lessons from cfe

7/30/2019 Lessons from CFE

1/22

Presentation on CFE

class on Urban Education Reform

Princeton UniversityNovember 27, 2012

Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters

[email protected]
http://www.classsizematters.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.classsizematters.org/


2/22

Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit In 1993, group of parents & education advocates concerned about inadequate

state funding to NYC schools filed lawsuit, CFE vs. state of NY.

In 1995, Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ruled that the NYSconstitution requires that state offer all children the opportunity for a "soundbasic education."

In 1999, the case went before State Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse; in2001 he ruled that school funding system was unconstitutional based on trialevidence.

Gov. Pataki appealed decision and in 2002, the Appellate Division reversed it;re-defining sound basic education as providing 8th or 9th grade skills level &

that existing funding is sufficient to achieve this.

In 2003, the Court of Appeals overturned Appellate ruling, rejecting 8th gradestandard, noting that a "high school education is now all but indispensable" toprepare students for employment and civic engagement.


3/22

CFE Part II

In 2004, Court appointed panel of three special referees to handle the state'snon-compliance & develop plan to resolve the funding inadequacies. Thereferees presented their report and recommendations on November 30, 2004.

On February 14, 2005, Justice DeGrasse affirmed panels recommendations,that NYC schools needed an additional $5.63 billion in operating aid and $9.2

billion for facilities if NYC students wd receive right to the opportunity for asound basic education.

On November 20, 2006, the Court of Appeals re-affirmed DeGrasse & thatstate constitution required that all NYS children have right to a "sound basiceducation" defined as "a meaningful high school education," & state hadresponsibility to increase funding for NYC public schools.

The ruling deferred to the state's executive and legislative branches todetermine the appropriate figure, establishing a minimum funding figure of$1.93 billion, adjusted for inflation.


4/22

What did Court say about class size

in the CFE case? CFE presented evidence about excessive class sizes in all grades in NYC schools

and how this led to low achievement and high dropout rates.

The Court of Appeals said that NYC class sizes were too large in all grades toprovide students their constitutional right to an adequate education.

Plaintiffs presented measurable proof, credited by the trial court, that NYCschools have excessive class sizes, and that class size affects learning.

Plaintiffs' evidence of the advantages of smaller class sizes supports theinference sufficiently to show a meaningful correlation between the largeclasses in City schools and the outputsof poor academic achievement andhigh dropout rates.

*T+ens of thousands of students are placed in overcrowded classrooms,taught by unqualified teachers, and provided with inadequate facilities andequipment. The number of children in these straits is large enough torepresent a systemic failure.

(Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al. v. State of New York, et al., 100 N.Y.2d 893, 911-12 (2003)

(CFE II).


5/22

Korea

Chile

Japan

TurkeyBrazil

UKNYC

USAGermany

OECD

Czech

Poland

HungaryDenmark

Spain

Italy

Greece

Iceland15

20

25

30

35

Average elementary class size Source: OECD, 2006 For NYC, NYSED data


6/22

Korea

Japan

Brazil

Chile

Mexico

NYC

Greece

Germany

Spain

Poland

USA

Austria

FranceOECD

EU UK Italy

IrelandIceland

15

20

25

30

35

40

Average middle school class size

(lower secondary)

Source: OECD, 2006

For NYC, NYSED data


7/22

Class size in CFE costing out studies

Expert educators assembled to decide what class sizes were necessary toprovide an adequate education in NYC & other high needs districts.

These professional judgment panels concluded that much smallerclasses in all grades were required.

In NYC & other high-poverty districts, class size should be capped at 14students per class in grades K-5th .

In middle schools, class sizes capped at 22 students.

No more than 18 students per class in high schools.

These recommendations, along with other necessary programs andservices costed out by consultants.

Cost estimates provided the basis for the $5.6 billion in additional funds

that de Grasse originally ordered.


8/22

Tennessee STAR study In 1985, Tennessee sponsored large scale experimental study involving 6,500 students

in about 330 classrooms at approximately 80 schools.

Students randomly assigned to small class (13-17) , large classes (22-25) or large class

with teacher plus aide, in grades K-3.

Students randomly assigned to smaller classes did better in every way could bemeasured: higher test scores, better grades, better attendance, fewer held back, and

many fewer disciplinary problems.

In 4th, 6th, and 8th grades, students who had attended small classes in the early gradeswere significantly ahead of their peers in all subjects

In high school, they had higher graduation rates, better grades, and higher scores oncollege entrance exams; 4 years of smaller classes more than doubled odds of

graduation for poor students.

Also, these students had higher college graduation rates and were more likely to majorin STEM subjects.

Gains especially large for poor and minority students. Alan Krueger, economist atPrinceton, found that smaller classes in the early grades narrowed achievement gap byabout 38% & economic benefits outweighed costs two to one.


9/22

What we found in NYC first year of state-funded CSR program(source: Smaller is Better, Educational Priorities Panel)

Students appeared to be learning faster.

Teachers able to give individualized attention and small group instructionmore effectively.

Smaller classes allow more frequent evaluation and follow-up.

Heightened level of student participation and enthusiasm.

Sharp decline in disciplinary referrals.

Upsurge in teacher morale and parental involvement.

Reform focuses on prevention rather than remediation.


10/22

Why does reducing class size work?

Institute of Educ Sciences cites smaller classes as one of only four evidence-based strategies that rigorous research has shown to improve learning:

More teacher/student feedback including individualized attention andinstruction (students receiving more feedback from teacher).

More student/teacher feedback (allowing teachers to adjust style/strategiesfor each student.)

Less stereotyping on both sides; racial disparities between teacher/student nolonger matter.

Class size reduction top priority of parents on NYC Dept. of Education learningenvironment surveys, every year since its been given.

86% of NYC principals say they are unable to provide quality educationbecause of excessive class sizes.


11/22

CFE case settled

with 2007 Education Reform Act

On April 1, 2007, the NYS Legislature enacted the Education Budget and

Reform Act of 2007.

The law mandated commitment to raise annual state educational aid annually,

leading to $7 billion increase by the 2010-11 school year, with new

foundation formula to distribute aid to all districts (not just NYC) based onneed.

Requirements for public participation in the development, approval and

enforcement of the Contracts for Excellence (C4E), law's primary

accountability tool.

As part of its C4E plan, NYC required to develop and implement plan to reduce

class sizes in all grades.

In fall of 2007, state approved NYC plan to gradually reduce class size to

average of20 in K-3, 23 in 4th-8th grades, and 25 in core HS classes by 2011-

2012.


12/22

Yet despite citys promise, class sizes have risen sharply; bylast year, the final year of CSR plan increased to four students

above C4E goals in grades K-3

NYC class size data at http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/data/classsize/classsize.htm

2120.7

20.520.3

20.119.9

21 20.9

21.4

22.1

22.9

23.9

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Baseline 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

NYC class sizes K-3actuals vs. C4E goals

C4E goals

Citywide actual


13/22

24.9

23.2

22.4 22.1

21.721.6

21.321.1 21.0 20.9

21.4

22.1

22.9

23.9

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

K-3 Class sizes now LARGEST since 1998(data sources: IBO 1998-2005; DOE 2006-11)


14/22

Also in grades 4-8,

class sizes have increased

far above C4E goals

25.6

24.824.6

23.8

23.3

22.9

25.6

25.125.3

25.8

26.326.6

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

students

perclass

NYC class sizes 4th-8thactuals vs. C4e goals

C4E target

Citywide actual


15/22

Also in HS: average class sizes

have risen far above goals

25.6

26.1 26.2

26.627

26

25.7

25.2

24.8

24.5

23

23.5

24

24.5

25

25.5

26

26.5

27

27.5

2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

students

perclass

HS core class sizesactuals vs. C4E goals

Actual

C4E targets


16/22

What happened to the C4E program?

Despite receiving more than $3 billion in C4E funds and higher overallspending, city has cut school budgets about 14% since 2007.

Maintenance of effort provision in C4E law was ignored (city cut funding toschools when state increased spending, despite prohibition ofsupplanting).

Overcrowding in many schools worsened by growing enrollment &damaging co-locations.

C4E state funding never reached full level & flat-lined or slightly

decreased.

NYC DOE eliminated special programs designed to keep classes small(targeted K-3 class size funding that existed since 1999, agreement to capclass sizes in grades 1-3 to 28 or less, special ed initiative).


17/22

But even when state C4E spending increased;

class sizes grew !

0

258

645 645

531

21 20.9

21.4

22.1

22.9

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

23.5

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2006-7 2007-2008 2008-9 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

C4Espending(inmillions)

K-3averageclass size

C4E goals


18/22

Why? DOE had other priorities

Between 2002-11, while out-of-classroom positions grew bymore than 10 thousand, general ed classroom teachers haveshrunk by more than 6000.

Enrollment has also grown fast in NYC schools, especially inearly grades.

Spending on testing, contracts, consultants, and morebureaucrats have all risen sharply including nearly $1B spenton charter schools.


19/22

268100

269097

275323

277878

280941

12804

12619

12451

12109

11758

11400

11600

11800

12000

12200

12400

12600

12800

13000

265000

267000

269000

271000

273000

275000

277000

279000

281000

283000

285000

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

TotalStudents

Total Students

Total Sections

Since 2007, general education classes ingrades K-3 fell by more than 1000, as student

pop grew by nearly 13,000


20/22

But can NYC afford to reduce class size?

In 2009, NYC DOE estimated would cost $358 million per

year to achieve average C4E class size goals across the

city;

This represents less than 2% of DOEs overall budget.

Would cost $448 million per year in staffing to achieve

class size goals in ALL schools; plus more in capital costsfor school construction.

Last year and this , NYC due to receive more than $530

million in C4E funds.


21/22

Problems with public process

C4E hearings happen in fall, supposed to happen before money spent, sopublic can have input.

State Ed Dept. now pre-approves plan; but law says citys plan should be

submitted to state only after public hearings occurred, so that public

comments can help guide decision as to whether plan needs changing.

C4E law requires borough hearings in NYC; hasnt occurred since 2008;

now DOE does informal presentations w/much information missing at

district parent councils; many on same date.

C4E parent complaint process complex and difficult for any non-attorney

to implement.


22/22

Lessons from NYC?

How money is spent is as important as extra funding.

Enforcement, compliance & accountability mechanisms

critical.

Do not rely on state govt.

Continuing court oversight should be required to ensureconstitutionally deficient conditions addressed.

Prisoners analogy

lessons from cfe

Documents