On November 15, 2016, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) filed a motion to intervene in HG v. Harrington, a lawsuit filed by six Newark parents challenging the constitutionality of the state’s “fist in, last out” quality-blind teacher layoff law.

Click here to read the motion filed by the NJEA with the Mercer County Superior Court of New Jersey.

Click here to read the statement issued by NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer on the motion to intervene.

Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director Ralia Polechronis released the following statement:

“The NJEA has got it completely wrong. Newark parents filed HG v. Harrington on behalf of their kids because they know the incredible value of strong teachers and they don’t want an outdated law to prevent students from having the most effective teachers. The union’s position on this issue is misguided and ultimately hurts not only students, but public school teachers as well.”

– Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director, Partnership for Educational Justice

Contact:

Melody Meyer

melody@edjustice.org | 646.770.7061

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 3, 2016
Contact: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org or 646.770.7061
@Part4EduJustice

NEWARK PARENTS SEEK TO INTERVENE IN STATE EFFORT TO RE-OPEN SUPREME COURT SCHOOL FUNDING CASE

The intervening parents also filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “last in, first out” quality-blind teacher layoff law earlier this week

Trenton, NJ – Today, six parents from Newark, supported by Partnership for Educational Justice, filed a motion with the New Jersey Supreme Court to intervene in Abbott v. Burke, a decades-old school funding lawsuit.

The parents’ motion opposes a September 2016 filing from the State of New Jersey, which asked the Supreme Court to re-open Abbott and remove the current court order for the State to provide extra education funding to 31 high-need school districts, including Newark. The State also asked the Supreme Court to grant the New Jersey Commissioner of Education the authority to waive enforcement of the State’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) teacher layoff law, among other education laws and negotiated policies, in the same 31 high-need school districts.

The Newark parents’ intervention motion filed today opposes both the State’s request to reduce funding to Newark and similar districts, and its tactic to grant a political appointee the discretion to enforce or ignore the State’s teacher layoff law. They also urge the courts to consider the constitutionality of New Jersey’s LIFO law on its own, and argue that this issue should not be tied to school funding decisions. Earlier this week, the same group of Newark parents filed HG v. Harrington in Mercer County Superior Court, asserting that New Jersey’s quality-blind LIFO law violates students’ constitutional right to a “thorough and efficient” education by allowing ineffective teachers to remain in classrooms while effective teachers are let go. In HG v. Harrington, the plaintiff families ask the court to declare LIFO unconstitutional and render it unenforceable in Newark and similar districts.

“It’s time for New Jersey’s state leaders to listen to public school parents,” said Iris Smith, mother of two Newark Public School students and plaintiff in HG v. Harrington. “For our children to have the best chance at success, we need to keep the most effective teachers in Newark public school classrooms, and the state must continue to provide the education funding our schools need. It’s not hard to see what’s best for students, and as a parent, I will not stop fighting for the quality education that my children deserve.”

In 2014, to better understand the effect that LIFO layoffs would have on Newark’s overall teacher quality, Newark Public Schools ran the numbers on a hypothetical teacher layoff scenario. Under the quality-blind LIFO layoff mandate, 75 percent of the teachers laid off would have been rated effective or highly effective, and only 4 percent of the teachers laid off would have been rated ineffective. Overall in the same year, approximately 15 percent of Newark teachers were rated less than effective.

Research studies have consistently established that teacher quality is the most important in-school factor affecting student learning. Students with high-quality, effective teachers are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more likely to have good jobs and higher lifetime earnings, and they are less likely to become teenage parents.

Since at least 2012, the Newark Public School district has only avoided laying off effective teachers by paying millions of dollars per year to cover the salaries of ineffective – but more senior – teachers even when no school would agree to their placement in the school. This costly work-around has diverted valuable resources from educational programming and other expenses that could improve the education of Newark students.

The State’s request that the Supreme Court remove the long-standing requirement to provide supplementary state education funding to Newark and similar districts is a necessary prerequisite for a new school funding formula proposed by Governor Chris Christie in June 2016. The Governor’s funding formula would provide a flat, one-size-fits-all per pupil allocation to every public school district in the state. Under this plan, Newark Public Schools stand to lose nearly 69 percent of their state education dollars, a funding cut of $14,502.99 per pupil.

“New Jersey state leaders are using students’ constitutional right to an education as a bargaining chip,” said Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director at Partnership for Educational Justice. “Students cannot get a quality education without effective teachers, and “last in, first out” layoffs mean that effective teachers will lose their jobs while ineffective teachers remain. It is unconscionable to leave the enforcement of an unconstitutional law in the hands of a political appointee, and it is wrong to bind its fate together with budget cuts that will hurt the very same schools that suffer under LIFO.”

“The interests of these Newark families are not represented by either side in the State’s motion to re-open Abbott v. Burke, and we think it is critical that the court hear from the parents whose children have the most at stake,” said Kent Yalowitz, Partner at Arnold & Porter, the lead firm representing the plaintiff families. “New Jersey’s quality-blind teacher layoff law violates student’s constitutional rights, and these families deserve the attention of the court.”

A full copy of the HG v. Harrington complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in Abbott v. Burke are available at edjustice.org/projectsnj/.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

Founded by award-winning journalist Campbell Brown, Partnership for Educational Justice is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. In addition to the litigation launched in New Jersey today, PEJ is currently working with parents and students in New York and Minnesota in support of legal challenges to unjust teacher employment statutes in those states.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 1, 2016
Contact: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org or 646.770.7061
@Part4EduJustice

NEWARK PARENTS FILE SUIT CHALLENGING “LAST IN, FIRST OUT” TEACHER LAYOFF STATUTE

On behalf of their children, parents assert that New Jersey’s quality-blind teacher layoff law violates students’ constitutional right to an education

Trenton, NJ – Today, six parents from Newark, supported by Partnership for Educational Justice, filed HG v. Harrington, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statute. Under this law, school districts facing budget reductions are required to lay off teachers in reverse-seniority order, based only on the date when they started teaching in the district. The parents’ lawsuit, filed in Mercer County Superior Court, asserts that New Jersey’s LIFO law violates students’ right to an education by unjustly requiring school districts to ignore teacher quality and retain ineffective teachers while laying off effective teachers, despite substantial research establishing that teacher quality is the most important in-school factor affecting student learning.

In the HG v. Harrington complaint, the plaintiff parents also argue against a recent filing from the New Jersey State Commissioner of Education to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Commissioner’s filing, submitted by the State’s Attorney General, requests that the Supreme Court re-open a decades-old school funding litigation, Abbott v. Burke, and remove the long-standing requirement for the State to provide extra education funding to 31 of the state’s poorest school districts, including Newark. The parents oppose this request, citing reports that Newark stands to lose almost 69 percent of its state education funding, which would throw their children’s schools into fiscal crisis. The State’s Supreme Court filing also includes a constitutional challenge to LIFO, requesting that the Education Commissioner be allowed to waive the LIFO requirements in Newark and similar districts. The HG v. Harrington plaintiff families assert that the courts should declare LIFO unconstitutional and render it unenforceable in Newark and similar districts, and they oppose a solution that leaves its enforcement to the discretion of a political appointee.

“For far too long, parents have been denied a seat at the table when critical decisions are made about our children’s education,” said Tanisha Garner, mother of two Newark Public School students and plaintiff in HG v. Harrington. “Especially as our schools face severe budget cuts, our children deserve the best teachers possible, and the ‘last in, first out’ teacher layoff law stands in the way of this. It’s time to stand up to the elected officials who are playing politics with our children’s futures.”

In 2014, to better understand the effect that LIFO layoffs would have on Newark’s overall teacher quality, Newark Public Schools ran the numbers on a hypothetical teacher layoff scenario. Under the quality-blind LIFO layoff mandate, 75 percent of the teachers laid off would have been rated effective or highly effective, and only 4 percent of the teachers laid off would have been rated ineffective. Overall in the same year, approximately 15 percent of Newark teachers were rated less than effective.

Research studies have consistently established that teacher quality is the most important in-school factor affecting student learning. Students with high-quality, effective teachers are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more likely to have good jobs and higher lifetime earnings, and they are less likely to become teenage parents.

Since at least 2012, the Newark Public School district has only avoided laying off effective teachers by paying millions of dollars per year to cover the salaries of ineffective – but more senior – teachers even when no school would agree to their placement in the school. This costly work-around has diverted valuable resources from educational programming and other expenses that could improve the education of Newark students.

“Failed by politics for too long, these determined parents refuse to quietly sit by while their schools face dramatic budget cuts and the loss of great teachers because of New Jersey’s unjust teacher layoff law,” said Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director at Partnership for Educational Justice. “No one will stand up for children like their parents, and we’re excited to support their fight before the courts to ensure that Newark students and others like them receive the quality education to which they are entitled.”

“By forcing school districts like Newark to either lay off effective teachers while keeping ineffective ones, or pay for costly and elaborate measures to avoid losing good teachers, New Jersey’s teacher layoff law results in a clear violation of the state constitutional promise to provide a ‘thorough and efficient’ public education to every child,” said Kent Yalowitz, Partner at Arnold & Porter, the lead firm representing the plaintiff families.

“We are proud to represent the brave parents challenging a broken law that clearly works against students’ best interests,” said Kathleen Reilly, Associate at Arnold & Porter.

A full copy of the HG v. Harrington complaint is available at edjustice.org/projectsnj/.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

Founded by award-winning journalist Campbell Brown, Partnership for Educational Justice is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. In addition to the litigation launched in New Jersey today, PEJ is currently working with parents and students in New York and Minnesota in support of legal challenges to unjust teacher employment statutes in those states.

###

Today, in response to the granting of defendants’ motions to dismiss Forslund v. Minnesota, challenging the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoff laws, Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director Ralia Polechronis released the following statement:

– Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director

Contact:
Melody Meyer
melody@edjustice.org | 646-770-7061

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 22, 2016

Contact: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org or 646.770.7061

FAMILIES IN NEW YORK AND MINNESOTA CONTINUE LAWSUITS CHALLENGING HARMFUL TEACHER EMPLOYMENT STATUTES 

California court split decision in Vergara has no impact on cases in New York and Minnesota

New York, NY – Parents and students in New York and Minnesota who have challenged their states’ teacher employment laws in court resolved today that their lawsuits are more important than ever. This comes after the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split decision, declined to review the appeal of families challenging similar laws there, leaving in tact a misguided opinion by the state’s intermediate court.

As a legal matter, this latest development in Vergara has no effect on Wright v. New York or Forslund v. Minnesota because these lawsuits are challenging state laws in state courts under different state constitutions. Consequently, the Vergara decision has no bearing on cases in other states, and the New York and Minnesota courts are not bound by the decision of the intermediate California judiciary. Further and most importantly, the plaintiffs in New York and Minnesota each raise legal claims that are entirely distinct from the legal claim dismissed by the California Court of Appeal (see below for more detail on the legal claims in each case). Both Wright v. New York and Forslund v. Minnesota are supported by Partnership for Educational Justice, a national education nonprofit that has no formal affiliation with Vergara v. California.

“Disrupting long-held special interests is not easy, which is why civil rights struggles are rarely won in the first battle,” said Ralia Polechronis, Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director. “Despite acknowledgement by California’s lower courts that the current system has a ‘deleterious impact’ on students and despite scathing dissents by two California Supreme Court justices, the majority of California’s Supreme Court today weakened children’s constitutional right to a quality education by declining to hear the students’ case and permitting the intermediate court’s misguided reasoning to stand. This failure by the state’s highest court to take on this fight only strengthens our commitment to support families in New York, Minnesota, and elsewhere in the country where unjust education laws result in broken school systems that fail to educate far too many students. Of course, the Vergara plaintiff families continue to have our unwavering support until the changes they demand are a reality in their schools.”

“I joined this fight more than two years ago because I saw firsthand how these laws leave some students in schools with no real educational opportunity,” said Keoni Wright, father of four and lead plaintiff in Wright v. New York. “I am proud to stand bravely with other parents in this national movement and demand a better, equal public education system.”

“I know all too well, just as families across the country do, that every child needs effective teachers,” said Tiffini Flynn Forslund, mother of three and lead plaintiff in Forslund v. Minnesota. “Our frustrations and our momentum are too strong for this parent movement to stop here. We will continue fighting for educational justice and won’t be silenced until every students’ right to a quality education is upheld.”

“New York State’s constitution guarantees all children in the state a sound basic education, and the current teacher employment statutes are simply failing in this regard by keeping ineffective teachers in our public schools,” said Jay Lefkowitz, a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP representing the plaintiffs in Wright v. New York. “We look forward to the day when we can put on our evidence at trial and vindicate the rights of parents and children across the state.”

“Students in Minnesota have a constitutionally-protected right to an education, which the Minnesota courts have previously reinforced,” said Jesse Stewart, attorney at Fishman Haygood, the lead firm representing the plaintiffs in Forslund v. Minnesota. “The challenged statutes allow persistently ineffective teachers to remain in classrooms despite research that teacher quality is the key determinant of educational success. We are unequivocally committed to support these families in the fight to protect the rights of all Minnesota students.”

While Vergara v. California, Wright v. New York, and Forslund v. Minnesota all raise constitutional challenges to laws governing teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoffs, each case presents a nuanced legal argument based on different state constitutions, case law, and statutes, as well as evidence about schools and plaintiffs specific to each case. The plaintiffs in New York and Minnesota each raise legal claims that are entirely distinct from the legal claim dismissed by the California Court of Appeal. More detail and an overview of how the legal claims in New York and Minnesota differ are offered below.

Legal claims in Vergara v. California dismissed by the California judiciary:

• There are two key elements to the legal claims raised by the Vergara plaintiffs and ultimately dismissed by the California Court of Appeal.
• Specifically, the Vergara plaintiffs made a “facial” challenge to the state’s teacher employment statutes under the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution.
  • A facial challenge alleges that a law is unconstitutional by its very nature, and the law always results in a violation of a constitutional right. This is contrasted with an “as applied” challenge, which asserts that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.
  • By raising an equal protection challenge, the Vergara plaintiffs asserted that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws result in unequal delivery of public education as guaranteed by the California State Constitution.

Legal claims in Wright v. New York

• The Wright plaintiffs’ legal claims allege that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff statutes violate the right to an education guaranteed to all children by the New York State Constitution.
  • Specifically, the Wright plaintiffs assert that the challenged statutes result in some or all students receiving less than the “sound, basic education” guaranteed by the New York State Constitution and as previously defined through case law by the New York judiciary.
• The New York lawsuit does not leverage the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution, which means the legal claim that will be evaluated by the New York courts is entirely different from that considered by the California judiciary.

Legal claims in Forslund v. Minnesota

• The Forslund plaintiffs raised three types of challenges to their state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws, specifically:
  • The Minnesota plaintiffs assert that the challenged statutes violate the right to an education guaranteed to all children by the Minnesota State Constitution.
    • This claim means that the plaintiffs allege that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws result in some or all students receiving less than the “uniform” and “thorough” education guaranteed by the Minnesota State Constitution and as previously defined through case law by the Minnesota judiciary.
  • They also raise an “as applied” challenge under the equal protection clause of the Minnesota State Constitution.
    • Essentially, this claim asserts that the way that some school districts in Minnesota apply the teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws results in a violation of some students’ right to an education, as guaranteed by the state constitution and as previously defined through case law by the Minnesota judiciary.
  • Finally, they allege a due process violation.
    • The right to due process, which is guaranteed by the Minnesota State Constitution, provides the right to be notified and an opportunity to be heard before a student’s constitutionally-protected right to an education is taken away.
    • Specifically, the Forslund plaintiffs assert that some students’ rights to due process are violated because they do not receive any notice if they are, will be, or have been taught by ineffective teachers, and they do not have an opportunity to challenge this loss of their constitutionally-protected right to a “uniform” and “thorough” education.
• The Minnesota lawsuit does not raise a facial equal protection challenge, the legal claim that was dismissed by the California Court of Appeal. The Minnesota courts will evaluate the Forslund plaintiffs’ arguments using entirely different legal theories than those considered by the California judiciary.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

Founded by award-winning journalist Campbell Brown, Partnership for Educational Justice is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. PEJ is currently working with parents and students in New York and Minnesota in support of legal challenges to unjust teacher employment statutes in those states.

###

Derrell Bradford | The Catalyst for 50CAN

“I woke up, dead.

It was tough to make out that it was me, but it was. My body was twisted and mangled. There was blood everywhere. My blue Tottenham Spurs jersey was shredded, filled with holes, and my red blood was starting to turn it purple. This must have just happened—I could still hear the crack of the bullets echoing off the nearby buildings.

I tried to remember the final seconds but I couldn’t. There was just the blaring of the police sirens and a feeling inside that I couldn’t explain: Confusion? Fear? Anger? Surprise?”

Read More

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 14, 2016

Partnership for Educational Justice: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org or 646.770.7061

Students for Education Reform Minnesota: Kate Sattler, kate@makingwavescommunications.com

@Part4EduJustice, @SFERMinn

MINNESOTA PARENTS URGE COURT TO DENY MOTIONS TO DISMISS CHALLENGE TO TEACHER TENURE LAWS

Forslund v. Minnesota asserts that students’ constitutional rights are violated by Minnesota’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and “last in, first out” laws

St. Paul, MN – This morning at Ramsey County Court, oral arguments were heard by Judge Margaret Marrinan on motions to dismiss Forslund v. Minnesota, which asserts that Minnesota’s education laws protect chronically ineffective teachers and arbitrarily deprive certain students of their constitutional right to a uniform and thorough education. If the court denies the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the plaintiff parents will be permitted to proceed, gathering additional evidence through discovery in support of their claims that Minnesota’s teacher employment statutes infringe upon children’s fundamental right to education by providing permanent job security to persistently ineffective teachers.

“Our education policies should provide the best possible opportunities for all students to learn,” said Tiffini Flynn Forslund, lead plaintiff and mother of three from Minneapolis. “When the law forces great teachers out of schools and allows persistently ineffective teachers remain – often in classes with students of color or students from low-income families – something is very wrong. Our claims, and our children’s constitutional right to an education, cannot be dismissed.”

“The courts play a vital and necessary role protecting citizens’ rights,” said James Swanson, attorney and managing partner at Fishman Haygood, the lead firm representing the plaintiff parents. “Students in Minnesota have a constitutionally-protected fundamental right to an education, which the courts have reinforced must be ‘uniform’ and ‘thorough.’ The challenged statutes are violating students’ rights by allowing ineffective teachers to remain in classrooms, despite overwhelming research that the quality of a student’s teacher is the key determinant in her educational success.”

“These laws are disproportionately hurting Minnesotans of color. Students of color and students from low-income families are more likely than their peers to be deprived of the opportunity for educational success because these laws protect the ineffective teachers that are most likely to be in their schools,” said Nekima Levy-Pounds, an award-winning civil rights attorney representing the plaintiff parents and president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP. “Teachers of color are disadvantaged by these laws too because they tend to be newer to the system than the average Minnesota teacher, which means that they have less job security than others, even if they’re highly effective in the classroom.”

Supported by Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ) and Students for Education Reform Minnesota (SFER-Minn), 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 that perpetuate the state’s dramatic disparities in education outcomes and prevent efforts to improve Minnesota’s public schools for all students. The plaintiff parents filed their lawsuit after years of unsuccessful bi-partisan legislative efforts to reform unjust teacher employment statutes, despite widespread public support for changes to these laws.

Key points on the case and today’s arguments on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case:

1. In moving to dismiss the lawsuit, the defendants want to shield the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws from judicial scrutiny and insulate their unconstitutional impact from court review.
2. In their complaint as well as in their opposition to the motions to dismiss the case, the plaintiff parents have asked the court to examine the challenged statutes and strike down laws that violate Minnesota students’ fundamental right to an education.
3. Despite widespread public support for changes to the challenged statutes and failed legislative attempts to change unjust teacher employment policies, the defendants have cast parents’ complaints as a “political issue.” But, the violation of constitutional rights and equal protection for all Minnesota students are subject to judicial review, and the parents are respectfully asking the court to consider their claims.

All legal filings related to Forslund v. Minnesota are available at edjustice.org/forslund-v-minnesota-legal-documents.

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. In 2014, PEJ began working with families across New York to launch and support Wright v. New York, challenging teacher employment statutes that allow ineffective and harmful teachers to remain in the classroom. The Wright v. New York plaintiffs have won two separate motions to dismiss their case and are currently fighting the defendants’ appeals of these decisions. In Minnesota, as in New York, PEJ has connected families with pro bono legal representation and is providing ongoing legal and communications support while elevating parent voices through media relations.

About Students for Education Reform – Minnesota (SFER-Minn)  

SFER-Minn organizes students and families to fight for educational justice in their communities. Their members identify issues that are driving inequities in the education they receive, share their stories, and push for lasting policy change on campus, in the community, at the Capitol, and – when necessary, in the courts – to ensure every child in Minnesota receives an equitable education. Other current SFER-Minn efforts include addressing Minnesota’s broken remedial education system, promoting statewide standards and oversight for how police work in schools, and monitoring local school board performance.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Levy-Pounds to continue her work as an advocate for Minnesota families by fighting to give every child the opportunity to learn from a great teacher

Click here for a full bio of Nekima Levy-Pounds

Minneapolis, MN – Today, Nekima Levy-Pounds, civil rights attorney and social justice advocate, announced she is joining Forslund v. Minnesota as co-counsel representing the four plaintiff parents – Tiffini Flynn Forslund of Minneapolis, Justina Person of Eagan, Bonnie Dominguez of Duluth, and Roxanne Draughn of St. Paul – fighting to level the playing field for all children in Minnesota public schools. The plaintiffs’ legal team also includes attorneys from Fishman Haygood, LLP and Bassford Remele.

President of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP and award-winning law professor at the University of St. Thomas, Ms. Levy-Pounds has long been a leading voice speaking out against inequalities faced by communities of color in the Twin Cities, including the disparities in public schools serving large numbers of students of color. Her support for this lawsuit as co-counsel reinforces its standing as the only recourse for families who are left feeling powerless with no means to challenge the continued employment of ineffective teachers.

“I am proud to join the legal team representing the plaintiffs of Forslund v. Minnesota because parents are the best advocates to stand up against a public education system that is failing Minnesota children, especially our children of color,” said Nekima Levy-Pounds. “Too often, the voices of those most harmed by the status quo are left without a seat at the table, but this time we will be heard. I am fighting on behalf of these four families, and all Minnesota families, because our public schools are not providing equal opportunities for educational success. We are calling on the courts to ensure that every Minnesota child is granted their right to equal protection under the law.”

Minnesota public schools have one of the largest educational disparities in the country, with low-income students and students of color falling far behind their white and more affluent peers. Yet Minnesota state statutes enable persistently ineffective teachers to remain in the classroom, denying students their constitutionally-protected right to a uniform and thorough education. Forslund v. Minnesota is grounded in a body of research showing that the key determinant of a child’s educational advancement is teacher quality and effectiveness. The state’s current teacher tenure, dismissal, and “Last in, First Out” seniority-based layoff laws harm students by preserving the state’s debilitating achievement gap.

“We’re honored to welcome Nekima Levy-Pounds to the legal team representing the plaintiff families in Forslund v. Minnesota,” said Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice. “As an award-winning professor, Nekima sees firsthand the positive impact a great teacher can have on her students. And as a civil rights attorney, she knows systemic injustices too often deny opportunities for success. We’re proud that the plaintiff families have Nekima by their side in the fight for a high-quality education for all Minnesota students.”

“Nekima Levy-Pounds has always had our community’s best interests at heart,” said Latasha Gandy, Executive Director of Students for Education Reform–Minnesota. “Her presence makes clear that this action is about civil rights and justice for children of color and low-income children. We’re proud Nekima is joining us and standing with parents who have taken on Minnesota’s education system for leaving so many children behind.”

About Nekima Levy-Pounds

Nekima Levy-Pounds is an award-winning professor of law at the University of St. Thomas Law School, a civil rights attorney, and a nationally recognized expert on a range of civil rights and social justice issues at the intersections of race, public policy, economic justice, public education, juvenile justice, and the criminal justice system. She was elected President of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP in May 2015.

In her role at the University of St. Thomas Law School, she serves as the founding director of the Community Justice Project, an award-winning civil rights legal clinic, which focuses on issues of race, poverty, and social justice through direct advocacy, research, and writing at the University of St. Thomas. She is also co-founder and board chair of Brotherhood, Inc., a nonprofit organization geared towards young African American men ages 16-24, who have been involved in the criminal justice system or gangs or who are at risk of such involvement.

Ms. Levy-Pounds also serves as the chair of the Minnesota State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is the co-chair of Everybody In, a regional collaboration of over 40 stakeholders across different sectors working to close the racial unemployment gaps in the region by 2020. Ms. Levy-Pounds is active in the local community, serving on the boards of the Minneapolis Foundation, Catholic Charities, the African American Museum, and Growth & Justice.

Key Points in Forslund v. Minnesota

Forslund v. Minnesota asserts that the challenged statutes prevent school leaders from meaningfully considering student outcomes when making decisions regarding teacher employment and dismissals. As a result, Minnesota’s schools are retaining ineffective teachers who are preventing students from achieving an equal and high quality education. There are three basic problems:

1. Minnesota’s teacher tenure provisions require administrators to determine permanent employment for teachers after only three years. This insufficient amount of time creates a process that is more of a formality, rather than an assessment of a teacher’s potential for long-term effectiveness. As a result, students, parents, and school leaders are left with no effective methods by which to challenge the employment of an ineffective teacher.
2. Dismissal policies in Minnesota school districts make it nearly impossible to efficiently remove an ineffective teacher from the classroom, even after these teachers have long demonstrated to be ineffective. With nowhere to turn, school districts across the state have resorted to expensive negotiated “buyouts” to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. In the absence of the current dismissal laws, Minnesota teachers would retain the due process rights available to all public employees, which include the right to notice of ineffective classroom performance, the right to challenge the evidence of ineffective performance, and the right for the teacher to tell her or his side of the story.
3. The “last in, first out” mandate forces administrators to layoff teachers based on seniority rather than quality. This process completely disregards a teacher’s performance in the classroom and denies students access to a quality education by laying off effective teachers and keeping ineffective teachers in the classroom.

A full copy of the plaintiffs’ complaint is available here.

About Partnership for Educational Justice and Students for Educational Reform – Minnesota

Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

PEJ is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. In 2014, PEJ began working with families across New York to launch and support Wright v. New York, challenging teacher employment statutes that allow ineffective and harmful teachers to remain in the classroom. The Wright v. New York plaintiffs have won two separate motions to dismiss the case and are currently fighting the defendants’ appeals of these decisions.

 PEJ is committed to ensuring that every child has equal access to a quality education and looks to offer families a pathway to educational justice through the courts, especially when legislative efforts have failed to do so. In Minnesota, as in New York, PEJ has connected families with pro bono legal representation and is providing ongoing legal support while elevating parent voices through supported outreach and media relations.

Students for Education Reform – Minnesota (SFER-Minn)  

SFER-Minn organizes students and families to fight for educational justice in their communities. Their members identify issues that are driving inequities in the education they receive, share their stories, and push for lasting policy change on campus, in the community, at the Capitol, and – when necessary, in the courts – to ensure every child in Minnesota receives an equitable education. Other current SFER-Minn efforts include addressing Minnesota’s broken remedial education system, promoting statewide standards and oversight for how police work in schools, and monitoring local school board performance.

Contact:

Partnership for Educational Justice: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org

Students for Education Reform-Minnesota: Kate Sattler, kate@makingwavescommunications.com

@part4edujustice, @SFERMinn

###

NEW YORK – Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director Ralia Polechronis released the following statement in response to recommendations from Governor Cuomo’s Common Core Task Force:

“It is disheartening that the Governor’s Task Force recommends eliminating student performance from teacher evaluations. Despite research showing that effective teachers are the most critical factor in a student’s educational success, Albany’s leaders are backing down from high standards for teachers. This is a return to the ‘baloney’ system that the Governor himself admonished earlier this year for rating 95 percent of teachers effective when only a third of students are reading and doing math at grade level. As usual, the political process is bending to special interests, once again failing to protect the constitutional rights of children. This is precisely why the plaintiff families of Wright v. New York have asked the courts to protect their constitutional rights and ensure that students across the State can receive the quality education they deserve.”
-Ralia Polechronis, Executive Director

Contact:
Melody Meyer
melody@edjustice.org | 646-770-7061

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 26, 2015

Contact: Melody Meyer (Partnership for Educational Justice): 646-770-7061 or melody@edjustice.org

NEW YORK PARENTS RALLY IN SUPPORT OF JUDGE’S DECISION TO DENY MOTION TO DISMISS, ALLOWING THE WRIGHT V. NEW YORK CASE FOR EDUCATIONAL JUSTICE TO CONTINUE

Friday’s ruling from Justice Minardo marks the second victory for the parent plaintiffs, after an earlier motion to dismiss was denied last March

New York, NY – Today, parent plaintiffs in Wright v. New York, the lawsuit challenging the State’s teacher employment and dismissal statutes, rallied and celebrated with supporters following Friday’s decision by Justice Philip Minardo of the Staten Island Supreme Court to deny the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss and allow the case to move forward. This is the second time the court has denied a motion to dismiss from the defendants. Supporters hailed the court’s decision as an important victory for the Wright v. New York plaintiffs, who are eager to have their case heard by the court.

Jay Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis Senior Partner and lead plaintiffs’ counsel for Wright v. New York, said, “We are pleased that Justice Minardo has decided for the second time to allow this lawsuit proceed and has once again rejected the effort by the State, the City, and the teachers’ unions to stop this lawsuit. New York State’s constitution guarantees all children in the state a sound basic education, and the current teacher employment statutes are simply failing in this regard by keeping ineffective teachers in our public schools. We look forward to the day when we can put on our evidence at trial and vindicate the rights of parents and children across the state.”

Keoni Wright, father from Brooklyn and Wright v. New York lead plaintiff, said, “As a father fighting for a fair education for my children, it feels good to be validated by Justice Minardo once again. Parents across New York State trust public schools to provide their kids with a quality education, and unfortunately, far too many parents have seen their schools fall short. We are fighting not just for our children, but for all children who have fallen through the cracks of a broken system that puts the interests of adults before those of students. We are looking forward to our day in court on behalf of all New York families.”

Tauana Goins, mother from Queens and Wright v. New York plaintiff, said, “Speaking for myself and the other parents serving as plaintiffs, we are thrilled that Justice Minardo has again sided with New York’s students and families. The defendants have tried over and over to make our case go away, but this latest victory means that we are here to stay until the fight for educational justice has been heard. Our case will not only advocate on behalf of students, but it will also bring to light important information about our schools, and which children are most likely to suffer with a harmful and ineffective teacher. Parents deserve to know the truth and we will not stand down until educational justice has been served.”

Angeles Barragan, madre de Bronx y demandante en Wright v. New York, dijo: “Me llena de alegría que el tribunal permita que nuestro caso avance, ¡aun ante los intentos de los abogados del demandado de desestimar el caso! Llegué desde México a los Estados Unidos para tener la seguridad de que mis hijos pudieran ir a la escuela y recibir la educación que merecían. Está mal que las leyes de New York apoyen a maestros que no incentivan a los estudiantes. No aceptaré que mi hija no pueda progresar en la escuela y no dejaré de luchar hasta presentarme ante el tribunal.”

Justice Minardo’s refusal to dismiss the plaintiffs challenge to New York State’s teacher employment statutes reaffirms his previous decision that the Wright v. New York case for educational justice should move forward. The court first ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor this past March when Justice Minardo denied the defendants’ first motion to dismiss, writing in his decision that “we will not close the courthouse door to parents and children with viable constitutional claims.” Despite the court’s decision that the plaintiffs had viable constitutional claims, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss last spring, arguing that recent reforms to New York State’s education laws remedied any claims of constitutional harm.

During oral arguments last August, the Wright v. New York plaintiffs and counsel urged the court to deny this new motion on the grounds that recent minor amendments to the state education law do not remedy the current constitutional harm inflicted on children by New York’s education law. On Friday, Justice Philip Minardo agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments, writing that “In this case, the legislature’s marginal changes affecting, e.g., the term of probation and/or the disciplinary proceedings applicable to teachers, are insufficient to” prevent this case from moving forward.

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 and dismissal 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

Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ) is a team of parent leaders, education advocates, and legal experts dedicated to reclaiming the promise of public education for all students. PEJ helps students, families, and communities advocate for better public schools through coalition-building and legal action. Specifically, PEJ works with parents and students to challenge antiquated laws that prevent public schools from providing all students with a good education. Our targeted litigation strategy is supported by a coordinated communications campaign at the local, state, and national levels that increases pressure on legislators and other decision-makers to improve our education system for the benefit of all children.

Founded by Campbell Brown, an award-winning journalist and writer, Partnership for Educational Justice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. PEJ is grateful to have the support and counsel of various attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis, including Jay Lefkowitz. These talented and mission-driven individuals are donating their services pro bono to ensure all students in New York have access to the teachers they deserve.

###