Small-City School Districts (Kingston, Et. Al.) vs. NY State

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY
LARRY J. AND MARY FRANCES

MAISTO, et al.,
DECISION AND
ORDER/JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, Index No.: 8997-08
RJI No.: 01-08-095015
-against-
STATE OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Albany County, Trial Term)
(Justice Kimberly A. O’Connor, Presiding)
APPEARANCES: NIXON PEABODY LLP1

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(William Reynolds, Esq., of Counsel)
677 Broadway, 10th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
WHITE & CASE LLP

(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

(Robert E. Biggerstaff, Esq. and
Laura K. Biggerstaff, Esq., of Counsel)
1280 New Scotland Road
Slingerlands, New York 12159
1
Nixon Peabody LLP represented the plaintiffs at trial. However, for the appeal and the ultimate remittal of this
matter back to this Court by the Appellate Division, Third Department, the firm of Nixon Peabody LLP was no
longer involved in the matter, and the firm of DeGraff Foy & Kunz LLP was substituted.
EDUCATION LAW CENTER
(David G. Sciarra, Esq. and
Wendy Lecker, Esq., of Counsel)
60 Park Place, Suite 300
Newark, New Jersey 07102
NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS

(Megan M. Mercy, Esq., of Counsel)
800 Troy-Schenectady Road
Latham, New York 12110
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES1

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
O’CONNOR, J.:
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 N.Y.2d 307
1
When this action was commenced, Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman was the Attorney General. Following remittal, Hon.
Barbara D. Underwood became the Acting Attorney General in the wake of the resignation of Mr. Schneiderman,
and Hon. Letitia A. James was elected to the office in November 2018, taking office in January 2019.
Page 2 of 113
[1995][“CFE I”]; Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 100 N.Y.2d 893 [2003][“CFE
II”]; Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 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 N.Y.2d 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 (Trial Tr. 4031, March 3, 2015).
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,2 and the average per pupil spending within
2
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.
Page 3 of 113
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.”3
3
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.
Page 4 of 113
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 districts4 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
4
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.
Page 5 of 113
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 year5 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 A.D.3d 1248 [3d Dep’t 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
5
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.
Page 6 of 113
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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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
Page 7 of 113
education, one which prepares [children] to function productively as civic participants” (100
N.Y.2d 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
N.Y.2d 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
Page 8 of 113
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 N.Y.3d 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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.3d 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 N.Y.2d 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
Page 9 of 113
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
N.Y.3d 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
Page 10 of 113
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 (N.Y. Const., article 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
Page 11 of 113
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, supra 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).
Page 12 of 113
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.
Page 13 of 113
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, 154 A.D.3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dep’t 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
Page 14 of 113
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.
Page 15 of 113
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,
Page 16 of 113
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

Page 17 of 113
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 A.D.3d 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.” (CFE v. State of New York, 187 Misc.2d at 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
Page 18 of 113
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 N.Y.2d 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
Page 19 of 113
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 N.Y.2d 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 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 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
Page 20 of 113
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.
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 their students. This is done by
providing State aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The proof at trial
demonstrated that the Jamestown 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.
Page 21 of 113
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
Page 22 of 113
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.
Page 23 of 113
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, 154 A.D.3d 1248, 1255 [3d Dep’t 2017]). The Court will address each of those areas
separately below.
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
Page 24 of 113
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
Page 25 of 113
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
Page 26 of 113
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.
Page 27 of 113
Therefore, the Court finds that the qualifications and experience of the teachers in the Kingston
City School District are adequate.
facilities and classrooms in the Kingston City School District. However, those issues do not rise
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.
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.
Schools Bond Act statewide, which was going to assist schools in upgrades to technology, and the
Page 28 of 113
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.
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.
County, 2001]).
Page 29 of 113
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 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d at 318). The
Kingston City School District provides instruction at all levels in all of the required subjects to all
Page 30 of 113
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
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.
Page 31 of 113
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 Kingston City School District has adequate financial resources
to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. However, the leadership and allocation of
resources must continue to be improved in order to improve the outputs throughout the District.
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
Page 32 of 113
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.

Page 33 of 113
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.

Page 34 of 113
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
including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).” (Maisto v.
Page 35 of 113
separately below.
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.

Page 36 of 113
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
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.
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.
Page 37 of 113
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,
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
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,
Page 38 of 113
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.
facilities and classrooms in the Mount Vernon School District. However, those issues do not rise
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,
Page 39 of 113
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.
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.
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.

Page 40 of 113
education (citations omitted)” (Maisto v. State of New York, 154 A.D.3d 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.
increase their academic achievement” (CFE v. State of New York, 187 Misc.2d at 76 [Sup Ct, NY
County, 2001]).
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
Page 41 of 113
benchmarks of educational adequacy.” (86 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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.
constitutionally infirm. However, such analysis is circular and cannot alone serve as the basis for

Page 42 of 113
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.
Page 43 of 113
agencies. Put simply, the schools cannot, and should not, be held responsible to fix all of the
This is done by providing state aid, as well as non-monetary resources and evaluative tools. The
proof at trial demonstrated that the Mount Vernon School District has adequate financial resources
resources must continue to be addressed to improve the outputs throughout the district.
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.
Page 44 of 113
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
ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Mount Vernon
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
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
Page 45 of 113
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
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.
Page 46 of 113
I. Inputs
Initially, this Court must examine the inputs provided in the Newburgh City School
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
Page 47 of 113
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
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
regarding a minimum or maximum standard for AIS class sizes or non-AIS class sizes. Notably,
Page 48 of 113
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.
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.
if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class because he or she would be able to spend more
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.
Page 49 of 113
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.
facilities and classrooms in the Newburgh City School District. However, those issues do not rise
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
Page 50 of 113
result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden regarding school facilities
and classrooms in the Newburgh City School District.
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.
Page 51 of 113
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.
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.” (CFE v. State of New York, 187 Misc.2d at 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
Page 52 of 113
Article.” (86 N.Y.2d 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
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 N.Y.2d 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.
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
Page 53 of 113
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.
Page 54 of 113
proof at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City School District has adequate financial resources
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
ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Newburgh City
learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs are
Page 55 of 113
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.
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
Page 56 of 113
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
Page 57 of 113
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
learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).”
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
Page 58 of 113
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
Page 59 of 113
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.
Page 60 of 113
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,
Niagara Falls City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates
education. However, that was not established as a requirement in CFE. The Court’s charge in this
Page 61 of 113
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.
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
Page 62 of 113
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.
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.

Page 63 of 113
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
County, 2001]).
presented some testimony that the Niagara Falls City School District provides required special
Page 64 of 113
Article.” (86 N.Y.2d 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
Since the Niagara Falls City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes
capable of voting and serving as jurors.” (86 N.Y.2d 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
of resources, both financial and non-financial,.

Page 65 of 113
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
Page 66 of 113
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
Page 67 of 113
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.
ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Niagara Falls City
learning programs. The District has made the determination that expansion of such programs is
minimum. Nevertheless, these types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve
students.
Page 68 of 113
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.
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
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
Page 69 of 113
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
II. CONCLUSION
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.
Page 70 of 113
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
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
Page 71 of 113
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
Page 72 of 113
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,
Page 73 of 113
students had already been dismissed. This calls into question his entire analysis regarding class
sizes.
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.
if a teacher has fewer students in his or her class, because he or she would be able to spend more
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
Page 74 of 113
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.
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
Page 75 of 113
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.
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
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.
Page 76 of 113
order to increase their academic achievement.” (CFE v. State of New York, 187 Misc.2d at 76 [Sup
presented some testimony that the Port Jervis City School District provides required special

Page 77 of 113
Article” (86 N.Y.2d 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
capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 N.Y.2d at 318). The Port Jervis City School District

Page 78 of 113
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
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
Page 79 of 113
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.
proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City School District has adequate financial resources
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
Page 80 of 113
developed a comprehensive AIS plan to further improve these services identifying ways within the
current fiscal structure to enhance these programs.
ideal is not the constitutional minimum. The proof at trial demonstrated that the Port Jervis City
learning programs. The district has made the determination that expansion of such programs is
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.
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.
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
Page 81 of 113
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
Page 82 of 113
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
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
Page 83 of 113
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
learning,’ including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted).”
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.
Page 84 of 113
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-
Page 85 of 113
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
Page 86 of 113
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.
Poughkeepsie City School District are acceptable and do not create an environment that violates
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
Page 87 of 113
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.
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
Page 88 of 113
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.
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
Page 89 of 113
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.
to this Court, and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts
Page 90 of 113
addressing their educational deficiencies. The trial Court in CFE noted that “at-risk students need
County, 2001]).
presented some testimony that the Poughkeepsie City School District provides required special
School District officials regarding the optimal ability to offer more robust AIS to students appeared
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 N.Y.2d 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”
Since the Poughkeepsie City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes
Page 91 of 113
capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 N.Y.2d 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
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
Page 92 of 113
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.
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
Page 93 of 113
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.
Page 94 of 113
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.
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
Page 95 of 113
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.
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
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
Page 96 of 113
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.

Page 97 of 113
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
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.
Page 98 of 113
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
including classroom supplies, textbooks, libraries and computers (citation omitted)” (Maisto v.
separately below.
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. Eccelston,
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
Page 99 of 113
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.

Page 100 of 113
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
intervention services (AIS). She based this opinion on her experience as a teacher. While smaller
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,
Page 101 of 113

and did not support the notion that smaller class sizes had a definitive effect on student
achievement.
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
Page 102 of 113
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.
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
Page 103 of 113
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.
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
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
Page 104 of 113
years in question on textbooks through expenditures of aid specifically designated for textbooks.
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.
to this Court, and worth noting that the standard established in the CFE cases is that school districts
Page 105 of 113
order to increase their academic achievement” (CFE v. State of New York, 187 Misc.2d at 76 [Sup
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 N.Y.2d 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”
Because the Utica City School District provides some AIS, the question then becomes
capable of voting and serving as jurors” (86 N.Y.2d at 318). The Utica City School District
Page 106 of 113
constitutionally infirm. However, such analysis is circular. 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’ expert must be discounted to some extent regarding this
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.
Page 107 of 113
challenges in communication such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances
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
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.
Page 108 of 113
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.
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.
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
minimum. Nevertheless, those types of programs are not mandatory, but a goal to work to achieve
Page 109 of 113
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.
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 regarding providing an
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

Page 110 of 113
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
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
Page 111 of 113
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
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.
Page 112 of 113

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.
ENTER.
Dated: January 10, 2019 /s/

Albany, New York _________________________________________
HON. KIMBERLY A. O’CONNOR
Acting Supreme Court Justice
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.
Page 113 of 113

Small-City School Districts (Kingston, Et. Al.) vs. NY State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Small-City School Districts (Kingston, Et. Al.) vs. NY State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY

LARRY J. AND MARY FRANCES

STATE OF NEW YORK,

(Supreme Court, Albany County, Trial Term)

(Justice Kimberly A. O’Connor, Presiding)

APPEARANCES: NIXON PEABODY LLP1

WHITE & CASE LLP

THE BIGGERSTAFF LAW FIRM, LLP

NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS

HON. LETITIA A. JAMES1

STINSON, LEONARD, STREET LLP

919). The plaintiffs here have made similar claims.

Development of Foundation Aid Post-CFE

is calculated on a per student basis, as follows:

[S]tart with a foundation amount, which is a single number . . . . [M]ultiply that by

for the entire State over a period of four years.

and substantial changes in standardized testing resulted in significant decreases in student

Plaintiffs’ Case - The Trial

as countless exhibits and the voluminous pleadings.

incorporated into this Decision and Order/Judgment.

Nevertheless, the actual numbers are undisputed.

of action. The Court further directed that this Court

must weigh the adequacy of the inputs - on a district-by-district basis - considering

CFE Decisions: Setting the Legal Landscape

N.Y.2d 893, 908 [2003]).

plaintiffs established” (id. at 919).

[p]laintiffs have prevailed here owing to a unique combination of circumstances:

deadline to implement the necessary measures (see id. at 930-931).

State budget, stating:

According to the Court, “[d]eference to the Legislature is especially necessary where it is

the legislative and executive branches” (id.).

was appropriately set very high.

The Parties’ Contentions - Scope of the Case

followed violate the New York State Constitution.

performance of these students.

plaintiffs frame the issue as follows:

question by performing the analysis outlined in the CFE cases.

to fail, by reason of insufficient funding, to provide disadvantaged children throughout the

as this Court addresses each school district.

of school facilities and classrooms and the availability of appropriate ‘instrumentalities of

areas separately below.

A. Quality of Teaching Instruction/Class Sizes

experience as a teacher. However, when asked on cross-examination if there were objective

requirement of providing an opportunity for a sound basic education.

District are adequate.

Therefore, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any real deficiencies in the instrumentalities of

D. Additional Supplemental Services

intervention services, language services, extended learning opportunities or additional social

offered to meet constitutional standards.

Commissioner’s standards exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education –

constitutional minimum. A review of the CFE I Court’s statement of what is required is

offered to the students.

a finding of constitutional infirmity. To determine if there is a constitutional violation, the Court

of resources, both financial and non-financial.

of the failures in proof in the plaintiffs’ case.

challenges in communication, such as English as a second language, etc. These circumstances

negative and difficult circumstances in each student’s life.

and tailor the tools it offers to students.

achieving educational success.

instructional practices using available resources, if successfully implemented should begin to

education to its students.

the language will not be repeated here.