ELC Budget Questions and Answers

The State’s funding policy is not based on "restriction" but on student needs that are documented to prevent their improved academic achievement. Since the deep needs assessments called for in Phase II will not be completed when school budgets are submitted in December, there will be limited grounds for increased programs and positions. The Commissioner will issue regulations to define the process schools and districts should follow and the standards they should employ in seeking increased funding for FY04.

As a part of these modifications, the DOE will return to the Supreme Court seeking approval of changes in certain Abbott V mandates.

ELC: This policy appears to restrict funding to programs directly related to instruction, contrary to the Abbott rulings. Abbott identifies a host of student needs that must be addressed. While most needs are directly related to instruction (eg, standards-based reform, intensive early literacy, instructionally-based after school programs), others are necessary to support student learning by "wiping out disadvantages" (eg., social/health services, security, parent involvement, etc.).

The Guidelines try to anticipate three circumstances under which increases will be approvable in FY04:

Districts are to provide SMITs with school-based budgets based on 2002-03 expenditures, inflated by the "projected" cost-of-living increases necessary to maintain current programs.
Districts are to establish "procedures for restoration of positions, programs and services (i.e., social workers, parent liaisons, tutors, art and music teachers, WSR contract reductions, etc.) reduced in the 2002-03 budget" in order to allow SMITs to include such requests in their budgets. SMITs will have to document the connection with the instructional needs of students and the urgent character of the service or position. The regulations to be promulgated shortly will provide specific criteria.
Districts are to establish procedures for revising and increasing school budgets after school and district 2003-04 budgets have been formally approved by DOE, and after the comprehensive needs assessments required by the Guidelines is completed. Based on unforeseen or emergent circumstances, districts may request increases in supplemental funding even after the district budget has been approved.

The guiding principle for increases to current budgets is the well documented relationship of the program or position requested to the specific instructional needs of students in the school requesting the increase. Anything that meets this test (and is rejected) or that would compromise the core of Abbott’s instructional remedies could be appealed.

ELC: The June 11, 2002 Supreme Court order protected all direct instructional expenditures from reduction or elimination in 2002-03, including classroom teachers, facilitators, and the WSR contract. Restoration of cuts in these "core" areas is mandatory, since Abbott V (1998) and the June 2002 order have already established the relationship to "specific instructional needs." As the Assistant Commissioner’s answer to Question 2(B) indicates, schools and districts should also budget for restoration of all other student support positions and programs that were cut or eliminated in 2002-03, including social and health services, parent liaisons and programs, after school and summer programs, school security, art and music, etc. Further, districts should be prepared to appeal the denial of supplemental funding necessary to resume such programs and positions.

As stated in our response to Question 1, ELC does not support any attempt to narrow the Abbott mandates to an unspecified set of "core instructional remedies."

The Administration will submit its budget in early February and at that time the Governor’s recommendation for any cost of living increase [Abbott funding] will be known for certain at that time. For purposes of budget preparation, the DOE is recommending that districts anticipate a 2.1% cost of living increase (which tracks the CEIFA formula). It should be noted, however, that Abbott districts will still have the ability to seek additional funding if they have critical, demonstrated needs directly related to instruction or if without additional funding the core instructional program will be negatively affected.

ELC: See ELC’s response to Questions 1 & 3 above. A cost-of living increase limited to the CEIFA formula would violate the Abbott IV (1997) ruling declaring CEIFA unconstitutional as to Abbott districts. As stated in the answer to Question #2, districts should budget for a cost of living increase based on the "projected" amount "necessary to maintain current programs" – even if that amount is above 2.1% -- and include restoration of all needed programs and positions reduced or eliminated in 2002-03 as a result of the one-year K-12 budget cap. In addition, districts should ensure adequate resources in school and central office budgets to support the second half of kindergarten.

No. As the guidelines state, the SMIT takes the current budget plus "projected" cost of living increases and approves it, or modifies the budget through proposed reallocation or program and staffing restorations. The DOE will mediate any disputes between the SMIT and the central office over the proposed budge

No. The fundamental purpose of the Guidelines is to (a) have the needs of students and of the school drive planning and implementation of improvements in teaching and learning in 2003-04 and beyond; and (b) identify what specific technical assistance and professional development schools need, and the best external source of this help. Depending on past experience with the WSR model, SMITs can continue working with that model; replace it with another model; or seek help from other external sources – eg., universities, private consultants or agencies or businesses – that specialize in what the school needs.

Abbott V (1998) requires every school to budget adequate expenditures for professional development and technical assistance. If such expenditures were never budgeted before – as is the case for cohort 3A schools that were released under the June 11, 2002 Court order from implementing WSR this year – an adequate expenditure item should be included by the SMIT in the school budget. DOE will develop a recommended budget amount that can be used by each SMIT for these purposes, based on the average WSR developer budget and other considerations.

ELC: We agree, but the answer does not recognize that some schools had their developer contracts reduced for 2002-03, contrary to the June 2002 order. Schools in these circumstances must have their original contracted amount restored, unless, of course, the district or school can demonstrate that such amount is not needed.

Each school will go through the needs assessment process required by NCLB. In addition, DOE will distribute a needs assessment instrument that is broader and deeper than NCLB’s to districts and SMITs, and then provide training and technical assistance in its use. This is a new process, and it will require a great deal of collaborative work by central offices, SMITs, and the DOE to ensure that SMITs have the data and technical help necessary to make informed decisions about improvements in teaching and learning.

ELC: Since one objective of Phase II is to merge school and district responses to Abbott and NCLB, it is our understanding that NCLB planning requirements will also be met through the "broader and deeper" Abbott needs assessment.

No. The Guidelines seek to streamline SMIT operations so that the SMITs can focus on improving teaching and learning; on conducting the required needs assessment; and on reviewing and approving the budget, and not on the mechanics of budget preparation. The Guidelines make it clear that the SMITs will:

The makeup of the SMIT remains unchanged, with parents, non-instructional staff, community representatives and teachers having equally critical roles in membership, operations, and decision-making.

10. Is the central office also required to assess operations, and plan and budget improvements?

Yes. The Guidelines require a separate assessment by the central office of its own "capacity to support and assist the work of the schools." The Guidelines further require the central office to develop its own three year operational plan to improve (a) technical assistance to schools; (b) collaboration with SMITs; (c) the provision of high quality teachers and principals; (d) implementation of all Abbott remedies; (e) professional development; and (f) direct intervention in failing schools as defined by NCLB.