The Miller23 building is comprised of the school that24 used to be there. It is now combined25 104 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 into one school called the Philadelphia2 Learning Academy South. It's3 approximately 400 students that attend4 that school, seventh through twelfth5 grade. At Front and Hunting Park, there6 are roughly about 800 kids that attend7 that school, but they're managed by8 different people. Part of them are9 accelerated and part of them are10 transitional. And also the other part,11 RETI-WRAP, is in that building, as well12 as PYDA, which is a school for kids13 coming out of placement who have more14 credits and do not need to go back to a15 comprehensive high school. Anyone that16 has between and credits go to PYDA.17 Matter of fact, in February we graduated18 15 of those kids. This summer we're19 graduating 34. The plan program in20 there, the PLA North, Philadelphia21 Learning Academy North, is graduating 13422 kids this summer. PLA South at Miller is23 graduating 75 students. They've only24 been in existence for two years.25 105 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
These are4 District-run schools. The private5 contractors are the ones I gave you6 earlier, and those would be Camelot at7 Boone, Camelot at Shalecroft --8 (Applause.)9
The truant12 department is totally separate from what13 we do.14
The truant17 department, the truant officers, are18 totally separate from what we do, but we19 do have truant officers.20
How21 many truant officers do we presently22 have?23
I don't know that24 information.25 106 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
We don't have2 truant officers. They're called3 something else.4
Madam5 Superintendent, please pull the mike6 over.7
I'm sorry.8 Somebody is coming up to answer that9 question.10
Erica11 Washington, Deputy for Attendance and12 Truancy.13 We currently do not have14 truancy officers. We did not go through15 with those contracts this year because16 that work was being done in our schools17 by a position called the parent18 ombudsman. So with our student advisors19 and our parent ombudsman that were20 performing the same services as the21 former truancy officers, we did not feel22 it necessary and actually contractually23 we could not go through with contracting24 work that was being done by District25 107 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 staff.2
Let me3 say that there are many of us work on4 these issues, but we need information.5 We're out here fighting for the same6 things you're fighting for, but we don't7 have information and we're not included8 in your information pool. We would like9 to have this information so we know as we10 go through our communities how we can11 best provide service and how we can12 complement or supplement. As I was13 saying yesterday, we have a meeting14 scheduled with Penn with regard to the15 nursing program to complement and16 supplement nursing services in schools in17 their area, and we're going to be18 contacting other universities as well,19 but it is so much easier if we're20 included in the information pool. Then21 we know how we can be helpful and know22 where we should direct our energies.23 Thank you. Thank you very24 much.25 108 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Councilwoman Tasco.2
Yes.3 Thank you. Good morning -- good4 afternoon. I have a question for5 Mr. Masch.6
Excuse7 me, Councilwoman. The President wanted8 to follow up.9 Is there an ombudsman in every10 school?11
No. In all of12 our empowerment schools. And then in the13 other schools, it was up to the school.14 But in all of our empowerment schools, I15 believe it's 110 schools, we had them.16 In all of our empowerment schools we also17 had student advisors. So we had both18 positions.19
Mr. Masch,22 I just had one clarifying question.23 Maybe it's because I don't understand24 what you've done here.25 109 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 You talk about in your2 testimony you have the limits on the3 School District's ability to make4 spending cuts, and you talk about5 providing -- some of the examples are one6 would be providing the teachers necessary7 to comply with contractual maximum class8 sizes and preparatory time requirements9 and that cost, but then you have on your10 sheet of the cuts to be -- that could be11 restored is the reduction -- restore cuts12 in reduced class sizes.13
Yes. So,14 Councilwoman, what you see on the15 mandated sheet is the amount of money16 that we need just to put one teacher in17 front of every 30 or 33 kids. But we18 don't have class sizes of 30 and 33 in19 all of our schools now. In fact, we have20 lower class sizes. And in the past two21 years, under the Imagine 2014 plan, we22 reduced class sizes in grades K to 3 all23 the way down to a range of 20 to 23. So24 that required about $20 million of25 110 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 additional funding.2 In this budget, we propose to3 raise K to 3 class sizes. So rather than4 being in the range of 20 to 23, 24, the5 range would be in the range of 23 to 26,6 and that yields us a savings of about $167 million in grades K to 3.8 In addition, we had reduced9 class sizes in grades 6, 8 and 9, and10 that program cost us $5 million to lower11 those class sizes. This budget12 eliminates the lower class sizes for13 grades 6, 8 and 9 and keeps class sizes14 lower than they had been in K to 3; that15 is, lower than they were two years ago,16 but higher than they've been for the past17 two years.18 So we have to build this.19 First we need this much money to have a20 class size of 33, this much more money if21 we lower the class size to 26, this much22 more money if we lower the class size to23 23.24
So we are just2 trying to go back to the class sizes for3 this year. As we were out in the4 community, it's one of the things that5 the parents really appreciated, that the6 class sizes across the District were7 smaller. So when we're asking, we're8 asking to go back to what they are this9 year as opposed to going up by three.10
As you11 held your meetings throughout the City,12 what was the level of participation of13 parents?14
In the community15 meetings that we've held to date, it's16 ranged between 150 to over 300 parents17 per meeting. We have one last meeting at18 Imhotep Charter School this Wednesday19 evening at 7 o'clock, with a particular20 outreach to charter school parents.21
And this is the22 second round of community meetings. We23 had one earlier when this process first24 started. So we probably had all of about25 112 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 18 now.2
The other3 question I had is, the gentleman -- I'm4 reading this information and I'm looking5 at you're trying to control utility6 costs. Have you begun to look at green7 schools and/or the use of solar?8
Councilwoman,9 we've done a number of things along that10 regard. We not only have locked in11 energy costs, both natural gas and12 electricity using long-term forward13 contracts, but we actually just won an14 award for a LEED, L-E-E-D, designed15 school and are looking not only at solar16 but green projects as well.17 I think as we look at the18 Facilities Master Plan that we are about19 to roll out, the combination of green20 schools, green construction, working with21 the City on the Green 2015 plan all will22 come together. So as we either renovate23 buildings or construct any new buildings24 or consolidate buildings that will be25 113 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 solar, green and any kind of energy2 saving will all be a part of how we3 present the plan.4
Thank you5 very much.6 Dr. Ackerman, we just spoke7 about the ombudsman. How is that8 process, how is the appointment or the9 placement of an ombudsman in a school?10 Is it at the request of the principal or11 is it something that the School District12 assigns? And what is the relationship of13 the ombudsman with the principal?14
Ideally, the15 ombudsman is there to work with the16 principal, with the school staff in17 parent outreach. That's what they're18 supposed to be doing. So I believe that19 every staff person who works in the20 school should report directly to the21 principal. I know that the process of22 interviewing ombudsmen comes from our23 Department of Parent and Community24 Engagement. That's where they get their25 114 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 professional development. I don't2 believe that -- do they report directly3 to the principal? Yes, they do. I4 thought they did, because I know that as5 a former principal, I believe everybody6 in the school should report to the7 principal. But there is a close8 relationship with building the pool of9 staff from our Office of Parent and10 Community Engagement.11
Thank17 you very much. If all minds are clear,18 we'll break for lunch and report back at19 1:30.20 Thank you, everybody.21 (Applause.)22 (Luncheon recess.)23
We're24 sorry to hold everyone. We're not ready25 115 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 to resume quite yet. We could be another2 20 minutes. Sorry to hold you up.3 Thank you.4 (Recess.)5
Thank6 you very much for your patience. We will7 now renew our hearings with regard to8 School District funding.9 The next question was to be10 posed by Councilman Bill Greenlee. Thank11 you all for your patience.12
Thank13 you, Madam Chair.14 Good afternoon again,15 everybody. I just had a question,16 because one of the things that we hear as17 a criticism -- and I know, Mr. Masch, you18 address this in your remarks -- was the19 whole use of the federal stimulus money,20 and I know you said you prepared for it21 not to -- that it was going to run out,22 that kind of thing. I wonder if you23 could just discuss that a little bit,24 because, again, we hear that criticism.25 116 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 I'm not talking about the validity of it,2 but I was wondering if you could just go3 on record and talk about that a little4 bit.5
Right. Thank you,6 Councilman. Yeah. I was responding to7 comments that we've obviously seen in the8 media that suggest that we should have9 seen the end of the stimulus money10 coming. So I want to assure the members11 of City Council, yes, of course, we12 understood the stimulus money was for two13 years. We did plan for and prepare for14 the termination of that money. We used15 all of the funds we received exactly as16 was intended. But I want to state for17 the record what that means, because there18 are different pots of stimulus money that19 were provided, some to the School20 District and some to the Commonwealth and21 for different purposes.22 The stimulus funds that were23 provided to the School District were24 about 110, 115 million a year for over25 117 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 two years, a little over 81 million in2 Title I and about 22 million in IDA and3 then some smaller amounts of money for4 education technology and for services to5 homeless students. So that comes to 112,6 113 million a year.7 The rules for our use of those8 funds were the rules for those federal9 programs. Now, Title I is a program that10 provides supplemental educational11 services to low-income students, and IDA12 is a program that enables school13 districts to provide supplemental14 services to students with special needs.15 And the rule in both of those programs is16 supplement, not supplant. What that17 means is, you are not permitted to use18 those funds to cover spending you're19 already doing. You can't replace your20 regular operating funds with those funds.21 You can only use those funds to expand22 programs or to start new programs.23 We've also heard it said that24 we should have banked that money. Well,25 118 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 that was not permitted. It was use it or2 lose it during the period.3 And then the other thing we4 heard people say is, Well, why don't you5 use it for something one time, like6 bricks and mortar, construction projects.7 Well, in the final regulations, that8 wasn't permitted either. So we used the9 money as all other school districts used10 it. I read some comments in the press11 and elsewhere that other school districts12 used it on things that were13 non-recurring. Well, all school14 districts, all big city school districts15 in the United States, are facing a need16 to cut back programs because of the loss17 of those stimulus funds. So we all --18 every major school district in the United19 States accepted those funds with those20 rules.21 Now, our plan was to keep some22 of those programs and shift to recurring23 funding. And if you look at three key24 programs that were funded in that way -25 119 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 reduced class size, expanded summer2 school and improved student-counselor3 ratios - we even in this budget did what4 the Superintendent said she was going to5 do when we started the Imagine 2014 plan,6 which was to try to preserve the most7 important, most strategic of these8 initiatives with recurring funding.9 But there was a second part of10 stimulus funding, and it did not go to11 the School District. It went to the12 Commonwealth. And that is funding in two13 other categories called State Fiscal14 Stabilization funds and Education Job15 funds. And those sources between them16 equal about $193 million a year, this17 year, 122 million State Fiscal18 Stabilization fund, 71 million in19 Educational Jobs money. A hundred and20 forty of that 193, about 140 million, the21 state gave us and cut state funding by22 exactly the same amount. In other words,23 we didn't realize any extra money --24
You25 120 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 didn't gain anything.2
No. We had no3 gain. That was a budget relief for the4 state, but not for the School District.5 Now, what's happened is, a new6 Governor has come, and of course he7 wasn't the Governor during that period of8 time. Maybe he didn't know what had9 transpired before, but he came in and10 said, Okay, the stimulus funds are gone.11 What? You expect me to replace them?12 Well, that basically meant that the13 savings the state realized now will come14 at the expense of school districts, 14015 million for us and over 555 million16 across the Commonwealth.17 So those funds, yes, the intent18 of the Congress was -- they understood.19 President Obama and the Congress20 understood in February 2009 that state21 revenues were dropping and that state22 funding during the recession might get23 cut as a result. So they wanted to24 stabilize funding during that period,25 121 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 with the understanding that when the2 recession was over, then the state would3 resume its traditional role as a School4 District funder.5 Now, even there, we didn't6 expect to get the funds restored 1007 percent. We thought we'd get some8 portion of them. But, in fact, the new9 state budget, the one that the Governor10 proposed on March 8th, eliminates all of11 those funds, does not replace any of12 them, and cuts states funding to this13 School District by 100 million besides.14 So, yes, it is true we did not15 anticipate that, but it's not because we16 failed to plan or we didn't understand17 the programs.18 We now have an administration19 in Harrisburg with a very different20 approach to education funding. The fact21 is that the 1.1 billion in education cuts22 is twice as much as the lost education23 stimulus money. So there's no way that24 you can say that if we had anticipated25 122 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 the need to replace the stimulus money,2 then we wouldn't have a budget problem.3
I4 understand. I'm glad, just as an aside,5 you addressed the banking thing, because6 that's what we hear sometimes too. Well,7 you spent the money; you should have8 saved some of that. But that was not9 allowed under the program, right?10
Thank you,19 Madam Chair.20 In the FY11 budget hearings, I21 asked the District, What happens when the22 funding runs out? Do we have a plan for23 far fewer resources from the federal24 government and from state government that25 123 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 will allow these programs to continue?2 The response from the District3 was, Yes, we do, and mentioned an4 increase in state and local funding,5 potential Race to the Top money, some6 other competitive funding and a reduction7 to base operating expenditures as a8 solution to when the stimulus funding9 runs out.10 I'd like to hear more from the11 District about what its plan was last12 year and how it's evolved over the last13 12 months, starting with the increase in14 local funding you mentioned as part of15 the post stimulus plan. I'm trying to16 understand how the District projects17 local tax revenues and whether or not18 they're trued up to PICA. To what extent19 does the District coordinate revenue20 projections with those of the City's, and21 what were your base revenue assumptions22 for real estate tax growth from the City?23 If you could just sort of clarify that24 for me, because the City's projections25 124 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 the last three years were that revenue2 from real estate was going down, and I3 guess I'd like you to explain to us what4 the plan was when you said you had a plan5 last year.6
Okay. Councilman,9 the answer is in several parts. First of10 all, as I said, we did anticipate some11 additional competitive federal funds. We12 did receive some of those funds in the13 portion of the stimulus called the School14 Improvement Grant program. We were not15 successful as a state in receiving state16 Race to the Top funds in two rounds of17 applications, and that was a major18 disappointment. It would have made a big19 difference for all school districts in20 Pennsylvania, including the School21 District of Philadelphia. It was not a22 City application. It was not a School23 District application. It was the state24 that made the application.25 125 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 We did see their application.2 We thought it was a sound proposal. We3 had hopes that it would be funded. It4 was not.5 There still is a further round6 of stimulus funding. They've gone7 through one round already in the program8 called Investing in Innovation, and there9 will be a second round there. There will10 also be a second round of stimulus School11 Improvement Grant funds. So we are still12 hopeful that we will receive some13 additional federal funds from that14 source.15 As I said in the previous16 response, we did not anticipate that17 there would be a 100 percent failure to18 restore any of the Fiscal Stabilization19 funds, nor did we anticipate that the20 Corbett Administration would propose to21 take the entire amount of Education Jobs22 bill money and reduce State Basic23 Education funding dollar for dollar. We24 did anticipate that they might do 5025 126 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 percent of that, but not 100 percent.2 And then we did not anticipate that there3 would be further cuts that are in excess4 of the losses from stimulus funding.5 As for local funding, the6 dilemma for the School District has been7 that it has not been clear to us how long8 the School District would be under an9 assessment freeze. With the assessment10 freeze, there's no ability for real11 estate tax revenues to grow because of12 changes in the assessed values. So the13 only way that there can be an increase in14 the real estate tax is through a change15 in the millage, either the share of the16 millage for the two partners in sharing17 the tax, the City and the School18 District, or an absolute increase. And19 it's still not clear to us exactly when20 we will see a change there.21 In the past, as you know, prior22 to the recession --23
Mr. Masch,24 I'm sorry. You've repeated the same25 127 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 answer you gave to Mr. Greenlee, and for2 the sake of everybody's time, including3 yours, I'd like to -- I did hear what you4 said before and I know everybody else5 did, and I just want to save us some6 time.7 With respect to local tax8 increases and specifically if you could9 address the part of the question where10 part of the response was increase in11 local funding. And I know you were12 trying to address that when you talked13 about the assessment freeze that the City14 undertook, but in our own five-year15 projections last year, we had real estate16 taxes going down 1.4 percent, 1.5917 percent, 0.57 percent. So what did you18 mean last year when you and Dr. Ackerman19 said increased local funding? Because it20 wasn't part of the City's Five Year Plan21 or any projections that could have been22 provided, and I'd like to understand once23 again what the plan for increased local24 funding was, and if it was to come get25 128 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 more money from City Council, perhaps we2 could have started that sooner than a3 month and a half ago or a month ago.4
Well, first of all,5 Councilman, as I said, it's not been6 clear to the School District when there7 will be an end to the assessment freeze.8 It also has not been clear to the School9 District when the City would move to full10 value assessment and what the impact of11 that would be on assessment, but it has12 been our understanding that that was the13 Administration's plan. We understood14 that until the reforms and changes could15 take place to the property tax16 assessment, Administration and the17 District, with the abolition of the Board18 of Revision of Taxes and the19 establishment of the Office of Property20 Tax Assessment, that the Mayor would not21 have the mechanism within his control in22 order to do a reassessment and a reform23 of the assessment system, but we did24 understand that those were on the25 129 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 horizon. What hasn't been clear to us is2 what the timing would be or, indeed to3 this day, what the impact of that might4 be on our finances, and that has made it5 difficult for us to plan on a multi-year6 basis.7
Excuse9 me. Councilman, you are on a point of10 order.11
Yes, ma'am.12 I accept your response, except13 I refer you to our Five Year Plan, which14 clearly did not anticipate any increase15 in the local contribution to the School16 District as you testified to last year,17 and I still don't feel like I've gotten18 an answer to that question.19 So thank you, Madam Chair.20
I'm24 finished.25 130 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
Thank9 you. Thank you, Madam Chair.10 Good afternoon. Earlier this11 morning Councilman Goode asked a12 question, and I don't really think we got13 a specific answer about the dollar amount14 that you're requesting from the City. Is15 there a specific dollar amount? You said16 50 to 75 percent.17
Yes. Above the18 11 million that we've included in budget19 reductions that we're expecting, those20 are services and programs that the21 District covered a few years ago when the22 City was experiencing some budget23 reductions. So above and beyond that, it24 would be 75 to 110 million. That would25 131 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 include restoration of full-day2 kindergarten, restoration of all of the3 transportation cuts, restoration of the4 reduction in class size going back to5 what it is this year. And I know that6 the rest of that would be, we believe --7 on this list there has been talk, I know,8 with the Mayor and some of the City9 Councilmembers about the alternative ed,10 so we'd be willing to talk about that.11 But those other cuts -- the use of those12 dollars.13 But our primary and priority14 are restoration of full-day kindergarten,15 transportation and reduced class size.16
Okay.17 What exactly do you do now with18 transportation? Who gets transportation?19
Councilwoman, we20 transport not only District children on21 yellow buses and also giving those who22 are eligible by income TransPasses on23 SEPTA for discount, but we also transport24 by law charter school children and25 132 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 non-public children, children who go to2 schools that are private schools or3 parochial schools. So we have a full4 population each and every day that we5 transport around the City.6
So you7 determine at the Central Office who gets8 transportation, not the school budget?9
No, not the school13 budget, that's correct. Central Office14 does determine that.15
Well, I16 don't have any children in public school.17 I have plenty of nieces and nephews, but18 when my daughter went to public school,19 she went to Fitler, which was a20 citywide -- children attended Fitler21 citywide.22
And they24 received transportation.25 133 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
Is that9 part of the transportation you will be10 cutting?11
That's exactly12 right, and that's why we've put it in13 close priority to kindergarten, because14 we realize that with the loss of15 transportation, the loss of that16 flexibility, that money would have to17 come out of each household, and if you18 have multiple kids, it becomes expensive,19 but it also limits the amount of choice20 that children have and it also could21 contribute to some of the things that we22 don't want to see in terms of truancy and23 so on. So that's why we are so adamant24 that kindergarten and transportation are25 134 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 really hand in hand in terms of top2 priorities.3
I would7 actually wonder what would happen to a8 school like Fitler where children attend9 from all across the City. My daughter10 started -- well, it starts in first11 grade. I would not want my first grader12 riding SEPTA --13
Nor do we. We17 don't want -- she might get great18 experience, but I think the key right now19 is to make sure that children go to20 school on time. We have a good record21 generally on our school buses. As we do22 our Facilities Master Plan, which you've23 probably heard about, the goal is to try24 to rebuild feeder patterns, but even25 135 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 there, you would still need to modify2 transportation and give parents the3 choice that they need to have in order to4 make sure the children get educated where5 they want them to go.6
So as it7 stands now, without the extra funding,8 you will be cutting transportation, and9 the only students that will receive10 transportation are charter and special11 ed?12
That's basically13 it the way it's configured now given14 what's in front of us.15
Okay.16 With your Facilities Master Plan that you17 just mentioned, does what to do with the18 vacant school buildings fall under that19 master plan?20
Yes, it does. So21 existing schools that are vacant are in22 our first phase of work. We've done all23 the analytics, all the demographics.24 We've gone out to the public to vet all25 136 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 of the issues, planning area by planning2 area, across the City, north to south,3 east to west. The first step is to look4 at the buildings that right now are5 vacant and/or dormant, get them6 appraised, see what we can sell, also to7 close some of the annexes that are not in8 great shape.9 Starting in the fall, we'll be10 coming back through the Superintendent11 and the SRC with a number of seats that12 we need to close and/or buildings that13 will affect and vet that with the14 community. And as we select buildings15 and/or look at which ones we go after16 because they're underutilized or because17 they are in poor condition or there's18 some reconfiguration, the public will get19 to comment on that, and then we'll start20 making decisions starting in late winter,21 early spring of next year.22
Right.23 Because you've been doing this now for a24 while. So you're saying late winter,25 137 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 early spring you'll have an actual plan?2
Yeah. We'll have3 a small wave starting now, and then a4 larger wave starting in the fall. But it5 took us -- the reason why it took us the6 time and starting around September is7 because the District had not had a8 Facilities Master Plan in multiple years9 and this is the first time we've taken a10 comprehensive look, looking at11 demographics, looking at movement of12 children and also looking at what we can13 afford.14
Off the15 top of your head, how many vacant16 buildings do we have?17
I think we have18 six right now, and we have a number that19 are underutilized, but the six is on top20 right now.21
Two of22 those six are in the 8th Council23 District.24
Yes, ma'am. We25 138 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 understand that.2
We will speed it5 up. We need to talk to you about how6 to -- the priorities that we have or like7 to see in terms of how those buildings8 get reused.9
Okay.10 One alternative school -- this morning11 Councilwoman Blackwell asked about12 alternative schools, and there's a13 program in Germantown on Chelten Avenue14 called the Ombudsman. Is that -- that15 was not mentioned in the list that was --16 plus, we actually need a list. In17 addition to that, we also need a glossary18 of terms, because you guys talk this19 every day and we don't, and we don't20 know -- we can't remember always21 renaissance school, empowerment school,22 what all this means, who they all are.23 But this morning -- and then I saw in24 your booklet that you had a list of25 139 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 alternative schools, but this one program2 called the Ombudsman program was not3 listed. Who funds that? I'm sure you're4 familiar with the program. Who funds5 that? Do you fund that or -- for a6 minute I actually thought that that kind7 of program took the place of CEP, which8 you no longer have, correct?9
No, it did not10 take the place of CEP, but actually11 Benjamin Wright, our Assistant12 Superintendent for District 4, will13 answer the question.14 (Witness approached witness15 table.)16
Thank you.19 Ombudsman is one of the programs that we20 fund through Academic Division 4. It has21 a blended model right now. It has22 transition students as well as23 accelerated students. We can get you --24 transition, those students who have25 140 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 committed an act, like we call them, act2 of -- violation against the Student Code3 of Conduct, number two versus number one,4 and they're placed in a transition school5 after a hearing and then they work there6 for -- we check them out every 30 days.7 We do a periodic review on them. At the8 end of 90 days, they're eligible to go9 back if they've made progress, they've10 gone through the character education11 program, or they stay an additional 3012 and we do another review on them in 3013 days. We also at the end of 180 days,14 they should be ready to go back if they15 had not made it in the 90 day.16 Ombudsman was one of those17 smaller programs that had 60 kids in it,18 and they're also accelerated kids. We19 can get you the brochure, if you would20 like the brochure, of where they're all21 located. Those may change in the22 upcoming school year.23
Right.24 That would be good. So all those25 141 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 programs, all the alternative programs,2 are actually operating today as we speak3 or have people been laid off or when does4 the contract -- someone told me that you5 want to bring lots of these programs6 in-house now?7
Yes. We do plan8 on bringing five of those programs9 in-house.10
Five?11 Okay. So you have a whole list of those12 that are left?13
Yes. We have a14 matrix, a performance matrix, that each15 program has to meet. So in June, we'll16 be going through that matrix. And we've17 done all year long, every quarter, we18 have a review. We have a report card19 review, just like we do for comprehensive20 schools. We also do those for the21 alternative programs. And during the22 course of the year, we do tell the23 providers, if you're not meeting the24 matrix -- if you remember the report that25 142 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 the ARC gave last year about the2 accountability system, we had already3 built that system, so now we tell the4 providers -- they come in and talk to us5 three times a year. So they know pretty6 much where they are. And so when June7 come, we do make a recommendation that8 they be continued or not continued based9 on their performance.10
So all11 the programs still operating -- has12 Ombudsman --13
All of the14 programs at this moment are still15 operating.16
We wouldn't know19 that because we don't operate the20 programs. The providers lay the people21 off. They hire them. We don't hire the22 staff at the schools.23
But they24 still have a School District contract, I25 143 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 guess?2
Okay.4 One other question, not about alternative5 schools. This is about schools'6 discretionary funds. Now, does most of7 the schools receive the same dollar8 amount based on enrollment, or how is9 that determined? When I was reading in10 the book, it said that Title I schools, I11 think, receive -- Title I schools receive12 125,000 up to 1.6 million. What makes13 the difference and who gets the 1.614 million? That's a lot of money.15
Councilwoman, under16 federal law, we must give out Title I17 funding proportionate to the number of18 low-income students -- the relative19 proportion of low-income students in each20 school, and that is what we do. Those21 funds are given out with the number that22 you've cited as the 125,000 as the23 minimum that -- every school receives at24 least that much, but then the amount of25 144 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 money that is provided to schools2 increases depending on whether they have3 more than the minimum number of4 low-income students in the school.5
So some6 schools everybody gets free lunch,7 correct? And that's like a citywide kind8 of -- not citywide. School-wide free9 lunch program. So that school, of10 course, has more than maybe a school that11 gets --12
Right. In about 7013 percent of our schools, we have what's14 called universal feeding. We have a15 special agreement with the United States16 Department of Agriculture. This is17 different from the Title I. But it also18 is looking at the relative number of19 low-income students.20 We have been -- in most school21 districts, a student has to bring in a22 form that's filled out by their parent or23 caregiver to qualify for a free or24 reduced lunch, but in Philadelphia -- and25 145 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 this has been true for over 20 years --2 we do a survey every three to four years3 to determine the estimated number of4 low-income students in each school, and5 in a school in which 70 percent or more6 of the students are projected to be low7 income, the U.S. Department of8 Agriculture has agreed that we can9 provide free breakfast and lunch to all10 students in the school. That means that11 the number of low-income students who get12 to obtain those services is much higher,13 because it's not dependent on parents or14 caregivers filling out the forms and15 keeping them current.16
So with17 the 125,000 -- was it 125? With whatever18 money they get from Title I, the school19 can use that money as they see fit?20
What22 about the discretionary funds? How does23 that -- what is the normal, average24 amount and how is that determined and25 146 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 what do they use that money for?2
I actually have to3 look up the number for you this year. I4 know we have folks from the Budget5 Office. I'm going to ask them what the6 average is, because it's changed this7 year with the reduction in the8 allocation. We had been allocating about9 $200 million among the schools for10 principals to use as discretionary funds11 in their budgets. That's been reduced by12 about $60 million this year. So it's13 $140 million. And we changed the14 allocation formulas to ensure that every15 school had enough money to operate, to16 run its basic office functions, and then17 any other money was distributed on a18 proportional basis among all the schools.19 But obviously with a cut as deep as 3020 percent, the number of discretionary21 dollars is going to be much less in next22 year's school budgets than it has been in23 the past. And in terms of what the new24 averages are, we will get that number for25 147 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 you hopefully during the hearing.2
You can3 just get it to the Chair if you can't get4 it now.5 A few months ago I asked you6 how much allocation per student do we7 need, and you said 19,000 per student,8 and that's based on what Montgomery9 County and a lot of these other counties10 have. So where are we now? And that was11 before you heard about state cuts. So if12 we needed 19,000, where are we per13 student, so we can understand the gap a14 little bit better? I mean, it's one15 thing to say, okay, I have a $292 million16 gap, but per student, sometimes it's17 easier to understand. Like if we need18 19,000 and we only have 10, then it helps19 us see the difference.20
Well, the way that21 the state defines per pupil spending,22 we're at about $13,000 now, and that's23 increased by a couple of thousand dollars24 over the past decade because the25 148 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 increases in state funding. We think it2 will go down by about a thousand dollars3 a student next year.4 I want to caution that that's5 based on a state definition. And you are6 correct that the state Board of Education7 in December of 2007 did a funding8 adequacy study and in that study9 concluded that to have an adequate amount10 of money to successfully educate every11 child in the Philadelphia schools, the12 state Board of Education said we ought to13 have an additional $4,900 per student.14 So that would have taken us up to the15 number that you were talking about16 before. So obviously we're moving in the17 wrong direction if this budget is enacted18 in the way that it's been introduced19 right now based on available funding20 sources.21 Now, there are other districts,22 even low-income districts, that receive23 higher amounts of funds. The Pittsburgh24 district, for instance, is about $2,00025 149 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 per student higher than us the way the2 state funding formulas have been done.3 That's been an advantage that they've had4 for several decades, and it's reduced in5 recent years as the states tried to make6 funding among school districts more7 equitable. But this gap is still there.8
So what9 are you doing to try and -- what are you10 doing at the state level? Because you11 know what happens, as soon as the School12 District announced the proposed cuts,13 then we started getting calls in our14 offices and people outraged about15 half-day kindergarten, no transportation.16 One man called our office and he was17 yelling and screaming at us, and I said,18 Hey, did you call Governor Corbett's19 office? Did you call your state rep?20 Did you call your state senator?21 So what are you doing on the22 state level? Do you meet with them? Do23 you have a budget presentation with them?24
Councilwoman,25 150 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 we've been to Harrisburg multiple times.2 We have no lobbyists, so we are largely3 doing this on our own, trying to advocate4 not only for what we think is appropriate5 in terms of the funding but also the same6 prioritization list that you have seen,7 we've presented to folks on both sides of8 the aisle.9 We've also been trying to work10 with the Pennsylvania Coalition of11 Charter Schools, because the $110 million12 that was cut out of charter school13 reimbursement is important not only to us14 but to them, and there's a resonance15 there. They agree that they would be16 harmed if we get hurt next year, they17 will feel that pain. But I think it's18 not as if we've not been banging on the19 door. That's why I think some of the20 proposals that have been put forth in21 Harrisburg are starting to respond to the22 fact that efforts here in Philadelphia,23 like protectphillyed.com and all the24 rallies, are starting to get to folks,25 151 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 especially when they see it is a2 universal pain that people are feeling,3 not just black and brown but everybody in4 the City.5
Okay.6 This is my last question. The District7 is to be commended for the progress of8 the public and charter schools, but could9 we have a list per school who is doing10 what, if they've made progress, who they11 are rather than lumping it all together,12 both public and charter? And I have a13 charter school in my district that's14 doing, I think, a wonderful job, Imhotep,15 and I think everybody would agree with16 that. They've asked to be allowed to17 have more students, and I don't know18 whether that decision has been made or19 not, but I know other schools that have20 asked for an increase in the number of21 their students and they've been granted22 that.23 So at some point, we might need24 to just talk about what's happening with25 152 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 a school like Imhotep that -- I can't2 remember how the ranking is, but they're3 ranking pretty close to the top, if not4 at the top, and I don't know why they5 have not been allowed the opportunity to6 increase the number of students that they7 have. It's an excellent program.8
Councilwoman, I9 think it's great. We can not only give10 you that listing in terms of what we call11 the School Performance Index not only for12 District schools but also for charters,13 and we've talked directly with Christine14 Wiggins, founder of Imhotep, about her15 specific request to add seats. So we're16 going to be acting on that soon.17
Okay.18 All right. Thank you.19 Thank you, Madam Chair.20
You're21 welcome.22 And with regard to the23 alternative schools and her request,24 please submit that information to the25 153 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Chair, and the Chair will make sure it's2 distributed to all members of Council.3 The next person is Councilwoman4 Sanchez.5
Thank6 you, Madam Chair.7 Good afternoon. I'd like to8 add to that request. I think in previous9 years when we got our budget information,10 there was additional data provided by11 District in terms of schools, ranking12 charters and some other stuff that's not13 in our data, and I think had that been14 provided this year, a lot of the15 questions, particularly with my Council16 colleague Donna Reed Miller, would have17 been answered.18 So, Madam Chair, if you would19 allow me to request that we get that20 updated information by district as21 they've done in the past, that would be22 very helpful. I look forward to those23 report cards every year.24 COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL:25 154 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Certainly. Thank you. Thank you very2 much.3
Thank4 you.5 So I'm going to start with a6 couple of things. I just want to kind of7 echo my concern that I expressed8 yesterday around the severity of some of9 the projected cuts, and very concerned10 about the hysteria that it's created in11 the community, particularly by parents12 and teachers and providers. So I just13 want to say, I'm very concerned and14 getting bombarded.15 Most of the students that were16 here earlier this morning were from my17 councilmanic district. So I want to kind18 of lay some of these -- put some stuff on19 the record that's not correct so that we20 can kind of move on.21 I'm not going to talk about22 full-day kindergarten, because I think23 that out of a $3 billion budget, the fact24 that we're talking about 25 million is25 155 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 just like, if I can use Sandy Shea's2 expression, a no-brainer. So I would3 hope that we're going to figure that one4 out.5 But I do want to talk a little6 bit about the transportation piece and7 for the record ask, of the $50 million8 that -- or the $49 million, how much of9 that is reimbursed by the state?10
Councilwoman, there11 are different rates of reimbursement. So12 for non-public transportation, for13 instance, the reimbursement is over 8014 percent. For bus transportation, it15 ranges in the 50 to 60 percent range. So16 the total level of reimbursement is in17 the 60, 70 percent range, and as we have18 noted in the Budget and Brief and in our19 budget presentations and want to make20 clear for the record here, we are21 reimbursed by the state for22 transportation with a one-year lag. We23 are reimbursed in each year for the24 subsequent year. Since we've provided25 156 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 full transportation services, we will2 receive those full reimbursements next3 year. The cuts in transportation, if4 they are implemented next year, will5 result in a loss of state reimbursement6 in Fiscal Year 2012-13, which means that7 the net savings in the second year after8 a transportation cut would be much less9 than the savings in the first year. And10 we've recognize that, we've acknowledged11 it. We've only made these recommended12 reductions because while I take your13 point about in what was a $3 billion14 budget, unfortunately now only a merely15 $2.7 billion budget, each individual item16 doesn't sound like it's that great, but17 the problem is we have to cut 600 million18 plus, and if we had not proposed these19 transportation reductions, the only20 option left to us would have been further21 reductions in instructional programs.22 And since those aren't on the table, it's23 hard to envision that, but if you had24 seen those cuts, our feeling was they25 157 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 were going to be even worse than the2 transportation cut, because if we had3 transportation but we couldn't get people4 the quality educational programs, then5 the transportation wasn't going to avail6 us that much.7 But that said, we also agree8 that it's a terrible cut, and in9 particular because the beneficial effect10 is going to erode in the second year.11
And I12 guess that's to my point. So this13 particular cut this year will realize us14 what savings this year?15
So the savings next20 year would be in the range of about $16,21 $17 million.22
I just23 say that because when we're talking about24 these numbers, there's a lot of zeroes in25 158 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 these, and it's a lot easier for people2 to fathom 16 million than 50 million. So3 I just think it's an important4 clarification, because when we talk to5 parents, there's this notion of $506 million, and really what we're talking7 about is trying to close a gap that it8 will be 6 million.9 I also want to make sure that10 we're not passing the buck to next year11 with some sort of funding scheme this12 year, not looking at next year. So with13 transportation, I just wanted to get that14 clarified.15 I'm a little concerned about --16 and let's get into the alternative17 education. I know that last year when18 the School District, rightfully so,19 looked at creating additional slots,20 there was a lot of discussion about21 current Philadelphia-based providers and22 folks coming in and the disparity between23 the cost of students by the different24 contractors. Where are we as it relates25 159 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 to that? Do we now have a standard? I2 know at that point when we talked about3 it last year, we tried to create a more4 uniformed standard about what the cost5 per student is.6
Good afternoon,9 Councilwoman. We have standardized the10 costs across the District in terms of11 each provider. The difference is whether12 it's a full day or half day. Some13 providers work on a half day; some of14 them work on a full day. So we're in the15 process of doing that now as we go16 through the rubric again this year and17 look at the performance indicators that18 are there for each provider. And so as19 we put that together, those costs, we20 would be asking each one to take equal21 costs.22
We like23 to look at those. Right now my24 understanding -- and I asked this25 160 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 question yesterday in our briefing, and2 just to clarify for the record, my3 understanding is that if the proposal4 before us stays, the providers' funding5 will end June 30th even for those who are6 graduating kids after that; is that7 correct?8
Their contract9 ends when it ends. There are some that10 will be graduating their students on11 August the 4th. So we are very much12 aware of that.13
Okay.14 Wait a minute. So that's a concern.15 Because we're saying to folks, You have a16 commitment with us to graduate these kids17 in August, but we're only providing18 funding for June. Is that what you're19 saying?20
No, that's not21 what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that22 each provider had their own contract as23 to when they would graduate students, and24 those contracts are still intact. So no25 161 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 one has changed the contract on that2 issue.3 Now, going forward next year,4 we are going to have to negotiate some5 cuts and some cost-saving measures.6
So based7 on your current proposal about how8 alternative education would look next9 year versus this year, can you highlight10 for me the one or two or three different11 things? Because I know there's a12 discussion about some of this being13 brought in-house. So what would change14 based on what you're proposing now?15
We're basically16 proposing to do five high schools,17 accelerated high schools in-house, three18 middle schools in-house.19
The high schools22 will be located in current places that we23 have providers operating right now. For24 example, at the AER Center on Front and25 162 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Hunting Park; at E.S. Miller, which is2 4300 Westminster; also at Southern High3 School, which right now there's a program4 there; at Bartram Annex, there's a5 program there; and at Ben Franklin High6 School on the flip side of the schools,7 on Green Street or Brandywine.8 At the same time, we have some9 providers that are very exemplary, so10 we'll be working with them in terms of11 what capacity that they could be utilized12 in to move it forward on a smaller scale13 at a reduced rate per student, and they14 all will be the same.15
Can you16 explain to me the thought process -- and17 we had this discussion before and I'm18 just really concerned because it's an19 issue that we had at DHS when we moved20 from a robust provider system based on21 where we needed these schools to be22 located, the types of kids that they were23 going to service, and then when we go24 back to centralizing, we're going to lose25 163 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 that.2 What is the thought process and3 why -- is this a budgetary decision or is4 this one of let's transition in the long5 run these programs back into the6 District?7
Basically it is8 both. We want to transition in the long9 run because we have created our own10 programs. We have plats and plans,11 Philadelphia Learning Academy South,12 which uses a non-graded model;13 Philadelphia Learning Academy North that14 uses a non-graded model. We have --15
An ungraded model.18 We have Albertson for middle19 school students. We have a program PYDA20 for high school students who are coming21 out of placement that use a very similar22 model.23 Now, the providers use a very24 similar model as well. So for providers25 164 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 per student in the accelerated side of2 the house, they do differ in terms of3 whether they're full day or half day.4 That's the only difference.5 Now, on the transition side of6 the house, $10,200 for the full-day7 program and $5,297 for the half-day8 program.9 On the transition side, those10 programs are all full-day programs right11 now, and the providers are paid $8,800 as12 a minimum and 10,002 as a maximum,13 keeping in mind that each provider in the14 RFP quoted the cost that they wanted15 associated with their budget to run those16 programs. So the District did not17 legislate the dollars.18
None. We're21 actually increasing 500, because it costs22 the District less to run the program.23 PLA North, for example, they was24 allocated $10,200 for 275 kids, but right25 165 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 now they run 400 kids a piece. So that2 cost is about $5,000 per kid.3
So4 you're saying that we can do it more5 efficiently internally?6
We are8 going to have the capacity based on9 teachers -- are we going to have that10 capacity to transition that quickly with11 teachers and everything else?12
Yes, we will.13 When we were given the okay to open the14 PLAs, we opened them in one month. So we15 know we have the capacity. We have the16 training. We have the professional17 development all set up to go. We have18 the administrators in place. So we19 know -- there are going to be some20 hiccups, there's no question about that,21 but, of course, we'll be there with the22 Alka Seltzer to make sure that those23 hiccups are taken care of.24
I don't25 166 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 doubt your intentions. It's just that2 I've been involved in education long3 enough to know that it is taking us a4 very long time to create these very5 unique programs to meet the needs of6 these kids, and you're asking us to have7 a leap of faith that in one year you're8 going to be able to build that capacity9 internally, and it's really difficult for10 me to say that that's possible. It's11 doable over two or three years. I don't12 see it doable in one year.13 So these -- I worked at ASPIRA,14 as Director of ASPIRA, and I had an15 alternative education and accelerated16 program. The kids who come into these17 programs have a variety of special needs.18 We failed them once. We can't afford to19 fail them twice as we try to figure it20 out, when we already have some proven21 track records of graduating these kids.22 So I'm not going to be against23 reform in saying how do you bring that24 stuff internally. I am not going to25 167 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 accept that we're going to do this in one2 year. It's just not possible. I've seen3 what's happened when we attempt to do4 these drastic changes overnight, and the5 kids get caught up in the middle.6 There's a geography issue of where kids7 want to go and how far they're willing to8 go, because many of these kids, as you9 well know, have kids. So you're talking10 about single mothers, single fathers.11 You have adjudicated youth.12 So we're going to have to13 rethink this area, and I know that's one14 of the areas where we've talked about15 restoration, but I want to go beyond16 restoration of funding. I want to go17 to -- part of what makes the portfolio18 work is the mix, is the ability to have19 different slots and different types of20 situations for all the kids. So I want21 to be real careful about how we work22 that.23
Actually, it is24 still a mix, and we will have 4,000 young25 168 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 people who will have access to the2 contract providers, the ones who have3 done the best in our DOL schools. We4 have 4,000 young people. So it is a mix.5 We're actually not transitioning all of6 the contract providers out of the7 alternative mix. That just wasn't8 explicit. And we'll be working in9 schools as they are in all of our DOL10 schools. That's about 4,000 young people11 that will still have access.12
That's13 part of the concern. Again, what I found14 is dealing -- when we were doing some of15 this work is, you don't want to set kids16 back in the same environment where they17 failed the first time. There's a reason18 why these smaller environments are more19 conducive. It's about not putting a kid20 back where he failed again once.21
No. I24 understand that. There's a pocket of25 169 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 kids that that works for because of their2 situation, but, you know, when I visit my3 alternative schools in my district, I'm4 acutely aware of the fact that it is a5 very different environment in their6 schools, that we're not putting these7 kids back up in that same environment.8 (Applause.)9
Councilwoman,10 we're doing both. So some will remain in11 their schools like they are now and some12 will have off-site centers, those13 providers that have off-site centers. So14 there will be a choice. It's what we're15 doing now, with a smaller number of kids,16 4,000.17
And I18 think before we finish this budget19 discussion, I'd like to see more details20 about what that looks like, because I21 think it's real important that again --22 and I said it, I was one of the first23 folks to say these budget cuts are24 drastic. I'm going to do my part as an25 170 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 elected official to provide as much2 support, but it is going to be with3 conditions, and that's clearly one of the4 areas where, because of my experience,5 has to be worked out.6 (Applause.)7
I want11 to talk a little bit about the ESL impact12 and the cuts. This is one of the areas13 where I always sound as a broken record14 as the Latino on Council. But for the15 last three years, I've been asking for16 what is our bilingual education plan, and17 we've gotten different variations of what18 we're doing around ESL and bilingual19 education, but I'm extremely concerned20 about the elimination of 42 bilingual21 positions. Now, correct me if that's not22 the number.23
Yeah. She's24 going to come up and explain that. I25 171 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 believe it's bilingual counseling2 positions. It's not teachers. We've3 added 63 more teachers. We did not4 reduce those teaching staff.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
Good afternoon.8 Lucy Feria. How are you?9 That's correct. As I was10 coming up and I heard the number, I was11 saying that's BCAs. That's not teaching12 positions. The ESL program will13 continue. It actually saw the least14 reductions. We were watching it closely15 and are very committed to the ESL16 program. So we will continue to have 30117 ESL teachers. In addition, we're18 actually enhancing our programs because19 we are going to open a dual language20 program at Luis Munoz-Marin.21
So the22 cuts in the bilingual piece/ESL piece is23 on the counseling side? So where are we24 seeing --25 172 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
There are several6 offices that provide services to parents7 and students in schools. The Office of8 Parent and Engagement has another office9 that has two big offices that serve ESL10 students or ELL immigrant families. They11 are the Family Supports, Office of Family12 Supports, as well as the Office of13 Translation and Interpretations.14 In my shop, the Office of15 Multilingual Curriculum and Programs, we16 do the instructional program.17
And, actually,19 we've increased our Office of Translation20 Services. I don't remember how many, but21 it's a big office now. So we felt like22 we could -- the bilingual counseling23 assistants are sort of like instructional24 aides, and what we've done is shifted the25 173 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 resources so we'd have more interpreters2 for schools and for services3 District-wide.4
Okay.5 Well, I'm interested in looking at how6 these cuts -- the one issue that I'd like7 to revisit is -- and maybe Lucy will8 remember since she's been around a9 little. I don't want to put your age out10 there, Lucy, but a little bit -- is the11 designation of bilingual schools that12 allows us to ensure that when we have the13 type of cuts that we're talking about,14 usually first in is first out, and then I15 end up losing bilingual personnel at the16 school-based level. How are we making17 sure that that doesn't happen in those18 schools in the past -- and I don't know19 if it was the '80s rendition of bilingual20 schools.21
Gosh, I think that22 was about in the 1990s. What we are23 currently doing is designating positions24 bilingual. So we have positions based --25 174 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 and the school principals make that2 decision, as well as many of the other3 offices. For example, we have bilingual4 counselor positions, bilingual5 secretaries, bilingual teachers.6
So when7 we make these cuts, if they're last in,8 are they first out?9
Not if they have a10 bilingual designation for the position.11 For example, I have five transitional12 bilingual programs and there are teaching13 positions that are designated bilingual.14 In order to implement the program, we15 would need the bilingual teachers.16
The17 other area that -- last week I had an18 opportunity to sit down with some19 parents -- is the, I guess, the parent20 ombudsman positions. They have all been21 eliminated?22
They have, and23 they're coming back. We eliminated both24 the -- and I guess I want to say, you25 175 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 know, the last thing we want to do was to2 eliminate these positions, the parent3 ombudsman and the student advisor, but4 what we've done is combined the two now5 so that we can still keep parts of both6 of those positions. So there will be7 somebody there who will handle both the8 advising of students who are truant and9 have other issues to support the10 counselor, and they will also work with11 parents. So we've combined the two12 positions.13
So how14 many cuts are we talking?15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17
So we have18 approximately -- Karen Dunkley, Deputy19 Chief, for the record, of the Office of20 Parent, Family, Community Engagement and21 Faith-Based Partnerships.22 We will have a total of the new23 positions, they're known as school24 improvement support liaisons, and we will25 176 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 have a total 150 of those positions,2 reduced from 177 parent ombudsman.3
For parent6 ombudsman and student advisors, we're7 losing 150 of those. So a total of 1708 positions.9
How are10 the qualifications different? Because I11 think one of the uniquenesses about the12 ombudsman was you had people who were13 from the neighborhood, understand. So14 how are the qualifications changing?15
The16 qualifications are actually comparable.17 We did retain the same qualifications to18 ensure that we would not lose those19 people who were connected to communities.20
But there is --22 I mean, we do have a bumping rights23 issue. So the most senior will bump into24 these positions first.25 177 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
Okay.2 So there again, I may get hurt on the3 bilingual and language.4
They will not --5 bilingual designations absolutely remain6 bilingual regardless of seniority. So,7 for example, if you take a school like a8 Cayuga or Furness, it's strictly based --9 as long as the position is designated10 bilingual, the seniority there only11 applies to personnel who are bilingual.12 So they will absolutely be staffed13 bilingual.14
Okay.15 Thank you.16 Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll17 let my colleague -- Bill is busting at18 the seams over here. I will be back.19 Again, this is very drastic.20 We're very much committed to saving where21 we've made progress, but it will be with22 caveats. So I'm there.23
Thank24 you very much.25 178 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Councilman Green and then2 Councilman Jones. I apologize,3 Councilman Jones. He really took to task4 his point of order, albeit it was a5 rather long point of order.6
Thank you,7 Madam Chair.8 Maria knows a lot of things.9 One of the things Maria knows is10 education, I have to say. That was a11 very impressive colloquy.12 I'd just like to say for the13 record that over the last two years,14 we've learned a lot in this Chamber about15 making tough budget-balancing decisions.16 We went through that at a time when17 School District funding increased year18 after year, and we've disagreed at times19 and we've grappled with serious fiscal20 challenges and trying to find a21 responsible way to do so while preserving22 essential services.23 Our touchstone has been really24 outcomes, productivity and collaboration.25 179 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 And our ability to deal with these2 challenges was enhanced by having3 multiple stakeholders at the table - the4 Administration, City Council, PICA, the5 Controller and others. The City balanced6 its budget using suggestions from all of7 these parties and benefited from diverse8 perspectives.9 It seems likely that the City10 will provide some assistance to the11 School District this year. From my12 perspective at least, it's important that13 any such assistance be accompanied by two14 things. First, a willingness on the part15 of the District to allow oversight that16 is equivalent to the oversight we have17 over City departments, including the18 equivalent of subpoena power, our ability19 to get any information we want when we20 want it, et cetera, and, for example,21 allowing the Controller to have the22 ability to do pre-audits and performance23 audits and look at anything that he wants24 and get information about anything he25 180 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 wants. And it's likely that this issue2 will be go on in 2013 as well. So the3 second commitment is to use the funding4 for programs such as those that people5 have talked about are important today.6 I'm concerned that the items on7 the chopping block include initiatives8 that we know improve outcomes for kids.9 I'm not confident that all of the10 programs we're preserving have a data or11 evidence-based approach that they12 actually do improve outcomes for kids.13 And so it looks to me like we have some14 positioning here rather than linking15 spending decisions to increased or best16 outcomes for children. And I guess we17 can get into that a little bit more in18 the questions, but I wanted to start my19 questioning with that premise and wonder20 whether the School District will be21 amenable to memorandums of understandings22 and other contractual items that are23 enforceable in court.24
Councilman Green,25 181 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 I think we have multiple numbers of2 memorandums of understanding between3 various City departments. So I wouldn't4 find this out of the ordinary with5 respect to the Controller's Office.6 I do recall -- and Mike will7 have to -- what do we have on staff on8 the Controller's Office?9
Well, there are10 seven positions that are currently paid11 for out of the School District budget,12 seven FTEs out of the Controller13 complement that are paid for out of the14 School District budget.15
Well, they are not17 staff who are assigned to School District18 audits. They are members of the general19 staff of the Controller's Office. They20 perform their duties at the behest of the21 Controller.22
And the23 Controller's Office does not have24 pre-audit authority like he does for City25 182 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 departments. He can only go back and2 look retrospectively.3
That's correct.4 Under the School Code, the pre-audit5 function is a School District function.6 We have an internal audit unit of our own7 which performs that function.8 As for performance audits, the9 Controller's Office does conduct10 performance audits on a regular basis on11 the School District, and we cooperate12 with them fully.13
So my14 question once again is, is there any15 objection to providing City Council and16 the Controller with the same authority,17 even if we have to do it by contract,18 that we have over City departments?19
Under the School20 Code, the School District is required to21 maintain its own internal audit unit. So22 you would basically be putting these23 transactions through two levels of --24
I'm not25 183 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 suggesting that we would use it to2 perform an additional audit. It's not3 clear to me that we're given all of the4 information we request. It takes a long5 time to even get a hearing on issues,6 whether it's related to bullying or other7 things. We do get them eventually three8 or six months after the fact, but the9 level of cooperation at least -- I'm only10 speaking from my perspective -- would11 have to change dramatically for me to12 want to support additional funding.13
I can only say with14 respect to the Controller's Office and my15 office as the Chief Financial Officer, we16 work extraordinarily closely. They are17 an independent auditor, so it's not --18 it's not cooperative in the sense that's19 inappropriate, but I am -- I can't think20 of an instance in which we have not been21 able to provide the Controller's Office22 with information that they have required.23 They are in fact the auditors of the24 School District and have --25 184 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1