NYC Violating the law on class size

To: NYC parents and other interested parents
From: Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters; 212-674-7320; leonie@att.net
Date: 4/20/2006
Re: NY State Comptroller’s audit of NYC’s use of state class size funds

On March 16, the State Comptroller released the results of an audit, showing that because the Department of Education has been misusing state funds , NYC children have been deprived of the smaller classes they need and deserve. Here is a link to the audit; here are some news stories about the audit's findings.

Specifically, the Comptroller found that last school year, the city had added only 20 classes in grades K-3 over the number that existed before the program’s inception. At $89 million, this means that each additional class cost the taxpayer more than $4.5 million.

This audit was performed in response to a request from then-Speaker Gifford Miller, Councilmember Jackson, and State Senator Schneiderman, who in January of 2005 asked the State Comptroller to examine the city’s use of the state class size reduction funds, based on evidence collected by Class Size Matters that there were signs that the city had not added the number of classes that it claimed in its official reports to the state, and that as a result, that class sizes had risen in grades K-3 in many parts of the city, despite declining enrollment.

This was also occurring at the same time that the city claimed to have formed 1586 additional classes in these grades, with the use of the state funds that are specifically supposed to be used for this purpose. Check out a timeline with the relevant background informationt.

You can also read the Council press release and some earlier news articles , including the unexpected disclosure of an audit from 2003 that found the City already in violation of law on this issue here. Because nothing was done to follow up, NYC fell from 55% of compliance in 2002 to only 1% in 2004.

NYC began receiving categorical state funding in the 1999-2000 school year to hire additional teachers and form additional classes to reduce class size in grades K-3. For the last five years, the city has received more than $500 million from the state for these purposes, with $89 million annually for the past four years..

Yet the State Comptroller found that last year, 1566 classes were missing compared to the number the city claims to have formed with these funds, a conclusion made by counting the number of classes provided above those offered before the program began in the1998-9 school year, as the statute specifies. The Comptroller also found that DOE had sharply cut back the number of classes in these grades by almost 900 over the last four years.

If the city had actually formed all the additional classes claimed with the state funds, class sizes in grades K-3 would now average 19.1 students per class. Instead, the average size of these classes remains greater than 21, with 65% of K-3 children in classes over the state goal of 20, and 26% in classes of 25 or higher.

The Comptroller concluded that the DOE had improperly substituted state funds to pay the salaries for teachers who should have been paid with city funds, a practice counter to the language and intent of the law, and “inconsistent with the Program’s maintenance of effort requirement.”

In her formal response, dated November 7, the day before the Mayoral election, Kathleen Grimm, DOE’s Deputy Chancellor of Finance and Administration, disputed the audit’s methodology and conclusions, calling them overly “quantitative,” and refused to alter the department’s practices. Instead, she wrote, DOE allows for “the holistic judgments of local educational leaders.” (It is interesting that on matters relating to bulletin boards and how children are arranged on rugs, DOE is happy to prescribe to principals and teachers; but when it comes to matters such as reducing class size, they say they will leave it entirely up to them – even when it comes to the possible violation of state law.)

The audit also addressed the capacity issue. While there are schools with little or no room to form additional classes, the auditors found that there were many that did have the room to reduce class size, but were not receiving funds to do so, or weren’t using these funds appropriately. One school reported using the money to pay for a teacher who was actually on leave. Auditors also found that in many parts of the city there were schools sitting only a few blocks away from each other, one overcrowded and with classes of 25 or more, while another was severely undercapacity.

At a public forum since the audit was released, the Chancellor claimed that some of the state class size funds were used to keep class sizes lower in 4th and 5th grades. In fact, some of these funds can legally used this way, but the city did not report this.

Instead, they claimed that all 1586 classes were formed in K-3, while the Comptroller found only 20. Moreover, by counting the total number of classes as provided by the Independent Budget Office, one sees that the city offered fewer classes in every grade through 6th since 2001. See the chart posted here, in Excel, with total number of classes and class size averages in each grade.

http://www.classsizematters.org/audit_memo_chart_one.xls

This means that DOE has been systematically skimping on class size in K-6, to fund other priorities.

A district by district analysis shows that only 4 districts out of 33 have seen a steady decline in class size in each of the last three years, despite falling enrollment.

http://www.classsizematters.org/auditmemochart2.xls

If the Chancellor and the Mayor really cared about providing smaller classes, they would not only make sure that the state funds for class size reduction were used for this purpose, and as they were legally intended, but they would also have devoted city funds for this purpose. Nearly every previous Chancellor over the last 30 years has had his own initiatives on class size, without the advantages that this one enjoys, of more education funding overall, falling enrollment, and Mayoral control.

Instead, there are only two examples during the Bloomberg/Klein years in which a specific initiative to limit or reduce class size was announced, neither of which actually occurred because DOE failed to follow up.

In January of 2003, Mayor Bloomberg pledged to limit middle school class sizes to 28, but then failed to fund the program, and instead, class sizes rose in the 7th and 8th grades.

And in the fall of 2004, due to the insistence of the City Council, $20 million was appropriated to make further reductions in class size reduction in grades K-3. According to DOE officials, this enabled them to provide an additional 176 classes in these grades during the 2004-5 school year. However, as the audit reveals, rather than adding any classes, DOE cut the number of classes provided by 287.

Finally, the fact that the administration plans to use only 2% of the additional funding due our schools as a result of the CFE case to provide smaller classes demonstrates the administration’s appalling lack of concern concerning this issue. Even with $5.6 billion in additional annual funds, DOE intends to lower average class size in no grade higher than 3rd, and in these grades only to 20. If DOE had merely complied with the state law and maintained the same number of classes in K-3 as in the fall of 1999, class sizes would have already averaged 20 in these grades last year.

What should be done? Our state officials should be working to ensure that DoE actually complies with the law in the future. The following message should be sent to NY State Education Commissioner Richard Mills, Assemblymember Cathy Nolan of Queens, and Speaker Sheldon Silver. Their contact info is below.: You can send them this message:

The NY State Comptroller has now found that NYC was breaking the law on class size, and instead of forming 1586 additional classes, last year DoE officials formed only 20. With $89 million in state funds, that’s $4.5 million per class.

As a result, 60% of our K-3 students sit in classes with 21 students or more, and 26% in classes with 25 or more students. If DoE had actually formed the additional classes as claimed, average class size would be down to 19.1 in these grades.

Yet rather than adopt any of the recommendations proposed by the Comptroller’s office, DoE continues to thumb their nose at the law. It is your responsibility to ensure that NYC complies with the law on class size from this day forward.

Please send this message to:

Commissioner Richard P. Mills
New York State Education Department
89 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12234
518-474-5844
richard.mills@mail.nysed.gov

Speaker Sheldon Silver
250 Broadway
Suite 2307
New York, NY 10007
212-312-1420
speaker@assembly.state.ny.us

Assemblymember Cathy Nolan
61-08 Linden Street
Ridgewood, NY 11385
718-456-9492
nolanc@assembly.state.ny.us

Moreover, the following questions should be asked of Chancellor Klein and other DOE officials. You can email him at JKlein@nycboe.net; copy the Mayor at mbloomberg@cityhall.nyc.gov

1. How do you explain the fact that the State Comptroller’s office found that with $89 million in state funds, DOE only added 20 new classes compared to the number that existed before the program’s inception, at a cost of $4.5 million per class?

2. How is it that last year, instead of adding any classes with an additional $20 million in city funds, the number of classes in K-3 declined by 287?

3. If DOE provided 900 more classes in grades K-3 four years ago, and enrollment is still
declining in the elementary grades, this cannot be a problem of capacity; isn’t that true?

4. Do you support the goal of 20 per class or less in grades K-3 in all schools, and if so, what has DOE done to accomplish this? If you believe reducing class size and following the law is important, why not prescribe to principals how these funds should be used?

5. During a public forum, Chancellor Klein claimed that some of these funds were used to keep class sizes smaller in 4-5th grade, if so, why wasn't this reported as such? In fact there is no evidence that funds have been spent in this manner, and IBO data shows that fewer classes in every grade through 6th have been provided over the last four years. Doesn't this indicate that DoE has been skimping on class size to fund your other priorities?

6.Why does your plan for the CFE funds only devote 2% towards reducing class size, despite the finding of the Court of Appeals that class sizes were too large in all grades to provide NYC children with an adequate education ?

7. In her response to the audit, Kathleen Grimm wrote that “instances in which the early grade class size dollars may appear to have been budgeted to classes required under our local commitment represent no deliberate misuse of funds, but rather the difficulty of budgeting across thousands of schools (p. 59).” Does this mean that NYC schools have indeed substituted state funds for local dollars, and that that DOE is unable to adequately monitor this program? Or do you plan to improve compliance in the future?