Will the bigger classes affect achievement? Results from just a single year suggest they will. The UFT Research Dept. looked at fourth grade, where class sizes rose an average of about one-half a child (0.47) last year. Then we divided the fourth grade into schools where class size rose more than the average, and schools where it rose less, and looked at their achievement in math. The difference was pronounced. While the majority of schools improved in math last year, schools where 4^th grade class sizes rose by less than the average improved two percentage points more than schools that had larger-than-average class size increases.

Another way to parse the same information is by dividing the group into quartiles (quarters). When we did this we found that the 25% of schools with the biggest class size increase — an average increase of 5.5 students — gained 1.87 points on the 4^th grade math test from 2010 to 2011. The 25% of schools with the biggest drop in class sizes — a decrease of 4.1 students — boosted their math proficiency by almost six points (5.98 points to be exact). This suggests that the effect of raising or lowering class sizes by even more students is an even bigger change in performance. The more you reduce class size the more achievement grows.

Research has repeatedly shown that small class sizes, especially in the elementary grades, result in better performance. It allows teachers to offer more individual assistance, catching problems early and ensuring that all students are getting the lesson and mastering the concepts. Our research also suggests the opposite: when class sizes grow,  performance slides. City students will pay a price for the teacher cuts.

Notes: These results were statistically significant. For average class sizes we used a weighted average of all general education, collaborative team teaching and gifted and talented classrooms in each school, excluding special education classrooms. We tested but did not find an effect in 4^th grade ELA, but chose math as a more sensitive indicator for this purpose. We would have preferred to run this analysis using more years of data, but because of the revision in proficiency cut scores in 2010, performance results cannot be readily compared with earlier years.

Secretary Duncan observed that “Class size has been a sacred cow and I think we need to take it on.” He favors “selectively” raising class sizes instances when a teacher felt she could handle it. (An aside: a bit of gentle persuasion and a tacit quid pro quo from the administration to boot?)

Frederick Hess, a prominent blogger and anti-union zealot, in a March 3 post on Education Next categorized Duncan’s words on district-union collaboration as “reassuring.”  Hess is referring to Duncan’s admission “I’m not for collaboration for collaboration’s sake. Collaboration around the status quo is a real problem.”

As always, it depends on whose ox is being gored.

One person’s “status quo” is another person’s hallowed tradition.  The present or at least recent state of seniority, professional autonomy, shared-decision making, tenure, and due process protections are all part of the “status quo” as they define and discredit it. Duncan, and folks more extreme than he is, deliberately blot from their cognitive capacity even the potential awareness and embrace of the sacred relics of generations of evolutionary progress in the workplace.

I suspect that the Secretary could be persuaded to support a new “status quo”, just as abiding but this time meticulously crafted and vetted to the values of his own “vision.”  “Status quo”, like “reform” is a concept that can be fashioned with considerable intellectual elasticity.  Whoever confines the language defines the debate.

But contorted meanings lead to distorted conclusions. To folks like Hess and Finn, that’s the whole idea behind everything they say about public education. It’s fish wrap-worthy rhetoric.

To Duncan’s credit he did not sign on to the tactics and objectives of Wisconsin Governor Walker, who fancies himself the slayer of the dragon known as collective bargaining rights for workers, first public and then private.

But is his generally non-bullying tone substantive or just a stylistic quirk?  How sweet those croissants with strawberry jam would have tasted even to the ghosts of the uninvited experts on education (professional educators) if Duncan had demonstrated the gift of introspection and self-correction.

He’s a good host but a mixed bag.

Class sizes citywide rose a average 2 percent, or 0.6 student per class. The increases were especially large in elementary schools, up to 23.7 students per class from 22.9 last year, and middle schools, up to 27 kids per class from 26.1 last year. High schools had a small increase.

The 4.2% budget cut is to blame this year, but this marks the third consecutive year of increases. Through 2008, class sizes were decreasing — very slowly, but they were decreasing.  But since then they’ve been up in every grade every year. Since 2008, the average third grade class has swelled by 13 percent. The average first grade class is 9 percent larger. This wasn’t what the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision was supposed to bring about.

Class Size Increases, School Years 2008 to 2011

Tens of thousands of children across the city are crammed into overcrowded classrooms. Yet the city has received from the state more than three-quarters of a billion dollars in the past three years to lower class size. Despite this influx of funds — and the city’s promise in writing to use it to lower class size — class sizes have actually increased in New York City.

That is why the United Federation of Teachers, the NAACP, the Hispanic Federation and a coalition of other groups and individuals sued the city Department of Education earlier this month. Our lawsuit charges that despite a decline in overall student enrollment and the injection of more than $760 million in state funds from school years 2007-08 through 2009-10, class sizes have gone up by the largest amount in 11 years.

This $760 million was part of the state’s solution to an earlier case called the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which challenged how state education funding had shortchanged urban districts, including New York City. The new funds, under the guidelines known as Contracts for Excellence, came with the proviso that the city deliberately target funds to smaller classes.

New York City took that money, and then ignored its promise, permitting principals to spend the money on other things, including replacing funds lost to city budget cuts, a clear violation of the agreement with the state.

The effects of that refusal can be seen in classrooms throughout the city. Just consider what is happening in 8th-grade classes. In the Bronx, 39 percent of such classes have 30 or more students. In Brooklyn the figure is 41 percent; Manhattan has 49 percent; Queens has 57 percent; and Staten Island has a whopping 70 percent of its 8th grade classes with more than 30 students.

But the problem is more than a question of statistics — the effects are felt in individual schools and classrooms. For instance, PS 28 in upper Manhattan, despite the fact that it got more than $217,000 in class size reduction funds for the current school year, reduced by three the number of classes it offered and had two fewer classroom teachers. The result was that class sizes went up in almost all grades.

Anyone who has ever spent even a day in an urban classroom can clearly understand that it’s easier for teachers to provide individual attention and focused instruction to students in smaller classes. That is why lowering class size is such an important priority for parents.

But the DOE chooses to continue to ignore the long-standing wishes of parents and abdicate its duty to use the state class size reduction funds as intended. That’s mismanagement, plain and simple.

For years DOE officials have called for holding teachers and other educators more accountable for what happens in our schools. Where’s the accountability for the children in overcrowded classes?

Part 1:

Part 2 after the jump.

Part 2:

Joining with the UFT in the lawsuit are the New York State Conference of the NAACP, the Hispanic Federation, Class Size Matters, the Alliance for Quality Education and parents of NYC public school students. Appearing in support of the law suit today were New York City Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, New York NAACP President Hazel Dukes and Hispanic Federation President Lillian Rodríguez López.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, “New York City promised in writing that it would use specific funds to reduce class size.  It then turned around and ignored its promise, saying that school principals who supposedly work for the DOE simply decided to spend the money on other things — among them, to replace funds lost to city budget cuts. The result has been that class sizes have actually increased over 2007 in every grade.”

“Three-quarters of a billion dollars later, tens of thousands of New York City students are packed into classes that are higher than anywhere else in the state. Who is managing — or should I say mismanaging — this process?”

Hazel Dukes, President, NAACP New York State Conference, said, “The NAACP New York State Conference has worked for years to ensure quality education for all of our children. It has become clear that smaller classes in urban areas are one of the elements that produce success for our students. New York City must do what is right for our children by instituting smaller class sizes.”

Lillian Rodriguez Lopez, President of the Hispanic Federation, said, “For over a decade, New York City parents, advocates and elected officials have been committed to reducing class size in our overcrowded schools. Through the Contract for Excellence, millions of dollars in new funding has been targeted to class size reduction and the NYC Department of Education still lacks basic accountability and responsiveness to this issue.”

As the following chart illustrates, Klein and the NYC DoE have failed to meet the legal CFE mandates for class size reduction Kindergarten through grade 3 every year since the mandates were adopted, with class sizes actually increasing the last two years.

In the high schools, the increase of the numbers of students in classes of 34 or more last year is particularly dramatic, as the following chart illustrates.

Watch the press conference:

But a quick look at them suggests why: class sizes rose virtually across the board, for the second year in a row. This occurred despite $150 million in targeted state funding to reduce class sizes in New York City in each of these two years.

DOE obviously knew since September that class sizes were up. They told the Daily News Sunday that the just couldn’t help it because of budget cuts. That may be true, but then why stay mum and then publish your report over a holiday?

A UFT survey in October found that 70 percent of high schools and 63 percent of elementary and middle schools had larger classes this year. It was no surprise. But DOE has sort of slinked around on this issue, saying principals are in charge of their individual school budgets so Central is not accountable for how this state class size funding is spent. This doesn’t sound like the kind of accountability Central imposes on everyone else.

Needless to say, the city’s rising class sizes have not sat well with the State Education Dept., which insists DOE comply with strict guidelines for spending this so-called “Contracts for Excellence” funding, won in the hard-fought Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit. Let’s see how state ed will respond to this latest report.

Everyone understands budget cuts, but managing how they fall is what education administration is supposed to be about. To wit: There is a wealth of research on the benefits of small classes. It is the single best-documented education reform for young children. But DOE let class sizes rise to 22.1 students on average in K-3 classes, up from 21.4 last year and 20.9 the year before. Almost 20 percent of all K-3 classes this year are larger than 25 students.

Throwing up your hands over budget cuts is not an adequate response. Class sizes would go down, or at least not go up, if administrators spent the funds as specified. The DOE really doesn’t pay much attention to class sizes, even when they are spending someone else’s money. An audit from the City Comptroller’s office in September found that DOE had failed to monitor $180 million of specific state funding for early grades class size reduction, using $48 million of it, more than 25 percent, to supplant, rather than enhance, city tax levy money at 245 schools.

Things are just as bad in the older grades. Average class sizes in grades 6-8 rose from 26 in 2007-08 t 26.3 in 2008-09 to 26.6 this year. In the high schools, average class sizes top out at 26.8, a steady increase for three years.

You know what parents’ top concern is about their public schools? Yes, large class sizes. They are much smaller in charter schools. In private schools they are half the size. But then, these schools that DOE manages are just public schools.

Hoxby, a Hoover Institution fellow and Stanford professor who has published extensively on charter schools (favorably) and teacher unions (unfavorably), looked at students who won admittance by lottery to certain New York City charters and compared their performance to students who applied but were not admitted.

As Jonathan Gyurko writes in an earlier post, she found an incremental scale-score improvement of 2.4 to 3.6 points (on a 325-point scale) more per year  in reading and math for charter pupils over those who lost the lottery and did not attend a charter. But she then projects that a Harlem student who attended charters from K-8th grade would make the same gains every year and could  narrow his or her achievement gap with Scarsdale students by 86% in math and 66% in ELA.

What Hoxby did was take this point difference, this “charter effect,” and present it as a persistent, undiminishing causal effect that can work educational miracles over eight years on the same student. And it’s unlikely she has test scores for very many students who’ve been continuously enrolled in a charter for eight years.

But she did have a nice construct, one that would make anyone sit up and take notice. Scarsdale is one of the top performing school districts in New York State, even in the United States. Its campus-like schools boast rich electives, high-tech labs and music rooms, green rolling playing fields, helicopter parents and relaxed, highly-paid teachers. Below, the Scarsdale High School library. Under that, a Harlem Charter School.

The gaps between Harlem and Scarsdale students are about far more than test scores, and closing the academic ones will take a lot more than test prep

SOME HARLEM-SCARSDALE GAPS

To perpetuate the fiction that if they could just attend charter schools, Harlem’s struggling students would morph into Scarsdale over-achievers (if indeed they even wanted to) is a disservice.

Hoxby’s study was hailed by the Wall Street Journal on page 2 and greeted at the final word on charter superiority in a Daily News editorial the next day.

But researchers know better. The black-white test score gap has been shown to persist even between middle-class blacks and whites, for deep and complex reasons. Ronald Ferguson, a Harvard professor who studied the racial achievement gap in Shaker Heights, Ohio  (Hoxby’s home town), says it would take at least 25 years to close the racial achievement gap, even between students of from families with similar incomes.

Ferguson found that blacks scored on average nearly 100 points below whites on SATs. Even in Shaker Heights the average grade for a black senior was C+ versus B+ for whites. The gap is not a result of effort — he found blacks studied harder than whites — but of the persistence of poverty’s ills even after incomes had equalized.

So by all means let’s equalize the resource gaps with Scarsdale. But it’s not right to generalize that a few points average gain on a standardized test means high-needs students will continue to make the same gains year after year. Nor that those decimal points are all it takes to close America’s racial achievement gaps.

The 29 page agreement breaks vital new ground, and not simply because it brings together leading forces in the ranks of the charter school movement and teacher unionism. Just as importantly, the contract embodies a new model of labor relations in education, based on a disarmingly simple proposition: that a school which respects, nurtures and supports teacher professionalism in all of its work will provide the best education for students.

“At its core, this contract is about shared expectations and shared responsibility. Our educators are being asked to take a leading role in the success of their school, and they’re being provided with the professional supports needed to help make that success possible,” said UFT and AFT President Randi Weingarten.

“Green Dot has had great success in working with the unionized teaching force in Los Angeles and we are looking forward to continuing our partnership with Randi Weingarten and the United Federation of Teachers in New York,” said Green Dot Public Schools founder and Chairman, Steve Barr.

Here are the main features of the agreement:

• A Just Cause Standard for discipline and dismissal, in effect from the first day of employment for teachers and guidance counselors, and a system of Progressive Discipline.

• Due Process, with a four step grievance process that culminates in binding arbitration.

• Professional Mediation, with a broad scope that allows it to be used to address any school based issue or disagreement.

• Educators work an un-timed “Professional Day” which requires that they be on-site during the student day, staff meetings, professional development, and preparation time. The school year has a base of the same number of days as the annual NYC Department of Education calendar, with eight additional staff development days. A school Calendar and Programming Committee, with the majority of its members democratically chosen by the UFT chapter from its members, has the authority to reconfigure the NYC Department of Education school calendar, with the ratification of the majority of the staff.

• Reflecting the longer “professional day” and work year, educators are paid a 14% Pay Premium above the NYC Department of Education salary scale, with a top salary of over $114,000. 4% of the school’s budget is reserved for Stipends, paid to educators for services beyond their usual responsibilities. A Stipend Committee, with the majority of its members democratically chosen by the UFT chapter from its members, makes all the decisions on how that stipend budget is spent.

• The contract sets a Maximum Class Size of 30 and a maximum student-teacher ratio for the entire school of 20 to 1. For the first time in any educational collective bargaining agreement, the contract sets a Maximum Student Load for teachers of 130 students. [As a point of comparison, a NYC Department of Education high school teacher in the main academic subjects could see as many as 170 students every day.]

• To provide for Teacher Voice and Leadership, the contract establishes a number of school committees, with the majority of their members democratically chosen by the UFT chapter from its members. In addition to the already cited Stipend and Calendar and Programming Committees, there are Leadership, Professional Development, Hiring and Budget Committees.

• Professional Evaluation: Teachers and guidance counselors will be evaluated based on Green Dot’s system for professional evaluation and support which includes the development of personal goals, the evaluation of progress against those goals, and the development of up to two intervention/corrective action plans before disciplinary action can be taken.  The principles of this system are drawn from the standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

• Benefits: Employees participate in a GHI and HIP plan modeled after the plan for NYC municipal employees, the UFT Welfare Fund, and the Teacher Retirement System, the city’s pension plan for teachers.

• Leaves of Absences: Employees can take up to a 10 month leave for childbirth and rearing, up to 200 days of which can be paid and up to 6 months with full benefits.  Other eligible leaves include military, jury duty, bereavement, and religious observance.

The ethos of the contract is one that places a premium on teacher voice and democracy in the workplace. It is rooted in the firm conviction that schools are successful when they recruit and retain the very best professional educators and give them the means to educate their students. In response to a question at the signing, Barr said that the existence of the just cause standard and due process were a strong “comparative advantage” for Green Dot in recruiting the best career educators who do not want to go into the “at will mosh pits” of some charter schools.

Here is the actual agreement [Green Dot Contract], and its appendices [Appendix A: Salaries; Appendix B: Teacher Evaluations; Appendix C: Staff Evaluations].

Behind that conflict was the New York City Department of Education — and not just because it was the DOE which was planning to replace PS 194 entirely with one of Moskowitz’s schools. There is a long and sordid record of DOE neglect and underfunding of PS 194 — it had one of the largest class sizes in CSD 5 and on average 7 more students per class than Moskowitz’s schools — and of the imposition of a series of ineffectual principals — five over the last five years. Yet despite all that, PS 194 was a school that had met its Annual Yearly Progress Benchmarks under No Child Left Behind and was in good standing with the New York State Education Department until last school year. And still the DOE has decided to close it down based solely on the school’s failing grade on the city’s School Progress Reports. One can not help but wonder if that is a decision being made not on academic merit, but out of a desire to create new space for the schools of a politically powerful former city councilwoman.

On Tuesday of this week, parents of students from PS 194, together with parents of students from two other New York City public schools — PS 241 in Harlem and PS 150 in Ocean Hill-Brownsville — joined representatives of the Community Education Councils for those schools, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the UFT in filing suit against the Department of Education over its plans to close all three schools and replace them entirely with charter schools. The law suit charges that by closing these three schools and not replacing them with new district schools, the DOE is illegally eliminating the school attendance zone for the three schools. All zoning changes must, by statute, go through the Community Education Councils for the district.

PS 194, PS 241 and PS 150 have a few things in common. First, they serve a significantly poorer student body than the rest of their district and the city as a whole — one of the schools, PS 150, has 97% of its students receiving free lunches. Second, they have significant numbers of English Language Learners in their student population — one of the schools has as many as 1 in 5 students in that category. And lastly, two of the three schools —PS 150 as well as PS 194 — were meeting their Annual Yearly Benchmarks under No Child Left and were in good standing with the State Education Department through 07-08. The third school — PS 241 — went from a ‘B’ on its NYC School Progress Report last year to a ‘D’ this year, meaning that the decision to close it was based on a single year’s drop in test scores.

These schools and their neighborhoods need additional supports and resources, not the abolition of the neighborhood school.

And how do these schools compare to the charter schools which will replace them? We compare them in the chart below. For the school year 2006-2007 [the latest period for which there is published data], the two charter school brands slated to occupy these buildings ran 4 schools serving 584 students. Only 52% of their students received free lunches; they had enrolled NO English Language Learners; and they had an average class size of 24 students. The three neighborhood schools slated for closure served 1290 students. 84% of those students received free lunch and 11% were English Language Learners. The average class size in the neighborhood schools was over 25.

Who will now serve the students of PS 194, PS 241 and PS 150?

Data is from the NYS 2006-2007 report cards, the most recently published.