Letters 02-03
EPP January 2003 Letter on Class Size Reduction

January 29, 2003

Governor George Pataki
New York State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
by fax: 518-474-3767 & 1513

NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
932 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
by fax: 518-455-5459

NYS Senate Leader Joseph Bruno
909 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
by fax 518-455-2448

Dear sirs:

The Educational Priorities Panel is a coalition of 27 civic, parent, and religious organizations that work together to improve the quality of public education for New York City’s children in order to close the performance gap between city schools and those in the rest of the state.

Continue funding CSR We are writing on behalf of the Panel to thank you for providing state funding to reduce early-grade class size since the 1999-2000 school year and to urge you to continue to fund this program at $140 million. We are also recommending two reforms of Building Aid that can be made -- even during these very tough economic times -- to pave the way for the reduction of class sizes in high-need school districts. Five years ago, New York State began to implement a plan to ensure that all children in New York get a good start to their education. This plan should not be derailed.

Nearly 32,000 children In New York City, close to 32,000 children from kindergarten to third grade are in classes of 20 students and are benefiting from this improved instructional environment. When the economy improves, we would like to see the state-wide funding for this program expanded from $140 million to $225 million, as agreed to in the August 1997 state budget.

EPP seeks the continuation of current funding for smaller classes for these reasons:

• High-quality research has consistently found that low-income, urban students make significant learning gains when placed in smaller classes in kindergarten or first grade and these gains are sustained if they remain in smaller classes. This research suggests that the CSR program is one of the most effective interventions funded by the state to help children in low-income neighborhoods.

• State regulations for the use of CSR funds have targeted the funds to the highest-need schools. In contrast to the federal Title II program, which has no targeting and does not even require that class sizes be reduced in return for hiring extra teachers, the state CSR program has been effective in actually reducing class sizes in low-achieving elementary schools. As a consequence, more elementary schools in New York City have been able to get off the SURR list and at a quicker pace.

• During the recession in the early 1990's, counter-productive policies were put in place by New York City school administrators to increase class sizes. Specifically, waivers were given to schools so that early-grade class sizes could increase beyond 25 students. The continuation of CSR funding by the state will help to prevent a repetition of these harmful policies during the current recession.

Keep your promise We are justifiably worried that school district officials, faced with declining budgets, will argue for greater flexibility and will want to use $140 million for gap closing or as a means of supplanting their districts' expenditures for teachers. The 1997 budget agreement on the STAR and LADDER programs, however, was not intended to provide new funding mechanisms for school districts. Instead, the needs of urban parents were balanced with the needs of homeowners, the majority of whom reside in rural and suburban parts of the state. So long as the $2 billion STAR school property relief program remains fully funded, parents in urban districts, many of whom are renters, should at least have the benefit of better class sizes for some of their children.

No Child Left Behind Act There is a new compelling reason to retain funding for early-grade class sizes and for pre-k programs. The federal No Child Left Behind Act sets ambitious goals for ensuring that low-income children get an adequate education. NCLB requires that schools have well-prepared teachers, parent involvement, and increased student achievement on standardized test scores for all racial, ethnic, and income groups. New York State is at risk of failing to meet these NCLB goals because of its highly inequitable education funding system. A 2002 study of the Education Trust and a 1995 GAO study found that our state, in comparison with 45 other states, has the greatest per-pupil funding disparity between low-wealth and high-wealth school districts. A positive outcome of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit could help the state meet the NCLB targets, but not this year. The Court of Appeals will only begin considering the CFE lawsuit this spring. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act was accompanied by a promise that there would be sizeable increases in federal funding. But Congress appropriated $1.58 billion less to New York State than was authorized by NCLB. This shortfall in federal funding impacts high-needs school districts the most, because they need more resources to bring their students up to state standards of learning. Class size reduction funding is one of the few state programs where resources go directly to schools most in need of support to improve student performance under NCLB. In school site visits, as documented in our report Smaller is Better, teacher satisfaction, more parent involvement, and accelerated learning have all been reported as some of the results from reducing class sizes.

Reform State Building Aid Beyond continuing CSR funding, more can be done to ensure that all children in New York get a good start to their education. Among the greatest educational inequalities in our state are differences among districts in the extent of student overcrowding. State Building Aid has not helped to end overcrowding. Indeed, it may have contributed to its perpetuation. Now that money is in short supply, there is a need to link facilities planning to the state's educational objectives. Steps can be taken at the state level this legislative session to ensure that in the long run there will be the capacity to extend the benefits of smaller class sizes to all high-needs students:

• Make Building Aid for new school construction more needs-based. In 2001, state reimbursement to school districts for interest and principal for new school construction was based on a 30-year assumed amortization schedule, thus creating a level playing field for all school districts. It is time to ask whether all districts, especially those where no school overcrowding exists, should be eligible for Building Aid for new school construction on a "first-come, first-served" basis. EPP recommends that Building Aid for new school construction be restructured so that so that overcrowding can be addressed as a priority. Student needs are reflected in other parts of school aid, but are absent in Building Aid. EPP understands that the federal Qualified Public Education Facilities Bonds program allows each state to develop its own guidelines and regulations for the issuance of these bonds. We urge you to target QPEF to overcrowded school districts and to expand Building Aid for leases so that this private-public program succeeds.

• Make Building Aid fairer. One of the findings of EPP's Castles in the Sand, our report on why overcrowding has persisted in New York City, is that New York City is shortchanged by as much as 50 percent in state Building Aid reimbursement for new school construction compared to reimbursement levels for school districts in the rest of the state. The source of this problem is not statutory or regulatory, but a matter of State Education Department procedures. Instead of applying a student capacity formula used for all other school districts, SED substituted another measurement for New York City schools only. It is beyond comprehension that the state's most overcrowded school district, New York City, has received the least state reimbursement for new school construction. EPP urges that the current capacity formula used in determining Building Aid reimbursement for all other school districts be used for New York City.

Our recommendation is that during this economic downturn, Building Aid be limited to districts that can show a compelling reason why they want to initiate a building program, so that the state's scarce resources can be targeted to districts that need to end overcrowding and large class sizes. When the economy improves, all districts will then have the physical capacity to provide pre-k and smaller class sizes in the early grades. Class size reduction makes our state's education system fairer where it counts the most -- in the classroom. During these tough economic times, EPP urges you to prioritize Building Aid so that more classrooms can be created where the need is greatest.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Braveman, Chairperson
Noreen Connell, Executive Director

CC
Commissioner Richard Mills
NYS Department of Education
State Education Building #111
Albany, NY 12234
By fax: 518-473-4909

NYS Assembly Education Committee Chairman Steven Sanders
836 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
By fax: 518-455-5506

NYS Senate Education Committee Chairman Stephen M. Saland
609 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
By fax: 518-455-3758