new yorkers for smaller classes

Campaign for Fiscal Equity Lawsuit — We Win!

HIGHEST STATE COURT FINDS NYC CLASS SIZES TOO BIG

The New York State Court of Appeals, in its landmark opinion yesterday (June 26) supporting the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, accepted the Campaign’s evidence that NYC classes are too large, and said that reducing class size is an essential ingredient in achieving a sound, basic education for all New York City children.

The Court of Appeals decision overturned the findings of a lower state appeals court, which had said, famously, that NYC students were entitled only to an 8th grade education. That appeals court (Appellate Division) had reversed Judge Leland DeGrasse’s January 2001 decision requiring the state to remedy the deficiencies of New York City schools.

The State Court of Appeals is the highest state court. There are no more appeals.

Here are excerpts from yesterday’s majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Judith Kaye .

On the other hand, plaintiffs presented measurable proof, credited by the trial court, that New York City schools have excessive class sizes, and that class size affects learning. Even in the earliest years -- from kindergarten through third grade -- over half of New York City schoolchildren are in classes of 26 or more, and tens of thousands are in classes of over 30. As the trial court noted, federal and state programs seek to promote classes of 20 or fewer, particularly in the earliest years, and plaintiffs' experts testified on the advantage of smaller classes. As the 1999 655 Report shows, New York City elementary school classes average five more pupils than those of other schools statewide excluding Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers.

(Footnote 4: Some facts that the trial court classified as purely "physical" facilities inputs are inseparable from overcrowding and excessive class size -- conditions whose measurable effect on students plaintiffs have shown. One symptom of an overcrowded school system is the encroachment of ordinary classroom activities into what would otherwise be specialized spaces: libraries, laboratories, auditoriums and the like. There was considerable evidence of a shortage of such spaces. Particularly poignant is the fact that 31 New York City high schools serving more than 16,000 students have no science laboratory whatsoever. Whether this fact stems from overcrowding or from the design of some old school buildings, its direct impact on pedagogy is self evident and it counts against the State in any assessment of the facilities input.)

Although the Appellate Division found "no indication that students cannot learn in classes consisting of more than 20 students" (295 AD2d at 11), plaintiffs' burden was not to prove that some specific number is the maximum class size beyond which children "cannot learn." It is difficult to imagine what evidence could ever meet a burden so formulated; nothing in CFE required plaintiffs to do so.

Plaintiffs' education evaluation statistics expert Dr. Jeremy Finn showed -- on the basis of the Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio ("STAR") project and related research - - that, holding other variables constant, smaller class sizes in the earliest grades correlate with better test results during those years and afterwards (187 Misc 2d at 52-53). The trial court found that the State's expert Dr. Hanushek failed to rebut these conclusions, and the Appellate Division, mistakenly addressing a nonexistent claim "that classes of over 20 students are unconstitutional" (295 AD2d at 11), set forth no acceptable basis to disturb the trial court's finding.5 We conclude that plaintiffs' evidence of the advantages of smaller class sizes supports the inference sufficiently to show a meaningful correlation between the large classes in City schools and the outputs to which we soon turn. In sum, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that there was not "sufficient proof" (295 AD2d at 11) that large class sizes negatively affect student performance in New York City public schools.

(from pages 18-20 of Judge Kaye’s decision)

Read the full decision