Testimony of Carmen Alvarez before NYC Council Education Committee

Feb 6, 2009 4:19 PM

Good afternoon Chairman Jackson and members of this distinguished committee.  My name is Carmen Alvarez and I am the Vice President for Special Education at the United Federation of Teachers (UFT).

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views about the current state of special education in New York City.  We are here because you listened to the “stories” of parents in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island who tried to navigate the special education bureaucracy in New York City to secure supports and services for their children.  We are here because you read about the hundreds of parents who stood in line for days in the Bronx when school opened last September attempting to secure placements and the children who ride overcrowded busses, some of which routinely arrive late and leave early because of the length of the new bus routes.  We are grateful that there are elected officials like you who treat the voices of the parents and school personnel with respect and who take on the responsibility for “righting” the system when things go very wrong.

As you may know, my office answers questions and attempts to resolve problems and complaints concerning special education.  Most of these questions, problems and complaints are submitted on an online special education complaint form.  While the majority of complaints are submitted by members, the services of my office are open to parents.  Every year we receive and attempt to resolve hundreds of complaints.  These complaints concern a variety of issues including:

§        Failure to provide copies of the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to the teachers and service providers responsible for implementing them;

§        Teachers who are required to sign IEPs attesting to their participation in meetings they did not attend;

§        Teachers who are told they cannot request that students be evaluated for special education or speak to parents about their concerns that a child may need special education services;

§        Failure to properly staff collaborative team teaching classes;

§        Failure to hire paraprofessionals for students who are recommended to receive one on one paraprofessional support;

§        Refusal to hire substitutes for special education teachers who are on long-term leaves of absence;

§        Routine under-servicing of students recommended to receive occupational and physical therapy in District 75;

§        Failure to provide services in a separate location in accordance with IEP mandates

This year, with the help of Linda Wernikoff, the staff of the Office of School Improvement and the Integrated Service Centers, we have been able to address most of the complaints we have received.  But the sheer volume of complaints demonstrates that there are significant systemic issues.  These issues, in my view, can be traced to several factors including

§        the elimination of special education expertise at the school level as a result of the 2003 reorganization;

§        the “flexibility” given to principals regarding use of special education funds;

§        the failure to report data regularly, in a user-friendly format and publicly regarding delivery of special education services; and

§        the failure to hold schools accountable for implementing IEPs.

There is actually one phrase that captures all of the above:  “principal empowerment.”  A signature feature of the Children First “reforms,” “principal empowerment” has fostered an atmosphere of intimidation and “lawlessness” with regard to special education in many schools.

Perhaps the most important measure of how special education is doing in New York City is the graduation rate for students with disabilities.  As revealed by New York State Education Department statistics and reported by our New York Teacher staff, the graduation rates for students with disabilities are disturbing.  In 2007, New York City graduated just 20 percent of its students with disabilities after four years, most with local diplomas, and only 24 percent after five years.  Even depressed “big 4” upstate cities do better.  And statewide, 39 percent of special education students graduate in four years and 47 percent after five years.  These rates are still unacceptably low, yet they are far higher than the New York City Public Schools.  The rising number of IEP Diplomas is especially disheartening.  IEP diplomas nullify many entry-level options upon graduation including civil service and the armed forces. 

We should not be surprised with the poor graduation rates for students with disabilities.  As reported to the federal government, in the 2006-07 school year only three of 100 IEPs sampled in New York City met all compliance indicators for transition planning.  Poor or non-existent planning leads to poor outcomes. 

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Chancellor recently announced that he had given Garth Harries, a lawyer, who came to the Department of Education (DOE) from McKinsey and Company, the task of carrying out yet another reorganization of special education in New York City.  Pardon me if I am suspicious about the timing.  We are in the midst of a severe budget crisis and special education is one of the most high ticket items in our public schools.  But you don’t have to share my suspicions because we have the rationale straight from the Chancellor’s spokesperson, Mr. Cantor, who told Gotham Schools reporter Philissa Cramer that “the reorganization is ‘most definitely related’ to the current budget conditions because it is laying the groundwork for the department to eliminate positions.”  There you have it.

Can this reorganization be salvaged in the court of public opinion?  What will it take for our members, parents, advocates, disability group representatives and other stakeholders to trust that the reorganization will make the provision of special education “better and more effective” in the words of Mr. Cantor, not just “more efficient” or less costly? 

Anyone who knows me has heard me say that every challenge brings an opportunity.  I really couldn’t do the work that I do if I did not believe that in my heart.  The opportunity for the Department of Education – and the way to salvage this reorganization - is to work in a new way with stakeholders.  Mr. Harries admits that he has little knowledge of special education.  But there is a vast amount of knowledge, experience and talent in this room and outside of this room.  We need you, members of the City Council’s Education Committee, to tell the Chancellor that you expect Mr. Harries to engage the entire special education community in this reorganization.  We say to the Chancellor, take the leap:  share leadership.  Build ownership:  share responsibility.  Use conflict to build trust and grow.  From establishing core principles to guide the reorganization to planning and implementation, move forward through dialogue and consensus, respecting each participant's contribution and point of view.  Let’s make sure that this reorganization works, not just to cut costs, but to build community and improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

I will conclude by offering my thoughts on the core principles that should guide this reorganization:

§        the needs of children with special needs and their families must truly be our first priority

§        school personnel must have the opportunity to freely discuss children’s needs, unconstrained by fears of retaliation and disciplinary action;

§        schools must be held accountable for complying with special education laws and regulations and fully implementing children’s IEPs;

§        school personnel must have the knowledge, tools, and time - including time to collaborate with other professionals - to do their jobs effectively;

§        schools must be accountable for using special education funds to support instruction and services for students with disabilities;

§        quality transition planning must take place for every child with a disability beginning in middle schools and reviewed annually;

§        the expectation for all students with disabilities who participate in regular assessments –with or without accommodations – must be a “real” diploma that will allow them secure meaningful employment, live independently and participate in our democracy;

§        instructional programs must be evaluated regularly for their effectiveness both on an individual student level and on a system level;

§        data that is regularly collected to monitor compliance and outcomes must be presented in a format easily consumed by end-users, and shared with the public on a regular basis.

It’s a long list.  But it is all doable and we should expect no less.

Thank you.