Playing
by The Rules When The System Doesn’t:
Immigrant
Families and Summer School in New York
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.
· 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 31st. 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.
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.
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.
The Educational Needs of English Language Learners Were Not Met by Summer School.
Suspensions and Expulsions Were Problematic During Summer School.
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.
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.
|
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 |