Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2nd Annual Survey of New York State School Superintendents on Financial Matters
November 2012
Budgeting challenges call for new directions in state policy to help schools raise student achievement
1
The survey:
Between August 16 and September 3, 2012, the NYS Council of School Superintendents conducted an online survey of superintendents on budgeting concerns for their districts.
A total of 249 superintendents submitted complete responses, a response rate of 40.4%. Incomplete submissions from 47 superintendents were also included in the results.
Superintendents serving the Big 5 Cities (New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, and Syracuse) and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services were not included in the survey because their systems budgets are not subject to voter approval and consequently do not report some of the financial data available for small city, rural and suburban districts. The Council conducted a similar survey in 2011.
The report:
Introduction Overall Fiscal Condition
Budgeting Choices
Impact of 2012-13 Budgeting Decisions Adapting to the Tax Cap
Introduction
3.6-4.6% raises, whether or not they receive any actual raises. Statewide cost of TRS increase likely to approach or exceed benefit of a 3-3.5% state aid increase.
3. Districts have relied on reserves to avoid more damaging program reductions or tax increases:
SED estimates unrestricted fund balances have shrunk from $2.76 billion in 2009-10, to $1.21
billion this year. Without appropriated fund balance, districts would have needed to raise taxes by 7% more than they did this year (9.2%, instead of 2.2%); poorest 10% of districts would have needed 21% more in local taxes.
4. Other than Tier VI, no significant mandate relief has been enacted so far. Relief through Tier VI
will happen only over the long-term. Meanwhile, new mandates have been added.
5. 92% of total school revenues (local taxes & state aid) are now subject to limits. Federal aid (most
Even prior to tax cap, schools were holding down tax increases
Districts have responded to voters have been holding down spending and taxes
% Change in proposed tax levy % Change in proposed school spending
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 10%
9%
Percent change over prior year
8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2%
8.2%
4.8%
5.3%
4.3% 3.7% 3.2% 3.4% 2.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.7%
2.3%
2.1%
1%
0%
SOURCE: Council analysis of NYSED Property Tax Report Card data ; Big 5 Cities not included
Districts have been using reserves to spare students and taxpayers from more dramatic changes but reserves run out
Districts grouped by property wealth per pupil
Change in Unrestricted Fund Balance from 2011-12 to 2012-13 Additional tax increase which would be necessary without use of fund balance (i.e., Appropriated Fund Balance as % of Tax Levy)
-40%
1 (Proorest 10%) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NYS
-30%
-31%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
21%
30%
-23% -9% -18% -22% -10% -9% -12% -7% -14% -4% 3% 3% 7% 5% 6% 11% 10% 11% 8%
17%
Educational
19% foresee educational insolvency within 2 years 51% within 4 years 84% at some point
Do you foresee a point at which your district would be unable to fund all the instructional and other student service requirements established by laws or regulations approved by the state and federal governments?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Yes, we are currently unable Yes, within 1 year Yes, between 1 and 2 years Yes, between 2 and 4 years Yes, beyond 4 years No, I do not foresee that time Unsure
Insolvency by region
Financial
% of districts foreseeing financial insolvency within 2 years
0% Total Long Island Lower Hudson Valley Mid-Hudson Valley Capital Region Mohawk Valley Central New York North Country Southern Tier
Finger Lakes Western New York
Educational
5% 10% 9% 0% 6% 0% 15% 7% 6% 25% 8% 6% 12% 15% 20% 25% 30%
10%
30%
40%
50%
60%
50%
8% 15% 21%
10
43% of small city superintendents now describe their districts financial condition as poor or very poor
How would you describe the current financial condition of your school district, in terms of its ability to fund services meeting the expectations of parents in your community?
% Responding Poor or Very Poor
2011 2012
0% City
10%
20%
30%
24%
40%
50%
43%
12%
Suburb
10%
20%
Rural
18%
17%
Total
17%
11
49%
Somewhat concerned
34%
Not concerned, our use of reserves is limited Our district is not drawing upon reserves to pay for recurring operating expenses
11%
6%
12
Region Total Long Island Lower Hudson Valley Mid-Hudson Valley Capital Region Mohawk Valley Central New York North Country Southern Tier Finger Lakes Western New York
13
14
Implication: If 3/4ths of school spending goes for instruction or personnel, then about 3/4ths of cuts will come from those areas especially since this is the third year of austerity and districts have already made easier cuts.
15
45%
59%
34%
79%
36%
50%
22%
69%
35%
45%
20%
66%
35%
31%
15%
54%
16
Key point: Many budget actions are cumulative in impact Example: Position reductions
Percent reduction in positions by category, 2011-12 and 2012-13
2011-12 0% Teachers Other Student Support Administrators 2% 4% 2012-13 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
4.3%
3.6% 8.0%
7.5%
5.9%
5.2%
Other Total
3.6% 4.9%
2.7% 3.9%
17
Last year
Total position reductions, by category and district type, 2011-12 City Rural Suburb Teachers 6.1% 5.8% 3.4% Other Student Support 8.7% 10.8% 6.6% Administrators 9.3% 9.8% 6.0% Other 4.3% 4.9% 3.0% Total 6.4% 6.7% 3.9% Total 4.3% 8.0% 7.5% 3.6% 4.9%
18
19
Survey also asked about actions affecting other direct student services, operations and maintenance, and other activities
Some highlights:
34% of districts cut sports and other extracurricular activities this year;
a time when the state is moving ahead with new standards, assessments, and evaluation requirements
29% of districts with at least 5,000 students report closing a school in the
20
Impact of 2011-12 and 2012-13 district budgets on instruction Impact of 2011-12 and 2012-13 budgets on instruction
Severe negative impact Some negative impact
0%
Positive impact
80% 100%
2012 Core instruction in elementary grades 2012 Middle level instruction in English, math, science, and soc. studies 2012 High school instruction in English, math, science, and soc. studies
2011 Extra help for students who need it 2012 Extra help for students who need it
21
22
23
Tax Cap:
Impact on spending levels & programs
0% Total
20%
50%
40%
60%
17%
80%
0%
10%
20%
50%
30%
40%
50%
10%
60%
70%
Total
City
15%
36%
City
Suburb Rural
47%
13%
14%
57%
Suburb Rural
49%
6%
45%
19%
52%
11%
24
Tax Cap: Higher need districts more cautious with tax increases
2012-13 Tax levy decisions by SED Need/Resource Category Proposed Tax % Attempting Proposed Levy as % of Tax Cap Need/Resource Capacity Category Tax Increase Levy Limit Over-Rides High Need Small Cities and Suburbs High Need Rural Average Need Low Need TOTAL STATE 2.2% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4% 2.2% 99.4% 97.9% 99.4% 99.7% 99.4% 6.5% 5.8% 8.6% 7.5% 7.6%
SOURCE: Council analysis of NYSED Property Tax Report Card and budget vote data
1) They raise fewer dollars with same % tax increase as wealthier districts (over 20% of districts raise less than $50,000 with a 1% tax increase). 2) Anecdotally, rural superintendents seem more likely to say residents see 2% as a benchmark to be followed.
25
5%
40%
31%
26
27
98% of superintendents say new evaluation requirements will require additional spending
To what extent did complying with the new APPR requirements require your district to increase what it expects to spend on teacher and principal evaluationbeyond what it would have traditionally spent?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
70%
Staff training and new student assessments are seen as the primary costdrivers
28%
No signicant effect
2%
Reduce spending
0%
28
8%
41% of superintendents believe new teacher evaluation requirements will demand more than 40% of a principals time.
Proportion might be appropriate but districts have been cutting administrators and the state has been adding responsibilities (e.g., preventing/ stopping bullying).
19%
32%
41%
29
Looking ahead
(pages 22-24)
30
Which is of more concern the tax cap or possible state aid levels
There has been about a 20 point shift toward state aid since last years survey
Tax Cap Equal Concern
0% Total 2011 Total 2012 20% 25% 13% 43%
State Aid
40% 52% 44% 60% 80% 23% 100%
54%
39%
7%
37%
53%
11%
60% 39%
18%
16% 37%
54% 58%
31%
31
Priorities for state help on mandate relief/ cost containment/ productivity (top 12 of 25 listed options)
Looking at the list below, what would be your top five priorities for actions the state could take to help your district reduce or control costs, or gain more impact from its spending?
Rank Weighted % Citing as Options 1 2 3 4 5 Score a Prioriity 1 Amend the Triborough law to eliminate automatic salary 107 30 20 9 14 747 73% increments if a collective bargaining agreement has expired 2 Establish mandatory minimum employee and retiree contributions 48 69 20 13 7 609 64% for health insurance 3 No new unfunded mandates 30 22 22 19 43 385 55% 4 Reduce the role of seniority in layoff decisions (i.e., modify "last in, 9 27 19 17 12 256 34% first out") 5 Require all public employees in a region to belong to a single 11 22 20 3 3 212 24% health insurance program 6 Authorize the State Education Department to order school district 9 5 15 10 9 139 20% mergers, without voter approval, based on considerations including local financial capacity and inability to maintain comprehensive educational services, following a review with local input 7 Revise middle school requirements 3 5 11 18 13 117 20% 8 Authorize regional high schools to serve students from multiple 6 8 10 8 5 113 15% school districts 9 Other change in health insurance 2 6 14 8 8 100 15% 10 Revise special education class size requirements 4 3 12 10 11 99 16% 11 Streamline procedures for tenured teacher hearings ("3020a 1 6 12 12 8 97 16% reform") 12 Reduce reliance on "seat time" requirements in high school by 0 7 6 13 21 93 19% allowing students to earn credit by demonstrating proficiency in a subject instead
32
Extra help for students #1 both years. Reducing property tax levy declined, increasing advanced classes rose.
33
NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS 7 Elk Street, 3rd Floor Albany, NY 12207 (518)449-1063
34