Bruce Kimmel is a former member of the Norwalk Board of Education and Common Council. He's also a fourth-grade teacher in the New York City Public Schools.
There’s been a bunch of articles recently about the Norwalk Board of Education’s 2010-11 operating budget. Superintendent Marks, to her credit, has included all the major stakeholders in the budget-crafting process and has consulted with the city’s Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, regarding how much the city can afford to allocate for education in the coming fiscal year. According to the superintendent and BOE members, the budget that is being developed is lean and will probably necessitate cuts in operations and positions.
It’s important to note that reductions in positions do not generally lead to actual layoffs in a district the size of Norwalk. Retirements and normal attrition among teachers and administrators are invariably greater than the number of positions that are recommended for elimination. I was surprised a few years ago, after the BOE’s recommended spending increase was severely slashed by the Common Council and Board of Estimate, and after former Superintendent Corda predicted dire consequences for the system, that the board hired a host of new people the following September to fill vacancies.
Superintendents (as well as the press) sometimes blur the distinction between losing positions and losing people, because nobody wants anyone to lose their job. I served on the BOE from August 2005 until February 2009, and on a number of occasions I made this point for the public or for the press – causing Superintendent Corda to agree the likelihood of actual layoffs was small, at best. Not that I was keen on cutting positions; I just didn’t like the scare tactics being employed to hoodwink the public into supporting the BOE’s budget request.
Even though we are relatively early in this year’s budget cycle, I have already heard rumblings about layoffs. I, too, do not want anyone to be laid off, except, of course, for incompetence or a refusal to buckle down and work effectively. Based on the present budget discussion and the economy, it seems fairly certain that some positions – not people – will indeed be cut.
What generally happens is that personnel whose positions are eliminated move into vacancies caused by retirements and attrition. Administrators are occasionally bumped into much lower paying jobs. But I believe our administrative contracts have provisions that protect them from sudden steep decreases in salary that are budget-related.
Nobody likes to consolidate or eliminate positions. But let’s look at it from another perspective: Is there hard statistical evidence – not the kind that’s based on a mishmash of anecdotal data about something that might have worked here or there – that administrators or out-of-classroom personnel, such as numeracy or literacy “coaches,” truly influence academic achievement?
As this year’s budget discussion progresses, let’s keep two things in mind: Probably no administrator or teacher will be laid off next year because of cuts; and, if positions are eliminated, every effort should be made to ensure that student achievement, objectively measured, is not adversely affected.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
While you are absolutately correct, that is part of the problem. We are stuck with employees rather than seeking out the best.
ReplyDeleteThanks 5:25, you are spot on....
ReplyDeleteBruce, perhaps administrators or teachers may not lose their position - but what about the 1st grade aide positions or the Intervention aides? This budget has real cuts. Cuts in the classroom, central office and programs - AND what if the City doesn't give the recommended 3.32% increase? More cuts. Bruce, I always enjoy your perspective, but as a parent these seem like real cuts to me.
Thank you for the response.
ReplyDeleteThe cuts are real, but the consequences in relation to student achievement and overall personnel levels are often not as drastic as initially predicted.
Here's another perspective: The first grade classes in my school are all pushing or at the cap of 28 students -- that's right, 28 students. The first grade teachers would naturally love to have classroom aides or paraprofessionals. But they don't and have still managed to create and sustain vibrant learning communities -- even though all of the children are bilingual and receive free or reduced lunches.
The performance level of students in this school has actually been a little higher after a variety of positions were cut over the last few years. High enough for this school, which was built in 1904 and is located in the northern part of Manhattan, to be taken off the Needs Improvement list.
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteSome of our first grade aides may indeed lose their jobs and not be placed elsewhere. We will be paying for unemployment for them.
Also, New York is not Norwalk. I am not in agreement that, from your perspective, performance levels could increase in Norwalk when positions are cut. You should know that a longitudinal study needs to be completed before you can suggest with any accuracy that your statement has anything at all to do with performance levels.
Interesting points. I certainly did not mean to suggest a causal relationship between those cuts and performance -- it just happened. The important point is that nobody is sure what drives student performance in the classroom, other than excellent teachers and class size (the latter's relationship to performance is also a subject for debate)
ReplyDeleteExcellent points Bruce.
ReplyDelete