Results of Audit: $4.5 million per class!

By LEONIE HAIMSON, Class Size Matters - March 17, 2006

My first response to the audit the State Comptroller released yesterday, that we had asked for over a year ago, was that it confirmed my worst suspicions. Actually, what the auditors found was even more devastating than I had expected.

Even with $89 million of state funds, supposed to be used to hire additional teachers to reduce class size, last year the city was able to provide only 20 more classes in grades K-3 than before the program began. If you do the math, that’s $4.5 million per class. Even for DOE standards, that’s quite impressive mismanagement.

(The full audit is available here: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093006/05n3.pdf)

Last year, the City Council also provided an extra $20 million in city funds that the DOE claimed allowed them to provide 206 more classes in grades K-3. Only instead of adding any extra classes, DOE cut the number of classes in these grades by 287.

If one adds $89 million in state funds to $20 million in city funds, this means taxpayers like you and me spent almost $5.5 million for each extra classroom.

In fact, the audit shows that instead of adding new classes, the city has dramatically reduced the number in these grades over the last four years by almost 900. If DOE officials had actually provided the number they claimed, class sizes in grades K-3 would now average 19.1, rather than more than 21 students per class.

Yet the class size averages doesn’t reveal how bad the situation really is. According to the audit, 65% of NYC students in K-3 are still in classes larger than 20, 26% of them are in classes of 25 and above.

The audit also found that the DOE has allowed state funds to be used to pay for teachers who should instead of been hired with city funds, which violates the language and intent of the statute, and is “inconsistent with the Program’s maintenance of effort requirement.”

Yet in her written response, included in the report, Kathleen Grimm of DOE disputes the State Comptroller’s methodology and conclusions, which she calls overly “quantitative”.

Instead, she says that DOE is merely allowing for “the holistic judgments of local educational leaders.” It’s interesting that on matters relating to bulletin boards and how children are arranged on rugs, DOE is happy to prescribe to principals and teachers exactly how things should be done; but when it comes to matters such as reducing class size, they say they will leave it entirely up to them – even when it comes to the possible violation of state law.

The audit also addresses the capacity issue. While it is clear that in many schools and districts there is no room to form additional classes, almost $100 million of federal funds are available to hire push-in teachers in overcrowded districts, though the city is spending only $38 million of these dollars for these purposes. (Even with that $38 million, we have heard from many teachers and parents that no push-in teachers exist, even though DOE memos claim that funds have been allocated in their schools for that purpose.)

In terms of the space issue, the auditors found that there were many public schools that did have the room to reduce class size, but either weren’t receiving funds to do so, or weren’t using them for this purpose. One school reported using the money to pay for salary of a teacher, who was actually on leave. Auditors also found that in districts in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, there were schools sitting only a few blocks away from each other, one which was overcrowded and with classes of 25 or more, the other which was undercapacity and where classes had been reduced to 18 or less.

The auditors pointed out if the DOE really wanted to reach the state goal of 20 students or fewer per class, they could easily equalize the registers by adjusting the catchment areas of these schools. Yet in response, Grimm wrote that this would be too difficult, since “The Department must consult with local communities and obtain the approval of the local Community Education Council before any such modification of school attendance zones can be effected.” (p.62.)

First of all, I doubt very much if most CECs would disapprove of a focused effort on the part of DOE to bring smaller classes to more students in their communities. This statement also blatantly ignores the reality of how so many CECs have vehemently protested the placement of new schools into existing schools in their districts, and their drastic reorganizations, altering their entire makeup and population, and yet their opposition has had no visible effect on DOE’s actions.

I hope CEC members take this official legal response to heart, that DOE has no right to alter attendance zones without obtaining their approval.