 in a tax increase by the 37,000 households in Norwalk is $3.7 million. And BTW there are 52 weeks in a year, so your $2 figure is rounded up. And this little math exchange is exactly why the Common Council and BET has many questions about your numbers Dr. Corda. They never seem to add up.

I urge the Board of Estimate to request an increase to the cap in the amount of $3.3 million for the Board of Education budget. In the absence of such a request, I urge the Council to increase the cap by the needed amount.

So after in Fact #5 you say the cuts are $3.32 you ask for $3.3 in an increase. Why can’t your numbers add up?

One of the interesting topics that came out of the DPW budget was the large variance in actual versus budgeted in energy usage. This occurred because when the ‘06 budget was prepared natural gas was very expensive. That price has since come down. Coupled with the mild winter, there should be be a similar variance in the BOE budget. Why aren’t you talking about this? What budget numbers did you use for energy costs. the inflated ‘06 costs, or the current? This type of detail would go a long way towards providing an accurate view of the BOE budget. You still haven’t proved your case.