The point of11 that question is that -- and I'm reading12 from the notebook here. The figures13 provided by the District for each school14 shows student attendance in the Saturday15 programming range from a high of 6416 percent at Dunbar Elementary, which is17 the smallest with 170 students, to a low18 of 48 percent at University City High.19 For several of the schools, District data20 showed tremendous variation from month to21 month. At Clemente Middle School, 7122 percent of students attended the first23 Saturday session. By May, however, that24 figured had dropped to 41 percent. And25 70 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 then there's a teacher who says, The kids2 who have been coming are the ones who are3 your better students, but it's kids who4 aren't there who need the extra help.5 I asked the same question about6 Saturday attendance that Councilman7 Kenney and I were getting into with8 respect to summer school. Is Saturday9 attendance, given these statistics, more10 important than smaller class sizes?11
Certainly. I12 mean, I don't know what I can say or we13 can say. Class sizes is a priority.14 It's number two, I believe. So if we had15 to make choices, that's going to be our16 priority, one of our priorities.17 I don't want to get into, you18 know, this, because we've tried to19 prioritize them. So obviously class20 sizes is important.21
But the22 question is, is it more important to you23 than SLAM and Saturday attendance? And24 if not, shouldn't it be?25 71 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
Yes, but4 you're funding in your proposed budget5 SLAM and Saturday attendance at promise6 academies, and I'm suggesting that you7 de-fund that to pay for smaller class8 sizes.9
Well, we can10 de-fund certainly the -- your suggestion11 is noted.12
Okay. This13 is the process we engage in and, frankly,14 what we spoke about at the last session.15 We benefited during the recession in cuts16 from having the input of lots of17 stakeholders and not people just sort18 of -- well, so the City's budget benefits19 from involvement by the Controller, by20 PICA, by City Council making changes, and21 it's really kind of in that collaborative22 spirit that we're talking to you about23 what are obviously hard choices that none24 of us want to make. It's just a question25 72 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 of what is going to be most efficacious2 and best for outcomes for kids.3 So that's all my questions for4 right now, Madam President.5
Thank6 you.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 Jones for a point of information.9
Point of10 information, and I'm learning as a11 freshman what a true point of information12 is. It is not a question, but a13 declarative statement, so I'm going to14 make one.15 Dr. Ackerman has to do the best16 job she can in making the points of what17 these alternative cuts/decisions actually18 mean in real terms of real students that19 go to real schools in our district.20 Granted -- and that's a hard job when21 you're facing us in an almost inquiring22 manner and every decision has a23 consequence to whether or not people vote24 for your budget. I get it. But you have25 73 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 to say what these things mean, what a2 Saturday school means towards moving the3 dial in the right direction towards4 performance and what summer school,5 summer SLAM meant quantitatively towards6 moving those dials in the right7 direction. Because once -- you know, as8 Councilwoman Tasco always reminds us, we9 can act in haste and repent in our10 leisure, because summer SLAM also means11 that a kid isn't on a corner doing a bad12 thing or isn't in a place where they13 should not be for the summer since we14 don't often have jobs for them. So we15 have to account for those things and16 opportunity costs as well.17 So I can't tell her how to do18 her job, and I understand I wouldn't want19 to be in that seat being questioned by20 folk, but we have to say what it means to21 those kids.22 Thank you, Madam President.23
Thank you.24 (Applause.)25 74 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
I too8 kind of want to reiterate some of what9 Councilman Green said. I think10 yesterday's and the discussions that11 we've had over the course of the last two12 weeks have been very productive in us13 understanding the tough decision14 processes that the School District has15 had to make.16 Notwithstanding that, I have to17 agree with Councilman Kenney that while18 we appreciate the priority order that has19 been established by the District, we're20 going to be asked to make and to do heavy21 lifting, and, therefore, we're going to22 have to make some of the adjustments in23 terms of priorities that are important24 for us if we're going to ask our voters25 75 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 and our constituents to support us in2 this decision.3 And one of the things that4 concerns me is that some of the things5 that are not on the chopping block are6 things that are part of 2014, but things7 that we did not have two or three years8 ago and we were still making some9 progress. So this is about a bad choice10 versus a worse choice.11 In all cases -- and I think in12 defense of the Superintendent, I think13 she can defend every single thing on this14 table very eloquently. So we don't want15 to argue the points and the merits of16 this, and I don't want to put her in that17 situation, because I think every single18 thing in this is defensible.19 That said, I want to go through20 a similar exercise with alternative21 education, which we have been talking22 about for quite some time.23 (Applause.)24
And just25 76 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 for the purposes of the record, because I2 think this is important that this be on3 the record, because it was a discussion4 that we had last year during the budget5 process and one where we continue to6 debate moving forward.7 In the year 2009 to 2010, how8 many slots in alternative education did9 we have in the District and how much did10 that cost us?11 (Witness approached witness12 table.)13
Good morning. I'm14 Benjamin Wright.15 The 2010 data cost us $19,00016 in accelerated schools -- $19 million in17 accelerated schools for a total of 2,30518 students.19
And then20 we increased those slots in 2010 to 201121 by how much?22
That was the23 increase. Maybe I didn't understand your24 question.25 77 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
I wanted2 to show the chronology over the last3 three years between 2009-2010 and what4 we're proposing in 2011-12.5
In 2009 and 20106 was the first time we introduced those7 increased slots. So they were the same8 number of students. The difference is,9 we no longer dealt with slots, we dealt10 with students, the total number of11 students. So we went from slots numbers12 to students numbers. And 2009 and 201013 is the exact same numbers that we had put14 forth.15
And in19 2011 to 2012 -- and I know we've made20 some readjustments -- how much money do21 we have in alternative education for 201122 to 2012?23
In this25 78 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 budget.2
Are you speaking3 of accelerated schools?4 COUNCILWOMAN SANCHEZ:5 Accelerated schools.6
Currently we had7 $8 million, roughly $8 million in the8 budget for accelerated schools.9
And how13 are you proposing to spend those $814 million?15
Our proposal had16 been different options for the students.17 And I think if you had a conversation --18 if you look at Option C that we submitted19 to you, three of those would be20 District-run schools and three of those21 would be contractor-provided schools.22
And so23 you're saying that in Option C -- let's24 talk about Option C in particular. You25 79 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 would be going from 13 sites to four2 sites -- to six sites?3
No, because the4 providers have more than three sites.5 We're talking about providers, not sites.6
Okay.7 So your proposal is to do three providers8 at 1,200 slots and for the District to do9 1,200 slots, right?10
Yes, students,11 1,200 students for the providers and12 1,200 students for the District.13
You14 currently have a capacity of 180 in this15 year, right, District-managed?16
So you19 propose that you're going to go from the20 capacity of 180 to the capacity of 1,20021 in three months?22
At a24 cost of?25 80 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
We have8 to average it out. That's how you9 contract with your providers, so -- my10 point that I'm trying to make is that11 we're going to go from $7,000 to $8,00012 per student to 2,200, which is what your13 proposal calls for, which is not14 possible.15
The cost per16 student in terms of the -- you have to17 remember that the District sites are18 supported by the Central Office. So it19 is possible. The provider sites are not20 supported by the Central Office. They do21 their own support stuff. So when you22 look at the cost per students, if you add23 it all together, it would be roughly24 $7,000 per student because of the support25 81 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 that they receive from the Central Office2 as well as the support they receive from3 our Academic Division. So it may seem4 that it is not possible, but it is.5 The providers, the cost would6 roughly be $5,200.7
What we11 have been discussing -- and you haven't12 been part of these discussions,13 Mr. Wright, and, again, I appreciate the14 work that you currently do on your15 Hunting Park site. What we've been16 talking about is whatever restoration --17 and this is a deal-breaker for many of18 us. Whatever restoration we do will be19 based on our willingness to continue to20 support our provider sites for the next21 year until the School District, just like22 we ask our providers, can demonstrate23 capacity to do the other work. And I24 just want to make it clear, because I25 82 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 keep hearing in today's testimony with2 Mr. Masch that the premise is that if we3 gave you $8.6 million, that would give us4 Option C, and that is still not5 acceptable.6
I think Mr. Masch7 was talking about a different option that8 you spoke of yesterday, but I can't speak9 for him, but $8 million would buy those10 providers at a different cost.11
So,14 Councilwoman, I guess I want to be clear,15 that what we talked about yesterday was16 my understanding, what was suggested or17 recommended by Councilmembers is that we18 keep the same number of providers, give19 them another year to meet performance20 targets and that they keep the same21 number of students, but we negotiate for22 a different cost per student.23
We24 agreed to that. The one part that I am25 83 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 not agreeing to is the fact that you want2 to still continue to expand your sites,3 your capacity, that quickly.4 (Applause.)5
But we're not6 going to. I thought that's what we7 agreed to yesterday. We were going to8 reduce the number of sites that the9 District was going to increase next year10 and go back to the original provider11 list, include them all, and to negotiate12 with them at a lower cost per student.13
Okay.17 So can you for the record so that we're18 all clear, particularly my students --19 I'm trying to respond to the hysteria20 that is out for the students who21 participate in these programs, many who22 have now started expressing concern23 whether they will continue the programs24 in the summer because of all the25 84 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 misinformation that's going out there.2 So let's use this as an opportunity to3 clarify for the record what we're talking4 about, because I want to make sure that5 what we're going to have -- assuming we6 do not give you any additional money,7 this 8.6, what is it that we're going to8 have in alternative education, in the9 accelerated schools?10
If we get no11 additional dollars, we would have -- we'd12 use the $8 million we were going to13 increase the number of school sites and14 we would renegotiate -- that's what we15 discussed yesterday. We would16 renegotiate with all of the providers for17 a different amount, not to exceed though18 the $16 million that we budgeted for.19
Okay.20 You lost me. If we only have $8 million,21 what are we getting?22
No. I25 85 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 get that. So I want to go -- assume we2 give you no money. What is the plan?3
We would have to4 go with -- if you want us to go with all5 of the providers, the only way we can do6 that is if they accept or agree to a7 lower per student rate.8
But what9 I'm hearing here -- and this is the part10 that I want to clarify. Assuming we give11 you no money, there is still an12 administrative plan to bring all of that13 in-house. That's where I'm having the14 problem. I want to talk about getting15 you increased money, but I want to16 understand what the current budget allows17 you to do. And my understanding is that18 the plan is, assuming we didn't give you19 additional money, that this is going to20 be brought in-house.21
It allows us to22 keep three. We wouldn't have any23 additional sites. We'd just have three24 providers.25 86 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
So if we2 only gave you what you have budgeted, you3 would have three providers at $8 million?4
Okay.6 Just for the record. Everybody clarified7 with that, so I don't keep getting my8 e-mails? For clarity.9
Yes. The10 problem -- I guess we want to be clear,11 though, that would require those three12 providers who we, again, identified13 because they met their performance14 targets, that would require for us to15 keep the number of students that they16 bring down the cost of their per-pupil17 expenditure.18
And we19 all agreed in our discussions that the20 three providers would not be sufficient,21 so then we talked about the additional22 money. So we have $8 million. The plan23 is -- I want to be clear on what Plan D24 is for me.25 87 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 Plan D for me is, we have $82 million. We have three providers. We're3 at the $8.6 million. So where do we end4 up?5
This is my6 understanding from yesterday. We go back7 to the original provider list. Again,8 we'll still have to negotiate with each9 one of them to bring down the cost to10 keep the same amount of students that we11 had this year.12
So we13 would go back to the 2010-2011 provider14 list and try to keep the capacity at15 2,460. So we're going to -- I want to be16 clear. So we would be taking the 2,46017 slots at 20 million and trying to get it18 to 16 million. That's what we would be19 doing?20
That's25 88 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 what I wanted for clarity purposes,2 because -- and I want to be clear. Let3 me say this, because in this, you got to4 be very clear.5 So I am very clear that we're6 moving in the direction that does not7 have the administration creating these8 regional sites in lieu of the provider9 system that we have?10
What we agreed11 to is that we would look -- for this12 year, that's what we would do. We would13 not expand. We'd go back to the original14 provider list, give them another year to15 prove themselves, give the District16 another year to prove itself with its one17 site before expanding.18
Okay.19 Thank you. Thank you so much. That20 clarifies. I just want to put that stuff21 on the record because I think it's22 important. I think, again, we've had23 very productive discussions internally,24 and I want to make sure that any movement25 89 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 that we make over the next week, we're2 very clear about alternative education3 and our provider system.4 So that said, I just want to5 end on this, because I think both6 Councilman Green and Councilman Kenney7 mentioned this. When we're making these8 decisions -- and, again, I don't want to9 second-guess you in your decisions. I10 know that you're doing this with the best11 possibility, but I want to go to the12 renaissance and promise academy. What13 was our promise and renaissance budget in14 2010-2011?15
Councilwoman, as we16 noted, our budget for promise academies17 for this current year, FY10-11, with six18 schools was a $7.8 million budget, and as19 we had testified previously, our budget20 now adjusted for -- previously when we21 published the budget, it was 23.8 million22 for promise academies. Adding Martin23 Luther King High School to the promise24 academies instead of the renaissance25 90 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 charters category leaves us with a2 promise academies budget of 26.9 million,3 and that is serving 14 schools.4
So if we11 kept just what we have this year, without12 the expansion of the promise academy13 side, how much money could we save?14
You mean if we15 don't have the new 11 promise academies?16
That is20 a huge ticket item and one that I am21 going to on the record strongly encourage22 the administration. Again, I have23 wonderful promise academies in my24 district, and as much as it pains me,25 91 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 because I understand what we're trying to2 do, I think committing to something new3 versus keeping what we have and trying to4 sustain what we have is one of those5 decisions where we're going to have to6 respectfully disagree with you. I think7 that when we're talking about 1008 million, 150 million, you have line items9 like this one of $20 million for10 something new that under normal11 circumstances all of us want to support,12 but we can't. We have to make those13 tough decisions. Herein again lies an14 item that would pay for the smaller15 classroom size, that would pay for the16 transportation piece, that would pay for17 the nurses, that would pay for some of18 the early childhood. Those are some of19 the things that, quite frankly, have to20 be revisited. That's for me -- the art21 and music, the $7.7 million in art and22 music, the $7.6 million in counselors23 could be paid for by just this line item24 and one that I'm going to ask you on the25 92 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 record to reconsider, as much as it pains2 me, because I've seen the progress of3 promise academies. Those are big ticket4 items.5
I thank you, I6 guess, again in defense of this. And I7 have to. I'm an educator. I'm not a8 politician. I'm here to educate these9 young people, and I want to see us have10 the best school system possible.11 When we cut programs like the12 promise academy where the schools have13 been failing young people, the very young14 people that we're attending to in the15 alternative schools came -- the lion's16 share came from the promise academies --17 then we will continue to see these young18 people in alternative schools, and I19 don't think that's where we want to go.20 I think we want to see the alternative21 schools work themselves out of business22 in this school system and in the City and23 that we provide young people with an24 opportunity to graduate.25 93 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 So when we are doing this,2 we're actually going to pay a price on3 the other side and you'll see the4 alternative programs continue to go up5 and -- that's really hard, to turn these6 young people in their lives around.7
I8 completely agree with you, except in this9 regard, I'm not asking you to cut. I'm10 asking you not to add. And so that's the11 difference between this line item. I'm12 not asking you to cut anything. I'm13 saying we can simply not afford another14 $20 million for something new at the15 expense of cutting services that we16 currently have. And it's not a right or17 a wrong. It's just the choices we have18 to make. And so this is not a cut. This19 is -- you're adding $20 million in a new20 line item. And unfortunately we make21 these decisions in Council every single22 day when we talk about prisons, do we23 monitor them, do we do the intervention24 or the other ones. So this is one of25 94 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 those line items that is very hard for me2 to again ask folks to pay more and do3 more for the School District on new line4 items versus existing line items.5
It's a new line6 item for sure, but it's a new line item7 intended to again --8
-- deal with11 some of the social issues that you're12 dealing with in your budget, dealing with13 some of the prisons issued. I mean,14 we're talking about 11 schools, and this15 is not given to the school system. This16 is given to 11 schools with young people17 who are in them. And so we're making a18 choice, but I can tell you that if we19 don't attend to these schools, you will20 see more of these young people and their21 families in social services. You will22 see more of them incarcerated. It is23 coming.24 (Applause.)25 95 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
I have2 more questions, but I'll let some of my3 colleagues who haven't had an4 opportunity.5 Thank you, Madam President.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Councilman Kenney, you would be next, but8 it was taken off because of your line of9 questioning.10
Thank you,14 Madam President.15 Good afternoon, School District16 officials. First I need to go on record17 along with my colleagues to say thank you18 for the offline discussions we've had and19 for the meeting I thought yesterday which20 was a real breakthrough for a number of21 us in helping us understand how you22 arrived at holding harmless the full-day23 kindergarten and the transportation24 issue.25 96 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 Now, where I differ a little2 with my colleagues is that I believe3 there is some -- not some, but a lot of4 merit in arguing the educational choices5 that you're making, and my interest has6 been and will remain on reduced class7 sizes and early childhood and what all8 the research tells us in those two areas.9 So let me make sure I10 understand fully what we're saying about11 reduced class size. Currently in the12 system all young people in grades K to 313 are in reduced class sizes, correct?14
All of the young15 people in K through 3 are in, and then16 it's 6, 8 and 9.17
And the22 empowerment schools. And what we're23 trying to do as a result of today's24 discussions and ultimate vote is to hold25 97 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 harmless reduced class size; is that2 correct?3
Now, put5 that on the shelf. Help me with grades 96 through 12. Is there research to support7 the notion -- and this is for my own8 understanding, because I was never at9 that level as an educator -- but reduced10 class size from 9 through 12 also yields11 stronger academic performance when you12 have reduced class size for high school13 students as well?14
The research is15 stronger at the early grades. That's16 where the body of the research is about17 class sizes, at grades kindergarten18 through 3rd grade, which is why we're19 trying to maintain it there. Six and 820 and 9 are all transitional grades, young21 people either transitioning from 5th22 grade to 6th grade, which means middle23 school if they're going to middle school.24 So that's a critical year, which is25 98 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 another grade level that we believe2 deserves attention in terms of smaller3 class sizes. Eighth grade because4 they're getting ready to go to high5 school, 9th grade because they're coming6 into high school and they need more7 attention. But the vast body of research8 is about small class sizes and the value9 of it and the impact on student10 achievement at the lower grades.11
And I'll12 just add to that what we know also is13 that the early indicators of truancy14 start somewhere between 4th and 6th15 grade, because if a kid can't read, then16 they don't come to school, truancy kicks17 in, and they hit 9th grade and they never18 see the 12th grade door, because the19 fundamentals have not been put in place20 during those early school years.21 Twenty percent of the children22 in the early age groups are in preschool,23 and is it true that the Pennsylvania24 Accountability Block Grant also covered25 99 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 pre-K?2
So in the4 new scenario you provided for us, does5 that grant cover pre-K as well or6 strictly kindergarten in the new7 scenario?8
Okay. All11 right, then. So should we get to 66.1,12 because the numbers have fluctuated, that13 would capture the early childhood14 potential cut as well, correct?15
All right,18 then. So that speaks to my principal19 interests, which were kindergarten,20 reduced class size and early childhood21 education.22 Thank you, Madam President.23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 You're welcome.25 100 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 The Chair recognizes2 Councilwoman Miller. Is she in the room?3 (No response.)4
We'll5 pass her.6 Councilwoman Tasco, you haven't7 been recognized.8
And I came9 in late on the summer school discussion10 about this summer and next summer and11 what's in the budget, is it for this year12 or next year. I just want a13 clarification on if the dollars are14 appropriated for this year, the program15 is in place for this year, could you take16 those dollars and not use them and use17 them for next year or use them -- I want18 a clarification. I'm not sure that that19 was clear.20
The dollars that21 are in the -- for summer, this year's22 summer school, have already been23 identified in our Title I grant24 application. We'd have to get25 101 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 permission, I believe, to make that2 change, especially since we're about to3 put in another -- our new Title I grant4 application goes in at the end of this5 month, but we would have to cancel the6 SLAM program if we are able to do that,7 and I'm not sure, because $12.8 million8 that you see here came from Title I.9 Then we'd have to cancel this year's10 summer SLAM. It has nothing to do11 with -- SLAM is the summer program for --12 the summer program that we've had last13 year that had 40,000 young people.14
And what15 benefit was that for the record, why you16 had that program?17
Well, we had the18 program because, again, what I said is19 while we've been making progress, we've20 been making steady progress, we have to21 start making accelerated progress or it's22 going to take this city until the year23 2123 to get all of our children to grade24 level. So the summer program was put in25 102 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 place to make sure that young people,2 whether they were behind, at grade level,3 didn't slide back, because even the young4 people at grade level slide backwards if5 they don't have the summer experience,6 and that means we have to try to catch up7 again.8 So this is important if you're9 looking at again accelerating student10 achievement for all children to have a11 summer program, not just for the kids who12 failed a class. We're trying to13 accelerate this, the achievement of these14 young people in this city. We're making15 progress, and we're happy about that, but16 it's still too slow. Just barely half of17 our young people are at grade level in18 reading and math, only half. And we were19 celebrating half, but we got a long20 way -- we have a long way to go. And so21 summer -- the summer program was put in22 place so that young people who from K to23 12 would still have the opportunity to24 have this, and the research is clear here25 103 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 about regression in the summer, but also2 to give young people who are3 under-credited and need extra time to4 graduate, they were there so they could5 get credits to graduate. We actually6 graduated 700 young people. Before that,7 it's always been 100 or less.8 So it's proven its worth and9 it's a new -- it was the first time we've10 done it. I would ask -- again, I'm11 looking at what's going to move this12 school system and to produce young people13 who are ready to be productive citizens14 either in the world of work or they go on15 to college. And half, while we're16 celebrating it again, half of the young17 people at grade level is not good enough.18
Thank you.19 I'm just trying to figure out. So you're20 not sure you can use the money for that?21
We're not even22 sure we can do it, because it's been in23 this year's application that we were24 going to use these grant funds for summer25 104 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 school. So this argument should probably2 be for next year as we rewrite the Title3 I application. But we can't -- when4 we're rewriting the Title I application,5 we're putting in full-day kindergarten.6 So that's why we're able to do it for7 next year. But we'd have to take it out8 for the summer of 2012 and we'd have to9 get permission not to -- to revise it for10 this year. We already have that in our11 Title I application that's been12 submitted.13
Thank19 you.20 Just for clarity purposes,21 Title I dollars are for children that fit22 a certain income, correct?23
However,25 105 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 when you do full-day kindergarten, that's2 district-wide irregardless to income.3
Well, our Title4 I application is district-wide. We have5 so many young people and they're6 distributed throughout the City so that7 all of our schools just about are Title I8 schools.9
That was10 my next question. How many students do11 you currently have in public schools, how12 many are Title I eligible?13
So all of our14 students are -- all of our schools, as I15 said, are Title I. We have enough young16 people in poverty that all of our schools17 and students in those schools benefit18 from Title I dollars.19
Okay.20 That just helps me get a little bit more21 clear on why we're able to use Title I22 monies across the board.23
We estimate that 782 percent of all students in the3 Philadelphia public schools are low4 income, according to the federal5 definition.6 COUNCILWOMAN MILLER:7 Seventy-eight percent? Wow.8 With the extended-day program,9 now that's a part of the SES, correct?10
I guess I12 always thought that the state actually13 funded that program.14
Yeah. We offer a17 School District-run extended-day program.18 The federal government also requires that19 parents may access supplemental tutoring20 services, and we have to provide Title I21 dollars for that. So there are two22 different programs.23
So if a24 parent wants to access that program, that25 107 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 has been cut? I understand that the2 School District portion has been cut.3
The School4 District-offered program was funded5 primarily from a state grant called the6 Educational Assistance Program Grant.7 That grant has been eliminated in its8 entirety by the Governor and we have --9 so we have eliminated that program,10 because we no longer have the funding for11 it.12
Excuse13 me. Point of information, please.14 Councilman Jones.15
Councilwoman16 Miller, just a question.17 Can you from the top -- there18 are two types of Title I money. One19 impacts food and other services like that20 for eligible young people. Can you give21 the definition of the two and then the22 funding sources of both.23
Well, there's only24 one -- we only get one Title I grant, but25 108 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 the way we use the money, we allocate it2 in different ways. The larger portion of3 our funds -- and our Title I budget for4 next year is 246 million, and 115 million5 of that is allocated in school budgets by6 formula based on the number of low-income7 students in each school. There is, in8 addition to that, 18 and a half million9 that is set aside for non-public school10 programs. The rest is in these centrally11 administered programs, although they12 benefit kids in schools as well. So the13 SES program is an example of that, but14 that's one of several mandates we have.15 There are certain services we16 have to provide. We have to provide a17 certain minimum amount of professional18 development in order to ensure that we19 have highly qualified teachers. We have20 to provide a certain minimum amount of21 money to ensure parental involvement in22 schools, and we also have to make23 available funds if parents desire to24 purchase services from private providers25 109 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 of tutoring. Then they have a right to2 access Title I money for that purpose.3
Our breakfast and8 lunch programs come out of the federal9 Child Nutrition Act. We receive about10 $80 million a year from the Department of11 Agriculture. Title I is funding from the12 Department of Education.13
Okay.16 Thank you.17 So just to make sure I heard18 you correct, the entire program has been19 eliminated, so even if a parent wants to20 use a private provider, that's no longer21 available?22
That is23 available still with Title I dollars,24 because we have to put some money aside25 110 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 for that. But in addition, we had the2 District after-school program, too.3
I do8 understand now. Thank you.9 I want to talk or get more10 information on what City-related11 activities specifically will be12 eliminated, and I'm just going to give an13 example. The Marcus Foster pool, even14 though millions was put in through the15 field -- and I've said this before -- I16 still can't figure out why nothing was17 done with the pool. So the pool is18 not -- we can't use the pool. So we19 moved the program where they train the20 young people to swim to Pickett Middle21 School's pool, but it sounds like with22 this, this pool is going to shut down if23 we can't use --24
No. All of the25 111 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 cuts that we're talking about are in the2 operating budget. The problem with that,3 with the Foster pool, is a capital repair4 problem and the lack of funds -- the lack5 of capital dollars to be able to make6 those repairs because they're so7 extensive.8 These are -- what we have9 identified is four things that are in the10 School District's budget this year that11 are not in the School District's budget12 next year, and they add up to 11 million.13 They are 4.5 million of funding for14 school-based social services, which is in15 our budget this year, is not in next16 year; 4.3 million for property tax17 assessment to add to the funds that are18 in the City budget to support before the19 Board of Revision of Taxes and now the20 new City Office of Property Assessment;21 $700,000 in the School District budget to22 support the City Controller's Office,23 which is in addition to the funds that24 you've appropriated for the City25 112 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 Controller in the City budget; and about2 a million and a half of costs incurred3 through the City use of School District4 facilities for City recreation and5 department programs. That's the 116 million.7
Right.8 And out of the 1.5 million I assume would9 be the inability for us to now continue10 to use any of the indoor pools that's in11 school facilities, correct?12
Well, this million13 and a half is for programs that this year14 the City is in the schools, the schools15 are incurring the cost and the School16 District has been assuming the cost. In17 all other cases when someone -- when some18 organization outside the City uses the19 School District's facilities after hours,20 we calculate how much additional cost we21 incur, because the building engineer and22 custodians have to stay, they have to23 clean up the building, and we charge the24 user. We have not been doing that when25 113 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 the City runs recreation programs in our2 buildings. They have not been paying.3 We've been incurring the cost in our4 budget. In this budget, we don't believe5 we can continue to do that.6
Okay. So7 I know you're trying not to say it, but8 it sounds like --9
Councilwoman, no10 facility is being cut off in terms of11 availability. The issue is for those12 programs being operated right now, will13 the City provide us with the funding if14 they want to continue to use the15 facilities, because we don't have the16 money in this budget to do it.17
Okay.18 But if the money is available, then the19 facilities are available irregardless to20 whether it's a pool or --21
As long as the22 facility is available and operating right23 now.24
Okay.25 114 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 Thank you.2 Thank you, Madam President.3 Thank you.4
Thank10 you very much.11 Councilman Green.12 (No response.)13 COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL:14 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.15
I need to16 make sure I understood what I think I17 heard around kindergarten, so forgive me18 for the same line of questioning, but I19 need to be able to report back to those20 of us who care about it.21 Kindergarten based on22 yesterday's discussion and this document23 has been taken care of under Title I?24
Early2 childhood education is a part of the ask3 today for whatever number we, Council,4 come up with to capture existing5 programs?6
Yes. They were7 both paid for with the state's8 Accountability Block Grant. We could put9 the monies into this, for full-day10 kindergarten, into this year's11 application, which is due the end of this12 month. So that's how it's taken care of13 for next year.14
Thank20 you very much.21 Does any other Councilperson22 want to be recognized in this batch of23 questions?24 (No response.)25 116 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
Okay.2 Then I believe that our next panel3 consists of Rob Dubow. We hope that4 you'll remain for a little bit.5
If you see me6 leave, it's just I'm leaving town. So I7 will stay for as long as I can,8 Councilwoman.9
Thank10 you.11 I believe we have Rob Dubow and12 Lori Shorr coming.13 Thank you, everyone, for your14 patience.15 (Witnesses approached witness16 table.)17
Good18 afternoon. Thank you. Please identify19 yourself for the record and begin your20 testimony.21
Good morning,22 Councilwoman Blackwell and members of23 Council. I'm Rob Dubow, the Finance24 Director for the City. 17 As the Mayor stated in a letter18 to the School Reform Commission last19 weekend, there's no more important20 investment for the City than the21 education of our children. 2 That said, we are in agreement3 with many of you who have that -- issues4 that many of you raised both publicly and5 privately about the need to have greater6 fiscal and operational accountability7 from the District and greater8 transparency in the District's9 decision-making process. 18 The School Reform Commission19 responded with a letter expressing an20 intent to fully comply with the requests21 of the Mayor, and we have submitted that22 letter to the Chair. 1 priority list of programs and services in2 order of preference that it would choose3 to restore, depending on the level of4 additional funding at its disposal. 8 A second aspect of the required9 accountability measures is the10 Educational Accountability Agreement that11 the School Reform Commission entered into12 with the City and the Commonwealth to13 commit the District to a variety of14 measures to ensure greater cooperation15 and information-sharing. 14 A particularly significant15 component of that agreement is a16 requirement that the District annually17 prepare a five-year plan. 13 Lastly, before we turn to the14 specific proposals before you, I want to15 note that as part of the need for revenue16 enhancement for the District, the17 Administration is planning a modest18 increase in on-street parking rates19 already authorized in The Philadelphia20 Code. 10 So let me now turn to the11 revenue generation proposals in front of12 you. Bill No. 8 increase in taxpayers' real17 estate tax bills. The stated purpose of18 this proposal is to increase funding19 available for a grant to the School20 District. 23 A second proposal before you,24 Bill No. 4 That increase would be in the School5 District taxes. 8 Finally, Bill 110478 is the9 Administration's proposal to establish a10 two-cent-per-ounce sugar-sweetened11 beverage tax to be collected by the12 distributors of such beverages to13 Philadelphia retailers. 1 City. 14 In our view, this tax would be the least15 burdensome to Philadelphians as a whole16 and would be shared by visitors and17 non-Philadelphia residents who work here18 and who buy sugary drinks. We would19 expect some of the cost of this tax would20 be passed along to customers in the form21 of higher prices. But soda is a beverage22 of choice. If people are willing to pay23 more for their product, that's their24 decision. contrast to the proposal to raise2 property taxes.
Thank5 you, Mr. Dubow. I wanted to ask you a6 question with regard to and7 Parking Authority's collection of funds8 related to on-street parking. Have you9 identified those sites or are they as10 those referenced by the Mayor?11
Yes.14 We did contact the Mayor with regard to15 University City, and I will say that the16 last time those fees were raised, they17 were raised to the maximum allowed under18 the legislation. Therefore, to raise19 them again, I would have to introduce20 legislation for my district to allow that21 increase. So I'll ask you to check into22 that and report back to me.23
Yes. We'll check24 into that.25 127 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
Thank2 you.3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:4 Mr. Dubow, will the proposed soda tax5 only apply to products that are in liquid6 form?7
Well,10 what non-liquid products will be taxed?11 I mean, there are liquids that we buy and12 then sugar added to it.13
Yeah. The14 legislation delineates what would be15 taxed, and it's beverages. So there's no16 non-beverages.17
Well,18 if this tax were to be approved and it19 turned out that it had some unintended20 consequences, we could not change the law21 if the changes lowered the revenue22 estimates under Act 46; is that correct?23
I think we'd have24 to find a way to substitute additional25 128 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 revenue for it, and we'd probably have to2 get -- well, let me actually, instead of3 playing lawyer, defer to the Law4 Department on that.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
Good afternoon,8 Council President. Shelley Smith, City9 Solicitor.10 I heard part of the question11 about unintended consequences, but not12 the whole thing. Could you please repeat13 it for me.14
If15 this tax were to be approved and it16 turned out that it had some unintended17 consequences, we would not change the18 law -- we couldn't change the law if the19 changes lowered the revenue estimates20 under Act 46; is that correct?21
I'm not sure I22 precisely understand the question. Is23 the question whether if the tax was24 overturned somehow? Is that the essence25 129 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1 of your question?2
We3 couldn't change the law, could we? And4 if it were proven that the revenue5 estimates were lowered, how would that6 affect us under Act 46?7
You're saying if we8 collected less revenue than we9 anticipated?10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 Right.12
We're required to13 maintain the tax and the rate, but we're14 not guaranteeing a level of revenue. So,15 for example, to give the property tax as16 an example, if assessments went down and17 the revenue went down, we're not required18 to make up that revenue. So we wouldn't19 be able to reduce -- if we impose the20 two-cent rate here, we couldn't reduce21 the rate later, but we're not responsible22 for guaranteeing the revenue amount.23
I'm24 sorry. Repeat your last sentence.25 130 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
We're not2 responsible for guaranteeing the amount3 of revenue that's generated by a tax. We4 can't change the rate of the tax. We5 can't lower the rate of the tax, but if6 collections go down, we're not7 responsible or compensating for that.8
So an example, if14 one of the existing taxes goes down, like15 the use and occupancy tax, if we had16 lower collections, we're not responsible17 for compensating for that.18
Could21 you tell us what the rationale for the22 automatic yearly CPI adjustment and what23 other taxes the City imposes that has24 such an adjustment?25 131 6/10/11 - WHOLE - 110135, ETC.1
We don't have that2 in other taxes. The rationale is that as3 inflation goes up, we want revenues from4 the tax to go up with it. That's the5 rationale.6
Oh,7 okay. We just keep adding.8 Tell us, who will be9 responsible for the collection and10 enforcement of this tax?11
What14 are the estimated costs for collection15 and enforcement activities, and are they16 budgeted?17
I don't think that18 there's much of an impact. The Revenue19 Department thinks they can do it within20 their existing budget.21