New Haven Independent

Posted by: nero | April 25, 2008 12:35 PM

Yikes. Oversight? Fiscal responsibility? Potentially overpaid bureaucrats? Although it has vaguely sinister Republican overtones, the idea of saving $10 million with judicious snipping of Board of Ed salaries sounds mightily attractive.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | April 25, 2008 12:44 PM

So here's some more quick math (and my calculator is rounding down, not up) -- these high priced administrators represent approximately 38% of the General Fund budget for Education. That's some serious bloat.

quick math check:
((100 x 145k) + (500 x 100k))/169.9 million

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | April 25, 2008 1:48 PM

Big pay for little accomplishment.

Posted by: Isn't it true Paul | April 25, 2008 3:16 PM

That you can't just trim those people's salary's? Don't you need to fire them for cause (which is nearly impossible)or lay them off? and if you lay them off, don't you then have to hire back different people into different positions which are vastly differen than the postions you just laid off? Meaning you can't lay off a curriculum developer at 125k a yea and then hire back someone else at 100k. Union rules prevent that and the city will get sued for millions. I know you would rather throw out good-sounding but impossible suggestions rather than looking at the details, but come on Paul - think this one through a little more - government sucks and it rules for unions are outdated - but they still screw the city every time.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | April 25, 2008 3:22 PM

We're spending tons of money, but that's not really the issue. I don't have a kid in ghe system, but I wouldn't complain if I had some feeling we were getting our tax dollars' worth.

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Many of our kids are not profiting from effective education (e.g. persistently low test scores, moderate graduation rates). This is a major civil rights issue because the kids falling by the wayside tend to be African-American and Hispanic. Why are the public schools failing when some charter schools (Amistad, for instance) are successful?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | April 25, 2008 3:42 PM

Your Tax Dollars at Work
the answer is simple..... parental involvement. I know I sound like a broken record. Amistad and schools that are similar have a greater number of parents involved in their children's education. I don't care how many programs and how you rearrange the system, unless a child's parents are their for them...the improvements will not be made. As a single mother I worked alot so I was not "always their" for my kids up I taught the education was #1 on their list... I road them. So time is not the issue morals and value in the home are.

ohhh

Posted by: Wiseman45 | April 25, 2008 7:19 PM

I'm all for parental envolvement but these parents voices are drownout by the closed loop of experts. I think it's time for an elected board and parents having much more to say about what type of compensation these administrators get.

They would probably find that many of these administrators are also politically connected. Making the politically connected the highest paid civil servants in the city - with retirement benefits based on their last (and highest) salary.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | April 26, 2008 3:28 AM

If you want to talk about political patronage, these 600 well paid elite are sure-fire votes for King John. They represents a significant 5% of the electorate in our typical low turnout races of 12,000 voters.

Posted by: realdeal | April 26, 2008 7:45 AM

As marshall Criscoulo, political empowerment pays off. Sadly on the backs of the hardworking taxpayers.

Posted by: robn | April 26, 2008 10:15 AM

To BS's point...I'm not sure if the top 100 are included in the top 500 figure, but taking at face value, thats $64.5M, 37% of the education budget... r look at it another way, thats about 14% of the city budget alloted for 600 positions. Seems like a lot. I'd like to see how much BOE is spent on teachers vs administration...personally I'd rather see the money spent on teachers.

Posted by: Not really | April 26, 2008 8:41 PM

Just to be clear, I am not sure what I think about the salaries -- and these aren't really salaries (Paul should have been more clear about that) they are what the city pays for the position, including health care, social security, pensions, etc. As much as 1/3 of the compensation may not be traditional salary. It still may be too high but Paul has made it seem like something it is not.

But anyway to my point -- these are definitely not votes for DeStefano as Bill Saunders says. Unfortunately 85% of New Haven teachers do not live in the city.

So Bill, you are wrong and it would be great if you did not just make stuff up. It's pretty common here at NHI and a bad way to make an argument.

The truth is even worse though. We would all be better off if these teachers lived in New Haven. Same for cops and firefighters.

Posted by: robn | April 27, 2008 12:21 PM

NR

You hit the nail on the head. We need more resident teachers, cops and firefighters spending their earnings here instead of elsewhere. Instead of limiting our choices by a draconian requirement though, how about incentivizing residence in the same way that Yale did.

A property tax abatement spread out over 10 or 20 years for new city hires. This would be geographically focussed to repair the margins of decent neighborhoods and raise the future tax base in the same way that stabilizing Goat Hill dramatically increased values in East Rock neighborhood.

I'm seeing this for new hires, but just to take it to the extreme, imagine for a second that you made an $1000 annual tax abatement for all 5000 city workers if they moved into specific neighborhoods in the city. That would be an annual $5M loss to the grand list which sounds like a lot, but would be dwarfed by the residential property tax revenues 5-10 years down the road if the East Rock magic could be done to other neighborhoods.

Are you reading this Mr. Smuts?? Mr Mayor? Geographically targeted tax abatement for city workers who establish residence. Its a twofor!

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | April 27, 2008 1:04 PM

It would certainly be helpful if more teachers, firefighters, police officers and other municipal employees lived in New Haven (and, as a result sent their kids to City schools).

As CedarHillResident pointed out, we need more Parental involvement and (if I may paraphrase her thoughts) transparency in determining hours of operation, suspension policy, as well as competency of teachers and administrators.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | April 27, 2008 1:26 PM

Just a way different way of looking at the situation NR, we know political patronage exists, and there is a large raft of politically connected people that must vote for John each election cycle. Though the my point may be hyperbolic, it makes a valid point. And while we may be talking about some teachers here, we are largely talking about administrators.

I will continue to express my viewpoints as I see fit, thank you very much, which will include such rhetorical devices as hyberbole, metaphor, and dramatic irony, as well as necessary doses of satire, and sarcasm.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | April 28, 2008 8:36 AM

The BOE bureaucrats are the mayor's LOCAL political support base. Many of these administrators live in New Haven, vote every election, contribute money, and help to TURN OUT the vote every election. Also don't forget that many of the aldermen and/or their spouses are employed by the BOE.

The teachers represent a different political base. Most live outside the city but are members of the AFT which represents the mayor's theoretical STATEWIDE political base.

But maybe now the mayor recognizes that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of EVER becoming governor and has figured out that there is no upside for him to continue to cater to the teachers demands.

The basic problem is that the mayor believes that the New Haven school system is performing as well as can be expected given the demographics of the students and their families. He believes that if you are poor, black, or hispanic, and you live in a household without educational role models, you are pretty much pre-destined to live the life of your parents. The best that the system can do for you is help you avoid prison.

It's tough to find lower expectations. Destefano's position represents about the most bleak outlook about a child's potential that you can imagine.

So if you believe that socio-economics play a much more important role than does education policy then it stands to reason that the best thing you can do as mayor is to deliver more and more financial resources to ease the pain of poverty....and employ a lot of people while doing so.

Posted by: Not really | April 28, 2008 10:30 AM

Bill Saunders,

Lying is not a matter of literary license.

Make your arguments without creating swiss cheese and you may move the city forward.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | April 29, 2008 1:50 AM

Well, NR, whatever you might think of my post (and I will admit, it was a quick jab at the system), Fix the Schools comment above seems to be corraborative of the underlying truths of my statement. (If you take the specific 600 guaranteed Board of Ed votes out of my statement, are you going to tell me these 600 (probably more) politically connected votes do not exist in New Haven? Are you going to tell me that 600/12000 is not a significant 5% of the electorate.

Are you trying to trivialize my point because I am using 'loose math' as a tool to open peoples eyes about political realities? Of course, the Destefano Administration NEVER uses 'loose math' to justify their poor fiscal choices, and continued Mickey Mouse existence on a whole. If you want to talk about making Swiss Cheese of the facts, you need to point your fingers at the elected representives of our public process, not at concerned citizens voicing their opinions. Tit for tat, I say.

So, how are personally connected in this sordid affair?

Maybe I'm being 'paranoid', but whenever I see this kind of anonymous pro-Destefano trolling, I must ask the poster to come forward and identify themselves. It's curious to me that they never do. Otherwise, your credibility is zilch (do I have to say 'in my opinion, or is that implicit), just like New Haven School system's performance. (Oh sorry, you caught me exagerrating again -- didn't test scores increase in one school by .3%, and was touted by the BOE as a educational milestone?)

Give me a break!

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | April 29, 2008 1:23 PM

CedarHill,

You always chalk up Amistad's success to parental involvement.

First, if Amistad's success is simply due to level of involvement of parents, then why does the average incoming 5th grade student come in 2 years behind grade level? If Amistad kids are successful simply because of their involved parents, why were they so far behind when they got there? If they have the same parents, then why weren't they successful BEFORE they attended Amistad?

And if there IS more parental involvement at Amistad, maybe it's because Amistad works hard TO involve their parents. And if that's part of their success, what is wrong with that? And if there is nothing wrong with it, then why don't we allow them (and pay them) to build another school, and another school, and another school, until every New Haven child has an "involved parent" (and a great education by the way)?

Contrast the open door policy at Amistad with the BOEs position on parent visitation.

* Amistad teachers return parents calls within 24 hours.

* When a student is off-track academically or behaviorally, the school is in constant touch with parents.

* When a student doesn't show up for school, Amistad teachers go to the kids house to find them - and talk to the parents about the importance of getting that kid to school.

At any great school, involved parents are made not born.