Public Testimony 2003

New York State Commission on Education Reform Hearing Testimony

Given by: Noreen Connell, Executive Director for the Educational Priorities Panel
December 12, 2003 New York
 
Good afternoon. 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.

I will summarize three of EPP’s expectations about how the state should proceed to ensure that New York City children are provided with a sound, basic education:

Integrity
It is critical 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 this Commission to maintain the integrity of the state’s legal process and to carry out in good faith the ruling of the court.

Framework
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 creation of a capital funding stream 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 Commission to give some consideration to developing a logical plan for mapping out stages of a CFE remedy.

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 is why the legislature and the executive branch failed to act upon any of the recommendations of the last two Moreland Act Commissions on education finance. 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 New York City’s industrial base has become so small, eliminating a significant number of jobs that do not require a high school education.

The second half of this testimony speaks to the need to create more classrooms in New York City. 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 five reasons why the Commission needs to focus on school facilities:
* 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.

Please look at this chart, which is attached to this testimony. Of particular interest to us is that the New York State Education Department has far exceeded actual projected pupil counts in computing rated capacity for new building projects in the rest of the state (by 207 percent), but kept rated capacity for New York City to project enrollment. Castles in the Sand is on our web site. Chapter 7 describes how the State Department of Education calculations provided a significant subsidy for school districts with smaller class sizes at the same time that the Department provided a disincentive for the city to build new schools. EPP supported the Executive Budget’s proposed change in the capacity formula, but it was linked to other proposed changes which were rejected by school district business and budget officials. We urge the Commission to analyze Building Aid and to craft changes that will put an end to dramatically low levels of Building Aid for new school construction in New York City.

* Innovation should be encouraged. EPP was very impressed with the Governor’s ability to create a high school in the financial district within four months. We contacted Richard Kennedy of Cushman Wakefield (who secured the lease and renovations for the Millennium High School) in order to explore the ways in which a large-scale leasing program could create schools where siting has been a problem. Similarly, we have been researching how the State of New York could utilize the federal Qualified Public Educational Facility bond program. Under this program, developers would used bond proceeds to build or renovate buildings to be leased to a public school district. At the end of the lease, the building would be sold for a nominal sum to the school district. These are essentially private activity bonds with a three year permissible carry-over period. The state is authorized to issue $190 million in bonds per year.

Unfortunately, New York State has not drafted regulations for QPEF and failed to request a carry over of its 2002 authorization (which, the IRS informs me, could be rectified). If the state fails to act soon, it could lose an additional $190 million. We hope this Commission will consider private-public partnerships as a viable strategy in reducing overcrowding. EPP is willing to share the information we have gathered so far on QPEF.

As I stated earlier in my testimony, sequence is important. In November, the Chancellor unveiled 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 and reduce class sizes. We support the Chancellor’s request for $6 billion from the state so that 76 new schools can be created.