| Printable Version

Summer 2000 (v4#2)

State's Shameful Defense: Money Doesn't Matter

"School resources have virtually no effect - very, very little effect on student achievement." Or so, at least, says the state of New York.

This statement was made by Dr. David Armor, a part-time researcher at George Mason University, whom the state called to the stand to testify in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State, New York's landmark school finance lawsuit. Dr. Armor, who has testified in many school finance cases nationwide, appeared to help the state make one of the central claims of

its case: that additional resources like smaller classes and better qualified teachers cannot help poor and minority children in New York City achieve at high levels.

In a previous desegregation case, Dr. Armor had stated that, because of poverty and other socioeconomic factors, African-American students cannot achieve at the same levels as other students, even if given high standards, a challenging curriculum, trained teachers and other appropriate resources. In CFE v. State, he reiterated his position that these factors - not inadequate schools - are the main reason for the low achievement of poor and minority children.

Testimony in the case ended in May, and both sides are now preparing their closing arguments. Dr. Armor is one of the many witnesses that the state has paid thousands of dollars to testify that money doesn't matter.

The state also called Dr. Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester, who argued that money has no significant impact on student achievement. He claimed that there is no relationship between smaller class size, teacher quality and student performance. He went on to say that money is not a significant factor in the achievement gap between school districts in New York State, and that providing more resources to New York City schools will not significantly raise the achievement level of city students.

After hearing from these witnesses, CFE called Dr. David Grissmer of the RAND Corporation back to the stand as a rebuttal witness. During plaintiffs' arguments, he had presented extensive evidence that when additional resources are provided, especially to minority and disadvantaged children, student achievement improves significantly.

On rebuttal, Dr. Grissmer challenged the analyses of Hanushek and Armor, saying that their research was methodologically flawed, inconsistent with the results of educational studies and out of touch with common sense. Dr. Grissmer argued that some of the peculiar results of these analyses - such as a connection between lower spending, overcrowding and higher achievement - need to be examined more closely. "If we take these results seriously, try[ing] to have more kids in the school and spending less money is the answer." He also noted that Dr. Hanushek's regression analysis left out factors such as class size and teacher salaries, two of the most expensive school resources.

Dr. Grissmer also argued that it is irrational to look at levels of school resources in only one year and draw the conclusion that money does not make a difference. "If you want to get increases in diploma graduates, you start with first graders today, making investments along their school career and wait 10, 15 years for that to come out in terms of higher diploma graduates," he stated.

State: City Schools Are Already Adequate
At the same time, the state has argued that more money is not necessary because the New York City public schools already have the resources they need to provide the opportunity for a "sound basic education" - an opportunity guaranteed to all students under the state constitution.

This position is in stark contrast to the information provided by CFE at trial about the conditions of the city schools and the inadequacy of the state's education finance system. CFE called experts, superintendents, principals and Board of Education officials who described overcrowded classrooms, crumbling facilities, inadequate textbooks and materials, a lack of technology and a shortage of well-trained teachers. Witnesses for plaintiffs also argued that the state's funding system does not adequately account for student need and does not target enough money to help all students meet the new Regents standards.

The state of New York took a different stance from the very start of the case. In opening statements, Assistant Attorney General Harriet Rosen called the Regents standards "aspirational" - a nice idea, but not standards the state is legally required to fund. State expert witness Dr. John Murphy, a former superintendent in North Carolina and Maryland, said that New York City's public schools have sufficient funds to provide a sound basic education to all their students, noting that New York's per-pupil expenditures were relatively high on a national scale.

On cross-examination, Dr. Murphy admitted that, in order to achieve large gains in student performance as a superintendent in Maryland, he reduced class size, extended the school year and school day, added teachers, created all-day kindergartens and provided computers for students and their families. These initiatives required a per-pupil spending increase of 53 percent.

Dr. Michael Podgursky, an economist at the University of Missouri, also testified for the state, arguing that New York City's teachers are adequately paid, and that the salaries of city teachers compare favorably with those in other large urban centers. He admitted that when cost of living is factored in, New York City's teacher salaries are below most other major cities and virtually all of the surrounding suburbs. He also suggested that salary had no relationship to teacher quality, saying, "You could actually raise [teacher] pay and lower quality."

Civic Participation
Another key issue in the case is whether New York City's schools are preparing students to be effective voters and jurors. In its 1995 preliminary decision in the case, New York State's highest court held that a "sound basic education" must include the skills students need "to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury." Early in the trial, Leland DeGrasse, the presiding justice in the case, asked the parties to specifically address the issue of these skills.

Testifying for plaintiffs, Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor at Stanford University and executive director of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, stated that voters and jurors must have the reasoning skills to examine evidence, evaluate opinions and analyze data - exactly the sort of skills the Regents learning standards help students develop. Former New York State Education Commissioner Thomas Sobol noted that an effective juror in today's world "must be educated to a degree far surpassing that which passed for minimal competence a generation ago."

But in the opinion of state expert Dr. Christine Rossell, a social scientist from Boston University, schools do not play a large role in preparing citizens to be voters and jurors. As evidence, she presented the results of polls showing that most people get their information about politics from the television news and have already made up their minds before they enter the voting booth.

The state also called Dr. Herbert Walberg, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who said that if students can pass the Regents Competency Tests (RCT);which are pegged to an eighth grade reading level;they are ready to serve as voters and jurors. Unfortunately, as Dr. Walberg admitted, the 40 percent of New York City students who drop out may never even reach this basic competency level.

On cross-examination, attorneys for CFE noted that the complex evidence and judge's instructions in a court case may require a much higher level of reading comprehension than that tested by the RCT. Dr. Walberg then suggested that if a juror does not understand the evidence, it does not matter because another, better-educated juror can explain it.

Funding: State Defends the Status Quo
In making its case, CFE called a number of witnesses who charged that New York's funding system is inequitable, inadequate and a largely a reflection of political deals. Dr. Robert Berne of New York University, a leading national expert on school finance, criticized the state's funding formula as inadequate and ineffective in addressing students' educational needs.

Then Interim Schools Chancellor and former Regent Harold Levy testified about legislative manipulation of the state aid formula. He reviewed over 10 years of funding allocations and found that every year, New York City received almost exactly 38.86 percent of any funding increase. This fixed share was given without regard to the city's student needs, wealth, enrollment or attendance rates.

In its defense, the state did not claim that the state's funding system is adequate. Rather, Dr. James Guthrie of Vanderbilt University testified that the various pieces of New York State's complex funding system are "rational" and reflect legitimate policy decisions. Dr. Guthrie could not say, however, whether the formulas provide sufficient funding to offer all students an adequate education. In fact, Dr. Guthrie helped create a new funding system designed to promote adequacy in Wyoming, and his proposal included elementary class sizes of 16 or 17, regional cost variations and high teacher salary scales to attract highly qualified teachers.

The state also called Dr. Michael Wolkoff from the University of Rochester to argue that the state's funding system does not discriminate against minority children. As part of its case, CFE argues that the state funding system has a "disparate racial impact" and thus violates the regulations of Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Minorities comprise over 80 percent of the New York City's student body, and 74 percent of New York State's minority students attend NYC public schools. Dr. Wolkoff presented an analysis that he says shows minority students in New York receive the same or more resources than non-minority students. He admitted, however, that his analysis omitted students from the wealthiest non-minority districts, an omission that CFE says dramatically changes Dr. Wolkoff's results.

Overall, CFE and other advocates seem somewhat surprised by the positions taken by the Attorney General's Office at trial. "They run counter to New York's own established education policy," says CFE Executive Director and Counsel Michael A. Rebell. "That policy says that all children can learn, that the purpose of education is to prepare children for the world of work, and that high levels of achievement are necessary for children to become effective voters and citizens. Do our state leaders believe in their own policy or not?"

Final briefs in CFE v. State will be filed on July 6, and the closing arguments will be heard on Thursday, July 27 at the State Supreme Courthouse, 60 Centre Street in lower Manhattan. Closing statements will be open to the public, and CFE urges people to attend and show their commitment to school funding reform. For details, check the CFE website, www.cfequity.org, or call CFE at (212) 867-8455.

Money Doesn't Matter: State's Shameful Defense: Money Doesn't Matter
Class Size Summit Draws Influential Leaders
Outcome of New York State Budget Negotiations
Outcome of City Council Budget Negotiations
The First Year of Class Size Reduction in NYC Schools
Printable Version

Subscribe