by AFT President Sandra Feldman
February 2001

The school funding
verdict recognizes
that all kids
have a right to learn.

Several weeks ago, New York State Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse rendered a sweeping decision ordering the state to provide adequate funding for a "sound, basic" education for the children in New York City's public schools.

In a detailed, forceful decision, Justice DeGrasse defined what he means, using criteria such as the number of qualified teachers, class size, and whether there are sufficient classroom supplies. He laid out an argument that started with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education , which called education "the very foundation of good citizenship," and he went on to order a wholesale change in the formula the state uses to distribute school funding.

Justice DeGrasse argued that the failure to provide an opportunity for a sound, basic education to New York City students also constituted "unjustified disparate impact on minority students" and said the state was violating both state and federal law.

In defining what a "sound, basic" education means today, Justice DeGrasse took as an example what is required for a citizen to serve competently on a jury. Jurors today, he said, may have to determine questions of fact involving "DNA evidence, statistical analyses, and convoluted financial fraud, to name only three topics."

A Problem that Must be Solved

He also emphasized that the New York City schools--which do remarkably well considering their conditions--have the largest numbers of unqualified teachers in the state and the lowest salaries in the region, which he defined, in no uncertain terms, as a major problem that has to be solved.

New York's governor, George Pataki, who has called the New York State educational funding formula a "dinosaur," has decided to appeal. But the die is cast.

Those who supported the suit--parents, the teachers' union, civil rights groups, and lawyers, including one of the city's top corporate firms, which did years of pro bono work on it--were ecstatic.

The responses of children asked by the New York Times to write essays on what they would do if enough resources were available said it all. One fifth grader said she'd use them for a "supply store" because some kids don't have any school supplies. Another said, "I would improve my school by buying computers." A third wanted "more teachers for art, reading, and math."

Eighth graders called for new schools to relieve overcrowding or redesigned buildings and "stimulating" after-school activities. One eleventh grader talked about "laboratory classrooms with proper equipment and simply enough chairs for all students." Others called for smaller classes and more teachers.

The kids were very practical; their wish lists, heartbreaking.

The arguments that the plaintiffs made are not new. We've heard them all before in other court cases and in countless efforts by parents and teachers to obtain more equitable school funding. There is greater urgency now because of the commitment to higher standards and new, state-imposed requirements of accountability to meet them.

The standards and accountability approach to reforming education still has many problems and much that needs to be corrected. But one thing is sure: It has made plain and transparent the need for resources--spent wisely--to improve the low-performing schools too many poor children attend.

The Wisdom of Children

The New York City decision is one of many examples of efforts to revamp school funding across the country, several of which have already reached fruition. Some originated as court suits; others stem from the challenge of higher standards and accountability required by the state or the federal government. A number--for example, those in New Jersey, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Texas, now joined by New York--have concerned themselves especially with the needs of underfunded districts.

All of this is long overdue. And there isn't any more time to waste in political squabbles. Across the country, the American people have made clear they want their schools improved--all their schools. They want poor children, immigrant children, black and Latino children also to be provided with what they need in school to become productive citizens, and they're willing to pay for that.

Yes, they want their money to be spent wisely, on what works. And for that we can look not only to the thoughtful, careful blueprint laid out by Justice DeGrasse but to the wisdom of the children themselves who, as their New York Times essays showed, can clearly see the advantages that others enjoy and that they are missing.