9486 in the collection  

Poverty Schools Told to Look to 19th Century Models of Excellence

Ohanian Note: The New York Court of Appeals found that the plantiffs did not provide enough evidence that well-maintained school buildings and plentiful classroom supplies are necessary to an adequate education. Indeed. And Mayor Bloomberg, himself a billionaire, notes that "No, Money is not the answer." New books are nice but "in the end you can, as Abraham Lincoln showed, you can get an education reading by the fireplace."

Note how these business tycoons order us teachers to teach for the 21st century, but when money is involved they start pulling up chestnuts from the 19th.

Excerpts from the Court of Appeal ruling are posted below the news article.


The legions who stand at the front of New York City classrooms, run its public schools and guide its educational policies fall into two categories regarding yesterday's Court of Appeals ruling: those who believe it will transform failing schools; and those who see it as a well-meaning gesture that politics, budget constraints, mismanagement and societal ills will keep from being anything but symbolic.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, though as Joseph F. Wayland, one of the plaintiffs' chief lawyers, said with weary elation yesterday, "This is the end of a long road and probably the beginning of a longer road ahead."

The good news is that the Court of Appeals has provided a map detailing the essentials to which the longer road must lead: smaller classes throughout the city's 1,200 schools; stronger teachers, particularly in its poorest neighborhoods; and more "instrumentalities of learning" — mainly new computers and library books.

The court was less emphatic about the need for well-maintained school buildings and plentiful classroom supplies, saying the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence that these were necessary.

The court also ordered the Legislature to complete a "costing out" study over the next year, so it will know by the 2004-05 school year just how much money is needed to provide the essentials. What it could not definitively prove, and what naysayers will keep pointing to as the decision's fatal flaw, is that an influx of money will guarantee that all New York City high school graduates will be able to "function productively as civic participants," which the court ruled was the standard for a sound education.

This is where those muddying factors — politics, societal ills and the like — could get in the way. There is, for example, the city teachers' union contract, which has long hamstrung the school system in terms of where teachers are assigned and how they are paid. The court ruling calls teacher quality "surely the most important" factor in student achievement, and emphasizes that schools in poor neighborhoods have many more uncertified teachers, teachers who repeatedly fail licensing exams and novice teachers.

Yet all the money in the world might not persuade the union to let the Education Department transfer the most experienced teachers to the poorest schools, or to offer higher salaries to experts in shortage areas like math and science. The deepening rift between Randi Weingarten, the union president, and Chancellor Joel I. Klein could make such changes even harder for Mr. Klein to win in the coming contract negotiations.

Even if the union did allow such changes, or if the new influx of aid allowed for substantial raises for teachers across the board, there is no guarantee that well-qualified teachers would be willing to work in failing schools. Many steer clear of low-performing schools not because the pay is bad, but because they consider it too draining to work with children who are often saddled with the baggage of poverty: physical and psychological ailments, behavior problems, chronic truancy and parents who may not be involved in their education.

The teachers' union does embrace the idea of smaller classes — in fact, it is pushing for a ballot measure that would require New York City to lower class size across the board. But even if the city had the money to finance such a costly effort, other problems would stand in the way: lack of space in existing schools, for example, and the difficulty of securing new land on which to build schools in a crowded city with rigid zoning laws.

Then there are the socioeconomic challenges, which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has made much of since winning control of the school system last year, and which he mentioned again yesterday.

"No, money is not the answer," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference where he otherwise expressed delight at the ruling. "It would always be nice to have more books, to have nicer classrooms. But in the end you can, as Abraham Lincoln showed, you can get an education reading by the fireplace. You have got to want to do it, and you have got to have people to help you."

Several education and finance experts say that while more money surely is not the sole answer, it will make a much more powerful difference now than it would have before the mayor controlled the schools. Mr. Klein's attempts to eliminate mismanagement by streamlining the system's administrative structure and centralizing authority puts heft behind the court decision, the experts said.

Diana Fortuna, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, a business-backed research group, said: "More money would have given me pause under the old Board of Education structure, but I think the accountability level is going to be a lot higher now. What Klein is doing is so big that it may take a few years for the system to be truly well moved, but I think they are heading in the right direction."

But Ms. Fortuna and others warn that the extra money will not come easily, despite the court's strongly worded directive. They point to what everyone, including the plaintiffs and the court, knows is the biggest potential pitfall: the inevitable battle between New York City lawmakers, who will champion the court ruling, and their suburban and upstate counterparts, who will fight the tax increases that will almost surely be needed to enforce it.

After a similar lawsuit concerning school financing, the Maryland Legislature conducted a "costing-out" study and determined it would have to increase school spending by 75 percent. To do so by 2008, Maryland will need an additional $1.3 billion a year in tax revenue — for a state that has about 250,000 fewer students than New York City's 1.1 million. In New Jersey, Jim Florio's attempt to raise taxes in response to a school-finance lawsuit in the early 1990's got him voted out of the governor's office.

"The sad irony is that in the last decade, when the state had the money to address this, they chose not to," said Robert Berne, a senior vice president at New York University who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. "Now it looks like we are going to be in a financial squeeze for some years to come. So all of this is contingent upon the Legislature recognizing that tax rates have to go up to fund this, and they are reluctant to do that."


June 27, 2003

Excerpts: Court Ruling on Financing of City Schools

Following are excerpts from the New York State Court of Appeals ruling yesterday on school financing. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote for the majority, with Judge George Bundy Smith writing a concurring opinion. Judge Susan Phillips Read dissented.

FROM THE DECISION By Judge Kaye
The issue to be resolved by the evidence is whether the state affords New York City schoolchildren the opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to function productively as civic participants. This is essentially the question the trial court addressed, and we conclude that the Appellate Division erred to the extent that it founded a judgment for defendants upon a much lower, grade-specific level of skills children are guaranteed the chance to achieve.

The Evaluation

To determine whether New York City schools in fact deliver the opportunity for a sound basic education, the trial court took evidence on the "inputs" children receive — teaching, facilities and instrumentalities of learning — and their resulting "outputs," such as test results and graduation and dropout rates. This organization of the facts follows naturally from our summary of the essentials" in [Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York] and was not disputed by the Appellate Division.

TEACHING The first and surely most important input is teaching. The trial court considered six measures of teacher quality — including certification rates, test results, experience levels and the ratings teachers receive from their principals — and concluded that the quality of New York City schoolteachers is inadequate, despite the commendable, even heroic, efforts of many teachers. . . .

On the other hand, plaintiffs presented measurable proof, credited by the trial court, that New York City schools have excessive class sizes, and that class size affects learning. . . . New York City elementary school classes average five more pupils than those of other schools statewide excluding Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers.

Although the Appellate Division found "no indication that students cannot learn in classes consisting of more than 20 students" . . . plaintiffs' burden was not to prove that some specific number is the maximum class size beyond which children "cannot learn." It is difficult to imagine what evidence could ever meet a burden so formulated . . .

In sum, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that there was not "sufficient proof" . . . that large class sizes negatively affect student performance in New York City public schools.

INSTRUMENTALITIES OF LEARNING The unrebutted testimony indicated that the books in City school libraries are old and not integrated with contemporary curricula. The Appellate Division suggested that school libraries simply consist of "classics" rather than "multicultural" books . . . but the record contains not one scintilla of evidence that antiquated books in City school libraries are "classics."

SCHOOL COMPLETION Concerning the first output, school completion, the proof revealed that of those New York City ninth graders who do not transfer to another school system, only 50 percent graduate in four years, and 30 percent do not graduate or receive a general equivalency degree . . . by the age of 21, when they cease to be eligible for free public education. This rate of school completion compares unfavorably with both state and national figures, and the trial court considered it symptomatic of "system breakdown."

TEST RESULTS Between 1994 and 1998, the undisputed evidence showed that upwards of 30 percent of New York City sixth graders scored below the SRP in reading.

We conclude that the trial court's assessment of exam results, like its assessment of completion rates, better comports with the weight of the credible evidence, and supports its conclusion that, whether measured by the outputs or the inputs, New York City schoolchildren are not receiving the constitutionally-mandated opportunity for a sound basic education.

Causation

The trial court reasoned that the necessary "causal link" between the present funding system and the poor performance of City schools could be established by a showing that increased funding can provide better teachers, facilities and instrumentalities of learning. We agree that this showing, together with evidence that such improved inputs yield better student performance, constituted plaintiffs' prima facie case, which plaintiffs established.

COMPARATIVE SPENDING The State next argues that per-student expenditures in the New York City schools compare favorably with the average in the United States generally and in other large cities such as Los Angeles, a fact purportedly incompatible with finding "gross and glaring inadequacy" in education. The premise is that some expenditure level, if high enough relative to figures nationwide, simply must be "enough," without reference to student need, local costs, and the actual quality of inputs and outputs.

CITY MISMANAGEMENT The State's most sustained arguments on causation, however, are based on evidence that the Board of Education mismanages New York City schools and the City itself fails to devote a sufficient part of its revenues to them. The State reasons that if either proposition is true, then the cause of any shortage of educational inputs in City schools is not the State funding system but City bureaucracy. . . .

The State argues second that, corruption aside, the Board of Education mismanages the schools, particularly by referring too many students to special education and placing too many of these children in costly full-time segregated settings. The trial court credited evidence that better special education practices could save City schools between $105 and $185 million annually. . . .

The available evidence-based conclusions are that overreferral to special education costs City schools somewhere between tens of millions and $335 million. As the trial court and Appellate Division recognized, both the Board of Education and the City are "creatures or agents of the State," which delegated whatever authority over education they wield. Thus, the State remains responsible when the failures of its agents sabotage the measures by which it secures for its citizens their constitutionally-mandated rights.

LOCAL FUNDING Of the State's rebuttal arguments, one more requires special attention. The State argues that the City actually has a greater capacity to fund education from local revenues than many local governments Statewide, yet fails to make anything like the same "tax effort" that other localities make. . . .

The analysis we have already outlined regarding responsibility for special education placement and teacher employment practices applies here again. Relative to the State, the City has "absolutely no control" over the school funding system and while any failings may be considered in determining the remedy, they do not constitute a supervening cause sufficient to decide the case for the State. Plaintiffs have established the causation element of their claim.

The Remedy

The trial court ordered the State first to ascertain the actual cost of providing a sound basic education State-wide, and then reform the system to (1) ensure that every school district has the resources necessary to provide a sound basic education; (2) take into account variations in local costs; (3) provide sustained and stable funding in order to promote longterm planning by school districts; (4) provide "as much transparency as possible so that the public may understand how the State distributes School aid"; and (5) ensure a system of accountability to measure the effect of reforms implemented.

The State objects to each of these guidelines on various grounds, but a common theme is that existing reforms already address existing problems. Indeed, ongoing Federal, State and City programs — several initiated after the close of trial — likely constitute the most ambitious education reform in recent years. . . .

Further, through an ongoing process of reform, the Regents have sought to reduce the employment of uncertified teachers and fortify the requirements for certification. . . .

All of these initiatives promise, but await, demonstrable outcomes. To the extent that recent reforms enable more students to receive a sound basic education, the State will have the opportunity on remittal to present evidence of such developments. . . .

Here the case presented to us, and consequently the remedy, is limited to the adequacy of education financing for the New York City public schools, though the State may of course address Statewide issues if it chooses. . . .

In the case of New York City, student need is high, as is the local ability to pay, as measured by the State's Combined Wealth Ratio. Thus, as the trial court observed, the equalizing elements of the State aid formula do not operate to the advantage of City students, the more so in that the system does not take into account the high cost of running schools in the City. . . . New York City regularly receives a fixed share — just under 39 percent — of any funding increase.

Thus, the political process allocates to City schools a share of State aid that does not bear a perceptible relation to the needs of City students. While we do not join the trial court in ordering that the process be made as transparent as possible, we do agree that the funding level necessary to provide City students with the opportunity for a sound basic education is an ascertainable starting point. Once the necessary funding level is determined, the question will be whether the inputs and outputs improve to a constitutionally acceptable level. Other questions about the process — such as how open it is and how the burden is distributed between the State and City — are matters for the Legislature desiring to enact good laws.

In view of the alternatives that the parties have presented, we modify the trial court's threshold guideline that the State ascertain "the actual costs of providing a sound basic education in districts around the State." The State need only ascertain the actual cost of providing a sound basic education in New York City. Reforms to the current system of financing school funding and managing schools should address the shortcomings of the current system by ensuring, as a part of that process, that every school in New York City would have the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education. Finally, the new scheme should ensure a system of accountability to measure whether the reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

The process of determining the actual cost of providing a sound basic education in New York City and enacting appropriate reforms naturally cannot be completed overnight, and we therefore recognize that defendants should have until July 30, 2004 to implement the necessary measures.

— Abby Goodnough
As a Long Road Ends, Another Begins
New York Times
June 27, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/nyregion/27YORK.html

---

INDEX OF OUTRAGES

Pages: 380   
[1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next >>    Last >>