CFE Files Reply Brief:
Last Papers to Court of Appeals Before Oral Arguments on May 8

CFE’s reply brief, which is a response to the state’s brief defending itself against the appeal in CFE v. State of New York, is being filed today. This will be the last paper filed before the New York State Court of Appeals hears oral arguments on May 8, 2003.

The CFE brief makes four primary points:

1) The education article of the New York State Constitution does not permit the State to provide students less than the opportunity for an adequate high school education.

2) The evidence presented before the trial court unquestionably demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of New York City students are being denied an opportunity for a sound basic education.

3) The state is ultimately responsible for the massive deficiencies of the city’s education system, and the state’s pernicious claim that at-risk children cannot learn must be rejected.

4) The court should issue remedial guidelines to cure the constitutional defects of the current school funding system.

In its hard-hitting brief, CFE sharply admonishes the state on its standards and accountability policy:

. . . the Defendants are actually advancing a much more pernicious position: the State can articulate mandatory high school graduation standards, promise the federal government that all students in the state can and will meet these standards, assure all students that if they apply
themselves they can master the standards, penalize schools whose students do not make acceptable progress in terms of the standards, and impose the draconian sanction of denial of a high school diploma on students who do not meet the standards-but then say that it is “aspirational” to expect the State to provide the basic resources that students need in order to
actually have a reasonable opportunity to meet the standards.

CFE concludes by saying:

In their defense of the Appellate Division, Defendants are asking this Court to publicly endorse three overarching positions that are facially absurd, are contrary to specific state policies, and have been roundly denounced by the State and City officials charged with educating the state’s children: (1) an eighth grade education is good enough; (2) resources have no effect on student achievement; and (3) poor students cannot overcome the disadvantages of their socioeconomic circumstances. No elected or appointed State official has, or would dare to publicly embrace any
of these propositions, yet Defendants shamelessly ask this Court to adopt all three in an effort to avoid their constitutional duty. The Court should clearly and forcefully reject this cynical effort to protect the status quo.
We respectfully ask that the Court reaffirm that the Education Article speaks to all of the state’s children and guarantees all of them the opportunity for a sound basic education.

The Court of Appeals now has three briefs from the parties, and a dozen briefs amicus curiae (all of which were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs), a total of approximately 1,000 pages, to read before May 8. CFE’s 85-page reply brief contains the most comprehensive and concise statement of all of the issues before the court. If you only read one document concerning the pending appeal, make it this one-and it is currently available on the CFE website.

Special kudos to Joseph Wayland and the team of attorneys, paralegals, and secretaries at Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, who capped their years of dedicated pro-bono service to CFE and for New York’s school children by laboring with CFE’s attorneys throughout the holiday period to produce this formidable reply brief.