The6 Controller was in here the other day and7 specifically raised these problems in8 terms of his relationship with the School9 District and how difficult it is to get10 information in the School District,11 specifically mentioning they have to come12 up with alternative theories to get13 access to buildings just to check the14 equipment there so that they can actually15 perform audits about what's going on in16 the schools. He gave that specific17 example.18 So rather than getting in a19 back and forth, my question is simple.20 Are you willing to give us the kind of21 authority we have over other departments22 in terms of quick access to information,23 the equivalent of subpoena power, et24 cetera, if we're going to provide you25 185 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 with additional resources so that there2 is an accountability to this body?3
I don't think I4 can answer that. I think that we'd have5 to have legal look into that, along with6 the other issue that was raised by7 Councilman Clarke, and it would have to8 be then a School Board decision,9 certainly not staff.10
Okay. I11 accept that. I wanted to make that point12 and say I honestly think that at least on13 the City's side, we've benefited from14 having more information available to more15 people to make suggestions.16 Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez17 just raised a point that I think was lost18 on us because we don't have details about19 the City budget, and, that is, if you get20 $35 million on a cash flow basis next21 year, you can pay for transportation as22 long as 16 million is there. So I don't23 know whether the School District is24 allowed to do revenue anticipation notes.25 186 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 We can do them and lend the money to the2 School District in a way that doesn't3 make it an ongoing obligation, but it4 seems to me that the transportation issue5 is a $16 million problem as long as we6 can create a financing mechanism and not7 a $53 million problem, because you'll get8 reimbursement at the 60 or 70 percent9 rate as long as that cash is available to10 you.11 In terms of like12 problem-solving together, is there a way13 for us to go to banks together, put that14 extra 35 million in our trans and get the15 money back from you next year when we16 repay them, that sort of thing?17
Councilman, as I18 noted, we are in discussions with the19 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation20 Authority about the possibility of that21 kind of arrangement to deal with22 TransPasses, but it would be much more23 difficult to do it with respect to the24 bus service. There are certain25 187 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 limitations on us. One is, we don't2 receive the reimbursement 100 percent on3 day one of the next fiscal year. This is4 not to say that it's impossible to do5 this, just it's one of the difficulties6 we're wrestling with with SEPTA. The7 state reimburses us on a bimonthly basis8 over the course of the next year. So9 it's actually a two-year transaction, not10 a one-year transaction.11
Okay.12 However long the transaction is, is there13 a way for us to work together for us to14 provide potentially the cash flow15 necessary for you to continue that, even16 if it's a two-year reimbursement to the17 City?18
Okay. So21 really the ask for transportation, as22 long as there's the financial mechanism,23 whether it's through loans from banks24 that we guarantee, whether it's through a25 188 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 shared services arrangement where we2 actually provide the bussing and can get3 reimbursed by the state, it's really a4 $16 million problem?5
If you can give6 us that kind of support, then it becomes7 a $16 million problem.8
If we can get12 that support of the advance, the kinds of13 alternatives, then it becomes a $1614 million problem. But right now we don't15 have any of that as surety.16
And that's17 the kind of collaboration that happens in18 our budget process all the time where we19 figure out how to work things out and20 help each other, and certainly we want to21 do that for the School District, and22 hopefully we can work that out with the23 Administration and other stakeholders to24 try to do that.25 189 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 So we just -- gosh, that was2 pretty good, 53 million to 16 million.3 That's a pretty big savings.4
But the tran must5 be paid back within a 13-month period.6 You don't have two years in which to pay7 back the tran.8
I9 understand, but there's bank financing10 and there are ways for us to financially11 engineer to get -- this is a finance12 problem, it's a cash flow problem.13 That's all it is.14
It's also a budget15 and expenditure problem in that one of16 the things we've been wrestling with with17 SEPTA is, we will incur the expense next18 year, and one of the things that I in19 fact have to do with the Controller's20 Office and with our own staff and with21 SEPTA is figure out is there a way to22 avoid our having to recognize the23 expenditure. If we have to recognize the24 expenditure, it's a problem.25 190 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Also, I agree with you that in2 theory, this is potentially a financeable3 transaction. But we don't know that yet.4 We don't know what kind of credit or5 security from what parties, at what level6 of interest expense. All of that is not7 to say -- I mean, the message from the8 Superintendent is clear, that if we can9 do this, we would welcome it. I mean, we10 don't want to make the cut. We'd love to11 find a way to make this a financeable12 transaction. We've been thinking about13 ways to do that already, but there are a14 number of hurdles that we've got to15 figure out how to clear in order to16 ensure that we actually have figured it17 out.18
No. I19 understand, but you didn't come here20 asking for us to help you solve a21 problem. You came in here asking for 5322 million, and working together, we can23 jump those hurdles and solve the problem24 with $16 million, is my -- I think we're25 191 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 going to work that out.2 So I guess my next question is,3 of the Imagine 2014 initial proposal, how4 much are we still spending on it and how5 much was cut?6
Let me just see.7 I'm asking my Budget Director. I'm not8 sure we have those numbers.9 I think that's in the ball10 park. As we've noted, the major things11 that are preserved are expanded summer12 school, reduced class size and the13 counselors. There are a few other14 programs that are partially preserved.15 The total expenditure at its peak, which16 is this year, was a little under $18017 million. We think in this budget there18 is about between 45 and 50 million of19 initiatives that are still in this20 budget.21
So we've22 gone from 180 in spending on Imagine 201423 to 40?24
To about 502 million. Could you provide the detail of3 that to the Chair?4
Rather than6 trying to go through each program with7 us.8 Can you pull up of your9 chart that was in the PowerPoint?10 I'm sorry. It's the chart that11 shows higher student achievement gone12 hand in hand with increased funding.13
So can you15 tell me when Imagine 2014 began, what16 year? 2009?17
Imagine 201420 initiatives were implemented beginning in21 the '09-'10 fiscal year, and that was22 last year, and then in the '10-'11 fiscal23 year, that's current year.24
So we25 193 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 wouldn't have seen an impact until 20102 in terms of school increased scores,3 right? Because it began in --4
Well, there6 is certainly an impact there in terms of7 increased scores. What data or evidence8 do we have that demonstrates that that9 increase is related to Imagine 2014 and10 not sort of the general other programs11 that have been happening in the School12 District over the course of the last ten13 years?14
Well, we can15 correlate the work that we did with16 empowerment schools, and they actually17 made greater progress than our other18 schools. We can show that the young19 people who went to summer school actually20 did not regress as much as those that did21 not. So we can show you the research.22
How much23 specifically of the increase between '0924 and '10 can you attribute to Imagine25 194 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 2014? And I'm not asking you to answer2 that right now, because you probably3 don't keep the data that way, but the4 things you just mentioned. If you hadn't5 had the empowerment schools, for example,6 if you hadn't had the summer programs.7
What would10 have the chart looked like in 2010, if11 you can provide that to the Chair.12 So when did we first get13 funding for early childhood education?14
Well, the first16 funding for early childhood education was17 Head Start, and that was the war on18 poverty.19
Oh, okay,20 from the state that increased early21 childhood education.22
I'm ashamed to23 admit that I'm old enough that I can24 remember that, actually. It was in25 195 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 2007-2008 that Governor Rendell proposed2 the Pre-K Counts program, which added3 additional state funds to the federal4 funds that we were already using.5 However, the state also began doing what6 most other states do, and, that is,7 supplementing federal Head Start with8 state Head Start, and they began doing9 that in 2004.10
I believe we can11 show you exactly the programs we put in12 and the results in terms of student13 achievement. There's been a lot of14 discussion around alternative ed. We put15 in Multiple Pathways. When I got here,16 there was one program. Now, I don't17 know -- there are Multiple Pathway18 programs. Our graduation rates have gone19 from 59 percent in two years to 6320 percent. I'll be happy to send you that21 data.22
That's23 great. So what year did we first get the24 state funding for full-day kindergarten?25 196 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
State funding for2 full-day kindergarten was part of the3 Accountability Block Grant, and that was4 2004.5
2004. So6 what we know from the data that was7 mentioned at the beginning of this budget8 hearing is that K through, I think, 8 or9 K through 4, K through 5, I can't10 remember, has sort of like 67 percent of11 students at grade level in12 District-operated schools, and then as13 you get up into high school, the number14 drops off to 43 percent, my recollection15 is. And I guess my point is that it16 seems clear just from these charts that17 early childhood education and full-day18 kindergarten are probably as strongly, if19 not, more correlative to the increased20 success because it carried throughout21 grade school than the Imagine 201422 program has been, with all its successes,23 which I acknowledge, with all its24 successes. And so what we're really25 197 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 talking about -- and if my colleagues2 will bear with me. You've heard me say3 this a number of times -- budgeting is4 choosing between competing ideas for good5 with limited resources. And I guess I6 don't understand a decision to spend 507 million on some of those programs versus8 the 25 million that's needed on9 kindergarten. In other words, when you10 make that decision, what you're saying11 is, there is nothing in our budget that12 is less effective in terms of achievement13 than full-day kindergarten, because14 you've chosen to eliminate full-day15 kindergarten. So you've said of all the16 choices you made, nothing is less17 effective than full-day kindergarten.18 And that's a premise I think, as19 Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez said, that20 I don't agree with. There is money in21 there that can be spent on full-day22 kindergarten instead of something it's23 being spent on in a $2.7 billion budget.24 Would you agree that there's money in the25 198 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 School District budget that is less2 effective to outcomes than full-day3 kindergarten?4
I don't know5 that I can say that. I think that6 certainly full-day kindergarten is7 important. This is -- you know, we're8 talking about -- I mean, I believe if we9 had ten years of what we put into Imagine10 2014, look at what we did with graduation11 rates. I mean, we are dealing with a12 whole system here. The budget reductions13 that we put on the table hurt across the14 board. And so the Accountability Block15 Grant cover all of kindergarten. We made16 a choice. We said half day. We don't17 want to do it, and I don't certainly want18 to pit one against the other. I could19 then start pitting full-day kindergarten20 against alternative programs, which we21 just said were important for young people22 who need a second chance.23 We're here to ask for help, and24 we have made some difficult choices.25 199 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 None of them are what we want. I'm an2 early childhood teacher. Believe me, I3 didn't want to make that cut, but I also4 know that -- and it's been now --5 research has proven that young people who6 are engaged in summer school don't go7 backwards. Young people who start who8 don't have activities in summer school9 regress.10 So you're asking us to make11 difficult decisions, and we're making12 them. You can disagree or agree with us,13 but we did the best we could and we're14 here today asking for help.15
Right. And16 I think that there's been tremendous17 progress over the last few years in the18 School District, and I applaud you and19 your team for that. That's not the issue20 here. The issue is, we're making budget21 choices between things, and by funding22 something instead of all-day23 kindergarten, you're basically saying24 that that program is better than full-day25 200 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 kindergarten.2
I mean, just to7 clarify and to repeat what we've tried to8 make clear before, the Governor decided9 to completely eliminate our funding10 source for that program. We had to cut11 25 million in other programs in order to12 restore half-day kindergarten. And I13 think if you look at our overall14 approach, recognizing that -- and I think15 the record of today makes clear, there16 are a number of critical things that we17 do. From the most important, which is18 what happens every day in every classroom19 in the City, to all of the supports that20 we try to wrap around that, whether it's21 social services or remedial programs or22 summer programs, programs for students23 with special needs and ELL or because of24 disabilities and all the supports, our25 201 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 approach was to try to spread the pain2 out rather than wholesale eliminations in3 some areas and complete preservation in4 others. I would say that that was the5 general approach.6 So we did not eliminate all7 gifted programs. We did not eliminate8 all athletic programs. And I say that9 not to say that -- we recognize on the10 part of you as members of Council and11 state legislators and the media and the12 public and everybody else in Philadelphia13 that each person may have made a14 different choice. The different members15 of our team made different choices, and16 ultimately Dr. Ackerman had to ref after17 hundreds of hours of debates among us. I18 mean, this is the final product. All I19 think we want to do is convey the20 thinking of the School District's21 management about how we went about this.22
Right. And23 I'm asking you to explain the choice of24 spending 50 million on programs that are25 202 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 remaining from Imagine 2014 instead of2 funding everything that's gotten us up to3 where we were in 2009.4
Well, some of5 those choices have been reduced class6 sizes. We can take up it up to 31 to one7 if you want, and that would be another8 discussion that we have. Summer school9 is actually -- what we've done is10 reallocated our federal grants for that11 to keep that in place.12 So, I mean, we could get -- we13 could restore full-day kindergarten and14 we'd have to make some other difficult15 cuts.16
What would17 you cut -- what's the first thing you'd18 cut to restore full-day kindergarten?19
I don't believe20 that I can sit here and say that. I21 think that this has come after months of22 discussions with the staff, and lots of23 people have been involved in this24 process.25 203 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
I think2 that's a fair answer, and I'm not going3 to put you on the spot --4
-- on that.7 So what I'd like you to do is provide the8 Chair with the priorities of cuts you9 would make to -- what choices you would10 make if Council's money was -- let me11 rephrase this. If you were to get no12 more funding and you had to restore13 full-day kindergarten because we helped14 you out with transportation, for example,15 what you would cut in order to keep16 full-day kindergarten, what you would cut17 in order to keep early childhood18 education. I'll just ask with respect to19 those two specific things in dollar20 amounts, but I have -- you mentioned21 class sizes. Other districts like in22 Charlotte and Mecklenburg, North Carolina23 School District reduced class sizes or24 continued reduced class sizes in all the25 204 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 lower grades, which academic studies say2 have a tremendous impact, and they3 increased much more significantly classes4 in high schools, because there's no data5 or evidence that shows that increased6 class sizes in the upper grades actually7 impact results, at least from the8 education studies that my office looked9 at. And so I'm curious why you wouldn't10 make a choice to do that, keep lower11 school classes small and upper school12 classes larger.13
That's exactly21 what we did. We kept our lower size -- I22 mean, the lower grades, primary grades,23 the class sizes are still smaller. As we24 went up, we increased them. So that's25 205 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 exactly what we did.2
They're going5 anywhere from 23 to 24 to one, and some6 of our schools it's 20 to one, our7 empowerment school, up by three children.8
Those are pretty11 much -- we had focused on the lower12 grades.13
So why not14 increase class size in the upper grades15 and not in the lower grades?16
Okay. But23 it is something that you would look at24 because, I mean, the data demonstrates25 206 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 that it makes a huge impact in lower2 grades --3
Okay. So9 ideally that would be something you would10 do if you could work it out?11
We'd have to get12 the union to come back to the table and13 discuss it for sure.14
Which15 raises, I guess, an interesting point,16 which is that -- I apologize. I think17 that there's $75 million in your budget18 that is related to lowering costs or19 renegotiating with your contracts?20
And there's22 $57 million in your budget that is23 related to --24
Point of25 207 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 information.2
Thank you.5 My intern, who has attended6 full-time kindergarten, wants to know if7 we get paid by the word to ask all these8 questions in City Council, and I assured9 him that we don't, that I will attempt to10 be succinct in my point of information11 very quickly, if I will be allowed by my12 colleague. Thank you.13 On the issue of contract14 negotiations and savings, I think it was15 on where you cite said savings.16 Your assertion is that you are going to17 reopen the labor negotiations with the18 teachers?19
With the unions.20 That is what we would like to do. I'll21 let Dr. Nunery talk about that. And this22 is what's happening in school districts23 across Pennsylvania.24
And my point25 208 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 is that whether that is a welcomed2 circumstance by the union or not, are you3 also prepared -- how many professional4 services contracts do you have over the5 year, annual expenditure, how many6 consultancies with law firms, accounting7 firms and what does that dollar come to,8 and are you also putting on the table9 renegotiating those contracts?10
Councilman, that's13 a great question. In terms of the --14 trying to figure out how to address you15 without turning my back to you.16 So in regards to the first17 question, we've already started our18 conversations with our partners across19 the unions. We've made some progress20 with some and not so much with others.21 And what we're trying to do is come up22 with the right bundle of contract23 re-openers, concessions and/or agreements24 so that we can reach that $75 million25 209 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 number. I don't want to --2
So is that3 $75 million all wage concessions by the4 unions or are we talking about5 contractors' concessions?6
It's a combination7 of the two, and it also could involve8 some other things that we figured that9 would be more appealing; for example, the10 waiving a 12-month advance layoff notice11 could save a significant amount.12
I'm less13 concerned about -- I learned never get14 involved in labor negotiations as a15 legislator, but I will get involved in16 contract negotiations with consultants17 and law firms.18
What is the20 anticipated giveback concession from21 contractors, not labor?22
So you're actually23 asking about the unions as well as on24 professional services side. I don't have25 210 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 the exact number of professional services2 contracts we have, but what we are doing3 in our budget cuts, they anticipate4 contract eliminations altogether, outside5 counsel being cut.6
I have it.11 Councilman, professional12 service contracts in the central13 offices -- most of our professional14 service contracts are for educational15 programs or support for operations. Only16 about $14 million is in the17 administrative budget. That's about 518 percent of the total administrative19 budget, and that is being cut more than20 in half. It's being cut about 6021 percent.22 In departments like Information23 Technology, Finance, the various central24 administrative office, Transportation,25 211 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 HR, all of what constitutes the Central2 Office. So there will be a reduction out3 of that of 7, 8 million plus, but that's4 not where we spend most of our contracted5 money. As you've heard in testimony6 today, the largest contracts in the7 District are the alternative education8 contracts. Our total professional9 service contracts are 129 million and all10 debt constitutes 49 million of that. The11 second largest is facilities, which is 2312 million, and most of that is the13 contracted out custodial services in our14 comprehensive high schools, which are15 performed under contract. The other16 contracts are in special education, and17 those are primarily for specialized18 medical and treatment services that we19 cannot provide in-house.20
Excuse me.21 Under -- and we may have different22 procurement standards than the City of23 Philadelphia. Under Class 200, which is24 your traditional consultants, what is25 212 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 your expenditure annually?2
The total3 expenditure consists of about 2804 million, but 65 million of that is5 payments to institutions where students6 from Philadelphia County are placed in7 full-time residential institutions.8
So that9 means you're about 130 in traditional10 consultancies?11
Correct. Right.12 And then after that, services to13 non-public schools are about 39 million.14 So 23 percent is payments to these15 institutions for educational services in16 those institutions. When DHS or the17 Family Court or CBH places a student in18 an institution, we have to provide the19 educational services. That's 65 million20 in contracts. That's 23 percent of our21 total contracting. Fourteen percent is22 payments for services to non-public23 schools, which are state mandated.24 Thirty-two million, 11 percent, is bus25 213 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 transportation. Sixteen million is in2 utilities. Those are largely fuel3 contracts. One million is for hospital4 and homebound instruction, which we5 contract out. And then, as I said, 406 million for the alternative education7 programs we've been testifying about8 today, 23 million primarily for9 contracted out consulting services, and I10 think I have gotten to about 75 percent.11 Then special ed is 3 percent. That's 912 million. Information technology, we have13 remote hosting for our IT services. So14 that's primarily that. All of our "P"15 data applications are all off site. So16 we do that under a contract. And then17 almost everything after that are for18 educational programs, 3 million for, for19 instance, our arts and other enrichment20 providers for summer programs, 3 million21 for extended-day programs for --22
Let me go23 line item. I'm losing that battle. Line24 item, how much for legal services?25 214 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
Legal services,2 outside counsel is 1 percent of the3 contract budget, $2 million.4
Accounting7 services -- well, finance in total this8 year again is 1 percent of the budget, $29 million. Again, all of those things are10 going to be cut substantially next year.11 I know that in my office contracts, we12 cut 60 percent.13
By way of14 your Facilities Master Plan and your15 rightsizing of the School District, what16 does that represent by way of the17 appraised value of the properties that18 are vacant and/or for sale?19
Councilman, we20 won't know that. We're just starting the21 appraisals or the reappraisals now. As I22 mentioned earlier, we had the first phase23 of that. Those buildings that have been24 empty or vacant for some time, we're25 215 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 going to appraise. At the moment we2 actually have the appraiser working3 today. So we'll be able to give you a4 better answer probably in the next few5 weeks.6
What was the7 last time -- was there ever an appraisal8 done?9
So that was part20 of the answer. Some of them have never21 been appraised. They were closed and22 we've never gone to sale.23
So we have24 no sense of what that --25 216 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
What we have in2 our budget-closing plan, though, is $103 million roughly to say that's what we4 expect from closure of buildings and5 sales that we hope to net during this6 year.7
All right.8 And then my final point on my point of9 information, which my colleague was so10 gracious to allow me, is that when we11 look at these proposed funding cuts from12 Harrisburg and there was a list of poorer13 districts to richer districts and the14 percentage of cuts, to me just on the15 surface and not being an attorney, we are16 being discriminated against. When we17 look at counties like Upper Dublin and18 Montgomery County where they're being19 only cut $97 per student versus20 Philadelphia County with $1,438 per21 student, where Philadelphia has a poverty22 concentration of 61 percent, closing in23 on 62 if we round it out, if my public24 school education allows me to round up,25 217 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 and in places like Radnor, 6 percent; in2 Upper Dublin, 9 percent.3 Some of us here in this body4 think that that's somehow discriminatory.5 I mean, I don't understand the logic in6 this formula.7
Excuse11 me. We have a point of information on12 our point of information.13
It will be14 a short one. It's based on Councilman15 Jones' line of questioning.16 Just hypothetically, if the17 cuts that were being suggested in Upper18 Dublin, Wissahickon, Lower Merion,19 Tredyffrin and Radnor were the same cuts20 they're recommending for us, would we be21 here talking about this?22
So if they24 were equitable to the cuts as they are to25 218 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 the cuts in the richer districts, we2 wouldn't have this problem?3
I want to5 just state for the record that it's not6 just Philadelphia. Chester Upland;7 Duquesne City, Allegheny County; York8 City, Harrisburg; Clairton City,9 Allegheny County; and Philadelphia, they10 all have something in common, they're all11 poor, they're all urban -- most of them12 are urban -- and they're all going13 through some really serious economic14 problems for a long time now. And to15 eliminate or suggest that those cuts that16 you see in the lower level are in any way17 equitable and any way fair or in any way18 going to guarantee that the kids in this19 city have a chance to do well and not20 wind up incarcerated or worse, then I21 think that that states volumes.22 So I just wanted to make that23 point on top of Councilman Jones' point,24 that it is appalling to look at those25 219 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 numbers. Appalling.2
And we3 understand, conversely, we're going to4 pay one way or another. We're going to5 pay now or we're going to pay when --6 we're going to build schools or we're7 going to build prisons, and it's a real8 simple formula.9 So you're taking the blunt of10 this today, and we realize this and you11 realize this, and that's -- we're big12 boys and girls. We get paid to do this.13 But at the end of the day, we're going to14 stop pointing the fingers each way and15 start pointing the fingers where they16 need to be pointed and hold people17 accountable for it.18 (Applause.)19
I think that's one22 of the reasons why the conversation from23 Councilman Green is so important, because24 in terms of trying to make a series of25 220 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 forced choices, you still want to try, no2 matter how much pain there is, to make3 sure everybody gets something out of it.4 We've got principals calling us5 every day asking if they can save one job6 because -- whether it be music at7 Shawmont or Bache-Martin or go down the8 list, Roxborough. Everybody is asking9 for the same thing, is there enough money10 to save this one job, because at Shawmont11 the music program is so fantastic the12 kids go off to GAMP, they go off to all13 other kinds of schools.14 So I think what we're saying15 is, we're trying to do this and level it16 and not be so -- we don't also want to be17 disproportionate if we can avoid doing18 that. But we know that this pain that19 we're seeing and feeling is not -- this20 is not theoretical. This is21 quantifiable. This is factual.22
Thank you,23 Madam Chair, and thank you, Councilman24 Green, for your indulgence.25 221 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
Thank you,5 Madam Chair.6 I appreciate the profound7 commitment all of you have to the8 children of the City, and I appreciate9 your patience and that you've been here10 all day. I want to assure you that the11 questions that I'm asking you are the12 same questions I ask every department as13 they come before the City of Philadelphia14 and ask us for resources.15 The ability to understand and16 measure the outcomes of the dollars that17 we decide to appropriate or invest in a18 particular purpose is the purpose of19 these questions, and there is no other20 purpose. And so I just wanted to make21 that clear, and I hope we can have this22 discussion more than once a year in terms23 of outcomes and other things.24 And before I get back to25 222 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 questions, along that line in terms of2 measuring outcomes for our expenditures,3 I'd like to ask you, not today, but to4 provide the Chair with the information we5 discussed yesterday in the briefing,6 which is if you could please provide the7 AYP students at grade average, SPI -- or8 SIP, I guess it is --9
SPI, and the11 breakdown of each SPI measurement for12 each school individually rather than in13 aggregate categories in the City, so that14 we can look at the data, understand it15 and slice and dice it ourselves and reach16 our own conclusion independently, and I17 would appreciate that. We'll get that to18 the Chair?19
Okay.22 Great. So the question -- I guess before23 I get to the question I was asking, are24 we at the cap for high school class size25 223 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 in the budget you propose?2
Well, in this3 sense: There is no class that is higher4 than 33 students in a classroom.5 However, if in a particular school in a6 particular grade in a particular subject7 there only are 24 students, then there8 are 24 students in that class. I think9 one of the things that Dr. Ackerman and10 Dr. Nunery are trying to point out is,11 the goal that the SRC has set for us in12 the Facilities Master Plan is to raise13 our average occupancy, and that will make14 our schools more efficient, and that will15 probably have the effect of raising16 average class sizes in some schools. But17 we fill each class and provide a teacher.18 If in a particular classroom there are no19 more students, we don't make the students20 go and leave the school and go to another21 school just so we can get to the 33.22
I understand23 that. I mean, the parochial schools for24 ten years have been making very painful25 224 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 decisions, closing elementary schools,2 closing down high schools, North Catholic3 most recently, that meant a lot to the4 communities they were in, and it was a5 heart-wrenching process, and still is,6 that they're going through, and if you7 look at the trends now where one-quarter8 of the students are charter school9 students, we can imagine a School10 District ten years from now where less11 than 100,000 students are in12 District-operated schools, especially13 given the legal decision that recently14 came down that lifts the cap on charter15 school enrollment. And I just think that16 it's time, and it wasn't done before you17 were there, but it is now time to be18 serious about that work. I don't know19 what else to say about it.20
I'm talking23 about closing schools where it's not24 efficient to have a school and25 225 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 rightsizing the District's buildings to2 the number of students, not just that it3 has today but that we project it will4 have ten years from now.5
Councilman, so6 what we've been doing and we've been7 explaining to the public is along those8 lines, that there are areas of the City9 that have some schools overpopulated,10 some underpopulated. What we want to get11 to in a rightsizing policy is to correct12 for that and to look forward at what the13 projected demographics are like,14 anticipate charter school growth, the15 fact that vouchers may come into16 existence, and we don't know exactly when17 that may be, and the fact that cyber18 charters are also growing. So the whole19 delivery of public education is changing.20 So what we intend to do is look at not21 only how buildings are configured, but22 grade configurations, boundary changes,23 closures, renovations, consolidations,24 seven or eight different options that we25 226 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 can work with.2 What we don't want to do is the3 problem that we referenced earlier, and4 that is just turn the lights off on5 buildings and leave them blank, because I6 think that doesn't serve the public well.7 And we've been working with the City,8 with PIDC and other agencies to start9 talking about what the right way is to10 treat those buildings, where we can sell11 them, what we're able to sell, et cetera.12
I understand13 that, but in terms of the consolidation14 plan, it can't be driven by those15 external concerns. You've got to save16 money within the District so that you17 have money for children, and that's going18 to involve a painful process that was19 avoided at Lincoln and other places, my20 recollection is. It's hard work and21 nobody wants to do it, but --22
And once25 227 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 again, I'm not trying to be at all2 negative or critical, but we've been3 talking about a Facilities Master Plan4 and getting a copy of it since my first5 School District hearing in 2008, and it's6 just come out, and it's time to act on it7 at this point.8 So I was talking about the 579 million in charter school budget relief10 and 75 million in DSP labor contract11 re-openers, which is $132 million. So12 what is your plan if these savings do not13 come to fruition?14
Well, Councilman,15 in the Budget and Brief document that16 we've provided to you, we do point out17 that there are elements of this budget18 that are not within our control and that19 it is possible that there might be20 additional spending reductions that we21 would have to make in order to achieve a22 balanced budget.23 We've also tried to suggest24 that those -- given the cuts that have25 228 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 already been made, that those will be2 very unpleasant choices. So we're hoping3 that we can, by alerting the public, the4 media, civic leadership and our own5 parents, convince not only this body but6 also working with other school districts,7 the State Legislature, that the cuts have8 gone as far as they can go.9 We're also highlighting the10 charter school element, because we have a11 unique problem here. The charter school12 law requires us to increase funding for13 charter schools next year, because the14 funding is based on our enrollment and15 our expenditures this year. It's clear16 that the charter school law never17 anticipated a situation in which revenues18 might drop by 10 or 15 percent in a19 single year. So when that provision was20 adopted, it made sense, but now it has21 put us in this very inequitable situation22 where all of the cuts that we have to23 recommend are to the schools that three24 out of every four Philadelphia public25 229 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 school students attend and no cuts are2 imposed on one out of four.3 Now, we think the best solution4 to that is to reverse the Governor's5 recommendation on cutting charter school6 funding, that if it's a positive thing,7 which we're hearing from Harrisburg, that8 we have one of the largest networks of9 charter schools in the country, that10 that's worthy of support. But is that11 guaranteed? It is not guaranteed. And12 we've been very straightforward, and13 that's why we made a point of putting the14 page in the budget document that said it15 could get worse and here's why and here16 are some of the things that we'd have to17 contemplate. But the things that are18 left are, as I said, wholesale19 eliminations that we've been trying to20 avoid. So eliminating the entire21 instrumental music program would save us22 6.7 million. Eliminating the entire23 athletics program would save us 7.124 million.25 230 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
I'm not6 trying to go through all of them, and I7 understand your policy position, and I8 agree with you completely. The state9 should continue reimbursement of charter10 schools, not just at 57 million but at11 the amount they did last year. So we are12 completely aligned on that. The13 question -- and I'll ask you to provide14 the answer to the Chair -- is what you're15 going to cut if that funding doesn't come16 through, if you don't get 75 million in17 concessions, so that it's on the record18 for us and for everybody else to19 understand what it is the choice is.20 Have you seen the memo I think21 we all received this morning from Parents22 United for Public Education?23
They sent it25 231 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 to members of City Council and a group of2 other people. It basically has a bunch3 of contractual spending, including4 671,000 on communications contracts. It5 mentions a seven-person communications6 office with 170,000 chief communications7 officers, four deputies at 139, three8 staff who earn over $100,000, and then in9 addition to that, 671,000 in consulting10 contracts. It talks about 2.2 million11 for a program called Achieve 3000, which12 we spent nothing on three years ago, and13 a bunch of other savings that -- or14 expenses, and you may have already cut15 some of these or that may be the plan to16 cut some of this in the administrative17 budget, but it seems to me that they've18 identified a number of things that are19 worthy of considered cuts which would20 provide money for, say, early childhood21 education or full-day kindergarten that22 ought to be considered before we cut23 those programs. So I will refer you to24 that and be happy to get you a copy of25 232 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 this.2
And I'd like to3 say that most of the things that you just4 mentioned have already been considered in5 this budget. We've cut every Central6 Office budget and programs and contract7 by at least 50 percent.8
And so I13 guess, finally, I know this is a hard14 year for all of us. I want to thank you15 for the thought that you put into this.16 It is a lot of great thought. It's a lot17 of great work. The Administration does18 that every year. They come to Council.19 We don't always agree with the priorities20 with the spending things and we make21 changes, and I hope you take what we're22 doing in that light. We all have, I23 think, you and we, the School District24 and the City of Philadelphia, the best25 233 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 interest of the children at heart, and I2 really want to work together in a3 collaborative way to help solve some of4 these problems over the next month while5 we put the budget together.6 So thank you very much for your7 testimony.8
Thank9 you.10 Before we return to Councilman11 Jones, let me ask a question with regard12 to noontime aides and food service13 workers. Rumor has it that 650 noontime14 aides could be cut, 130 food service15 workers. Can you tell us how many there16 are in total? We're told that we could17 have a cut -- this could mean a 4018 percent cut for safety in cafeterias and19 also that noontime aides are already now20 working as former -- are already working21 in security as NTAs and police positions22 have been cut. We understand that with23 regard in this area, you had worker 1, 2,24 utility worker and cook, and now you're25 234 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 talking about one position and some of2 these being cut.3 Could you give us some4 information on that? They have been5 rumoring before we heard about this6 budget that they would get layoff letters7 effective June 1st.8
So10 we're hoping all of that is not so.11 Could you give us the numbers over these12 positions?13
First of all, in14 terms of noontime aides, it is -- I want15 to explain something about the budget16 that we presented to you. The budget17 that we presented to you, when it comes18 to school-based positions, was our best19 projection on April 27th when we were20 legally mandated to present a budget. We21 did not yet at that time have all of the22 school budgets submitted by all of the23 principals. So I want to caution that24 these numbers may -- now that we've25 235 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 gotten all the budgets in, our Budget2 Office is actually updating all this for3 the School Reform Commission's vote on4 the budget next Tuesday. But in our5 projection, knowing that we had 1,6686 noontime aides in this current year,7 budgeted positions, our projection was8 that we would see a reduction of 645 of9 those positions based on the way that10 they're distributed among schools and the11 cuts that were occurring in school12 budgets. So it may be more or it may be13 less than that, because this is one of14 those positions that principals can15 actually influence in terms of the size16 of the complement.17 There are reductions18 anticipated for food services as well19 that I think Dr. Nunery could speak to in20 more detail, but basically would involve21 our expanding pre-plating and doing some22 other things that would improve23 efficiency but would not compromise24 safety in any way. The fact is that we25 236 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 do run presently a food service deficit2 and we need to eliminate it, and that is3 a budget-balancing measure as well, even4 though food service is budgeted in a5 separate fund. If there's any deficit in6 that fund, it has to be covered in the7 General Fund of the School District, and8 that if we don't eliminate that deficit,9 it contributes to the overall School10 District deficit. So food service cannot11 be exempt from the same kind of12 cost-containment exercise that we've done13 elsewhere.14
But we15 are also told that where you had16 youngsters receiving fresh food, now they17 get that like frozen food because you get18 rid of people, even when they have full19 kitchens in schools, that with this --20
Thank you,25 237 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Madam Chair.2 Mr. Masch, I believe your first3 response to Councilwoman Blackwell was4 that these decisions were made by the5 principals themselves and they were6 school-based decisions. Then the second7 statement you made was that you had to8 reduce the overall food service expense.9 So which is it?10
I'm talking about11 two different things. The first12 statement was referring to noontime13 aides. The food services in schools are14 administered centrally by the Division of15 Food Service.16
So were20 decisions made to cut those aides made by21 principals or were they made by Central22 Administration?23
Any adjustment in24 noontime aides is made by principals out25 238 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 of the discretionary funds that they2 have.3
The second4 part of the question is, with regard to a5 deficit in the food service, you're6 talking about a food service contract?7
No. The food8 service operation is, in terms of the9 staff, it's completely provided with10 School District employees. Obviously we11 have contractors for bulk purchases of12 food and also some pre-plating as well.13
We do have food16 service contracts, but the food service17 operations in our buildings are run --18 are serviced by School District19 employees.20
And do you21 know if you can find any savings in the22 actual food service contracts?23
Do you know25 239 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 if you can find savings in the actual2 food service contracts?3
Okay. I can9 tell you from the history of the City,10 one of the things that came up in11 discussion of several different12 departments, Department of Recreation, is13 we actually are finding savings there.14 We're also finding opportunities for work15 there for people, because when we16 contract out those things that we can17 keep here. And I want to get into18 discussion of who your food service19 contracts are with, but we take that very20 serious when we talk about cutting and21 you begin to cut at the most vulnerable22 places. And so we are for contracting23 with Philadelphia, but even before that,24 we're for providing work to Philadelphia25 240 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 citizens if that is an option.2 Thank you, Madam Chair.3
Our target for6 reductions in those areas in food7 service, I just looked up, in food8 materials and supplies is a $1.9 million9 target for next year.10
Hold on a second.13 Eight hundred and thirteen in the Food14 Services Division.15
And16 the April 27th info said that you were17 talking about cutting 130 food service18 workers, albeit you have kitchens and19 people who prepare good food and20 wholesome food and that they would be21 taking just the frozen food into the22 schools where these young people are used23 to food in these two areas, and, again,24 they talk about the security in25 241 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 lunchrooms and such being cut about 402 percent due to these issues, and we3 really are concerned about those cuts.4
Councilwoman, I'm5 not sure where this information is coming6 from, but while there are cost savings,7 measures in this budget for food8 services, there is no planned budgeted9 reduction in the complement for food10 services. So the 800-plus number that I11 gave you is budgeted for next year at the12 same level as this year.13
All14 right. So food service workers are okay.15 And now noontime aides, what are you16 telling me about that? I'm happy food17 service workers are not cut.18
I'm saying that19 schools -- principals and, where they are20 active, School Advisory Councils, with21 parents who work with the principals,22 need to make decisions about which staff23 they're going to allocate, and we do24 anticipate that because of the reductions25 242 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 in school budgets, that some principals2 are going to eliminate those positions,3 because, again -- it will be perhaps a4 bad alternative, but they've determined5 that there are worse cuts that they would6 have to make elsewhere in the school7 budget.8
But9 then they'll need more security, more10 NTAs, more police officers. So as old11 folks say, you cut your nose despite your12 face.13 We ask you to consider that.14 We had hearings, and we realize there are15 cuts, so we won't have -- we introduced16 resolutions that were passed by this17 Council, and one of them was to ensure18 that every child has a library program.19 I told Dr. Ackerman that I would not have20 those hearings now due to these cuts, but21 those cuts and students have library22 programs occurred when principals had to23 choose between an English teacher and a24 math teacher, when I'm told when Ridge25 243 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 was Governor and principals were allowed2 to provide the cuts. Such a bad system.3 It's such a bad system that says children4 can go to public schools and not have a5 library and not have books. And so6 sometimes principals are told they have7 to choose unfairly. And I submit having8 noontime aides is not going to be cost9 effective, because it's going to create10 so many other issues in lunchrooms where11 students eat lunch and that this is12 something we really, really need to look13 at. It will cost you more in another end14 if you don't have aides in the lunchroom.15 (Applause.)16
So we17 hope that you'll look at that and maybe18 you will get back to us.19 So on June 1st -- and that was20 from former information. There's no21 letter, layoff letter, coming out on June22 1st; am I correct?23
There are layoff24 letters coming out on June 1st.25 244 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 Thirty-eight hundred people will get2 letters.3 COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL:4 Thirty-eight hundred people will get5 letters on June 1st that they'll be laid6 off?7
June 6th, the8 week of June 6th, 3,800 people under this9 current budget proposal will get letters.10 There's a variety, from noontime aides,11 to teachers, to the Central Office12 managers, Central Office staff.13
Everybody.16 COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL:17 Frightening, 3,800 people.18 All right. Councilman Jones, I19 have nothing to say after that comment.20 Your turn.21
Thank you,22 Madam Chair. Again, I'll have an attempt23 to be brief.24 My concern is on vocational25 245 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 training and finding out -- I believe in2 your budget testimony you state that we3 are looking at 30 percent -- I think it's4 on -- 30 percent cuts by way of5 vocational training.6 While you look up that, I will7 make a statement and say that there are8 many measurements by which we determine9 the success of our product, which is our10 graduates. One of them is their academic11 scores. Another one of them is how they12 matriculate into colleges, universities.13 But a real simple one is upon graduation,14 how many wind up with a paying job. And15 vocational training offers that pathway16 to real work right now and helps all of17 society, particularly for them to have a18 vision of success that my parents, your19 parents had, that at the end of the day,20 they would graduate, get a job, raise a21 family, those kinds of traditional22 values.23 When you start talking about24 cutting those values, every one of us25 246 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 isn't necessarily headed for college.2 All of us aren't going to Harvard. All3 of us -- but all of us deserve a future.4 I say that to say that I'm5 concerned about those projected cuts, and6 I want to point out some potential7 collaborations. Thanks to all of our8 efforts, including the President, we9 might be just maybe, cross our fingers,10 knock on wood, seeing the end of the11 recession. I make note of that because12 there are companies coming back to13 Philadelphia. I won't name the car14 company, but it is a car restoration15 company with 100 jobs heading into16 Hunting Park in Mr. Clarke and my17 districts, shared in that proximity.18 There's a trade school called19 Dobbins and Randolph right near there.20 They want things from the City,21 concessions from the City. We are22 prepared to give them all kinds of23 concessions, but one of the things they24 will do for us if we create that25 247 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 synergy -- and you took the tour over at2 Randolph when you first got here -- is3 put them in touch with those kinds of4 students that would be willing to make5 those kinds of partnerships that could6 get that kind of vocational mentorship,7 on-the-job training connection.8 So when you start telling me9 that 30 percent of that, I get worried,10 and I look at the numbers that you're11 talking about. We're talking about 73012 students in culinary arts, and that's13 good, that's important. We have over a14 thousand restaurants here in the City of15 Philadelphia. That's good. But we also16 have some of the best hospitals on the17 East Coast, and we only have 337 -- what18 is that, 394 students in health tech.19 That's a disparity that -- when you start20 talking about 30 percent cuts, where is21 that going to come from and who is it22 going to impact?23
This is a24 supplemental fund. Actually, CTE25 248 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 programs is something that we're really2 focusing on, trying to shore up those3 programs. We have a lot of CTE classes4 and we have actually some fine programs,5 like at Randolph and some of the other6 vocational ed schools, career tech7 schools. What we're finding, though, is8 we're losing money at the state because9 the young people aren't leaving those10 programs with certifications. So this is11 some supplemental money.12 What we're trying to do is13 reposition those programs, have fewer of14 the courses and more concentrated15 programs in some designated schools.16 We're calling them Centers of Excellence.17 So that young people can get18 certifications and get into the jobs and19 we can get more money back from the20 state.21 We're losing about $3 million22 every year because our young people23 aren't -- they're in the programs and24 courses, but they aren't getting25 249 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 certification. So this is not to the2 core program.3
So this is a6 supplementary about $6 to $7 million of7 additional funding beyond the core8 budgets of our CTE schools. The core9 budgets of our CTE schools just for10 instruction are 263 million next year,11 just to put that in perspective. But12 this is not a 30 percent service cut,13 because as we've noted in the Budget and14 Brief, some of the teaching15 responsibilities are going to be shifted16 to existing staff, because this has been17 supplemental, and some of the savings18 will be realized by eliminating19 paraprofessional positions and20 maintaining the teacher positions. So21 even in this supplemental program, we're22 going to try to preserve as much service23 as we can, but this is not -- I don't24 want anyone to think this is a 30 percent25 250 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 cut in the School District of2 Philadelphia's career and technical3 education programs. It is not.4
If I were to5 get that CEO of the car company that6 wants to do restoration of cars, then7 send them out on leases, these are 1008 jobs, who do I send them to in the School9 Board to make that connection?10
You would send11 them to our Deputy for Secondary School12 Reform, Ted Thompson, who is behind me, I13 think. He's sitting behind me. There he14 is.15
Okay.19 Because we want to make that connection,20 and I think it's important in the short21 run, but I think it's important in the22 long run as we start to look at what23 contributions these companies are willing24 to make, which takes us into naming25 251 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1 rights, that if in fact we create a2 demand for auto mechanics, which you need3 almost a Bachelor's degree to4 understand -- back in the day it would be5 nothing to see Bill Greenlee in the back6 of his driveway changing his spark plugs,7 but now he needs a computer and -- I8 mean, you know, things have changed. But9 if we can make these connections early,10 these companies are willing to make11 commitments to you, which therefore makes12 commitments to our young people, which13 helps increase our bottom line as a14 government.15 So it's important that we make16 these connects and not lose, because what17 we see in these schools and what we see18 on our streets in violence is because19 they know -- some of them don't believe20 they'll ever get to the campus of21 Harvard. So if you take away their22 dream, then they become a nightmare.23
We're24 absolutely --25 252 5/24/11 - WHOLE - BILL 110135, ETC.1
-- with you4 here, and what you'll see even in the5 midst of the budget reductions is a real6 focus on more CTE programs where young7 people leaving our school system with8 certificates having -- as opposed to9 having gone through CTE programs,10 sometimes for four years, and all they11 have is a diploma.12
All right.13 And we're working with the colleges,14 universities, technical schools to create15 that?16
We have a team17 of people, including some of the local18 colleges and IT programs, but I -- what's19 the man -- Mr. Clyde Hornberger, who runs20 the Allentown Training Center --21