Opinion ID: 2254540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Input

Text: Teaching. The first and surely most important input is teaching. The trial court considered six measures of teacher qualityincluding certification rates, test results, experience levels and the ratings teachers receive from their principals and concluded that the quality of New York City schoolteachers is inadequate, despite the commendable, even heroic, efforts of many teachers. The Appellate Division reached a contrary conclusion based on its perception that principals' reviews of the teachers they supervise are the best indication of teaching ability (295 AD2d at 14). But plaintiffs' expert on the labor market for teachers, Dr. Hamilton Lankford, testified authoritatively regarding other factors that are probative of teacher quality, and several experienced administrators testified that principals' reviews tend to conceal teacher inadequacy because principals find it difficult to fire bad teachers and to hire better ones. In our view, the Appellate Division improperly narrowed the inquiry here. Considering all of the factors, we agree with the trial court's findings and its conclusion that the teaching is inadequate. The 1999 655 Report noted that schools with the highest percentages of minority children have the least experienced teachers, the most uncertified teachers, the lowest-salaried teachers, and the highest rates of teacher turnover. The same report showed that well over half of the State's minority children attended New York City schools; that 84% of New York City schoolchildren were minorities; and that most of these children are poor. Taken together, these and other facts and statements in the 655 Report amount to an admission by the state agencies responsible for education thatwith respect to teacher experience and retention, certification and payNew York City schools are inferior to those of the rest of the state. To be sure, the Education Article guarantees not equality but only a sound basic education ( see Levittown, 57 NY2d at 48). But as Judge Levine observed in his concurrence in CFE, the constitutional history of the Education Article shows that the objective was to `make[] it imperative on the State to provide adequate free common schools for the education of all of the children of the State' and that the new provision would have an impact upon `places in the State of New York where the common schools are not adequate' (86 NY2d at 327 [Levine, J., concurring], quoting 3 Revised Record of Constitutional Convention of 1894, at 695 and adding emphasis). The 655 Report indicates a mismatch between student need in New York City and the quality of the teaching directed to that need, and it is one authoritative source of facts showing the extent of the mismatch. The report, for instance, shows that in 1997 17% of New York City public schoolteachers either were uncertified or taught in areas other than those in which they were certified. The trial court noted this fact and evidence that uncertified and inexperienced teachers tend to be concentrated in the lowest performing schools. Notably, Dr. Lankford demonstrated not only that New York City schools had the largest percentage of teachers with two or fewer years' experience but also that this percentage was greatestat 17.9%in the quintile of City schools with greatest student need. Classifying teachers who either were uncertified or had less than three years' experience as novice teachers, Dr. Lankford testified that nearly a quarter of all City teachers, and nearly a third of the teachers in the neediest quintile of City schools, were novices. And he reviewed the colossal failure rates of City teachers on the State's certification content-specialty tests, which rise above 40% in mathematics, even for math teachers currently teaching in New York City public schools. As the trial court's decision shows, the record contains many more facts proving a serious shortfall in teacher quality in New York City schools, proving that this shortfall results from those schools' lack of competitiveness in bidding for and retaining personnel, and proving that better teachers produce better student performance ( see 187 Misc 2d at 25-36). On this last point the testimony of Dr. Ronald Ferguson is particularly revealing. Using data from Texaswhere all teachers are testedDr. Ferguson demonstrated that in districts where teachers perform badly on teacher certification tests, student performance declines as student grade level risesand, conversely, that where teachers test well, student performance at higher grade levels surpasses student performance at lower grade levels. Thus, the longer students are exposed to good or bad teachers, the better or worse they perform. Based on evidence offered by Dr. Lankford, Dr. Ferguson projected that the same correlation would apply in New York. Defendants' expert, Dr. Eric Hanushek, challenged Dr. Ferguson's conclusions, but the trial court rejected this challenge and the Appellate Divisionthough it referred to Dr. Ferguson's testimonydid not rest any of its own contrary findings on Dr. Hanushek's testimony. In sum, we conclude that the Appellate Division erred in relying solely on principals' evaluations, and we agree with the trial court's holdings that teacher certification, test performance, experience and other factors measure quality of teaching; that quality of teaching correlates with student performance; and that New York City schools provide deficient teaching because of their inability to attract and retain qualified teachers. School Facilities and Classrooms. As we noted in CFE, children are entitled to classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn (86 NY2d at 317). The trial court divided this furtherconsidering first the physical plant of New York City schools, and then the specific problem of overcrowding and class sizeand concluded that New York City schools are deficient. The court conceded, however, that the harmful effect of physical deficiencies of the first kind on student performance is difficult to measure. The Appellate Division took note of this concession, dismissed as anecdotal plaintiffs' evidence of leaky roofs, deficient heating, and other problems, and credited testimony that all immediately hazardous conditions had been eliminated (295 AD2d at 10). Eliminating immediate hazards is not the same as creating an environment conducive to learning, and the record contains much evidence about deficient school infrastructure. Nevertheless, on this record it cannot be said that plaintiffs have proved a measurable correlation between building disrepair and student performance, in general. [4] 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. 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. Rather, plaintiffs alleged fact-based    inadequacies in educational inputs, and we held that the State's failure to provide the opportunity to obtain fundamental skills would constitute a violation of the Education Article (86 NY2d at 319). Accordingly, plaintiffs had to show that insufficient funding led to inadequate inputs which led to unsatisfactory results. 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. Instrumentalities of Learning. The final input is instrumentalities of learning, including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers. The courts below agreed that the textbook supply is presently adequate and the evidence on classroom supplies is inconclusive. On the other hand, evidence including the latest 655 Report showed that New York City schools had about nine library books per studenthalf as many as schools statewide excluding the City, and just under half the number recommended by the American Library Association. In light of Levittown, the intrastate inequality does not prove anything in itself, and a library association might be expected to advocate book purchases at levels exceeding the constitutional floor. But in holding that the library books in New York City schools are inadequate in number and quality (187 Misc 2d at 57) the trial court clearly relied on the abundant testimony on the adequacy of the books for pedagogical purposes rather than on purely numerical intrastate comparisons. The unrebutted testimony indicated that the books in City school libraries are old and not integrated with contemporary curricula. The Appellate Division suggested that school libraries simply consist of classics rather than multicultural books (295 AD2d at 12), but the record contains not one scintilla of evidence that antiquated books in City school libraries are classics. The Appellate Division thus gave no factual basis for its disagreement with the trial court that the library books in New York City schools are inadequate in quality. The record concerning computers is similar, establishing that some exposure to them has become essential and that City schools not only have about half as many computers per student as all other New York schools, but also have aging equipment that, in some cases, simply cannot support presently-available software. The Appellate Division speculated that old equipment might be used for introductory classes (295 AD2d at 11), but this possibility was not even advocated by the State and, like the classic outdated library books, has no record support at all. While we hesitate to overstate the importance of libraries and computers relative to other inputs, we conclude that as to these two instrumentalities of learning the trial court's findings again better comport with the weight of the evidence, and support its conclusion that the New York City schools are deficient in instrumentalities of learning. In sum, considering all of the inputs, we conclude that the trial court's findings should be reinstated, as indicated, and that the educational inputs in New York City schools are inadequate. There are certainly City schools where the inadequacy is not gross and glaring ( Levittown, 57 NY2d at 48). Some of these schools may even be excellent. But tens of thousands of students are placed in overcrowded classrooms, taught by unqualified teachers, and provided with inadequate facilities and equipment. The number of children in these straits is large enough to represent a systemic failure. A showing of good test results and graduation rates among these studentsthe outputsmight indicate that they somehow still receive the opportunity for a sound basic education. The showing, however, is otherwise.