Showing posts with label advocates for children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advocates for children. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

#TalkoutofSchool: NYPD Intervention in student mental health crises and how to make schools more healing-centered

After a brief news recap, in today's #Talk out of School,  I spoke with Dawn Yuster, the Director of the School Justice Project for Advocates for Children, which has just released a startling report on police interventions in student mental health crises in NYC schools. 

Then I interviewed Resheeda Harris, parent leader, and Katrina Feldkamp of Bronx Legal Services, both members of the Healing-Centered Schools Task Force, composed of advocates, parents and educators who are working with schools so that they become less punitive and more healing-centered – which would help prevent these mental health crises and police interventions occurring. Listen in and check the resources for more information.  You can check out other Talk out of School podcast segments and/or subscribe here.

Episode Notes

Resources:


Thursday, September 3, 2020

Talk out of School podcast with Jamaal Bowman and Randi Levine

Check out our latest "Talk out of School" podcast with former principal Jamaal Bowman about his landslide primary win in NY's District16 and what he intends to do for our public schools when he gets to Congress.

Then we spoke to Randi Levine, Policy Director of Advocates for Children, about what she thinks of the city's just-released school reopening plan  and whether it does enough for the more than 200,000 students with special needs and the 114,000 students who are homeless.  More information below.

 

More resources:



Thursday, November 29, 2018

Yet another legal complaint vs Success for violating students' civil rights - & this time, it's clear that DOE is culpable as well

Eva Moskowitz, Success Academy CEO, with her family

Advocates for Children filed a new complaint with the State Education Department about Success Academy’s failure to provide five special needs students with their mandated services and their right to a hearing before their placement is unilaterally changed, as required by state and federal law.  
This is yet one more example of many lawsuits and legal complaints against the charter network.
Success Academy officials violated civil rights laws when changing students’ special education services according to a complaint filed Thursday, resulting in some students suddenly changing classrooms and losing months of required instruction.
The complaint, filed with the state’s education department, alleges a pattern of school officials unilaterally changing special education placements without holding meetings with parents, moving students to lower grade levels, and even ignoring hearing officers’ rulings. In some cases, students were removed from classrooms that integrate special and general education students and sent to classrooms that only serve students with disabilities.
The complaint also targets the NYC Department of Education which, as AFC notes, is responsible for ensuring that Success abides by the law when it comes to providing special needs kids with their mandated services:
As the LEA, the DOE is responsible for ensuring that all procedural safeguards for students with disabilities at charter schools are followed, including implementation of pendency orders. [meaning they cannot change placements or services to special needs kids without due process].
In one case, the complaint outlines, “the DOE stated that the decisions to change M.L.’s placement were internal school matters over which the DOE had no control” and if the parent wanted to stop the illegal actions of Success, she would have to file a lawsuit in federal court to ask for a temporary restraining order.
...As a result of this lengthened process of first obtaining the pendency order at an impartial hearing and then needing to enforce the order in federal court, students with disabilities are losing ordered instruction time, solely because they attend a charter school…
Even when a hearing is held, the Success charter officials ignore the demands of the hearing officer. When the hearing officer ordered them to restore the previous placement to the student, "counsel for Success Academy replied, refusing to comply with M.L.’s Pendency Order and stating that: (1) M.L.’s Pendency Order was “legally erroneous” and (2) the impartial hearing officer did not have the authority to order M.L.’s return to her prior placement."
At no time the DOE defend the rights of the students involved, according to the complaint:
As the LEA for students with disabilities attending charter schools in New York City, the DOE is responsible for ensuring that all procedural safeguards for students with disabilities at charter schools are followed, including making sure that changes in placements occur only after duly constituted IEP meetings and prior written notice to the parent. The DOE, however, has not been holding IEP meetings prior to these changes in placements. Indeed, the DOE defended at hearing the unilateral changes of M.L.’s and K.B.’s placements without IEP meetings, and at M.J.’s IEP meeting, the DOE representative stated that these unilateral changes in placement by Success Academy schools were out of the DOE’s control.
Among the demands made by AFC to DOE in the case:
AFC requests that NYSED order the DOE to:
a. develop an accountability structure to ensure that all charter schools, including SA schools and all other schools within the Success Academy network, comply with all procedural safeguards for students with disabilities under the IDEA and New York law;
b. identify those SA schools and all other schools within the Success Academy network that are not providing the procedural safeguards required by the IDEA and New York Education Law and develop a plan to ensure that those schools provide procedural safeguards when required.

The complaint also cites in passing the example of Success Academy eliminating one of their 12-1-1 classes at Bed Stuy middle school last year, and essentially ejecting all these special needs students, as reported in Politico.  Yet as I previously wrote about here, after analyzing the available data, Success actually got rid of one fourth of its 12-1-1 classes last year.   When a parent advocate contacted the DOE's  special ed office on behalf of these parents, the DOE knew nothing about this and utterly failed in its oversight of Success.  
What's bizarre is in the cases described in the complaint, Success managers insisting on removing  students from inclusion classes and put them in 12-1-1 classes -- but then at the end of the year decided to eliminate many of these classes instead.  
The chaotic nature of these actions further suggests that Success just doesn't know what to do with students who for whatever reason aren't responding to their test-prep culture with super-high test scores.   As is clear, they have hard time hiring teachers because of their terrible treatment of both teachers and kids; see the overwhelming negative reviews in Glassdoor. They find it especially difficult to hire teachers who are certified in special education, which explains why a former store clerk was hired to teach the 12-1-1 class at Success Academy Bed Stuy Middle school  without any experience, with the principal telling parents that they didn't know how to reach kids with learning problems.
While apparently unsure or unwilling to provide students with their mandated services, it is apparent that the network demands its teachers fulfill a quota of kids identified as having disabilities, apparently to get more funding from the state, as explained by in a Glassdoor review by a teacher this fall:
Sadly, this new complaint was filed the day after Success was allowed via a vote of the Panel for Education Policy to co-locate a new middle school within PS 25 in Brooklyn next year -- in which they will able to abuse yet more students. So that the DOE (and the Mayor) are enablers of this abuse in several ways - first, by not exerting any oversight to ensure that Success respects of its students, and then giving them space to expand the number of kids they will mistreat.

Because I helped parents bring a lawsuit to keep PS 25 open (which this co-location vote doesn't directly affect), I was quoted in Chalkbeat about this vote last night:
“As usual the Success steamroller pushes on,” wrote Leonie Haimson, executive director of the advocacy group Class Size Matters. “Hopefully the new Senate majority will stand up to [Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz] with more guts than the Mayor has done.”
Let's hope the new year brings more accountability to delinquent charter schools like Success through Legislative action. 

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Maggie Moroff on how parents need a voice in teacher evaluation


Several months ago, Class Size Matters sponsored an online petition to the Governor and the Regents, asking that public school parents be appointed to their 57-member taskforce on teacher evaluation, which had not a single parent on it.  They ignored us, and instead came up with a new unfair and unreliable system, based 40% on standardized test scores, and that will lead to even more high-stakes testing.  Check out the letter from Maggie Moroff of Advocates for Children below, and let's work together to make sure that parents are not let completely out in the cold when it comes to evaluating their children's teachers. 

New York State is changing the way teachers are evaluated. If things happen on schedule, teachers of grades 4 – 8 ELA and math will be evaluated under the new system beginning this fall, and it will be rolled out to all teachers by the 2012-2013 school year. Importantly, the state law requires the agreement of the teachers union before the new system takes effect.
Once in place, the new evaluation system will affect how teachers are trained, promoted, paid, given tenure, and fired.  It will affect who teaches our children, and it could impact how our children are taught.
Under the new system, 40% of teacher evaluations will be based on student outcomes, as measured by performance on statewide standardized tests and by other methods of assessing student progress chosen or developed by local school districts. The remaining 60% of teacher evaluations will be based on locally determined measurements of how teachers prepare, plan, and conduct lessons, develop their own skills, and create learning environments for their students. For more information about the new evaluation system, see Advocates for Children of New York’s (AFC) fact sheet.
This past spring, staff at AFC talked to fourteen focus groups – comprised of students with disabilities and English Language Learners, their parents, and teachers – about what makes a good teacher. We discussed a number of methods of teacher evaluation, including the use of standardized tests, classroom observation, review of portfolios of student work, and surveys of students, parents, and the teachers themselves.
We heard loud and clear that parents want a voice in evaluation – for themselves, and for their children as well. Parents are eager to complete surveys on their interactions with teachers and also to collaborate in the development of those surveys. Parents also want at least a part of the evaluations of teachers – and principals, too – to be based on their ability to work with parents and diverse communities. One parent told us, “If [the principal] doesn’t care what the parents say, it is as if they don’t exist. But they do exist; that is why our children are there.”
In addition, our focus group participants worried that standardized tests are not always the best measures of what students – particularly those with disabilities and English Language Learners – know and learn. The new evaluation system, so heavily reliant on standardized tests, may act as a disincentive for new teachers to work with these populations. One parent of a child on the autism spectrum asked, “When the principal asks the teachers who will take [my son] into their classroom, who will raise their hand?”
Do you share these parents’ concerns? AFC is now developing recommendations for the New York City Department of Education as it moves forward to change evaluation of our teachers and principals. We want to hear from more of you! If you’d like to add your voice, call (212) 822-9523 or email mmoroff@advocatesforchildren.org.
It is not too late for parents and students to affect the development of the new evaluation system. Although its basic framework is set by State law, the details are a work in progress.
- Maggie Moroff, Special Education Policy Coordinator, Advocates for Children of New York

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Advocates for Children candidate survey results

Advocates for Children announced the results of a new survey on education policy today. Candidates in the 2009 New York City elections for mayor, public advocate, and comptroller provided answers to questions covering a variety of controversial issues that affect local public schools. Mayor Bloomberg, unfortunately, refused to respond.

Click here to see the full press release and here to download the full results. Here are the results regarding class size:

5. Education outcomes will not improve significantly until class sizes are reduced.

Public Advocate

Bill de Blasio No Response

Eric Gioia Agree

Mark Green Strongly Agree

Norman H. Siegel Strongly Agree

Alex T. Zablocki Agree

Mayor

Tony Avella Strongly Agree

Robert Burck Strongly Disagree

Joseph Dobrian Strongly Disagree

Tyrell Eiland Strongly Agree

John Finan Strongly Agree

Walter Iwachiw Neither Agree nor Disagree

Roland Rogers Strongly Agree

Bill Thompson Strongly Agree

Frances Villar Strongly Agree

Comptroller

Joseph A. Mendola Strongly Agree

David Yassky Agree

Sunday, August 12, 2007

The response is unanimous: withhold state funding until DOE comes up with a better proposal!


On August 6, Class Size Matters faxed an open letter to NY State Education Commissioner Mills, with the signatures of over 200 parents, PTA presidents, Community Education Councilmembers, education advocates, and other key leaders, including Robert Jackson, Chair of the NYC Council Education committee and the original CFE plaintiff.

The letter urges the state to reject the city's
class size reduction proposal, submitted on July 16 as part of its "Contract for Excellence", and to withhold funding until and unless the city prepares an actual, enforceable five year reduction plan, as mandated by law.

The city is obligated to come up with a five year plan, showing continuous and measurable reductions in class size, to receive the additional funding that will come to our schools as a result of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) case, according to the budget passed by the State Legislature last spring.

Earlier, we sent Commissioner Mills a longer letter, explaining in detail why the the city's submission is inadequate. For those who are interested in taking a look at our analysis, it is posted (in Word)
here. In brief, the Department of Education's proposal fails to comply with the law for the following reasons:

It does not include even the outlines of a five year class size reduction plan, as required. Even as a one year plan, it lacks sufficient funding, space and direction.


The so-called "Fair student formula" used to allocate dollars deprives resources to reduce class size to half of all schools, including 47% of our failing schools – those that according to law and good policy should be addressed first.


The schools that were selected for “class size coaching” are too few in number, and the process itself of "coaching" will lead to uncertain results.


There is no alignment with the capital plan, as the law mandates -- and thus there is no provision of the additional space that will be necessary.


The class size “targets” mentioned in the document appear to be based on speculation alone, and are so minimal they will be difficult to measure, given the chronic inaccuracy of the city’s class size data. In many grades, the “targets” for class size appear to be higher than would result from enrollment decline alone.


The funds the city wants to spend on its testing initiative, under the heading of additional "time on task" should be disallowed -- as all these new standardized exams will take time away from learning rather than extend it.


Instead of a thoughtful systematic plan, this proposal is fatally flawed -- haphazard, scattershot, and indifferent to the law and the regulations. It is unlikely to lead to a significant reduction in class size in any grade.


We asked that the state require that the city spend at least $100 million next year hiring teachers to reduce class size, targeted first to our failing schools, and immediately prepare a long-term plan, providing sufficient funding and space through a more expansive capital budget, so all students in this city will be able to receive appropriate class sizes within five years.


Since the city revealed its proposal in July, it has met with overwhelming criticism from parents and teachers alike. Here is what Noreen Connell of the Educational Priorities Panel wrote about the response:


Despite the absence of a coherent document and with as little as five days’ notice, close to 900 individuals testified before NYC Department of Education officials, predominantly PTA presidents and other parent leaders. A smaller proportion of those giving oral testimony, but still significant in number, were classroom teachers. Education advocates, elected officials, and civic and union representatives were the balance of participants. ... all substantive public testimony expressed disappointment or anger about the plan’s objectives. Such widespread public rejection calls for the NYS Department of Education to work with city school officials to develop a more acceptable plan.


Her are links to the letters to Mills from Assembly Education Chair Cathy Nolan, Assemblymember James Brennan, City Council Education Chair Robert Jackson, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity ( pdf), Advocates for Children (pdf), the League of Women Voters (pdf), the Women's City Club (pdf), the United Federation of Teachers, and the Educational Priorities Panel -- each asking that funding be withheld until the city comes up with a better proposal.

What will the Commissioner do? Stay tuned.