Testimony of Randi Weingarten before the Joint Ways and Means and Finance Committees New York State Legislature on FY 2008 Executive Budget Proposal: February 27, 2007
Feb 27, 2007 3:04 PM
It’s a pleasure to come before you this year without a long list of pleas for restorations and increases. Governor Spitzer’s proposal to meet the state’s obligations under CFE is a welcome respite from more than a decade of litigation. In those years, when we had to plead, you always came through. Now, just as you did last year on capital, it’s up to you and your colleagues to close the CFE chapter. Every child in New York City, and their parents and teachers, will owe you a debt of gratitude.
But the governor is not just proposing to up the ante; he is demanding accountability of all of us as to how the money is spent — and rightly so. Contrary to what some think, UFT members never shy away from responsibility — but they ask for fairness and for the tools, the resources and the professional latitude to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. The governor has gone a long way in that direction; I can only hope that the City of New York stays on the same course. It’s grossly unfair to hold teachers responsible for what happens when new policies are adopted and implemented without their input and without providing them with the wherewithal to do their jobs.
You probably can’t read this pin I’m wearing; It says “Have you listened to a teacher today?” and it’s meant to remind policy makers that those closest to the children – their parents and teachers – might know a thing or two about what their children need and how they best learn.
That’s why I’m pleased that the governor proposes to hold district and school leaders as accountable as he would teachers and other front-line educators. It’s also important to insist that districts include extensive collaboration with parents and teachers as they develop the “Contracts for Excellence,” the reform plans that specify how they will use their increased aid. I choose that word carefully. “Collaboration” means much more than telling people what you’ve decided to do or holding hearings and then ignoring what people say. It means developing the plan jointly and reaching consensus on its major components.
We’re also glad that the governor has heard the voice of teachers and included in his proposals several reform measures that we have ourselves advocated, particularly to expand pre-K and kindergarten. However, parents and teachers agree that even more important is to reduce class sizes.
What does class size reduction achieve? It creates the conditions that allow teachers to reach struggling students and raise their achievement levels.
· It makes schools safer, more orderly and conducive to learning.
· It helps students engage, and stay engaged, with the lesson.
· It allows teachers to give students the individual attention they need.
· It lets teachers tailor instruction to different learning styles.
· It helps teachers and parents stay in touch.
· It ensures that kids don’t get lost—an especially big problem as they enter the upper grades.
Unfortunately, the governor has not given smaller classes the same level of priority as he gives early childhood education. While the executive budget allocates $99 million more for Universal pre-k and $2 million for planning grants for full-day kindergarten, no specific funds are earmarked for class size reduction. Instead, smaller classes are included in a selection of research-based reforms from which districts may choose.
Under his proposal, I’m sorry to say, some districts may give lip service to the goal of reducing class size, as Chancellor Klein sometimes does, but not really accomplish much.
Despite a decade of state funding, according to a March 2006 State Comptroller report, 59% of our K-3 classes still have more than 20 students, which was the goal. And we haven’t made a dent in the upper grades, where some of the worst conditions persist. Here are some average class sizes in our upper grades:
· 5th grade 27 NYC vs. 22 Rest of State
· 7th grade English 28 NYC vs. 22 Rest of State
· 9th grade Regents Math 32 NYC vs. 20 Rest of State
· 11th grade Regents Chemistry 30 NYC vs. 22 Rest of State
I’d like to share with you a great example of the positive impact of lower class size in middle school. At the Petrides School, a K-12 school on Staten Island, the principal programmed her middle school for classes of no more than 25 kids for nine years in a row. In each of those years, the data show, those classes scored significantly better in both reading and math compared not only to the citywide average but also to the average on Staten Island. Las year, for example, 74 percent of 8th-graders at Petrides met standards on the ELA exam, compared to 50 percent of 8th-graders on Staten Island as a whole and 36.6 percent citywide.
We must require districts with large classes to: 1) dedicate specific dollars for class size reduction; 2) commit themselves to quantifiable results; and 3) establish a timetable to reach those goals. And then the State Comptroller must enforce it. That’s the kind of accountability that must be demanded or else class sizes that are within range of those in the rest of the state will remain, maybe forever, just an elusive dream.
That’s why I was so glad that Assembly Education Committee Chair Cathy Nolan and Assembly Member Rory Lancman have submitted a bill that parallels our proposal to dedicate at least 25 percent of CFE funds to lower class sizes in all grades – not just K-3 – to no more than 105 percent of classes in the rest of the state and to amend the capital plan accordingly. I hope each of your houses will support that legislation and include its provisions in the final budget.
Smaller classes help improve student achievement; that’s been well documented by some of the largest and longest lasting gold standard research ever. But two other budget proposals are not based on any equally compelling research: a massive expansion of charter schools and tuition tax credits for private schools.
Charter schools are a valuable tool to experiment with and incubate successful new methods that can then be brought to scale in more mainstream schools. When the Legislature first supported charter schools, they wisely proceeded with caution, suggesting a limited initiative of 100 schools to see how well they worked. Now that the cap has been reached, to really get the benefit from charter schools, we need to analyze what worked and what did not, what needs to be reformed and what should be replicated. Presumably, a decision to increase the number of charter schools by two-and-a-half times would be based on an overall positive assessment of them. Instead the consensus is mixed at best: most do no better than comparable schools. A few are developing promising new methods, and that’s been great. I hope that the UFT’s own charter schools can contribute to that body of knowledge.
I suggest that in the expansion of charter schools we apply the lessons we have learned from both the successes and the failures. One thing is clear: we need to be very rigorous in granting charters, we need to monitor them closely, and we need to hold them to high standards. The Regents and SUNY have shown they are capable of doing that; the NYC DOE has not developed such a track record. Giving the chancellor carte blanche to charter as many as 50 schools is simply irresponsible.
At the very least, if we are to grow the charter school movement, we must first build in two basic protections. For all financially affected districts, not just the two that are suffering right now, we must provide transitional aid. And for charter school employees, we must provide full access to the right to unionize and protection against retaliation for union organizing activities. We’ve already had one case come to light about a fine teacher in the Williamsburg Charter High School who was fired just for asking questions about her rights.
Governor Spitzer has proposed $25 million in tuition tax credits. The research shows this will do little to help private and parochial schools themselves or to enable additional children to attend because the main impact of tuition tax credits in places that have tried them is to benefit families who already send their children to private schools. A better way is the tax credit that the Legislature passed last year, with UFT support, to help poor and middle-income families with school-age children with education and other child-related costs. That plan helps all children — not just some — and there’s no reason to change it.
Our most serious challenge remains how to increase the abysmal graduation rate in city schools. One thing we have learned is you need to start in middle schools, where proven drop-out prevention strategies include significant reductions in class size and more guidance counseling and support services for children at risk. We also need a well-rounded curriculum that does not sacrifice the arts and career exploration to excessive testing and test prep. Once kids are engaged in learning, they will come to school and make the effort to succeed.
Another successful strategy is expansion of our career and technical schools, where 95 percent of students graduate because they can see the connection between school and their future. Today’s CTE schools prepare youngsters for well-paying careers, whether they go straight to work or to two-year or four-year colleges. That’s why we are asking you to increase the current $75 million state allocation to CTE by 25 percent.
Of course, at the heart of any successful schools must be a culture of respect and safety. Often, only a few students are responsible for most of the problems, ranging from constant classroom disruptions to creating an atmosphere of bullying and fear. You made a tremendous step forward with the SAVE legislation, finally giving beleaguered teachers someplace to send chronically disruptive children to receive the services they need while enabling the rest of the class to learn. Unfortunately, far too few schools have the resources to provide the appropriate space and staff to make it work. Full implementation and funding of SAVE must be a bottom-line priority for the next state education budget.
I am looking forward to working with you over the next several weeks to help you craft a budget that truly fulfills the promise of CFE and gives all our children the opportunity that has slipped through the grasp of too many of them in the past. This executive budget offers them real hope for the first time in decades, and I’d be proud to help bring that promise to fruition.
