NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
|
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY ______________________________________________________ SCHOOL DISTRICTS, Inc., and THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, OF THE ALBANY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BEACON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BINGHAMTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, COHOES CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORNING CITY COMPLAINT FOR DISTRICT, DUNKIRK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DECLARATORY GLENS FALLS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JAMESTOWN AND INJUNCTIVE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL RELIEF DISTRICT, MT.VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEWBURGH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, NIAGARA Index No. FALLS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SALAMANCA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHENECTADY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, and TONAWANDA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, in their official, individual and taxpayer capacities,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendant. _________________________________________________________ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This suit challenges the constitutionality, in whole or in part, of the system of education funding provided by defendant State of New York to the: Albany City School District, Beacon City School District, Binghamton City School District , Cohoes City School District, Corning City School District, Dunkirk City School District , Glens Falls City School District, Jamestown City School District Kingston City School District, Mt. Vernon City School District, Newburgh City School District, Niagara Falls City School District, North Tonawanda City School District, Salamanca City School District, Schenectady City School District and Tonawanda City School District, (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs’ Districts"). 2. In 1995 and 2003 the New York State Court of Appeals issued two decisions in Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al. v. New York State et al. (CFE I [86 N.Y.2d 307] and CFE II [100 N.Y.2d 893], respectively) setting forth a definition of what constitutes the sound basic education required under New York State Constitution Article XI, section 1. The Court established a basis on which the educational funding system as it relates to all public school districts in the state must be measured. The Court required a review of educational inputs and outputs to determine whether or not the system provided an opportunity for all children to obtain a meaningful high school education. It then placed the responsibility of maintaining a funding system to provide that opportunity squarely on the state’s shoulders. 3. A review of the educational resources provided to children attending Plaintiffs’ Districts shows that those resources are grossly inadequate to the task of providing all of the children in those Districts with a meaningful opportunity at succeeding in school. This gross inadequacy, or “opportunity gap,” is the direct result of the educational funding system maintained by the state, a system which permits the Plaintiffs’ Districts, which are poorer than the average school district and significantly poorer than non-city districts, to spend much less per pupil than non-city districts while taxing their local property tax payers at extremely high rates. 4. A review of the performance of students attending Plaintiffs’ Districts on the 4th and 8th grade English and Math tests and on the Regents tests now required for high school graduation shows results which are below the results of the average district state wide and which are far below the results of non-city districts. Moreover, the results of the Plaintiffs’ Districts for children in certain sub-groups such as the economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities and ethnic/racial minorities are abysmally low and as such are comparable to results of children in other poor districts throughout the state including New York City. These chronically poor results are the direct consequence of the failure of the state to provide educational funding for Plaintiffs’ Districts which meets the constitutional parameters set by the Court of Appeals. VENUE5. Venue is proper in the County of Albany pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) 503(a) because defendant’s principal offices are located in the County of Albany.
PLAINTIFFS 6. Plaintiff New York State Association of Small City School Districts is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York State, with having its principal place of business in Albany County. Its membership consists of small city school districts (including Plaintiffs' Districts), which are defined and governed by New York Education Law Articles 51 and 53. The fifty-seven small city school districts are located in all the cities of the state, excluding the largest five cities of New York, Yonkers, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. 7. Plaintiffs, Members of the Boards of Education of the Albany City School District, Beacon City School District, Binghamton City School District, Cohoes City School District, Corning City School District, Dunkirk City School District, Glens Falls City School District, Jamestown City School District, Kingston City School District, Mt. Vernon City School District, Newburgh City School District, Niagara Falls City School District, North Tonawanda City School District, Salamanca City School District, Schenectady City School District and Tonawanda City School District, maintains suit against defendant in their official, individual and taxpayer capacities. 8. Plaintiffs’ Districts serve approximately 88,000 urban children in New York State (see, New York: The State of Learning (July 2004) Vol. 2, (hereinafter Statistical Profiles),at Table 1). They are either co-terminus or inclusive of cities in the State that have populations of less than 125,000 (see, N.Y. Educ. Law §2601). 9. The State Education Department has characterized many of Plaintiffs’ Districts as high need/low resource districts, i.e., the high need districts as shown by high poverty and low combined wealth ratio (see, Statistical Profiles at Table 1). They have higher percentages of poor and minority students than their suburban counterparts; higher percentages of children with special educational needs and of children on the free and reduced price lunch program; and higher percentages of dropouts and children at risk (see, Statistical Profiles at Table 1). 10. Plaintiffs' Districts are fiscally independent of the city in which they are located (Chapter 762 of the Laws of 1950). The financial base of these districts is provided primarily by a combination of local revenues from real property and non-property school taxes, state aid and federal aid. DEFENDANT
11. Defendant the State of New York (“State”) allocates financial aid to localities for education pursuant to the provisions of Education Law and through an annual appropriation for state aid to localities. The State receives billions of dollars annually in federal financial aid for such components of the education system as compensatory education for educationally deprived children in low-income areas, school lunches, aid to disabled children, and vocational education. 12. Defendant State of New York (hereinafter "defendant" or “state”) is responsible for the operation, financing and administration of the New York State public school system. SMALL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
13. Small city school districts serve approximately 260,000 children, or 2/3 of the children in urban areas outside of New York City (see, Statistical Profiles at Table 1) and the small cities contain approximately 1.5 million residents. These districts are Albany, Amsterdam, Auburn, Batavia, Beacon, Binghamton, Canandaigua, Cohoes, Corning, Cortland, Dunkirk, Elmira, Fulton, Geneva, Glen Cove, Glens Falls, Gloversville, Hornell, Hudson, Ithaca, Jamestown, Johnstown, Kingston, Lackawanna, Little Falls, Lockport, Long Beach, Mechanicville, Middletown, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Newburgh, Niagara Falls, North Tonawanda, Norwich, Ogdensburg, Olean, Oneida, Oneonta, Oswego, Peekskill, Plattsburgh, Port Jervis, Poughkeepsie, Rensselaer, Rome, Rye, Salamanca, Saratoga Springs, Schenectady, Sherrill, Tonawanda, Troy, Utica, Watertown, Watervliet and White Plains. 14. Small city school districts serve student populations with greater need than the average district statewide and with far greater need than non-city districts in the state. Despite this, these districts spend less per pupil than the state average and far less than non-city districts. They also are poorer districts than the state average as measured by real property and income and have far greater amounts of tax-exempt real property, thereby further weakening their local property tax bases. 15. Nevertheless, over the past seven years small city districts have received increases in state aid for education which were significantly less than the state average increase. Given their high student need, low property and income wealth and lower per pupil spending, it would be expected that these districts would have received above average increases in state aid during this period. If these districts had received even just the average increase, they would have been allocated over $250 million more during the period or nearly $5 million per district. 16. Since 1997 small city school districts have been required to submit their school budgets to the voters for approval each year. Poorer districts are more likely to experience budget defeats and are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of an austerity budget because they have less strength built into their programming. Because of the high tax rates and declining tax bases in these districts, small city school districts have experienced budget defeats twice as often as non-city districts. If a budget is not approved by the voters, an austerity budget becomes effective, often requiring the firing of teaching staff, reductions in already weakened programming and elimination of extra curricular activities. Districts working under two or more consecutive budget defeats experience irreparable harm to the quality of their programs and to the education of their students. 17. Small city school districts are subject to restrictive debt ceilings which in some cases have prevented or slowed replacement and renovation of aging educational infrastructures. These districts are subject to a constitutional 5% debt ceiling as opposed to the statutory 10% debt ceiling applicable to non-city districts. In 2003 the Legislature approved a resolution and a bill which authorized constitutional referendum which would have replaced the constitutional ceiling with a 10% statutory ceiling. The referendum was defeated, primarily on the vote of jurisdictions outside the small cities, the Legislature and the Governor having remained publicly neutral on the issue despite the obvious inequity in the existing law. 18. With respect to debt ceilings, a further glaring inequity exists between small city districts and non-city districts. Non-city school districts can take advantage of provisions of local finance law section 121.20 which allows those districts to exclude any amounts received as state building aid from the computation of debt under the ceiling. This same provision does not apply to small city school districts. Since building aid pays for at least 60% of all capital projects the effective amount of the debt ceiling in non-city districts is three to four times as high in non-city districts as in small city school districts. 19. In 1998 the Governor and the Legislature approved the Charter School Law (Education Law, Article 56), which permits the establishment of up to 100 Charter Schools statewide by for-profit companies, non-profit companies and public school districts. These schools are funded directly by the school districts from which the charter school students come. These school districts are required to pay the charter schools the approved operating expense (AOE) per child of the districts for each child attending the charter school. School districts experience little or no reduction in operating costs when a child attends a charter school and the cost of charter school tuition becomes an added expense to the district. Moreover, the funding provided to all charter schools comes from the overall operating expense of the district, from kindergarten through high school, whereas charter schools in small cities are all elementary schools that cost the least to operate. This computation withdraws a highly disproportionate amount from the public school in favor of the charter school. Nevertheless, no additional state aid has been appropriated to defray the cost of the charter school payments and the school districts making such payments have increased their tax levies to accommodate those costs. 20. Approximately 70 charter schools have been established since 1998 and many more are currently in the process of obtaining approvals. Almost all of the charter schools are located in or near cities including a number of small cities. The relative size of the charter schools in the small cities is far larger than the size of schools located in New York City or in the other so-called Big Five cities. The result of this is that the cost of charter schools in the small cities has had a significantly adverse impact on small city school budgets and local tax rates. 21. In 1997, the Governor and the Legislature enacted a school tax relief program (STAR) pursuant to Chapter 389 of the laws of 1997. STAR was intended to relieve the local taxpayer from the growing burden of school taxes and provided for reductions in school tax bills to property owners and reimbursement of the amounts of such reductions to the school districts by the state. The STAR program was, in effect, a way of increasing state aid to education but avoiding the basic operating aid formula which targeted aid to those districts with the greatest student need and lowest property wealth. The STAR program instead targeted state aid to the wealthiest districts: under this program wealthy districts receive twice as much funding per student as poorer districts. The program was phased in over a number of years and now diverts nearly $3 billion in state aid from the operating aid formula. The result of this program is that enormous sums of state revenues each year are distributed to wealthier districts which are on “save-harmless” provisions of the education law, districts that would not be otherwise entitled to any increases under the basic operating aid formula. 22. The basic state education aid formula, formerly known as operating aid and now as comprehensive operating aid, provides for state aid to be distributed on a per pupil basis adjusted according to student weightings and a measure of district wealth called the combined wealth ratio. In effect this formula has provided for the targeting of state aid to those districts with the greatest need for state assistance. However, the state has consistently failed to maintain a reasonable relationship between this formula and the actual cost of providing an adequate education: first, by failing to increase the aid ceiling for more over two (2) decades; second, by failing to fully recognize the full differential between the relative costs between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students, and finally, by basing the student count on attendance rather than enrollment, which consistently under-counts students in high-poverty urban schools. Nevertheless, districts cannot get less aid than they did in the so-called base year even though demographics and wealth measures might otherwise require a reduction in state aid. These districts are the so-called “save-harmless” districts. 23. On the other end of the scale are the districts with the weakest tax bases and greatest student need. The Legislature and the Governor have limited increases in the amounts these districts would have gotten under the formula by the use of a cap called the transition aid cap. This cap provides that state aid that otherwise would have gone to the poorest districts is instead available for distribution through other aid formulas, many of which do not have the same wealth and student need targeting provisions as the operating aid formula. The result of the save-harmless and transition aid cap provisions is that much of the aid that would have gone to poorer districts was, and continues to be, distributed to a wider number of districts without significant regard to the relative needs of districts and the students in them. 24. The failure to align state support with local wealth and need has resulted in the gross disparity between tax rates and per pupil spending in non-city districts and in small city school districts. This failure has resulted in the gross disparity in student performance between these districts.
THE EDUCATION ARTICLE REQUIRES DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE ALL STUDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY OF A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION
25. The New York State Constitution, in the Education Article of Article XI, Section 1, requires that the State “legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.” 26. The New York State Court of Appeals has interpreted the Education Article of the New York Constitution, in CFE I, as imposing a duty on the State of New York to provide “all children the opportunity of a sound basic education” (Hereinafter “SBE”) (at 315). 27. The Court of Appeals has further defined the constitutional minimum SBE as the provision of a “meaningful high school education” which prepares students for civic participation in society, as voters, jurors, and employees, for example [CFE II, at 905]. 28. New York State, through its education aid allocation scheme, has violated this Constitutional mandate and has failed to provide the opportunity of a SBE to students of the Albany City School District, Beacon City School District, Binghamton City School District, Cohoes City School District, Corning City School District, Dunkirk City School District, Glens Falls City School District, Jamestown City School District, Kingston City School District, Mt. Vernon City School District, Newburgh City School District, Niagara Falls City School District, North Tonawanda City School District, Salamanca City School District, Schenectady City School District and Tonawanda City School District. The combined effect of inadequate local wealth, high tax rates and voter imposed budget caps effectively precludes Plaintiffs' Districts localities from compensating for the shortages created by the state’s defective aid system. 29. As a result of the State’s education funding system, students attending Plaintiffs’ Districts are denied a SBE as measured by the several “inputs” outlined in the Court of Appeals 2003 decision in CFE II (at 909-914): a. The quality of teaching at the Plaintiffs’ Districts lags behind the State average, and far behind non-city districts, as reflected in the percentage of teachers instructing in a subject for which they are not certified, the percentage of teachers with fewer than three years of teaching experience, the failure rates on the State teacher certification examinations, the ranking of colleges or universities attended and the teachers’ class standings at those institutions, and the professional development opportunities available. Salary differentials and poor working conditions in Plaintiffs’ Districts also indicate that these districts are unable to attract sufficient numbers of quality teachers.
b. School facilities and classrooms are inadequate in Plaintiffs’ Districts. Overcrowding is shown through encroachment of ordinary classroom activities into spaces designed for specialized activities, such as science labs or cafeterias. Class sizes are excessive and exceed the State average and significantly exceed the average in non-city districts. Additionally, school buildings in Plaintiffs’ Districts are older and are in greater disrepair than is true in non-city districts.
c. The instrumentalities of learning are also deficient in Plaintiffs’ Districts. These districts have fewer library books and computers per student than non-city districts in the State. Furthermore, those computers that are available to students are older and incompatible with current software programs. Deficiencies exist in basic classroom supplies, as well.
30. An examination of the “outputs” enumerated by the Court of Appeals CFE II (at 914-919) underscores the state’s denial of the opportunity for a SBE in Plaintiffs’ Districts: a. The high school completion rates in four years or by age twenty-one for Plaintiffs' Districts are lower than rates in other districts in the State and far lower than in non-city districts. These disheartening statistics are also reflected in suspension and dropout rates, percentages of general equivalency and non-Regents' diplomas attained, and percentages of graduates attending four-year colleges or universities.
b. Test results in the 4th and 8th grade Math and ELA exams and in Regents Exams are lower than in other districts in the State and far lower than in non-city districts. Moreover, tests results of certain student subgroups in Plaintiffs' Districts such as economically disadvantaged, children with disabilities and ethnic and racial minorities are far lower than the state average and as low, and in some cases lower, than in New York City. Also, these results show a pervasive and systematic link between the degree of student poverty and high failure rates among poor and minority students. Test results can also be linked to funding shortages resulting from deficiencies in the aid formula.
THE EDUCATION ARTICLE REQUIRES THE STATE TOCOMPENSATE FOR THE VARYING EDUCATIONAL, PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, MENTAL, AND SOCIOECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES FACED BY CHIDREN
31. The Constitutional minimum SBE must be made available to all students in New York State. As the Court of Appeals reiterated (CFE II, at 915,quoting the Supreme Court decision CFE v NYS, 187 Misc.2d 1, 2001 (CFE Trial) at 63), the opportunity for a SBE must “be placed within reach of all students,” including those who “present with socio-economic deficits.” 32. The Court of Appeals has rejected the argument, advanced by the State in CFE II, that the State was not a substantial cause of poor student performance because a large number of students came from disadvantaged backgrounds, by stating that “we cannot accept the premise that children come to…schools ineducable, unfit to learn (CFE II at 921).” 33. In its 2001 decision, the Supreme Court further opined that at-risk students need specially tailored educational programs to meet the Constitutional minimum standard (CFE Trial at 47). 34. Plaintiffs’ Districts have populations with dramatically higher rates of poverty, minority status, and special education needs than rates in non-city districts. The students residing in these districts are some of the children most in need of resources. In the face of this, the State has under-funded the Plaintiffs’ Districts in violation of the Education Article. 35. The State’s education aid system has chronically failed to place the SBE “within reach” of these at-risk students. 36. Although the Plaintiffs’ Districts have greater need for resources to provide the opportunity for a SBE to their students, as outlined above, the average per pupil spending of these districts lags considerably behind the state average and far behind non-city districts 37. The wide gap in per pupil spending in Plaintiffs’ Districts as compared to non-city school districts is a result of the State education aid system, not of local tax efforts. Residents of Plaintiffs' Districts pay significantly higher rates of school tax than the state average. 38. In addition, the tax bases of Plaintiffs’ Districts are much weaker than in the average district in the State and far weaker than in non-city districts. Thus, Plaintiffs' Districts are more than doing their part in attempting to meet the constitutionally required level of education for their students. CAUSATION 39. The Court of Appeals, in its 1995 decision, required that plaintiffs asserting a violation of the Education Article show a causal link between any proven failure to provide a SBE and the State funding system (CFE I at 317-318). 40. In its 2001 decision, the Supreme Court outlined an interpretation of this requirement, which was later approved by the Court of Appeals, that plaintiffs need only show that the funding system is a substantial cause of the educational deficit, not the sole cause (CFE Trial at 92, CFE II at 920). 41. Considering the foregoing, the State’s education aid system is a substantial cause of the constitutional violation of the Education Article in Plaintiffs’ Districts. As the Supreme Court found in regard to New York City Schools (CFE Trial at ), the State aid formulas have also long failed to align funding with need in Plaintiffs’ Districts. 42. The glaring misalignment between funding and need has led to inadequate educational “inputs,” which in turn have let to unsatisfactory student performance. As such, the State’s education aid system is a substantial cause of the violation of the rights of students in Plaintiffs’ Districts to the opportunity for a SBE. AND AS FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 43. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1” through “42” as though fully set forth herein at length. 44. The state educational system is unconstitutional for it has failed, and continues to fail, to provide all children in Plaintiffs’ Districts the opportunity for a sound basic education. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1” through “44” as though fully set forth herein at length. 46. The Education Article of the State Constitution which requires the Legislature to provide a system wherein all children may be educated means that all children must have a meaningful opportunity for a sound basic education, and that system, in order to provide a meaningful opportunity, must compensate for the varying educational, physical, emotional, mental and socioeconomic disadvantages that children have. 47. The State Educational system is unconstitutional for failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for children in Plaintiff's Districts by not compensating for these various educational, emotional, mental and socioeconomic disadvantages. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION48. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs "1" through "47" as though fully set forth herein at length. 49. The Education Article of the State Constitution which requires the Legislature to provide a system wherein all children may be educated means that all children must have a meaningful opportunity for a sound basis education, and that system, in order to provide a meaningful opportunity, must compensate for the varying education, physical, emotional, mental, and socioeconomic disadvantages that children have. 50. The State Educational System is unconstitutional for failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for all children in poor urban, suburban and rural school districts by not compensating for these various educational, emotional, mental, and socioeconomic disadvantages. AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION51. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs “1” through “50” as though fully set forth herein at length. 52. The State Educational system is unconstitutional for failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for all economically disadvantaged children in Plaintiffs' Districts, all racial and ethic minority children in Plaintiffs' Districts, and for all children with disabilities in Plaintiffs' Districts. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION53. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs "1" through "52" as though fully set forth herein at length. 54. The State Education system is unconstitutional for failure to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education for all economically disadvantaged children, all racial and ethic minority children, and for all children with disabilities attending school districts with high concentrations of poverty. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment as follows: 1. Declaring that Defendant’s failure to appropriate sufficient funds to permit the Plaintiffs’ Districts to provide sufficient educational services to insure opportunities to meet or exceed the statewide standards of educational quality and quantity, violates Defendant’s obligations under the Educational Article of New York State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1; 2. Permanently enjoining Defendant to create and maintain a State Education aid system that complies with the requirements of the Education Article of the New York Constitution and that provides a meaningful opportunity to receive an education meeting the minimum standards articulated by the Court of Appeals in (CFE I and CFE II) to all public school students in the Plaintiffs’ Districts; 3. Permanently enjoining Defendant to create and maintain a state education aid system that complies with the requirements of the Education Article of the New York Constitution and that provides a meaningful opportunity to receive an education meeting the minimum standards articulated by the Court of Appeals in (CFE I and CFE II) to all public school students in all public school districts in the state; 4. Providing that this Court retain jurisdiction over this action, to ensure compliance with the injunctive relief; 5. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this action; and 6. Providing such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: Albany, New York March 18, 2005 ROBERT E. BIGGERSTAFF, ESQ.
________________________________ Robert E. Biggerstaff, Esq. Main Square, 318 Delaware Avenue Delmar, New York 12054 518- 475-9500
Glen P. Doherty, Esq. 75 State Street, P.O. Box 459 Albany, New York 12201-0459 518-447-3200
Laura K. Biggerstaff, Esq. Main Square, 318 Delaware Avenue Delmar, New York 12054 518-475-9500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
|
•Albany
|