In Connecticut, the charter chain Achievement First is a financial and political powerhouse. State Commissioner of Education Stefan Pryor was one of its founders.
But there is a worm in the apple. Achievement First leads the state in suspensions. Half its students are suspended or expelled at some point during the year. Legal Aid in Hartford filed a claim against the charter chain for its treatment of students with disabilities and won a ruling from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
“The complaint filed last year by the legal aid group said that students with disabilities were not getting “a free and appropriate education” because of the academy’s “failure to provide accommodations, modifications, and specialized instruction” as required under state and federal law.” It turns out that charter schools are not exempt from federal law.
One case was especially troubling:
“Johanna Rodriguez, whose eighth-grade son was included in the civil rights complaint, said her son was suspended and at home for most of last year, while this year she said he was suspended in school most of the time in a room set aside for students who are removed from class because of a behavior issue.
“For lesser offenses, he was given “re-orientation” where he could remain in class, but had to wear a white shirt and other students were not allowed to talk to him.”
Achievement First is a “no excuses” school and it treated this student as if he was trying to make excuses.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So much to post about this topic..they have also been chosen by the Gates foundation to train new “leaders”. They are not even aware of sped.law, specifically manifestation determination. Where have the “leaders” at AF been all these years? Why are they exempt from following special Ed policies and procedures?
Manifestation Determination PPT (from CT Policies and Procedures, 2007):
Manifestation Determination Review. The Process
Whenever the District is considering an action for a removal of a student to an IAES by school personnel or by a hearing officer or other removal that constitutes a change in placement, the District must notify the parents not later than the date on which the decision to remove the student to an IAES or other change of placement is made and provide the parents with a copy of the procedural safeguards notice.
Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the PPT must review all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine:
• if the behavior in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability, or;
• if the behavior in question was the direct result of the District’s failure to implement the IEP.
Determination that the Behavior was a Manifestation of the Disability
If in conducting the manifestation determination, the team finds that either standard has been met, the behavior of the child must be considered a manifestation of the child’s disability. In this case, the Team must either: 1) conduct a functional behavioral assessment unless the District conducted one before the behavior that resulted in the change of placement occurred, and implement a behavioral intervention plan (BIP); or 2) if a BIP had been developed, review the plan and modify it as necessary. In this case the student may not be expelled but must be returned to the placement from which the child was removed unless the parent and our District agree to a change in placement. If in conducting the manifestation determination, the team identifies deficiencies in the IEP or in its implementation, the team must take immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies.
However, the student may still be placed by the District in the IAES for drugs, weapons or causing serious bodily injury, or by the hearing officer, even if the parents file for due process to challenge the manifestation determination.manner. Pending the results of the evaluation, the student remains in the educational placement determined by school authorities, which can include suspension or expulsion. Due to the specific requirements of the state expulsion statutes, educational services may or may not be required during the period of expulsion. The District’s code of student conduct explains in detail the provision of services during periods of expulsion.
If the student is determined to be a student with a disability and in need of special education and related services, special education and related services must be provided according to the IDEA, including the disciplinary provisions of the Act, as outlined in this chapter of the District’s Special Education Policy and Procedures Manual.
As much as I loathe Achievement First and the charter school movement generally, I don’t blame them for trying to sidestep these types of laws, which (at least in my state) I consider a grotesque overreaching of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
No educator of any integrity feels good about suspending students, but sometimes suspensions are necessary to maintain a semblance of order and integrity in the building. Because of a law in my state similar to the one specified above, we essentially cannot suspend a student with an IEP for more than 10 days. This means that when you have a difficult, disruptive student who has been suspended for 10 days, that student becomes a loose cannon and can continue to be difficult and disruptive with impunity. Each year in my school (a regular public high school) we have a small handful of such students who roam the halls, disrupt classes, swear at teachers with impunity, and take up a vast amount of our administrators’ precious time. Administrators try to creatively discipline these students without suspending them, and the students often laugh in their face. The struggle with these students is openly visible to the entire student body, and has negative consequences for the tone of the entire building.
Note that the behaviors may not have anything to do with the disability. Also note that the law forces the school to discriminate against regular education students without IEPs, since there’s no restriction on how long those students can be suspended. A regular education student bullies another student by taking unwanted photos of that classmate at lunch and mocking her on Facebook will be suspended; but a student with an IEP, already suspended for 10 days, who does the same thing, will probably not be suspended. That’s wrong.
Students with disabilities have been discriminated against in the past, and I understand we need to make sure that doesn’t happen; but some of the laws pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act need to be amended. One student’s rights end where others’ begin.
Jim,
The problem of which you speak is not one of the child, as the child has been conditioned to believing his/her behaviours are acceptable. The problem lies in an innappropriate IEP and or that administration of that IEP. In Missouri, anyone-parent, teacher, sped teacher, administrator-one can re-initiate an IEP meeting if they believe, through showing how the current IEP isn’t working, that a new meeting is appropriate. The IEP is there to protect the student from abuses such what is occurring at Acheivement First, which by the way, reminds me of the abuse that the nuns used to inflict upon various students when I was growing up.
I’m talking about situations where the teenager–and I think we should be remembering that these laws apply to students on the verge of adulthood, not merely elementary school kids–knows that it’s unacceptable, but does it anyway. We sometimes forget our students are autonomous beings that can act on their own volition.
(And speaking of conditioning: if the behaviors continue and laws prevent schools from meaningfully doing anything about it, how are we supposed to change the behaviors?)
I know anyone can initiate an IEP meeting, but 1) in reality everyone in the building is so harried and exhausted all the time that unless the IEP is truly egregious, few have the time and energy for such initiation; 2) public schools have little if any money for litigation and so are forced into compliance by merely the threat of a lawsuit, whether the lawsuit has any validity or not; and 3) the problem I speak of isn’t with the IEP itself (I’ve never had any trouble with IEPs) but with laws that provide an unreasonable preferential treatment to such students.
This is one issue that I’m sure is secretly fueling the charter school movement. I don’t think it’s usually a deliberate attempt to discriminate against students with special needs, but rather an attempt to escape being shackled by well-intentioned but poorly thought-out legislation that severely compromises the functionality of the school.
But don’t forget since they accept taxpayer money they are PUBLIC schools, therefore they must follow the same laws and special education procedures. If they don’t want to, then don’t accept public money….become a private charter.
This really must be the third rail of education policy. The teachers I know all strongly resent their inability to rid their classrooms of disruptive students. But you never hear much discussion of it on web sites like this.
Linda: many good comments on this topic. As for agreeing or disagreeing with particular remarks, this is [to me] a good example of remembering that I should “walk a mile in such-and-such a person’s’ shoes” before offerings up specific criticisms or suggestions.
I will only state that in my experience, having a strong and experienced group of SpecEd teachers [supported every day in the classroom with experienced aides] makes a critical difference when dealing with students with IEPs who are out of control. And not just a combination of classroom experience and formal education but personal experience [one SpecEd teacher I worked with adopted two severely special needs children] and the good fortune to teach at a worksite that emphasizes collaboration among all the SpecEd teachers [hence drawing on the talents and knowledge of all].
But I have no hesitation in agreeing unconditionally with your observation that charters need to walk the talk, not just talk the talk: if they are indeed public schools as so many charterites/privatizers claim, then they need to take on all comers. With all the responsibilities and obligations that accompany being a public school. Period. ‘No excuses.’
Thank you so much for your comments under this posting.
🙂
FLERP!, it’s because everyone’s terrified of being perceived as insensitive to the needs of people with disabilities.
Or they have rights too and it’s easier to discard and belittle them than to admit you don’t know how to educate them and it may cost more money, which will eat into the salaries of the overrated charter chain “leaders”.
It seems to to be a question of balancing rights. If a student is being disruptive in the class or school, isn’t that a violation of the non-disruptive student’s right to an appropriate education?
Read the links TE..one student was removed for putting his head on his desk. How is that disturbing others? Some students are overwhelmed and do not have the proper supports.
PUBLIC schools must provide a continuum of services for the special Ed. Student. Maybe the mainstream classroom with rigid expectations and test prep isn’t the least restrictive environment.
AF needs to take a few courses in sped. Law and maybe they shouldn’t rely on non certified TFA temps, who have no intentions of staying in the teaching profession, for all of their instruction.
But, hey, it’s cheaper!
My comment was more directed at the interchange between Jim Morgan and FLERP!. I think Dr. Ravitch made the right secession to eliminate the super skinny posts, but it does make comments on comments less clear.
I take Jim Morgan’s post to be a statement that his public school is not able to do a good job providing services for non-special education students because of legal requirements for students with learning disabilities. Do you read his post differently?
Public schools have to do it all or they are “failing”. Charter schools cream and are measured by test scores only. That’s my two cents.
I think it is a mistake to try to “do it all” in each and every school public school building. In my local public schools, they certainly do not provide the classes that are appropriate for the most gifted and talented of their students. Those students end up doing independent studies or taking courses as special students (for no high school credit) at the university.
I like the concept of trying to do it all; it appeals to my sense of democracy and inclusiveness and empathy, the idea of “melting pot” Americana. But it costs money. I too am completely outraged at charter school advocates who claim superiority over regular public schools while playing by a very different set of rules, and oftentimes even violating laws with impunity. And the “no excuses” rules that have been cited over and over in charters are complete crap. I want a school to be a school, not a boot camp.
But part of what’s driving the charter movement is that many parents see them as places of refuge where their children can escape public school problems that we aren’t able to address properly because certain laws that have been enacted have made that extremely difficult. They want a school with an academic environment where their children can learn. In order for that to happen, a kid who swears at a teacher and flips a desk over needs to take an extended vacation from school, so he learns himself not to do such things and to discourage others from doing such things, and most importantly, to maintain an environment where every student has the opportunity to learn.
I recognize this is a complex issue. Part of the problem is we aren’t funded enough to provide vocational electives, small classes and other crucial elements needed to keep all kids interested in school. We also need to make sure the pendulum never swings back to the segregation and discrimination of past decades. But every time legislation is passed that makes no sense and is obviously going to have damaging consequences to a school, we need to speak up about it.
By the way, Teachingeconomist, my school does a valiant job of maintaining a reasonably good academic climate despite the problems I’ve cited.
I cravenly meant no disrespect to your school. Economists tend to view the world in terms of the trade offs people make. No doubt many schools are doing the best they can given the conditions they face. What your post makes clear, however, is.that doing the best for one group of students results in a worse education for another group of students.
No, I don’t believe it makes that clear at all. What it does make clear is that legislation needs to be properly thought-out and schools need to be properly funded.
I don’t think there is a funding level that will allow each school building to “do it all” for all of the potential students in the school. Not only would each high school have to deal with a huge variety of learning disabilities, but it would also have to provide a full slate of undergraduate and graduate classes for the gifted and talented student.
“Not only would each high school have to deal with a huge variety of learning disabilities, but it would also have to provide a full slate of undergraduate and graduate classes for the gifted and talented student.”
Oh, please. The learning disabled students the public schools are already servicing, and the so-called “gifted and talented” students are well serviced by well-calibrated honors/accelerated classes. The term “gifted and talented” is designed to preen parents’ egos. Every kid is gifted and talented.
I’ve been teaching since 1993 and I have yet to meet a REAL “gifted and talented student”–you know, the type doing calculus at age 10, that sort of kid. These types of mythical kids are conjured up occasionally to provide false evidence that we can’t service everyone.
Stop bludgeoning us with crappy legislation and filling our calendars for weeks with pointless standardized tests and we’ll do a great job with even the highest achieving kids.
We have had at least three students at my local high school taking graduate mathematics courses while still in high school. They were able to do that because is is a university town and they have the opportunity to do it. Most don’t.
Do you think high schools should be required to have staff on hand capable of teaching Ph.D. Level mathematics classes classes or are these students needs simply too expensive to meet?
Was Achievement First Asleep?
http://touch.courant.com/#section/2352/article/p2p-76402981/
And read here how the past few days have been tough for one of the founding CEO’s, Dacia Toll, (the other presently the state commissioner, Pryor)….cry me a river. What about the kid with the tough year isolated and shamed while wearing his white shirt?
“The last few days have been tough as we work to reconcile our values and our practices.”
http://touch.courant.com/#section/2354/article/p2p-76311913/
White Shirt = Scarlet Letter
Scarlet Letter=not our problem, back to public school= higher test scores!
“Scarlett Letter” indeed!
Let me tell you… if that were MY vulnerable, special needs child who was subjected to that T-shirt-with-shunning atrocity… I would…
well…
I would take a cue from Beatle George Harrison’s father… from a story told by fellow Beatle & fellow childhood classmate, Paul McCartney about the old tradition of “caning” or hitting with a cane.
Take it away, Paul!
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRxLfFa5aFc
I messed up that link to Paul McCartney’s story.
Here it is again:
Take it away, Paul!
Last one and if you haven’t read Sarah Darer Littman’s outstanding research, please do:
Yet armed with this non-peer reviewed data to back up their initial faulty assumptions, the Gates Foundation and its partners continue the reign of error.
Witness how Hartford Schools Superintendent Christina Kishimoto used the “facts” in this non-peer reviewed research report to call for another Achievement First charter school in Hartford.
Perhaps that’s because the Gates grant calls for “AF, HPS and JA to work together” to advocate for “equitable state funding” and “access to facilities” for public charter schools. In fact, the grant proposal even mentions “the district’s close relationship with state educational efforts.” That wouldn’t have anything to do with Achievement First’s relationship with Stefan Pryor, state Commissioner of Education and co-founder of the Amistad Academy, would it? It couldn’t possibly.
Another component of the grant is for the expansion of Achievement First’s Residency Program, with the aim of allowing for “the direct and explicit transfer of best practices” from the “high performing” charter to the “traditional district context.”
But since the grant was awarded, we’ve learned a bit more about Achievement First’s high performing methods and best practices. Thanks to the New Haven Independent, we know that Amistad’s claim of 100 percent college acceptance actually means a 43 percent attrition rate from the students who started in 9th grade four years earlier.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/a_window_into_the_bill_and_melinda_gates_foundation_dystopia/
“NO EXCUSES!!! Except, you know, when WE want to make them, for us…”
EXACTLY!
Clearly they are sending a message to Mom….”we do not want your son”. This is awful. If this school received public funding, it should be taken.
“. . . it should be taken [back?].”
And that is the problem AF will state that they have a property right to that money because they have provided the service as it was the student’s fault for not complying with their rules.
Same will be true for all these “leases”/co locations that go for a buck. The charter will claim a property right when and if the district ever tries to “take back” the space.
A discipline policy on display
After not completing his homework, Cochrane’s client “B” was disciplined. After putting his head down on his desk in class after he fell behind with no help from the school, he was again disciplined.
The problem, his lawyer said, is that the homework was not modified to accommodate his special education needs, as required by his education plan.
“B grew increasingly anxious and depressed over the difficulty of work at [Achievement First], and the constant fear of earning demerits,” the complaint reads.
This student was subsequently suspended for multiple days and failed every one of his classes during the 2011-12 school year.
The complaint details four other instances of similar “discriminatory practices” involving other students at the middle school.
Achievement First’s discipline policies are based on the use of “demerits” and pulling students out of class into “Isolation” or suspending students from school for nonviolent, non-safety-related issues.
The network’s School Culture Manual reads, “We trust your gut, better to refer than to ignore. If unsure, please refer. If in doubt, send them out.”
The complaint says that once a student is pulled out of class into “isolation,” there is no proof that any instruction is provided. State law significantly limits when school officials are able to suspend students from school, and the lawyers at Greater Hartford Legal Aid think the charter schools rely too heavily on this method of discipline.
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/state-education-board-review-achievement-firsts-discipline-policies
Parents need to start suing for their children’s rights with these charter schools. They took the public schools to task so many years ago to get these changes in place and sadly they will now need to do it again. But as it is with so many things, litigation talks and it is often just the wake up call these corporations need to realized that they are woefully unprepared to ‘really’ teach all students.
They have no idea what goes on in public schools all over the country every day. Sure it’s not a perfect system but is it one that has taken years to evolve into what it is today and it will continue to evolve, if the reform movement doesn’t mess it up. Money is all that seems to resonate with these ‘charter’ groups…so hit them where it hurts, in the pocket!
“For lesser offenses, he was given “re-orientation” where he could remain in class, but had to wear a white shirt and other students were not allowed to talk to him.”
Forget civil rights, isn’t this a violation of the Eighth Amendment?
The whole “re-orientation” thing sounds like the “re-education” camps in Nazi Germany and Communist China and 1970’s Cambodia. It’s creepy.
Another eerie AF quote from a previous article in the Hartford Courant in reference to the reorientation room…an official states, exact words: “it’s where they get the culture they need.”
What exactly do they mean? The white TFA culture?
“It turns out that charter schools are not exempt from federal law.”
This is a great statement.
The typical m.o. of charters and suspensions is to put the child on a long-term suspension and tell the parent that if they promise to withdraw at the end of the year the expulsion will not go on their record. It is a sleazy way to skirt the law. No, the schools are not providing an adequate education for children, but as you can see, the state and others don’t care!!!
This sounds like a recipe for how not to treat a child.
And how to make them leave and go back to public school.
This is an interesting thread. In our district we have the option of different alternative high schools and work study programs. Students have to apply and they have to attend (they are allowed just a few absences). Some of the programs are for violent kids who really can’t be in the classroom. I don’t know a lot about these programs except that they exist and can be successful. This is innovation in a public school district that the charters cannot provide.
If you view charter schools as part of the public school system, their students have the same access too alternative high schools as well. Ironically in my public school district the alternative high school depends heavily on virtual classes managed by K-12.
These two letters critical of Achievement First were in today’s Courant (print edition and online):
No excuses — that was the message we principals got when our schools’ test scores arrived. Yet, when Achievement First is cited for its abusive disciplinary practices, Jeff House, principal of Hartford’s Achievement First middle school, offered this excuse: “There is a direct connection between dramatically higher achievement and the dramatically higher expectations for behavior at our school” [July 6, Page 1, “Better Behavior”].
Mr. House is wrong on two counts. First, there is no excuse for the abusive disciplinary measures. Second, Achievement First’s claims to greater achievement are flawed.
In order to compare groups of students to determine which system is doing a better job of educating students, the groups would have to be comparable. This is not he case. Using eligibility for free/reduced price lunch as a measure of poverty, there is greater poverty in Hartford Public Schools (93 percent) than in the Achievement First middle school in Hartford (68 percent). Comparisons of the numbers of second language learners, special education students, attendance and parent involvement, all correlates of achievement, show similar discrepancies.
Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor, a cofounder of Achievement First, is a Yale graduate. He and his acolytes are not stupid people. However, either they are ignorant of educational research or they are purposefully misrepresenting their achievements. Either should be unacceptable.
Margaret Rick, West Hartford
The writer is a retired elementary school teacher.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-15667–20130708,0,4479353.story
As a retired educator with 37 years in public schools, I feel compelled to respond to “Achievement First Charter Schools: Better Behavior” [July 6, Page 1]. For six years as a volunteer reading tutor in Meriden public schools, I have noted that students are well-behaved, respectful, attentive and engaged in learning in response to the Positive Behavior Support approach. School rules or expectations are posted. Rewards are given for positive behaviors.
For several decades, educators have moved from negative responses to modifying behavior and attention in positive ways. Wearing the white shirt of re-orientation, being separated and ostracized from peers would not seem to promote positive behaviors. Having to be voted back into the peer group conjures up images of insecure feelings and possible lack of acceptance.
Punishment should not include removal from special areas: art, music and physical education, where students might excel and have a necessary opportunity to move. Timed tasks place an undue burden on students with attention difficulties.
I would be interested in the educational backgrounds of administrators and teachers at Achievement First Charter Schools. “Certified” means qualified in Connecticut’s public schools. Are they certified by accredited institutions?
Karen J. Ostby, Meriden
The writer is a retired speech/language pathologist for the Middlefield-Durham public schools.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-15644–20130706,0,612722.story
These two letters critical of Achievement First were in today’s Courant (print edition and online):
No excuses — that was the message we principals got when our schools’ test scores arrived. Yet, when Achievement First is cited for its abusive disciplinary practices, Jeff House, principal of Hartford’s Achievement First middle school, offered this excuse: “There is a direct connection between dramatically higher achievement and the dramatically higher expectations for behavior at our school” [July 6, Page 1, “Better Behavior”].
Mr. House is wrong on two counts. First, there is no excuse for the abusive disciplinary measures. Second, Achievement First’s claims to greater achievement are flawed.
In order to compare groups of students to determine which system is doing a better job of educating students, the groups would have to be comparable. This is not he case. Using eligibility for free/reduced price lunch as a measure of poverty, there is greater poverty in Hartford Public Schools (93 percent) than in the Achievement First middle school in Hartford (68 percent). Comparisons of the numbers of second language learners, special education students, attendance and parent involvement, all correlates of achievement, show similar discrepancies.
Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor, a cofounder of Achievement First, is a Yale graduate. He and his acolytes are not stupid people. However, either they are ignorant of educational research or they are purposefully misrepresenting their achievements. Either should be unacceptable.
Margaret Rick, West Hartford
The writer is a retired elementary school teacher.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-15667–20130708,0,4479353.story
As a retired educator with 37 years in public schools, I feel compelled to respond to “Achievement First Charter Schools: Better Behavior” [July 6, Page 1]. For six years as a volunteer reading tutor in Meriden public schools, I have noted that students are well-behaved, respectful, attentive and engaged in learning in response to the Positive Behavior Support approach. School rules or expectations are posted. Rewards are given for positive behaviors.
For several decades, educators have moved from negative responses to modifying behavior and attention in positive ways. Wearing the white shirt of re-orientation, being separated and ostracized from peers would not seem to promote positive behaviors. Having to be voted back into the peer group conjures up images of insecure feelings and possible lack of acceptance.
Punishment should not include removal from special areas: art, music and physical education, where students might excel and have a necessary opportunity to move. Timed tasks place an undue burden on students with attention difficulties.
I would be interested in the educational backgrounds of administrators and teachers at Achievement First Charter Schools. “Certified” means qualified in Connecticut’s public schools. Are they certified by accredited institutions?
Karen J. Ostby, Meriden
The writer is a retired speech/language pathologist for the Middlefield-Durham public schools.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-15644–20130706,0,612722.story
You are bashing all charters schools as bad, which isn’t true and you know it. Some are getting the results they promise. The top high school in the USA right now is Sturgis Charter in Hyannis (cape cod) MA, which is only an enclave of the rich and wealthy in the summer, but the year round residents are low to middle class and include many immigrants who come to support the tourist industry. I live in RI, so we don’t go there but I have read a lot about them and am intrigued. Their lottery system has a first draw from anyone residing in Cape Cod, then second draw to fill slots is from any Mass resident, so they aren’t “cherry picking students”. They are getting the job done, obviously, so why can’t public schools learn from Sturgis’ successes and replicate best practices. Why does it have to be an “us versus them” in the charter movement. I think many of you come to the table with your own biases, one way or the other, so you hear one negative story (ie achievement first) and then those “facts” color your opinions regarding every other charter school. Why are folks so afraid to learn alternative ways to teach? Listen, more is being dropped at teachers’ feet, public or private — both parents working, more single parent families, etc… Today kids need discipline, structure, the things they arent getting at home. If a school structure can’t be rigorous enough to give those kids that support while teaching them, then I say go for it. If kids are being hurt or humiliated, then that is another issue altogether, but that approach is not happening at all charter schools! We should come together to find the best practices that work for today’s kids in today’s environment!