The NYC Mayoral debate and what the candidates said on class size

The second and final NYC Mayoral debate happened on Thursday night.  Education and more specifically class size was one of the main topics covered.  Katie Honan of the online publication The City asked each of the candidates their views on the law passed by the Legislature in 2022, requiring NYC lower class size in all grades. 

The full video of the debate is here; and the section concerning education is posted above.  I have also posted a transcript of the education section. I encourage people to watch the whole thing.

Thankfully, the only candidate on the panel to openly oppose reducing class size was Whitney Tilson, a retired hedge fund investor and charter school board member, though some candidates seemed more enthusiastic than others.  Tilson repeated a well-worn myth often put forward by those who oppose lowering class size: that the need to hire new teachers will offset any benefit that would otherwise accrue from smaller classes.   

Yet nearly every controlled study shows significant gains in student outcomes after class sizes are reduced.  One study showed that even after  Los Angeles tripled its hiring of elementary teachers following the state’s class-size reduction initiative, “the district was able to do so without experiencing a reduction in mean teacher effectiveness.” 

Moreover, even if new teachers may be less adept than veteran teachers, the research also suggests that smaller classes are likely lead to lower teacher attrition rates, which in NYC are  24% over four years.  Teacher turnover is especially problematic in our highest-need schools. This means that as class sizes are reduced in NYC, the result will likely be a far  more experienced and skilled teaching force over time.  [Interestingly, even as he supports raising the cap on charter schools, it doesn’t appear to bother Tilson that the annual attrition rate of Kipp charter schools in New York, on whose board he sits, is 23% - meaning they have to hire about one fourth of their teachers every year.)

Another issue that came up during the Mayoral debate was whether the state should provide more funding to NYC to lower class size, which both Cuomo and Lander argued would be necessary.   

My view, which I explained in detail in  testimony on Foundation Aid, is that the state should only send more funding to the city for class size reduction if and when NYC puts forward a detailed,  multi-year class size plan showing how those funds would be effectively used for this purpose.  The Department of Education has yet to propose any such plan, even though it is required by law. 

The plan should include how they will provide sufficient space for smaller classes in the nearly 500  schools that are too overcrowded at their current enrollment to lower class size to required levels. Our analysis shows that these schools currently enroll nearly half of all students.  Even then, there needs to be rigorous oversight by the state to ensure that the funds are spent appropriately towards the intended result.

Twice in the last 25 years, the state has sent millions in additional aid to the city specifically for smaller classes, and both times the city improperly used those funds to supplant their own spending on teachers. 

The first time this occurred was in 2000-2006, when the state provided more than $88 million annually as part of the Early Grade Class Size Reduction Program.  Yet two State Comptroller audits, in 2002 and 2005,  found that the extra dollars did not lead to as many new classes as they should have, because the DOE instead simply cut their own spending for teachers.

In 2007-2008, the state created the Contracts for Excellence program, and with it, provided nearly a billion additional dollars to NYC, along with a requirement that a portion be used to lower class size in all grades. Instead, class sizes increased sharply.  Another audit, this time  from the NYC Comptroller’s office, showed that these funds were again “improperly used to pay for teacher positions that would have existed without the ….program.”

In short, DOE has a terrible record when it comes to class size.  Whoever the next mayor may be, he or she cannot be trusted to do the right thing without first showing us a detailed plan for how the money would be spent.  Even then, DOE must be watched like a hawk to ensure the funds are invested to provide all NYC students with smaller classes, which is their right under the state constitution, according to New York's highest court.

How DOE & FACE screwed up the elections for new PEP members

An article about DOE's terrible administration of these elections is here.

 

Dec. 22, 2022

Ms. Kenita D. Lloyd

Deputy Chancellor for Family and Community Engagement and External Affairs 

Dear Deputy Chancellor Lloyd,

The Education Council Consortium (ECC) denounces the New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) 2022 Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) member election and calls for the reopening of voting. 

In June of 2022, the New York State Legislature amended the constitution of the PEP by adding 5 new members, to be elected by Presidents of Community Education Councils.  Despite the statutory timeline, DOE continuously delayed the process, resulting in confusion and chaos, ultimately leading to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.  The DOE failed to provide sufficient notice of the election, providing less than 72 hours notice of the date of the election, and only sending notice via email.  The DOE held an unreasonably short voting period of less than 24-hours and did not provide an alternative method of voting for voters without access or needing digital accommodations.  These circumstances and more, served to disenfranchise CEC Presidents who were eligible and entitled to vote in the election of the borough PEP members.

The DOE did not provide sufficient notice of the election.  CEC Presidents were given less than 72-hours notice of the date of the election, and were only notified of the election via email.  As a result, eligible voters that didn’t check their email during that 72-hour period were not notified of the date of the election, and thus were not able to vote.  Additionally, the DOE’s decision to hold an election without providing at least one week’s advanced notice is a deviation from past practice.  For example, for the DOE’s bi-annual CEC member elections, notice is provided months in advance, and using multiple mediums (paid media advertisements, mail, social media, email, phone calls, text messages, etc.).  Even parent-run elections, like PTA board and Title 1 representative elections require at least 10 days of advanced notice.  In addition to the lack of timely notice, DOE should have supplemented the notification email with one other form of notice (e.g. call or mailing).  Voters should have had at least a 10-day notice period, similar to other parent elections, so that voters could schedule properly.

The DOE held an unreasonably short voting window considering the nature of the election.  The DOE provided voters with a less than 24-hour window to vote.  The notice regarding how to vote and the link for the ballot was sent to voters the night before the voting window began, and there were technical glitches in the system that had not been resolved at the time of the notice.  Again, requiring everyone to vote electronically without providing a reasonable period of time for voting is unacceptable.  The candidate forum, where candidates presented their campaign platforms, was held the night before the 24-hour voting window, and the DOE had not even made the recordings available for viewing.  Expecting voting to occur before DOE was even able to make all of the voting information available demonstrates the unreasonably short notice and voting window.

Similarly, new and arbitrary rules restricting voters’ ability to have a voting proxy disenfranchised voters who were unable to cast their ballot.  For example, a CEC 1’s President whose brother had recently passed away had appointed her Vice President to serve as her proxy, per the CEC’s bylaws.  The night before the voting window began, an arbitrary rule preventing proxy voting was issued via email.  CEC 1’s President did not receive the notice until after the election, and the CEC 1 Vice President was not allowed to vote.  The creation of new and arbitrary policies in the ninth hour had the effect of disenfranchising voters.

December is one of the busiest times of the year for many.  CEC Presidents juggle job responsibilities, and family and personal obligations, on top of their role as CEC Presidents.  Adequate notice for meetings and reasonable time windows for voting are required.  The DOE’s PEP member election should be held to the same requirements as those set for PTA, CPAC, and CEC elections.

 

In Partnership,

NeQuan C. McLean

President

Why parents should apply to run for their Community or Citywide Council -- despite the limitations of that role

Elections for District Community Education Councils and Citywide Councils will be held this spring, with the application process starting next month on Feb. 14.  Serving on these Councils is often frustrating as they have very little power other than advisory - and even the advice they give is often ignored. 

As Deb Alexander, the co-President of CEC 30, pointed out a recent Queens town hall meeting, when CECs pass resolutions on important policy questions, they are completely ignored by the Mayor and Chancellor and don't even get a response.  At the meeting, De Blasio then said someone at DOE would now be charged with responding to CEC resolutions - this after almost six years of failing to do so.  

Deb also pointed out that no CEC member was appointed by him to the advisory committee on the Amazon headquarters in Long Island City - despite extreme school overcrowding in the neighborhood, and the fact that two potential school sites were given to Amazon for their new headquarters, without any consultation with neighborhood residents. The Mayor then said he would add a CEC member -- but the fact that this never occurred to him in the first place is emblematic of the lowly position that CECs and parents in general appear to have in his overall scheme of things.

When he initially ran for Mayor, De Blasio also made specific promises that if elected, his appointees on the Panel for Educational Policy would have to refer specifically to the positions of CECs on school closings or co-locations in their districts before voting on whether to approve them.  He wrote this in 2013 on the NYC Kids PAC survey: "The Panel for Educational Policy must address the PEP's vote on major school utilization changes in their PEP meetings. They must state why they disagree with the local CEC and work with the local CEC for alternative solutions." 

Nothing of the sort has happened, and again, despite all the claims of this administration, little attention has been given to parent or community input in these decisions, or other controversial policies. The one power that CECs assuredly have by state law is to approve changes in school zoning lines -- and even then, that authority is often ignored by the DOE when they want to close a zoned school, which in the case of PS 25 in District 16, has prompted a lawsuit.  

All in all, it is not surprising to discover  that 31 out of 36 Councils do not have their full compliment of members currently, according to the DOE website, given the lack of respect they have been given by the last two administrations.  Perhaps this is one reason why the Education Council Consortium, the organization consisting of CEC and Citywide Council leaders, wants to put limits on the unilateral system of mayoral control. 

Nevertheless, serving on your CEC or a Citywide Council is important, and I urge parents to apply.  Often, members are given briefings by DOE and thus informed of policies before others hear about them.  In some cases, as in the diversity initiatives undertaken by CEC 1 and CEC 15, they can help shape the plans of the administration, especially when they are in general agreement with the Mayor's goals.  They also have a potential impact in organizing parents in the district to lobby local elected officials to site and build new schools in the district, to help ease overcrowding.  Many CEC members have been important in advocating for better policies.  We have been pressing for CECs to have a formal advisory role in the city planning process, similar to Community Boards currently.  And if Mayoral control is amended in the next legislative session, their role in school governance may indeed be enhanced.  

More reasons to join these Councils are articulated by Camille Casaretti, President of CEC 15, in the message below.   You can apply here starting Feb. 14; deadline March 19.

-------

District 15 Families,

A VERY Happy New Year to you all! 

As you consider your goals for this New Year, I would like to offer this exciting opportunity.

The 2019 CEC Elections are upon us and will be officially announced in January. The application period will open on February 14.

As an involved and engaged community member, you should consider running for a seat on the D15 Community Education Council. You come to the meetings, you read the emails, you want to learn about how the system works and how you can help. You volunteer in your child's school, you led a team. You got this too!

If you have the time and passion to fight for public education, and you are prepared to take on a leadership role in our District to advocate for our 35 school communities, fill out that application when it arrives at your inbox. You're going to get the information from us and you'll get it from the DOE as well if you are signed up on their mailing list. Sign up now and check off Updates for Parents and Families.

The impact and value CECs bring to the communities they represent is immeasurable. But there's more to it. You get something for your family, too! When your own child sees you in action you are teaching them a lesson in civic engagement, a lesson on giving back to the community, and a lesson in caring about others. 

Come to one of our January Meetings and talk to your CEC15 school liaison about why they ran. You may find you have similar reasons. Ask them what they love about being a CEC member and what drives them crazy. It isn't always perfect.

Flyers will be coming soon with more information. You have time to think about it. If you have questions, please contact the DOE’s Office of Family and Community Empowerment (FACE) about the CEC Elections at Elections2019@schools.nyc.gov or at 212-374-1936.

Wishing you all the best in 2019!

Camille

***************************************************************************

Estimadas Familias del Distrito 15,

Estamos muy contentos de compartir con ustedes que las Elecciones de CEC 2019 ya están a punto de comenzar y será anunciado oficialmente en enero.  El plazo pare solicitar una aplicación comenzará el 14 de febrero.  

Como miembro involucrado y comprometido de la comunidad, usted debe considerar postularse para un asiento en el Consejo de Educación Comunal Distrito 15.  Viene a las reuniones, lee los correos electrónicos, quiere aprender sobre como el sistema trabaja y como usted puede ayudar.  Es voluntario en la escuela de su hijo(a), usted dirigió un equipo.  ¡Usted puede con esto también!

Si tiene el tiempo y la pasión para luchar por la educación pública, y está preparado(a) para asumir un papel de liderazgo en nuestro Distrito para abogar por nuestras 35 comunidades escolares, complete esa solicitud cuando llegue a su buzón electrónico.  Obtendrá la información de nosotros y también la recibirá del Departamento de Educación si está registrado(a) en su lista de correo electrónico.   ¡Regístrese ahora y marque Updates for Parents and Families (Últimas Noticias para Padres y Familias)!

El impacto y el valor que los Consejos de Educación Comunal (CEC) de la ciudad traen a las comunidades que ellos representan es inmenso.  Pero hay más que eso.  ¡También obtiene algo para su familia!  Cuando su propio(a) hijo(a) lo ve a usted en acción, le está enseñando una lección sobre participación cívica, una lección sobre cómo devolver a la comunidad y una lección sobre cómo preocuparse por los demás.

Asista a una de nuestras reuniones de enero y hable con su enlace escolar de CEC15 sobre por qué se postularon para un puesto en el CEC.  Podrá darse cuenta que tienen razones similares.  Pregúntele qué le gusta de ser un miembro del CEC y qué los vuelve locos.  No es siempre perfecto.

Los folletos llegarán prontos con más información.  Tiene tiempo para pensarlo.  Si tiene alguna pregunta, comuníquese con la Oficina de Empoderamiento Familiar y Comunitario (the Office of Family and Community Empowerment), o mejor conocido como FACE, del Departamento de Educación a  Elections2019@schools.nyc.gov o al 212-374-1936. 

¡Deseandoles lo mejor!

Camille Casaretti

Presidente del CEC15

News update on elections, federal investigation into DOE’s violation of student privacy and proposed capital plan – and how you can help!

Much has happened in the last week:

• Tuesday’s elections will lead to a real sea-change in the NY State politics.  We will be reaching out to the Assembly and the newly elected Democratic majority in the State Senate with proposals on how to ensure more accountability for charter schools and to reform Mayoral control by adding checks and balances. If you’d like to be part of this effort, please let us know at info@classsizematters.org

•  Last fall, parent leader and CEC President Johanna Garcia filed a FERPA complaint with the federal government about the DOE’s practice of allowing charter schools to access her child’s personal information so they could send her marketing materials and recruit more students.  Now the US Department of Education and the NY State Education Dept are investigating her complaint, as reported in the NY Post.  More about this on my blog – including the US Dept of Education's letter announcing the launch of this investigation, and an earlier letter from Council Members Dromm, Treyger, Lander and Levin to the Mayor and Chancellor, urging them to stop this practice, which not only violates student privacy but by helping charters expand, diverts more funding from our public schools. If you’d like to add your voice to this campaign, please send a message to the Mayor and the Chancellor now by clicking here.

• The new proposed five-year capital plan was released last week, and I was quoted in the Daily News and Wall St. Journal about it.  The good news is that it funds 57,000 new seats -- more than the last plan.  Thanks to all of you who signed petitions and sent letters about this. The bad news is that this will not fill the need, either according to DOE’s estimate last fall, or our more realistic estimate that more than 100,000 seats are necessary – considering  there are over 575,000 kids in overcrowded schools already. Moreover, spending on class size reduction in the new plan was cut from $490 million to only $150 million– far less than the $550 million to be spent on new 3K and preK seats, of which $472 million is proposed 3K students alone.  

Once again, the Mayor has made clear his priority is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the further expansion of 3K and preK, rather than ensure a quality education for students in grades K through 12 – which would require considerably more space for smaller classes than he’s prepared to fund.

Power to the parents indeed!

For an excellent dissection of the administration's announcement that they will spend half a million dollars to have parents cast a straw vote (read: meaningless) in the election this spring for Community Education Councils (themselves powerless, since the Chancellor refuses to consult them about any decision of importance), see InsideSchools here.

The biggest joke is the website for voting, which will be called powertotheparents.org!