School committee member Steve Stycos has sent an update on the cuts that the school committee has made in order to get their budget ready to send to the Mayor and City Council. A number of administrative positions have been eliminated in the process of moving the 6th graders back into the elementary schools. In addition, the other big personnel cut was described in last week’s Projo — the elimination of 17 supervisors. The other major cuts are described by Steve Stycos below:
For the first time in my eight years on the school committee, the seven member panel made realistic cuts when it passed the school budget last week. In the past, the committee cut popular programs for political reasons, hoping to incite parents to pressure the mayor and city council for more money. This year, the committee trimmed eight million dollars from the superintendent’s proposal to bring it into line with a new state law that limits school budget increases to 5 percent a year.
The budget now heads to the mayor, who must propose a school budget total to the city council by April 1. The city council will then hold hearings and adopt a school budget by May 15. The mayor and council can alter the total budget, but cannot alter individual line items. If the mayor and council cut the school committee’s proposal, the committee must cut its budget to the new amount by June 30.
Parents concerned about the school budget should contact Mayor Napolitano and the city council to urge them to fully fund the school budget. After running as a supporter of education, Napolitano last year proposed no new funds for the schools. The council did only slightly better adding about a million dollars, or less than a one percent budget increase.
At the same time the legislature will adopt a budget containing state aid for education. Governor Donald Carcieri has proposed to cut Cranston’s funds by about $100,000 for next year. State Representative Art Handy (D-Cranston), however, proposes to increase the capital gains tax and the income tax on the wealthy to fund a three percent increase in state aid for all communities. Last year the legislature gave us no increase. Concerned parents should also contact their legislators urging them to property fund public education.
The school committee cuts were:
$2.4 million eliminating all projected across the board increases for employees: Although all the union contracts expire this summer, state law requires teachers and other school employees to receive step increases, unless the union and school committee mutually agree to changes.
$385,000 in asset protection funds: This money was to pave school parking lots, buy new lunchroom tables and make other small building changes.
$924,000 removing all proposed new staff for the schools in a variety of positions.
$119,00 eliminating one of five special education directors (wages and benefits)
$105,000 eliminating the personnel director, the number two person in the personnel office (wages and benefits)
$1.1 million saved by moving the sixth grade to the elementary schools by cutting three middle school assistant principals and seven or eight teachers
$480,000 reduction in the health care cost estimate. I proposed these cuts because the administration’s budget over estimated retiree health care costs.
$1.1 million defunding 17 program supervisors. Program supervisors for major areas (art, music, guidance, social work, foreign language) teach only one course a day instead of the usual five. Defunding mean less program oversight, but will not increase class size.
$200,000 cutting the Cranston Public School subsidy to the adult education program
$138,000 by requiring all non-union staff (administrators, principals) to pay 20 percent of the cost of their health insurance
$450,000 by returning special education students, who are paying tuition at other schools, to Cranston special education programs
$170,000 by removing the “return to leave account,� a traditional administration budget padding
$108,000 by anticipating the city will pay our sewer fees in exchange for school custodians picking up trash at school playgrounds. I proposed this step last year to cut school costs and allow city recreation workers to spend their work time on things other than driving around collecting the playground trash. The idea was implemented and should continue next year.
$50,000 elimination of the Professional Development Coordinator, a half time teacher who arranged for professional development classes
$100,000 cut in elementary music textbooks
And some other small miscellaneous cuts.
Resolutions were also passed directing the administration to develop plans to cut bussing costs, consolidate the Sprague Avenue special services into another building and establish a high school student parking fee. No changes will be made, however, without school committee approval.
Other than those ideas, I am not sure where we can go next to look for cuts that do not hit our children in the classroom. Fortunately, EPIC and middle school sports were not cut, but if we have to cut more, they and other programs will be back on the table. Another key point in balancing the budget will be firmly establishing a projected increase for health insurance. The initial projection is an 11 percent increase for Blue Cross and 7 percent for Delta Dental. Lower projections could save us large amounts of money.
Some people have asked why we did not increase the teachers share of health care costs. We cannot do it unilaterally, like we did with the administrators. A change would have to come from collective bargaining.
In the department of “How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving,” it continues to sadden me that our Democratic party Mayor who promised to support education has not given a single dollar more to the schools and has nothing to say about these devastating cuts and how they will impact education in Cranston. Maybe the 17 supervisors being cut are not adding much value to our educational programs, but I tend to think that they are probably doing a lot more than people realize.
Also, when those students who are being shipped out for special education services at a cost of $450,000 are returned to the district, who is going to teach them? Won’t new staff need to be added for this, or will these extremely needy students just be piled into already maxed-out special education classes?
In any case, it’s important to be thankful for what we have, and to appreciate the difficulty of the decisions that our school committee members have had to make. Let’s hope better leadership on the national, state, and local level, will help rebuild education in the future. To that end, don’t forget to vote tomorrow!
Kmareka.com 
Kiersten,
I have two comments on this post, aside from the obvious “this is a bad dream coming true.”
First, relative to the special needs students, without more information, it strikes me that these kids were placed in out-of-district programs that were better able to meet their needs pursuant to IDEA. If these kids come back into a system that initially thought it better for the kids to be placed elsewhere, along with the cuts projected, these kids might have an action pursuant to IDEA and state law.
Second, is more a question. Relative to the teachers’ share of the health care costs, was there any attempt/request by the school committee that the teachers agree to reopen negotiations on the contract to address this issue? And if so, what was the response from the teachers’ bargaining agent?
Hi Geoff, These are good questions. It’s interesting to get your legal perspective on the issue of bringing students back from out-of-district placements. I tend to experience the whole thing so much more as a witness to what the parents and kids go through, and to imagine that these changes will wreak havoc on the child and family, both educationally and emotionally. But I also think we should keep kids in the Cranston schools as much as possible, and some of the costs of these placements are astronomical.
I hope that Steve Stycos or another school committee member will contribute a comment about whether the school committee has asked the teachers to reopen negotiations with regard to health care.
Tonight at 7PM at Cranston East High School, we will have our monthly CEAB meeting.
We will be discussing this issue tonight. This meeting is open for anyone interested.
More details here, http://www.freewebs.com/ceab/
Hi Kiersten,
I’ve been involved in a couple of these issues in MA and you’re right – it is an emotional issue on all concerned. Aside from that, there’s the issue of what constitutes a free and appropriate public education. That’s a moving target, based on the student’s assessed needs (via IEP) and the district’s need to provide for those needs. In the instance of the kids sent outside of district, their needs have presumably been established – the question therefore becomes whether the school department will now, with diminished resources, be able to provide for those needs. Given that it sent these kids to other (presumptively more appropriate programs), it may be tough for the school department to argue that it now (aside from budget considerations) provide for the student’s needs. In Rhode Island, courts in the past haven’t looked favorably on a district’s argument that it can’t provide services because it can’t afford to do so. Thus the possible problem.
These are tough legal and personal issues. The kids sent out of district are usually so profoundly affected that the local school district can’t provide for them. Obviously, this puts a strain on families trying to deal with an often horrific problem as best they can. While the financial burden imposed on them can be daunting, it’s nothing compared to the emotional burden that is borne each minute of each hour of each day.
So, as wrenching as it is to have their child sent to another district or to some residential facility so that they can receive the appropriate services to which the child is legally entitled, it’s almost incalculable as to how wrenching it is when uncertainty is introduced concerning the well-being of their kids. These families have enough problems, the city shouldn’t add to their burden because of “budget” problems.
And one more thought – I agree that it’s very disappointing that the Mayor hasn’t been more publicly pro-active on this issue. I’m well aware of the divide of responsibility between the school committee/school department and the mayor/city administration. However, that shouldn’t preclude the Mayor from making his position known and being a leader in trying to frame the discussion on this issue.
Geoff:
I happen to have some insight as to these out-of-district placements. An example that comes to mind is West Warwick, which recently brought its students with behavior disorders back under the high school’s supervision in what’s called the Alternative Day School program (it was profiled in the ProJo back in September).
The district spent something like $400,000 to retrofit the town’s civic center with new classrooms, offices, bathrooms, etc. — a cut of about $200,000 from the amount that it had previously spent sending the kids to Tides School of West Warwick, a privately-run program that had no requirement for teachers or administrators to be certified in special ed, no set salary scale, and no core curriculum. Put bluntly, Tides was somewhere West Warwick sent its bad kids for $30,000 a pop so the district wouldn’t have to deal with them.
With the new ADS program, the district only incurred the one-time construction expense, along with the hire of 2 new teachers. Teachers’ aides and social workers were reassigned from other locations.
(I’d also add that Tides started advertising for special ed-certified teachers following this transition. The timing is no coincidence, say I.)
Now, as to Cranston’s system, places like Valley Community School are likewise a waste of money, as they are not bound by the district’s standards. One exception would be Harmony Hill, a residential school that accepts students from all over Rhode Island and are more intensive in helping the kids transition back to acceptable behavior and some semblance of learning.
So as to Kiersten’s point, the $450,000 may be funding only 15 students (if anyone finds out this number before I do, please post it); I would think that existing programs could adjust to handle them.
—
Finally, as to the justifiable comments about Mayor Nap, I agree that this year, it’s time for him to show some empathy toward the schools, especially since the school board did the tough work of cutting its budget. But I would also warn the school committee that tough times are still ahead, and that they shouldn’t expect an easier go of it next fiscal year.
Here’s something I found in the superintendent’s presentation. Link is here:
On page 13, you see that Out of District had declined by 38% to 86 students.
Can someone confirm that this is correct?
If so, I am perfectly willing to change my stance as to the district’s ability to accommodate them.
Jesse,
As you describe it, I, too, would agree that Tides is probably not a proper venue for kids and that no school system should “dump” their “bad kids.” It is hard to see how these kids, who presumably have special needs, would have received a “free and appropriate public education” as required by law. So my comment is that if the WW School Department could save $ 200k and better provide for the needs of those kids, I say go for it!
My concern is for those kids who have profound disabilities that require specialized services that districts can neither provide nor afford. That, as they say is the “sticky wicket.” In Cranston’s case, where if the superintendent is to be believed 86 kids are sent out of district, that would be prima facie evidence that the city is unable (for whatever reason) to provide for those needs. I just think it’ll be a tough argument to make that in the midst of budget cuts, the city is able to devote the funds/personnel/material resources necessary to meet the needs of those kids.
But we’ll have to see how this plays out.
As for the Mayor, I agree that he ought to make some public expression relative to the conditions of the schools and suggest ways to improve those conditions. As for the school committee, I also agree that there’s going to be more tough choices in the near future.
I would partially agree with Jesse that some kids are placed out of district and yet their needs could probably be addressed within the system. I have observed classes at the Valley Day Program and while it was clear that the kids were severely behaviorally disordered, I did not see many of them getting any other kind of interaction or treatment than they would have gotten in a self-contained classroom within the school district. Also, in talking with some teachers in out-of-district schools, I have gotten the distinct sense that there is sometimes a perverse incentive to keep the kids there and not be in a hurry to send them back to the district, because once you establish a relationship and have some sense that you can deal with a kid, it is easier to keep them for the year. That’s not good, and it’s very, very costly.
The exceptions (IMHO) come with children whose behavioral issues are so severe and/or so dangerous (sexual acting out, violent acting out) that they pose a direct threat to the well-being of a regular school community. Some of these students require supervision and therapeutic intervention that is beyond what any regular school or special education classroom can provide.
Right now, many programs such as VDP are running on very low census because many school districts in RI are pulling their kids back and trying everything to meet their needs. This trendssupports the suggestion that out of district placements are unnecessary in some instances and can be partially dispensed with if school districts focus on addressing the problems in-house.
Geoff & Kiersten:
I agree with K’s premise that there may be extreme cases of students who simply can not function in a classroom; is we’re talking about profound psychological issues, they get referred to Butler (which has a year-round school program), or, if it’s a criminal situation, the Training School (also with year-round schooling).
So, there are programs for students in those populations. What we seem to be seeing now is, because of the budget situation, there’s closer scrutiny of some of the other out-of-district programs. Frankly, it’s about time.
And, apologies for the sharp political point, but rather than see the city as a never-ending money spigot, the school department could have — and should have — been conducting this kind of scrutiny. I seem to recall a 1997-98 budget of $88 million. This year’s preliminary proposal is $141 million — and we’re supposed to accept that in 11 years, there was no way to keep the school budget from growing by $53 million?!
Kiersten, regarding your commnet about “our Democratic party Mayor who promised to support education has not given a single dollar more to the schools and has nothing to say about these devastating cuts and how they will impact education in Cranston,” amen to that! I was at a school function last week and many parents know all too well who is repsonsible for the school funding issue. I recall the refrain “I won’t be voting for him his year” followed by “I didn’t vote for him last time!”