What does the governor's resignation mean for our schools?

Posted by Philissa at 12:37 PM

As the excitement of Governor Spitzer's resignation wanes and the state prepares for next week's leadership change, we can start to think about the practical implications of the leadership shakeup upon the city's schools. Upon taking office in January 2007, Spitzer promised to equalize funding disparities statewide in accordance with the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, and last April, the state legislature approved the budget he proposed, which included a $7 billion increase in school aid over five years, of which $5.4 billion would go to New York City. Recently, citing budget woes, Spitzer delayed the payment schedule, reducing the amount of money going to the schools next year.

Now, his departure could complicate the battle to win back state and city school funding -- or at least change its tone. Parents and advocates are planning to take to the steps of City Hall next Wednesday to demand that the mayor and governor restore the funding they promised to the city's schools -- but the governor who made the promise now will not be the same one who must decide whether to keep it.

Instead, that decision will fall to David Paterson, who will become governor on Monday afternoon, so it's good news that Paterson has supported the Campaign for Fiscal Equity since his Harlem state senator days. In addition to supporting equitable school funding, Paterson also has a reputation for championing the rights of the physically disabled; he has been legally blind since childhood. And charter advocates who were thrilled by Spitzer's lifting of the cap on charter schools will be pleased to note that Paterson is a fan of school choice.

Slashing schools budget, Bloomberg shows he doesn't get it

Posted by Philissa at 7:09 AM

The Campaign for Fiscal Equity ruling this summer raised our hopes that the city's schools would finally receive equitable and more adequate funding, but it's turning out not to be quite the banner year for school funding that some had hoped. First, Governor Spitzer reduced the amount of new money flowing to the city's schools. Now, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $324 million reduction in the city's education budget, representing a 1.3 percent cut.

According to the Post, Bloomberg sees the cuts as an inducement for principals to spend more efficiently. Speaking as the business leader who amassed a fortune of nearly $12 billion (or $324 million, 37 times), Bloomberg said,

"I'm sorry. You can always cut 1.3 percent. In fact, it's healthy to go and say let's cut a little bit and force the principals and the teachers and the administrators to say, 'Is this program worth it?'"

Bloomberg's sentiment is, of course, offensive to principals and teachers and administrators who are struggling to provide high-quality educations under difficult circumstances and who certainly don't think anything they're doing is worthless (except maybe confiscating cell phones and administering standardized tests under DOE orders). And more than that, it's offensive to children for whom every art class, field trip, and ounce of enrichment means something, even if those expenditures don't always immediately translate into improved "performance."

Elected leaders often have to make difficult decisions that adversely affect their constituents. We understand. But they don't have to sound happy about it.

Student Thought: Eliot Spitzer, you're really doing it

Posted by Seth Pearce at 8:25 AM

On Monday, the Sun reported that Governor Spitzer is investing billions of dollars into SUNY and other New York colleges to increase their presence in public middle and high schools.

This increased "collaboration" will come in the form of associate degree level classwork and more interaction between the universities and public students, some as young as 12 years old. Students involved in these programs would also receive increased financial aid and a guarantee that they would be able to go to a four-year college.

This IS a good idea.

Some might argue that putting kids in failing schools into college programs is unrealistic. It is not. In order for students to succeed in school it is vital that they have a goal, a future plan. High schools are a common part of middle school culture — they become part of a middle school students' future plans and thus a large majority of middle school students end up in high school. In a great number of high schools, college is not a part of the culture. It is not within reach. It is not familiar.

This program could help many high school students, from schools without a college culture, to understand what college means and how possible and important it really is. It could increase the number of students with "college" somewhere in their future plans.

Then, once they have college in their sights this plan throws in a double-whammy. First, you get guaranteed college placement. (Awesome, right?) Second, you get financial aid bonuses. As a senior going through the college process with many of my friends, I see every day how vital these bonuses could be. It could mean the difference between succeeding in college and dropping out or not even going. Any program to encourage students not only to attend but also to succeed in college would not be complete without a financial aid aspect to it.

Getting colleges involved in high schools is always a good idea. For recognizing that, Governor Spitzer, I commend you. You are really doing it.

Governor signs burden of proof legislation!

Posted by Philissa at 1:05 PM

His decision came down to the wire, but Governor Spitzer last night signed legislation restoring the burden of proof in special education cases to school districts. This wasn't at all an easy decision for the governor, so AFC and other advocates for kids who receive special education services are relieved that he chose to support kids and their families even in the face of opposition from local school boards.

Burden of proof legislation coming down to the wire

Posted by Philissa at 2:46 PM

We addressed this issue in our most recent email alert, but it's so important that we wanted to remind you that now is the time to tell Governor Spitzer that you want him to sign into law new burden of proof legislation.

By midnight tomorrow the governor must decide whether to sign a bill that would restore the burden of proof in special education cases to school districts. The bill would make it easier for families to secure special education services even when schools are trying not to provide them. Obviously, school districts are lobbying the governor not to sign the bill, and the word is that he has not yet decided what to do.

AFC urges you to tell the governor to sign the bill. To contact the governor's office, call 518-474-8390 or 518-474-1041 or fax 518-474-1513. All you have to say is, "Governor, please approve A.5396-A." The only other thing you'll need to know is your zip code. This is a fast and easy way to make a difference for many families all over the state.

See NYSARC's site for background on the legislation.

Spitzer's office sheds light on NYC funding plan

Posted by Unknown at 10:26 AM

More on Contracts for Excellence: Yesterday Manuel Rivera, the Deputy Secretary of Education for New York State, spoke during the CPAC meeting at Tweed. Unsurprisingly, many of the questions from committee members focused on New York City's plan to meet the state's Contracts for Excellence requirements.

Ultimately, education policy in New York State is governed by the Board of Regents, whose members are elected by the State Assembly. The Regents select and hire a Commissioner of Education to oversee the State Education Department (currently Richard Mills). The governor's office, however, has substantial influence over education policy and control over the resources going to education. The Deputy Secretary of Education (Rivera) heads up education in Governor Spitzer's administration.

What this means for New York City's Contracts for Excellence plan is that, while Rivera will not decide whether or not the complies with the law-- that job lies with the Regents and Mills-- he will be in a position to offer input on the matter at the state level.

Because the City's plan will not be formally submitted until July 15, and the Regents enforcement criteria won't be decided until well after that, Rivera refrained from saying outright whether he felt the plan complies with the law.

Rivera did, however, shed light on why the period of public comment-- and the notice for it-- was so short. New York's Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that the state had to increase funding for New York City last November, and Spitzer proposed his Contracts for Excellence plan in January. That plan was not passed by Congress until April, leaving very little time to implement it for the coming year's budget. Rather than delay the funding for an additional year-- as some members of congress wanted-- Rivera said the Governor's office preferred to implement the law immediately to get more money flowing into New York City's schools as soon as possible. This did not leave affected districts enough time to gather sufficient public input and devise a full plan for compliance, so the law allowed for temporary emergency regulations this year, with the understanding that those regulations would change before next year's budgets are submitted.

So the bad news is that there is little parents can do this year to influence the City's Contracts for Excellence spending plan. However, by getting involved at the state level as the Regents decide how the Contracts for Excellence plan will be enforced in the future, constituents can have a greater say over how the public input process will work in the future.

Does more state money really mean more accountability?

Posted by Unknown at 3:39 PM

Elizabeth Green at the New York Sun reports today about the City's use of the upcoming dramatic increase in state education funding, which are supposed to be used in accordance with Governor Spitzer's "Contract for Excellence" initiative. (For more on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's lawsuit behind the increase and the details of the Contract for Excellence, see Green's article or the recent Insideschools piece on the parent letter to the Board of Regents.)

The city will see an increase of about $700 million for the 2007-2008 school year, and, in principle, this money must be spent on one of the five priorities outlined in Spitzer's Contract for Excellence, including reducing class size, providing after-school programs, and lengthening the school year. However, there are a number of loopholes that allow the money to be used for other purposes, such as charter schools and "experimental programs."

Green writes:

The state had reported in April that $317 million of the new funds would be governed by Mr. Spitzer's accountability plan, called the Contract for Excellence. But new numbers released Thursday will likely leave just $228 million to be governed by the contract's restrictions, a city spokeswoman, Debra Wexler, said.

Some are disappointed with this change, including Michael Rebell, one of the attorneys who brought the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, Green reports.

For an alternative view, check out the dissent by Joe Williams on the Dems for Ed Reform blog.