Education

Law Center Testimony on

New York City FY 2017 Proposed Contract for Excellence Plan
August 19, 2016

The Education Law Center works in New York to advance the legal rights of all schoolchildren in
the state to a sound basic and quality education under state and federal law. ELC advocates for
prompt implementation of adequate and equitable school funding to comply with New Yorks
constitutional mandate and researches other key issues affecting educational opportunity, such
as prek and desegregation. Among other efforts, we are co-counsel in the small cities school
funding case, Maisto v. State, currently pending in State Supreme Court in Albany. In 2013,
ELC, representing New York City public school parents, prevailed in a lawsuit ensuring that New
York City hold C4E hearings in each borough as the law requires.

We are writing to urge the DOE to comply with the mandates of the Contract for Excellence Law
and its regulations and submit a concrete class size reduction plan as part of its 2016-17
Contract for Excellence.

The Contract for Excellence Law

The Contract for Excellence Law was passed in response to the landmark Campaign for Fiscal
Equity decision, in which New Yorks highest court determined that New York City public school
children were being deprived of their constitutional right to a sound basic education, in large
part because of large class sizes. The Court of Appeals noted that:

Even in the earliest years -- from kindergarten through third
grade -- over half of New York City schoolchildren are in classes
of 26 or more, and tens of thousands are in classes of over 30.

Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State, (CFE II), 100 N.Y.2d 893, 911 (2003). The Court found that
class sizes this large were a factor in the systemic failure of the system that led to poor
student outcomes. C.F.E. II, 100 N.Y. 2d at 914.

In response to the CFE decisions, New York State enacted the Contract for Excellence Law,
N.Y.S. Education Law 211-d. (C4E). The goal of the C4E law is to ensure that additional state
funding provided to struggling school districts is spent on proven methods to improve learning.


In addition to the provisions applicable to all districts, C4E requires that New York City in
particular to develop and fulfill a plan to reduce class size. NYS Education law Section 211-d
2b(ii) sets forth New York Citys requirements:

(ii) In a city school district in a city having a population of one million or more inhabitants such
contract shall also include a plan to reduce average class sizes, as defined by the commissioner,
within five years for the following grade ranges: (A) pre-kindergarten-third grade; (B) fourth-
eighth grade; and (C) high school. Such plan shall include class size reduction for low performing
and overcrowded schools and also include the methods to be used to achieve such class sizes,
such as the creation or construction of more classrooms and school buildings, the placement of
more than one teacher in a classroom or methods to otherwise reduce the student to teacher
ratio.

The regulations promulgated pursuant to C4E elaborate:

(vi) in the city school district of the city of New York, include a plan that meets the
requirements of clause (c)(2)(i)(a) of this section, to reduce average class sizes within five years
for the following grade ranges:

(a) prekindergarten through grade three;

(b) grades four through eight; and

(c) grades nine through twelve.

Such plan shall be aligned with the capital plan of the city school district of the city of New York
and include continuous class size reduction for low performing and overcrowded schools
beginning in the 2007-2008 school year and thereafter and also include the methods to be used
to achieve proposed class sizes, such as the creation or construction of more classrooms and
school buildings, the placement of more than one teacher in a classroom or methods to
otherwise reduce the student to teacher ratio. Beginning in the 2008-2009 school year and
thereafter, such plan shall provide for reductions in class size that, by the end of the 2011-2012
school year, will not exceed the prekindergarten through grade 12 class size targets as
prescribed by the commissioner after his/her consideration of the recommendation of an
expert panel appointed by the commissioner to conduct a review of existing class size research.

8 NYCRR 100.13(b)(1)

The Proposed 2016-17 Contract for Excellence

Although in 2007 DOE established specific targets for class size reduction pursuant to C4Es
mandates, it has never met those targets and in fact abandoned the plan in 2011. Since that
time DOE has failed to put forth any plan that meets the requirements of the C4E law and
regulations.

The current proposal by DOE again falls far short of the requirements under the C4E law and
regulations. Like last years proposal, this years proposed contract states merely that:

For the 2016-17 school year, NYCDOE will focus Class Size Reduction
planning efforts on the School Renewal Program.

The C4E law and accompanying regulations require a specific 5-year citywide class size
reduction plan setting forth class size targets for specific grade spans. None of this is in the
current Contract proposed by DOE. The bare bones statement regarding Renewal Schools only
fails to provide any class-size plan as required by C4E.



Class Sizes in New York City

As a predictable result of DOE failing to fulfill its obligations under C4E, class sizes in New York
City have grown far above the Citys original targets in nearly every grade and substantially
above the levels that existed in 2007. In ELCs recent report, Reducing Class Size in New York
City: Promise vs. Practice, using DOEs own data, we found that:

Average class sizes in nearly all grade spans have increased every year since 2008-09;

In 2015, only 14% of early elementary students in Manhattan, 6% in Brooklyn, 3% in the
Bronx, 2% in Staten Island, and 1% in Queens were in schools with average class sizes
that met the C4E class size plan goals;


In 2015, the number of grade K-3 children in classes of at least thirty had nearly doubled
since 2011;

Citywide, in 2015, only 12% of grade 4-8 students were in schools with class sizes that
met the C4E goals. Twenty-two percent of Manhattan students were in schools with
appropriate average class sizes compared to 16% in the Bronx, 14% in Brooklyn, 4% in
Queens and 4% in Staten Island;

 In 2015, more than half of all students enrolled in City high school English, Math, Science
and Social Studies courses were in classes with 30 students or more.

http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/Reducing%20Class%20Size%20in%
20NYC%20-%20Promise%20vs.%20Practice.pdf

Thus, New York Citys class size is moving in the exact opposite direction intended by both the
New York Court of Appeals CFE decision and the C4E law. We attach our report to this
testimony.

Moreover, an analysis by Class Size Matters reveals that even in the narrow plan articulated
by DOE, focusing only on Renewal Schools, DOE has failed to reduce class sizes. Its analysis of
94 Renewal Schools found that 38% did not reduce class size, 60% had at least some classes of
30 or more, and only capped class sizes at the 2007 C4E goals of 20 students per class in grades
K-3, 23 per class in grades 4-8, and 25 in core high school classes.
(http://www.classsizematters.org/testimony-of-leonie-haimson-before-the-nyc-council-
education-committee-on-the-renewal-schools/)

It is no surprise that many of these schools are still struggling, with low test scores and
graduation rates and high rates of teacher turnover.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/nyregion/after-2-years-progress-is-hard-to-see-in-some-
struggling-city-schools.html?ref=topics&_r=0



Proven Benefits of Class Size Reduction

As a recent report by the National Education Policy Center makes clear, the weight of the
evidence proves that class size reduction is among the most effective methods to improve both
academic and life outcomes. http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/publications/Mathis%20RBOPM-
9%20Class%20Size.pdf In fact, NEPC concludes that [a]ll else being equal, lowering class sizes
will improve student outcomes.

The NEPC report, collecting the relevant peer review research, further concludes that the pay-
off for class-size reduction is larger for low-income children and children of color, and
conversely, the harm of large class size to those very populations is especially harmful.
Moreover, NEPC demonstrates that while there is a cost to class-size reduction, it is especially
cost effective for disadvantaged children. Money saved today by increasing class sizes will
likely result in additional substantial social and educational costs in the future.

In addition to the research demonstrating the benefits of reducing class size, parents in New
York City have ranked small class size as their number one priority year after year.


We urge DOE to renew its commitment to class size reduction by submitting a concrete,
citywide 5-year class size reduction plan, with specific targets in specific schools, starting in
those with high numbers of students in poverty, students with disabilities and English Language
Learners, but over time extended to all students and all schools, as the law requires.

Respectfully Submitted,

Wendy Lecker
Senior Attorney
Education Law Center
60 Park Place Suite 300
Newark, NJ 07102