MAISTO v. STATE (2019)

Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.

Larry J. MAISTO and Mary Frances Maisto, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE of New York, Defendant.

8997-08

Decided: January 10, 2019

NIXON PEABODY LLP 1, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (William Reynolds, Esq., of Counsel), 677 Broadway, 10th Floor, Albany, New York 12207 WHITE & CASE LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (Gregory G. Little, Esq., Joshua B. Elmore, Esq., and Laura J. Garr, Esq., of Counsel), 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036 THE BIGGERSTAFF LAW FIRM, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (Robert E. Biggerstaff, Esq. and Laura K. Biggerstaff, Esq., of Counsel), 1280 New Scotland Road, Slingerlands, New York 12159 EDUCATION LAW CENTER, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (David G. Sciarra, Esq. and Wendy Lecker, Esq., of Counsel), 60 Park Place, Suite 300, Newark, New Jersey 07102 NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (Megan M. Mercy, Esq., of Counsel), 800 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham, New York 12110 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES 2, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for Defendant, (Richard Lombardo, Esq., David Fruchter, Esq., and Melissa Latino, Esq., of Counsel), The Capitol, Albany, New York 12224 STINSON, LEONARD, STREET LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, (John Munich, Esq., and Jamie L. Boyer, Esq., of Counsel), 77000 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105

This action by representatives of schoolchildren from eight small city school districts in New York State follows the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (“CFE”) litigation involving the New York City schools, which spanned approximately twelve years, and resulted in a judicial determination that the State of New York (“State”) was violating the constitutional rights of New York City's schoolchildren (see Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307 [1995][“CFE I”]; Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 100 NY2d 893 [2003][“CFE II”]; Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 8 NY3d 14 [2006][“CFE III”]). The cornerstone of the determination in the CFE case was that State education funding to New York City schools was so inadequate that it deprived New York City schoolchildren of their constitutionally-mandated opportunity for a sound basic education (see CFE II, 100 NY2d at 908-919). The plaintiffs here have made similar claims.

Development of Foundation Aid Post-CFE

In 2007, in response to the judicial determination in CFE that the State's funding mechanism for the New York City schools was constitutionally inadequate, the executive and legislative branches of New York State government reformed the method of determining school aid for all school districts in the State of New York. This reform wholly changed the way school funding was calculated, creating a new funding formula called “Foundation Aid.” Foundation Aid is calculated on a per student basis, as follows:

[S]tart with a foundation amount, which is a single number ․ [M]ultiply that by a district specific pupil needs index and then ․ multiply that number by a district specific regional cost index, which yields ․ a total adjusted foundation amount from which ․ an expected minimum local contribution [is subtracted]. The difference of that subtraction yields ․ a State aid per pupil, which is the foundation aid per pupil amount (tr at 4031).

The foundation amount is derived from the “Successful Schools Model.” Essentially, the New York State Department of Education looks at the data from school districts that meet certain achievement criteria, and then the per pupil spending in those districts is analyzed. Next, a subset of the lower-half of those spending districts is created,³ and the average per pupil spending within that subset is calculated. That amount is the foundation amount, which is updated every three years.

This fundamental change in the way school aid is calculated in New York State was the subject of years of analysis and negotiation by and between the Legislature and the Executive. It was enacted in 2007 by the Legislature, and was signed into law by the Governor as a part of the State budget. The new law created a plan to implement an increase of $5.5 billion in school aid for the entire State over a period of four years.

Furthermore, the State engaged in non-fiscal reforms following the CFE case that were designed to improve the overall performance of the schools through accountability measures and raising standards, as well as teacher performance evaluation. During this time period, Federal funding known as “Race to the Top” was being implemented, along with increased standards known as “Common Core.” All witnesses at trial noted the negative impact that these significant changes had on student performance, both statewide and nationwide. The increase in standards and substantial changes in standardized testing resulted in significant decreases in student performance across the State, impacting the eight school districts and negatively influencing their students’ performance.

In the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 State budgets, Foundation Aid was enacted and implemented as originally planned. However, the enacted State budget in 2009-2010 included a freeze in the amount of Foundation Aid at the 2008-2009 level. The 2008-2009 budget also reduced the amount of school aid through a mechanism called a “Deficit Reduction Assessment.”⁴ Beginning in 2010-2011, the enacted State budget again included the Foundation Aid freeze, as well as a Gap Elimination Adjustment (“GEA”), which reduced the school aid amount for each district. Foundation Aid began to be phased in again in the 2012-2013 State budget, and the GEA has been reduced or rolled back piecemeal over several recent budget years.

Plaintiffs’ Case - The Trial

It is against this backdrop that plaintiffs, representatives of children in eight small city school districts ⁵ in the State of New York, brought this action against the State for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the schoolchildren in these school districts are being deprived of the opportunity for a sound basic education, required by Article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, based upon the reduction in State education funding noted above. The trial of this matter took place over the course of approximately two months, commencing on January 21, 2015 and concluding on March 12, 2015. The Court had a full opportunity to consider the evidence presented with respect to the issues in the case, including testimony from many witnesses, as well as countless exhibits and the voluminous pleadings.

The Court also reviewed the parties’ post-trial submissions, including, among other things, a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Joint Statement”), dated October 28, 2015, in which they stipulated to the following categories of information presented at the trial for each of the school districts: enrollments, demographics, staffing counts/ratios, class sizes, per pupil expenditures, graduation rates, dropout and suspension rates, and test scores. The Court adopts these stipulated facts and incorporates the Joint Statement in its entirety by reference herein. There were numerous stipulations during the course of the trial that are also recognized by this Court, and are incorporated into this Decision and Order/Judgment.

The amount of State aid received by each of the eight school districts for each year ⁶ was not the subject of a stipulation. However, based upon the presentation of this issue in the parties’ post-trial submissions, there is no disagreement regarding the amount of State aid provided or the amount of the GEA. In fact, it appears as though the only reason these numbers were not the subject of a stipulation was the way the numbers were described and presented, and the disagreement about the plaintiff's characterization regarding a “gap” in the State aid. Nevertheless, the actual numbers are undisputed.

This Court issued a Decision and Order, dated September 19, 2016, dismissing the Third Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs appealed and the Appellate Division, Third Department reversed this Court's determination and remitted the matter back to this Court (see Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248 [3d Dept 2017]). The Appellate Division, Third Department directed that this Court make factual findings relating to inputs and causation for each of the eight school districts, as well as a determination regarding the declaratory relief requested in each cause of action. The Court further directed that this Court

must weigh the adequacy of the inputs—on a district-by-district basis—considering the quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate “instrumentalities of learning,” including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted). When evaluating the quality of teaching instruction, consideration should be given to whether class sizes must be reduced and whether additional supplemental services—for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers—must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted). For any district where the court finds that the inputs were insufficient, it must determine—on a district-by-district basis—whether plaintiffs have established causation by showing that increased funding can provide inputs that yield better student performance (citation omitted).

The common thread running through the eight school districts is one of high-need, based upon the demographics of most of the children in the districts. It is undisputed that many, and often a majority, of children in these districts are economically disadvantaged, have disabilities, and/or have limited English proficiency. The parties generally agree that children with higher needs often require programs to address the problems that their situations and circumstances create. The performance of the children in these school districts is undeniably inadequate. This Court recognized that the data presented by the plaintiffs demonstrated inadequate outputs, and the Appellate Division reiterated that finding, so that portion of the CFE analysis need not be undertaken. The inadequacy of the outputs is generally agreed upon by both parties.

CFE Decisions: Setting the Legal Landscape

Analysis of the constitutional adequacy of school aid, as well as the Court's role in making such determination, must necessarily begin with CFE. In CFE I, the Court of Appeals held that the Education Article of the New York State Constitution “requires the State to offer all children the opportunity of a sound basic education” (86 NY2d 307, 316 [1995]). A sound basic education was understood by the Court to mean “the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable children to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury” (CFE I, 86 NY2d at 316). Eight years later, in CFE II, the Court of Appeals defined “sound basic education” more exactly as “the opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares [children] to function productively as civic participants” (100 NY2d 893, 908 [2003]).

In determining whether New York City schoolchildren were being provided the opportunity for a sound basic education required by the State Constitution, the Court of Appeals, in CFE II, reviewed the “inputs” children receive, i.e., teaching, facilities, and instrumentalities of learning, and the resulting “outputs,” such as test results, graduation rates, and drop out rates, and concluded that the plaintiffs had “establish[ed] ․ a causal link between the present funding system and [a] failure to provide a sound basic education to New York City schoolchildren” (100 NY2d at 908, 919). The Court agreed with the trial court's reasoning “that the necessary ‘causal link’ between the present funding system and the poor performance of City schools could be established by a showing that increased funding can provide better teachers, facilities and instrumentalities of learning,” and found “that this showing together with evidence that such improved inputs yield better student performance, constituted plaintiffs’ prima facie case, which plaintiffs established” (id. at 919).

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held “that, whether measured by ‘inputs’ or ‘outputs,’ New York City schoolchildren [were] not receiving the constitutionally-mandated opportunity for a sound basic education” (id.). In rendering this determination, the Court observed that

[p]laintiffs have prevailed here owing to a unique combination of circumstances: New York City schools have the most student need in the [S]tate and the highest local costs yet receive some of the lowest per-student funding and have some of the worst results. Plaintiffs in other districts who cannot demonstrate a similar combination may find tougher going in the courts (id. at 932 [emphasis in original]).

To remedy the constitutional violation, the Court directed the State to “ascertain the actual cost of providing a sound basic education to New York City,” adding that “[r]eforms to the current system of financing school funding and managing schools should address the shortcomings of the current system by ensuring, as part of that process, that every school in New York City would have the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education,” and that the “new scheme should ensure a system of accountability to measure whether the reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound basic education” (id. at 930). The State was given a July 30, 2004 deadline to implement the necessary measures (see id. at 930-931).

CFE III, decided by the Court of Appeals in 2006, addressed “the cost of providing children in New York City's public schools with a sound basic education” (8 NY3d 14, 19 [2006]). In doing so, the Court discussed the role of the courts in evaluating challenges to components of the State budget, stating:

In CFE II, we expressed the necessity for courts to tread carefully when asked to evaluate state financing plans. On the one hand, the Judiciary has a duty “to defer to the Legislature in matters of policymaking, particularly in a matter so vital as education financing, which has as well a core element of local control. We have neither the authority, nor the ability, nor the will, to micromanage education financing” (100 NY2d at 925). On the other hand, “it is the province of the Judicial branch to define, and safeguard, rights provided by the New York State Constitution, and order redress for violation of them (id.)” (8 NY3d at 28).

The Court went on further to state that “ ‘[w]hile it is within the power of the [J]udiciary to declare the vested rights of a specifically protected class of individuals, in a fashion recognized by statute ․ the manner by which the State addresses complex societal and governmental issues is a subject left to the discretion of the political branches of government,’ ” (id., quoting Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Empls., Dist. Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 239-240 [1984]), and that “[w]hen [the Judiciary] review[s] the acts of the Legislature and the Executive, [it] do[es] so to protect rights, not make policy” (id.).

According to the Court, “[d]eference to the Legislature is especially necessary where it is the State's budget plan that is being questioned” because “[d]evising a [S]tate budget is a prerogative of the Legislature and Executive” and “the Judiciary should not usurp this power” (id. at 28-29). The Court recognized that “[t]he legislative and executive branches of government are in a far better position than the Judiciary to determine funding needs throughout the [S]tate and priorities for the allocation of State resources” (id. at 29), and noted that the “deference to the Legislature's education financing plans is justified not only by the prudent and practical hesitation in light of the limited access of the Judiciary to the controlling economic and social facts, but also by [the] abiding respect for the separation of powers upon which our system of government is based” (id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As such, the Court maintained, the Judiciary “cannot intrude upon the policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches” (id.).

Mindful that “[j]udicial intervention in the [S]tate budget may be invoked in only the narrowest circumstances,” the Court of Appeals, in CFE III, found, among other things, that the State's estimated cost to provide New York City's schoolchildren with a sound basic education, which included additional operating funds in the amount of $1.93 billion in 2004 dollars, “was ․ reasonable ․ and that the courts should defer to this estimate, appropriately updated” (8 NY3d at 19-20, 29). Notably, the conditions and circumstances in the New York City schools that led to the Court of Appeal's determination that the funding structure was unconstitutional and that more funding was needed to ensure that New York City children are receiving a sound basic education demonstrate severe need by significantly underperforming schools. As such, the bar was appropriately set very high.

The Parties’ Contentions - Scope of the Case

As in CFE, plaintiffs’ fundamental claim in this case is that the children in the eight small city school districts have been deprived of the opportunity for a sound basic education based upon the inadequate level of funding provided by the State. However, picking up where CFE left off, these plaintiffs contend that the education funding levels created by the enactment of Foundation Aid over the four-year period established in the 2007-2008 enacted State budget provides a constitutional minimum or floor, and the reductions in the enacted budgets in the years that followed violate the New York State Constitution.

Here, the plaintiffs seem to have isolated the problems in these eight school districts in a much more direct and specific way than the plaintiffs in CFE. At trial, plaintiffs focused on what may be utilized by a school district to address the circumstances of high-needs students, namely those who are economically disadvantaged, have disabilities and/or have significant language barriers. The overall theme of the plaintiffs’ case involves what they believe to be the additional steps required to provide these high-needs students with an opportunity for a sound basic education. In addition, they attempted to demonstrate that the freeze in the Foundation Aid formula and the cuts in funding beginning in 2009-2010 were directly related to the poor performance of these students.

The State disputes the plaintiffs’ contentions, and argues that the Legislature and Executive were not bound to the amounts of Foundation Aid enacted in the 2007-2008 budget. The State further contends that the New York State Constitution requires all moneys spent to be done so pursuant to an appropriation, and that such payments must be made within two years of the appropriation (NY Const, art VII, § 7). In addition, the State claims that the funding levels created in the 2007-2008 budget were a statement by the political branches of government about the level of funding that could be provided for in that four-year period, but did not establish a minimum amount that could not be reduced. The State contends that it is the duty of the political branches of government, namely, the Executive and the Legislature, to determine in each budget cycle, how to spend the State's money and meet its constitutional obligations.

Measuring the State's response to the determination in the CFE case is paramount to understanding and analyzing what is constitutionally required. These small city school districts do not take issue with the response from the State to CFE, but instead are critical of the actions taken by the State to reduce funding after Foundation Aid was enacted. The fluid nature of the budget process from year to year, and the continued response by the State to address the issues in the budget relating to education funding make analysis of these issues based upon a snapshot in time nearly impossible to assess given the circumstances of this case. The proof at trial showed the freeze in Foundation Aid, the GEA, and the State's continued response to those changes in education funding.

It is undisputed that the State has already taken steps to address the concerns raised in the CFE case, and fundamentally changed the structure and methodology of education funding in the State of New York, and has also increased the funding levels. It is not the Judiciary's role to make a determination of exactly what number is appropriate to fund a particular school district, but instead the Court must determine whether the State's funding mechanism is reasonable and rational, or if the State has failed to meet its constitutional obligation (see CFE III, 8 NY3d at 14, 26, 29). It is interesting to note that in the plaintiffs’ reply to the defendant's post-trial memorandum, plaintiffs frame the issue as follows:

Unlike in CFE, [p]laintiffs are not alleging that the current funding system (Foundation Aid) is itself inadequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Rather it is the State's failure to fully fund the system that is causing the deprivation of a sound basic education in the Maisto [d]istricts (46).

By framing the issue in this more specific way than was before the Court in CFE, it is clear that the plaintiffs agree that the State took steps to remedy the problems identified by the Court in the CFE case. The fundamental question, then, before this Court is whether the State can alter or adjust the education reform plan that was put into place by changing the levels of funding for each school district based upon the fluctuation of the State's fiscal condition, the needs of the school districts, the level of local contribution and federal funding for the school districts, and other competing issues that are considered in the development of the New York State budget, and still deliver on its obligation to ensure that schoolchildren are provided the opportunity for a sound basic education. The Appellate Division, Third Department has directed this Court to answer that question by performing the analysis outlined in the CFE cases.

ANALYSIS

Jamestown

The fifth and sixth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege that the “․ State educational system has failed, and continues to fail, by reason of insufficient funding, to provide all children in the Jamestown City School District the opportunity for a sound basic education” and that the “State educational system is unconstitutional for it has failed, and continues to fail, by reason of insufficient funding, to provide disadvantaged children throughout the Jamestown City School District the opportunity for a sound basic education.” It should be noted that the language in each cause of action relating to the eight school districts at issue in this action contain identical allegations as to each school district. As such, the language will not be repeated as this Court addresses each school district.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Jamestown City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted)” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Jamestown City School District was relatively constant. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court also notes that number of economically disadvantaged students varied by a few percentage points from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year. However, the ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Jamestown City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) were generally lower for the Jamestown City School District than the New York State ratios, with few exceptions. Even in the years where some areas were higher than the New York State average, the percentage was not a significant change over all of the years. In the first year of the Foundation Aid freeze, the 2009-2010 school year, the ratios for the Jamestown City School District were higher than the statewide ratios, but in the following years, where the Jamestown City School District's funding was cut, the ratios were below the State average. It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Jamestown City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the class sizes in the Jamestown City School District were smaller than the statewide average in the years at issue, and stayed fairly consistent. In CFE I, the Court stated that the class sizes in New York City were consistently higher than the New York State average. In her testimony on behalf of the Jamestown City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Peggy Wozniak (“Dr. Wozniak”) claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). She based this opinion on her experience as a teacher. However, when asked on cross-examination if there were objective standards upon which she based her opinion, Dr. Wozniak stated that there were not. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes.

Dr. Wozniak discussed the Tennessee STAR project (Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio), which was a study of the impact of class size on student achievement. She stated that this study supports the proposition that smaller class sizes positively impact student achievement. However, she also recognized that the evidence on that issue is mixed because there are other studies that do not support that proposition. At trial, one of defendants’ experts, Dr. Eric Hanushek, noted that the improvements discussed in the study were minimal and not of great significance. Thus, he did not believe that the STAR project was of tremendous value, and, as a result, he did not support the notion that smaller class sizes had a definitive effect on student achievement.

The Court agrees with Dr. Wozniak's statement that it is just “logical” that if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. However, despite the truth of that statement, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS instruction as well. However, there is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Jamestown City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

The plaintiffs in this case presented evidence of what may be an ideal situation regarding class size, but that is not what the Court must determine. Similarly, the plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate that lower ratios would be required to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education; however, that was not established as a requirement in CFE. The Court's charge in this case is to determine the constitutionally required minimum to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education, not to decide what the ideal learning environment would be for each student.

Plaintiffs contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Jamestown City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Jamestown City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in each of the four categories, except one, the percentage of teachers meeting each requirement exceeded the State average. The only category in which the Jamestown City School District percentages were below the State average was the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate. This does not demonstrate that the Jamestown City School District has poor quality teachers or that the certification and experience of its teachers are inadequate. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. The teachers in the Jamestown City School District were generally more qualified, or as qualified, as the teachers across the State. Therefore, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Jamestown City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Jamestown City School District. However, those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Jamestown City School District. In addition, the witnesses from the Jamestown City School District testified that there was additional funding available during the years at issue to address any perceived deficiencies. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Jamestown City School District related to technology-related classroom aids, such as smart boards. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding the technology-related classroom aids were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Jamestown City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to further assist schools in upgrades to technology, and the Jamestown City School District was slated to received funds through that program. Therefore, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court, and worth noting, that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial court in CFE noted that “at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement.” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Jamestown City School District provides AIS in reading, but in no other subjects. Specifically, Jessie Joy, Director of Curriculum Instruction and Assessment, testified that they do not provide AIS in the subjects of math, science or social studies. She further indicated that the Jamestown City School District is out of compliance with the State Education Commissioner's regulations with regard to AIS. Notably, the Jamestown City School District has never provided AIS in the subjects of science and social studies. Further, it is unclear from the testimony whether AIS was previously provided in math, and was discontinued or was never provided. Ms. Joy's testimony regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards.

It is critical to note that in CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). As such, the fact that the Jamestown City School District was out of compliance with the Commissioner's regulations regarding AIS is not proof of a constitutional violation. Instead, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Jamestown City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

It is undisputed that the Jamestown City School District only provides AIS for reading. Therefore, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Jamestown City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Jamestown City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert were addressed to the aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

It is without question that school districts must aim to reach every student and make decisions regarding the allocation of resources that maximize that objective. However, it is an unfortunate reality that schools are not going to reach every student in every way and achieve the best level of success with each student. This is true for a variety of reasons that goes well beyond the reach and purpose of the educational system. It is those external factors that are beyond the reach of the schools that play a central role in the plaintiffs’ contentions in this case.

A common thread of the testimony offered by each witness for the plaintiffs was that the school must provide supplemental services to students to address their challenges outside of school, including poverty, breakdown of the family structure, absence of parental guidance, challenges in communication, such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances certainly can provide challenges to the students in the learning environment, however, it is not the core mission of the educational system to repair these outside social concerns and problems. Instead, the educational system must assist as a secondary actor limited to ways that will attempt to address the academic deficiencies of the students on a basic level. To go any further effectively alters the basic mission of the educational system by turning the schools into social services agencies. Put simply, the schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible for fixing all of the negative and difficult circumstances in each student's life.

The Jamestown City School District has consistently made decisions to focus the AIS program on reading, a critical skill. Providing AIS for the other subject areas was not determined to be a priority for many years, not just the years at issue in this case. Furthermore, there was no proof that the cuts to teaching staff were cuts to the AIS offering in the Jamestown City School District. This tends to establish that the desire of the Jamestown City School District to offer a more robust AIS program is aspirational and can be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school moves forward. Moreover, the evaluative tools provided by the State, which include objective review and self-evaluation, especially to a focus district like the Jamestown City School District, include the identification of these same deficiencies within the district as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Jamestown City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Those services are, instead, steps that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students.

This same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Jamestown City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The District has made the determination that additional programs of this nature are not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. In any event, those types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if such programs continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by at-risk students.

Another supplemental service that the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified would benefit the at-risk students in the District was the hiring of social workers to essentially act as a bridge to the students’ home lives and the outside challenges they face. As noted above, this is an aspirational service that could be provided by the schools, but is not mandated by the Constitution in order to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. It is, instead, secondary to the educational mission of the schools, and the schools simply cannot be the institutions responsible for handling all aspects of a student's life. Other entities and agencies should be involved in those areas that go beyond the educational mission of the schools, and work with the schools to assist students in achieving educational success.

II. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the Jamestown City School District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Jamestown City School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. As noted by the defendant's expert, Gregory Hunter, “data-driven and research-based instructional practices using available resources, if successfully implemented should begin to result in improved student performance results.” Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Jamestown City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

Kingston

The seventh and eighth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Kingston City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Kingston City School District declined by over one thousand students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court also notes that number of economically disadvantaged students increased by twelve percent (12%) from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year in the Kingston City School District A comparison of the Kingston City School District and the statewide average shows that the Kingston City School District's percentage of economically disadvantaged students fell below the statewide average by a few percentage points. However, the ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Kingston City School District, including Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) were generally lower for the Kingston City School District than the New York State ratios, with few exceptions.

The only consistently higher ratio for the Kingston City School District from 2006-2007 through 2013-2014 was in the area of Administrative Staff when compared to the statewide average. Additionally, the staffing ratios for Classroom Teachers stayed constant from 2006-2007 through 2013-2014 with less than a percentage point difference. Furthermore, during that time, the Classroom Teacher ratios in Kingston were consistent with the ratios in the region. In the first year of the Foundation Aid freeze, the 2009-2010 school year, the ratios for the Kingston City School District were higher than the statewide ratios, but in the years following, where the Kingston City School District's funding was cut, the ratios were below the State average. It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Kingston City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the class sizes in the Kingston City School District were smaller than the statewide average in the years at issue, and stayed fairly consistent. In CFE I, the Court stated that the class sizes in New York City were consistently higher than the New York State average. In his testimony on behalf of the Kingston City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Stephen Uebbing (“Dr. Uebbing”) claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). He based this opinion on his professional judgment. However, he acknowledged that there are no specific objective standards regarding class sizes. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably, Dr. Uebbing testified that he did not do a review of the officially reported class sizes, but instead based his analysis and opinion on the representations made by the Kingston City School District officials. During Dr. Uebbing's cross-examination, he admitted that when presented with the officially reported numbers, the class sizes represented to him by District officials were higher than the actual class sizes reported. This calls into question his entire analysis regarding class sizes.

In fact, this Court finds that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Uebbing cannot be given any significant weight based upon his failure to rely on officially reported data; his failure to visit all of the schools; his failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; his failure to review the DTSDEs or other analytical tools provided by the State Department of Education that assessed the Kingston City School District; and numerous examples of his lack of general knowledge about the Kingston City School District and the programs and changes that Superintendent Dr. Paul Paladino (“Superintendent Paladino” or “Dr. Paladino”) implemented. Therefore, the Court does not find him to be a credible witness.

However, the Court does agree with Dr. Uebbing's general statement that there are benefits if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class because he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. Despite the truth of that statement, however, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS as well. There is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Kingston City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

It is critical to note that when Superintendent Paladino came to the Kingston City School District in 2012, he took bold steps to address the issues that exist in the District, and has met with some success. One of the biggest impacts came from the closure of four elementary schools. This resulted in a consolidation of students at the remaining seven elementary schools, and the alteration of the grades in the elementary schools from K-5 to K-4. The fifth grade became part of the middle schools. Based upon these closures, the Kingston City School District realized $5 million dollars in annual savings. These closures did not have a tremendous impact on class sizes or other factors because of the manner in which the District accomplished the redistribution of students, and also because the district had realized a significant decline in enrollment.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Kingston City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Kingston City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in each of the four categories, except one, the percentage of teachers in the District meeting that requirement exceeded the State average. The only category in which the Kingston City School District percentages were below the State average was the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate. This does not demonstrate that the Kingston City School District has poor quality teachers or that the certification and experience of its teachers are inadequate. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. The teachers in the Kingston City School District are generally more qualified, or as qualified, as the teachers across the State. Therefore, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Kingston City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Kingston City School District. However, those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Kingston City School District. In addition, both Superintendent Padalino and Dr. Uebbing discussed the $137.5 million bond that was passed to address facilities issues. Dr. Uebbing testified at trial that he no longer had any concerns about facilities issues based upon the passage of the bond. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Kingston City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Kingston City School District related to technology-related classroom aids, such as smart boards. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding the technology-related classroom aids was insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Kingston City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to assist schools in upgrades to technology, and the Kingston City School District was slated to received funds through that program. Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court, and worth noting, that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide the each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

With regard to Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Kingston City School District provides AIS services to its students. Dr. Padalino testified that these are areas in which he would like to commit more resources. Consistent with the testimony of all of the plaintiffs’ witnesses who spoke on this topic, Dr. Padalino would like to add staff to these areas to further assist the District's high-needs students. Dr. Padalino's testimony regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. Significantly, in CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). As such, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Kingston City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

It is undisputed that the Kingston City School District provides some AIS services. Therefore, the question becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Kingston City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert must be discounted, to some extent, regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses who testified regarding the Kingston City School District was addressed to the aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

Under Dr. Padalino's leadership, many changes have been implemented and improvements have been made in the Kingston City School District. The implementation of these initiatives and the success of the same, even at the early stages, is palpable and was recognized by the State's expert, Dr. Gregory Aidala (“Dr. Aidala”). One example of a change that Dr. Padalino implemented is the way in which students are evaluated for their level of success in their current educational year. This data-driven, individualized analysis began with the high school students in an attempt to improve graduation rates in the District. In the few short years that Dr. Padalino had been with the District, graduation rates have improved by a few percentage points, and in 2014, the graduation rate for the Kingston City School District was above the State average.

Another initiative that has begun under Dr. Padalino's leadership is the creation of “academies” to more specifically address the needs of certain student populations. The first academy created was for ninth grade students to assist them in adjusting to high school effectively. A corollary of this program is a summer program for at-risk, incoming ninth graders to immerse them in educational preparation to give them the tools needed to succeed in high school. Dr. Padalino has also overseen implementation of a credit recovery program, which further assists high school students to ensure they have the credits they need to graduate on time.

Dr. Padalino has also made changes at the administrative level to have the District's administrators work more efficiently and focus more on having the appropriate administrative assistance in the school buildings so the administrators can be more hands-on to ensure educational and instructional improvements. This is especially critical with respect to the Annual Professional Performance Review process (APPR) that was implemented by the State along with Foundation Aid in order to assist districts in improving instruction, teacher performance, principal performance, and student outcomes. Finally, the District has hired more instructional coaches to assist in this regard and improve their teachers’ performance. These are just some of the initiatives implemented during Dr. Paladino's leadership. Notably, all of these initiatives involve restructuring, innovative programming, and other changes in the administration of education that do not involve increased assets. Even in the early stages, these initiatives have had a positive impact on the District, especially the at-risk student population.

Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS programs, extended learning time programs, and language services offered by the Kingston City School District can continue to be improved, it cannot be said that the level of services that was demonstrated at trial is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. An increase in providing such services is instead a step that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students.

Despite the positive steps that Dr. Padalino has taken, it is critical to note that the Kingston City School District withdrew its application for a State grant that was specifically designated for Extended Learning Time programs. As noted by Dr. Aidala, the reason is not clear, but this additional funding could have provided the District with further resources to enhance this offering even more and bring the District closer to an optimal level. In addition, the proof at trial showed there were several grants for which the Kingston City School District did not apply that were tailored to the types of supplemental services programs the district would like to enhance. These are missed opportunities to further improve the District's offerings.

Other supplemental services that the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified would benefit the at-risk students in the District was the hiring of social workers, family outreach workers, and guidance counselors to essentially act as a bridge to the students’ home lives and the outside challenges they face. Again, these are aspirational services that could be provided by the schools, but are not mandated by the Constitution in order to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education. These are, instead, secondary to the educational mission of the schools. The schools simply cannot be the institutions responsible for handling all aspects of a student's life. Other entities and agencies should be involved in those areas that go beyond the educational mission of the schools, and work with the schools to assist the students in achieving educational success.

II. Conclusion

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the Kinston City School District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Kingston City School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. As noted by the defendant's expert, Dr. Aidala, the District can continue to improve with effective leadership and continued adherence to utilizing the evaluative tools available to scrutinize areas in which the district can improve. Indeed, recent changes in the Kingston City School District are great examples of how improvements can be achieved by non-fiscal means. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Kingston City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students, especially under the energetic and creative leadership of Dr. Padalino.

Mount Vernon

The eleventh and twelfth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Mount Vernon School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Mount Vernon School District declined by over One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court also notes that the number of economically disadvantaged students fluctuated during the time period of 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year in the Mount Vernon School District by going down and then up and then down again by the 2013-2014 school year. The net difference between 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 was a three percent (3%) increase. A comparison of the Mount Vernon School District and the statewide average shows that the Mount Vernon School District's percentage of economically disadvantaged students was above the statewide average. The ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Mount Vernon School District, including Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) were generally higher than the New York State ratios, with few exceptions. However, the ratios were the same or lower than the county and region ratios.

With regard to Classroom Teacher ratios, overall, the ratios in the Mount Vernon School District decreased during the relevant time period. In the first year of the Foundation Aid freeze, the 2009-2010 school year, the ratios for the Mount Vernon School District were higher than the statewide ratios, but in the following years, where the Mount Vernon School District's funding was cut, the ratios were at or below the State average. It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Mount Vernon School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the class sizes in the Kindergarten and Common Branch grades in the Mount Vernon School District were smaller than the statewide average in the years at issue, and stayed fairly consistent. For the higher grades, the class sizes were generally in line with the statewide average. In the few circumstances where the class sizes were bigger in the higher grades, the numbers were fairly close. In CFE I, the Court stated that the class sizes in New York City were consistently higher than the New York State average.

In his testimony on behalf of the Mount Vernon School District plaintiffs, Dr. Uebbing claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). He based this opinion on his professional judgment. However, he acknowledged that there are no specific objective standards regarding class sizes. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably, Dr. Uebbing testified that he did not do a review of the officially reported class sizes, but instead based his analysis and opinion on the representations made by the Mount Vernon School District officials. During Dr. Uebbing's cross-examination, he admitted that he did not verify the information presented to him by the school officials; he generally took what they said at face value. This calls into question his entire analysis regarding class sizes.

In fact, this Court finds that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Uebbing cannot be given any significant weight based upon his failure to rely on officially reported data; his failure to visit all of the schools; his failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; his failure to review the DTSDEs or other analytical tools provided by the State Department of Education that assessed the Mount Vernon School District; and numerous examples of his lack of general knowledge about the Mount Vernon School District. As such, the Court does not find him to be a credible witness.

The Court agrees with Dr. Uebbing's general statement that there are benefits if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class because he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. However, despite the truth of that statement, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS as well. However, there is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Mount Vernon School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

Notably, the defendant's expert, John McGuire (“Mr. McGuire”), testified that there had been turnover in the position of Superintendent for the Mount Vernon School District often during the years leading up to the trial. He stated that inconsistency in leadership has had a significant impact on the ability of the District to address the issues that exist in the District, especially addressing the proper allocation of resources. Mr. McGuire further testified that the problematic outputs in the Mount Vernon School District are not based upon a lack of resources, but instead are the result of improper allocation of resources, as well as inconsistent leadership. In addition, Mr. McGuire testified that the Superintendent who had been hired not long before the trial in this matter was “off to a very good start” and had begun to address the problems in the District.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Mount Vernon School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Mount Vernon School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in each of the four categories, the percentage of teachers in the District meeting that requirement exceeded or matched the State average. The fact that the teachers in the Mount Vernon School District were generally more qualified, or as qualified, as the teachers across the State demonstrates that the District did not have any deficiencies in this regard. Therefore, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Kingston City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Mount Vernon School District. However, those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Mount Vernon School District. While plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding problems with the facilities, they did not demonstrate that these maintenance issues presented an obstacle for providing the students with the opportunity for a sound basic education. In addition, Mr. McGuire noted that the facilities issues were also the result of inefficient allocation of resources. Dr. Uebbing further testified that the Mount Vernon City School District had over Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in unspent EXCEL funds, which are designated to address facilities issues. This demonstrates that the District has not properly spent or allocated its existing resources. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Mount Vernon School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Mount Vernon School District related generally to technology-related classroom aids. However, there was no real proof at trial regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories. The somewhat conclusory statements regarding the technology-related classroom aids were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Mount Vernon School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. In fact, the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Uebbing removed his criticism of technology in the District based upon improvements that had been made at the time he prepared his addendum to the initial report. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to further assist schools in upgrades to technology. The Mount Vernon School District was slated to received funds through that program in the amount of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00). Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted)” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial court in CFE noted that “at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Mount Vernon School District provides AIS services to its students. The District officials testified that these are areas in which they would like to commit more resources. Consistent with the testimony of all of the plaintiffs’ witnesses who spoke on this topic, they would like to add staff to these areas to further assist these high-needs students. This testimony regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. Notably, in CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). As such, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Mount Vernon School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

It is undisputed that the Mount Vernon School District provides some AIS services. Thus, the question becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Mount Vernon School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses who testified regarding the Mount Vernon School District was addressed to the aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

A common thread of the testimony offered by each witness for the plaintiffs was that the school must provide supplemental services to students to address their challenges outside of school, including poverty, breakdown of the family structure, absence of parental guidance, challenges in communication, such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances certainly can provide challenges to the students in the learning environment, however, it is not the core mission of the educational system to repair these outside social concerns and problems. Instead, the educational system must assist as a secondary actor limited to ways that will attempt to address the academic deficiencies of the students on a basic level. To go any further effectively alters the basic mission of the educational system by turning the schools into social services agencies. Put simply, the schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible to fix all of the negative and difficult circumstances in each student's life.

Notably, Mr. McGuire, as well as other witnesses, discussed the unevenness of the performance of the schools, especially the elementary schools, across the District. The testimony established that certain schools are outperforming other schools within the District, and that this is attributable to a more effective allocation of resources within the more successful schools, as well as adherence to best practices for more effective teaching and administration.

Under the leadership of the Superintendent, Dr. Kenneth Hamilton (“Dr. Hamilton”), in order to begin to address the unevenness of performance across the schools, as well as address the other issues confronting the District, building-based School Improvement Teams have been established and, at the District level, a District Leadership Team has been created. The District has also begun focusing on the State's evaluation process and is working to address the shortcomings identified in those evaluative tools. This type of analysis and development of initiatives is the first step in determining how to more effectively allocate resources and work to ultimately address the deficiencies in the outputs.

Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS programs offered by the Mount Vernon School District can be improved, it cannot be said that the level of services that was demonstrated at trial is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. An increase in those services is instead a step that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students.

This same analysis applies to other supplemental services such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Mount Vernon School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The District has made the determination that an expansion of such programs is not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. In any event, those types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if such programs continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by the students. The proof at trial revealed that the Mount Vernon School District did not apply for a grant program that was specifically for Extended Learning Time programs. This additional funding could have provided the District with further resources to enhance this offering and bring it closer to an optimal level. In addition, the proof at trial showed there were other grants for which the Mount Vernon School District did not apply that were tailored to the types of programs the District would like to enhance. These are missed opportunities to further improve the District's offerings.

Other supplemental services that the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified would benefit the at-risk students was the hiring of social workers, family outreach workers, and guidance counselors to essentially act as a bridge to the students’ home lives and the outside challenges they face. As previously noted, these are aspirational services that could be provided by the schools, but are not mandated by the Constitution in order to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education. They are, instead, secondary to the educational mission of the schools. The schools simply cannot be the institutions responsible for handling all aspects of a student's life. Other entities and agencies should be involved in those areas that go beyond the educational mission of the schools and work with the schools to assist the students in achieving educational success.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the Mount Vernon School District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Mount Vernon School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. As noted by the defendant's expert, Mr. McGuire, the District can continue to improve with effective leadership and continued adherence to utilizing the evaluative tools available to scrutinize areas in which the District can improve and more effectively allocate its resources. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Mount Vernon School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students, especially under the new leadership of Dr. Hamilton.

Newburgh

The thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege that the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Newburgh City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted)” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Newburgh City School District consistently decreased, with an overall decrease from the 2006-2007 school year through the 2014-2015 school year of One Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Three (1,173) students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court notes that number of economically disadvantaged students varied by a few percentage points from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year. However, the ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Newburgh City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) varied in the different categories when compared over the years in question, and when compared to the State and regional ratios. For the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, the ratios for Administrative Staff were generally higher than the State average but were generally lower for the Newburgh City School District than the county and region. For the years 2010-2011 through 2013-14, the ratios for the Newburgh City School District varied when compared to the State, region, and county. Sometimes they were higher, sometimes they were lower or the same. Even in the years where some areas were higher than the New York State average, the percentage was not a significant change over all of the years.

With regard to Guidance Counselors, the Newburgh City School District maintained the ratio over the years in question. The ratio regarding Classroom Teachers stayed fairly constant during the time period in question, despite the statewide average consistently increasing. It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Newburgh City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the comparison between class sizes in the Newburgh City School District and the statewide average in the years at issue varied. The Kindergarten class sizes were the subject of a good portion of the testimony at trial regarding class sizes. The proof at trial showed that the Kindergarten class sizes, while larger than the statewide average, were still only larger by a few students. Further, upon review of the class sizes in the other grade levels in the Newburgh City School District compared to the statewide, county and regional averages, the Newburgh City School District had comparable numbers or had class sizes that were lower. The District officials who testified were cognizant of Kindergarten class sizes, and were working to improve those numbers.

In his testimony on behalf of the Newburgh City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Uebbing claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). He based this opinion on his professional judgment. However, he acknowledged that there are no specific objective standards regarding class sizes. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably, Dr. Uebbing testified that he did not do a review of the officially reported class sizes, but instead based his analysis and opinion on the representations made by the Newburgh City School District officials. During Dr. Uebbing's cross-examination, he admitted that he did not verify the information presented to him by the school officials; he generally took what they said at face value. This calls into question his entire analysis regarding class sizes.

In fact, this Court finds that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Uebbing cannot be given any significant weight based upon his failure to rely on officially reported data; his failure to visit all of the schools; his failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; his failure to review the DTSDEs or other analytical tools provided by the State Department of Education that assessed the Newburgh City School District; and numerous examples of his lack of general knowledge about the Newburgh City School District. Therefore, the Court does not find him to be a credible witness.

However, the Court does agree with Dr. Uebbing's general statement that there are benefits if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class because he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. Despite the truth of that statement, however, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS instruction as well. There is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. As such, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Newburgh City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Newburgh City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors demonstrating that the Newburgh City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in each of the four categories, the percentage of teachers meeting that requirement exceeded the State average. The Newburgh City School District teachers’ qualifications in each category was generally improving and demonstrates a well-qualified teaching staff. It is worth noting that the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate was significantly higher than the statewide average, and was consistently increasing over the time period in question. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Newburgh City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Newburgh City School District. However, those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Newburgh City School District. In addition, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City School District has taken steps in recent years to plan for and attain funding for capital improvement projects. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Stephen Uebbing, testified that with two exceptions, he found the facilities to be adequate. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Newburgh City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Newburgh City School District related to technology-related classroom aids, such as smart boards. However, there was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding the technology-related classroom aids were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Newburgh City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. In fact, the Superintendent testified that some schools in the District had more than adequate technology available, and others had less adequate technology available, resulting in an uneven distribution of technology resources in the District. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to assist schools in upgrades to technology. The Newburgh City School District was slated to received funds through that program. Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court, and worth noting, that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial court in CFE noted that “․ at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement.” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to special education and Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Newburgh City School District provides required special education services and instruction and some AIS, especially in reading. The testimony from the school district officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. In CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). As such, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Newburgh City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

Because the Newburgh City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Newburgh City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The plaintiffs have presented this Court with the question of whether more individualized and supplemental attention is required for certain students in order to provide them with the opportunity for a sound basic education. The plaintiffs contend that the failure of the at-risk student population to achieve certain benchmarks necessitates a finding that the inputs are constitutionally infirm. However, such analysis is circular, and cannot alone serve as the basis for a finding of constitutional infirmity. To determine if there is a constitutional violation, the Court must review the evidence presented at trial regarding the inputs overall, including the allocation of resources, both financial and non-financial. The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Newburgh City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert, were a discussion of aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

Plaintiffs have attempted to portray this reality as the government and others giving up on these at-risk students. That is simply not true. Resources are provided to the school districts to assist in making good decisions and charting the right course for the students in the school districts. This is done by providing state aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City School District has adequate financial resources to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of resources must be improved to improve the outputs throughout the District. This is especially true for the AIS program. The Newburgh City School District has consistently made decisions to focus the AIS program on reading, a critical skill. The desire of the Newburgh City School District to offer a more robust AIS program is aspirational, and can be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school moves forward.

The Court further notes that the evaluative tools provided by the State, which include objective review and self-evaluation, especially to a focus district like the Newburgh City School District, include the identification of the same deficiencies within the district as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Newburgh City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services in all subject areas is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Expansion of the AIS services offered is instead a step that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students.

The same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs are not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. Nevertheless, these types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if they continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by the students.

Another supplemental service that the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified would benefit the at-risk students was the hiring of social workers to essentially act as a bridge to the students’ home lives and the outside challenges they face. As previously noted, this is an aspirational service that could be provided by the schools, but is not mandated by the Constitution in order to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education. It is, instead, secondary to the educational mission of the schools. The schools simply cannot be the institutions responsible for handling all aspects of a student's life. Other entities and agencies should be involved in those areas that go beyond the educational mission of the schools, and work with the schools to assist students in achieving educational success.

The proof at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City School District has made some District-wide decisions that have impacted the educational offerings. One significant educational choice that has been made by the District is in the structure of the elementary schools. The Newburgh City School District offers parents a choice of the elementary school they wish their child to attend based upon a theme-based magnet school structure. As noted by the State's expert, Dr. Gregory Aidala, this structure includes specialized instruction and may not be the most efficient use of the school district's resources. This concept of specialized instruction also carries over to the high school, where the school district has developed “academies” to target certain populations of students. While this Court makes no determination regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of such programs, the allocation of resources to maintain such programs must be considered as the Newburgh City School District makes plans to move forward.

While the Newburgh City School District faces challenges, those challenges are not insurmountable. The new Superintendent, Dr. Robert Padilla (“Dr. Padilla”), testified about the vision he has for the School District and some of the ideas and programs he was already starting to implement while his tenure as Superintendent was in its infancy. He described the “coaching model” that he had begun to implement at the time of the trial. This model involved pairing an Assistant Superintendent with two schools and having that individual visit the schools at least once per week to establish a relationship with the school leader and “be in touch with the culture of the building.” In addition, he identified the need for District-wide instructional expectations to make sure the teaching is intentional and focused. This echoes testimony by Dr. Aidala, as well as weaknesses identified by the State of New York as part of the review process.

Dr. Padilla also discussed his plans to build a community partnership that would result in a five-year plan that outlines priorities for the District and involves the community. In addition, Dr. Padilla discussed utilization of instructional coaches to assist teachers in further developing teaching methods and strategies to maximize their effectiveness and ability to reach the students. These initiatives are just some of the changes that were beginning to be implemented when Dr. Padilla took over as Superintendent. This reinforces the analysis presented by Dr. Aidala that effective leadership is a critical tool for a school district to become more effective in its core mission to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

II. Conclusion

The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the Newburgh City School District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Newburgh City School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Newburgh City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

Niagara Falls

The fifteenth and sixteenth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Niagara Falls City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Niagara Falls City School District decreased, with an overall decrease from the 2006-2007 school year through the 2014-15 school year of Eight Hundred Fourteen (814) students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court notes that number of economically disadvantaged students varied by a few percentage points from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year, and the percentages in the other demographics stayed essentially the same. However, the ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Niagara Falls City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) varied in the different categories when compared over the years in question, and when compared to the State and regional ratios. For the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, the ratios for Administrative Staff for the Niagara Falls City School District were generally higher than the State average but were generally lower than the county and region. For the 2010-2011 school year, the ratios for the Niagara Falls City School District were lower than the county, region and State. For 2011-2012 through 2013-2014, the ratios for the Niagara Falls City School District were lower than the county and the State, and were slightly higher than the region.

The ratios for other Non-Teaching Staff and Para-Professional Staff were significantly lower than the State, county and region. With regard to Pupil Personnel Services, the ratios were generally in line with the county and the region. Those ratios were higher than the State average for the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, and then were lower than the State average for the years 2010-2011 through 2013-2014. Although the ratios for Classroom Teachers were higher than the State, county and region averages, the ratios for the Niagara Falls City School District held fairly steady for the years at issue even though the State average went up by 4 points.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the comparison between class sizes in the Niagara Falls City School District and the statewide average in the years at issue varied slightly. The Kindergarten class sizes were the subject of a good portion of the testimony at trial regarding class sizes. The proof at trial showed that the Kindergarten class sizes in the Niagara Falls City School District were smaller than the statewide average, with the exception of 2013-2014, where the average class size was slightly higher than the State average. Further, upon review of the class sizes in the common branch grade levels compared to the statewide averages, the Niagara Falls City School District had smaller class sizes. In the higher grades, the class sizes were fairly consistent with state averages, and when the Niagara Falls City School District had larger class sizes, it was not by much. Overall, the class sizes stayed fairly consistent.

In his testimony on behalf of the Niagara Falls City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Bruce Fraser (“Dr. Fraser”) claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). He based this opinion on his professional judgment. However, he acknowledged that there are no specific objective standards regarding class sizes. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably, Dr. Fraser testified that he did not do a review of the officially reported class sizes, but instead based his analysis and opinion on a review of the master class schedule.

The State's expert, Dr. Thomas Coseo (“Dr. Coseo”), noted that Dr. Fraser did not do actual classroom visits, and, when Dr. Coseo visited many classrooms, he did not observe any overcrowding or too many children per class. Dr. Fraser's analysis regarding class sizes relies on what he calls the “CFE Guideline Numbers.” However, it must be noted that although the Court of Appeals discussed class sizes in its opinions, a guideline number for class sizes was not set forth as a standard. In addition, this Court further notes that in the CFE cases, the class sizes in the New York City schools were much larger than the class sizes in the Niagara Falls City School District, and overcrowding in New York City was a significant issue, whereas that is not the case for the Niagara Falls City School District. This calls into question Dr. Fraser's entire analysis regarding class sizes.

In fact, this Court finds that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Fraser cannot be given any significant weight based upon his failure to rely on appropriate officially reported data; his failure to visit all of the schools; his failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers and classroom conditions; his failure to review the DTSDEs or other analytical tools provided by the State Department of Education that assessed the Niagara Falls City School District; and numerous examples of his lack of general knowledge about the Niagara Falls City School District. Accordingly, the Court does not find him to be a credible witness.

The Court agrees with Dr. Fraser's general statement that there are benefits if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, because he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. However, despite the truth of that statement, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS as well. However, there is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Niagara Falls City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

The plaintiffs in this case presented evidence of what may be an ideal situation regarding class size, but that is not what the Court must determine. Similarly, the plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate that lower ratios would be required to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education. However, that was not established as a requirement in CFE. The Court's charge in this case is to determine the constitutionally required minimum to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education, not to decide what the ideal learning environment would be for each student.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Niagara Falls City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Niagara Falls City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in each of the four categories, the percentage of teachers meeting that requirement almost always equaled or exceeded the State average. The Niagara Falls City School District teachers’ qualifications in each category demonstrates a well-qualified teaching staff. It must be noted that the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate was significantly higher than the statewide average, and at its lowest for the time period in question, Eighty-Nine (89%) percent of the teachers had that level of training and education. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Niagara Falls City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Niagara Falls City School District. However, those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Niagara Falls City School District.

In fact, across the board, the proof showed that the facilities are more than adequate, if not superior, comparatively. In addition, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the Niagara Falls City School District has taken steps in recent years to further improve the school facilities based upon the approval of funding for a capital improvement project in the amount of Sixty-Six Million Dollars ($66,000,000.00). During the testimony of Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Bruce Fraser, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that facilities and technology are not a part of the case in the Niagara Falls City School District, and in fact, the District is ahead of most districts in the area of technology. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Niagara Falls City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Niagara Falls City School District related to issues such as older library books, textbooks only for the classrooms in certain schools, and certain specific storage and space-related issues. The Niagara Falls City School District is not making a claim regarding technology-related issues and equipment, as noted above. In fact, the District has state of the art technology, especially at the high school. The issues claimed by the plaintiffs appear to be specific, isolated issues that do not rise to the level of impacting the ability of the Niagara Falls City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding the issues raised were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Niagara Falls City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Thus, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

With regard to special education and Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Niagara Falls City School District provides required special education services and instruction and some AIS, especially in reading. The testimony from the school district officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. In CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). As such, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Niagara Falls City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

Since the Niagara Falls City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors.” (86 NY2d at 318). The Niagara Falls City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Niagara Falls City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert were a discussion of aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

Plaintiffs have attempted to portray this reality as the government and others giving up on these at-risk students. That is simply not true. Resources are provided to the school districts to assist in making good decisions and charting the right course for the students in the school districts. This is done by providing state aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Niagara Falls City School District has adequate financial resources to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of resources must be improved to improve the outputs throughout the District. This is especially true for the AIS program. The Niagara Falls City School District has consistently made decisions to focus the AIS program on reading, a critical skill. The desire of the Niagara Falls City School District to offer a more robust AIS program is aspirational, and can be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school moves forward.

It is important to note that the Niagara Falls City School District has a significant problem with absenteeism and the suspension of students. It is critical for the District to remedy these issues as it evaluates how to improve student outcomes. The proof at trial established that the District has taken steps and has begun to implement programs that will address this issue. For example, the Niagara Falls City School District has partnered with the local Department of Social Services to address this issue. The District has also implemented an outreach program at the two preparatory schools in an attempt to deal with the most troublesome cases. In addition, the District was awarded a community schools grant in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) that is designed to implement programs that will assist in addressing the issues of absenteeism. The District also has hired an attendance/truancy officer as another method of addressing these issues. Therefore, steps are being taken to address some of the underlying issues that contribute to poor student performance. Many of these initiatives are being accomplished within existing resources generally, and are examples of a District utilizing its funding most effectively to address the needs of its students.

The Court further notes that the evaluative tools provided by the State, which include objective review and self-evaluation, especially to a district working towards improvement like the Niagara Falls City School District, include the identification of these same deficiencies within the District as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Niagara Falls City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services in all subject areas is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Expansion of those services is instead a step that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students.

The same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Niagara Falls City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The District has made the determination that expansion of such programs is not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. Nevertheless, these types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if they continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by the students.

Notably, the District did not apply for the Extended Learning Time Grant during the time period in question. District officials asserted that applying for the grant “wasn't worth it” because they did not receive such grants in the past. In any event, the proof at trial established that the District continues to offer programming in these categories, despite the budget cuts, to work to address the needs of its at-risk students, such as summer programming, the Community Education Center, transitional teaching, and alternative schools programming.

Another supplemental service that the plaintiffs’ witnesses testified would benefit the at-risk students was the hiring of social workers to essentially act as a bridge to the students’ home lives and the outside challenges they face. As noted above, this is an aspirational service that could be provided by the schools, but is not mandated by the Constitution with regard to providing an opportunity for a sound basic education. It is, instead, secondary to the educational mission of the schools. The schools simply cannot be the institutions responsible for handling all aspects of a student's life. Other entities and agencies should be involved in those areas that go beyond the educational mission of the schools, and the Niagara Falls City School District has taken steps to partner with the community and local government resources to address these issues. As such, the District has demonstrated that there can be creative ways in which a school district and its community can work together to address the needs of the at-risk student population that do not require or implicate additional funding.

While the Niagara Falls City School District faces challenges, those challenges are not insurmountable. Under the leadership of the Superintendent, Cynthia Bianco (“Superintendent Bianco” or “Ms. Bianco”), the Niagara Falls City School District created a three-year Strategic Plan that covered the years 2013-2016. In the Superintendent's message that is contained in the report of the strategic plan, she states “The District's three-year Strategic Plan is the roadmap that all staff will use to drive our organization in the right direction: to raise student achievement, promote collaboration with all stakeholders, and ultimately, prepare children to be college and career ready upon commencement.”

The District's commitment to assessing the allocation of resources, and reallocating where necessary, in order to more effectively operate, is a fundamental thread of the vision the District has going forward. This plan demonstrates that the District can make strides in improving student outcomes by continuously evaluating its allocation of resources — fiscal resources, human resources, and all others. The proof at trial established that the manner in which a school district allocates its resources is paramount to improvement and success in providing its students with the opportunity for a sound basic education. The testimony at trial also established that steps are being taken to further supplement the tools provided to the teaching staff, in the form of professional development, as well as improved leadership. This reinforces the testimony by Dr. Coseo that effective leadership is a critical tool for a school district to become more effective in its core mission to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the District's inputs. The Court also finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Niagara Falls City School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Niagara Falls City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

Port Jervis

The nineteenth and twentieth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege that the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Port Jervis City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted)” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Port Jervis City School District consistently decreased, with an overall decrease from the 2006-2007 school year through the 2014-2015 school year of Three Hundred Eighty-Eight (388) students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court notes that number of economically disadvantaged students varied by a few percentage points from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year. However, the ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Port Jervis City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) varied in the different categories when compared over the years in question, and when compared to the State and regional ratios.

For the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, the ratios for Administrative Staff were generally higher than the State average, but were consistently lower for the Port Jervis City School District than the county. For the years 2010-2011 through 2013-2014, the ratios for the Administrative Staff in the Port Jervis City School District were consistently lower than the State and the county. In the category of Other Non-Teaching Staff, the ratios were consistently higher than the State and the county. For Pupil Personnel Services, the ratios were higher than the State in the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, however, the ratios were lower than the State for the years 2010-2011 through 2013-2014, and were steadily declining during that time. The Pupil Personnel Services ratios were higher than the county for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, but then were lower for the following years.

With regard to Classroom Teachers, the number of full-time employees in 2006-2007 was 219.91, and in 2013-2014, it increased to 221.07. The ratios regarding Classroom Teachers generally went down or stayed the same during the relevant years in question. The ratios were higher than the State in the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, but then were lower. The ratios were lower than the county starting in 2008-09. Finally, the ratios regarding Paraprofessional Staff were higher than the State and county during the relevant period, however, the ratios went down in the Port Jervis City School District during the years in question.

It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Port Jervis City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District. Additionally, the Port Jervis City School District had an arrangement with a neighboring community in New Jersey wherein One Hundred Twenty (120) students from that community were students at the Port Jervis City Schools, and that arrangement was coming to an end at the time of the trial, which resulted in a further net loss of students.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the comparison between class sizes in the Port Jervis City School District and the statewide average in the years at issue varied slightly. The proof revealed that the Kindergarten class sizes, while at times larger than the statewide average, were still only larger by one or two students, at most. Further, upon review of the class sizes in the common branch grade levels in the Port Jervis City School District compared to the statewide, county and regional averages, the Port Jervis City School District had class sizes that were lower. The class sizes for the other grade levels were generally in line with, or lower than, the State class sizes.

The District official who testified indicated that the numbers of students in each class were not a real problem when comparing them to the State or county. However, he further stated that because the District has a significant special education population, the class sizes can be problematic. In his testimony on behalf of the Port Jervis City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Stephen Uebbing claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). He based this opinion on his professional judgment. However, he acknowledged that there are no specific objective standards regarding class sizes.

While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably, Dr. Uebbing testified that he did not do a review of the officially reported class sizes, but instead based his analysis and opinion on the representations made by the Port Jervis City School District officials. During Dr. Uebbing's cross-examination, he admitted that he did not verify the information presented to him by the school officials; he generally took what they said at face value. In addition, he only visited six or seven classrooms, and most of the time, students had already been dismissed. This calls into question his entire analysis regarding class sizes.

In fact, this Court finds that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Uebbing cannot be given any significant weight based upon his failure to rely on officially reported data; his failure to visit all of the schools; his failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; his failure to review the analytical tools that assessed the Port Jervis City School District; and numerous examples of his lack of general knowledge about the Port Jervis City School District. As such, the Court does not find him to be a credible witness.

However, the Court does agree with Dr. Uebbing's general statement that there are benefits if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, because he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. Despite the truth of that statement, however, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS as well. There is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. The Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Port Jervis City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

In fact, in many categories, the class sizes were decreasing. It is also critical to note that the student population was decreasing in size, which would allow the District to decrease class sizes and continue to assess the proper deployment of resources. The plaintiffs in this case presented evidence of what may be an ideal situation regarding class size, but that is not what the Court must determine. Similarly, the plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate that lower ratios would be required to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education. However, that was not established as a requirement in CFE. The Court's charge in this case is to determine the constitutionally required minimum to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education, not to decide what the ideal learning environment would be for each student.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Port Jervis City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Port Jervis City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in three of the four categories, the percentage of teachers meeting that requirement exceeded the State average. The only category where the Port Jervis City School District was lagging behind the State numbers was in the category of the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate. However, those percentages stayed fairly consistent over the years in question, and were not insignificant. The Port Jervis City School District teachers’ qualifications in each category were generally improving and demonstrate a well-qualified teaching staff. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Port Jervis City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Port Jervis City School District. However, this testimony generally focused on the middle school. Those issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Port Jervis City School District. In addition, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District has taken steps in recent years to plan for and attain funding for capital improvement projects. From 2006 through 2014, the voters in the District approved funding for five (5) capital improvement projects, totaling over Thirty-Eight Million dollars ($38,000,000.00). Moreover, plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Stephen Uebbing, testified that with the exception of the middle school and some conclusory comments regarding security, he found the facilities to be adequate. As a result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Port Jervis City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Port Jervis City School District were extremely limited. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding library books were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Port Jervis City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. In fact, the plaintiffs’ expert testified that the Port Jervis City School District is where a modern school district should be regarding technology. Furthermore, the Superintendent testified that there was a technology plan in place that spanned 2013-2016. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide which was going to further assist schools in upgrades to technology. The Port Jervis City School District was slated to received funds through that program. Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial court in CFE noted that “․ at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement.” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to special education and Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Port Jervis City School District provides required special education services and instruction and some AIS, especially in reading. The testimony from the school district officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. In CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). Thus, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Port Jervis City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

Because the Port Jervis City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Port Jervis City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Port Jervis City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert, were a discussion of aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

A common thread of the testimony offered by each witness for the plaintiffs was that the school must provide supplemental services to students to address their challenges outside of school, including poverty, breakdown of the family structure, absence of parental guidance, widespread heroin abuse, challenges in communication, such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances certainly can provide challenges to the students in the learning environment, however, it is not the core mission of the educational system to repair these outside social concerns and problems. Instead, the educational system must assist as a secondary actor limited to ways that will attempt to address the academic deficiencies of the students on a basic level. To go any further effectively alters the basic mission of the educational system by turning the schools into social services agencies. Put simply, the schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible for fixing all of the negative and difficult circumstances in each student's life.

Plaintiffs have attempted to portray this reality as the government and others giving up on these at-risk students. That is simply not true. Resources are provided to the school districts to assist in making good decisions and charting the right course for the students in the school districts. This is done by providing State aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District has adequate financial resources to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of resources must be improved to improve the outputs throughout the District. This is especially true for the AIS program, and special education programs and resources.

The proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District spends more per pupil on special education than other similarly situated districts. As such, it is critical for the Port Jervis City School District to evaluate how it is spending those resources. The desire of the Port Jervis City School District to offer a more robust AIS program, and other special education programming is aspirational, and can be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school moves forward.

The Court further notes that the evaluative tools provided by the State, which are comprised of objective review and self-evaluation, include the identification of deficiencies within the District as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Port Jervis City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services in all subject areas is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Those services are instead steps that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students. Notably, the proof at trial established that the District has developed a comprehensive AIS plan to further improve these services identifying ways within the current fiscal structure to enhance these programs.

The same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs is not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. In any event, those types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if they continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by its students. It is worth noting that the District did not apply for the Extended Learning Time Grant offered by the State.

The proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District has made some District-wide decisions that have impacted its educational offerings. One significant educational choice that has been made by the District is in the offering of pre-Kindergarten (“pre-K”) on a very limited basis. Only thirty-four (34) students were enrolled in the pre-K program that is operated by a separate entity. The District did not apply for the universal pre-K grant that was offered by the State. The Superintendent claimed that they did not apply because they did not have building space to house a more robust pre-K program. This claim is troubling to the Court. If the expansion of the pre-K program is a priority to the District in an effort to maximize the opportunities offered to students in the District and provide them with support mechanisms to improve their ability to succeed in their education, then the District should be more proactive in determining how to make that happen.

Additionally, the District's witnesses noted that attendance and suspensions are a problem in the Port Jervis City School District, which can negatively impact the students’ performance. Student attendance is lower than the State average, except for the most recent year. The evidence shows that the District has made improvements in this area. In addition, suspensions in the District are higher than the State average. However, the District showed some improvement in this area as well, and must strive to continue to address these areas.

Although the Port Jervis City School District faces challenges, those challenges are not insurmountable. The Superintendent, Mr. Thomas Bongiovi, (“Mr. Bongiovi”), testified about the vision he has for the School District and some of the ideas and programs that exist and were being implemented during his tenure as Superintendent. Specifically, Mr. Bongiovi testified about the investments in technology made over the last few years; the fact that the teachers in the District are highly qualified; the capital improvement projects approved by voters and implemented by the District; the AP and Honors courses offered by the District; and the higher level of spending on special education students than in other similarly situated districts. The proof at trial also demonstrated the District's recent commitment to reevaluation of its methodologies in determining the allocation of resources, and the effectiveness of the operation of the District. This is evidenced by the development of a Strategic Plan Scorecard with established certain growth targets for 2014 in all of the areas of the New York State assessments.

In addition, the District has started to compile statistical information regarding graduation rates, attendance and participation in extracurricular activities which is evidence of a move toward data-driven analysis to improve performance. And, the State's expert, Mr. Jeffrey McLellan (“Mr. McLellan”), identified the development of a Professional Development Plan, the implementation of professional development communities and the implementation of APPR as further evidence of the District's efforts to reevaluate its operations and allocation of resources, and to further examine ways to improve results. This all reinforces the analysis presented by Mr. McLellan that effective leadership is a critical tool for a school district to become more effective in its core mission to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. As noted by Mr. McLellan:

With additional time and the stability of leadership, coupled with honest and direct feedback through the newly developed Annual Professional Performance Review process and continued emphasis on professional Development, there is reason to believe that student performance in the Port Jervis City School District will improve.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the Port Jervis City School District's inputs. The Court also finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Port Jervis City School District through the lens of the requirements of the case law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Port Jervis City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

Poughkeepsie

The twenty-first and twenty-second causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege that the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. INPUTS

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Poughkeepsie City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Poughkeepsie City School District consistently decreased, with an overall decrease from the 2006-2007 school year through the 2014-2015 school year of Four Hundred Twenty (420) students. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court notes that number of economically disadvantaged students did increase from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2013-2014 school year; however, the district saw a significant change from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012, but that percentage reduced by six percent (6%) from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Poughkeepsie City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) varied in the different categories when compared over the years in question, and when compared to the State and regional ratios. For the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, the ratios for Administrative Staff were generally higher than the State average but were consistently lower for the Poughkeepsie City School District than the county and the region. For the years 2010-2011 through 2013-2014, the ratios for the Administrative Staff in the Poughkeepsie City School District were consistently lower than the State, the county, and the region. In the category of Other Non-Teaching Staff, the ratios were consistently higher than the State until 2013-2014, and then the ratios were lower than the State. In this category, the ratios for the Poughkeepsie City School District were always lower than the county and the region.

For Pupil Personnel Services, the ratios were higher than the State in the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010; however, the ratios were lower than the State for the years 2010-2011, were above the State ratio for 2011-2012, and then were consistently lower than the State through the rest of the period. The Pupil Personnel Services ratios were about the same as the county and the region for the years at issue.

With regard to Classroom Teachers, the ratios were higher than the State through 2009-2010, but then about the same as the State after that for the remainder of the time period at issue. The ratios were generally the same as the county and the region for the time period at issue. Finally, the ratios regarding Paraprofessional Staff were generally higher than the State, county and region during the relevant period, however, the ratios fluctuated to some extent during this time period. It is worth noting, however, that the ratios steadily declined starting in 2009-2010, and were cut in half by 2013-2014. It is also worth noting that the ratios in the Poughkeepsie City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the class sizes in the Poughkeepsie City School District and the statewide average in the years at issue varied slightly. This Court notes that the Kindergarten class sizes, while at times larger than the statewide average, were still generally only larger by two or three students, at most. Further, upon review of the class sizes in the common branch grade levels in the Poughkeepsie City School District compared to the statewide, county and regional averages, the Poughkeepsie City School District had class sizes that were lower initially, and then became slightly higher beginning in 2010-2011. The class sizes for the other grade levels were generally lower than the State class sizes, and in the instances where the class sizes were higher, it was not by a significant amount.

In her testimony on behalf of the Poughkeepsie City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Peggy Wozniak claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). She based this opinion on her experience as a teacher. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes.

Dr. Wozniak discussed the Tennessee STAR project (Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio), which was a study of the impact of class size on student achievement. The plaintiffs’ expert recognized that this study supports the proposition that smaller class sizes positively impact student achievement. However, she also recognized that the evidence on that issue is mixed because there are other studies that do not support that proposition. At trial, one of the defendant's experts, Dr. Eric Hanushek, noted that the improvements discussed in the study were minimal and not of great significance. Thus, he did not believe that the STAR project was of tremendous value, and also that the project did not support the notion that smaller class sizes had a definitive effect on student achievement.

The Court agrees with Dr. Wozniak's statement that it is just “logical” that if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. However, despite the truth of that statement, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS instruction as well. However, there is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Poughkeepsie City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

The Court notes that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Wozniak cannot be given any significant weight based upon her failure to visit all of the schools; her failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; and her comparison of the Poughkeepsie City School district to other districts in the area that bear no similarity to the Poughkeepsie City School District. As such, the Court does not find her to be a credible witness.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Poughkeepsie City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Poughkeepsie City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in three of the four categories, the percentage of teachers meeting that requirement exceeded the State average. The only category where the Poughkeepsie City School District was lagging behind the State numbers was in the category of the percentage of teachers with a Master's Degree plus 30 hours or a doctorate. However, those percentages for the District were significant, and generally increased over the time period in question. Moreover, the Poughkeepsie City School District teachers’ qualifications in each category were generally improving and demonstrate a well-qualified teaching staff. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Poughkeepsie City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Poughkeepsie City School District. Generally, the issues highlighted by the District officials centered around aging boilers, some roof leaks and mold issues. While these issues are properly of concern to the District and should be remedied, the issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools. It is worth noting that the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Poughkeepsie City School District.

In addition, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the Poughkeepsie City School District has taken some steps in recent years to plan for and attain funding for capital improvement projects. However, the evidence presented revealed that the District has failed to use a substantial part of its EXCEL funds, which are specifically designated for capital improvement projects.

It is also worth noting that during the time period in question, the District's football facility was refurbished. Further, the District Superintendent, Dr. Nicole Williams (“Dr. Williams”), testified that the District was working closely with Dutchess County Community College to attempt to upgrade the science lab facilities available to the students. In addition, she acknowledged that the District had applied for a Twenty-One Million Dollar ($21,000,000.00) grant to address concerns such as these, as well as improve the technology available to students in the areas of math and science. Moreover, the defendant's expert, who visited every school, and visited and observed in Seventy-Seven classrooms, found them to be adequate. As a result of the foregoing, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Poughkeepsie City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Poughkeepsie City School District were extremely limited. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding technology, textbooks, and library books were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Poughkeepsie City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Also, the testimony by the District officials was vague and conclusory. The proof adduced at trial demonstrated that the District had spent money over the years in question on textbooks through expenditures of aid specifically designated for textbooks. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to further assist schools in upgrades to technology. The Poughkeepsie City School District was slated to received funds through that program, as well as having applied for additional funds as noted above. Thus, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court, and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial Court in CFE noted that “at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement.” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to special education and Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Poughkeepsie City School District provides required special education services and instruction and some AIS, especially in reading. The testimony from the School District officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. District officials noted that in some categories, the District was out of compliance with the Education Commissioner's regulations. In CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). Therefore, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Poughkeepsie City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

Since the Poughkeepsie City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Poughkeepsie City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Poughkeepsie City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert, were a discussion of aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

A common thread of the testimony offered by each witness for the plaintiffs was that the school must provide supplemental services to students to address their challenges outside of school, including poverty, breakdown of the family structure, absence of parental guidance, challenges in communication, such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances certainly can provide challenges to the students in the learning environment, however, it is not the core mission of the educational system to repair these outside social concerns and problems. Instead, the educational system must assist as a secondary actor limited to ways that will attempt to address the academic deficiencies of the students on a basic level. To go any further effectively alters the basic mission of the educational system by turning the schools into social services agencies. Put simply, schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible to fix all of the negative and difficult circumstances in each student's life.

Plaintiffs have attempted to portray this reality as the government and others giving up on these at-risk students. That is simply not true. Resources are provided to the school districts to assist in making good decisions and charting the right course for the students in the school districts. This is done by providing State aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Poughkeepsie City School District has adequate financial resources to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of resources must be improved to improve the outputs throughout the District. This is especially true for the AIS program, and special education programs and resources.

The proof at trial demonstrates that the Poughkeepsie City School District spends less per pupil on special education than other similarly situated districts. As such, it is critical for the Poughkeepsie City School District to evaluate how it is spending and allocating its resources overall. There was also some testimony adduced at trial from District officials indicating that the District sends some students outside of the school buildings for special education services, and that this is a drain on the finances available for such services. This appears to be one area in which the District is spending significantly more money than if the District was providing those services in house. It is areas like this that need to be reevaluated in the context of the overall budgeting for the District.

It is worth noting that the number of students requiring special education services declined by almost 200 from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. In addition, the amount spend per student in the area of special education has increased consistently, and increased dramatically from 2008-2009 through the remaining years of the time period at issue. It is not clear why the District continues to complain of shortfalls in the funding available for special education services. The desire of the Poughkeepsie City School District to offer a more robust AIS program, and other special education programming is aspirational, and should be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school moves forward. However, any shortcomings in the current programming do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

The Court further notes that the evaluative tools provided by the State, which are comprised of objective review and self-evaluation, include the identification of deficiencies within the District as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Poughkeepsie City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services in all subject areas is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Those services are instead steps that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students. It is worth noting that the proof at trial established that the District has developed a comprehensive AIS plan to further improve these services identifying ways within the current fiscal structure to enhance these programs.

The same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Poughkeepsie City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs are not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. It should be noted that the proof at trial contradicts that premise to some extent, since, as noted above, the District has developed a comprehensive AIS plan within its existing resources. Regardless of those developments, expansion of these types of programs is not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if they continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by the students.

It is important to note that the District did not apply for the extended learning time grant offered by the State. However, the State's expert noted that in 2012 and 2013, the District had received certain Federal funding streams that it was utilizing to provide some more robust extended learning time programs at the High School and the Middle School. The State's expert also noted that the District implemented a Credit Recovery program, which is an online program that allows students additional opportunities to gain the credits they need for graduation.

The proof at trial demonstrated that the Poughkeepsie City School District has made some District-wide decisions that have impacted the educational offerings. One significant educational choice that has been made by the District is in the offering of a half day pre-Kindergarten program, and a half day Kindergarten program, instead of a full day. In 2012, the District took one of the buildings previously used for an elementary school that had been closed for two years, and turned it into the Early Learning Center, which houses pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten. This was a new program and is part of how the District utilized the universal pre-K grant that was offered by the State. District officials testified that the areas of pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten are a desired focus for the district and present significant opportunities to reach the children at a young critical age. And, the State's expert noted that the development of the Early Learning Center is a positive example of initiatives that are occurring in the District. The development of the Early Learning Center, under the leadership of the principal who started with the program in 2012, is a positive development for the District and is to be commended. It demonstrates how a district can begin to address some deficiencies generally within the means available to it currently.

While the Poughkeepsie City School District faces challenges, those challenges are not insurmountable. The Court is aware that this District deals with some of the most significant challenges of all of the plaintiff districts in this case. However, even with that acknowledgement, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a constitutional violation exists.

The Superintendent, Dr. Williams, testified about the vision she has for the School District and some of the ideas and programs that exist and were beginning to be implemented during her tenure as Superintendent, which had only begun a couple of years before the trial. Dr. Williams testified about the plans for investments in technology; the fact that the teachers in the District are highly qualified; the capital improvement projects approved by voters and implemented by the District; the Early Learning Center; and the AP and Honors courses offered by the District.

Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated the District's need for a commitment to reevaluation of its methodologies in determining the allocation of resources, and the effectiveness of the operation of the District.

It is clear that with the arrival of Dr. Williams and the implementation of programs in the District, some improvement had already been realized at the time of trial. The State's expert, Dr. Roger Gorham (“Dr. Gorham”), identified the development of professional development communities and the implementation of APPR as further evidence of the District's efforts to reevaluate its operations and allocation of resources, and to further examine ways to improve results. This reinforces the analysis presented by Dr. Gorham that effective leadership is a critical tool for a school district to become more effective in its core mission to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

As noted by Dr. Gorham:

it was more the result of insufficient engagement on the part of school and community to change the culture to one of high expectations for all students, teachers and school leaders and to direct all available resources to that end.

Dr. Gorham concluded that the failures in leadership, including the failure of the District to engage in data-driven analysis leading to effective research-based instructional practices, are critical to understand the poor outputs occurring in the Poughkeepsie City School District. In addition, Dr. Gorham indicated that there was “too little attention on the part of the District to improve and monitor the teaching and learning that takes place in classrooms.” Overall, Dr. Gorham noted that it was evident that not all District and building leaders had embraced the findings and recommendations of the State evaluations. Dr. Gorham also noted that not all buildings were treated equally. These findings are significant to understanding the deficiencies in the Poughkeepsie City School District that can and must be remedied within the current fiscal resources of the District.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Poughkeepsie City School District based upon the requirements of the case law. Therefore, the Court finds that the inputs in the Poughkeepsie City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

Utica

The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint allege that the same infirmities using the same language noted above for the Jamestown City School District. As such, the language will not be repeated here.

I. Inputs

Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Utica City School District. As outlined by the CFE line of cases, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department decision in this matter, this Court must analyze the “quality of teaching instruction, the adequacy of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted)” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dept 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

The Court notes at the outset that for the years at issue in this case, the enrollment in the Utica City School District consistently increased, with an overall increase from the 2006-2007 school year through the 2014-2015 school year of Seven Hundred Thirty-Four (734) students. Unique to this District is the fact that Utica houses a refugee center that is the main cause for the increase in population, including the growth in the student population. Per Lori Eccleston (“Ms. Eccleston”), Director of Early Instruction for grades K-12 for the Utica City School District, the refugee center is the third largest collection site for refugees in the Northeast. The site is permitted to bring in up to Four Hundred Fifty (450) refugees per year, and according to Ms. Eccleston, many of them are children. Since a substantial focus of the trial was on economically disadvantaged students, the Court notes that number of economically disadvantaged students did increase from the 2010-2011 school year to the 2014-2015 school year. The testimony at trial supported the notion that the influx of refugees contributes to the number of economically disadvantaged students in the District.

The ratios for staff as reported on the Report Cards for the Utica City School District, including Administrative Staff, Other Non-Teaching Staff, Pupil Personnel Services (overall), Classroom Teachers, Total Professional Staff and Paraprofessional Staff (overall) varied in the different categories when compared over the years in question, and when compared to the State and regional ratios. For the years in question, the ratios for Administrative Staff were generally higher than or in line with the State average, and the county and the region. The Court notes that there was not a consistent trend, as the numbers generally went up and down. In the category of Other Non-Teaching Staff, the ratios were consistently higher than the State until 2010-2011, and then the ratios were lower than the State. These ratios for the Utica City School District were always lower than the county and the region.

For Pupil Personnel Services, the ratios were higher than the State in the years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010, however, the ratios fluctuated after that, but were always close to the State ratios. The Pupil Personnel Services ratios were close to the county and the region ratios for the years at issue. With regard to Classroom Teachers, the ratios were higher than the State through 2009-2010, but then about the same as the State after that for the remainder of the time period at issue. The ratios were slightly higher than the county and the region for the time period at issue, but the ratios were always very close. Finally, the ratios regarding Paraprofessional Staff were generally higher than the State, county and region during the relevant period. It is worth noting that the ratios in the Utica City School District were generally lower than those noted by the Court in CFE for the New York City School District.

Similarly, with few exceptions, the comparison between class sizes in the Utica City School District and the statewide average in the years at issue varied slightly. This Court notes that the Kindergarten class sizes, while consistently larger than the statewide average, were still generally only larger by a few students, at most. Further, upon review of the class sizes in the common branch grade levels in the Utica City School District compared to the statewide, county and regional averages, the Utica City School District had class sizes that were lower than the statewide average initially, and then became slightly higher beginning in 2012-2013. The class sizes for the Utica City School District as compared to the county and region were always very close. The class sizes for the other grade levels were generally in line with the State class sizes, and in the instances where the class sizes were higher, it was not by a significant amount.

In her testimony on behalf of the Utica City School District plaintiffs, Dr. Peggy Wozniak claimed that class sizes should be smaller, especially with regard to students who need academic intervention services (AIS). She based this opinion on her experience as a teacher. While smaller class sizes may engender some benefit to students, the plaintiffs did not submit any definitive proof regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes.

Plaintiffs’ expert discussed the Tennessee STAR project (Tennessee Student Teacher Achievement Ratio), which was a study of the impact of class size on student achievement. Dr. Wozniak stated that this study supports the proposition that smaller class sizes positively impact student achievement. However, she also recognized that the evidence on that issue is mixed because there are other studies that do not support that proposition. At trial, one of the defendant's experts, Dr. Eric Hanushek, noted that the improvements discussed in the study were minimal and not of great significance. Thus, he did not believe that the STAR project was of tremendous value, and did not support the notion that smaller class sizes had a definitive effect on student achievement.

The Court agrees with Dr. Wozniak's statement that it is just “logical” that if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, he or she would be able to spend more time with each child. However, despite the truth of that statement, it does not demonstrate that a specific class size is required. There are simply too many variables to consider to make a concrete formula or number apply. This concept clearly applies to those students in need of AIS instruction as well. However, there is no magic formula or number regarding class size for that population either. Therefore, the Court finds that the ratios and the class sizes (for AIS students and non-AIS students) in the Utica City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates the requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

This was confirmed by the defendant's expert, Dr. Roger Gorham (“Dr. Gorham”), who opined that, while the staffing cuts made by the Utica City School District impacted class sizes, the increase in class sizes did not affect the ability of the Utica City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. The plaintiffs in this case presented evidence of what may be an ideal situation regarding class size, but that is not what the Court must determine. Similarly, the plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate that lower ratios would be required to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education; however, that was not established as a requirement in CFE. The Court's charge in this case is to determine the constitutionally required minimum to provide an opportunity for a sound basic education, not to decide what the ideal learning environment would be for each student.

The Court notes that the testimony and analysis of Dr. Wozniak cannot be given any significant weight based upon her failure to visit all of the schools; her failure to visit classrooms and observe teachers; and her comparison of the Utica City School District to other districts in the area that bear no similarity to the Utica City School District. As such, the Court does not find her to be a credible witness.

Plaintiffs also contend that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Utica City School District are inadequate and are contributing factors, demonstrating that the Utica City School District is failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students. The Court finds that in three of the four categories, the percentage of teachers meeting that requirement met or exceeded the State average. The only category where the Utica City School District was lagging behind the state numbers was in the category of the percentage of teachers with fewer than three (3) years experience. However, by the 2011-2012 school year, the Utica City School District was in line with the State, and by 2012-2013, the percentage of teachers in the Utica City School District with fewer than three (3) years experience was lower than the State percentage. The Utica City School District teachers’ qualifications in each category demonstrate a well-qualified teaching staff. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Utica City School District are adequate.

B. School Facilities/Classrooms

The plaintiffs presented some testimony regarding some general issues with the school facilities and classrooms in the Utica City School District. Generally, the issues highlighted by the District officials centered around some deteriorated walls, some roof leaks and the need for asbestos removal in some instances. Two pieces of information are worth noting regarding the School District facilities and classrooms. First, in 2008, the voters approved a multi-phase capital improvement project totaling over One Hundred Eighty-Seven Million Dollars ($187,000,000.00). This capital improvement project was still underway when the experts performed their assessments. As such, many of the issues of aging buildings and the need for upgrades were in the process of being addressed. Second, the Utica City School District had Four Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,200,000.00) remaining of the EXCEL funds appropriation of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) as of December 30, 2014. These funds were available to the Utica City School District for other building and classroom issues.

While the issues identified for improvement as part of the capital improvement project are properly of concern to the District and should be remedied, the issues do not rise to the level of deficiencies noted by the Court in CFE I in the New York City schools, and these issues are being addressed by the Utica City School District. Notably, the Court in CFE I could not state with certainty that the deficiencies present in the New York City schools impacted the opportunity for a sound basic education in a meaningful way. There is even less evidence of that for the Utica City School District. Furthermore, the defendant's expert, Dr. Gorham, who visited every school, and visited and observed in One Hundred Nineteen (119) classrooms found them to be adequate. As a result of the foregoing, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities and classrooms in the Utica City School District.

C. Instrumentalities of Learning

The plaintiffs’ complaints with regard to the instrumentalities of learning in the Utica City School District were extremely limited. There was no real proof regarding deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning in many of the categories, and the somewhat conclusory statements regarding technology, textbooks, and library books were insufficient to establish a claim that such perceived deficiencies impacted the ability of the Utica City School District to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. The testimony by the District officials was vague and conclusory. The proof adduced at trial demonstrated that the District had spent money over the years in question on textbooks through expenditures of aid specifically designated for textbooks. Additionally, the proof at trial demonstrated that New York State had established the Smart Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to further assist schools in upgrades to technology. The Utica City School District was slated to received funds through that program. Thus, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of learning necessitates a determination that this category of inputs meets the constitutional minimum requirements.

D. Additional Supplemental Services

As noted above, the Appellate Division, Third Department specifically indicated that this Court must consider “whether additional supplemental services — for example, academic intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social workers — must be provided to enable students in each of the districts to attain a sound basic education (citations omitted).” (Maisto v State of New York, 154 AD3d at 1255). It is significant to this Court, and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts must provide each student with the “opportunity” for a sound basic education. CFE does not require that school districts achieve the actual “attainment” of a sound basic education for each student. This is a distinction that must be adhered to in determining the constitutional minimum required. This distinction also highlights the shortcomings in the proof presented by the plaintiffs, which was laser-focused on the poor outputs of these school districts and their argument that such proof is also proof of poor inputs and ultimately causation. This reasoning is flawed.

The categories noted by the Appellate Division that need to be specifically addressed deal with the high needs students who require some additional educational services to assist them in addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial court in CFE noted that “․ at-risk students need specially tailored programs, and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor, in order to increase their academic achievement” (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 1, 76 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001]).

With regard to special education and Academic Intervention Services (AIS), the plaintiffs presented some testimony that the Utica City School District provides required special education services and instruction and some AIS, especially in reading. The testimony from the School District officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared to cite to goals that are aspirational in nature, and are not the minimum required to be offered to meet constitutional standards. District officials noted that in some categories, the District was out of compliance with the Education Commissioner's regulations. It is critical to note that in CFE I, the Court stated that “because many of the Regents’ and Commissioner's standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational - prudence should govern utilization of the Regents’ standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents’ or Commissioner's standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article.” (86 NY2d 307, 317 [1995]). Therefore, the Court must analyze the overall sufficiency of the Utica City School District's efforts to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to all of its students, including those “at-risk students” who may benefit from supplemental services.

Because the Utica City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes whether further AIS must be offered to meet the constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court's statement of what is required is instructive: “The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs’ districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 NY2d at 318). The Utica City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all students. So, there is no deficiency in the basic offerings to the students. On a basic level, this points to the constitutional adequacy of the curriculum and teaching offered to the students.

The testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert must be discounted to some extent regarding this issue since it is based upon the output-driven data, and is not an objective analysis of the inputs as required by the case law. In addition, similar to the witnesses from the Utica City School District, the perceived deficiencies testified to by plaintiffs’ expert, were a discussion of aspirational goals for the ideal learning environment for each student. The disconnect between the establishment of a constitutional minimum and a discussion of the ideal environment is at the heart of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

A common thread of the testimony offered by each witness for the plaintiffs was that the school must provide supplemental services to students to address their challenges outside of school, including poverty, breakdown of the family structure, absence of parental guidance, challenges in communication such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances certainly can provide challenges to the students in the learning environment, however, it is not the core mission of the educational system to repair these outside social concerns and problems. Instead, the educational system must assist as a secondary actor limited to ways that will attempt to address the academic deficiencies of the students on a basic level. To go any further effectively alters the basic mission of the educational system by turning the schools into social services agencies. Put simply, the schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible for fixing all of the negative and difficult circumstances in each student's life.

Plaintiffs have attempted to portray this reality as the government and others giving up on these at-risk students. That is simply not true. Resources are provided to the school districts to assist in making good decisions and charting the right course for the students in the school districts. This is done by providing State aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Utica City School District has adequate financial resources to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of resources must be improved to improve the outputs throughout the District. This is especially true for the AIS programs, and special education programs and resources.

The Utica City School District also faces the unique challenges presented by the presence of the refugees in the city. The proof at trial showed that the Utica City School District spends less per pupil on special education than other similarly situated districts. As such, it is critical for the Utica City School District to evaluate how it is spending and allocating its resources overall. It is worth noting that the percentage of students requiring special education services has remained steady despite the increase in the overall enrollment. The desire of the Utica City School District to offer a more robust AIS program, and other special education programming is aspirational, and must be the focus of the discussion of allocation of resources as the school district moves forward. However, any shortcomings in the current programming do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

The Court further notes that the evaluative tools provided by the State, which are comprised of objective review and self-evaluation, include the identification of deficiencies within the District as this Court has noted above. Based upon the foregoing, this Court concludes that while the AIS program offered by the Utica City School District is not in each subject area, it cannot be said that the absence of those services in all subject areas is a violation of the constitutional minimum standards. Those services are instead steps that a school district can take to customize learning and tailor the tools it offers to students. It is worth noting that the proof at trial established that the District is working toward that goal by developing a comprehensive AIS plan to further improve these services identifying ways within the current fiscal structure to enhance these programs.

The same analysis applies to other supplemental services, such as extended learning time and language services. It would be ideal if a school district could provide every identified tool in the arsenal to combat the hurdles at-risk students face based upon outside issues; however, that ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Utica City School District provides language services at a basic, adequate level. The same is true for extended learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs are not feasible in the context of all of the basic components of the education it must offer at a minimum. Nevertheless, those types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve if they continue to be desired by the District as a way to further address the issues faced by the students. Significantly, the District was approved for the Extended Learning Time Grant offered by the State, and then declined to participate in the grant program.

While the Utica City School District faces challenges, those challenges are not insurmountable. The Court is aware that this District deals with some unique challenges that are not present for all of the plaintiff districts in this case. However, even with that acknowledgement, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a constitutional violation exists.

The evaluative tools provided by the State, along with the District's self-evaluation as a part of that process, provides insights into the issues that exist in the District, as well as the vision for the School District and some of the ideas and programs that are beginning to be developed to address the issues in the District. Additionally, there was testimony about the plans for investments in technology; the fact that the teachers in the District are highly qualified; the capital improvement projects that are currently in progress and implemented by the District; and the AP and Honors courses offered by the District. The proof at trial also demonstrated the District's need for a commitment to reevaluation of its methodologies in determining the allocation of resources, and the effectiveness of the operation of the District. It is clear that some improvement had already been realized at the time of trial.

The State's expert, Dr. Gorham, identified the development of professional development plans and some implementation of the tools identified by the State and the District, as further evidence of the District's efforts to reevaluate its operations and allocation of resources, and to further examine ways to improve results. This reinforces the analysis presented by Dr. Gorham that effective leadership is a critical tool for a school district to become more effective in its core mission to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education.

However, the District has further work to do to address the deficiencies in leadership that have contributed to the issues facing the District. Dr. Gorham noted in his supplemental report that the District had experienced significant turnover in leadership positions, which creates an environment that is not conducive to improvement of the issues facing the District. In addition, Dr. Gorham noted that the District has consistently filled vacancies from within the District, as opposed to hiring from outside the District to possibly introduce a fresh perspective regarding the steps that need to be taken.

Dr. Gorham concluded that the failures in leadership, including the failure of the District to engage in data-driven analysis leading to effective research-based instructional practices, are critical to understand the poor outputs occurring in the Utica City School District. In addition, Dr. Gorham indicated that there was “too little attention on the part of the District to improve and monitor the teaching and learning that takes place in all classrooms, in all schools.” It is worth noting that the findings of the State in the evaluative process echoed many of the findings of Dr. Gorham, thus, providing some independent verification of the issues that exist in the District. Overall, Dr. Gorham noted that it was evident that not all District and building leaders had embraced the findings and recommendations of the State evaluations. Dr. Gorham also noted that not all buildings were treated equally. These findings are significant to understanding the deficiencies in the Utica City School District that can and must be remedied within the current fiscal resources of the District.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmities in the District's inputs. The Court further finds the defendant's witnesses to be credible, and the evidence presented by the defendant to more accurately analyze the Utica City School District based upon the requirements of the case law. Accordingly, the Court finds that the inputs in the Utica City School District are adequate to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to its students.

CAUSATION

As noted above, the Appellate Division determined that the Court must reach the issue of causation only in the instance where the inputs were found to be insufficient. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the issue of causation need not be reached as this Court has determined that the inputs are sufficient in all eight school districts.

Moreover, based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the relevant causes of action in the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to either the declaratory or injunctive relief in the Third Amended Complaint, and, as such, the requested relief is denied, and the Third Amended Complaint is dismissed.

For all of these reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that plaintiffs have failed to establish entitlement to the declaratory and injunctive relief requested in the Third Amended Complaint. Based upon this failure of proof, the requested relief is denied, and plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is dismissed.

This memorandum constitutes the Decision and Order/Judgment of the Court. The original Decision and Order is being returned to the Attorney General. A copy of this Decision and Order/Judgment together with all papers are being forwarded to the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision and Order/Judgment and delivery of a copy of the same to the County Clerk shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule with respect to filing, entry, and notice of entry of the original Decision and Order/Judgment.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Papers Considered:

1. Trial Transcript;

2. Trial Exhibits;

3. Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, dated October 28, 2015, with Exhibits A-H annexed;

4. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, dated October 28, 2015;

5. Plaintiffs’ Conclusions of Law, dated November 25, 2015;

6. Defendant's Additional Proposed Findings of Fact, dated October 25, 2015, with Exhibits A-B annexed;

7. Defendant's Post-Trial Memorandum, dated January 25, 2016; and

8. Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant's Post-Trial Memorandum, dated February 9, 2016.

FOOTNOTES

3. The lower-half of those spending districts means the half of the school districts meeting that criteria whose spending is in the lower range of the subset.

4. It is undisputed that the reductions that resulted from the Deficit Reduction Assessment in 2009-2010 were counteracted by Federal funding as a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

5. When this action was commenced, plaintiffs included the representatives of children in eleven small city school districts in New York State. During the pendency of the action, the claims of the representatives of children in three of those districts have been discontinued, leaving eight school districts remaining: Jamestown, Kingston, Mt. Vernon, Newburgh, Niagara Falls, Port Jervis, Poughkeepsie, and Utica.

6. At the outset of the trial, the parties stipulated that the evidence at trial would pertain to the 2006-2007 school year through the 2013-2014 school year.

Kimberly A. O'Connor, J.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

MAISTO v. STATE (2019)

Docket No: 8997-08

Decided: January 10, 2019

Court: Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

Legal issue

I need help near (city, ZIP code or country)

Enter either your legal issue or location to continue

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Go to Learn About the Law

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

Legal issue

I need help near (city, ZIP code or country)

Enter either your legal issue or location to continue

MAISTO v. STATE (2019)

Supreme Court, Albany County, New York.

Larry J. MAISTO and Mary Frances Maisto, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE of New York, Defendant.

8997-08

Decided: January 10, 2019

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

MAISTO v. STATE (2019)

Need to find an attorney?

For Legal Professionals

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals

Learn About the Law

Need to find an attorney?