Local parent to council: Help our kids

By Steven Gnagni
Managing Editor

A local parent appeared before the New York City Council’s Committee on Education last Monday, testifying that the Department of Education has failed to implement a part of the No Child Left Behind act that allows students to transfer out of failing schools. Meanwhile, a free tutoring program also received low response, and the Department of Education was struggling to increase participation.

Denise Moncrief, a parent in District 9, spoke at City Hall with parents from District 5 and District 32.

“All correspondence from the Department of Education was not written on a level that parents can understand,” Ms. Moncrief told the committee. “It didn’t tell you in plain English that the school was failing.”

She blames that poor communication, and a lack of knowledge about the law, for the low percentage of transfers throughout the city. A total of 220,000 students that attend impoverished schools are eligible to transfer to better schools, but according to the city Department of Education, 3,670 requested transfers, and 1,507—less than 1 percent—transferred.

The city council’s education committee began investigating in mid-November. Members of the committee, which includes council member Helen Diane Foster, who represents Highbridge and its surrounding area, believe the city is partially to blame.

According to committee chairperson Eva S. Moskowitz, the way the city Deparment of Education interpreted the law is to blame. The department gives the transfer power to districts, but that only allows students to transfer within a district. “But there is not a school in District 9 that is meeting any of the standards,” Ms. Moncrief argued, so transferring to other schools within the district does not improve a child’s chances for success.

In the meantime, Department of Education officials invited to testify at the hearing did not show up, and committee members were upset. “Unfortunately, the people in charge of your education have not shown up,” Ms. Foster said.

Deadline extended

Meanwhile, the Department of Education extended the November 15 sign-up deadline for the tutoring services after an unexpectedly low response from parents. The reason: Local school districts were behind in giving parents the information about the programs and struggled to get the word out.

Local parents had trouble finding spots with local providers at the last minute.

“My son is behind and he really needs help,” said Audrey Harrison, a resident of Highbridge whose son goes to school in District 7 in the Bronx. Ms. Harrison, who chose Kaplan because her son’s first choice, SCORE, was full, shuttled between the school and the district office in the days leading up to the original November 15 deadline just to get the sign-up form, which she finally faxed to Kaplan.

The No Child legislation puts the onus of registration on the parents in a way that few Board of Ed programs do.

“We’re characterizing the parent as a consumer,” said James Vaughan, the state’s Title I director.

To get their children into a tutoring program, parents must sort through the list of qualified tutors—who have been approved by the state and city through a competitive process—and meet with the organization of their choice.

Without much help, though, says Mr. Vaughan. “I’m seeing a parent looking at the list of vendors and reading the blurbs. I’m not sure if I’m good at picking from different orange juices, so imagine me looking at vendors and knowing what this means.”

Show us the money

Even though Ms. Harrison got her child signed up, it still remains to be seen if children will actually get the help. One source of confusion in the matter: how much money will be spent on the program.

To make these programs possible, the No Child Left Behind Act increased each state’s Title I funding—money provided to schools with a high percentage of low-income students and that have missed performance standards for a number of years. New York City, for example, saw its funding increased from $492 million to $612 million. (District 9 receives about $20 million for its 17 Title I schools.) Of that $612 million, 20 percent, or just over $120 million, must go towards the transfer and tutoring programs, according to law.

The New York City Department of Education seems to be focusing on another number. The regulations say at least 5 percent of Title I funds must be spent on transferring students to better schools, and 5 percent must go to the tutoring program, with an extra 10 percent to be divided between the two programs. So the city has set aside the 5 percent, or about $27 million, for the tutoring, according to a July 2002 report by the city Department of Education’s Division of Budget Operations and Review (DBOR).

The state Title I director says he is aware of this discrepancy. “In this transition year, there may be unawareness of it [the tutoring program] at the local level, and that seems to predict that there may not be a total draw on the whole entitlement,” said Mr. Vaughan.

At the same time, Mr. Vaughan says, “What the city has got to face is that they have to honor that 15 percent [the 5 percent plus the 10 percent]. But it can be difficult budgetarily if you encumber this amount of money.”

This money issue, naturally, is angering parents and providers alike. Under the best case scenario, about 35 percent of the 220,000 students who are eligible would get the services. But at the city’s funding levels, only about 12 percent of those kids are expected to get a slot.

The city Department of Education would not comment for this story, but community school districts went into the program fully aware that a number of qualified kids will go unserved. District 9 may have to rank children according to need in order to determine who gets service.

Federal guidance suggests two alternatives for doing this: 1) “...select a cut off score on an assessment measure” or 2) “concentrate services on the lowest-achieving students in particular grades or on those students in the subgroups that caused the school to be identified.”

Frustrated tutors

Tutoring services have been equally frustrated with the process. The mix of for-profits, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and community-based organizations were picked through a state request for qualifications process. The state approved over 70 providers, and New York City approved just under 30 of those.

Each tutor is promised the lesser of the actual cost of a year’s sessions or the per pupil allocation, which is calculated by dividing the amount the district is allocating by the number of eligible students.

Based on that formula, many of these tutors won’t be able to serve many students, or they will have to find other sources of funding to make the program worthwhile. At Interfaith Neighbors, which serves students from District 4 in East Harlem, reading lab director Alice Vogt estimates that for each of the 40 students they expect to serve, the first 15 sessions will be covered by the money they will get from school districts for their services. (The average per pupil allocation for Manhattan is $951.13, according to DBOR’s figures. For the Bronx, the amount is slightly lower, at $762.96 per pupil.) For the rest of the school year, Ms. Vogt said, ÒWe will provide free sessionsÓ utilizing outside funding. In addition, these organizations were put into stiff competition for what money is available. The city’s Deparment of Education, according to an October 14 authorization by the chancellor’s office, will provide $10 million (of the $27 million) to these tutoring programs. The rest of the money will be funneled back into city Department of Education tutoring programs, which were also approved by the state.

Mr. Vaughan, of the state Department of Education, says the law is a work In progress, and that It will take a while for officials to get everything right. “To do this right is going to take time,” he said.

Bruce Ellis, president of Community Advocacy for Educational Excellence, a parent advocacy group in Harlem, suggests that pressure must be put on the Department of Education to spend the full 15 percent required by law so that as many children as possible can be helped.

“That 15 percent needs to be a rallying point for parents,” he said.