Class sizes increase for 6 th year in

  • Slides: 19
Download presentation
Class sizes increase for 6 th year in row in D 21 by Leonie

Class sizes increase for 6 th year in row in D 21 by Leonie Haimson Executive Director, Class Size Matters January 2014 www. classsizematters. org

Contracts for Excellence • In 2003, NYS Court of Appeals held that NYC class

Contracts for Excellence • In 2003, NYS Court of Appeals held that NYC class sizes too large to provide students with constitutional right to a sound basic education. • April 2007, NY State settled the Campaign for Fiscal lawsuit by passing the Contracts for Excellence (C 4 E) law. Legislature agreed to send billions in additional aid to NYC & other high needs school districts to be spent in six approved areas, including class size reduction. • In addition, NYC had to submit a plan to reduce class size in all grades. • In fall of 2007, NYSED approved DOE’s plan to reduce class sizes to an average of no more than 20 students per class in K-3; 23 in grades 4 -8 and 25 in core HS classes over five yeas. • In return, NYS has sent more than $3 billion in C 4 E funds cumulatively to NYC since 2007, though funding has never reached its promised full level.

C 4 E regulations • iv) beginning in the 2008 -2009 school year and

C 4 E regulations • iv) beginning in the 2008 -2009 school year and continuing through the 2011 -2012 school year, the city school district of the city of New York shall: • (A) establish annual class size reduction goals for each grade level targeted that will reduce class size toward the prekindergarten through grade 12 targets as prescribed by the commissioner after his/her consideration of the recommendation of an expert panel appointed by the commissioner to conduct a review of existing class size research; • (B) make measurable progress in each such school years toward achieving such targets; and • (C) not exceed such targets by the end of the 2011 -2012 school year; http: //www. p 12. nysed. gov/part 100/pages/10013. html

Yet class sizes have increased sharply in grades K-3 by 18% since 2006 and

Yet class sizes have increased sharply in grades K-3 by 18% since 2006 and are far above C 4 E goals 26 25. 48 24. 5 24. 86 23. 9 students per section 23. 5 C 4 E goals 22. 9 22 22 21. 6 21 21. 1 20. 9 20. 7 Citywide actual 22. 4 22. 1 D 21 21. 4 20. 5 20 20. 3 20. 1 19. 9 18 Baseline 2007 -8 2008 -9 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14

Class sizes in 4 -8 have also increased 6 years in a row by

Class sizes in 4 -8 have also increased 6 years in a row by 6. 3% since 2007 and are well above C 4 E goals 30 28 27. 7 27. 6 27. 1 Students per section 26 26. 2 26. 6 25. 1 24. 8 26. 2 26. 3 26. 6 27. 85 26. 7 26. 8 25. 3 Citywide actual 24. 6 24 C 4 E target 23. 8 23. 3 22. 9 22 20 18 Baseline 2007 -8 2008 -9 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 D 21

Class sizes city-wide have increased in core HS classes as well, by 4% since

Class sizes city-wide have increased in core HS classes as well, by 4% since 2006, though the DOE data is unreliable* (Gened & CCT fr/DOE calculations) 27 26. 6 26. 5 26. 1 26 25. 5 25. 6 26 26. 5 26. 2 26. 7 26. 4 26. 3 25. 7 25. 2 25 C 4 E target 24. 8 24. 5 Actual 24 23. 5 23 2006 -7 2007 -8 2008 -9 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 *DOE’s class size data is unreliable & their methodology for calculating HS averages have changed year to year

Class sizes in grades K-3 are now the largest since 1998 General ed, CTT

Class sizes in grades K-3 are now the largest since 1998 General ed, CTT and gifted: data from IBO 1998 -2005; DOE 2006 -2013 24. 90 24. 86 24. 46 23. 89 23. 25 22. 38 22. 90 22. 10 21. 68 21. 55 22. 10 21. 28 21. 12 21. 00 20. 90 21. 40 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Class sizes in grades 4 th-8 th largest since 2002 Gened, CTT and gifted:

Class sizes in grades 4 th-8 th largest since 2002 Gened, CTT and gifted: data from IBO 1998 -2005; DOE 2006 -2013 28. 1 27. 5 27. 2 27. 4 27. 0 26. 7 26. 8 26. 6 26. 7 26. 4 26. 3 25. 9 25. 8 25. 6 25. 1 25. 3 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010 -11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Total no. of teachers dropped by 5, 000 since 2007 -8 data source: Mayor's

Total no. of teachers dropped by 5, 000 since 2007 -8 data source: Mayor's Management Report 79, 109 79, 021 76, 795 74, 958 73, 844 72, 787 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13

Loss of teachers while DOE had other priorities • Number of pedagogues (mostly teachers)

Loss of teachers while DOE had other priorities • Number of pedagogues (mostly teachers) has been cut by more than 5, 000 since 2007, despite rising enrollment. * • Smallest #pedagogues in 2011 employed by DOE since 2003. • Largest # non-pedagogues in 2011 employed since at least 1980. • Highest % of non-pedagogues to pedagogues since 1993. • Spending on testing, contracts, consultants, and more bureaucrats have all risen sharply. (*Data source: Office of Management Budget headcounts, through IBO)

WHY despite C 4 E law have class sizes increased? • DOE has never

WHY despite C 4 E law have class sizes increased? • DOE has never spent any C 4 E funds in their district-wide or targeted programs for class size reduction; though this was their primary legal obligation. • In 2009, DOE estimated that it would cost $358 million per year to achieve average C 4 E class size goals across the city; • DOE estimated it would cost $448 million per year in staffing to achieve class size goals in ALL schools; plus more in capital costs for school construction. • Each year, NYC receives more than $530 million in C 4 E funds.

Ways in which DOE policies have directly caused class size INCREASES • Since 2007,

Ways in which DOE policies have directly caused class size INCREASES • Since 2007, DOE has cut school budgets 14%– contradicting C 4 E prohibition against supplanting • In 2010, DOE eliminated Early grade class size funding for grades K-3– despite promise to state in C 4 E plan to maintain it • In 2011, DOE decided no longer to cap class sizes in 1 st-3 rd grades at 28, leading to tripling of number of classes with 30 or more students in these grades.

Other ways DOE has worked to increase class size • In 2012, DOE told

Other ways DOE has worked to increase class size • In 2012, DOE told principals to accommodate special needs students up to contractual class size maximum in gen ed & inclusion classes – 32 students per class in grades 1 -5, 31 in 6 -8 and 34 in HS. • DOE has never aligned its capital plan to goals in class size plan, despite this being required by C 4 E regs – making it impossible to reduce class size in overcrowded schools. • DOE’s removed any mention of class size standards in 2009 from instructional footprint which determine where new schools will be co-located. • Many MS and HS Principals say that when they use discretionary funds to reduce class size, DOE simply sends their school more students. , undermining their efforts.

C 4 E regs demand alignment with capital plan but this has been ignored

C 4 E regs demand alignment with capital plan but this has been ignored • 100. 13 Contract for excellence • B. 1. vi “in the city school district of the City of New York, include a plan that meets the requirements of clause (c)(2)(i)(a) of this section, to reduce average class sizes within five years for the following grade ranges: – prekindergarten through grade three; – grades four through eight; and – grades nine through twelve. • Such plan shall be aligned with the capital plan of the city school district of the City of New York and include continuous class size reduction for low performing and overcrowded schools beginning in the 2007 -2008 school year and thereafter…” http: //www. p 12. nysed. gov/part 100/pages/10013. html

CFE funding also flat-lined; but even when increased; city’s class sizes grew! 700 29

CFE funding also flat-lined; but even when increased; city’s class sizes grew! 700 29 $645 600 27 $531 25 400 24. 5 23. 9 300 $258 23 22. 9 22. 1 200 21. 4 21 21 20. 9 20. 7 100 20. 5 20. 3 20. 1 19. 9 $0 -1 3 12 20 20 11 -1 2 1 10 -1 20 20 09 -1 0 9 08 -0 20 07 -0 8 19 20 06 -0 7 0 Class Size Avgs. 500 20 dollars (in millions) $531 C 4 E spending (in millions) K-3 average class sizes C 4 E class size goals

Continuing violations of law re C 4 E public process • Despite C 4

Continuing violations of law re C 4 E public process • Despite C 4 E law requiring borough hearings each year, DOE has refused to hold them; CFE sued, won in State Supreme Court but city has appealed. • NYSED has been sued by CFE for setting timeline for public input in fall and winter, long after C 4 E funds have been allocated making accountability provisions in the law meaningless. • SED approved the city’s C 4 E plan for 2011 -2012 in July 2013, after all the money has been spent, making audits irrelevant. • This year SED “pre-approved” DOE’s 2013 -2014 class size plan before ANY public hearings occurred – also contrary to law.

Inadequacies of new “pre-approved” CSR plan for 2013 -2014 • City is supposed to

Inadequacies of new “pre-approved” CSR plan for 2013 -2014 • City is supposed to show an overall decrease in class size or an increase of less than 0. 5 students per class from the 2012 -13 school year. • Limiting class size increases in 75 out of 1500 public schools is NOT a class size reduction plan & will NOT lead to measurably smaller classes as C 4 E law requires. • We took a closer look at the list of 75 schools specified by DOE for special efforts to control class size.

75 NYC schools pre-approved by SED for class size reduction • In 30 of

75 NYC schools pre-approved by SED for class size reduction • In 30 of the elementary and middle schools, class sizes increased, and in 22 schools, class sizes increased by more than 0. 5 students. • In 35 of the schools, class sizes decreased. • For the three schools in D 21, one school (PS 095) increased class size by less than 0. 5 students and two schools (PS 100, PS 153) increased class size by more than 0. 5 students. • In high schools, student teacher ratios increased in 2 schools, decreased in 5 schools, and stayed same in 1 school.

Other problems with 75 schools in DOE’s “pre-approved” list • 20 schools on list

Other problems with 75 schools in DOE’s “pre-approved” list • 20 schools on list have not allocated any C 4 E funds on class size reduction, according to DOE spreadsheet. • 41 schools, or more than half are spending less than $100 K on class size, unable to pay for even one extra teacher. • One school (IS 23, D 29) not listed on DOE’s C 4 E spreadsheet. • 3 schools on list are phasing out (Jonathan Levin HS, JHS 302 Rafael Cordero, Business Computer Applications HS) & another is phasing out its middle school (PS 56 Laurelton) • Some principals of schools on list have never been told they are supposed to be reducing class size & have had their budgets cut. • Nearly half (31 out of 74) are schools in good standing, rather than focus or priority schools.