Class size averages drop slightly this fall in grades K-3 and 4th-8th, but grow in high school; would take 24-38 years to reach C4E goals

For immediate release: November 18, 2014

For more information contact:

Leonie Haimson, 917-435-9329, leonie@classsizematters.org  

Josey Bartlett, (718) 803-6373 x 202, Jbartlett@council.nyc.gov

Class size averages drop slightly this fall in grades K-3 and 4^th-8^th, but grow in HS

At least 367,794 students remain in classes of 30 or more

Late Friday, the DOE released class size averages by school, district, borough and citywide.  The data is posted here: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/schools/data/classsize/classsize.htm

The good news is that for the first time since 2008, average class sizes decreased over the grade spans of K-3^rd  and 4^th-8^th   grades. 

The bad news is that at this gradual rate of decline, it would take 24 years in grades K-3 and 38 years in 4^th-8^th grades to reach the Contracts for Excellence goals the city promised the state  to achieve over five years. 

 

In addition, 30,444 Kindergarten students --43%  -- are in classes of 25 or more ( 25 is the union contractual limit in that grade).

Average class sizes fell to 24.7 in grades K-3, 26.7 in grades 4^th-8^th, but increased slightly in high school this year to 26.8.

Yet these class size averages  of 25- 27 are deceptive, as hundreds of thousands of  students remain crammed into classes of 30 or more.   

In fact,  there are more students in classes of 30 or more this year (a minimum of 367,794 students, compared to 347,418 last year at this time.)

“The preliminary class size data shows that too many New York City students remain in overly large classes,” said City Council Education Committee Chairperson Daniel Dromm. “Many classes contain 30 or more students, which makes teaching extremely difficult, particularly given the higher expectations required under the Common Core.  The Department of Education must make class size reduction a high priority in order to give city students a quality education.  Our kids deserve better.”

Said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters, “When he ran for mayor, Bill de Blasio promised to comply with the City’s original class size reduction plan submitted in 2007 and if necessary, raise funds to do so.  Smaller classes have also been the top priority of parents on the DOE’s own parent surveys for 8 years in a row.  It is time that the Mayor followed through on his campaign promises, and focused on this all-important goal to improve the opportunities of NYC children. “

For class size averages and trends for each school district, or the schools with the largest class sizes by district, please email  info@classsizematters.org

###

CM Rosenthal urges the Chancellor and the Panel for Education Policy to be more transparent in awarding contracts

Thanks to Councilmember Helen Rosenthal, who has written the Chancellor and the members of the Panel for Educational Policy, expressing her concern about the lack of transparency when it comes to the awarding of DOE contracts, with the back-up documentation or "RAs" not posted until the night before the Panel vote.  CM Rosenthal is the chair of the NYC Council Contracts Committee with a special interest in this issue.

Under Bloomberg, these documents were available at least a week before, so it's very sad that the DOE has gone backwards in this regard -- which contributed to the fiasco of the awarding of a no-bid renewal to Joel Rose for his School of One contract, for an online program he developed while at DOE.  The new contract for his School of One contract violated not only the conflict of interest law, but also the terms and the promises in the earlier contract of a perpetual free license for the program to the city's schools.   CM Rosenthal also expresses concern in her letter about a proposed contract for Questar -- which is supposed to produce a new Gifted and talented test for the city at a cost of $6 million, without any record I can find of having ever developed such an exam, or any exam for children as young as four years old. 

Without knowing anything about the specifics in these contracts, whether they were competitively bid and/or whether the companies getting these contracts have been investigated for irregularities in the past, it makes it impossible for the public to be fully informed and be able to comment on these contracts in advance of the vote. Let's hope the Chancellor and the Contract Department of DOE listens -- as well as the PEP members stand up for enhanced transparency, accountability and the public's right to know.

CM Rosenthal Letter on PEP Contract Review

How the DOE ignoring class size puts kids at risk, according to education professionals and parents

Check out the oped in Schoolbook by Jacqueline Shannon and Mark Lauterbach, professors of education, urging the Chancellor and the Mayor to lower class size in the city's schools:  De Blasio Must put Reducing Class Sizes at Top of His Agenda.  As the authors point out, the trend towards larger class sizes every year for the past six will underminethe success of the Mayor's other education initiatives, including special education inclusion, expanding preK and creating community schools.  

They also show how the union contractual limits have not altered in forty years, despite the far more extensive research in recent years, including  studies summarized in this NEPC report, showing the multiple benefits of smaller classes in terms of academic and life outcomes: 

“Students who were originally assigned to small classes did better than their school-mates who were assigned to regular-sized classes across a variety of outcomes, including juvenile criminal behavior, teen pregnancy, high school graduation, college enrollment and completion, quality of college attended, savings behavior, marriage rates, residential location and homeownership.”

The Schoolbook oped also links to a letter to the Chancellor and the Mayor, signed by 73 professors of education, reflecting the strong consensus among experts in the field that the issue of class size is fundamental to the opportunity to succeed, particularly for at-risk students, "including those in children of color, those in poverty, English language learners, and students with special needs."  

The reality is that even in the city's most struggling schools, like Boys and Girls High School, where staff is being asked to re-apply to keep their positions, class sizes remain much too large -- with many classes at the union maximum of 34 students per class, according to the DOE's own class size reports from last fall. 

The chart at the right reveals that class sizes at the Boys and Girls were inordinately high, particularly in 9th grade classes, where it's most important to keep students on track.  Class sizes were lower in the upper grades, presumably because many of the school's students didn't get that far.  Many of the special ed classes even violated the 12/1/1  limits, according to the DOE reports (see the last column for the size of the largest classes in each of these categories.)

Moreover, lowering class size remains the top priority of parents to improve their schools, according to the DOE's own Learning Environment Survey.   And yet, there are only two parents on the committee to decide on staffing for Boys and Girls and Automotive HS, one to be chosen by the teachers union and the other by the principals union rather than other parents; and NO parent members on the committees to decide on the improvement strategies.

The DOE claims to be listening to parents more than the past administration; I'm not sure what that means if they continue to ignore their views on what their schools need to succeed.

Questions about Bill de Blasio's remedies for turning around struggling schools

photo credit: Isaac Carmignani

1.     This morning, Bill de Blasio gave an eloquent speech on his solution for struggling schools. The list  of 93 schools to get additional supports is here.  The primary reform offered,  extended instructional time, has been tried before many times, with negligible impact. It was one of the options that the feds allowed and that many NYC schools adopted as part of their “School Improvement grant” program  -- with disappointing results.  

 As Gene Glass, noted education researcher has put it, “Within reason, the productivity of the schools is not a matter of the time allocated to them. Rather it is a matter of how they use the time they already have.”  Only if the extra time is devoted to something different – like small group instruction or tutoring – will this likely help. When I looked at the class sizes last year at Boys and Girls HS in Brooklyn, another school on the list that has struggled for years, I was horrified to see many classes at 34, and a student/teacher ratio (including special ed classes) extremely high at 20.1. 

The other policy option that will be offered by the Mayor, community schools –i.e. adding social and medical services  – may help, but many of the struggling schools on the list are already so overcrowded that it’s not clear where the space for these programs will  be.  Already many of these schools are providing mandated services to their special needs students in hallways and in closets.  Without a real plan to alleviate overcrowding and reduce class size, it’s not clear that these schools will be given a significant chance to improve.  .

There is also is a substantial overlap between this list of schools and the 75 schools that the DOE promised last year to reduce class size as part of their state-funded Contracts for Excellence plan.  Unfortunately, we found that despite $600M in annual C4E funds that could have been used for this purpose, no extra funding to reduce class size was provided these schools, none of them made their class size targets, and in about half of them, class sizes actually increased.   Bill de Blasio also spoke a lot in his speech about treating parents as partners.  However, if he refuses to listen to what most parents think would most help their school improve  --lowering class size, for the last eight years the top parent priority on the DOE’s own surveys -- it’s not clear what this partnership really means.  

Disturbing lack of financial transparency on the part of the NYC Department of Education and the Panel on Educational Policy

When Bill de Blasio campaigned for Mayor, he promised to improve financial transparency and accountability, which under Bloomberg had been highly deficient.  He also promised a more independent and rigorous oversight process by the Panel for Educational Policy, which has a super-majority of Mayoral appointees.  This has yet to occur.  In certain respects, financial transparency  has actually diminished since the previous administration. Here are just some examples:

In its twice-yearly education budget briefings, the Office of Management and Budget has informed Class Size Matters that the organization, as well as other education advocates and representatives of the city’s unions, are no longer invited to attend, only government officials. 

The back-up documentation for the proposed DOE contracts to be considered by the Panel for Educational Policy used to be posted by the DOE at least a week in advance, and now are only posted the night before the Panel meeting.  This denies parents and advocates the information they need to flag questionable contracts, see what the DOE’s rationale for them may be, whether they were competitively bid, and if the vendors are under investigation or have other issues that should be addressed.   

Now, only a brief three or four page document is available in advance, with merely the names of the vendors listed, and little else.

Already, the lack of information has proven to lead to unfortunate outcomes.  Last month, the PEP approved a new contract for New Classrooms, run by Joel Rose, who developed its online instructional program called School of One while he worked at DOE.  This contract should not have been approved due to conflict of interest concerns and also the fact that it violated the terms of the previous contract. 

When Rose’s previous contract was approved in 2012, it was a no-cost contract and promised a "free and perpetual license" to DOE to be used in NYC schools.  Even then the contract was very controversial.  Now, however, his company is charging the city $200 per student for the license.  

After the PEP approved the contract, the Daily News wrote about it on October 19, with the headline: Ex-Education Department official’s $420K contract violates ethics rules, critics say. I responded to the false claims made by New Classrooms and the DOE in my blog here.

Last spring, we FOILed the DOE for the 2012-2013 audit of their spending of more than $600 million in Contract for Excellence state funds.  This audit is required each year by state law, and was due Jan. 1, 2014, according to calendar of the State Education Department. The C4E funding resulted from the settlement of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, and is meant to be spent in targeted areas and help reduce class size -- the top priority of NYC parents -- but is instead being used by DOE to supplant city spending and fill in trepeated city budget cuts to schools.  As a result, class sizes have increased every year.  On September 30, 2014, nine months after the audit was due, the DOE responded that this audit had not yet been “issued” so that “there are no responsive records to supply.”

For at least two months, the PEP contract committee had three or less members instead of the five members required by their by-laws. As far as I have heard, none of the PEP members have yet received the six hours of fiscal oversight training required by state law within a year of their appointment.

Panel members are responsible for approving many billions of dollars in city spending, and millions of dollars lavished on private vendors.  It is their duty to provide strong fiscal oversight, and not rubberstamp,  as the previous PEP did.  In so doing, their members should push for maximum transparency and accountability in the use of education funds.

Ellen McHugh on the report of the Space-Sharing Taskforce

Here are comments from Ellen McHugh of the Citywide Council on Special Education about the just-released report of the Space Sharing taskforce.

This is Mom and apple pie.  Who can disagree with giving vulnerable students an opportunity to succeed?  When have we as a society ever, publicly, denied these students their rightful places in schools? The proof is in the pudding...to carry the food analogy.

One big issue is ignored:

"By state law, charter schools are generally exempt from laws, rules, regulations or policies governing public or private schools other than those requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, and student assessment requirements.  It is the working group’s hope that all schools work together to implement these recommendations."

There's the loop hole that the schools in question will use to escape as many issues as is possible.  We will watch folks wringing hands and wrangling concessions.  What's new about that, except that we are in a two tier, twice funded, twisted system.  The Chancellor and the Mayor can say all they want about their dedication to and conviction that all students should have opportunity.  They join a chorus of many other Mayors and Chancellors.  This chorus has had a good deal of practice but no impact, none, on the issue of appropriate space for students with special needs.  Why not, you ask? 

Buildings don't change unless added to, most buildings were not built at a time when students with special needs attended school.  Since many of the students require smaller class sizes in order to have the necessary attention from teachers, the DOE needs to commit to lower class sizes.  A class of 26 students, with 40% of them having IEPs or 504 plans that are disparate and require different methodologies, is a burden that no two teachers can support.  No private school...Dalton, Hackley, etc.etc...has that number of students in a class, yet the fact that we, public school parents, are supposed to be glad or happy that we even have a class is a mockery of education philosophy and policy.

"It's difficult to manage all of the moving parts involved in sharing spaces within a physical plant, including cost sharing, staffing, managing equipment and repairs, and scheduling. As a result, resources may be used inefficiently and inequitably on many campuses."

Parents and community members have been commenting and complaining about this since the co-locations began.  A panel had to be convened to bring this to the attention of the DOE?

"Beginning in 2010, State law requires that in all co-located buildings where more than $5,000 is spent on capital improvements or facility upgrades to accommodate a charter school co-location, improvements or upgrades in an equal amount must be made for each non-charter school within the public school building"

Where is the documentation that this has occurred in a timely and efficient manner? If this has occurred in co-located schools then why are we still hearing about students with special needs getting services in hall ways and under stair cases?

"Engage the office of enrollment in work with middle and high school principals to develop and enforce reasonable caps on enrollment. These caps should work to mitigate overcrowding, which negatively impacts students, and prevent schools from receiving inappropriately high concentrations of high-need students."

This sentence scares the living daylights out of me.  Capping means that kids with special needs will be frozen out of the schools.  Adding trailers was not a solution.  Segregating students in separate schools was not a solution. Sending students all over the city to schools with space was not a solution.  Educating students with special needs in their home school, with their peers, their siblings and their neighbors, learning both age appropriate academics and age appropriate social skills is a solution.  

While I believe that high concentrations of high needs students is not a solution, who defines high needs?  Having an IEP or a 504 plan already determines a high needs student.  How easy would that be to identify and then arbitrarily limit access by knowing a child has an IEP.  Parents are already wary of the IEP process and now we are handing schools an easy way to identify, and deny access to high needs students.