Bloomberg's Secret Government is Unknown Even to Him
Take Guy Velella, for example. If the CEO of our city government doesn't know what political favors are being done by people who work for him, is this good management? Or did Mayor Bloomberg know that the Local Conditional Release Commission was doing? You Decide.
October 17, 2004
A Back Door Out of Rikers, Suddenly FamousBy BENJAMIN WEISER and KEVIN FLYNN, NY TIMES
LINK
The Local Conditional Release Commission was born more than a decade ago with seemingly the best of intentions. It would show mercy for certain nonviolent prisoners in New York City by freeing them from jail, an act that would also save money and reduce prison overcrowding.
And acting like a local parole board, that is just what the commission did. Hundreds of low-level criminals were freed each year.
But over time, as crime declined, jail populations slumped and the political environment shifted, the panel of mayoral appointees began to release fewer and fewer inmates, a tiny fraction of the thousands of cases it reviewed each year - so few that some prosecutors and the mayor himself lost track of the panel's existence.
Until a few weeks ago.
With its release of a former state senator, Guy J. Velella, only three months into a one-year jail term for public corruption, the panel, which has always lived in the backwaters of the city's criminal justice system, suddenly took center stage. Its rules, its criteria for release, its record keeping, its motivations and its political bent, or lack thereof, have all been the subject of much speculation and analysis in recent weeks.
What emerges from an examination of the commission's activities is a picture of a board that has had almost unfettered power to free prisoners and that continued to operate in the shadows of city government with little accountability and virtually no oversight.Though the obscure body was served by a small staff and a director who was paid $135,000 a year, city officials were unable last week to explain whether the panel has written rules, the extent of its records on its deliberations, or whether it met in person to deliberate.
What is more, of the 15 people the panel freed early over the past five years, there are questions about whether, under the board's own informal guidelines, five were even appropriate candidates for release. For example, in 2000, the panel released Mark Gastineau, a former New York Jets player, even though he had been jailed for an assault on his wife and had prior arrests and probation violations. Two weeks later, the panel reconsidered and ordered Mr. Gastineau returned to jail. And in three cases - those of Mr. Velella and his two co-defendants in a bribery conspiracy- city investigators have stepped in to review whether favoritism was at work.
Indeed, some criminal justice officials are asking why the panel, which has a $386,000 yearly budget and employs several city workers, even continues to exist. "There's no public accountability," said Bridget G. Brennan, the city's special prosecutor for drug crimes, who said she believed that at least one of the defendants her office had prosecuted was later released by the commission.
"The way it's structured,' she said, "just belies the principles of openness and impartiality that are really critical to assure people that our system of sentencing is just."
Response to criticisms by Ms. Brennan and others has been hard to come by. The panel's chairman, its three other members and its executive director all resigned under fire in recent days. Besides some limited remarks several weeks ago, they have declined to comment or have not returned phone calls. City officials, too, have refused to comment, in part because of the continuing investigation and in part because they depict the panel as an independent, quasi-judicial body.
The new chairman appointed by the mayor last week, Daniel Richman, a Fordham University law professor and a former federal prosecutor, has said that it is not his place to discuss how the board might have performed in the past, and that he has not begun to ponder how he views the board's future.
"My job at this point," he said, "is to understand the statutory framework for the board and comply with it."
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who said he had not even heard of the commission before Mr. Velella's release, even though his administration had appointed two of its members, has said that the panel has "outlived its useful purpose" and that he would support legislation to abolish it.
None of this controversy seemed likely when state lawmakers created local conditional release commissions in 1989. The panels in New York and in counties throughout the state were seen by the Legislature as a way to save money and relieve overcrowding in local jails. Under the law, prisoners serving sentences of 90 days to a year could apply for early release after serving 60 days.
"As originally envisioned, it definitely served a worthwhile purpose," said Jerome M. Becker, a former city criminal court judge who was the panel's chairman from 1990 to 1994.
In the early years, Mr. Becker said, the commission would not grant early release to an inmate with a long record or violent background. Prisoners who were released had to agree to strict conditions, like wearing ankle bracelets or entering drug treatment. A prisoner's release could be revoked if he or she violated the release terms, and recidivism was extremely low, Mr. Becker said.
Mr. Becker said that the commission, which has operated out of an office at 33 Beaver Street in Lower Manhattan, met regularly, issued annual reports and consulted with prosecutors, judges and others on prisoner releases. "We got opinions from everybody," Mr. Becker said. In those early years, Mr. Becker recalled, about 200 prisoners a year were released.
"It was not a secretive commission," he added. "The defense bar was aware of it. The district attorney's office was aware of it. The judges were aware of it."
Former Mayor David N. Dinkins recalled, "At the time, it seemed to make a lot of sense."
In recent weeks, the commission has refused requests from The New York Times for copies of its annual reports, as well as other documents that could help illuminate its inner workings, including statistics on the precise number of cases reviewed and the number of prisoners freed. In a terse statement, the commission said that in 1991, it was advised by the City Law Department that it was not required to make public the rules that govern its decision-making.
It is clear, though, that the number of releases dropped sharply in the end of the administration of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, with 15 releases from 1999 to 2004, according to the limited data provided by the panel. One city official said that the drop was due in part to the use of more restrictive criteria in assessing cases. One change, for example, was that prisoners could be considered only if they had no prior record, the official said.
Mr. Giuliani's spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said there had been no policy by Giuliani's administration to tighten the release criteria because the board was independent.
The board was "not high on everyone's radar," she said.
"There was knowledge of its existence," she said, "and a view that it might be somewhat anachronistic to the extent that it was created to solve the problem of overcrowding, which had been eased."
But she said it was no surprise that the prisoner releases fell. "Mayor Giuliani's successful approach to crime reduction was widely known and shared by many," she said.
Steven M. Fishner, a former assistant district attorney who was the city's criminal justice coordinator in Mr. Giuliani's second term, was critical of the commission's role, which he called a "backdoor way to get people out of jail."
He noted that the commission typically reviewed cases just months after a judge had already decided the sentence, based on information from prosecutors, lawyers and probation officers.
Of the Velella decision, he said, "It's bad public policy that's given birth to a bad individual decision that is rightly getting the attention it's getting because it undermines confidence in government."
Michael Jacobson, who directed criminal justice agencies under Mayors Dinkins and Giuliani, said that given the city's once crowded population of prisoners, which peaked at more than 20,000 in the early 1990's, "even when they were releasing a lot, it was still a little."
"It's not like it ever really served any purpose as a prison-population valve," Mr. Jacobson said. "It served a purpose of at least letting some folks go who could clearly be handled just as well, if not better, in the community."
Besides the trickle of prisoners now being freed, 18 more inmates were offered early release in the past year but did not take it, Jack Ryan, the spokesman for the city Probation Department, has said. That is because accepting early release requires an inmate to agree to one year of supervision by a probation officer, and inmates facing only a month or two on their sentences may choose to serve their time and avoid the year of probation.
Earlier this year, there was a move in Albany to abolish the panels, spurred by outrage after an upstate panel released Mary Beth Anslow three months into a one-year sentence for operating an illegal day care center where a 3-month-old girl died. But it fell victim to the political and policy differences between the State Senate and the State Assembly.
In February, the Senate, which is dominated by suburban and upstate Republicans, and tends to take a hard line on law and order, voted 59 to 0 to abolish the commissions. A memorandum in support of the bill noted "the lack of standards in determining eligibility for release."
Among those voting was Senator Velella, who had not yet resigned. And the main sponsor of the Senate bill, Michael F. Nozzolio, an upstate Republican, wrote a letter last summer advocating Mr. Velella's release by just such a commission.
But in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, which tends to advocate shorter prison terms and more alternatives to prison for nonviolent inmates, the bill went nowhere. It was referred to the corrections committee and died without being introduced.
Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry, a Queens Democrat who is chairman of the corrections committee, said that the Assembly had "a different view, institutionally, on what should be done" with the commissions. He cited the early goal of easing overcrowding in jails, and the desire to give municipalities bearing the brunt of the costs of housing inmates a chance to release nonviolent or ill prisoners.
Mr. Aubry said that although the Assembly was troubled by allegations that the commissions' power had been abused in some cases, it did not believe that the commissions should be abolished.
Starting next month, he said, he plans to hold hearings to study the commissions and how they work, the requirements for winning release, and how involved local officials are.
Until last week, the members of the panel in New York City included its chairman, Raul Russi, and Amy Ianora, who were both appointed by Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Bloomberg appointed the other two members, Irene Prager and Jeanne Hammock. The vote to release Mr. Velella was three in favor and one, Ms. Hammock, abstaining. Mr. Russi has said that the release was granted as a compassionate measure because Mr. Velella was a broken man who was calling commission staff members from jail.
Not surprisingly, the commission's relatively few current defenders include some former prisoners who were released by the commission.
Judith Smiley, who pleaded guilty in 2002 to custodial interference for her role in the abduction of a baby boy in 1980, was serving a six-month sentence in the Rikers Island infirmary because she had health problems and was in a wheelchair. A probation officer from the commission got in touch with her, she said.
"I asked how they got my name, because I had not applied for it," Ms. Smiley said by phone from Albuquerque, where she lives. "He said that in essence, one of the commissioners was following the case in the paper and thought that I was a candidate for the program."
Ms. Smiley added, "It was a godsend." She pointed out that she had expected to serve four months (a prisoner's sentence is typically reduced by one-third for good behavior), and the early release meant that she had to serve only two months - "not that I was counting," she said.
Michael Cooper contributed reporting from Albany for this article
November 9, 2004
Freeing Ex-Senator Violated the Law, City Panel Is Told
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER, NY TIMES
LINK
The New York City Law Department has determined that an obscure mayoral panel acted illegally when it released former State Senator Guy J. Velella from jail three months into his yearlong sentence, paving the way for Mr. Velella and four other Rikers Island prisoners who were released by the commission this year to be sent back to jail, the commission announced yesterday.
Mr. Velella and the others have been informed that they must reapply for early release by next Tuesday, and that three days later the board will decide whether to grant the requests. If it does not, the five are likely to be ordered back to jail.
The September decision to let Mr. Velella out of jail was an embarrassment for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who said he had never before heard of the panel, the Local Conditional Release Commission, even though his office appointed two of its four members. Mr. Bloomberg quickly ordered an investigation and forced all the commission members to resign, replacing them with the five members who would consider Mr. Velella's new application.
The commission had worked in relative obscurity for years in the depths of the City Department of Probation, considering whether to grant early release to first-time offenders serving short sentences in city jail.
Its release of Mr. Velella, who was sentenced to Rikers Island for conspiracy to commit bribery, ignited outrage among elected officials and others who thought it smacked of favoritism for a politically connected former lawmaker and his associates.
Mr. Velella, a Republican, and two other inmates connected to his case, Manual Gonzales and Hector Del Toro, were 3 of only 13 people released by the panel in the last six years; thousands of inmates have been denied such release.
The City Department of Investigation determined last week that the commission had violated numerous procedures when it released Mr. Velella and most of the others whose applications it had considered. The department found that the commission often did not have the necessary quorum of three members present when it granted an early release, and that the panel allowed Mr. Velella to make a second application for release too soon after it rejected his first application; state rules require a 60-day period to reapply.
Based on those findings, the city's Law Department determined that Mr. Velella, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Del Toro were released on applications that were invalid, and the new members of the commission have concurred.
"The findings in the Department of Investigation report and the legal opinion that we've been given by the Law Department make at a minimum a prima facie case for the legal invalidity of all releases done as a result of illegal voting procedures by this commission," said Daniel C. Richman, the new chairman of the commission.
Yesterday, the new commissioners sent letters to the five people released this year, notifying them that they must reapply. The other two cases concern a person who served time for criminal possession of drugs and another who was convicted of forgery.
If the commission determines that the release of these former prisoners should not be upheld, they are likely to be told to turn themselves in. However, lawyers for at least two of the three released in the Velella case said they would fight any attempt to return their clients to jail.
"Guy Velella did absolutely nothing wrong to obtain his conditional release," said Charles Stillman, Mr. Velella's lawyer. "The fact of his eligibility to be released in as little as 60 days was fully known to the district attorney and the court. Every step taken on his behalf was in accordance with procedures set down by the Local Conditional Release Commission and oral advice from its senior staff. Guy Velella has paid and is paying for his wrongdoing."
Frank Ortiz, who represents Mr. Gonzales, said: "Every time you don't like the way a decision comes out, do you put in a new commission to change it?" Mr. Del Toro's lawyer, Steven R. Kartagener, had no comment.
Perhaps hinting that the commission has already determined how it will vote on at least some of the cases, Kerri Martin Bartlett, a member of the commission, said, "It is fair to say these matters will be litigated."
Creation of the boards around the state was authorized in 1989 to help relieve jail overcrowding, a problem that has since abated. Some lawmakers and other elected officials, including Mr. Bloomberg, would like to see the boards abolished.
Prior court cases suggest that New York City could prevail in sending Mr. Velella back to jail.
In one recent case, an inmate's application for early release in Rensselaer County was initially rejected, but the inmate reapplied less than 60 days later and won release. Because the law states that inmates must wait 60 days after being rejected to apply again, the State Supreme Court found the release invalid and the inmate was sent back to jail. Mr. Velella and Mr. Del Toro each reapplied for release shortly after their first requests were denied.
In a case resembling Mr. Velella's, a member of the commission in Livingston County decided to release a politically connected inmate without consulting the panel's two other members. In that case, the inmate was returned to prison.
The members of the New York City board said yesterday that they would discontinue the practice of automatically considering every prisoner who qualifies for release and instead require an application from anyone who wants consideration. That process is actually required by statute, the commissioners said, yet one more way in which the former commissioners failed to observe the law.
Without having applications and supporting materials, the board members said, they had nothing to base their decisions on outside of what the sentencing judge already used in the case. To make the process more open to those without education, connections or legal savvy, Mr. Richman said, the commission would reach out to jail inmates to let them know the commission exists and how to apply. "We suspect what will happen is that we will get fewer applications," Ms. Bartlett said.
Yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg said he did not want to prejudice the board's decision. "I didn't think he should have been released to begin with," he said of Mr. Velella, "because I think elected officials should certainly not be treated better than anybody else."
Go to parentadvocates.org on Velella
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Bloomberg and Council Reach Deal on Budget
Bloomberg and Council Reach Deal on Budget
By DAVID W. CHEN and MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: June 27, 2008
With a legal deadline four days away, city officials brokered a deal on Thursday night on a $59.1 billion budget that would preserve a popular tax cut for homeowners and a $400 rebate and add $129 million in education spending to what had originally been proposed.
Over all, the size of the budget for the fiscal year that begins in July is essentially unchanged from the current one. But during a news conference in the City Hall rotunda, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said they were not able to provide as much money as they would have liked for some cultural and social programs. And they repeatedly warned that the current economic downturn threatened the following year’s budget, thanks to the rising price of oil, a falling stock market and other troubling indicators.
“I don’t have to tell anybody here that this is a difficult time and the forecasts are worrisome,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “With so much uncertainty in the local and national economy, we need to show fiscal restraint just as families across the city are doing.”
Ms. Quinn added, “As much good news as there is in this budget, there is bad news for some people.”
The deal came as a relief to lawmakers and administration officials, who had worried that the city might not make the legally mandated July 1 deadline. But the relative austerity of the budget deal disappointed many of the housing, legal, health care and other advocates who had become a regular fixture on the steps of City Hall all week.
Details are expected to be released in the next day or two, and the City Council is scheduled to vote on the budget on Sunday night.
During the news conference, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn offered a few of the highlights. The New York City Housing Authority would receive $18 million more than Mr. Bloomberg proposed in May. Libraries would continue to be open six days a week and not five as was originally suggested.
The city’s capital budget would be trimmed by 20 percent. All agencies would absorb across-the-board cuts in operating expenses. And financing for City Council-sponsored programs, now at the heart of a federal investigation, was cut by 38 percent. There would also be less money to pay for security guards at cultural institutions, and a chess program for schools was cut.
The budget also eliminates civilian positions in the Fire Department and eliminates unfilled positions in the Police Department.
“Everything was given a little haircut,” said Councilman David Weprin, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Initial reaction was mixed.
“I am disappointed that with a $4.5 billion surplus, the mayor forced the Council to cut funding for essential services, including homeless prevention, legal and mental health services, and workforce development,” said Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn. “In addition, the New York City Housing Authority, which is in dire financial straits, will be forced to shut senior centers and youth programs across the city. The mayor should not have put the city in this situation, and these cuts will be deeply felt for years to come.”
“This is a bad day for seniors,” said Bobbie Sackman, the director of public policy for the Council of Senior Centers and Services, who estimated that the budget would reduce spending on travel, housing, food, H.I.V. testing and other services by a total of $19 million.
Throughout the process, the mayor and the Council seemed to be living in different fiscal universes. While Mr. Bloomberg called for financial austerity in the face of a rapid downturn in the economy, the Council accused him of overstating the city’s woes, pointing to a big surplus in the 2008 budget.
Talks between both sides began to sour two weeks ago, after Mr. Bloomberg announced on his weekly radio show that the city might have to scrap a popular property tax cut for homeowners.
The mayor said that the 7 percent tax cut, put in place in 2007, might not be justifiable given job losses on Wall Street and an unexpected $700 million bill for a retroactive raise given to 23,000 police officers in May.
Almost immediately, the Council united to oppose the measure, turning what had been described as amicable talks into a bitter stalemate.
At one point this week, the negotiating team for the Council broke off talks to highlight their frustration.
One councilman, Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, stormed into the press room at City Hall and accused the mayor of playing “a nasty game of chicken” with the property tax proposal, which would amount to a tax hike.
“He’s looking at his last year as mayor, and he doesn’t want to go out with an unmanageable situation,” Mr. Fidler said.
On Thursday afternoon, the atmosphere was so tense that when Mayor Bloomberg walked out of City Hall and headed toward his car, he barely acknowledged the calls of children who had convened on the steps with their parents to decry overcrowding in public schools.
At the news conference, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn even forgot to do the traditional handshake and kiss. When a reporter asked what had happened, they returned. Ms. Quinn said “Take two,” and the two performed their duty.
Fernanda Santos contributed reporting.
By DAVID W. CHEN and MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: June 27, 2008
With a legal deadline four days away, city officials brokered a deal on Thursday night on a $59.1 billion budget that would preserve a popular tax cut for homeowners and a $400 rebate and add $129 million in education spending to what had originally been proposed.
Over all, the size of the budget for the fiscal year that begins in July is essentially unchanged from the current one. But during a news conference in the City Hall rotunda, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said they were not able to provide as much money as they would have liked for some cultural and social programs. And they repeatedly warned that the current economic downturn threatened the following year’s budget, thanks to the rising price of oil, a falling stock market and other troubling indicators.
“I don’t have to tell anybody here that this is a difficult time and the forecasts are worrisome,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “With so much uncertainty in the local and national economy, we need to show fiscal restraint just as families across the city are doing.”
Ms. Quinn added, “As much good news as there is in this budget, there is bad news for some people.”
The deal came as a relief to lawmakers and administration officials, who had worried that the city might not make the legally mandated July 1 deadline. But the relative austerity of the budget deal disappointed many of the housing, legal, health care and other advocates who had become a regular fixture on the steps of City Hall all week.
Details are expected to be released in the next day or two, and the City Council is scheduled to vote on the budget on Sunday night.
During the news conference, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn offered a few of the highlights. The New York City Housing Authority would receive $18 million more than Mr. Bloomberg proposed in May. Libraries would continue to be open six days a week and not five as was originally suggested.
The city’s capital budget would be trimmed by 20 percent. All agencies would absorb across-the-board cuts in operating expenses. And financing for City Council-sponsored programs, now at the heart of a federal investigation, was cut by 38 percent. There would also be less money to pay for security guards at cultural institutions, and a chess program for schools was cut.
The budget also eliminates civilian positions in the Fire Department and eliminates unfilled positions in the Police Department.
“Everything was given a little haircut,” said Councilman David Weprin, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Initial reaction was mixed.
“I am disappointed that with a $4.5 billion surplus, the mayor forced the Council to cut funding for essential services, including homeless prevention, legal and mental health services, and workforce development,” said Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn. “In addition, the New York City Housing Authority, which is in dire financial straits, will be forced to shut senior centers and youth programs across the city. The mayor should not have put the city in this situation, and these cuts will be deeply felt for years to come.”
“This is a bad day for seniors,” said Bobbie Sackman, the director of public policy for the Council of Senior Centers and Services, who estimated that the budget would reduce spending on travel, housing, food, H.I.V. testing and other services by a total of $19 million.
Throughout the process, the mayor and the Council seemed to be living in different fiscal universes. While Mr. Bloomberg called for financial austerity in the face of a rapid downturn in the economy, the Council accused him of overstating the city’s woes, pointing to a big surplus in the 2008 budget.
Talks between both sides began to sour two weeks ago, after Mr. Bloomberg announced on his weekly radio show that the city might have to scrap a popular property tax cut for homeowners.
The mayor said that the 7 percent tax cut, put in place in 2007, might not be justifiable given job losses on Wall Street and an unexpected $700 million bill for a retroactive raise given to 23,000 police officers in May.
Almost immediately, the Council united to oppose the measure, turning what had been described as amicable talks into a bitter stalemate.
At one point this week, the negotiating team for the Council broke off talks to highlight their frustration.
One councilman, Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, stormed into the press room at City Hall and accused the mayor of playing “a nasty game of chicken” with the property tax proposal, which would amount to a tax hike.
“He’s looking at his last year as mayor, and he doesn’t want to go out with an unmanageable situation,” Mr. Fidler said.
On Thursday afternoon, the atmosphere was so tense that when Mayor Bloomberg walked out of City Hall and headed toward his car, he barely acknowledged the calls of children who had convened on the steps with their parents to decry overcrowding in public schools.
At the news conference, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn even forgot to do the traditional handshake and kiss. When a reporter asked what had happened, they returned. Ms. Quinn said “Take two,” and the two performed their duty.
Fernanda Santos contributed reporting.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Hey City Council, what are those $800 million in "nondiscretionary" DOE cost increases?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Hey City Council, what are those $800 million in "nondiscretionary" DOE cost increases?
I recently sent this letter to City Council Member Dan Garodnick, and similar letters to Speaker Christine Quinn and Council Member Alan Gerson, with copies to Council Member Robert Jackson of the Education Committee. I encourage other parents to do the same. Dramatic cuts to school budgets are being negotiated in the City Council right now, and the cost basis for these cuts deserves to be challenged.
UPDATE: See full detail on Tweed's $809 million in "non discretionary" cost increases here and $154 million in "discretionary" increases here.
Dear Council Member Garodnick,
It was good to meet you last week and convey some of parents' concerns about the DOE budget.
I mentioned when we spoke that many parents following education issues feel that the overruns in the FY 09 budget identified by the DOE as inevitable cost increases are in fact discretionary. I attach an exile file from the DOE detailing their claimed cost increases. You'll see that very few of them are milk and fuel. Several fund increases in controversial and untested programs. Items that could be considered non-compulsory include:
- $70 million in growth for charter schools
- $64.3 million in growth for CTT programs
- $30 million for expanded school closures
- $26.7 million to maintain school level funding for Fair Student Funding
Of these reputed overruns only about $380 million is increased staff expenses, and $2 million of that is a CSA bonus created by Chancellor Klein. Only $43 million is increased transportation costs.
Under "necessary improvements":
- $25 million in expanded merit pay for teachers (the first year of this program, which was privately funded, has not been evaluated)
- $20 million in "school support reserve": what is this?
- $10 million more for ELA and math test scoring. Why?
- $2.3 million more for "Talent Intitiatives": what is this?
- $2 million more for G&T classes
In their budget cuts document (also attached), DOE claims they are cutting periodic assessments and children's first intensive programs at a savings of $1.4 million and $2.45 million, respectively. But under "necessary improvements" these programs are identfied as increasing by $3.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively, in costs.
Additionally, according to Principals' Weekly, DOE is doubling the size of data inquiry teams. This cost does not appear in the budget.
The accountability office and the quality reviews could also be cut. Their value in relation to their cost has never been convincingly demonstrated to the public.
DOE officials are saying to parents and officials all over town that they are obliged to make draconian cuts to high performing schools because they are burdened by increasing costs. But these are costs of their own devising. Before we sacrifice successful schools, and challenge salutary influence of the CFE funds on our struggling schools, we should look to how much these expensive programs are really doing for us. And we certainly should not allow them to be disguised as necessary increases in basic operating costs.
Many thanks for your attention,
Ann Kjellberg
Hey City Council, what are those $800 million in "nondiscretionary" DOE cost increases?
I recently sent this letter to City Council Member Dan Garodnick, and similar letters to Speaker Christine Quinn and Council Member Alan Gerson, with copies to Council Member Robert Jackson of the Education Committee. I encourage other parents to do the same. Dramatic cuts to school budgets are being negotiated in the City Council right now, and the cost basis for these cuts deserves to be challenged.
UPDATE: See full detail on Tweed's $809 million in "non discretionary" cost increases here and $154 million in "discretionary" increases here.
Dear Council Member Garodnick,
It was good to meet you last week and convey some of parents' concerns about the DOE budget.
I mentioned when we spoke that many parents following education issues feel that the overruns in the FY 09 budget identified by the DOE as inevitable cost increases are in fact discretionary. I attach an exile file from the DOE detailing their claimed cost increases. You'll see that very few of them are milk and fuel. Several fund increases in controversial and untested programs. Items that could be considered non-compulsory include:
- $70 million in growth for charter schools
- $64.3 million in growth for CTT programs
- $30 million for expanded school closures
- $26.7 million to maintain school level funding for Fair Student Funding
Of these reputed overruns only about $380 million is increased staff expenses, and $2 million of that is a CSA bonus created by Chancellor Klein. Only $43 million is increased transportation costs.
Under "necessary improvements":
- $25 million in expanded merit pay for teachers (the first year of this program, which was privately funded, has not been evaluated)
- $20 million in "school support reserve": what is this?
- $10 million more for ELA and math test scoring. Why?
- $2.3 million more for "Talent Intitiatives": what is this?
- $2 million more for G&T classes
In their budget cuts document (also attached), DOE claims they are cutting periodic assessments and children's first intensive programs at a savings of $1.4 million and $2.45 million, respectively. But under "necessary improvements" these programs are identfied as increasing by $3.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively, in costs.
Additionally, according to Principals' Weekly, DOE is doubling the size of data inquiry teams. This cost does not appear in the budget.
The accountability office and the quality reviews could also be cut. Their value in relation to their cost has never been convincingly demonstrated to the public.
DOE officials are saying to parents and officials all over town that they are obliged to make draconian cuts to high performing schools because they are burdened by increasing costs. But these are costs of their own devising. Before we sacrifice successful schools, and challenge salutary influence of the CFE funds on our struggling schools, we should look to how much these expensive programs are really doing for us. And we certainly should not allow them to be disguised as necessary increases in basic operating costs.
Many thanks for your attention,
Ann Kjellberg
Friday, June 13, 2008
NYCLU - School to Prison Pipeline
Every day, more than 93,000 New York City school children must pass through a gauntlet of metal detectors, bag searches and pat downs administered by police personnel who are inadequately trained, insufficiently supervised and often belligerent, aggressive and disrespectful. This burden weighs most heavily on the city's most vulnerable children, who are disproportionately poor, Black and Latino.
A groundbreaking new report by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools, documents the excesses of the policing operation in New York City's public schools and the penalties that students have paid as a result of those operations.
Laying the responsibility squarely at the feet of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the NYCLU and the ACLU Racial Justice Project report offer realistic recommendations for reform.
The NYCLU and the ACLU are committed to working with educators, students, families, community members, and city officials to achieve these urgently needed reforms. Click below to get more information about this problem and to learn how to get involved in making change.
-->
Get informed
Read the Report (PDF)
Read about students who have experienced over-policing in their schools
Download our Palm Card: Know Your Rights with Police in Schools (PDF)
Read About the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Get involved
Download the NYCLU's Organizing Tool Kit on Policing in Schools (PDF)
Learn how to file a complaint about the behavior of an NYPD officer or a School Security Agent in a school (Microsoft Word file)
Download a template of a letter to send to your council member (Microsoft Word file)
Download a template of a letter to send to the mayor and the schools commissioner (Microsoft Word file)
Reach out to key organizations working on policing in schools
A groundbreaking new report by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools, documents the excesses of the policing operation in New York City's public schools and the penalties that students have paid as a result of those operations.
Laying the responsibility squarely at the feet of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the NYCLU and the ACLU Racial Justice Project report offer realistic recommendations for reform.
The NYCLU and the ACLU are committed to working with educators, students, families, community members, and city officials to achieve these urgently needed reforms. Click below to get more information about this problem and to learn how to get involved in making change.
-->
Get informed
Read the Report (PDF)
Read about students who have experienced over-policing in their schools
Download our Palm Card: Know Your Rights with Police in Schools (PDF)
Read About the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Get involved
Download the NYCLU's Organizing Tool Kit on Policing in Schools (PDF)
Learn how to file a complaint about the behavior of an NYPD officer or a School Security Agent in a school (Microsoft Word file)
Download a template of a letter to send to your council member (Microsoft Word file)
Download a template of a letter to send to the mayor and the schools commissioner (Microsoft Word file)
Reach out to key organizations working on policing in schools
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Douglaston mom sues city to regain voice in school leadership teams
BY JESS WISLOSKI DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, June 10th 2008, 4:00 AM
http://www.nydailyn/ews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/06/10/2008-06-10_douglaston_mom_sues_city_to_regain_voice.html
Marie Pollicino of Douglaston has filed a lawsuit against the city in an effort to gain more power for parents.
Mayor Bloomberg has never stood trial for the ongoing charges parent groups have made that his administration shuts them out of involvement in New York City's schools. But he soon could.
A state commissioner's ruling on a lawsuit against the Education Department filed by an angry Queens mom is expected by the end of June.
If Commissioner Richard Mills hands down a favorable ruling for parents, a city appeal will bring the case to trial in state Supreme Court.
Marie Pollicino, 46, a mother of three boys who lives in Douglaston, says she just wants justice.
"It wasn't personal just for me; it was for all the parents with a child in the public school," she said.
Her petition asks the state to revoke a newly-minted change to the schools chancellor's regulations enacted on December 3.
"The chancellor changed the regulations without input from any groups. They just make up their mind," she said.
The revision, which applied to regulation A-655, took decision-making power away from parents and teachers in school leadership teams, Pollicino claimed.
Since filing in late December, she has been inundated with support. Three unions, including the United Federation of Teachers, have signed on as petitioners to the case. Community Education Council 26, of which she is a member, also signed on, along with lawyer Melvyn Meeks, who is a parent leader at Flushing's Public School 188.
In the past, school leadership teams comprised a body of teachers, parents, and administrators, who met monthly at each school to create its budget and comprehensive educational plan.
The new law gives principals "the final determination" on educational plans and budgets and changed parent duties.
The petition claims the changes "fatally weakened the core duties" of the teams and in doing so violates state law.
The city refuted Pollicino's claims in an appeal stating the city's provision for parents to "consult" with principals meets the state's required "shared decision-making" clauses for parental roles.
Laura Postiglione, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, would not comment. "We can't comment due to pending litigation," she said.
Public notification about the regulation change was not found on the Education Department's Web site. Manhattan parent Patrick Sullivan, who sits on the citywide Panel for Education Policy, said public comments were collected from panel members. He and other parents were vocally opposed to the modification, he said.
"Parents want to be involved in the schools," he said. "It's a tremendous deterrent."
jwisloski@nydailynews.com
Tuesday, June 10th 2008, 4:00 AM
http://www.nydailyn/ews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/06/10/2008-06-10_douglaston_mom_sues_city_to_regain_voice.html
Marie Pollicino of Douglaston has filed a lawsuit against the city in an effort to gain more power for parents.
Mayor Bloomberg has never stood trial for the ongoing charges parent groups have made that his administration shuts them out of involvement in New York City's schools. But he soon could.
A state commissioner's ruling on a lawsuit against the Education Department filed by an angry Queens mom is expected by the end of June.
If Commissioner Richard Mills hands down a favorable ruling for parents, a city appeal will bring the case to trial in state Supreme Court.
Marie Pollicino, 46, a mother of three boys who lives in Douglaston, says she just wants justice.
"It wasn't personal just for me; it was for all the parents with a child in the public school," she said.
Her petition asks the state to revoke a newly-minted change to the schools chancellor's regulations enacted on December 3.
"The chancellor changed the regulations without input from any groups. They just make up their mind," she said.
The revision, which applied to regulation A-655, took decision-making power away from parents and teachers in school leadership teams, Pollicino claimed.
Since filing in late December, she has been inundated with support. Three unions, including the United Federation of Teachers, have signed on as petitioners to the case. Community Education Council 26, of which she is a member, also signed on, along with lawyer Melvyn Meeks, who is a parent leader at Flushing's Public School 188.
In the past, school leadership teams comprised a body of teachers, parents, and administrators, who met monthly at each school to create its budget and comprehensive educational plan.
The new law gives principals "the final determination" on educational plans and budgets and changed parent duties.
The petition claims the changes "fatally weakened the core duties" of the teams and in doing so violates state law.
The city refuted Pollicino's claims in an appeal stating the city's provision for parents to "consult" with principals meets the state's required "shared decision-making" clauses for parental roles.
Laura Postiglione, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, would not comment. "We can't comment due to pending litigation," she said.
Public notification about the regulation change was not found on the Education Department's Web site. Manhattan parent Patrick Sullivan, who sits on the citywide Panel for Education Policy, said public comments were collected from panel members. He and other parents were vocally opposed to the modification, he said.
"Parents want to be involved in the schools," he said. "It's a tremendous deterrent."
jwisloski@nydailynews.com
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
School Rally
SAVE OUR SCHOOL
.
Join us on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 and June 25, 2008 in front of 1300 Greene Ave for the save Philippa Schuyler Rally from 7 am to 9 am.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)