Opinion ID: 2254540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sound Basic Education Equals A High School Education

Text: Throughout this litigation, the State has ferociously clung to the argument that a sound basic education consists of the ability to read, write, and do math at a rudimentary level. [5] Since these skills are generally acquired by the eighth or ninth grade, the State then argues that this is the constitutional minimum. [6] The view of the State is essentially that of the concurring opinion of Judge Levine in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York (86 NY2d 307, 324 [1995] [ CFE I ]), who concluded that what legitimately might be called an education are the basic literacy (reading and writing) and computational skills and, in a public educational system, citizenship awareness. A public educational system failing to provide the opportunity to acquire those basic skills would not be worthy of that appellation ( id. at 331). Judge Levine disagreed with the holding of the majority that a sound education should consist of the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable children to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury ( id. at 316). The majority in CFE I also stated that this definition did not definitively specify what the constitutional concept and mandate of a sound basic education entails, which would take place after discovery and the development of a factual record ( id. at 317). At this point, the discovery has taken place, and the factual record has been developed. The record establishes what would strike many as an obvious truth: a high school education is today as indispensable as a primary education was in 1894. [7] Children in the 21st century need the opportunity for more than a ninth grade education to be productive citizens. Back in the 19th century, a high school education was not needed to obtain a good job. Now, a high school education is a prerequisite to most good jobs. [8] Those who lack a high school education and have obtained good jobs have done so in spite of, not because of, the lack of a high school education. While it may be true that there will always be menial low-skills jobs, and thus a need for people to fill them, it should not be the purpose of the public schools to prepare students for those jobs, which are limited in number and dwindling. It is worth noting that although a secondary education was not as prevalent at the time the Education Article was adopted as it is today, free public education included a high school education. It was in 1853, almost 40 years before the adoption of the Education Article, that the Legislature began allowing districts to form union districts, which could establish a high school. Thus, the public school system that the Education Article constitutionalized included a system that provided a free high school education. A sound education also connotes the necessary preparation to acquire higher education. In connection with the second section of the Education Article, which constitutionalized the Regents, the Constitutional Convention committee on education stated that [h]igher education here, as in every other civilized country, has been the chief factor in developing the elementary and secondary schools (2 Documents of 1894 NY Constitutional Convention No. 62, at 6). Primary and secondary schools and colleges were thus perceived as interdependent, in the same way that they are perceived today. At the time, the common schools primarily prepared students for high school, and only a few went on to college. [9] Now that a high school education has taken the place of a primary education, it should prepare students for higher education. Thus, the Education Article requires the opportunity for a sound high school education that should prepare students for higher education, or to compete in the employment market of high school graduates. [10] The Legislature has prescribed that the Regents shall exercise legislative functions concerning the educational system of the state, determine its educational policies, and, except, as to the judicial functions of the commissioner of education, establish rules for carrying into effect the laws and policies of the state, relating to education (Education Law § 207). The 16 members of the Regents are elected by concurrent resolutions of both houses of the Legislature, and they in turn appoint the Commissioner of Education who is the head of the State Education Department (SED) (NY Const, art XI, § 2; Education Law §§ 202, 101). The SED carries out the policies enacted by the Regents, and is responsible for the general management and supervision of all of the public schools in the state (Education Law § 101). Pursuant to their delegated authority, the Regents establish the requirements students must satisfy in order to obtain a high school diploma. In the past, students could obtain a local high school diploma by passing the Regents Competency Tests (RCTs). Plaintiffs offered unchallenged testimony that the RCTs measured eighth grade reading skills and sixth grade math skills. Students who wished to obtain a Regents diploma were required to pass more rigorous tests. That system is being phased out, and a new system is being phased in. Under the new system, students are required to pass five State-administered Regents examinations in four subject areas (English, mathematics, social studies and science) that are aligned with new Learning Standards. Students can obtain a Regents diploma evincing higher levels of achievement in mathematics, science, and foreign language by successfully completing eight Regents examinations. The State argues that the Learning Standards are aspirational and world-class. That the minimum requirements in order to obtain a high school diploma are aspirational, which connotes striving for something that is not necessarily achievable, may actually come as a surprise to high school students who must satisfy them. If these tests are aspirational, then the tests for an advanced high school diploma must be ultra aspirational. While some witnesses described the Learning Standards as high and rigorous, all the witnesses testified that they represent the minimum students need in order to be productive citizens. [11] It is clear that in comparison to the RCTs, the Learning Standards are indeed rigorous. [12] In addition, they are rigorous to the extent the Regents and the SED have determined that being a productive citizen requires learning the skills the Learning Standards impart. The record clearly supports the view that the Learning Standards satisfy the minimum required by the Education Article. In any event, even if the Learning Standards offered more than the minimum required by the Education Article, the State has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that students have the opportunity to meet those standards, since they are a prerequisite to a high school diploma ( see 8 NYCRR 3.35, 100.1 [g], [t]; 100.2 [e]; 100.5). The record establishes that the RCTs did not meet the constitutional minimum because at the high school level, they prepared students to read at an eighth grade level or perform sixth grade mathematics. As a result, students who obtained a local diploma were not assured that they received a high school education. They might have graduated from high school, but the education offered was effectively primary. [13] It is not surprising then, that, as found by the Mayor's Advisory Task Force on the City University of New York, a majority of CUNY freshmen, about half of whom were graduates of New York City high schools, required remedial courses (The City University of New York: An Institution Adrift, at 21-22 [June 7, 1999]). [14] It is this Court's constitutional responsibility to review the educational standards established by the Regents and determine whether they meet the constitutional minimum. A finding that the Learning Standards meet the constitutional minimum does not somehow constitute an abdication of this Court's responsibility to interpret the Education Article. On the contrary, it would be the failure to review the educational policies of the State to determine if they satisfy the requirement of the Education Article that would constitute a dereliction of this Court's duty to say what the law is. To conclude that courts should not question what the Legislature, through the Regents, determines is a sound basic education is to conclude that this Court should play no role in interpreting the Education Article. It is the responsibility of the State to offer the opportunity of a sound basic education, and it is the responsibility of this Court to determine whether the State is fulfilling its responsibility to the plaintiffs.