Home Home Home About Us Home About Us About Us About Us /links/index.html /links/index.html /links/index.html /advertising/index.html /links/index.html /advertising/index.html /advertising/index.html /advertising/index.html About Us About Us /archives/index.html About Us /archives/index.html About Us /archives/index.html /archives/index.html /subscribe/index.html /archives/index.html /subscribe/index.html /archives/index.html /subscribe/index.html /subscribe/index.html /survey/index.html /subscribe/index.html /survey/index.html /subscribe/index.html /survey/index.html /survey/index.html /survey/index.html /links/index.html /survey/index.html /links/index.html /links/index.html /links/index.html
Home About Us About Us /links/index.html /advertising/index.html /advertising/index.html
About Us /archives/index.html /archives/index.html /subscribe/index.html /subscribe/index.html /survey/index.html /survey/index.html /survey/index.html /links/index.html

FAMOUS INTERVIEWS

Directories:

SCHOLARSHIPS & GRANTS

HELP WANTED

Tutors

Workshops

Events

Sections:

Books

Camps & Sports

Careers

Children’s Corner

Collected Features

Colleges

Cover Stories

Distance Learning

Editorials

Famous Interviews

Homeschooling

Medical Update

Metro Beat

Movies & Theater

Museums

Music, Art & Dance

Special Education

Spotlight On Schools

Teachers of the Month

Technology

Archives:

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

1995-2000


 
New York City
November 2001

Round 2 in CFE School Finance Case —Governor’s Appeal Blasted—
By Assemblyman Steven Sanders

I was pleased, as Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Education, to submit an amicus brief on September 28 to the Appellate Division-First Department opposing defendant-Governor Pataki’s appeal in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case, where the court below found the State’s system of school financing unconstitutional
and grossly inadequate for the City and other
districts.

Much of the defendant’s argument in this appeal revolves around a contention that a “sound basic education” should be construed in the most minimal way and that resources to provide this “sound basic education” are currently adequate in the New York City school district.

It is a disgrace for Governor Pataki to argue that our State constitutional requirement that a public school system must provide a sound basic education is “minimal,” and to further argue that courts “may not find a denial of an opportunity for a sound basic education” unless that education is “so debilitating that it is tantamount to no education at all . . .”

The implication of the Pataki argument is that New York State is merely obligated to support and maintain the public school system at the level of educational functioning that prevailed in 1894, when the constitutional provision was adopted.

In my brief, I sharply rebuked the Governor’s contention that the Regents’ standards are “aspirational”—in other words, ethereal and disconnected from what students need to know for
college and careers.

True, I have taken issue with aspects of the Regents’ standards, including the one-size-fits-all-approach and what I believe is an overzealous reliance on standardized testing and a climate where high standards are being confused with high-stakes tests. This notwithstanding, what I argued is the fact that the standards were promulgated by the Regents as part of their constitutional duties, which means that if students cannot pass all five Regents—in English, math, global history, United States history and science—then they are denied a high school diploma.

The consequences of not receiving a high school diploma, I argued, clearly are catastrophic; a youngster without this accreditation is unable to matriculate in a college, is barred from applying for many civil service jobs, may not serve in the United States armed services and faces severely limited private sector employment opportunities.

It is inconceivable that anyone in the State of New York could consider the “sound basic education” to which students are entitled to be at a level lower than the level the State now requires for students to graduate from high school.

I urged the Court to acknowledge that the current Regents’ standards “provide a concrete expression of the type and level of skills needed for a sound basic education in the 21st century, and that students therefore are entitled to the resources necessary to have a reasonable opportunity to meet them.

This does not necessarily mean that these standards are synonymous with the constitutional definition, and it does not mean that the constitutional right is defined by whatever the Regents’ standards in fact are.

Nevertheless, since the Regents’ standards—imperfect as they may be—do constitute the official educational policy of the State of New York at this time, and since they relate to the set of knowledge and skills comporting with the sound basic education mandate, then having the resources for children to meet these standards is fundamental.

Finally, I argued that the remedy ordered by the trial court appropriately articulates guidelines that would greatly aid the legislative process without unduly intruding upon the proper prerogatives of the Legislature. This entails that the State determine, to the maximum extent possible, the actual costs of providing a sound basic education in districts around the state and reform the finance system to ensure that every school district has the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education for every child in every district.

 

Education Update, Inc., P.O. Box 20005, New York, NY 10001. Tel: (212) 481-5519. Fax: (212) 481-3919. Email: ednews1@aol.com.
All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2001.




POLITICS IN EDUCATION

DIRECTORIES