What is the right to a “Sound, basic education?”

The right to a sound, basic education is rooted in Article XI, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, which states, “the 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.”

Yet it was a 1982 court decision, Board of Education, Levittown Union Free School District v Nyquist, which interpreted Article XI to establish the state’s responsibility to provide a sound, basic education for every student.  But what is a “sound, basic education?”

In 2003, a New York Court of Appeals decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York offered a definition.  A sound, basic education is "The opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to function productively as civic participants."  In this decision, the court found that the state violated the Constitution by failing to provide New York City public schools adequate resources to deliver a sound, basic education.

This additional topic evaluates New York’s public education system ten years after CFE v. State of New York.  With many school districts underfunded and grossly unequal, we must ask, is New York State meeting its constitutional obligation to provide all students a sound, basic education?

New York Education, Unequal and Underfunded

New York State will invest nearly $14 billion in statewide education during FY 2013, placing it third nationally, behind only California and Texas.  Yet as the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) shows in their 2013 report, New York also ranks fifth nationally for having the biggest gap between the rich and poor districts on spending per pupil.  This inequity, where those schools most in need receive the least support, violates our children' right to a sound, basic education as promised in our New York State Constitution.

Key Facts:

·      There is an $8,601 per pupil spending gap between the state’s wealthiest and poorest school districts;

·      As many as one third of schools in poor districts do not have enough art teachers to meet state requirements for art, and over half of these schools fail to meet the state’s minimum requirements for physical education;

·      Due to recent budget cuts, 77 percent of superintendents of schools across the state say they will be unable to fund all state and federal mandates within four years, and 17 percent will not be able to fund these mandates beyond just two years.

Why is school funding distributed unequally?

New York’s schools receive funding from the federal government, the state government, and local governments.  The funding provided by local government is significant.  Raising upwards of $30 billion annually in property taxes, local governments spend over 60 percent of this amount, or $20 billion, supporting local schools.[1]

Yet forcing schools to depend on revenue from taxes guarantees inequality between wealthy and poor school districts.  Even before the economic crisis, poorer districts saw their tax base shrinking, with fewer dollars going to support essential school programs. 

Additionally, in 2011, the State Legislature limited the amount local governments could increase property tax revenue in a year to just 2 percent, further restricting the ability of schools to raise extra revenue.

Unfortunately, state funding is insufficient to address this inequality.  The Governor’s FY 2013 budget was an improvement on previous years, providing an additional $321 million in classroom aid through Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA) restorations and $203 million in “Fiscal Stabilization Funds.” 

Though this seems substantial, similar restorations during FY 2012 failed to stem the tide of education cuts, with 59% of schools across the state increasing class size, 15% of schools reducing art classes, and 31% of schools reducing summer school due to budget constraints. 

These cuts are just the latest in 5+ years of financial hardship.  The Utica school district is not unusual in that, over the past four years, it was forced to cut 311 positions, of which 175 were teachers.

How does this underfunding impact schools?

The result of underfunding at the state level and reliance on local property taxes at the municipal level is massive inequality between New York’s wealthiest schools districts and its poorest, with poorer districts spending an average of $8,601 less per student than wealthier districts. 

Table provided by the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) in “Confronting the Opportunity Gap.”

This discrepancy translates to larger classes and fewer extracurricular activities, personalized coaching, and advanced placement (AP) courses for poorer students. 

The following summary of programs available to students in four wealthy school districts, provided by AQE, illustrates this disparity.

Scarsdale (Westchester) High School offers 15 AP courses and another 6 college preparatory and SAT preparation courses, 21 art classes, 28 performing arts classes, 4 foreign languages, 21 sports teams, and an intensive college preparatory process that includes annual guidance counseling, college planning and a college testing program for 9^th to 12^th grades.

Rye (Westchester) offers 22 AP courses, 27 sports teams, high school programs such as performing arts (drama, vocal, dance), tutoring, and a writing mentor program.  In the elementary schools, class sizes are limited to 20 students and middle school classes are limited to 23 students.

Chappaqua (Westchester) has only 1,300 students and offers 72 sports teams, 2 student publications, 85 clubs and 50% of students taking advantage of 18 AP course (with an 81% success rate).

Jericho (Nassau) High School offers 26 college or AP courses (including Chinese, business law, and civil engineering), 26 arts and performing arts classes, 10 business classes, 6 foreign languages, and 20 sports teams.

The AQE also found that, out of eight low income school districts, one third did not enough art teachers to meet state requirements, more than half of the schools failed to meet the state’s minimum requirements for physical education, and all but one school were unable to provide students with college readiness counseling and support.

The result is predictable: students attending schools in poorer districts are 27% less likely to graduate than students in wealthier districts.  Their likelihood of graduating adequately prepared for college relative to their more affluent peers is lower still. 

Why is this a Constitutional Question?

As discussed in the introduction, the 1982 court decision in Board of Education, Levittown Union Free School District v Nyquist established the state’s responsibility in providing a sound, basic education for every student, later defined as the "opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to function productively as civic participants."  In school districts unable to raise sufficient funds through tax revenue, the State must therefore play a more central role in guaranteeing students receive a minimum level of education. 

Yet the Levittown case also declared that, constitutionally, gross inequality in our schools is acceptable.  In his decision, Judge Jones argued that, “recognizing the existence of the very real disparities of financial support as found by the lower courts, we nonetheless conclude that such disparities do not establish that there has been a violation of either Federal or State Constitution.”

Judge Jones argued that, as of 1982, the state was meeting its duty to deliver funding sufficient for a sound, basic education.  Yet in the future, should a “gross and glaring inadequacy” in state funding be demonstrated, Jones argued that the courts could mandate a “higher priority” for education.

The 2003 Court of Appeals decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York did just this, finding gross and glaring inadequacies in New York’s public education to be in violation of Article XI of the Constitution and requiring that the state provide additional funding. 

Clearly, however, the current language of the constitution does not ensure equal access to a sound, basic education.  An $8,601 gap between students in wealthy school districts and those in poor school districts is plainly a “gross and glaring inadequacy” in need of state intervention. 

Now is the time to invest in educating the next generation of New Yorkers by enacting a constitutional amendment to better provide for our youth.  We must call on our legislators and Governor Cuomo to adequately fund schools in all districts, wealthy and poor, and renew our state’s promise of a sound, basic education and a path to prosperity for every student.