GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Court dismisses union’s effort to force city to lower class sizes

The city teachers union will have to go to the State Education Department to protest rising class sizes in New York City, rather than skip straight to the courts, after an appeals court today dismissed a 2010 suit by the union.

The suit aimed at forcing New York City to dedicate a certain pot of state funds toward making class sizes smaller. The union charged that the city misused the funds, sending them to offset budget cuts rather than using them as they were intended — as a means of reducing class sizes. The NAACP also signed onto the suit.

But in a decision handed down today, an appeals court unanimously dismissed the union’s suit, saying that the union must take its complaints to the State Education Department before going to court. (Read the full decision below.)

The union president, Michael Mulgrew, vowed to continue protesting rising class sizes. “Lowering class size is a key issue for the parents and teachers of New York City and we intend to pursue it vigorously,” Mulgrew said in a statement this afternoon.

The appeals court did not address the heart of the disagreement: whether the city actually did, as the union charges, improperly fail to lower class sizes — and use Contracts for Excellence funds instead to stave off budget cuts. At issue is the state Contracts for Excellence funding stream, and in particular, a specific clause forcing New York City to write a plan to reduce class sizes.

What’s not disputed is that class sizes have creeped up for the last two years even as funds aimed at bringing them down have flooded into schools. Class sizes for the coming school year aren’t yet available, but all signs point to likely increases, which principals are preparing for. It’s not clear, however, that the Department of Education deliberately sought to prevent schools from lowering class sizes by sending funds elsewhere.

The Contracts for Excellence funds go straight to school principals, who can decide how to allocate them. The Department of Education argues that it’s possible for schools to invest the funds in exactly the kind of policies that should reduce class sizes — like hiring new teachers — and still fail to reduce average class sizes. Here’s an example offered by an official in 2009:

Take Bronx elementary school PS 57, which reported that it spent $190,000 to open new classes. Let’s be generous and say that the money could pay for three additional teachers. That could go a long way toward reducing class sizes in three grade levels. But would it necessarily lower the entire school’s average class size?

No. That would depend on how many students enrolled at the school, especially in grades and subjects that didn’t get new teachers. It would also depend on the rest of the school’s budget outlook, which, as school officials pointed out when they first released basic class-size data, has not been so good lately. And it would require the school to hire only inexpensive, and therefore inexperienced, teachers. In fact, PS 57 did see its average class size drop by more than one student. But another school, PS 54 in the Bronx, received $185,000 but saw class sizes shoot up on average by about 3 students per class.

Supporting the union’s argument, on the other hand, is a report by Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News suggesting that the city revised its class-size reduction plan in response to the tough budget climate. The report cites a letter from then-state education commissioner David Steiner signing off on the changes.

The letter, obtained by GothamSchools, signs off on the changes, with two caveats that are a bit too bureaucratic for me to summarize right now. Read the letter here.

In a statement, Chancellor Dennis Walcott said that the Department of Education has “remained committed to minimizing the growth of class size in all of our schools.” He cited as evidence the fact that the state approved the city’s Contracts for Excellence plans while the law was in effect. (It went off the books this past school year.)

The dismissal is the second legal defeat for the union and the NAACP in the last week. On Friday, a judge rejected the groups‘ suit asking courts to stop the city from closing struggling schools and giving charter schools district space.

The full decision:
Appellate Court Dismissal UFT Class Size Suit

  • http://twitter.com/MaryConwaySpieg Mary Conway-Spiegel

    Here in Manhattan the 2011 Kindergarten classes will have 28 students.  In parts of the Bronx high school classes have 40 students; add to the mix impossible budgets and what we’ve got (as in all of us in NY City and Nationwide) are crumbs for our kids.  Crumbs.  We give our kids crumbs, they settle for crumbs and then we expect to close the GAP?  With Crumbs?

    Oppressively sad two weeks in Education this month.

  • flerpo

    Indeed. 

  • Tatyana

    The union is increasingly looking desperate in the courts. How many dismissed lawsuits will it take for teachers to realize that their funds are wasted on losing battles? 

  • Vote NO!

      I  don’t  think  the  union  was  the  “real  loser”  in  this  lawsuit.

  • Tatyana

    The union takes 1.1% of my salary for what exactly? I would opt out of payments if I could. 

  • Ellen

    Good Tatyana….opt out of the contract hours, the contract pay and the contract medical benefits as well.  Why pay for stuff you don’t use?

  • Larry Littlefield

    Look we already have just about the highest state and local taxes as a share of income in the U.S., and much higher school spending per pupil that just about anywhere too.  And everything else has been cut as school spending has soared.

    Now there are three things to do with the money.  Higher cash pay.  Smaller class sizes.  And more years in retirement.  The UFT chose more years in retirement, got everyone to go along with it, and considered it a victory.  And it’s irrevocable.  That’s where the money was diverted to, and will be increasingly diverted to for probably several more years.

    It’s what they wanted, not what I would have wanted.  So why are they suing and not celebrating?  Hypocrisy!

  • Roma Giudetti

    Tatyana, Go work in a charter school and see how much you like it.  I have now worked with 3 teachers who worked in charters and couldn’t leave fast enough.  Do you want to work a 12 hour day?  Go ahead – work in a charter.  Do you want to get fired for refusing to work after school?  Go ahead – work in a charter.  Do you want to work a longer year – with no time to recharge or do any professional development? There’s a charter out there with your name on it.  And you won’t have to pay union dues.  I don’t think the union looks desperate, I think they are doing what they’re supposed to do – fight for better working conditions for their members which in turn helps kids, especially poor kids that the DOE claims to always put first.  

  • Ellen

    So here’s my question to you: Why stay in NY? It’s not easy to live here and “only the strong survive”  but really…why stay in NY…State or City
    I like it here…tough, unsentimental, lovely at times, surrounded by family and friends.  It’s the greatest place for me.  And you?

  • guest

    If they cut the non-teaching DOE by half, trust me they aren’t needed, they could have smaller class size.  Stop blaming teachers and the UFT.

    How about the DOE spending all the money on non-union workers at Tweed and other places who are making much more than teachers, actually got raises and they get pensions based on their higher pay?
    Complain about them.

  • http://profiles.google.com/sinksfelines Kitchen Sink

    Um…..go work in some charter schools. Not all charters are like you describe.  And I wonder of there are other sides to the stories your colleagues describe…

  • Tim

    So you think there should be two options — A. pay your obscenely high state and local taxes and get very little in return in terms of services, and don’t dare complain about it or try to make things better, or B. Leave.

    Nice!

  • Michael M. (parent still)

    Readers are invited to review the understated scolding meted out by the State to NYC DOE back in September 2008, under then-SED Commissioner Mills:
    http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/C4EMonitoring.htm

    Point being, the DOE has been diverting funds earmarked for class size reduction for YEARS.

    So when the Chancellor de jour says, “the Department of Education has “remained committed to minimizing the growth of class size in all of our schools.” He cited as evidence the fact that the state approved the city’s Contracts for Excellence plans while the law was in effect. “…

    Note the difference between “minimizing the growth”, and “REDUCING.”

    Astute readers should know that the state approved the CforE’s…. but that does NOT mean the city COMPLIED.  Quite the contrary.  From the link:

    “NYCDOE must provide evidence of how Contract funds were used appropriately to support class size reduction in schools in the 70 schools that received $100,000 or more in Contract funding but in which class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios increased.”

    By my math, that’s at least a $7M IN-appropriate bait-and-switch, and a highly unusual public scolding.

    Note further that last year(?), it came out that then-Chanclellor Klein and post-Mills also ex-Commissioner Steiner had an under-the-table deal to undercut the Contracts-for-Excellence, and continue diverting DEDICATED class size reduction funds to close operating budget gaps created by the Mayor.  This topic was well-covered here on GS.

    I believe now-Chancellor Walcott was the Deputy Mayor for Education, etc.,  the whole time.  Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss.  Klein liked pizza.  Black likes libation.  Walcott likes waffles.  We don’t need tone change.  We need policy change.

  • flerpo

    Larry — discovered your Room 8 blog about a year ago.  On the whole, it’s great stuff. Keep it up. 

  • Larry Littlefield

    It’s always possible to look for efficiencies.  But I’ve compared administrative expenses per student in NYC vs. the U.S. and the rest of the state.  NYC is way low. 

    And in fact, it was way low back in the days of the infamous 110 Livingston.  Back then, some screamed administrative expenses to justify low funding.  Now, the UFT (and some other unions) are screaming administrative expenses to justify what is happening despite high funding.

    It was bogus then, and it’s bogus now.  The only difference is who is pissed that I say so.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

From Our Jobs Board

Featured Employers
Recent Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

20 comments so far today

Archives

June 2013
M T W T F S S
« May  
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930