Testimony of Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters

Testimony of Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters

before the New York City Council Education Committee

on the city’s failure to reduce class size as part of its Contracts for Excellence

October 13, 2009

Thank you for holding these important hearings today. The Department of Education is committing fraud on the city’s children and the state’s taxpayers by refusing to comply with the law and reduce class size.

Smaller classes remain the top priority of New York City parents, according to the Department of Education’s own surveys, and the state’s highest court held that our children were deprived of their constitutional right to an adequate education in large part because of excessive class sizes.

In return for receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in additional state funds, the city promised that class sizes would be lowered each year until the citywide average would be no more than 20 students per class in grades K-3 and 23 in all other grades by the fall of 2011. Class size reduction is now a state mandate, and yet class sizes increased last year by the largest amount in ten years; and there are widespread reports of further increases this year.

The April 2007 legislation which created the Contracts for Excellence recognized this fact, as well as the need for enhanced accountability and transparency in spending, and a rigorous process of public participation. Yet none of the transparency and accountability has been achieved. We have little actual knowledge about how the additional $650 million have been spent, though we know that it has not been spent on reducing class size. The city has failed for the last two years to make any of its class size reduction goals; and in over half of the schools that were supposed to be reducing class size last year, class sizes instead increased.

The C4E process for public participation has also been deeply flawed, as the city failed to hold any public hearings this past June, as the state instructed, though every other “big five” school district complied with the state’s calendar in this regard. They have also refused to hold any borough hearings, as required by law. Instead, an uninformative power point was presented to Community Education Councils over the last few weeks that omitted any mention of the existence of the city’s pledge to be reducing class size, its annual targets and/or five year class size goals, or any information on how the DOE’s has failed to meet these targets for two years in a row.

In its official C4E submission to the state, the city pledged that the “the Department continues to be committed to reducing class size in early grades via the Early Grade Class Size Reduction program." Yet when an audit was released in September by the City Comptroller, revealing the misuse of millions of dollars of these funds, the DOE claimed that the program “no longer exists.” Please see the attached fact sheet for more information on these findings. Clearly, the city has reneged on its promise to reduce class size.

In explaining the increases in class size that occurred last year, DOE officials offered lots of excuses. One offered by former Deputy Chancellor Chris Cerf was that principals did not choose to spend their funding on class size reduction because they saw little value in it. Yet 86 percent of the city’s principals in a recent survey said that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools. Another top DOE official said that the rise in class sizes occurred because parents insist on sending their children to certain schools. Yet the vast majority of students continue to attend their zoned elementary and middle schools, and DOE completely controls enrollment in high schools through OSEPO, the Office of School Enrollment and Planning Operations. Another excuse was that there were mid-year cuts to the budget, which surely did affect the ability of schools to reduce class size; but these cuts would appear to conflict with the maintenance of effort requirements in the state law.

The reality is that lack of planning, the failure to create new school seats, rising birth rates, and more development in neighborhoods in all five boroughs is leading to more overcrowding and rising class sizes throughout the city. This, along with a lack of commitment on the part of the city to follow through on its promises to reduce class size, combined with budget cuts to the classroom, while the number of high paid consultants, educrats, and administrators continues to grow, has led to a crisis that will continue to worsen unless the city rearranges its priorities and begins to focus on investing in the classroom. A recent analysis in the New York Times found that there was an increase of over 10,000 in the number of administrators and out- of-classroom positions at the DOE over the last seven years, and a decline of 1600 in the number of classroom teachers.

I attach a letter sent last week to the State Commissioner of Education David Steiner, signed by nearly two hundred elected officials, community and parent leaders, including you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the Public Advocate, the Bronx Borough President, the UFT president Michael Mulgrew, several state legislators, as well as many Community Education Council members and PA presidents. It asks the state to utilize its full oversight authority to make the city comply with the law on class size, by imposing a corrective action plan with the following provisions:

1-The city’s plan should be revised to include specific class size reduction goals by school, district, and citywide -- sufficient to achieve its annual and five year goals.

2-The city should be obligated to assign whatever teachers remain on absent teacher reserve (ATR) to regular classrooms in their respective districts, so that class sizes can be reduced from current levels. There are about 1500 of these teachers at last count, being paid full salaries, but without classroom assignments. This is a terrible waste of resources, especially at a time of rising class sizes.

3-The city should be forbidden from further pursuing any policies that conflict with its class size goals, such as placing new schools in buildings before smaller classes have been achieved in existing schools. DOE continues to insert new schools into buildings where the existing school is “underutilized” according to a formula which assumes near maximum class sizes, preventing for the long term reducing class size to mandated levels.

4. The state should require that the city revise its capital plan so that it can provide enough space necessary for its class size goals to be achieved, as the C4E regulations require.

5. The state should hold back all C4E funds before the city has reported to the state in detail what reductions have been achieved by school, district and citywide, reporting that is now mandated by the state to occur by November 17.

This year will be the mid-point in the city’s five year class size reduction plan, instituted by the Legislature so that our children could eventually be assured of an adequate education. There is no time to waste.

Thank you for your support on this critical issue.

September 2009

Fact sheet on city’s failure to reduce class size as part of the Contracts for Excellence

In April 2007, the state approved new legislation to settle the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) lawsuit. Called the Contracts for Excellence (C4E), this program has provided the city nearly $650 million in additional state funding over the last two years. In return, the city was supposed to spend these funds on approved programs that had been shown to increase learning, including a plan to reduce class sizes in all grades.

This was necessary since the state’s highest court found that classes were too large in NYC schools to provide students with their constitutional right to an adequate education. The C4E initiative was also supposed to provide enhanced transparency and accountability, with strict public input and reporting requirements.

Yet none of the accountability and transparency that was promised by this program has been achieved.

Failure to reduce class size

As part of its C4E plan, the state approved the city’s five-year class size reduction plan in November 2007. This plan called for the city to reduce class to no more than twenty students per class on average in grades K-3 and 23 in all other grades, to be achieved by 2011-2012.[i] As a result, $258 million in Contract for Excellence funds were awarded the city, with $153 million of those funds specifically allotted towards creating smaller classes. [ii]

In April 2008, a report was released, showing that in nearly half of the elementary and middle schools that had received funds meant for class size reduction, class sizes were not lowered, and in 34 percent of these schools, class sizes increased. While average class sizes did decrease by a fractional amount citywide – by one-tenth of a student in K-3 schools and six-tenths of a student in grades 4-8 – class sizes were almost as likely to increase as to decrease in the highest needs schools.[iii]

In September 2008, the State Education Department confirmed these findings, and concluded that the city had failed to make any of its class size reduction goals. [iv] More specifically, the State found that class size and/or pupil-to-teacher ratio had increased in 54 percent of schools, and seventy schools that received over nearly $20 million in class size reduction funds, both class sizes and student/teacher ratio increased. The state also said that the city would be “required to improve implementation of the second year of its class size plan. (emphasis added.)” [v]

In the summer of 2008, New York City submitted a proposal for $378 million in additional Contract for Excellence funding to be spent during the 2008-9 school year over the previous year’s amount, with $146 million of that specifically earmarked for class size reduction. Yet rather than making the necessary improvements, the city’s compliance considerably worsened the following school year, with the result being the largest increases in class size in ten years. Significant increases occurred in all grades, except for fourth, which fractionally declined. The increases in grades K-3 were so large as to wipe out nearly five years of gradual improvement.

Of the 765 schools that received nearly $150 million in class size reduction funding, 47 percent lowered class size, two percent saw no change, and in 48 percent of these schools, class sizes increased. In other words, schools that received class size reduction funding were more likely to raise class size than to lower it. [vi] (See the scatterplox in the appendix, showing this finding graphically by school.) [vii]

Why? Despite the infusion of millions of state funds meant to form new classes, there were 143 fewer classes in grades K-3 and 183 fewer classes in grades 4-8th than the year before. .[viii] According to a recent analysis in the New York Times, while the number of out-of-classroom positions has grown by over 10,000 in the city’s public schools, the number of classroom teachers has shrunk by more than 1600.[ix]

On September 9, the City Comptroller released a new audit, showing that the city had misused millions of dollars in funds meant for smaller classes in its Early Grade class size reduction program. The DOE promised the state that this program would remain unchanged, as part of its Contract for Excellence Plan, and that “the Department continues to be committed to reducing class size in early grades via the Early Grade Class Size Reduction program.". [x]

Yet after the audit was released, the Department of Education responded that the “Early grade class size reduction program no longer exists.[xi]

Clearly, the city has reneged on its promise to the state to reduce class size.

What’s wrong with the city’s class size reduction proposal:

The city’s class size reduction proposal is flawed, since the city has failed to allocate any funds centrally towards this goal, and there are no specific targets that the city is supposed to achieve at specific schools (except in a limited number of cases). The DOE has also failed to provide the overall direction, support and oversight to see that these funds are used appropriately, and has refused to align its capital plan with its class size plan, as required by law.

This year will be the mid-point in the five year period allotted for the city to achieve significant reductions in class size, necessary for the city’s children to be provided with their constitutional right to an adequate education. There is no time to waste to ensure that they do not suffer from even larger classes and worse learning conditions in the future.

Charts follow, summarizing the city’s five year class size targets and the actual class sizes in our schools, as well as the city’s utter failure over the last two years to use these funds according to law.

.

NYC class size averages and class size reduction targets 2006-9.

Class Size Averages citywide
Baseline
(2006-7) / 2007-2008* / CSR target
07-08 / Dec.
2008 / CSR target
08-09 / Feb. 2009**
grades K-3 (all) / 21.0 / 20.9 / 20.7 / 21.4 / 20.5 / 21.3
Gened / 20.9 / 21.4
CTT / 20.9 / 21
G&T / 21.9 / 21.3
grades 4-5 (all) / 23.8 / 23.8 / 23.8
Gened / 23.8 / 23.8
CTT / 23.2 / 23.3
G&T / 25.3 / 24.8
grades 6-8 (all) / 25.9 / 26.3 / 26.3
Gened / 26.1 / 26.3
CTT / 24 / 24.5
G&T / 25.9 / 28.2
grades 4-8 (all) / 25.6 / 25 / 24.8 / 25.3 / 24.3 / 25.2
Grade 9-12 (w/electives) / 24.9 / 24.4 / 24.3 / 24.4 / 24.0 / n/a
grades 9-12
(revised core) / 26.6 / 26.1 / 26.0 / 26.1 / 25.7 / 26.2

*as of 01/23/08

**as of 01/23/09

Data sources: Dec. 2008 Class size averages from NYC DOE, 2008-9 Preliminary Class Size Report, Dec. 2008; http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3EB9D745-1D83-449A-B894-F9D395D7655C/49954/Dec200809CSReportingSummaryFinal1.pdf and NYC DOE City Level Detail Report at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/48AEEDB4-A07F-4E2F-8CD2-D7F1008441F0/0/200809CityLevelDetailReport.xls

Feb. 2008 Class size averages from DOE, 2008-9 Detailed Citywide summary, posted at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D15234ED-2846-47A7-8219-69CD1E8A80DB/54445/20082009CityLevelDetail.xls

Class size averages 2007-2008 from NYC DOE 2007-2008 Summary Report, Feb. 2008; http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A5BC96A6-049F-4BF1-87EC-0E19597F4053/0/Feb200708CSReportingSummary.ppt

See DOE, Chart 5: FY09 C4E Class Size Baseline and Projections, Updated January 27, 2009 at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5C60C0BA-F6E4-456E-8762-CAF02609E69E/66528/5FY09C4ESchoolListClassSizeprojectionsSummary.pdf

Scatterplots by school and district, showing the city’s failure to use the C4E funds appropriately.

Each dot represents one of the 347 schools that received C4E funding to reduce class sizes in 2008-9.

Schools that received funding to add teachers to existing classrooms were eliminated—only those schools that were funded to create additional classrooms are shown here. These graphs reveal that schools that received these funds were just as likely to have increased as decreased class size.

1

Endnotes:

[i] NYC Department of Education, “New York City Five Year Class-Size Reduction Plan – Update – November 8, 2007,” at http://eservices.nysed.gov/c4e-public/reports/2007/otherreports/NYCDOE%20CSRP%205YR_11%208%2007_FINAL.doc.

Later this plan was revised in January 27, 2009 to specify high school classes in core subjects to achieve average class sizes of 24.5 by the 2011-12 school year. See DOE, Chart 5: FY09 C4E Class Size Baseline and Projections at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5C60C0BA-F6E4-456E-8762-CAF02609E69E/66528/5FY09C4ESchoolListClassSizeprojectionsSummary.pdf

There is also a listed of specific schools, mostly high schools, with specific class size reduction targets: NYC DOE, “Chart 6b: NYC Five Year Class Size Reduction Plan: Low Performing Schools,”

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9C8F083F-8957-469D-94C4-C5A5A724F6DF/0/NYCDOECSRP5YR_YR2_FINAL_Chart6.pdf

[ii] NYSED press release, “CONTRACTS FOR EXCELLENCE APPROVED FOR 55 SCHOOL DISTRICTS,” November 19, 2007.” http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/C4ERelease.htm

[iii] See United Federation of Teachers, “DOE flouts state class-size reduction mandates,” at and John Tapper, “Class Size and the Contract for Excellence: Are we making progress in NYC’s public schools?” April 28, 2008;

[iv] See NY State Education Department, “State Education Department Complete Contracts for Excellence Monitoring; Vast Majority of Districts Implemented Contract Provisions, but Exceptions Must be Corrected,” Sept. 15, 2008; also NYSED, “Contracts for Excellence–Monitoring Report,” Sept. 8, 2008, http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/C4EMonitoring.htm and http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/September2008/0908emscd4.htm

[v] SED also said that by October 15, 2008, NYC would have to “submit certified audit reports that show that systems are in place to separately track receipt and spending of Contract for Excellence funding for purposes of assessing that contract funding is targeted to schools consistent with the approved Contract and that the increase in total foundation aid and supplemental improvement plan grants have been used to supplement and not supplant funds allocated by the district in the previous year.”

[vi] In Kindergarten, average class sizes grew larger than they were in 2003. More than 66,000 of K-3 students -- or 25 percent -- were in classes of 25 students or more, an increase of more than 11,000 students compared to the previous year. There was also a 36 percent jump in the number of students in grades 1-3 in classes over 28. About 40 percent of middle school students, and about half of high school students remained in classes of thirty students or more.

[viii] Indeed, despite nearly a billion dollars in additional funds provided the city to form additional classes to reduce class size since 2000, at first through the state’s Early Grade Class Size Reduction program and then through the Contracts for Excellence, there has been a decline of nearly 2,000 classes in grades K-8. See Table 3. These figures are derived from earlier analyses from the Independent Budget Office and more recently, from NYC DOE figures. High school data is unavailable, since the Independent Budget Office never reported on HS data and to this day, the data provided by DOE in their class size reports for high schools are unreliable.