For Immediate Release:

September 26, 2018

Education Advocacy Organizations and New Jersey Parent Group Submit Amicus Briefs Supporting Plaintiffs in Educational Justice Case Challenging Teacher Layoff Laws

Newark, NJ – Two amicus briefs were filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of the HG v. Harrington educational justice case. Two leading education advocacy organizations, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) and TNTP, joined together to support the plaintiffs’ challenge of New Jersey’s last-in-first-out (LIFO) laws. The NCTQ/TNTP brief is available here. Also submitting a brief with the court was Concerned Parents of Newark, a group of Newark public school parents. The Concerned Parents of Newark brief is available here.

The plaintiffs in HG v. Harrington have filed a formal appeal to overturn a previous decision to dismiss their case. The plaintiff parents assert their right to bring the case and to have the case determined on the merits.

“The court filings from advocacy organizations and parents not involved in the lawsuit underscore the critical public importance of the issues raised in HG v. Harrington, and the need for the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal,” said Bernstein. “Every day that these Newark families are denied their day in court is another day that Newark schoolchildren are denied their constitutional right to a quality education—causing immediate and ongoing harm to children who are depending on the public school system to open the doors of opportunity. We are counting on the court to give these courageous families their day in court,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

NCTQ/TNTP

NCTQ and TNTP, organizations dedicated to improving educator quality, find that there is no in-school factor more crucial for providing a through and efficient education than effective teachers. Abandoning the LIFO requirements would help ensure schools could retain their most effective teachers and that critical education funding is not wasted on ineffective teachers who are not even in the classroom.

In the amicus brief, NCTQ provides data from states demonstrating that implementation of lay-off policies that consider teacher effectiveness as measured by classroom performance have not significantly decreased the number of certified teachers in Colorado or Florida. TNTP provides data demonstrating that in Shelby County Schools (TN) and DC Public Schools (DC), school districts with policies that, among other policies, consider teacher effectiveness in layoffs and hiring policies have improved the quality of their teaching force and student achievement.

Concerned Parents of Newark

Concerned Parents of Newark is an unincorporated association of parents who all have had one or more children who attend public schools in Newark (‘Concerned Parents’).  Members of Concerned Parents have fought tirelessly for their children to receive at least  an adequate education.  Of course, they hope for more, they hope for a high-quality education for their children.  Members of Concerned Parents have met with teachers, visited schools, met with principals, and have struggled to understand and ‘work’ Newark’s school choice procedures to get their children into schools known to have effective teachers, adequate building conditions, and school safety measures in place.  Concerned Parents have seen first-hand the effects of an ineffective teacher on their children, and the effects of poor learning conditions. In sum, they contend that any dollar that, in the words of the Newark Public Schools, ‘essentially protect the interests of adults over the rights of the children of Newark’ is unacceptable.

They submit this brief to help the Court understand the harm children in Newark’s public schools suffer as a direct result of New Jersey’s last-in-first out, or ‘LIFO’ statute, which is the subject of this litigation.  They write to help the Court to see that this harm gives the plaintiffs in this case standing to bring their claims, and that the case is most assuredly ripe for judicial review.

HG v Harrington

HG v. Harrington is a parent-led lawsuit that asks the courts to declare New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statutes unconstitutional. These seniority-based layoff laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

For Immediate Release:

September 20, 2018

Forslund Plaintiffs Push for Educational Justice Case to Proceed

St. Paul, MN – The plaintiffs in the Forslund v. Minnesota educational justice case filed a supplemental brief yesterday with the Minnesota Court of Appeals arguing that their case should move forward and be determined on the merits. On August 21, the Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ prior decision to dismiss Forslund, and directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in the Twin Cities school desegregation lawsuit, Cruz-Guzman v. Minnesota. In Cruz-Guzman, the Supreme Court determined that the educational adequacy claims raised were subject to judicial review. In their supplemental brief, the Forslund plaintiffs argue that Cruz-Guzman removes any doubt that Forslund’s claims are subject to judicial review, because the Supreme Court’s Cruz-Guzman analysis applies with equal weight to their case. The plaintiffs’ brief can be found here.

“The Minnesota Supreme Court’s finding in the Cruz-Guzman lawsuit confirms that Minnesota students have a fundamental right to a baseline level adequate education, which is a right to more than ‘anything that might be labeled as “education.”’ There is no doubt that effective teachers are necessary to deliver on that promise. It is now up to the courts to allow the Forslund parents to argue their case on the merits. These families deserve their day in court,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

“In 2016, when the brave parents of Forslund filed suit against the state of Minnesota, we all knew we had a fight ahead for our children, and we were ready. The recent Supreme Court order that vacated the dismissal of Forslund is a win in the fight for the parents who filed this lawsuit, and the thousands of parents across the state of Minnesota fighting every day to ensure their children have access to a high quality education to live their dreams post K-12. It is the hope of all parents that this victory leads to the ultimate victory; students across Minnesota receiving a high quality K-12 education and being taught by highly effective teachers. The parents of Forslund are seeking to make their case for not only their children but all of our children,” said Latasha Gandy, local parent and K-12 education advocate.

The Court of Appeals judges deciding the Forslund case will conference on the matter on November 9, 2018.  They will decide the case based on the written submissions previously filed and supplemental filings submitted in light of the Supreme Court’s August 21 Order vacating the dismissal.  No oral argument will be heard.

Forslund v. Minnesota was filed on April 14, 2016, by four mothers from across Minnesota. The lawsuit challenges the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws. The plaintiffs allege that these laws perpetuate disparities in education outcomes by preventing dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit following unsuccessful bi-partisan legislative efforts to reform teacher employment statutes. The Forslund v. Minnesota plaintiffs are represented by pro bono attorneys from the law firms Fishman Haygood, Bassford Remele, and civil rights attorney Nekima Levy-Pounds.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

Maggie@bluejacket.nyc

315-730-5101 – cell

For Immediate Release:

August 21, 2018

PEJ Statement on Minnesota Supreme Court Order in Lawsuit Challenging Excessive Teacher Job Protections

St. Paul, MN – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on today’s order in the Forslund v. Minnesota case. The Minnesota State Supreme Court lifted the stay on the case and vacated the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and its prior determination that the lawsuit’s claims were not subject to judicial review.  The order also directs the Court of Appeals to reconsider its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cruz-Guzman v. Minnesota, a school desegregation lawsuit, where it determined that the educational adequacy claims raised were subject to judicial review.  The court’s order can be found here.

“We are pleased that the Minnesota Supreme Court has asked the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in light of the recent decision that recognized the importance of judicial review for educational justice claims.  We look forward to the Forslund case moving to the next stage. Every child in Minnesota has a fundamental right to an adequate education, and these brave mothers are standing up and asking the State to deliver on that promise. PEJ is honored to be supporting this effort, and we will keep pushing until every child gets the education they deserve,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

Forslund v. Minnesota was filed on April 14, 2016, by four mothers from across Minnesota. The lawsuit challenges the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws. The plaintiffs allege that these laws perpetuate disparities in education outcomes by preventing dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit following unsuccessful bi-partisan legislative efforts to reform teacher employment statutes. The Forslund v. Minnesota plaintiffs are represented by pro bono attorneys from the law firms Fishman Haygood and Bassford Remele.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

Maggie@bluejacket.nyc

315-730-5101 – cell

For Immediate Release:

July 30, 2018

Newark Parents Ask New Jersey Supreme Court to Hear Lawsuit, Continuing Fight for Educational Justice

Newark, NJ – The plaintiffs in HG v. Harrington filed a request to appeal their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging the state’s highest court to review and overturn the lower court‘s decision to dismiss the matter. The plaintiff parents assert that the ongoing harm the state’s quality-blind layoff laws inflict on their children justifies their right to have their case move forward and be determined on the merits. The plaintiffs’ filing can be found here.

“New Jersey’s courts have acknowledged that students ‘have but one chance to receive a constitutionally adequate education. That right, once lost, cannot be reclaimed…’ These parents know that their children, and every child in Newark, deserve that chance. We are honored to be working alongside these courageous parents, who have refused to tolerate unjust laws that force Newark public schools to divert limited resources away from their children’s classrooms and deprive students the quality education they deserve,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

HG v. Harrington is a parent-led lawsuit that asks the courts to declare New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statutes unconstitutional. These seniority-based layoff laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

Maggie@kpa.nyc

315-730-5101

For Immediate Release:

July 20, 2018

PEJ Statement on Plaintiffs’ Victory Opposing Defendants’ Requests to Further Appeal

New York, NY – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on yesterday’s ruling in the Wright v. New York case. The Intermediate Appellate Court, 2nd Department of the New York State Supreme Court, unanimously denied the defendants’ requests to further appeal previous rulings from the lower courts. The case has been pending for four years, with plaintiff victories at each stage.

“These nine families have been waiting four years to litigate the merits of their case. It’s been long enough. It’s time for the delaying tactics to end and to argue this case on the merits. We are pleased with the court’s decision because it brings these families, and families across New York State, another step closer to getting a quality education for their children,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality-blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitution.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

maggie@kpa.nyc

315-730-5101

For Immediate Release:

June 27, 2018

PEJ Statement in Response to Appellate Court Decision in HG v Harrington

Newark, NJ – The Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division today affirmed a previous decision by the trial court to dismiss HG v. Harrington in a hard fought battle for students’ rights.

“Parents who are brave enough to fight for educational justice deserve to have their day in court, and PEJ will keep fighting alongside them to make that happen,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice. “New Jersey’s outdated LIFO laws have forced the Newark public school system to divert limited funds away from academic resources for students to pay ineffective teachers – and that cannot continue. While we are disappointed with the Appellate Court’s decision, we will not stop until every child in New Jersey has access to a quality education.”

HG v. Harrington is a parent-led lawsuit that asks the courts to declare New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statutes unconstitutional. These seniority-based layoff laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

315-730-5101

Maggie@kpa.nyc

For Immediate Release:

June 19, 2018

PEJ Statement on Deadline for Defendants to Answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint

New York, NY – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on yesterday’s ruling in the Wright v. New York case. The trial court ordered the defendants to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint by July 18, 2018.

“We are pleased that the trial court has ordered the defendants to finally answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. By setting a firm deadline, the court rejected efforts to completely stall the Wright v. NY litigation from moving forward. Now, the defendants will have to submit responses to each allegation in the plaintiffs’ complaint, which will move the case another step forward. The Wright parents will not be deterred by the defendants’ further delay tactics and desperate attempts to avoid litigating the issues on the merits, and we won’t stop fighting until there is educational justice for every child in New York,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality-blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitution.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

Maggie@kpa.nyc

315-730-5101

New York, NY – The parent plaintiffs in the Wright v. New York case filed new submissions in court this week, pushing to keep the case moving forward despite repeated delay tactics by the defendants. The case has been pending for four years, with plaintiff victories at each stage.

“When this case was filed, my son was just starting elementary school. Now he is graduating and will be starting middle school in the fall. All we are asking is for our day in court. Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Nina Doster, a mother from Queens and plaintiff in Wright v. New York.

“In its 2015 decision, this trial court said it would ‘not close the courthouse door to parents and children with viable constitutional rights.’ Since that time, the viability of the Wright parents and children’s rights has been affirmed by the higher court, but the plaintiffs are still waiting for the litigation to move forward. To open the courthouse door in a meaningful way, the defendants’ delay efforts must be rejected. The defendants will not be harmed by litigating the case on the merits, but make no mistake – if this delay continues, the harm to New York public school children will continue.” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

On June 5, 2018, the defendants filed motions in the trial court to stay further proceedings in the case until their request for a further appeal has been decided. If approved, this could prevent the case from proceeding to litigation on the merits for even longer.

Since the defendants filed their appeal to the intermediate appellate court in 2015, the case has been stayed that entire time. After the plaintiffs won the appeal, the parties returned to the trial court. Now, the defendants are seeking to again have a stay put in place to further delay the case from being litigated on the merits.

The plaintiffs argue that the court should reject the defendants’ request for a further stay in its entirety. However, the plaintiffs also argue that if the court believes a stay is warranted at this time, only a limited stay should be granted, and at the very least the defendants should be required to answer the complaint – that has been pending for four years – and that the parties should begin moving forward with fact discovery while the appellate proceedings are pending.  Doing so would at least allow the less costly aspects of discovery to get underway while we await the appeals court’s decision. The plaintiffs’ filing in opposition can be found here.

The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality-blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitution.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Contact:

Maggie McKeon

Maggie@kpa.nyc

315-730-5101

For Immediate Release:

June 4, 2018

NEW YORK PARENTS FIGHT DELAY TACTICS IN EDUCATIONAL JUSTICE CASE

New York, NY – The parent plaintiffs in the Wright v. New York case submitted opposition papers in court to counter the defendants’ continued delaying tactics. The defendants’ latest request to delay the case from proceeding to a resolution on the merits comes after the trial court twice ruled that the plaintiffs’ case should move forward, and a four-judge panel from the Second Department unanimously agreed that the case should proceed. The case has been pending for four years, with plaintiff victories at each stage.

“The defendants don’t want this case litigated on the merits because New York’s broken public education system can’t be defended. Every day that passes with the current outdated laws in place is a day that students across this state are being deprived of their constitutional right to a sound basic education. This latest filing is just the defendants’ latest delay tactic to avoid uncovering the truth about how these laws harm students,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed motions in the Second Department requesting permission to appeal previous rulings from the trial court and the Second Department that were favorable to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ filing in opposition can be found here.

The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality-blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitution.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###

Peter Kauffmann

Kauffmann Public Affairs

peter@kpa.nyc

For Immediate Release:

April 25, 2018

Contact:

Maggie McKeon, 315.730.5101, Maggie@kpa.nyc

NEWARK PARENTS URGE COURT TO RESTORE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING NEW JERSEY’S LIFO LAWS

Newark, NJ – The HG v. Harrington plaintiff families were back in court today to demand that their case for educational justice be allowed to move forward. The plaintiffs are a group of Newark Public Schools parents seeking to enforce New Jersey’s constitutional guarantees to an education. In the trial court, the defendants from Newark Public Schools had admitted nearly every allegation made by the plaintiffs regarding the detrimental impact New Jersey’s LIFO laws have on children within the district. However, in spite of the district’s admissions, the trial judge granted motions to dismiss the case that were filed by intervening defendants from the local and national teachers unions.

“With recent data showing that most of the state’s ineffective teachers are concentrated in Newark Public Schools, Newark students are at significantly higher risk of being assigned an ineffective teacher. State laws that guarantee ineffective teachers’ jobs simply based on seniority create a system that unjustifiably prioritizes the interests of adults over Newark’s children. PEJ is proud to stand with the parents and families fighting on behalf of all Newark’s children for the constitutional right to a quality education,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

“We are sick and tired of unjust rules that protect the weakest teachers at the expense of our children. To raise the quality of teaching in Newark, we must focus on teacher quality over seniority,” said Tanisha Garner, a plaintiff and Newark Public Schools parent.

In oral arguments before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, the pro bono attorneys from Arnold & Porter and Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry who represent the parent-plaintiffs argued that New Jersey’s LIFO statutes violate students’ constitutional rights to an education. They allege that these laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.

Research shows that teacher quality is the most influential in-school factor when it comes to student learning. It also shows that student achievement improves when principals are allowed to hire school staff according to quality and fit. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Newark Public Schools are disproportionately affected by New Jersey’s antiquated LIFO laws because they employ a higher concentration of teachers with less than effective ratings.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ pursues educational equity through legal action to improve the quality of public schools. PEJ utilizes a variety of legal actions to achieve its mission, including pursuing impact litigation, amicus brief filings, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other law-related avenues that seek to achieve meaningful reforms of education laws or policies that fail to prioritize students’ rights. PEJ is an affiliate of the national education nonprofit 50CAN: 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, which advocates at the local level for a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address.

###