New York's schools are dealing with an odd mix of public opinion: people are upset over possible funding and program cuts, but many also blame the schools for high property tax bills.

State and federal funding discussions, too, offer mixed messages. Governor David Paterson has proposed a budget that would limit aid increases to schools, while Congress approved stimulus legislation that would boost funding for two mandated programs: one to provide tutoring and support for poor students, the other to guarantee an education for children with disabilities.

"I think that's important to realize that this money is actually the federal government beginning to step up to their responsibilities," says Jody Siegle, executive director of the Monroe County School Boards Association.

Schools are dealing with an increasingly complex picture of funding and responsibilities, and it's getting tougher to explain it all to the public.

During a recent interview with City Newspaper, Siegle talked about the fiscal problems facing schools. An edited version of that conversation follows:

CITY: The state's school districts dodged a mid-year cut, but Governor Paterson's proposed budget, if approved, will have a significant impact.

Siegle: I think one of the ongoing concerns is consistency of funding. We had Governor Spitzer come in and lay out this very ambitious plan for funding education more adequately. This plan was laid out to add $7 billion from the state and, in the first two years of that program, we saw property tax increases fall significantly because the state was picking up a greater share of the burden.

I'm not going to blame the State Legislature for the economic downturn. But nevertheless, they had built this plan on the assumption that the money could only continue to flow generously forever. And now school districts are left in the position where it's clear they can't continue the kinds of things that were put in place; that they have to make cuts.

What will districts do if the Legislature enacts the governor's proposed cuts?

The low-hanging fruit - field trips, limiting extracurricular or sports activities, changing the travel schedule for athletic competitions - those things are early in the discussion, but those aren't going to do it.

Now districts are talking about eliminating positions. They hope they can do some of it by attrition, but it's coming down to confronting the fact you're going to be eliminating jobs. There's no way to make cuts on that scale without doing that.

Paterson's proposal does contain some mandate-relief measures. Does he address the right issues, and is it enough?

He's proposed the introduction of a new pension tier, which opens the discussion for change for newly-hired people. Over the long term that will help.

We're going to be looking at double-digit increases in pension fund contributions [for school districts] within a couple years to make up for what was lost.

Do unions need to be more flexible?

Many districts have found very good ways to work with their unions.

I think the greater problem is really the Triborough Amendment, because [it] was designed so that when contracts expire, the benefits of the contract can continue until a new contract is in place. Its purpose was so that there wouldn't be strikes. And it's very important for the functioning of society that police, firemen, teachers, and government workers in a variety of places not strike. That can bring real chaos and I can appreciate that.

At the same time it means that when there's a change, kind of a sea change in the public's view of what are appropriate benefits, it becomes almost impossible for public employers to reverse previous benefits, to negotiate greater contributions to health insurance.

Are you seeing socioeconomic shifts in county's districts?

The concentration of poverty is obviously a problem in the city; although, as we have seen, it's a growing problem everywhere. The dramatic increase in free and reduced lunch numbers around the county in the last year are evidence of the increased poverty.

This becomes a concern with the state budget. One of the things the governor is doing is freezing the foundation aid for the next couple years at the current distribution. The whole point was to have the aid tied to the specific needs of the district, and the formula developed a pretty transparent way to look at the numbers of students with learning disabilities, the number of students on free and reduced lunch, and a bunch of other things and feed it into a formula determining what your aid should be.

We're worried they're going to jeopardize the formula permanently, because when you stop accounting for things like this, it ceases to be a meaningful formula.

Are some districts facing tougher situations than others?

Sure. What you have here is a built-in inequity. The districts that are more dependent on state aid are more injured by a cut in state aid. As a percentage, it's a greater dollar amount for them then a big cut would be from a district that doesn't get much from state aid. But they can't turn to their community, which has less resources, and make it up because it would be a much greater demand to make on that community.

Could consolidating districts help with aspects of funding?

No. The thing is, when you have two districts and they're going to consolidate, you eliminate a superintendent, but you may have to pick up other positions because it's bigger. You don't need less teachers. You still have buildings. You don't lay off students when you consolidate. You still need your faculty. You have the various labor contracts in the district. It never happens when you consolidate and negotiate these things that the lower contract becomes the rule; everything levels up.

There's the problem of physical proximity. You can have two districts that are very small, but how long do you want the kids on the bus getting to the other district?

It happens when districts see that it's to the betterment of the program and the community. Right now, we have Wheatland-Chili - which has a very small population of students and is getting smaller - actually involved in a study that U of R has prepared for them, and [in] conversations with their community about how best to proceed with their future. And consolidation is one of the questions on the table. It isn't immediately obvious who they'd consolidate with, and none of the districts that surround them could accommodate their students without it being a problem.

The idea of a school property tax cap has received a lot of attention over this past year.

It's a really bad idea. It doesn't solve the problem.

We effectively have a cap. Except for the Big 5, the budgets go up for a vote. The passage last year was something like 93 percent. It's been very high in the state for years. Even in times of strong fiscal difficulty, people are passing their budgets.

It doesn't mean you're not going to have education if the budget gets voted down; it guides the district in what the community wants. If your budget gets voted down, there is the contingency cap which is 4 percent or 120 percent of inflation. So we effectively have a cap if people vote down their budgets.

In Massachusetts, which they like to cite as the good example of the cap, their cap was on all municipal government, it wasn't just schools. And the state started increasing state aid to education dramatically as soon as the cap was implemented.