55°
NORWALK, Conn. – Norwalk can spend up to $311.4 million to run the city and educate its children in 2013-14 fiscal year after the Common Council added about $81,000 to the recommended allocation Tuesday night.
Next year’s approved spending cap still falls short of providing the full $164.9 million the Board of Education had requested, which represents more than 53 percent of the city’s spending plan. But the council’s move was an early indication that more money could be added, which could mean that the education request might be fully funded by the time the final spending plan and tax rate are voted on in May.
Several school parents urged the council Tuesday night to add more money to the spending plan. In his amendment to add the $81,000, Councilman Bruce Kimmel said he believed city and education officials would get there in the end.
“I’m confident that come April and May, we’ll be very close to fully funding the education request,” said Kimmel, adding that city and education officials were not far off.
The vote for the $81,000 increase was 9-5, with council members Warren Peña, David Watts, Nick Kydes, Anna Duleep and John Igneri opposing it. The four Democrats who opposed the measure indicated they wanted to add more to the spending cap, while Kydes, a Republican, said he wanted to shrink the cap to cut the city’s tax burden.
“The taxpayers of Norwalk, we are broke,” Kydes said. “Residents are already overburdened with taxes.”
As it stands, the spending cap would raise property taxes by nearly 4 percent for the average taxpayer who pays about $6,300 annually. That 4 percent would translate to an increase of about $255 next year.
Comments (8)
The real culprit in the BoE budget is the $36.5M cost in health insurance benefits that have been rising year on year. The number represents all BOE employees and represents 22% of the budget. That number will be higher as budgets get slashed and health care premiums go up. It is time for the state and municipalities in CT to look at 'pulling' the economies of scale for 169 individual school districts. Other states fund on a county basis. The so called "local control" is bankrupting towns. The private sector has been watching paychecks dwindle as healthcare premiums shift to the employee. Is that the answer for the public sector? I don't know but given the generous collective bargainiung terms, job security and work rules that do not compare to the private sector, something has got to be worked out.
Out of a $164M budget- roughly $100m is for payroll and only $63M is for CLASSROOM teachers. Principals, APs and Housemasters represent $5.4M. There is another $35M of other staff involved in education, but as to how directly tied they are to the classroom, or how effective the positions are in terms of impacting student achievement is the subject of debate, when we look at our wallets or student test scores or more importantly, how we rank as a nation against the rest of the worId.
However, you slice the budget, this isn't going to be an overnight or easy fix.
Well, thank God for Obamacare. Bwhahahahahahahahahahahah....
Every year it's the same show. The teachers union lines up a dozen or so parents to beg the Big Bad Council not to cripple little Billy's future with horrendous "cuts". Every year the recommended school budget -- the one that's so horrendous -- is actually more richly endowed than the previous year. Unlike most taxpayers' paychecks -- those lucky enough to have a paycheck.
Every year, the same BS. And nobody seems to know -- or pretends not to know -- that 40 years of solid evidence proves that more money does not equate to better education. Indeed, we spend three or four times more per pupil now (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than we did in 1970, and our children are even less well educated.
I wouldn't be so quick to demonize the teacher's unions, although some people love to point the blame in their direction. That speaks more about the poster's hate for unions rather than focusing on the real problems facing our BoE.
We simply have too many administrators who soak up a giant portion of the funds available, leaving the kids short of valuable resources. There isn't any kind of accountibility, and the money gets sent to the BoE and disappears into a black hole where the public never knows how or where their tax money is spent. Considering over half our property taxes go to Education, this shouldn't be acceptable to anyone.
As far as our kids getting less of an education than they did in 1970 I would simply say we didn't have the federal or state mandates back then that we do now. Our teachers are forced to teach the kids how to pass standardized tests rather than equip them with the tools they need to become productive citizens. Many of our outstanding teachers try to instill values and higher skills in their students despite this.They should be commended for this, not demonized.
I'm not a teacher, nor am I related to one currently working in the Norwalk school system. Blaming the unions for the problems we have in our BoE is not only the easy way out, but a disingenuous distraction from focusing on the real problems of our schools. I am a taxpayer, and don't have any kids in the school system. To see over half of my taxes vanish without a trace of transparency or accountibility is simply unacceptable. We should strive to replace several unneccesary administrators with one financial oversight person who can see our money is spent where it belongs...in educating our future citizens, not on some bureaucrat.
Barnstorm, you're right, "We simply have too many administrators who soak up a giant portion of the funds available, leaving the kids short of valuable resources." Spot on. Bingo. etc. etc. But why do you think that is?
It's because there's not only a public school teachers union, there's also a public school administrators union. And both hold monopolistic power. Their political contributions effectively co-opt the politicians (Democrats, mostly) who are theoretically negotiating on our behalf but are really doing the unions' bidding. Our interests -- yours and mine -- and our children's interests get kicked to the curb.
Barnstorm, I appreciate your frustration. We're in the same boat.
Unfortunately, the BOE is governed by a State mandate that does not allow the City to have any input over where the funds are spent. The City just writes a check for X number of dollars (and never less than the previous year, also by State mandate) and the BOE receives the money. The Superintendent of Schools does a line item budget, which is presented at a public meeting. And lately there had been more cooperation between the BOE and the City.
I'm cautious when it comes to the claim that the more District administrators should be cut. If I'm not mistaken, the District is Norwalk's largest employer and it has our most precious resource, the children. Parents want and expect their children to receive services, especially for those with special needs. Someone has to supervise that. Someone has to process the payroll. Someone has to manage the budget and process request forms. Someone has to fill out the endless, complicated forms for the State, unless of course, we're willing to have an unaccredited school system. And it can't all be the same person.
The chant for the last few years has been to "Do more with less." And that's an laudable goal. But there comes a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. If the benefits coordinator is cut, the students in the classroom don't feel it, but the staff sure does when someone goes out on major medical and the insurance checks aren't cut. Sure, Norwalk can operate without a Chief Financial Officer, we've done so in the past. But all that does just shifts the load onto the Chief Operating Officer, who is scrambling to cover as much as he can already. Assistant Principals are disposable, until it comes time for a student's disciplinary meeting and everyone is asking, "Why wasn't this dealt with before? Why didn't someone say something?" Someone did, but the principal, whose been busy running the school, attending mandatory meetings, trying to find supplies and worrying about CMT scores, didn't have time to read the report.
Guidance counselors? Oh, those got cut. Library aides, gone. Secretaries? Let the staff fill out their own paperwork. Great. And who is going to send it to the proper agency/authority and file it? Whose going to analyze all the data that SRBI requires the staff to collect?
Yes computers lighten the load, but they also generate more work in terms of providing more information for more people. There's only so much that a human being can do in a 24 hour period.
The saddest part for me was when I heard that someone at the Finance Committee comment that she found comfort in the thought that "At least we're not Bridgeport." No. Norwalk is not Bridgeport. Norwalk is a long way from Bridgeport in terms of education. And we should be grateful for that.
Nice defense of the status quo, Paige. You say, "the District is Norwalk's largest employer and it has our most precious resource, the children." (By "the District" I presume you're talking about the Central Office of administrators.) That statement implies that our children are a resource who belong to the administrators, sort of like the Xerox and coffee machines belong to the administrators. I agree that our children are precious, but they are not the property of the Central Office, although they are, in my opinion, used by the Central Office.
Ugh. 4 percent increase...on top of huge increases over the last decade....will further reduce property values and scare away job creating businesses and the tax revenue they would have generated. The downward spiral continues.
If the schools were thriving as a result of the flood of money over the last 25 years, it would be fine....but they are not.
Gee, what's next? A toll booth?