Public Testimony 2003

New York State Budget Hearing Testimony -- Elementary & Secondary Education

Given by: Noreen Connell for the Educational Priorities Panel
October 1, 2003, Albany, New York

Good morning. My name is Noreen Connell. I am the Executive Director of the Educational Priorities Panel, a coalition of twenty-eight civic, parent, and religious organizations that have worked together for over twenty-seven years to improve the quality of public education for New York City’s children through driving more resources to the classroom. Thank you for holding this hearing.

My testimony today reflects a series of conversations I have had with several members of our coalition. I want to share with you their perceptions of the key leadership role that the Assembly could play in 2004. I will summarize their expectations in three areas:
Integrity EPP organizations are alarmed at the speed with which efforts to undermine the CFE court decision have emerged. We were particularly shocked that the issue of taxpayer-funded vouchers has been raised as one of the possible outcomes of a new system of education finance and that the person who raised this issue is a member of the Governor’s cabinet. We assume that there will be other efforts to undermine the court’s decision and to transform the CFE remedy process into political theater.

It is critical that the Assembly continue to focus on the evidence presented during the CFE trial about inadequate resources for New York City’s school children. Education officials and experts testified at length about large average class sizes, school overcrowding, poor environments for learning, and inadequately trained teachers. Both the Supreme Court and Appeals Court decisions addressed the need to solve these problems. EPP is fearful that for some, the court decision is a jumping off point for the identification of new needs and funding that will not go to the public school system. We urge the Assembly to maintain the integrity of the state’s legal process and to carry out the ruling of the court.

Framework
Given recent developments, such as the creation of the Governor’s Commission and the court’s appointment of a special master, EPP calls on the Assembly to publicly outline a roadmap for legislative deliberations on crafting a CFE remedy. Not everything has to be done at once. What are the specific remedies that address the inadequacies of New York City’s public schools that do not require a new state funding system? What remedies require a revamping of the state’s entire system of education finance? Should Operating Aid be restructured at the same time as Building Aid? Should interim changes be made? Should pilot programs be initiated? In other words, sequence and scope are important. While the neighboring state of New Jersey is held out as a terrible example of the length that it can take to develop a court-ordered remedy, it also is a terrible example of poor planning. Only now are facilities problems being addressed, but the recent restructuring of capital funding has resulted in more affluent communities being first in line to benefit and high-needs communities being last in line. I understand that there is a belated attempt by New Jersey to alter this shocking situation, but it never should have occurred. We urge the Assembly to give some consideration to developing a logical plan for mapping out stages of a CFE remedy, even though there might be competing plans.

Implementation EPP strongly endorses the Alliance for Quality Education’s call for "a down payment" on the CFE remedy during the 2004 legislative session. One of the unexplained mysteries of the history of the New York State Legislature is why this body failed to act upon any of the recommendations of the last two Moreland Act Commissions on education finance. We are counting on the Assembly to develop proposals that begin to address the problems documented in the CFE trial and reflected in the decisions of the court. The children of New York City and other high-needs school districts have had to wait a decade for this legal decision. We cannot continue to subject another generation of students to inadequate education, especially now that the state’s standards for learning are so rigorous.

I want to conclude this testimony by speaking to the issue of the immediate need to begin improving New York City’s school facilities.

EPP has traditionally been wary of too large of an investment in facilities rather than instruction. Nevertheless, as Judge Leland DeGrasse elegantly outlined in his 2001 opinion, we recognize that there are physical barriers that need to be removed in order to create preconditions for improved learning.

Here are four reasons why some attention to facilities is needed:
* During the CFE trial, "inadequacy" measurements included facilities. As early as the 1995 Court of Appeals decision to bring the CFE lawsuit to trial, the court was directed to examine both inputs and outputs. Among the inputs to be examined, the Court of Appeals listed 1) "minimally adequate teaching," 2) "minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms," and 3) "minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning." (Page 36 of January 2001 NYS Supreme Court ruling.) The subsequent trial was replete with testimony on the barriers to student academic achievement created by inadequate facilities, especially overcrowding, the lack of enough classrooms to reduce class sizes, the absence of sufficient, functional science labs, and incomplete wiring for computers. A remedy that does not address at least some aspect of school facilities, which was such a large part of the trial evidence, fails the test of logic.

* Improvements in instructional environments require the earliest implementation. Systemwide upgrading of the physical infrastructure takes years to phase in and complete. To delay them would result in a decade-long postponement of educational adequacy for New York City school children If there is to be a reduction in New York City average class sizes to those approaching the average for school districts in the rest of the state, severe overcrowding needs to be lessened and additional classrooms need to be created, processes that will take years. Similarly, science labs in schools need to be renovated as quickly as possible so that within a few years all high school students will have access as quickly as possible to meaningful, hand-on experiments in biology, chemistry, and physics that are part of the Regents testing standards.

* The current fiscal constraints that make it difficult to significantly and rapidly increase operating aid (especially if statewide for all high-need school districts) do not exist to the same degree for capital funding. It is unfortunate that the CFE court decision was not issued when state revenues were growing. But the state still has access to capital funds. Low-interest rates for borrowing as well as a new federal school-facilities bond program (QPEF) are positive incentives for developing an ambitious multi-year strategy for addressing inadequate facilities.

* Inequities in Building Aid that have affected New York City specifically need to be eliminated as soon as possible. It is shocking that the school district experiencing the most overcrowding and that has among the largest average class sizes in the state has received far less Building Aid reimbursement for new school construction than any other school district in the state. For reasons we documented in EPP’s report, Castles in the Sand, state Building Aid has provided disincentives for New York City to reduce student overcrowding. In the appendix to this report, from pages A-85 to A-91, is EPP’s analysis of the impact of the NYS Education Department’s "rated capacity" computation on actual claim forms and rates of reimbursement for new school construction projects in New York City and in the rest of the state. This analysis shows that, on average, state Building Aid reimbursed New York City only 22 percent of the costs of building new schools, but for school districts in the rest of the state the reimbursement averaged 67 percent for new school construction.

As I stated earlier in my testimony, sequence is important. On November 1, the Chancellor will unveil his five-year capital plan for school facilities, which must be approved by the Mayor and the City Council by June 30th. New York City must no longer be faced with a disincentive for attempting to end overcrowding.

In addition, there is a possibility that a question will be put on the city ballot in November about whether a Commission should be created to study how average class sizes can be reduced. A coalition of parents, advocacy organizations, and unions collected over 118,000 signatures to put this question before the voters. Currently there is a court battle as to whether the Mayor’s Charter Commission questions can supercede the class size reduction question on the ballot. Whatever the outcome of the court’s decision, a growing coalition of stakeholders want class sizes in New York City public schools reduced to the average for the rest of the state. The Assembly needs to reform Building Aid as soon as possible in order to make class size reduction possible in the near – not distant – future.