Testimony of Richard Farkas before NYC Council Education Committee
Oct 13, 2009 10:52 AM
Good morning, Chairman Jackson and distinguished members of the Education Committee. My name is Richard Farkas and I am the Vice President of Middle & Junior High Schools for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the Department of Education’s (DOE) proposed 2009-2010 Contract for Excellence (C4E). We believe that without continued vigilance by all interested parties, these critical funds will not deliver the desired results for our schoolchildren, thus impeding their chances for excellence or equity in education.
The UFT is vested in the success of C4E. We strongly supported the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit as well as the Contracts for Excellence legislation that emerged from the lawsuit victory. We were initially encouraged by the court’s specific mandate that the state establish a comprehensive accountability system that will ensure that the C4E reforms implemented actually deliver a quality education opportunity for New York City’s schoolchildren.
The C4E structure as outlined by the State Education Department (SED) has three components: (1) contracted funding in six program areas - Class Size Reduction, Time on Task, Teacher and Principal Quality Initiative, Middle and High School Restructuring, Full-Day Pre-K and English Language Learner Model programs; (2) dedicated funding sources in addition to approved city and state education budgets; and (3) a public review and approval process. But it is only with the DOE’s cooperation and compliance that the SED and the oversight bodies can have the data to accurately assess contract performance.
C4E is designed so that school systems that are required to enter into a C4E agreement with the state must target schools with the greatest need. The contracted money is supposed to be supplemental, not to replace or supplant other aspects of the school system’s budget.
One of our chief concerns with the DOE’s process was the manner in which they retrofitted the New York State Education Department’s (NYSED) funding formula into their Fair Student Funding process. This makes it very difficult to accurately track C4E money and the specific prioritized funding that occurs at the school level.
The DOE should be required to report not only on the amount of C4E money being allocated to each school and the category of C4E program that it will be spent on, but also the specific changes that each school will make with these funds. There is no description of what schools are actually doing to accomplish these goals and therefore we have no means to evaluate whether the funds are being spent according to the law or, equally important, whether the use of the funds is actually accomplishing the purpose identified.
Ultimately, accountability is judged via the mandated public participation process, complete with time lines and transparency detailed in the regulations. In order for the state or the public to accurately assess the C4E program in New York City and whether students have benefited as intended by the law, concrete financial information about how the C4E funding is distributed and used by each school must be open to scrutiny. Adherence to the accountability structure must be documented, accessible, straightforward and timely.
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity engaged in an exhaustive review of the data and uncovered a number of serious issues with respect to the funding allocations, transparency and the process for public participation. We concur with their analysis. It is also important to note that DOE released its draft plan three months late, after school had started, rendering any public input virtually meaningless.
Beyond voicing our concerns over the shortcomings of the DOE’s proposed 2009-2010 C4E plan, we also want to weigh in on the broader implications of implementing these reforms and focus attention on what we feel is the core issue.
We all recognize, of course, that there is a major distinction between the legislation as written and how the measures will be carried out. Over the course of the past three years, however, we have not been satisfied with the DOE’s implementation of the C4E process, especially with respect to reducing class size.
As this committee knows, the DOE’s class size reduction track record since the city began receiving C4E funding is disappointing. We took a hard look at the class size data in April of this year and found that of 765 schools that received a total of $150 million in class size reduction funding, 47 percent lowered class size, two percent saw no change, and 48 percent actually increased class sizes. In other words, schools getting these state funds were just about as likely to increase class size as to decrease it.
Additionally, the DOE has identified Collaborative Team Teaching as a class size reduction mechanism. Collaborative Team Teaching is a powerful tool for the inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classes. But to make it a class size reduction tool often means that the class sizes are set with an eye to class size statistics rather than adjusting the size to ensure that special needs students can be adequately served.
Just three weeks ago, the UFT filed grievances revealing thousands of overcrowded classes citywide. I’m sure you’ve all read the newspaper accounts detailing burgeoning classrooms from Staten Island to the Bronx and most critically in Queens. And I know that you are aware that those grievances relate to contractual class sizes, which are far above the sizes that the DOE agreed to as part of the C4E process. While we’re pleased that the DOE is working to address UFT and parent concerns, we really need to target the C4E funding with laser-like precision on class size reduction.
It is difficult to understand how the DOE can be in compliance with the law when class sizes actually rose substantially last year, despite the allocation of tens of millions of dollars to reduce class size.
We are realists, and we understand that the DOE is facing serious challenges just keeping classrooms whole. Given the enormity of the current state and city budget problems, we have had to accept the fact that the C4E funds in the Department of Education’s budget will be held steady at the FY 2009 levels.
But recognizing the economic realities doesn’t mean we should do nothing. Yes, we will have a couple of years of just maintaining C4E funding levels and will not see additional funding moving forward as originally intended. However, we cannot abrogate our responsibility to carefully scrutinize how the DOE is allocating the money, nor can we reduce our efforts to keep them in compliance
Additionally, we have advocated in Albany – with limited success to date – for fine tuning of the legislation to change class size reduction requirements from city-wide averages to either classroom caps or, at the very least, averages per grade per school. We have also previously recommended that the leadership of the DOE go beyond voluntary principal compliance with discretionary C4E funds and take on the role of insuring that each school is spending its C4E funds appropriately.
We are encouraged by the new leadership at the helm of the New York State Education Department. We expect to work closely with Regents Board Chancellor Meryl Tisch and SED Commissioner David Steiner to enhance the enforcement and oversight of C4E as we go forward. We are very hopeful that our continued efforts in this area will yield positive results.
The UFT and other education advocates will continue to push to keep every education dollar possible targeted to classrooms. We will continue to be vigilant on behalf of the schools and the students in the greatest need, and we welcome the City Council’s support in this fight.
Thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns.
