Letter to the Mayor, Chancellor & Commissioner of Health: serious privacy concerns with the city's promotion of Teenspace online mental health services

  

Last Tuesday, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, NYCLU and AI for Families sent a letter to the Mayor, Chancellor Banks, and the Commissioner of Health, expressing our deep privacy concerns with the city's contract with  Talkspace, and their promotion of their online mental health services for teens, called Teenspace.  Both the Mayor and Chancellor Banks have repeatedly hyped the great quality of these services and encouraged students to sign up, including Banks at a town hall meeting last weekend.  There are also links to Teenspace on the DOE website and on the websites of individual NYC public schools. 

The city is paying $26 million for these services, despite the fact that Teenspace collects a huge amount of very sensitive personal information from students before they even create an account  or are given access the company's privacy policy – and much of this information would be barred from collection by the federal student privacy law PPRA without parental knowledge and opt out, if DOE had contracted for these services rather than the city's Department of Health.  The list of these extremely sensitive questions is included in an appendix to our letter. 

To make things worse, the Teenspace privacy policy says students' personal data can be used for marketing purposes, which would be prohibited by the NY Ed Law 2D, again if the DOE had signed the contract. In 2022, several US Senators wrote to Talkspace, pointing out how the company also appeared to be taking advantage of a “regulatory gray area” in HIPAA, to exploit the data of their clients for profit. 

Especially with all the breaches and misuse of student data by DOE contractors, the privacy of NYC students should be better protected than this. As the letter notes, there has also been widespread consumer complaints about Talkspace’s inadequate counseling services and the overcharging of clients.  Our letter was covered by  Daily News , Chalkbeat , State Scoop  and K12 Dive.

After sending the letter, we additional learned that Talkspace has been sued in California for sharing the personal information of website visitors and those who signed up for accounts with TikTok, including the personal information of minors, only adding to our concerns. 

 

Revelation that NYC's School Construction Authority has been operating without a legally constituted board for a full year & Why it Matters

Sept. 3, 2024

In Saturday's NY Post, it was reported how the School Construction Authority, which has jurisdiction over NYC's $19 billion dollar capital plan, has been operating for a full year without a legally constituted board.  Over that period, the board has approved not only the capital plan, but also hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to consultants and builders, passed resolutions including the move of the agency's headquarters and the hiring of 31 new civil service employees.

The enabling state act which created the SCA says this:

The authority shall be governed by and its powers shall be exercised by a board of trustees consisting of three members. The members shall be the chancellor, or acting chancellor if the position of chancellor is vacant, and two other members, to be appointed by the mayor. The chancellor or acting chancellor shall serve as the chairperson of the board of trustees. ...Each appointed member shall continue in office until a successor has been appointed and qualifies.

And yet there have only been two members of the SCA board since August 2023, when Lorraine Grillo resigned:  the Chancellor and Peter McCree, who according to LinkedIn is president of a company called Link2Consult Inc.

The Agency itself seems so oblivious of the necessity of having three members that it actually posted this organizational chart on its website last April:

Highlighted above is also the name of the Inspector General, William Schaeffer, who is supposed to ensure that the SCA operates legally.  Yet Schaeffer is quoted in the NY Post article this way: "We need to appoint a third trustee, not because we’re violating the law, but because that’s what the statute requires.” What?

 

To make things worse, Schaeffer is not only the IG but also the Vice President of the SCA and his salary is paid by the SCA, rather than by the Department of Investigation, unlike the IG of every other city agency.  In addition, his situation is unique in that he was jointly appointed by both the SCA President and the DOI Commissioner.  These findings raise real concerns about his potential conflicts of interest, leading to a lack of sufficient oversight and real independence. 

 

If one reads the Board minutes from the past year, there is no mention of the class size law, no mention of how the $2 billion cut to new capacity imposed by the Mayor would affect their ability to build enough classrooms to comply, and no mention of the state budget passed in April 2024 that required them to add another $2 billion for new construction to create the space for smaller classes.  In fact there is little discussion of any of the relevant issues confronting the DOE and SCA except for much self-congratulatory chatter about how they have awarded more MWBE contracts.

Nor is there any discussion of how the contract with Local 1740, the union of School Architects, Engineers and Technical Professionals, expired three years ago, and negotiations have stalled, except for brief comment by Deputy Chancellor Weisberg following a statement from a union leader during the public comment section of their March board meeting, in which she expressed her hope for a swift resolution. 

 

As it is, the SCA operates with little transparency and accountability, as we have pointed out many times including in the NYP article.  By refusing to publicly report in which districts they need and intend to build more school seats in the capital plan, and by saying this will not be revealed until the sites have already been acquired and projects are in design, SCA officials appear to be violating their own enabling legislation, as well as Education Law §2590-o, the class size law, and Local Law 167.

 

 

In response to our legal challenge, DOE will now require parent consent before assigning students to online classes

In a big win for parents and students, the DOE significantly revised its guidance to schools about online learning after Class Size Matters and five parents launched our legal challenge three weeks ago. See the Daily News article here.

Originally, DOE had advised principals that they could assign students to online classes and keep them there until parents asked for their children to be removed, which violate the state regulations that require prior written parental consent.

But in response to our Commissioner's appeal filed on June 13, DOE emailed principals on July 1 and rewrote their instructions to align them with the regulations.  DOE sent the following email to principals:

Sure enough, the new DOE guidance makes it very clear that NO student can be assigned to an online class without prior parental consent.  See pp. 7-8:

 

 

See also p. 22:

We are not withdrawing our legal challenge,  in order to ensure that parents of children with disabilities receive IEP meetings before their children are placed in an online class, and so that DOE must validate that any student who assigned to an online class at home has adequate access to internet and the use of a laptop.  Finally, DOE should recognize the rights of parents to revoke their consent and have their children reassigned to a regular class if they are struggling. 

 

But forcing DOE officials to rewrite its guidance so emphatically is a significant victory and one that we hope will provide guardrails against what many parents believe is an unwise expansion of online learning -- which, as we witnessed during the pandemic, did not serve most students well academically or their need for social connection. 

Much thanks to our pro bono attorney, Laura Barbieri, and to the five parent plaintiffs, one from each borough: Amanda Vender, Tanesha Grant, Naila Rosario, Amy Ming Tsai, and Tia Schellstede.  As Tia put it,

 

"NYC parents will not accept the automation of our children’s education. Learning is a fundamentally human process. We are a community who cares about how policies affect our neighbors, and we work together to make sure that the city does not get away with breaking the law to deny vulnerable students of learning. We are vigilant and coordinated."

 

Parents & Class Size Matters file legal challenge to DOE plan to place students in online classes without parent consent

  On June 12, Class Size Matters and four parents launched a legal challenge to the DOE guidance on online learning.  See our press release, the legal papers, and articles in the Daily News and Politico.  Listen also to my interview on last night's Talk out of School, with attorney Laura Barbieri and two of the plaintiffs, teacher and parent Amanda Vender, and Tanesha Grant, parent and founder of Parents Supporting Parents NY.

While the state regulations approved by the Board of Regents on April 28, 2024 clearly require parent consent before a student can be assigned to an online class, the DOE guidance sent to school administrators two weeks later says that while schools should try to obtain parent consent, they can "program students for virtual/blended courses in STARS in anticipation of getting back Parent Opt-In Forms…. The student may remain in the virtual/blended course in accordance with the school’s existing add/drop policies or until the parent declines to have their student participate in the virtual/blended course, whichever occurs first."  

Clearly, this is not parent consent but parent opt-out, a much weaker procedure that is non-compliant with the regulations.  And as several parent plaintiffs pointed out in their affidavits, given how haphazard and inconsistent communication with families is at many schools, many parents may not even become aware to the  fact that their children have been assigned to online classes until it is too late to pull them out.

According to the UFT contract, teachers also have to consent to teaching a remote class before they can be assigned to one, but many are apparently unaware of this fact. Instead, at least some principals are making these decisions without conferring with either teachers or parents.  For example, a high school teacher told me that his principal  applied to DOE to  hold all classes remotely on Fridays, without polling him or other teachers first to see if they had agreed to this.

I urge all parents to immediately ask their principal if there is a plan to hold online classes next year, and if so, if they will obtain parental consent before assigning their children to these classes. Parents should also contact your School Leadership Team to see if they've discussed this matter, and if online learning is being adopted, ask if that is part of the school's Comprehensive Education Plan that all SLT members must consent to.  Teachers should also ask these questions, and  understand their right to refuse to teach online classes, according to the UFT contract.

As is obvious to nearly everyone, online learning during the pandemic seriously failed the great majority of students.  Many fell behind academically, became disengaged, and suffered mental health challenges as a result.  The fact that DOE has proposed to expand online learning as part of their plan to comply with the class size law rather than building enough additional classroom space is especially unacceptable - as remote classes will likely undermine any of the benefits that smaller classes would otherwise be expected to provide.

Yet during his campaign,  more than a year before the class size law was passed, Eric Adams proposed expanding online learning in February 2021, an idea which met with much controversy and even some ridicule.  While both he and the Chancellor now admit that no other large district in the nation is considering such a move, they point to this as a matter of pride, rather than acknowledging that perhaps others learned important lessons from the pandemic that they are resistant to learning for some reason.  

When Adams announced the new UFT contract in 2023 that allowed for the expansion of online learning, he said “Look, you all aren’t going to appreciate what I’m doing until I’m done. You are going to look back and say this guy was just ahead of what other people want. This is New York – we lead from the front...”   

Chancellor Banks proclaimed that this is "not just a reimagined experience for kids, it's a reimagined experience for teachers as well... when you want to really focus on how to make the profession respected at an even higher level, you have to engage in new and creative ways for teachers to even be able to teach. And I think that this is 21st-century thinking. We're the first major school district in the nation that is even taking this on."

If Adams and Banks are stubbornly resistant to understanding how virtual learning risks severely undermining the quality of teaching and learning in NYC schools, it must then be the responsibility of parents, educators and  advocates to do what we can to stop this runaway train.

Amanda Vender, Queens parent and teacher, critiques the vagueness of the DOE class size plan & their intention to expand online learning.

Here is another comment from last night's Queens hearing on the DOE's class size plan, pointing out how vague it is, this one provided by Amanda Vender, Queens parent and teacher.  This critique was echoed by many of the other parents and teachers who spoke. 

 

Amanda also pointed out how the city loses families each year to private schools because of the large class sizes in our public schools, and blasts the DOE's intention to using online learning instead of providing sufficient space by building more schools.  This idea of expanding virtual instruction is vehemently opposed by most NYC parents, especially given its failure during the pandemic.

 

I am a public school ENL [English as a New Language] teacher and public school parent in Queens. My children are currently in classes with sizes of 30 and up. The classes where I teach are smaller than that, but ELLs [English Language Learners] need much smaller classes for teachers to be effective with this special population that is brand new to English and in a new country. I have excellent student teachers from Queens College ready to take jobs. Yet the principals I’ve talked to are completely in the dark about how the class size law will affect their school.

 

I am outraged that our class sizes in NYC are still 15-30% larger than classes in other parts of the state. Every year I hear parents of means talk about enrolling their child in a private school for lower class sizes. It’s not right. New York is a very wealthy state and now we have the money to give our kids the attention with the class sizes they deserve. 

 

The money from the State is there. Lower class sizes. There is no better investment than this. Hire teachers, build new schools. Put the $6.8 billion you plan to spend on new jails into building new schools. It is appalling that the City appears to still be resisting lowering our class sizes decades since the NY Court of Appeals found the City was not providing a sound basic education for our kids. 

 

Your plan isn’t specific enough. Please use SMART goals like we teach our students. You need to show which schools and how many classes will meet the new sizes. Your plan needs to be more specific about recruiting, supporting and retaining teachers. We need to see benchmarks to meet projected needs. 

 

Lastly, we saw the dismal effect of virtual learning necessitated by the pandemic. Most students experienced terrible academic and social outcomes with virtual learning. Why does the DOE class size reduction plan include more virtual learning? It almost seems like the City wants to set up our students to be academically unprepared. Enough already. Do what NY State and the public is asking. Follow the law. Make a real plan with SMART goals.

 

Teacher Vinny Corletta's comments on how DOE's class size "plan" is so weak it cannot be even called "ineffective"

Last night's class size hearings were held for the borough of Queens.  There were many passionate cparents and teachers who spoke about the profound importance of class size to the learning opportunities for their students,  how excited they were when they first heard that the class size law had passed in June 2022, but their deep disappointment with the lack of planning by DOE so far to comply with the law, and the vagueness and inadequacy of the DOE's second year draft "plan" .  See our critique here. 

Below are the comments from Vinny Corletta, a middle school teacher.  If parents and teachers have other comments they'd  like to share, please send them to info@classsizematters.org Thanks! .

___

I am so excited for this law. I think this is a chance to have an immediate impact- day 1 period 1.

I’m here to talk about the future. Because this class size law is not only about the here and now, but also the future.  Years ahead when this law reaches its final stages, when it makes the city make plans to actually focus on building schools and places for students. The plan set forth is not adequate enough for a year let alone the future. 

This law gives students and educators have the chance to form deep connections, deeper learning.

Where are the moves to put this law into action?  I  am an educator - I get rated on planning. If the DOE had spent energy to start on this plan when the law was signed instead of pushing back we would be in better shape. 

Our education system has turned so hostile to the citizens of the classroom.

That students don’t even know that educator to student is so powerful. I see Fair Student Funding but I see no plans -- I see no path. 

All the funding and space issues derive from the DOE. 

I see smaller classes in a microscopic and massive perspective. I see 23 students in my class where we learn why poetry is in our blood. Where civics is our duty. Where every student has that chance to make that one connection that can change a generation, and we talk about money and space? We speak about the DOE pushing back back against this even though improving literacy can actually happen. Not by a curriculum but by the people in the room. 

I am concerned about this plan. Because it doesn’t seem like a plan at all. This wouldn’t even be an ineffective on Danielson [NYC teacher evaluation system] --- this would be "a not observed."

I remember a few years ago a man from Brooklyn who went to school in Queens was saying if we do not educate we will incarcerate. I haven’t heard him say that in a long time. There aren’t many times where a law can make an immediate impact, but this one can. Day 1, Period 1  --- this law gives us the future we all want.