Comments on: Defunding the schools? http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:00:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Jackie Bennett http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4168 Jackie Bennett Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:53:45 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4168 Thanks to Paul Rubin for the info on the Reso-A monies. I think my principal is on top of that, but what I love about this blog is that I can find out what goes on at other schools, and get info that sometimes slips between the cracks. Thanks to Paul Rubin for the info on the Reso-A monies. I think my principal is on top of that, but what I love about this blog is that I can find out what goes on at other schools, and get info that sometimes slips between the cracks.

]]> By: Maisie http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4161 Maisie Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:19:26 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4161 If you just love numbers.... The new budget is out: just go to NYC.gov and you can click easily into the press release and the actual budget documents. The DOE got $14.87 billion, an increase of $258.8 million from fiscal '06. Also, the new Galaxy product, by which you can view school-specific budgets, is now available. See my new post (I'm just about to send it) for details. If you just love numbers….

The new budget is out: just go to NYC.gov and you can click easily into the press release and the actual budget documents. The DOE got $14.87 billion, an increase of $258.8 million from fiscal ‘06. Also, the new Galaxy product, by which you can view school-specific budgets, is now available. See my new post (I’m just about to send it) for details.

]]> By: paulrubin http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4154 paulrubin Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:38:00 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4154 I'll leave it to the experts then to determine where the extra money went. FYI, don't be surprised if the DOE moves money around from one year to another to hide stuff. What else would be new? :) As for those of you with schools that have no computers, that's a shame. The person to blame is almost certainly your principal. It's the principal's job to get their fair share of Reso-A monies. It's the principal's job to get everything their schools are entitled to. Some are good at it. Some don't care. As to my school, I'll be moving a few dozen computers into classrooms after upgrading an already pretty nice lab. And I got the principal to commit to making another 20 brand new Dell laptops available to teachers for use with the new wireless stuff. It's sitting in a cart ready for deployment in February. That's aside from the old Project Smart rooms, 3 labs, assorted mini-labs, rolling carts of computers suitable for classes, etc. Bottom line. Some principals want technology in their building. Others don't. It's been my experience that the money's there. Hell, every school gets roughly $30 a head for hardware/software purchases. What's your principal doing with THAT money. It's against the law to use that to purchase computers for administrative use. Ditto any Reso-A grants. Those are instructional grants, not administrative. I’ll leave it to the experts then to determine where the extra money went. FYI, don’t be surprised if the DOE moves money around from one year to another to hide stuff. What else would be new? :)

As for those of you with schools that have no computers, that’s a shame. The person to blame is almost certainly your principal. It’s the principal’s job to get their fair share of Reso-A monies. It’s the principal’s job to get everything their schools are entitled to. Some are good at it. Some don’t care. As to my school, I’ll be moving a few dozen computers into classrooms after upgrading an already pretty nice lab. And I got the principal to commit to making another 20 brand new Dell laptops available to teachers for use with the new wireless stuff. It’s sitting in a cart ready for deployment in February. That’s aside from the old Project Smart rooms, 3 labs, assorted mini-labs, rolling carts of computers suitable for classes, etc. Bottom line. Some principals want technology in their building. Others don’t. It’s been my experience that the money’s there. Hell, every school gets roughly $30 a head for hardware/software purchases. What’s your principal doing with THAT money. It’s against the law to use that to purchase computers for administrative use. Ditto any Reso-A grants. Those are instructional grants, not administrative.

]]> By: Jackie Bennett http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4152 Jackie Bennett Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:08:10 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4152 Ooop! For the record, I notice two errors in my above post. 1. 9.7 and 5.8 are billions of dollars. I didn't make that clear. 2. The line about the bake sales should have been deleted. It has to do with possible source of funding, not what funds are used for, and makes no sense in the context is used it. That's what I get for not printing first! Ooop! For the record, I notice two errors in my above post.

1. 9.7 and 5.8 are billions of dollars. I didn’t make that clear.
2. The line about the bake sales should have been deleted. It has to do with possible source of funding, not what funds are used for, and makes no sense in the context is used it. That’s what I get for not printing first!

]]> By: Maisie http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4140 Maisie Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:06:04 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4140 Paul and all, Jackie is right: the $716 mil would not reflect teacher raises because it covered the fiscal year 2004-05, which ended in late June or early July of 2005. The new raises didn't come through until December. By the way, I share Jackie's skepticism about the Partnership report, which relied exclusively on DOE data. It's all the more reason we need independent watchdogs like EPP to monitor the DOE. The EPP said it couldn't tell exactly what the money went toward, only that there were savings in mid-level administrative spending, "offset by increases in spending by central administration." However, it did say that enrollment declines probably account for some of the lower instructional spending (despite the fact that state operating aid is not reduced when enrollment drops!!) You can access the DOE budget at http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/. Happy hunting. Paul and all,
Jackie is right: the $716 mil would not reflect teacher raises because it covered the fiscal year 2004-05, which ended in late June or early July of 2005. The new raises didn’t come through until December. By the way, I share Jackie’s skepticism about the Partnership report, which relied exclusively on DOE data. It’s all the more reason we need independent watchdogs like EPP to monitor the DOE.
The EPP said it couldn’t tell exactly what the money went toward, only that there were savings in mid-level administrative spending, “offset by increases in spending by central administration.” However, it did say that enrollment declines probably account for some of the lower instructional spending (despite the fact that state operating aid is not reduced when enrollment drops!!) You can access the DOE budget at http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/. Happy hunting.

]]> By: Jackie Bennett http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4135 Jackie Bennett Mon, 30 Jan 2006 03:44:59 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4135 What I find really interesting in the numbers in Masie’s article, and in EEP’s bulletin is how very different these numbers are from the numbers in the report put out this September by the Partnership for NYC, an influential organization that was a leading force in the drive for mayoral control and which has invested heavily in the schools, particularly (I think) in the Leadership academy. The Partnership put out an interim assessment just before the elections, which relied on figures supplied by the Department of Education. The Partnership’s report was kind of glowing. Like EEP’s Bulletin, The Partnership’s report analyzes where the money went. The Partnership, however, says that “working with available data,” one can see percent and dollar increases for instruction. And they claim these increases even for 2004, when, according to EEP, both the adopted budget and the actual spending for instruction seem to have decreased. In addition, the Partnership puts the number for instruction at about 9.7, while EEP, which relied on independent figures, put that number at about 5.8. Finally, while the Partnership (which got its numbers from the DoE) seems to show money for instruction to be about 75 percent of total funding, EEP indicates that instruction accounts for less than 50 percent of the funds. Maybe it all depends how one defines the costs of instruction, and the Partnership is somewhat vague about what that means (unlike EEP which gives an Appendix defining the breakdown). I’m guessing though that the Partnership had a very broad definition of instruction. Maybe they are including high end bake sales? I’m in over my head right now – I teach English, not statistics, but for me, if I did this right, the EEP report, which is based on independent numbers validates what I suspected when I first saw the Partnership report, which was that something was amiss. Issued as it was, just before the election, and relying heavily (and I think exclusively) on DoE numbers, it carried all the generalities of phrasing that make me suspect it must be tilted to one side. Regarding Rubin’s comment about accounting for the $716 million with teacher raises: first, the EEP report, both as Masie describes it, and in what I can see from the report itself, seems to me to be talking about the 04-05 school year, which ended in June of 05, before raises and retro. Maybe I’m wrong about that. But even if the report were talking about a period of time through the end of 05, the numbers you propose don’t seem to add up. I think there are only about 80,000 teachers in the union, not a hundred – the other 20 thousand are para’s and other titles. Taking the membership as a whole, very few would have received anything close 5000 last year, even with retro. Don’t most teachers, for example, have less than five years of service? But I could be entirely wrong. I teach English. I’m in way over my head. What I find really interesting in the numbers in Masie’s article, and in EEP’s bulletin is how very different these numbers are from the numbers in the report put out this September by the Partnership for NYC, an influential organization that was a leading force in the drive for mayoral control and which has invested heavily in the schools, particularly (I think) in the Leadership academy. The Partnership put out an interim assessment just before the elections, which relied on figures supplied by the Department of Education.

The Partnership’s report was kind of glowing.

Like EEP’s Bulletin, The Partnership’s report analyzes where the money went. The Partnership, however, says that “working with available data,” one can see percent and dollar increases for instruction. And they claim these increases even for 2004, when, according to EEP, both the adopted budget and the actual spending for instruction seem to have decreased. In addition, the Partnership puts the number for instruction at about 9.7, while EEP, which relied on independent figures, put that number at about 5.8. Finally, while the Partnership (which got its numbers from the DoE) seems to show money for instruction to be about 75 percent of total funding, EEP indicates that instruction accounts for less than 50 percent of the funds.

Maybe it all depends how one defines the costs of instruction, and the Partnership is somewhat vague about what that means (unlike EEP which gives an Appendix defining the breakdown). I’m guessing though that the Partnership had a very broad definition of instruction. Maybe they are including high end bake sales?

I’m in over my head right now – I teach English, not statistics, but for me, if I did this right, the EEP report, which is based on independent numbers validates what I suspected when I first saw the Partnership report, which was that something was amiss. Issued as it was, just before the election, and relying heavily (and I think exclusively) on DoE numbers, it carried all the generalities of phrasing that make me suspect it must be tilted to one side.

Regarding Rubin’s comment about accounting for the $716 million with teacher raises: first, the EEP report, both as Masie describes it, and in what I can see from the report itself, seems to me to be talking about the 04-05 school year, which ended in June of 05, before raises and retro.

Maybe I’m wrong about that. But even if the report were talking about a period of time through the end of 05, the numbers you propose don’t seem to add up. I think there are only about 80,000 teachers in the union, not a hundred – the other 20 thousand are para’s and other titles. Taking the membership as a whole, very few would have received anything close 5000 last year, even with retro. Don’t most teachers, for example, have less than five years of service?

But I could be entirely wrong. I teach English. I’m in way over my head.

]]> By: Chaz http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4125 Chaz Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:53:28 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4125 I agree with nyc educator. How is wi-fi and broadbanding our schools an educational improvement, when there are no computers in the classroom? By the way, it is more like 95% of the classrooms that don't have computers in my school. However, all the admininstrators received new Dell computers in October. I agree with nyc educator. How is wi-fi and broadbanding our schools an educational improvement, when there are no computers in the classroom?

By the way, it is more like 95% of the classrooms that don’t have computers in my school. However, all the admininstrators received new Dell computers in October.

]]> By: NYC Educator http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4121 NYC Educator Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:16:53 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4121 "...a third might feel a slight reduction in class size is more important." I want to meet that one. Our school is getting wi-fi, though, within the next few weeks. That will probably benefit us as much as wiring the entire school for broadband did a few years ago, considering that there are no computers whatsover in 90% of our classrooms. “…a third might feel a slight reduction in class size is more important.”

I want to meet that one. Our school is getting wi-fi, though, within the next few weeks. That will probably benefit us as much as wiring the entire school for broadband did a few years ago, considering that there are no computers whatsover in 90% of our classrooms.

]]> By: paulrubin http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4116 paulrubin Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:52:58 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4116 Principals can do mostly tweaking to the monies since the vast majority is simply to determine how many teachers on staff. They can for example, add or subtract an AP, or a secretary, or a guidance counselor. Doubtful they can have the maximum amount of all three. They can move monies around between supplies, equipment, furniture, software and the like. But other categories are set in stone based on where the funds came from. So for example your NYSTL Software allocation which is determined by number of students and state guidelines must be spent on software. It's simply up to the principal to get it spent wisely. Then there's the sad reality that some principals are way more creative about getting funds than others from politicians and community groups. Some schools are better at fundraising. Some Parents Associations are more proactive than others. And so on. What the average classroom teacher sees can really vary widely even inside a single school. My point is that the bulk of the expenditures a school makes is pretty much set in stone and relates to salaries. Some of the rest is descretionary and completely depends on principal priorities. So one principal's committment to spend big bucks on technology probably mirrors another's committment to spend on the arts and yet a third might feel a slight reduction in class size is more important. In other words, the DOE might not always be the right target even if it's the more convenient one. On the subject of computers, the Project Connect upgrade is a long term commitment that's been ongoing for years and probably will continue to be ongoing. It's in part funded from programs developed during the Clinton era and cut back somewhat by the Bush presidency. There are state and local funds involved too. Other large grants, like Reso-A Grants, are based more on principal relationships with their city councilman since that's where the funds come from. And as I said, some principals are better at it and some councilmen give their grants more thought than others. There are also state funds for software and hardware. So bottom line, don't mix up funding for computer related expenditures with NYCDOE funding. They're often separate and tend to move in fits and spurts as a Reso-A grant becomes available or as a school reaches its time for a wireless upgrade which is very expensive given the construction costs since it's basically a complete wired upgrade with wireless access points placed in every room as well. And note, this wireless upgrade in for instructional areas only, not administrative. With all that considered, the DOE still drastically underfunds technology given the potential benefits it offers. Principals can do mostly tweaking to the monies since the vast majority is simply to determine how many teachers on staff. They can for example, add or subtract an AP, or a secretary, or a guidance counselor. Doubtful they can have the maximum amount of all three. They can move monies around between supplies, equipment, furniture, software and the like. But other categories are set in stone based on where the funds came from. So for example your NYSTL Software allocation which is determined by number of students and state guidelines must be spent on software. It’s simply up to the principal to get it spent wisely. Then there’s the sad reality that some principals are way more creative about getting funds than others from politicians and community groups. Some schools are better at fundraising. Some Parents Associations are more proactive than others. And so on. What the average classroom teacher sees can really vary widely even inside a single school. My point is that the bulk of the expenditures a school makes is pretty much set in stone and relates to salaries. Some of the rest is descretionary and completely depends on principal priorities. So one principal’s committment to spend big bucks on technology probably mirrors another’s committment to spend on the arts and yet a third might feel a slight reduction in class size is more important. In other words, the DOE might not always be the right target even if it’s the more convenient one.

On the subject of computers, the Project Connect upgrade is a long term commitment that’s been ongoing for years and probably will continue to be ongoing. It’s in part funded from programs developed during the Clinton era and cut back somewhat by the Bush presidency. There are state and local funds involved too. Other large grants, like Reso-A Grants, are based more on principal relationships with their city councilman since that’s where the funds come from. And as I said, some principals are better at it and some councilmen give their grants more thought than others. There are also state funds for software and hardware. So bottom line, don’t mix up funding for computer related expenditures with NYCDOE funding. They’re often separate and tend to move in fits and spurts as a Reso-A grant becomes available or as a school reaches its time for a wireless upgrade which is very expensive given the construction costs since it’s basically a complete wired upgrade with wireless access points placed in every room as well. And note, this wireless upgrade in for instructional areas only, not administrative. With all that considered, the DOE still drastically underfunds technology given the potential benefits it offers.

]]> By: mvplab http://www.edwize.org/defunding-the-schools/comment-page-1#comment-4114 mvplab Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:55:49 +0000 http://edwize.org/?p=245#comment-4114 Chaz,northbrooklyn and paulrubin: School budgets will be available online in the next week or two and I urge you to get your school UFT committees together to analyze your school expenditures and budget. It might be interesting to also involve someone from the PA/PTA. I was informed about this by my chapter leader and look forward to scrutinizing our school's expenditures. I'm not sure how you access the entire DOE budget. Chaz,northbrooklyn and paulrubin:
School budgets will be available online in the next week or two and I urge you to get your school UFT committees together to analyze your school expenditures and budget. It might be interesting to also involve someone from the PA/PTA. I was informed about this by my chapter leader and look forward to scrutinizing our school’s expenditures.

I’m not sure how you access the entire DOE budget.

]]>