Testimony before the New York City Council’s Commission on CFE
September 29, 2004
Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Leonie Haimson, and today I’m speaking on behalf of both New Yorkers for Smaller Classes, as well as my own organization, Class Size Matters, which is just a small part of this very broad coalition.
I’d like to first take this opportunity to make a few additional comments on the current city plan for these funds, which in many respects we find to be designed without regard to the research or experience of other school districts around the country, and how they have either failed or improved student achievement and student outcomes. The city’s compliance plan is called its Sound Basic Education Plan, but we find that it is neither sound nor basic.
Among other things, we are very concerned about the plan’s huge investment in laptops and technology, of over a billion dollars per year, compared to only about $117 million per year to be spent on smaller classes. A much more modest program in Maine to buy laptops for middle school students has so far had no effect on achievement, and many critics observe that students spend much of their time in class playing games on their laptops, without their teachers’ noticing. A recent series in the Baltimore Sun has explored in depth how school districts serving poor students throughout the country that have made substantial investments in computers and software in order to make a “quick fix” and bring up test scores, have seen disappointing results.
The New York City plan for the CFE funds also spends almost $700 million per year to hire hiring almost three thousand additional staff, specialists and administrators for both elementary and secondary schools. These employees will not be used to reduce class size; in many cases it’s not clear what these people will be doing; one specific role mentioned is a “negotiation specialist” for every school. But because there is no room for these additional employees, either in current school buildings or those projected by the capital plan, the city also plans to spend an additional $521 million more per year to house all of them outside schools in leased office space.
Again, we believe that these funds would better be spent on hiring additional classroom teachers and building or leasing more actual classroom space, so that we could reduce class size. At next month’s hearing, the chair of our coalition, Lillian Rodriguez Lopez, vice president of the Hispanic Federation, will present to you two realistic class size reduction plans that are affordable within the amounts that the city is now projected to receive as a result of the CFE suit. These plans are also outlined in our CFE amicus brief, which is posted on the CFE and the Class Size Matters websites. We also believe that by redirecting some of the funds towards smaller classes and away from non-priority areas, like laptops and more specialists and administrators, we would be able to make a far better case with suburban and upstate legislators that these funds will not be wasted.
Our schools have long had the largest classes in the state and some of the largest in the nation. Not only have our excessive class sizes long been one of the primary concerns of parents and teachers, but the court record in the CFE case is replete with evidence that the average class size in every grade and district in the city exceeds the level recommended by educators and other experts. Indeed, the court found that in New York City, class sizes have been consistently higher than the state average at every grade level for more than 20 years.
The huge gap in class size between our schools and those in the rest of the state has not diminished, according to the latest available data from the New York State Education Department. During the school year 2001-2002, Kindergarten classes averaged 21.3 students per class in New York City, compared to 18.7 in the rest of the state. In grades 1-3, our classes averaged about 23 students, compared to 20 in the rest of the state, and in grades 4-6, classes averaged 27-28 students, compared to 21- 22 elsewhere. In the 2002-3 school years, one quarter of our K-3 public schoolchildren, or over 77,000, were still in classes larger than twenty five.
As of the 2003-4 school year, despite a rapidly falling enrollment, only 38% of kindergarten students in NYC were in classes that met the state goal of 20 or less; only 33% of first and second graders, and only 28% of third graders were in classes this small.
In middle schools and high schools the gap between New York City and the rest of the state is even more glaring, with class size averages of about ten more students per class. In the school year 2002-3, more than 60% of our middle school students, or 147,000, were in classes of 28 or more, according to the Independent Budget Office, and about half of them were in classes larger than 30. Fully 15% of our middle-school students were in classes that violated the union contractual cap of 33.
The high school classes which are supposed to prepare our students to pass their Regents exams, required if they are to receive a diploma, are also much larger than those in the rest of the state. For example, in the school year 2001-2002, we had more than 29 students per class in Regents biology, compared to 18.7 in the rest of the state.
New York City class sizes are also much larger than the national average. Nationwide, the average class size in elementary grades is 21; and in secondary grades it is 28. Moreover, while nationally, secondary teachers have an average teaching load of 89 students, many high school teachers in New York City have five classes of 34 students, amounting to 170 students each, a teaching load nearly twice as large. These excessive teaching loads also considerably diminish the amount of feedback that our students are able to receive on a regular basis on their homework and exams.
After weighing the evidence on the importance of appropriate class size, the trial court
in this case concluded that: “[C]lass size has an effect on student outcomes, and… small class size can boost student achievement, particularly among at-risk children. The advantage of small classes are clear. A teacher in a small class has more time to spend with each student. Fewer students mean fewer administrative tasks for each teacher. Student discipline and student engagement in the learning process improve in smaller classes.”
The trial court’s findings on this issue were unanimously supported by the Federal government, the State of New York, the Board of Education, and every City school superintendent who testified in the CFE case, as well as national experts.
Next month, I will return to testify about the proven benefits of lower classes, not just in boosting student achievement, but in many other areas as well, such as lowering school violence, reducing dropout rates, enhancing parental involvement, and increasing teacher retention. Right now, I would like to turn your attention to what has been achieved elsewhere in the nation, in the effort to lower class size.
Class size reduction has now been successfully implemented in 30 states across the country, according to Education Week, and many localities.
Since 2000-2001, the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland has reduced class size in grades K-3 to no more than 15 students. When children who had been in smaller classes since kindergarten reached 2nd grade, they scored at some of the highest levels seen in the nation, according to the district’s accountability office. The district’s high-needs students saw the greatest improvements, with “consistent and, in some cases, extraordinary gains by African American students, Hispanic students, poor students, special education students, and those learning English as a second language.”
Second graders at the 17 highest poverty schools in the district as a group scored at and above the 50th percentile in all five subject areas tested, for the first time – helping to propel the district to the 83rd percentile nationally. The largest gains were made by African American and Hispanic second graders, who narrowed the achievement gap with their classmates in reading, language, and mathematics.
This past spring, when this same cohort reached third grade, children who had been in smaller classes since Kindergarten outpaced those in all other grades in their assessments. Again, the improvements were especially large in the highest poverty schools, where gains were twice the average for the district as a whole. Also, the greatest gains were made by African American and Hispanic students, with 60% of more of these students scoring at grade level for the first time. 64.5% of black third graders reaching proficiency in reading and 62.8% in math. 59.7% of Hispanic third graders achieved proficiency in reading and 64.8% in math.
Also extremely impressive were the achievement gains made by English language learners, students with disabilities, and high-poverty students. Among those students who received free and reduced-price meals (FARMS), 57.4% achieved proficiency in reading and 60.1% in math. Immigrant students in the ESOL category (for English for Speakers of Other Languages) achieved a proficiency rate of 43.2% in reading, and 52.7 % in math. For the first time, the majority of third grade students receiving special education services achieved proficiency: 53.2% in reading and 51.1% in mathematics —the highest levels of achievement among special education students at any grade level.
Starting in 2001, North Carolina has reduced class size in all grades for its lowest performing schools, to an average of 15 students in grades K-3, 17 students in grades 4-8, and 20 students in grades 9-12. This was implemented both to improve student achievement, as well as to improve teacher recruitment and retention at these same schools.
A statewide survey of teachers and administrators was carried out to find out what would be the most effective measure to attract teachers to work in low-performing schools. The number one response was lowering class size, with 83.7% of teachers and 83.1% of administrators replying that this would be an effective incentive, outstripping any other proposal, including providing salary enhancements.
Since the North Carolina class size reduction program began, student achievement has risen significantly, and the achievement gap between racial and ethnic groups has narrowed. The improvements due to smaller classes were seen in many other areas as well, including improved classroom discipline. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the state’s largest school district, significantly outperformed every other urban school district tested in the nation, in both reading and math, in its recent NAEP assessments.
Starting 1990, the Minneapolis school district has used a dedicated surcharge on the city’s property tax to reduce class size, with the goal of achieving class sizes of 19 in grades K-2, 25 in grades 3-8, and no more than 26 students in high school.
More than 79% of all students who had seven or more years of lower class size scored at or above grade level in reading, compared to 53.5% who had 1-3 years of lower class size, and 42.3% who had no years of small classes. Similar gains were noted in math. The achievement gains, particularly among black and Hispanic students, have been impressive, with an approximate doubling of pass rates among black and Hispanic students who had the benefit of smaller classes for seven or more years.
In 1998, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated class sizes no larger than 21 for grades K-3, 23 for grades 4-5, and 24 for grades 6-12 for its state’s low-performing schools, in the decision known as Abbott V. The size of reading classes in grades 1-3 was lowered even further, to 15 students per class; 15 was also the size of remedial classes ordered for low-performing students in other grades. These class sizes, along with other reforms ordered by the court, have been followed by significant improvements in student achievement in these school districts over the past five years.
Finally, in November 2002, Floridians approved a referendum to amend their constitution to require smaller classes in all grades. The constitutional amendment calls for gradual reductions in class size over the course of the next eight years, requiring each district throughout the state to shrink classes annually, until classes contain no more than 18 for grades pre-K-3, 22 for grades 4-8, and 25 in high school.
The guidelines are designed to be flexible, with class size averages calculated in stages: first averaged by district, then by school, and finally, capped in each individual classroom. For the first year of implementation, despite rapidly growing student enrollment, the state has successfully complied with the plan with minimal disruption, and most districts across the state have lowered average class size by two students in all grades. Statewide surveys show that the Florida class size limits are even more popular among voters than when they first passed, and though it is too early to demonstrate academic results, last winter the Florida School Boards Association voted to "vigorously support" the class size amendment by a 66-14 vote.
At the hearings on class size next month, Lillian Rodriguez Lopez, the Chair of New Yorkers for Smaller Classes, will be presenting in some detail our coalition’s proposals on how New York City can reduce class size in all grades, with two plans for your consideration. We urge you to consider our proposals carefully, and recommend that the city use a significant portion of the CFE funds towards these ends, so that our students can receive smaller classes and their constitutional right to an adequate education.
Thanks again for this opportunity, and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Leonie Haimson
Executive Director, Class Size Matters
September 29, 2004
