GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

DOE mantra: “Doing more with Less”. That is absolute BS. You can only do less with less. How much more can we ask teachers to do outside of their school day for what they used to get paid for. Soon, they will have to look for part time jobs to supplement their salaries. 

Remember, they are doing less with MORE, as DOE spending was proposed to go up by $1 billion next year — before they “found” more money to avoid layoffs.  (Or upped their guess of what would come in, raising the risk of running short).

Some other agencies are doing less with less.  Perhaps the DOE will be soon, but not for the past four years and not now.

“How much more can we ask teachers to do outside of their school day for what they used to get paid for. Soon, they will have to look for part time jobs to supplement their salaries.”

Well, it was decided that what teacher’s really wanted was to work for just 25 years and then collect and inflation adjusted pension based on the last year’s salary.  So in theory they’ll be so happy they’ll gladly make up for the consequences.  Of course, MY theory is that teachers only provide education in proportion to their CASH PAY, which determines both class size and how much they take home while on the job, but we’ll see.

Not in on that deal, or just starting out and about to be forced to pay 5 percent of salary for your whole career with no raises?  Too bad, because that decision is irrevocable. 

They repeated the retroactive pension deals of 1968, and now they are repeating the screwover of the children and those still on the job that followed in the 1970s. Surprise, surprise.  And if the next Mayor has any sense, he or she would refuse to accept mayoral control and wash their hands of any responsibility for the schools.

Question:  those with my point of view and those I care about are the loser here, and there is no going back.  So why don’t I hear about the winners celebrating?

Remember, they are doing less with MORE, as DOE spending was proposed to go up by $1 billion next year — before they “found” more money to avoid layoffs.  (Or upped their guess of what would come in, raising the risk of running short).

Some other agencies are doing less with less.  Perhaps the DOE will be soon, but not for the past four years and not now.

“How much more can we ask teachers to do outside of their school day for what they used to get paid for. Soon, they will have to look for part time jobs to supplement their salaries.”

Well, it was decided that what teacher’s really wanted was to work for just 25 years and then collect and inflation adjusted pension based on the last year’s salary.  So in theory they’ll be so happy they’ll gladly make up for the consequences.  Of course, MY theory is that teachers only provide education in proportion to their CASH PAY, which determines both class size and how much they take home while on the job, but we’ll see.

Not in on that deal, or just starting out and about to be forced to pay 5 percent of salary for your whole career with no raises?  Too bad, because that decision is irrevocable. 

They repeated the retroactive pension deals of 1968, and now they are repeating the screwover of the children and those still on the job that followed in the 1970s. Surprise, surprise.  And if the next Mayor has any sense, he or she would refuse to accept mayoral control and wash their hands of any responsibility for the schools.

Question:  those with my point of view and those I care about are the loser here, and there is no going back.  So why don’t I hear about the winners celebrating?

Yup, they will almost always be missed.  There are always some burnouts and grifters among the retirees, but that is a minority.  Meanwhile, every replacement is a rookie.  If you can afford the replacement.

After the early retirement “incentive” of the mid-1990s, that’s what you got — the uncertified teachers no one else wanted.  The union loved it.  Mayor Giuliani didn’t pay for it (we’re paying for it now).

That was during a teacher shortage.  They could probably do much better hiring now, following the latest pension deal.  Except there is no money to hire, because all the money is going to the pensions.

By the way, in addition to the financial hit, the 20/50 pension deal the TWU cut in the 1960s played a big role in the destruction of the transit system for exactly the reason you cite:  all the skilled workers retired at once.  Total disaster.  The TWU went on strike for 20/50, and got the state legislature to pass it twice without a single “no vote.”  But they haven’t succeeded, yet.  The UFT has.

Many  former DOE Principals, Supt, Network / Region folks.  How do you know you have New Visions?  The EPO’s haven’t even been approved yet officially, and yesterday I believe was the deadline for Principals to submit their choice of EPO from the prospective organizations. 

“There was no teacher shortage in the 1990′s at all in Nassau, Suffolk, or Westchester.”

That’s because they outbid NYC.  There was a teacher shortage nationwide at the time, partially driven by demographics — the large “baby boom echo” in school and thus rising enrollment, the small “baby bust” generation exiting college.  The opposite situation we have now.

“There is no connection to the early retirement incentive as you describe.”

That was the wrong time to lose all your veteran teachers, as if there was ever a good time.

As for one time only screw ups, of which there are many, they aren’t as damaging as ongoing costs.  

Larry, Where are your figures regarding pension vs. the various blunders of Bloomberg.  City Time and the stadiums are approaching a billion each.  The garage at Yankee Stadium will be an albatross for many years to come.  As for your comments about the teacher shortage and working conditions, you are dead wrong.  NYC paid the lowest rate of any school district in the greater ny metro area, and working conditions were the absolute worst.  The average NYC teacher earned 250,000 less over a career in the early 90′s.  Shortages of books, supplies, no technology, coal fired boilers, dirty buildings etc.   “That was the wrong time to lose all your veteran teachers, as if there was ever a good time.”
Sub. 401 Ks or no pension and cut benefits and watch the exodus of experienced teachers and number of quality applicants decline.  You get what you pay for.  “There is no connection to the early retirement incentive as you describe.”   That was the wrong time to lose all your veteran teachers, as if there was ever a good time.   How does your statement refute what I was saying?  As per usual, your posts shill for your 25/55 anti pension crusade.   Don’t let little things like facts get in the way.  I lived through both eras as a taxpayer and a teacher in NYC and on LI, my experiences first hand shaped my views.  You don’t offer numbers, proof, anecdotes or experence, you continue to talk about things as an expert when in fact you are not. 

Don’t worry, I didn’t sign up for 25/55.  (If you are tier three or four you only get 50% of your salary average.  And, it will be based on a lower salary than if they waited until they had 30 years in the system.  Assuming we ever get an increase and a contract. So, many people are actually getting a much lower retirement than they planned for.)  I started very young and I would not be able to collect if I stopped at 25 years (you can’t collect until you are 55).  I’m going to work 40 years and get a bigger pension.  And, I plan to live to a very old age so I can collect for a really long time.

According to IBO figures (www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/Funding_Trends1990_20048.pdf), FY ’11 per-student spending in NYC is $20,242. $6.49 million divided by 957 is $6,781. I understand that a typical school’s per-student budget is always going to be less than the system-wide average: there is a certain amount of central spending on administration, assessments, curriculum, etc. that doesn’t show up in school budgets; a disproportionate amount of money goes to kids with special needs and to the specialized schools (public and private) for those kids; etc. But I still don’t understand how a per-student school budget can be only ONE-THIRD of system-wide per-student spending, especially at a school where 98% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. (Since in theory per-student funding is supposed to go disproportionately to schools that serve the most poor kids). Can someone help me to understand this, preferably with actual data? 

I think I’ve figured our part of the answer to my question. http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/overview/default.htm The IBO per-student numbers come from dividing “Total funds committed to DOE” by the total enrollment. The 2011 “Total funds committed to DOE” number is $22.7 billion. For 2012, $9 billion of DOE spending went on schools’ books–a bit under 40% of the total. So 33% is low, but not crazily so.  

Amongst the expenditures that don’t show up on schools’ books:  1.9 billion for special education services provided at non-DOE “contract” schools;   $71 million for non-public schools, such as yeshivas and parochial schools;   $737 million for charter schools. Those expenses all seem to me like they should really be excluded from system-wide per-student spending calculations. (Unless I’m misinterpreting who is included in the IBO’s “Total Enrollment” number.) To the extent that the DOE is paying expenses related to persons who are not enrolled in DOE schools, those expenses don’t belong in calculations of per-student spending. This seems to suggest that it would be appropriate to knock about 12% off of the IBO number, more if there are other categories like these. (This criticism is completely separate from the question of whether these expenses represent a good use of public / DOE funds. It is just a mater of getting an accurate accounting of how much the DOE actually spends on average per enrolled student. Maybe I’ll write the IBO.)Other expenses that don’t show up on schools’ books:  Pension costs   Costs of other employee benefits (e.g. medical insurance)  Capital costs: building, renovations, etc. (~$2 billion)  Capital debt costsFrom an accounting perspective, I don’t really understand why teachers’ salaries show up on schools’ books, but benefit costs don’t. It’s all compensation. It’s all part of the cost of employing your staff.Capital expenses it makes sense to me to include in per-student spending figures, but to exclude from schools’ budgets. Does anybody understand the process well enough to comment on what other expenses do and don’t appear in schools’ budgets?