Educating homeless students

Good afternoon Chairman Jackson, Chairwoman Palma, Chairman Fidler and to all of the members of the Education, General Welfare and Youth Services committees. My name is Karen Alford and I am the vice president for elementary education at the United Federation of Teachers. On behalf of our members and our President Michael Mulgrew, I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue.

We believe that all of the members of this body who have oversight over the education and welfare of students living in homeless shelters, foster care and other forms of temporary housing care deeply about our children. We believe that the city agencies charged with administering education and support services also care. But our concern is that the distance between the widening wealth gap and the children living and trying to learn in the midst of poverty is getting deeper. And frankly, it takes more than caring. It requires intensive intervention delivered seamlessly across all agencies with accountability residing at City Hall.

The dramatic increase in children living in shelters and other forms of temporary housing is deeply troubling. We further believe that some of this administration’s policies are working at cross purposes to its stated goals, especially as it relates to children living in poverty and the resources and services available to them in their schools.

The problem is worsening

Homelessness In New York City

• There are 16,000 children (school age and younger) in New York City shelters, according to the Department of Homeless Services.
• There are 43,000 kids without permanent homes in NYC, according to the Department of Education, meaning not just those in shelters, but also those doubled up with family members, living in cars motels, etc.

According to the Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness (ICPH), there is not only an increase in the sheer numbers of families seeking shelter services in New York City over the last several years, the number of repeat families — those who had housing and have returned to homelessness — has risen 137% from 2005-2009.

We are talking about children who are at risk for not succeeding in school, hindering their lifelong chances for employment and self-sufficiency. Children who do not have permanent housing are at higher risk for missing school at chronic levels. They are at risk for low performance. They are at risk for being over age and under credited. They are at risk for low graduation rates.

Our schools are anchors in the communities that they serve. This becomes even truer for children destabilized by homelessness and poverty. The DOE in particular needs to shift its approach to strengthening schools serving an increasing population of high needs students. Its focus on accountability measures, progress reports and budget cuts miss the mark. It is not enough to have data pinpointing high absenteeism rates, free lunch eligibility and low performance; we need to fix what the data identifies.

We are particularly disheartened by the continual cuts to programs and services that help stabilize struggling schools and help children who are at risk.

We testified before the City Council just last week about what happens when the children lose school aides, health aides, parent coordinators, family assistants and other valuable support service positions. Again, the city is turning to its agency heads and is asking for an average 2.4% cut from their budgets. These cuts fall heavily on children who live in temporary housing and their families.

The administration claims that all children should graduate from the school system college — career ready, but it cuts the services required to get this job done effectively. Students are already experiencing the impact from skyrocketing class size system-wide.

And the ICPH analysis, Boomerang Homeless Families, Aggressive Rehousing Policies in New York, offers a convincing position that the mayor’s homeless policies have not helped children become permanently housed; rather his policies have caused multiple rounds of disruption.

The goals are good and well-intentioned. The policies are not aligning with the goals. The results are not bearing fruit.

Examples at the school level

There are some schools that are overwhelmed by the challenges presented by high-needs students across all categories and particularly with students in temporary housing. And occasionally even among the challenges there are schools that are models of best practices.

At PS 65 in the South Bronx there’s a culture of strong collaboration between its administration and staff. They are trying to meet the needs of the students despite some of the staff cuts; PS 65 has been able to keep its Parent Coordinator who serves as a vital connection between the families and the services they require. Additionally, this school has assigned social workers and obtained a grant to open a mental health clinic on-site.

But they couldn’t continue the academic intervention program held after school. They lost the funding for their small instruction group initiative which provided more intensive work in math and literacy for student requiring remediation.

Columbus High School in the North Bronx has long served students with high needs. The school is generally not notified when a child becomes homeless; they must rely on self-identification. The travel time for students in shelters generally increases (the greater the travel time the poorer the attendance and thus the lower the academic progress).

Shelter curfews make participation in the big events of a high school student’s life impossible (dances, prom, etc.).

These factors frequently lead to increased absenteeism. And even when these children attend school regularly, it is hard for homeless students to focus — they have so many pressing issues.

Community Schools Working in Cincinnati

We have children and families in crisis, therefore their community based schools are facing a crisis. We need prescriptions that reach to the heart of the issues. We need to move beyond the DOE’s tendency to concentrate high needs students at schools and then not follow with the resources and supports. A crisis on this level requires critical care professionals working in tandem with the school community on-site.

Just last week, I joined a team led by our union president and we learned how the Cincinnati school system shifted its paradigm to a community schools model. Its leaders, educators and community partners have crafted a model that seamlessly aligns instruction with the delivery of health and social services at the point of need — where the students are. Schools must engage support organizations to meet students’ needs.

The Cincinnati student population was and continues to be high poverty and high needs. But in 2002, all schools became “community learning centers.”

The system is structured around community partners who provide a range of services on-site that help students and families succeed and are based on the instructional goals for the year. Areas for partners include: community engagement; mental health; primary and dental healthcare; after-school; tutoring and college guidance; mentoring; parent engagement; adult education, among others.

The Ethel M. Taylor Academy is a prime example of community schooling at its best. With a predominantly high poverty African-American K-8 population with a significant number of special education and homeless students, they met or exceeded goals from the 2008-2009 to the 2009-2010 school year. Most notably, they went from a ranking of “Academic Emergency” to “Continuous Improvement,” and significantly increased the number of students who scored “Proficient” on the Ohio Achievement Assessment.

For older students, especially those dealing with homelessness, the extended time option was a helpful remedy to provide more time on task. Additionally during the summer, students who attended academic summer school were given a stipend from private donors. While it did not completely address the needs of students working full-time, providing some form of income helped.

This was accomplished with a determination to change the culture and the collective courage to bring the needed services to where the children and the families could best benefit. The educators and administration in Cincinnati see this as a beginning; but from our vantage point, it’s moved in the right direction.

Mayoral control and the critical challenge

The mayor and his administration have a responsibility to the children living in temporary housing and to their families and school communities. We have a real opportunity to leverage the mayor’s ability to bring the services to the schools. There are community based organizations that already work closely with existing city agencies for social services, health care and youth services. Following the Cincinnati model could better position our work with rolling out the Common Core State Standards, by reinforcing the standards through all service delivery systems and programs.

Equally important, we are willing to join with the mayor and the chancellor to help fight for the millionaire’s tax and bring desperately needed revenues into our school system.

We look to the members of the Youth Services, Educational and General Welfare committees to let City Hall know that we can achieve successful outcomes with educating homeless students and their peers. The culture needs to change. We stand ready to do our part.

Thank you.