Playing by The Rules When The System Doesn’t:

Immigrant Families and Summer School in New York

Advocates for Children of New York

New York Immigration Coalition

August 25, 2000

Executive Summary

This report discusses findings from surveys conducted during summer 2000 by Advocates for Children of New York and the New York Immigration Coalition to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Year 2000 Summer Program. Summer School 2000 is an integral part of the New York City Board of Education’s updated promotion policy, which was approved in 1999. Surveys focused on those children identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) whose first language is not English, and children from immigrant families. This population was selected because of the concern that they would be disproportionately and negatively affected by the new promotion policy and be enrolled in the summer school program in large numbers. Surveys were completed by 457 parents of children who were attending summer school in July and August 2000 and 650 students who were attending the summer program. Additional information was obtained from 32 parents who completed a pilot survey prior to the beginning of summer school. Key findings are summarized below.

The enormous ethnic and racial diversity of current immigrant and refugee arrivals in New York, and the projected continuation of these demographic trends into the coming century, create important challenges and opportunities for New York’s policymakers and school administrators. Schools must be prepared to respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse, multilingual and multicultural student body, and take steps to ensure that all of New York’s students receive an education that helps them reach their full potential as members of society.

Preventive Services During the School Year, While Sorely Needed, Were Rarely Offered.

One of the most damaging changes in promotion policy has been the evisceration of the entitlement to enrichment services. The former policy mandated that students “who are identified in January as being at risk of failure to meet promotional standards in June . . . must be provided with customized enrichment-based instructional support services designed to enable them to achieve the performance standards by the end of the school year.” (Emphasis added). Although the new regulation discusses the importance of developing intervention and supportive services for students at risk of not meeting the standards, and schools have said they will help children with extra services, the regulation does not require that children at risk of being held over receive extra help provided by the school. The updated policy, while requiring students to meet higher standards, eliminates the entitlement to extra services for the students at risk. In other words, under the new policy, even if the school fails to properly notify a parent that a child is at risk of holdover and fails to offer or provide any enrichment services to assist that student, the student can still be held over. The results of this new policy were discouraging. Less than half of the students surveyed received intervention services during the regular school year.

Despite the fact that students were experiencing academic failure, students reported receiving few if any support services:

· 25% had received extra help in reading, 75% did not.

· 29% had received extra help in mathematics, 71% did not.

· 15% had received after-school services, 85% did not.

· 6% had received before-school services, 94% did not.

· 9% had received in-class small group or individual instruction, 91% did not.

Reports from parents surveyed about whether their children had received support services were even more disturbing. According to their responses:

· 24% of students had received extra help in reading, 76% did not.

· 13% of students had received extra help in mathematics, 87% did not.

Communication to Parents about Retention/Summer School Was Not Timely and Rarely in Writing.

The updated Promotion Policy provides specific mandates regarding parental involvement and notification of possibility of retention (1) no later than the Fall Parent Teacher Conference, and (2) in writing no later than January 31^st. Parents were also required to be notified in writing by regular mail of the final decision not to promote and of required summer school not less than 14 days before the end of the school year.

• 47% of the students surveyed and 44% of the parents surveyed reported that they (or their parents) first learned that they were at risk for being held over after June 1.

• 63% of the students indicated that their parent had received a written letter (although not timely) informing them of their child’s possible retention and 37% did not. Findings from the parent survey are consistent: 68% received a letter and 32% did not.

• 54% of the parents received an official notice in June after test scores came out. The remainder (45%) were not told that their child would not be promoted and that s/he was required to attend summer school.

This lack of communication helped assure that children did not receive intervention services during the school year, thus helping to assure their academic failure.

Communication to Parents Who do not Speak English Was Grossly Inadequate.

The updated promotion policy requires schools to communicate with parents in their home language: “To the extent possible, communication with parents should be in the home language.” This mandate is vital for parents such as those surveyed for this report: 70% reported that they spoke, understood, and read English either “not at all” or only “a little.”

· There was virtually no communication to parents whose native or home language was not English about the new standards, the multiple criteria for promotion, and for grades 9 to 12, the Regents and graduation requirements.

· Although the pamphlet “What Did You Learn in School Today?” that explains the educational standards for each grade is available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Haitian-Creole, Bengali, and Korean, only 12% of the students and 9% of the parents indicated that they were aware that the pamphlet was available in any of these languages.

· Only 20 of the 650 students surveyed and 8 of the 457 parents surveyed indicated that they had received the pamphlet in a language other than English.

• Correspondence to parents about possible grade retention and mandatory summer school was rarely sent in languages other than English.

Ø 75% of the parents surveyed who had received a letter from their child’s school reported that the letter was written in English, though the native language of most of these families was not English.

Ø 85% of the students surveyed who had reported that a letter had been sent to their home reported that the letter was written in English, even though English was identified as the native language for only 18% of these students.

Ø Only 22% of the parents surveyed whose home or native language was not English had been notified of their child’s possible retention in their home language.

Communication to Parents and Students About the New Standards was Sorely Lacking.

The updated promotion policy recognizes parents as active partners in the education of their children: “Parents must be integral partners in the education of their children. As such, parents must understand the levels of achievement necessary for promotion and be informed if their child needs intervention early in the school year.”

· 30% of the students surveyed and 12% of the parents surveyed indicated that they were aware of the availability of the Board of Education’s pamphlet, “What Did You Learn in School Today?” that explain the educational standards for each grade.

· 18% of the students surveyed and 11% of the parents surveyed indicated that they (or their parents) had received the pamphlet. Less than 10% of the parents stated they had received the pamphlet.

Communication to Parents about the Appeals Process was Very Poor.

The updated Promotion Policy provides parents with the right to appeal the decision about mandating their child to summer school by writing to the principal within 3 school days of receiving final notification; this is a very short time frame. If the principal denies their appeal parents can then appeal to the superintendent within 3 school days of the date the principal mails or hand delivers the decision to the parent. This nearly impossible time line was in sharp contrast with prior policies and proved impossible for parents to use.

• Most parents (64%) were not provided with information about how to appeal the decision to require their child to be held back.

The Educational Needs of English Language Learners Were Not Met by Summer School.

• 61% of the students indicated that they were being taught by teachers who did not speak their home or native language.

• Only 58% of the students who reported receiving ESL services during the regular school year continued to receive them in summer school.

• Only 44% of the students who reported receiving Bilingual services during the regular school year received them in summer school.

Suspensions and Expulsions Were Problematic During Summer School.

• Overall, 20% of the students surveyed indicated that they or a student that they knew had been suspended or expelled from the summer session. In addition, 15 parents (3.5%) indicated that their own child had been suspended or expelled from the summer session. This may have been the result of the Board issuing a truncated school discipline policy that eliminated most substantive and due process rights for summer school children.

Summer School – A Potentially Rewarding Experience – Although Too Little Too Late

A key part of the updated promotion policy is the mandatory summer school for students who fail to meet promotional criteria – a combination of class work, standardized test grades, and attendance. While the majority of students and parents felt summer school was a good idea and helpful, it could have been better – especially for English Language Learner students who had been in ESL and/or bilingual classes during the school year.

• 63% of students and 66% of parents were satisfied with the summer school teacher.

• 69% of students and 74% of parents reported that summer school had helped a lot.

• 85% of the students and 88% of parents said that they thought summer school classes were a good idea.

• 89% of students said that their teacher was able to help them with their educational needs.

• 89% of students reported that they were using books and reading materials in summer schools that are related to the subjects they need to pass.

• Most students and parents reported that the summer school classroom had enough desks (90% and 94%), chairs (90% and 94%), supplies such as paper, chalk, pens, pencils (80% and 94%), and books (82% and 94%).

• A substantial number of both students and parents reported that there were not enough fans (36% of students and 74% of parents) or air conditioners to maintain the classroom at a comfortable level (41% of students and 18% of parents).

• A substantial minority of students (26%) reported that there was construction, repair or maintenance going on at their school; some of whom (24%) thought that this presented a danger. In addition, 17% reported that there were environmental conditions in their school that they were unhappy with.

Recommendations

1) Provide the Necessary Intervention Services During the School Year and Avoid the Need for Summer School.

2) Provide Adequate and Timely Notice to Parents in Writing.

3) Provide Notice and Information in the Home or Native Language of the Parents.

4) Meet the Needs of ELLs During the Summer Session.

5) Revise the Cancellor Regulations to Allow at least Two Weeks to Appeal a Decision Regarding Mandatory Summer School.

6) Follow the Same Regulations Regarding Suspensions and Expulsions as During the Regular School Year.

7) Hold Districts and Individual Schools Accountable for the Quality of Summer School Programs.

Part A: Background Information

1. Introduction

“The success of the promotion policy hinges on early identification of “at risk” students and the quality of instructional “interventions” and support services provided to them.”[1]

Summer School 2000 is an integral part of the New York City Board of Education’s updated promotion policy, which was approved on September 8, 1999. Chancellor’s Regulation A-501 “Promotion Standards”, which implemented the Board’s promotion policy, was issued by then Chancellor Crew shortly thereafter (October 14, 1999) and established new criteria for promotion for students in grades 3-12. The Regulation (CR-A-501) became effective immediately.

According to CR-A-501, the updated promotion policy was designed to address five major educational goals: (a) the implementation of rigorous academic and promotion standards, (b) ongoing student assessment to monitor student progress, (c) provision of supports and interventions to help students achieve the required standards, (d) professional development to help school personnel to effectively help students meet the required standards, and (e) involvement of the entire school community to create and support effective strategies for improved student achievement.

To accomplish the Chancellor’s goal of higher academic standards for New York City’s public school students, the updated promotion policy (CR-A-501) substantially revised existing policy. For example, it changed the required promotional criteria, eliminated provisions which placed a cap on the number of times a student can be held over, and most importantly for this report, added a requirement of mandatory summer school for those children who did not meet the new criteria. It also dramatically revised the appeals process and eliminated an exception process for summer school. The new policy also eliminated sections of the prior policy that included the mandatory parental rights to notification regarding retention and students’ entitlement to services in the subjects in which they were experiencing difficulties.

This report discusses findings from surveys conducted during summer 2000 by Advocates for Children of New York and the New York Immigration Coalition to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Year 2000 Summer Program. These surveys focused on those children identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) whose first language is not English, and children and parents who are new immigrants. This population was selected because of the concern that they would be disproportionately affected by the new promotion policy and summer school program, with its retention policy in particular. Surveys were completed by 457 parents of children who were attending summer school in July and August 2000 and 650 students who were attending the summer program. Additional information was obtained from 32 parents who completed a pilot pre-summer survey prior to the beginning of summer school.

2. Immigrant and Refugee Students in New York City

Immigrants and their children make up a large and growing percentage of New York City’s population. Currently, immigrants and their children comprise just under two-thirds of the City’s population. Between 1995-1998, nearly 112,000 immigrant students registered for public school in New York City. In the 1997-1998 school year, of New York City’s roughly 1.1 million public school students, 155,859 were classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), also known as English Language Learners (ELLs), the term used throughout this report. In 1999, a stunning 53% of children 5-18 years old were members of immigrant families in New York City.[2] While not all ELL students are immigrants or the children of immigrants, and not all immigrants and/or their children require assistance in learning English, the size and diversity of New York’s immigrant and refugee communities naturally create more demand for English language instruction in schools. In New York State, there are currently 220,000 students who are English Language Learners (ELLs), with 156,000 ELLs in New York City. Overall, 80% of all New York State’s ELL students are enrolled in New York City, resulting in 16.7% of the 1.1 million children enrolled in the City’s public schools being identified as ELL. Statewide, ELLs make up nearly 8% of all students, and in New York City, nearly 17% of total students.

Since the late 1970s, immigrants from the Caribbean have dominated the flow of newcomers, with the Dominican Republic topping the list of sending countries through the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. Other Caribbean countries that figured prominently in New York’s arrival statistics during these recent decades include Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana. The most recent years for which arrival data are available (1990-1996) indicate that newcomers from the Former Soviet Union rank second on the list. In addition, several African countries, notably Egypt, Nigeria and Ghana, began sending enough immigrants to rank among the top twenty countries for the first time ever. Table 1 lists the top ten countries of origin for immigrants to New York City in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s along with the number of new New Yorkers arriving from each country during each time period.[3]

Table 1: TOP TEN SENDING COUNTRIES TO NEW YORK CITY

ANNUAL AVERAGES, 1972-1979, 1982-1989, 1990-1996.

1972-1979		1982-1989		1990-1996
Country of Origin	Number	Country of Origin	Number	Country of Origin	Number
1. Dominican Republic	9,997	1. Dominican Republic	14,470	1. Dominican Republic	21,330
2. Jamaica	6,636	2. Jamaica	9,043	2. Former Soviet Union	15,279
3. China, Total	5,190	3. China, Total	8,985	3. China, Total	11,935
4. Italy	3,733	4. Guyana	6,705	4. Jamaica	6,403
5. Haiti	3,602	5. Haiti	5,102	5. Guyana	5,986
6. Trinidad & Tobago	3,501	6. Colombia	2,851	6. Poland	3,553
7. Guyana	3,244	7. Korea	2,514	7. Philippines	3,247
8. India	2,857	8. India	2,505	8. Trinidad & Tobago	3,061
9. Ecuador	2,793	9. Ecuador	2,241	9. Haiti	3,007
10. Former Soviet Union	2,664	10. Philippines	1,692	10. India	2,976

These statistics indicate that New York is unique among other large, immigrant-receiving cities and states, not only for the size of its newcomer population, but also for the diversity in race, ethnicity and national origin of its newcomers. This diversity is in turn reflected in the number of languages spoken by its school-age children. Table 2 shows the enrollment of English Language Learners by predominant language and borough for the 1998-1999 school year in New York City public schools.

Table 2: LEP STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY PREDOMINANT LANGUAGE & BOROUGH

Predominant Language Group	Total LEP Student Enrollment	Distribution by Borough
		Manhattan	Bronx	Brooklyn	Queens	Staten Island
Spanish	97,203	22,863	33,587	18,852	21,056	845
Chinese	15,395	5,479	209	5,309	4,274	124