Transcript Slide 1

Contracts for Excellence:
New York City’s failures and violations of law
as regards class size
Community Education Council D 30
October 20, 2011
Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters
Why is class size important?
• Class size reduction one of 4 reforms proven to work through
rigorous evidence, acc. to Inst. Education Sciences, research arm of
US Ed Dept. *
• Benefits especially large for disadvantaged & minority students, very
effective at narrowing the achievement gap.
• NYC schools have largest class sizes in state; in 2003, NY’s highest
court said students denied constitutional right to adequate education
as a result of excessive class sizes (Campaign for Fiscal Equity
decision).
• 86% of NYC principals say cannot provide a quality education
because of excessive class sizes.
• Smaller classes are top priority of parents on DOE learning
environment surveys every year.
•
*Other three K-12 evidence-based reforms, are one-on-one tutoring by qualified tutors for at-risk readers
in grades 1-3, Life-Skills training for junior high students, and instruction for early readers in phonemic
awareness and phonics.
Despite claims of administration, stagnant
achievement in NYC schools since
Bloomberg elected
• Over the last 8 yrs., NYC black & Hispanic students fallen further
behind their peers in other large cities, according to national
assessments (NAEPs);
• NYC only city where non-poor students have lower NAEP average
scores than in 2003.
• NYC’s real graduation rate about 54% (including discharges), &
three-quarters of HS grads need remediation in college.
•
Only 21% of HS grads are “college ready”; and those needing triple
remediation* at CUNY have doubled in last 5 years.
* Triple remediation means make-up classes in reading, writing & math.
Contracts for Excellence
•
In April 2007, NY State settled the Campaign for Fiscal lawsuit by passing
the Contracts for Excellence (C4E) law. State agreed to send billions in
additional aid to NYC & other high needs school districts; which they would
have to spend in six approved areas, including class size reduction.*
•
In addition, NYC had to submit a plan to reduce class size in all grades.
•
In fall of 2007, the state approved DOE’s plan to reduce class sizes on
average to no more than 20 students per class in K-3; 23 in grades 4-8 and
25 in core HS classes.
•
In return, NYS has sent $2.4 billion in C4E funds to NYC since 2007.
*other allowed programs include Time on Task; Teacher & Principal Quality; Middle & HS
Restructuring; Full-Day Pre-K; & Model Programs for English Language Learners
But class sizes have risen sharply in all grades since
2007…esp. in K-3; now largest in 11 yrs!
K-3 average class size
24
23.2
23
22.4
21.9
22
21.8
21.3
C4E goals
21
21
20.7
citywide actual
20.5
20.3
20
D30
20.1
19.9
19
18
Baseline
2007-8
2008-9
2009-10
2010-2011
2011-2012
This year’s class size data will be available on Nov. 15 at
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/data/classsize/classsize.htm
Also in grades 4-8,
class sizes have increased
27.2
28
26.6
26.0
27
25.7
Axis Title
26
25
26.0
25.6
24.8
C4E target
24.6
24
23.8
citywide actual
23.3
23
22.9
22
D30
21
20
Baseline
2007-8
2008-9
2009-10
2010-2011
2011-2012
Also in HS: average class sizes
have risen
average HS class size
27.5
26.8
27
26.1
26.5
26
25.5
26.9
26.6
26
25.6
25.7
C4E
targets
25.2
25
24.8
24.5
24.5
24
23.5
23
Baseline
2007-8
2008-9
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Actual
What happened?
• Despite more than $2 billion in C4E funds and higher
overall spending, city has cut school budgets about 14%
since 2007.
• Maintenance of effort provision in C4E law was ignored
(city cut funding to schools when state increased
spending)
• Overcrowding in many schools worsened by growing
enrollment & damaging co-locations.
• C4E state funding never reached full level & has now
flat-lined or slightly decreased.
But even when state C4E spending
increased; class sizes grew !
$700
23.5
645
645
$600
23
22.9
22.5
22.1
$500
531
21.5
21.4
$400
21
22
21
20.9
20.5
$300
258
20
$200
K-3
average
class
size
19.5
19
$100
18.5
$-
C4E
spending
(in
millions)
0
2006-7
18
2007-2008
2008-9
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
C4E
goals
Why? administration had other
priorities
• Between 2002-9, while out-of-classroom positions grew
by over 10 thousand, general ed classroom teachers
shrunk by more than 1600.*
• In 2010, there were 2,000 fewer teaching positions and
18,000 more students.
• This year, there are 2,500 fewer teachers and 20,000
more students.
• Spending on testing, contracts, consultants, and more
bureaucrats have all risen sharply.
•
(including principals, secretaries, APs, literacy coaches, etc. NY Times, “With More Money, City Schools Added
Jobs,” June 30, 2009).
What happened in D30? Lost K-3
teachers/sections as population was growing
D 30 K- 3 gened no. students/sections
12100
555
12074
550
550
12014
12000
545
11870
540
No. of students
11900
542
536
535
11800
530
total students
sections
525
11738
11700
520
520
515
11600
510
11500
505
2007-8
2008-9
2009-10
2010-2011
2011-2012
Also in grades 4-8, more students and fewer
teachers/sections in D30
4th-8th total D30 students/sections over time
14700
560
14624
14600
555
554
No of students
14500
550
14454
total
students
14400
546
545
sections
543
14300
14252
540
14222
14200
538
535
14100
14000
530
2007-8
2008-9
2009-10
2010-2011
2011-2012
But can we afford to reduce class size?
• In 2009, DOE estimated that it would cost $358
million per year to achieve average C4E class size
goals across the city;
• DOE estimated it would cost $448 million per year in
staffing to achieve class size goals in ALL schools;
plus more in capital costs for school construction.
• This year, NYC is to receive more than $530 million
in C4E funds.
Other questions re city’s plan
• State ed allocated $530.8M in C4E funds to city this
year. Yet city’s plan only includes $348M; what
happened to rest of these funds?
• Why did the city choose not to centrally allocate a penny
of C4E funds to class size reduction, given they had a
legal obligation to lower class size ?
• Only C4E district-wide initiative that DOE claims as
“class size reduction” is to expand CTT classes, which
does not lower class size.
Problems with public process
• This year, C4E meetings happening too late in the school year;
supposed to happen before money spent, so public can have input.
• This yr., SED asked to “pre-approve” plan; but state law says city’s
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 for borough hearings as well as CEC
presentations; but DOE has refused to do this since 2008.
• See letter to Commissioner King from CSM & UFT, pointing out the
many violations of law in public process this year.
What can CECs do?
• Pass a resolution; we have a sample one for yr. consideration.
• Write a letter to Commissioner King, to protest the botched process
& DOE’s failure to reduce class size and/or send a message to
[email protected]; deadline Nov.23.
• Encourage parents to submit C4E complaint as per law, we will be
offering help w/ this.
• Collect information about class sizes in your district’s schools,
violations of union contract & building code.
• Questions or to join newsletter list, email us at
[email protected]
Contractual limits vs.
C4E class size goals
UFT Contract limits
Kindergarten
1-3 grades
4-5 (Title 1
Schools)
4-5 (Non-Title 1)
6-8 (Title 1
Schools)
6-8 (Non-Title 1)
9-12 (core
classes)
C4E Class Size goals
by 2011
25
28
32
19.9
19.9
22.9
32
30
22.9
22.9
33
34
22.9
24.5
NYC Building code for
classroom space
• Requires 35 Sq. ft. per Kindergarten student, 20 Sq. ft.
per student in grades 1-12
• DOE’s “instructional footprint” redefined full size
classroom downward with minimum 500 sq. ft.
• 500 sq. ft. legally holds only 14 Kindergarten students,
25 students in grades 1st-12th.
• Sq. footage of each room listed in Annual Facilities
survey on every school’s DOE portal.