Current Status
Fact # 1
The budget approved by the Board of Education carried with it an increase of 7.77%. The issue under discussion is not about reducing the 2007/2008 budget below the Board's 2006/2007 budget but about the size of the increase for 2007/2008. At this point, based on revised estimates and information that was not available when the Board of Education approved its budget, we believe that we could make reductions to the budget that would necessitate an increase of 6.23%.
Fact # 2
Last year because of the cooperative and collaborative efforts between the Board of Education and the Board of Estimate, the budget increase for 2006-2007 was 2.31%. Had the Board of Education and the Board of Estimate not agreed to utilize Board of Education surplus that would have been returned to the city in June 2006, last year's increase would have been 3.99% but, the Board of Education's budget increase for 2007/2008 would have been much lower than the original 7.77%. This decision was made to provide a lower increase to our taxpayers in 2006/2007, and was the right one to make. This decision was also made with the full knowledge and understanding that it would result in a higher than usual increase in the proposed 2007/2008 budget.
Fact #3
The Common Council approved an increase for the City's overall budget for 2007/2008 of 5.2% with a recommendation to the Board of Estimate that the Board of Education's increase be limited to 3.8%.
Fact # 4
The Board of Estimate, making every effort to work within the cap adopted by the Common Council, will adopt a tentative budget with specific amounts identified for each department. For this purpose, the Board of Education is considered a city "department".
The Board of Estimate sets the tentative budget on April 2. If the tentative budget exceeds the cap, the Board of Estimate has, in fact, requested that the Council increase the cap. After April 2, the Council has the opportunity to adjust the cap, even if the Board of Estimate has not made a specific or implied request to do so. The Council must make any adjustment by April 17. The Board of Estimate will then make a final determination about each department's budget. This determination may be the same or different from the recommendation that first went to the Council. No determination has yet been made by the Board of Estimate about the total budget.
Fact # 5
As a result of reviewing our estimates and new information about anticipated costs, we have been able to reduce the budget adopted by the Board by $2.3 million dollars without impacting programs resulting in a 6.23%. Reducing our proposed budget to the Council's suggested increase of 3.8% will necessitate serious cuts in program and staff. The increase in health insurance costs, because we started from a lower base in 2006/2007, represents a 2.6% increase and salary increases represents a 3.1% increase to the 2006/2007 budget. We are facing a 5.7% increase from those two sources alone. That does not take into account increases for fuel, electricity, etc. The proposal of limiting our increase to 3.8% necessitates finding an additional $3.32 million dollars in cuts. That cannot be accomplished without sharp reductions.
Opinions—and a Response
The Budget in Context
I have taken the position that, given the unusual circumstances surrounding the budget increase for 2006/2007, it is only reasonable to view the change in the Board of Education's budget over a two-year time frame. With an increase of 6.23% for 2007/2008, the average increase between 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 would have been 4.27%. Statewide, the average was over 5%. I do not believe that our requested increase for 2007/2008 is unreasonable or inappropriate given this context. It is not fair to take steps in one year to minimize an increase knowing that it will result in a higher increase the following year, and then forget about that decision in the following year.
Cut Excess Administrators to Reduce Costs
Some have stated that there are too many administrators in the district. They point to the number of central office and building administrators to support their case.
Response
Size of Administrative Staff - Staffing levels are always a matter of judgment but they should be supported by a sound professional rationale. There are nineteen administrators who work at central office. They include the following positions: Superintendent of Schools, Chief Operating Officer, Asst. Superintendent for Instruction, three Directors (Elementary, Secondary, and Pupil Personnel Services) four special education supervisors, the Human Resources Officer, the Chief Information Officer for both Instructional and Administrative Technology, and seven instructional specialists. Of these nineteen positions, two and a half are funded from grant sources. For these positions, there is no cost to the operating budget.
Every district of our size has a Superintendent of Schools, an Asst. Supt for Instruction, a Chief Operating Officer (or equivalent title), a Director (or equivalent title) for Special Education or Pupil Personnel Services, and a Human Resources person. One might expect to see a variance in the remaining positions. Let's take a look districts comparable in size to us.
| District | Student Population | Administrators for Elementary & Secondary Education | Instructional Administrators | Special Education Supervisors | Total |
| Waterbury | 18,077 | 0 | 13 | 5 | 18 |
| Bridgeport | 21,020 | 4 | 15 | 13 | 32 |
| Danbury | 9,980 | 1 | 11 | 6 | 18 |
| Stamford | 15,106 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 19 |
| Norwalk | 10,781 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 13 |
Norwalk, in comparison with districts similar in size to ours, actually has fewer administrators even allowing for the spread in enrollment. Some of these districts have even more administrators but there is no comparability in title to our district.
Responsibilities of Administrative Staff - We have a comprehensive accountability system for our central office and building administrators. Nineteen building principals are evaluated and supported by two directors. The Director of Pupil Personnel Services is responsible for the four Special Education supervisors and the overall program for more than 1100 students that includes an array of required services. The work of curriculum development, its implementation, professional development, and the implementation of the School Growth and District Improvement Plan rest heavily on the instructional specialists who have expertise in academic content areas. Without these positions, this District would not have undergone a total curriculum revision and textbook replacements in the last five years, nor would there be the support needed for school and district improvement plans. Without these positions, the Norwalk public schools will find itself in the same place it was in 2001 where the systematic reduction of central office staff prevented the District from continually renewing itself.
Housemasters at the high school level and assistant principals at the middle and elementary levels support the work of building principals. Apart from the myriad managerial tasks that must be completed, we expect our administrators to be instructional leaders and to supervise and evaluate our teachers using a comprehensive model that provides accountability and improves performance. This cannot be done at the level expected for consistent improvement in academic achievement without adequate administrative support and housemasters or assistant principals available to share in that responsibility.
The role of administration in improving student achievement is as critical as that of our teaching staff. Without these positions, the work of implementing school growth plans and the District improvement Plan, required under the No Child Left Behind legislation, would be next to impossible. With that said, we will, nevertheless, not fill one administrative vacancy as a means of reducing costs for next year.
Using Scare Tactics
I have been accused of using scare tactics to mobilize public opinion in favor of securing a budget increase at the 6.23% level. I have identified several areas, none of them acceptable or popular, that would be in jeopardy if we have to find $3.3 million dollars in reductions from our proposed budget. Some have said these would not be necessary.
Response
I am not sure what the final list of reductions would look like or what, ultimately, would be acceptable to the Board of Education if reductions have to occur. The elimination of the new positions that I recommended for the high school will still keep enrollment in study halls high, but this may be a better alternative than eliminating all academic support staff. Reducing some academic support staff will impact our efforts to close the achievement gap, but may be a better alternative than completely eliminating our interscholastic athletic and co-curricular programs. Reducing the number of literacy specialists will impact our ability to provide the level of support we would like, but may be a better alternative than reducing the number of elementary assistant principals that would impact our capacity for accountability and support for all elementary staff. Eliminating elementary academically talented teachers will impact our ability to serve our brighter students, but may be a better alternative than eliminating some advanced placement courses.
None of these choices are acceptable and none have been finalized, but one cannot find $3.3 million dollars unless one cuts programs. In all of the budget analysis by our own Board, by the City's Finance Committee, and by the Board of Estimate, there have been no areas identified where our estimates of expenditures are identified as excessive. We are prepared to live on the financial edge. We are not prepared to gut our programs without acknowledging that it will impact our students and asking people to make that choice out loud and for all to hear.
In the Final Analysis—A Request for Support
Norwalk Public Schools provide outstanding educational opportunities for students. Our achievement has been steadily improving, but we have a long way to go. We need to pay close attention to the achievement gap. We need to take the steps that will increase our progress to the point where we no longer have the designation of "In Need of Improvement." We need to protect the academic, co-curricular, and interscholastic programs that make Norwalk so special.
Honoring our request for a 6.23% increase would necessitate finding an additional $3.3 million dollars to the increase currently proposed by the Common Council. According to the City's Finance Director, adding that amount would increase the median tax bill by an additional $65 a year. This is a figure he uses because he believes it more accurately reflects the impact on the typical taxpayer. Clearly, for some it would be higher, and for some it would be lower. To be fair, this median figure applies to the central part of Norwalk. If one were to use the average figure across Norwalk, the increase would be about $85. Again, some would be higher. Some would be lower. Let's make it an even $100 to try to cover the outliers. $100-- $2 a week! Put in that context, I believe that most people would say, "I can find $2 a week. It's worth the effort." I urge the Board of Estimate to request an increase to the cap in the amount of $3.3 million for the Board of Education budget. I urge the Council to grant the request.
Salvatore J. Corda, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools
