In order to choose the right school, tell us what’s important to you!  Check out our twitter page and let us know: https://twitter.com/#!/AJEInc

The event was held at AJE’s Georgia Avenue office, and was well attended by a cross-section of the community, including charter school staff, parents, students, and education reform advocates.

The forum began with a panel discussion. Susan Inman, staff attorney at AJE, provided a background on school discipline and the history of charter schools. Richard Pohlman, director of policy for E.L. Haynes Public Charter School, spoke about how charter schools operate in the District of Columbia under current law. Barbara Paz Cornejo (a former charter school teacher), Nataly DelValle (a student at Maya Angelou Public Charter School), and Lakeisha Brown (a parent of a student formerly at Cesar Chavez Public Charter School, currently at Richard T. Wright Public Charter School), each spoke about their personal encounters with discipline in the charter school environment.

The forum then opened up for a group discussion about best practices.  Participants shared their stories, and voiced concerns about safety, fairness and consistency.  The group discussed the right to education in the context of school choice.  Members of the community forum identified best practices that should be part of each charter school’s disciplinary scheme, including: training in classroom management for all teachers; full integration of disability rights protections within the disciplinary structure; due process in the form of written notice, a hearing and an impartial hearing officer; increased emphasis on building relationships with students and engaging families in the process; pro-social skills embedded into the school’s curriculum; student ownership over school rules and procedures; incorporation of restorative justice concepts; and stronger connections to mentoring programs and other community resources.

As a follow up to this forum, AJE will be sending an open letter to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to share the community’s concerns and priorities, and encourage increased regulation and oversight of discipline in charter schools.

This month coincides with the District government open enrollment season, which begins Nov. 14 and ends Dec. 12, 2011, as well as continues the early open enrollment period for Medicare beneficiaries (Oct. 15 to Dec. 7, 2011). This period gives District government employees as well as Medicare recipients the opportunity to make changes to their health insurance benefits, flexible spending accounts and other benefits to reflect any significant life changes, for e.g., marriage, divorce, birth or adoption of a child, etc.

“Quality health insurance is important because having coverage enables people of various economic levels to receive timely medical care, which maintains and improves the quality of their lives,” said DISB Commissioner William P. White.

This is why DISB, as a member of the Mayor’s Health Reform Implementation Committee (HRIC) is encouraging District residents to attend one of three meetings during November to join the community conversation on the future of health care in the District of Columbia. Since June, the HRIC has convened meetings to gather feedback from residents on the creation of the District’s Health Insurance Exchange, a key component of the federal health reform law, signed by President Barack Obama in March 2010. The exchange is a virtual marketplace where individuals and small business employers can shop for insurance coverage in 2014 and beyond.

These are the final three ward-based meetings for 2011. They are as follows:

Wednesday, Nov. 9, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., Watha T. Daniel-Shaw Public Library, 1630 7th Street, NW, Lower Level
Monday, Nov. 14, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., University of the District of Columbia, Health and Natural Science Building 44, Room A03, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Enter on Van Ness Street.
Thursday, Nov. 17, Reeves Center, 2000 14th Street, NW. Second Floor

The HRIC is encouraging all District residents to attend any of these meetings to discuss what health reform means for them: improved access to health care for District residents now, help paying for health insurance for residents and small businesses, and opportunities to help shape health care in the District as health reform is coming, and everyone will be affected.

For more information, residents should visit http://www.healthreform.dc.gov. The HRIC needs as much input as possible to ensure that the District’s health insurance marketplace offers high quality insurance at a price residents or businesses are able to afford. The HRIC, which comprises the Department of Health Care Finance as chair, DISB, the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services, was created June 2011 by Mayor Vincent C. Gray to oversee the implementation of the health reform law in the District.

Other highlights of the month include:

Health Insurance Consumer tips related to life-situation-based health coverage will be highlighted on the website, e-mailed, placed on DISB’s Facebook page and tweeted on Twitter.
The HRIC encourages residents to visit the one-stop website on the federal health reform law. In 2010, the HRIC membership developed the healthreform.dc.gov web site in partnership with the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. It offers comprehensive information on health coverage options both in the market and through government-sponsored programs, as well as implementation documents such as timelines, legislation and regulations, HRIC meeting and subcommittee meeting minutes, video of past meetings, calendar notices as well as tips for healthier living.

DISB will continue to use this month, working with its partners, at workshops and other events, to increase awareness on health insurance issues.

RSVP to susan.inman@aje-dc.org

The District of Columbia Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) will become the central marketplace for health insurance by providing one-stop shopping for individuals and small businesses to compare rates, benefits and quality among plans. The District HIX will also administer the new federal health insurance subsidies for those individuals and families that qualify to make it easier to enroll in a health insurance plan.

The following survey is designed to gather preliminary feedback on fundamental District HIX design and policy decisions. The survey only takes a few minutes to complete. The deadline is August 31^st. If you need help filling out the survey, feel free to let me know. Your input is crucial, so let your voice be heard! https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DCHRICSurvey

David Gilmore said the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), the agency responsible for the service, jeopardized the safety of students during the 2010-11 school year by “knowingly” transporting them in improperly maintained or inspected buses. Continued problems with the aging 827-bus fleet, he said, will likely cause “substantial operational problems” with the beginning of the new school year next Monday. Read more

While the dismissal of more than 200 than teachers claimed much of the attention last week, there was a bloodletting at DCPS’ Office of Family and Public Engagement.

Officials said at least nine staffers were let go. Interim chief Kelly Young elected not to engage by returning a phone call, but spokesman Fred Lewis said staff assigned to the Parent Resources Centers in Wards 1, 7 and 8 were among those fired. Lewis said the centers would be reopened this fall with the help of “community partners.”

Chancellor Kaya Henderson has been fairly blunt about her dissatisfaction with the school system’s capacity to communicate effectively with parents and families. Office chief Peggy O’Brien exited earlier this year, and Henderson has said she wants to reboot the whole operation, with a more aggressive emphasis on the use of social media.

Officials have scheduled a community meeting for 6 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 4, to discuss ideas. Location TBD.

But no, the Chicago mother simply announced that she was thinking of sending her daughter, Maya, to Nettelhorst Elementary, a run-down and, by almost every measure, failing public school just two blocks away. The response from friends and family was shock. How could she risk her child’s education like that? “When you mention your plans and your friends’ faces turn ashen, or your family is horrified — this can’t help but give you pause,” she says. “When it comes to education, no one wants to sell their own kids out.”

Even so, Edelberg was determined to give her local school a try. Her eclectic, largely gay, middle-class neighborhood has what Edelberg calls a “gritty, fun, urban, electric vibe.” It was attracting young families, but not because of the schools. Nettelhorst wasn’t dirty or dangerous, but it was dilapidated — the playground equipment dated from the 1950s, with shabby play structures and chain-link swings — and it had a bad reputation. One teacher was the subject of a restraining order for hitting kids. And year after year the school failed to raise test scores: Some 70 percent of kids were performing below grade level.

But unlike so many parents who flee when faced with disappointing public schools, Edelberg took the maverick’s route. Her thinking: If parents like me don’t commit to their neighborhood school, it’s never going to get better. To see exactly what she was getting into, Edelberg visited the school for a glimpse behind the somber façade.

Makeover madness

It wasn’t a great first impression. The walls were dingy, the roof falling in. Everywhere she looked, there were signs with warnings about lice, loitering, and drug use. Still, Edelberg saw potential in the high ceilings and large windows. “The building had great bones,” Edelberg says. “It looked like a school, and it smelled like a school. I remember thinking, ‘There’s a lot here to work with.’”

When she met Susan Kurland, the principal at the time, she got a question she wasn’t expecting: What would it take to entice Edelberg to send her child to Nettelhorst? Edelberg and another parent returned the following day with their wish list: a bright, welcoming environment, new playground equipment, and a rich after-school program, among other things. “We were so green,” Edelberg recalls. “It was the kind of list you’d come up with if you imagined the perfect school served to you on a plate.”

Without missing a beat, Kurland responded, OK, let’s get to work. 

Edelberg and a small group of parents began proselytizing to the larger community to enroll their children and help transform the school. Using GreatSchools’ recommendations of what to look for in a public school   as a guide (Full disclosure: We didn’t know about this when we decided to profile Edelberg), they worked with Kurland to decide which school improvement projects to tackle first. The list recommends that parents check out the school bathrooms, for example. “We realized that bathrooms are something parents care about, so we needed to make the bathrooms sparkly and fun.”

But such changes cost money, and at the time there was no support or enthusiasm for Nettelhorst. “No one wants to give money to help a failing public school,” Edelberg says.

So they scrounged for what they needed. They became expert dumpster divers. “We picked up chairs, tables, whatever people were throwing out,” Edelberg says. “We begged and borrowed. We’d ask the hardware store for a couple of cans of paint. We’d ask volunteers to paint a single classroom. We made friends with people who do the window displays at stores, and they’d offer us materials when they were done with them.” It was an uphill battle, but it worked. “When you need everything, everything you get is perfect,” she says.

Surviving a bad rep

Revamping the school’s reputation turned out to be the hardest part. “The big things were easy to fix, like making the building beautiful,” says Edelberg. “But fixing perceptions of Nettelhorst — that took 70 percent of our efforts, at least. You can’t put a shingle out that says, ‘Nettelhorst: It’s much better than you think.’”

But Edelberg had one enormous advantage: parents’ sheer desperation. There were few good public options in Chicago. The city has a handful of excellent magnet schools, but they are in such high demand that the odds of getting selected through the lottery are slim. (Edelberg quips that parents have a better chance of getting their high school senior into Harvard). Besides, the magnet schools are a long bus or car ride away from Edelberg’s neighborhood. And for Edelberg and her posse of renegade parents, private school was financially out of the question.

But nine months after their first makeover meeting, they held an open house for the new-and-improved Nettelhorst and 78 families enrolled. “When it was over, my entire team cried — we just couldn’t believe it,” Edelberg recalls. “We knew once we had that small critical mass, more families would come, too. That’s when I began to have faith.”

A school transformed

Today, Edelberg’s daughter, Maya, and son, Zack, are in sixth and fourth grade, respectively, and Nettelhorst is a thriving neighborhood school. No longer dilapidated, it’s bursting with color — walls adorned with murals and mosaics by local artists — and energy — weekend farmers’ markets on the school grounds. Neighborhood families clamor to send their children to Nettelhorst.

A model of school reform, the school receives corporate donations and funds from foundations and Chicago sports teams, as well as in-kind support from artists, local chefs, and designers. And Edelberg has become a school-reform celebrity of sorts: She’s appeared on Oprah, her blog runs regularly on the Huffington Post, and her book, How to Walk to School features enthusiastic blurbs by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Chicago Mayor (and former White House Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel.

Is there a school makeover in your future?

When it comes to parent power, Jacqueline Edelberg may seem like an intimidating act to follow. But every step of the way, Edelberg had doubts. “Sometimes it all seemed like a house of cards. I’d wake up at night and … wonder, ‘How are we going to pull this off?’”

In retrospect, she thinks it came down to a few key ingredients: Buy-in from the school principal and from the neighborhood — not just parents, but the community at large. Edelberg’s team invited local groups and cultural organizations to offer afterschool classes and workshops, including dance, sports, martial arts, and jewelry making. They encouraged creativity — never micromanaging. When artists offered to help decorate the school, she recalls, “We’d tell them, ‘No phallic or religious images. Beyond that, you can do what you want.’”

They created community spaces within the school, like the kitchen, where parents gather and teachers eat lunch. Besides the weekly farmers’ market, the school hosts many neighborhood events — from film screenings to pick-up softball games.

“Nettelhorst has become the heartbeat of the community,” Edelberg says. “We’re trying to get back to the notion that public schools belong to the public — that idea has been lost.”

Nettelhorst today

Despite its many successes, Nettelhorst still has its struggles. While test scores have improved since the turnaround, they remain well below those of Chicago’s top public schools.

Critics have also attributed the Nettelhorst turnaround to yuppification, arguing that children who used to be bussed to Nettelhorst from poorer neighborhoods have been edged out. Edelberg counters that children were bussed in because no one in the area wanted to go there; now that neighborhood children are flocking to the school, there is little extra space. Indeed, Nettelhorst’s student body remains fairly diverse — it is 40 percent white, 20 percent black, 20 percent Latino, with one third of students  qualifying for free or reduced lunch and 23 languages spoken.

Edelberg is too busy spreading the word to worry much about Nettelhorst’s critics. She still gives tours to prospective parents. She also travels nationwide to consult with parent and school groups, convinced that Nettelhorst’s turnaround can be a blueprint for transforming other struggling schools.

“Every parent wants their child to go to a decent school,” she says. “But people think there’s nothing they can do unless they’re Geoffrey Canada or Mark Zuckerberg. I want them to know this isn’t true.”

Grant to D.C. Hunger Solutions provides equipment, training and technical assistance to increase participation in the school breakfast program at D.C. elementary, middle and high schools

Washington, D.C. – The Walmart Foundation today announced a $400,000 grant to be administered by D.C. Hunger Solutions to help provide equipment, training and technical assistance to increase participation in the school breakfast program in D.C. schools.

Awarded as a part of Walmart’s $2 billion national commitment to help end hunger, the funds will be regranted to help public and public charter schools across D.C. implement innovative breakfast service models, such as “breakfast in the classroom” and “grab and go” breakfast. The funding is designed to complement, strengthen, and facilitate the effective implementation of the school breakfast components of the Healthy Schools Act, passed unanimously by the D.C. City Council in May 2010.

“A good school day starts with a good breakfast,” said Beverley R. Wheeler, President & CEO of Center City Public Charter Schools. “Since the enactment this school year of the District’s Healthy Schools Act, the city has made great strides forward, but it is grants like these that will get us across that goal line of universal implementation.”

“As part of our $2 billion commitment to hunger relief, we’re proud to support initiatives that are helping children get the healthy food they need to learn and grow,” said Margaret McKenna, president of the Walmart Foundation. “Bringing breakfast to classrooms in D.C. will ensure students are getting the nutrients they need to support healthy development and to live better.”

The announcement comes during National School Breakfast Week, the culmination of a nationwide campaign by the School Nutrition Association to emphasize the importance of breakfast to students and their families. Today’s event, held at Center City Public Charter Schools’ Trinidad Campus featured Councilmember Harry Thomas along with officials from D.C. Hunger Solutions, the Walmart Foundation, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), Brainfood, Martha’s Table, and Bread for the City participating in the school breakfast program alongside the school’s first grade class. After breakfast, students gathered in a seventh grade classroom to cheer on the grant announcement.

More than 20 percent of households in the District of Columbia reported in 2009 not having enough money to buy food that they needed for themselves or their families at some time(s) during the prior 12 months, according to the FRAC analysis of data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. At 40.6 percent, the rate of food hardship for households with children was alarmingly higher than for other households.

“At a time when our city’s families are struggling, it is crucial programs like free breakfast in the schools that give children the nutrition they need to learn, stay healthy, and be active,” said Alexandra Ashbrook, director of D.C. Hunger Solutions, an initiative of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “Grants like this one give the community the support needed to ensure that the breakfast program is being as effective as it can be, and reaching the thousands of low-income children in D.C. who desperately need school breakfasts.”

D.C. Hunger Solutions anticipates that the grant from Walmart will dramatically increase the number of children participating in the School Breakfast Program in the city. Breakfast has been shown to improve children’s academic performance, reduce hunger and food insecurity, and boost their health and well-being.

Among the provisions in the Healthy Schools Act are requirements that breakfast be made available free to all D.C. public and public charter school students and improvements be made in the quality of school meals through measures such as increased funding and higher nutrition standards. With its “Free Breakfast – That’s What’s Up” campaign, D.C. Hunger Solutions is working with D.C. Public Schools and the charter school community to provide best practices and outreach on the breakfast program. In addition, funds from the Walmart Foundation will be regranted to schools for equipment and other start-up costs to implement breakfast in the classroom.

Earlier this year, the Walmart Foundation also awarded a $50,000 grant to D.C. Hunger Solutions to support providing nutritious foods during the summer by increasing participation in the D.C. Free Summer Meals Program.

The Walmart Foundation is committed to supporting opportunities that provide breakfast in the classroom. In early 2011, Walmart Foundation granted $3 million in funding to support school breakfast initiatives at schools in Dallas, Little Rock, Memphis, Orlando and Prince George’s County, Maryland. Through its school breakfast initiatives, the Foundation aims to increase breakfast consumption among schoolchildren and spark the academic and nutritional gains associated with a morning meal.

 WASHINGTON – Today, Mayor Vincent C. Gray and Department of Employment Services (DOES) Acting Director Dr. Rochelle L. Webb announced the start of the application process for the 2011 “One City Summer Youth Employment Program” (SYEP) to provide important summer job experiences for 12,000 District youth ages 14 to 21.

 “This year’s SYEP will be much more transparent with a more rigorous application process for both youth and host employer participants,” said Mayor Gray. A concerted effort will be made to better match youth with appropriate job assignments in order to affect a more substantive and mutually beneficial work experience for youth and host employers.”

 Mayor Gray’s “One City Summer Youth Employment Program” will have several important enhancements:

 •     SYEP will be smaller and tailored more to the individual needs of youth.

•     DOES will take many steps to ensure youth are being matched to jobs that are appropriate by offering two types of work programs:

 o     Work Experience programs where youth will receive hands-on experience they need to hone their job skills; and,

o     Work Readiness programs where youth will receive basic skill training and enrichment they need to become more job ready.

•     This year, youth will be required to “apply” for the program, not simply register.

•     Employers will have multiple opportunities to interview and screen youth, including access to a database of youth resumes, telephone and in-person interview events, and a SYEP Job Expo to be held in April.

•     Youth participants will engage in multiple orientation formats to better prepare themselves for work, including an online orientation course and an in-person soft skills training.

•     There will be greater transparency around program requirements, dates, and deadlines to make sure everyone is aware of expectations.

 “We need to prepare our youth for the unique world they are currently facing and the challenges they are likely to encounter over the next few years when they enter the labor force,” said Dr. Webb.  

 Beginning Friday, February 25 at 3:15 p.m. through Friday, March 11, 2011, the “One City Summer Youth Employment Program” application will be open to young adults between the ages of 14 and 21. Applications can be accessed from any computer with a working Internet connection by visiting www.summerjobs.dc.gov.

This year, applications will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited, so youth are encouraged to apply early. To apply, youth will need to provide their valid Security number and permanent address. All participants must be District residents.  Interested youth who cannot access their Social Security numbers should contact the does’ Office of Youth Programs for assistance.

 Anyone needing assistance with their application or a place to access the Internet is encouraged to attend Midnight Madness — the official SYEP application kick-off event. Midnight Madness will take place on Friday, February 25 from 3:15pm until 12:00 midnight at the new DOES building located at 4058 Minnesota Avenue NE (adjacent to the Minnesota Avenue Metro station).  DOES staff will be on hand all night to assist youth and their families, and to answer any questions.

 The 2011 SYEP will begin on Monday, June 27, 2011 and will end by Friday, August 5, 2011.

 For additional information about the 2011 “One City Summer Youth Employment Program,” residents can visit summerjobs.dc.gov, or call the DOES at (202) 698-3492.

***

The District of Columbia has an exciting, dynamic education reform agenda underway. There are little over 200 schools to serve just over 72,000 students, providing parents numerous quality educational options from which to choose.

The DCPS school system has shown remarkable improvement in the past three years under the Mayor’s education reform plan, and is leading the nation in terms of gains in student achievement. On virtually every measure – from statewide and national assessments to graduation rates to a growing enrollment, DCPS is on pace to become one of the highest performing jurisdictions in the country. And with an aggressive school modernization program underway through the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, our schools finally resemble the learning environments our kids deserve.

The District is also proud of its vibrant and robust public charter school sector, comprising over 50 individual charter schools on 90 campuses. Public charter schools can be found in every ward and provide academic programs at every level, from early childhood to adults. High-performing charter schools often work in partnership with DCPS schools, creating a network of schools that share the goal of raising student achievement through innovation, reform, and accountability.

DC education leaders are innovators in areas of human capital recruitment, retention, and training; charter school innovation and collaboration; and school turnaround. With dedicated leaders and teachers, data-driven strategies and decision-making, and an unparalleled focus on instruction, DC is on a path toward closing the achievement gap and ensuring that every student, regardless of where he or she is from, has the opportunity to realize his or her potential.

Goals

To make DC one of the highest performing jurisdictions in the country

At the State of the Schools in Ward 7 you will have the opportunity to:

• Learn more about your neighborhood DCPS schools
• Interact with Ward 7 school teachers and principals
• Meet fellow parents and community members

Councilmember Yvette Alexander and Interim Chancellor Kaya Henderson will be in attendance.

The work of improving our schools is too hard for anyone to do alone – Everyone has a role to play in this effort!

Download the State of the Schools flyer for more information.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 8:16 PM

This month, sign-up for a five-minutes with Miriam Calderon, Director of Early Childhood Education on Thursday, January 13, 6 -8pm at Beers Elementary School, 3600 Alabama Avenue, SE.

There are 24 five-minute slots available for parents, and will be scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. We look forward to seeing you!

How Office Hours Work

1. First come, first served. Individuals will register at the sign-in table and receive an intake form and number card. 
2. Participants will wait in the meeting space and be directed to the appropriate table by a DCPS staff member when it is their turn. 
3. All sessions are 5 minutes, timed by a timer on the table. At the end of the 5 minutes, the DCPS staff member at the table will wrap-up. 
4. DCPS staff will follow up within one week, if necessary.

The meeting will be held on Wednesday,  January 12th from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at  River Terrace Elementary School – 420 34th St. NE

Testimony is limited to three minutes per person but does not need to be submitted in advance.

Testimony may also be submitted in advance of the meeting via:

• Phone – (202) 442-5612;
• Fax – (202) 442-5026;
• Mail – 1200 First St. NE, #1272E, Washington DC 20002: or 
• E-mail – Margery Yeager

Find out more information on the proposal to close River Terrace Elementary School.

Our newly elected Mayor Vincent Gray recently had a meeting with President Obama regarding issues that are important to the District of columbia.

The following statement was made after his luncheon meeting with President Obama in the private dining room next to the Oval Office at the White House :

“My meeting with President Obama was indeed time well-spent. We had a great discussion about a number of issues important to the District of Columbia.

“The President underscored his support for continued collaboration to provide high quality education to District children. I talked about my vision for birth-to-24 education, with new emphasis on infant to toddler programs. And I look forward to working with him and the Department of Education on additional support for early childhood education because those investments will pay off.

“I asked President Obama to reinforce his support for self-determination and voting rights for District of Columbia taxpayers and he was unequivocal in his support. I also asked that his administration work with the city on providing jobs and training for District residents, particularly at the new Department of Homeland Security coming to the St. Elizabeths site in Anacostia. I told Mr. Obama the headquarters should not be just a federal enclave but an integral part of the community that should help to generate amenities for the surrounding neighborhood. And he recognized that this is a real opportunity to improve the quality of life in Ward 8. We’ve asked for federal dollars for infrastructure to support the employees who will work there, as well as the residents living nearby.

“One of the biggest take-aways from the meeting is that President Obama is committed to working closely with the District, and wants to build on the relationship established today with other meetings and lots of follow-up. I look forward to working with the President and the White House in the days ahead.”

A community meeting where all interested parties can provide public testimony regarding the proposal to close Shaed Education Campus at the end of the 2010-2011 school year.

Testimony is limited to three minutes per person but does not need to be submitted in advance.
Testimony may also be submitted in advance of the meeting via:

Phone – (202) 442-5612;
Fax – (202) 442-5026;
Mail – 1200 First St. NE, #1272E, Washington DC 20002: or 
E-mail – Margery Yeager

Find out more information on the proposal to close Shaed Education Campus.

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

October 26, 2010

Dear Colleague:

In recent years, many state departments of education and local school districts have taken steps to reduce bullying in schools. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) fully supports these efforts. Bullying fosters a climate of fear and disrespect that can seriously impair the physical and psychological health of its victims and create conditions that negatively affect learning, thereby undermining the ability of students to achieve their full potential. The movement to adopt anti‐bullying policies reflects schools’ appreciation of their important responsibility to maintain a safe learning environment for all students. I am writing to remind you, however, that some student misconduct that falls under a school’s anti‐bullying policy also may trigger responsibilities under one or more of the federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). As discussed in more detail below, by limiting its response to a specific application of its anti‐bullying disciplinary policy, a school may fail to properly consider whether the student misconduct also results in discriminatory harassment.

The statutes that OCR enforces include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 (Title VI), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 19722 (Title IX), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19733 (Section 504); and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19904 (Title II). Section 504 and Title II prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.5 School districts may violate these civil rights statutes and the Department’s implementing regulations when peer harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability is sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment and such harassment is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or ignored by school employees.6 School personnel who understand their legal obligations to address harassment under these laws are in the best position to prevent it from occurring and to respond appropriately when it does. Although this letter focuses on the elementary and secondary school context, the legal principles also apply to postsecondary institutions covered by the laws and regulations enforced by OCR.

Some school anti‐bullying policies already may list classes or traits on which bases bullying or harassment is specifically prohibited. Indeed, many schools have adopted anti‐bullying policies that go beyond prohibiting bullying on the basis of traits expressly protected by the federal civil

1 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

2 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

3 29 U.S.C. § 794.

4 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.

5 OCR also enforces the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq., and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7905. This letter does not specifically address those statutes.

6 The Department’s regulations implementing these statutes are in 34 C.F.R. parts 100, 104, and 106. Under these federal civil rights laws and regulations, students are protected from harassment by school employees, other students, and third parties. This guidance focuses on peer harassment, and articulates the legal standards that apply in administrative enforcement and in court cases where plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief. Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.

Page 2‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

rights laws enforced by OCR—race, color, national origin, sex, and disability—to include such bases as sexual orientation and religion. While this letter concerns your legal obligations under

the laws enforced by OCR, other federal, state, and local laws impose additional obligations on schools.7 And, of course, even when bullying or harassment is not a civil rights violation, schools should still seek to prevent it in order to protect students from the physical and emotional harms that it may cause.

Harassing conduct may take many forms, including verbal acts and name‐calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cell phones or the Internet; or other conduct that may be physically threatening, harmful, or humiliating. Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents. Harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school. When such harassment is based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability, it violates the civil rights laws that OCR enforces.8

A school is responsible for addressing harassment incidents about which it knows or reasonably 9should have known. In some situations, harassment may be in plain sight, widespread, or well‐known to students and staff, such as harassment occurring in hallways, during academic or physical education classes, during extracurricular activities, at recess, on a school bus, or through graffiti in public areas. In these cases, the obvious signs of the harassment are sufficient to put the school on notice. In other situations, the school may become aware of misconduct, triggering an investigation that could lead to the discovery of additional incidents that, taken together, may constitute a hostile environment. In all cases, schools should have well‐publicized policies prohibiting harassment and procedures for reporting and resolving 10complaints that will alert the school to incidents of harassment.

When responding to harassment, a school must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred. The specific steps in a school’s investigation will vary depending upon the nature of the allegations, the source of the complaint, the age of the student or students involved, the size and administrative structure of the school, and other factors. In all cases, however, the inquiry should be prompt, thorough, and impartial.

If an investigation reveals that discriminatory harassment has occurred, a school must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile

7 For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has jurisdiction over Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c (Title IV), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by public elementary and secondary schools and public institutions of higher learning. State laws also provide additional civil rights protections, so districts should review these statutes to determine what protections they afford (e.g., some state laws specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation).

8 Some conduct alleged to be harassment may implicate the First Amendment rights to free speech or expression. For more information on the First Amendment’s application to harassment, see the discussions in OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter: First Amendment (July 28, 2003), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html, and OCR’s Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (Jan. 19, 2001) (Sexual Harassment Guidance), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html.

9 A school has notice of harassment if a responsible employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the harassment. For a discussion of what a “responsible employee” is, see OCR’s Sexual Harassment Guidance.

10 Districts must adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee sex and disability discrimination complaints, and must notify students, parents, employees, applicants, and other interested parties that the district does not discriminate on the basis of sex or disability. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.106; 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b); 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b); 34 C.F.R. § 104.8; 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b); 34 C.F.R. § 106.9.

Page 3‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring. These duties are a school’s responsibility even if the misconduct also is covered by an anti‐bullying policy, and regardless of whether a student has complained, asked the school to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of discrimination.

Appropriate steps to end harassment may include separating the accused harasser and the target, providing counseling for the target and/or harasser, or taking disciplinary action against the harasser. These steps should not penalize the student who was harassed. For example, any separation of the target from an alleged harasser should be designed to minimize the burden on the target’s educational program (e.g., not requiring the target to change his or her class schedule).

In addition, depending on the extent of the harassment, the school may need to provide training or other interventions not only for the perpetrators, but also for the larger school community, to ensure that all students, their families, and school staff can recognize harassment if it recurs and know how to respond. A school also may be required to provide additional services to the student who was harassed in order to address the effects of the harassment, particularly if the school initially delays in responding or responds inappropriately or inadequately to information about harassment. An effective response also may need to include the issuance of new policies against harassment and new procedures by which students, parents, and employees may report allegations of harassment (or wide dissemination of existing policies and procedures), as well as wide distribution of the contact information for the district’s Title IX and Section 504/Title II coordinators.11

Finally, a school should take steps to stop further harassment and prevent any retaliation against the person who made the complaint (or was the subject of the harassment) or against those who provided information as witnesses. At a minimum, the school’s responsibilities include making sure that the harassed students and their families know how to report any subsequent problems, conducting follow‐up inquiries to see if there have been any new incidents or any instances of retaliation, and responding promptly and appropriately to address continuing or new problems.

When responding to incidents of misconduct, schools should keep in mind the following:

•

The label used to describe an incident (e.g., bullying, hazing, teasing) does not determine how a school is obligated to respond. Rather, the nature of the conduct itself must be assessed for civil rights implications. So, for example, if the abusive behavior is on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability, and creates a hostile environment, a school is obligated to respond in accordance with the applicable federal civil rights statutes and regulations enforced by OCR.

•

When the behavior implicates the civil rights laws, school administrators should look beyond simply disciplining the perpetrators. While disciplining the perpetrators is likely a necessary step, it often is insufficient. A school’s responsibility is to eliminate the

11 Districts must designate persons responsible for coordinating compliance with Title IX, Section 504, and Title II, including the investigation of any complaints of sexual, gender‐based, or disability harassment. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a); 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a); 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a).

Page 4‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

hostile environment created by the harassment, address its effects, and take steps to ensure that harassment does not recur. Put differently, the unique effects of discriminatory harassment may demand a different response than would other types of bullying.

Below, I provide hypothetical examples of how a school’s failure to recognize student misconduct as discriminatory harassment violates students’ civil rights.12 In each of the examples, the school was on notice of the harassment because either the school or a responsible employee knew or should have known of misconduct that constituted harassment. The examples describe how the school should have responded in each circumstance.

Title VI: Race, Color, or National Origin Harassment

•

Some students anonymously inserted offensive notes into African‐American students’ lockers and notebooks, used racial slurs, and threatened African‐American students who tried to sit near them in the cafeteria. Some African‐American students told school officials that they did not feel safe at school. The school investigated and responded to individual instances of misconduct by assigning detention to the few student perpetrators it could identify. However, racial tensions in the school continued to escalate to the point that several fights broke out between the school’s racial groups.

In this example, school officials failed to acknowledge the pattern of harassment as indicative of a racially hostile environment in violation of Title VI. Misconduct need not be directed at a particular student to constitute discriminatory harassment and foster a racially hostile environment. Here, the harassing conduct included overtly racist behavior (e.g., racial slurs) and also targeted students on the basis of their race (e.g., notes directed at African‐American students). The nature of the harassment, the number of incidents, and the students’ safety concerns demonstrate that there was a racially hostile environment that interfered with the students’ ability to participate in the school’s education programs and activities.

Had the school recognized that a racially hostile environment had been created, it would have realized that it needed to do more than just discipline the few individuals whom it could identify as having been involved. By failing to acknowledge the racially hostile environment, the school failed to meet its obligation to implement a more systemic response to address the unique effect that the misconduct had on the school climate. A more effective response would have included, in addition to punishing the perpetrators, such steps as reaffirming the school’s policy against discrimination (including racial harassment), publicizing the means to report allegations of racial harassment, training faculty on constructive responses to racial conflict, hosting class discussions about racial harassment and sensitivity to students of other races, and conducting outreach to involve parents and students in an effort to identify problems and improve the school climate. Finally, had school officials responded appropriately

12 Each of these hypothetical examples contains elements taken from actual cases.

Page 5‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

and aggressively to the racial harassment when they first became aware of it, the school might have prevented the escalation of violence that occurred.13

•

Over the course of a school year, school employees at a junior high school received reports of several incidents of anti‐Semitic conduct at the school. Anti‐Semitic graffiti, including swastikas, was scrawled on the stalls of the school bathroom. When custodians discovered the graffiti and reported it to school administrators, the administrators ordered the graffiti removed but took no further action. At the same school, a teacher caught two ninth‐graders trying to force two seventh‐graders to give them money. The ninth‐graders told the seventh‐graders, “You Jews have all of the money, give us some.” When school administrators investigated the incident, they determined that the seventh‐graders were not actually Jewish. The school suspended the perpetrators for a week because of the serious nature of their misconduct. After that incident, younger Jewish students started avoiding the school library and computer lab because they were located in the corridor housing the lockers of the ninth‐graders. At the same school, a group of eighth‐grade students repeatedly called a Jewish student “Drew the dirty Jew.” The responsible eighth‐graders were reprimanded for teasing the Jewish student.

The school administrators failed to recognize that anti‐Semitic harassment can trigger responsibilities under Title VI. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based solely on religion,14 groups that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith. These principles apply not just to Jewish students, but also to students from any discrete religious group that shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics (e.g., Muslims or Sikhs). Thus, harassment against students who are members of any religious group triggers a school’s Title VI responsibilities when the harassment is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, rather than solely on its members’ religious practices. A school also has responsibilities under Title VI when its students are harassed based on their actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity.15

In this example, school administrators should have recognized that the harassment was based on the students’ actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic identity as Jews (rather than on the students’ religious practices). The school was not relieved of its responsibilities under Title VI because the targets of one of the incidents were not actually Jewish. The harassment was still based on the perceived ancestry or ethnic characteristics of the targeted students. Furthermore, the harassment negatively affected the ability and willingness of Jewish students to participate fully in the school’s

13 More information about the applicable legal standards and OCR’s approach to investigating allegations of harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin is included in Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions: Investigative Guidance, 59 Fed. Reg. 11,448 (Mar. 10, 1994), available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/race394.html.

14 As noted in footnote seven, DOJ has the authority to remedy discrimination based solely on religion under Title IV.

15 More information about the applicable legal standards and OCR’s approach to investigating complaints of discrimination against members of religious groups is included in OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter: Title VI and Title IX Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges (Sept. 13, 2004), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious‐rights2004.html.

Page 6‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

education programs and activities (e.g., by causing some Jewish students to avoid the library and computer lab). Therefore, although the discipline that the school imposed on the perpetrators was an important part of the school’s response, discipline alone was likely insufficient to remedy a hostile environment. Similarly, removing the graffiti, while a necessary and important step, did not fully satisfy the school’s responsibilities. As discussed above, misconduct that is not directed at a particular student, like the graffiti in the bathroom, can still constitute discriminatory harassment and foster a hostile environment. Finally, the fact that school officials considered one of the incidents “teasing” is irrelevant for determining whether it contributed to a hostile environment.

Because the school failed to recognize that the incidents created a hostile environment, it addressed each only in isolation, and therefore failed to take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment and prevent its recurrence. In addition to disciplining the perpetrators, remedial steps could have included counseling the perpetrators about the hurtful effect of their conduct, publicly labeling the incidents as anti‐Semitic, reaffirming the school’s policy against discrimination, and publicizing the means by which students may report harassment. Providing teachers with training to recognize and address anti‐Semitic incidents also would have increased the effectiveness of the school’s response. The school could also have created an age‐appropriate program to educate its students about the history and dangers of anti‐Semitism, and could have conducted outreach to involve parents and community groups in preventing future anti‐Semitic harassment.

Title IX: Sexual Harassment

•

Shortly after enrolling at a new high school, a female student had a brief romance with another student. After the couple broke up, other male and female students began routinely calling the new student sexually charged names, spreading rumors about her sexual behavior, and sending her threatening text messages and e‐mails. One of the student’s teachers and an athletic coach witnessed the name calling and heard the rumors, but identified it as “hazing” that new students often experience. They also noticed the new student’s anxiety and declining class participation. The school attempted to resolve the situation by requiring the student to work the problem out directly with her harassers.

Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, which can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Thus, sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX can include conduct such as touching of a sexual nature; making sexual comments, jokes, or gestures; writing graffiti or displaying or distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials; calling students sexually charged names; spreading sexual rumors; rating students on sexual activity or performance; or circulating, showing, or creating e‐mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.

Page 7‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

In this example, the school employees failed to recognize that the “hazing” constituted sexual harassment. The school did not comply with its Title IX obligations when it failed to investigate or remedy the sexual harassment. The conduct was clearly unwelcome, sexual (e.g., sexual rumors and name calling), and sufficiently serious that it limited the student’s ability to participate in and benefit from the school’s education program (e.g., anxiety and declining class participation).

The school should have trained its employees on the type of misconduct that constitutes sexual harassment. The school also should have made clear to its employees that they could not require the student to confront her harassers. Schools may use informal mechanisms for addressing harassment, but only if the parties agree to do so on a voluntary basis. Had the school addressed the harassment consistent with Title IX, the school would have, for example, conducted a thorough investigation and taken interim measures to separate the student from the accused harassers. An effective response also might have included training students and employees on the school’s policies related to harassment, instituting new procedures by which employees should report allegations of harassment, and more widely distributing the contact information for the district’s Title IX coordinator. The school also might have offered the targeted student tutoring, other academic assistance, or counseling as necessary to remedy the effects of the harassment.16

Title IX: Gender‐Based Harassment

•

Over the course of a school year, a gay high school student was called names (including anti‐gay slurs and sexual comments) both to his face and on social networking sites, physically assaulted, threatened, and ridiculed because he did not conform to stereotypical notions of how teenage boys are expected to act and appear (e.g., effeminate mannerisms, nontraditional choice of extracurricular activities, apparel, and personal grooming choices). As a result, the student dropped out of the drama club to avoid further harassment. Based on the student’s self‐identification as gay and the homophobic nature of some of the harassment, the school did not recognize that the misconduct included discrimination covered by Title IX. The school responded to complaints from the student by reprimanding the perpetrators consistent with its anti‐bullying policy. The reprimands of the identified perpetrators stopped the harassment by those individuals. It did not, however, stop others from undertaking similar harassment of the student.

As noted in the example, the school failed to recognize the pattern of misconduct as a form of sex discrimination under Title IX. Title IX prohibits harassment of both male and female students regardless of the sex of the harasser—i.e., even if the harasser and target are members of the same sex. It also prohibits gender‐based harassment, which may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex‐stereotyping. Thus, it can be sex discrimination if students are harassed either for exhibiting what is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic for their

16 More information about the applicable legal standards and OCR’s approach to investigating allegations of sexual harassment is included in OCR’s Sexual Harassment Guidance, available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html.

Page 8‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

sex, or for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity. Title IX also prohibits sexual harassment and gender‐based harassment of all students, regardless of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the harasser or target.

Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination based solely on sexual orientation, Title IX does protect all students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, from sex discrimination. When students are subjected to harassment on the basis of their LGBT status, they may also, as this example illustrates, be subjected to forms of sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX. The fact that the harassment includes anti‐LGBT comments or is partly based on the target’s actual or perceived sexual orientation does not relieve a school of its obligation under Title IX to investigate and remedy overlapping sexual harassment or gender‐based harassment. In this example, the harassing conduct was based in part on the student’s failure to act as some of his peers believed a boy should act. The harassment created a hostile environment that limited the student’s ability to participate in the school’s education program (e.g., access to the drama club). Finally, even though the student did not identify the harassment as sex discrimination, the school should have recognized that the student had been subjected to gender‐based harassment covered by Title IX.

In this example, the school had an obligation to take immediate and effective action to eliminate the hostile environment. By responding to individual incidents of misconduct on an ad hoc basis only, the school failed to confront and prevent a hostile environment from continuing. Had the school recognized the conduct as a form of sex discrimination, it could have employed the full range of sanctions (including progressive discipline) and remedies designed to eliminate the hostile environment. For example, this approach would have included a more comprehensive response to the situation that involved notice to the student’s teachers so that they could ensure the student was not subjected to any further harassment, more aggressive monitoring by staff of the places where harassment occurred, increased training on the scope of the school’s harassment and discrimination policies, notice to the target and harassers of available counseling services and resources, and educating the entire school community on civil rights and expectations of tolerance, specifically as they apply to gender stereotypes. The school also should have taken steps to clearly communicate the message that the school does not tolerate harassment and will be responsive to any information about such conduct.17

Section 504 and Title II: Disability Harassment

•

Several classmates repeatedly called a student with a learning disability “stupid,” “idiot,” and “retard” while in school and on the school bus. On one occasion, these students tackled him, hit him with a school binder, and threw his personal items into the garbage. The student complained to his teachers and guidance counselor that he was continually being taunted and teased. School officials offered him counseling services and a

17 Guidance on gender‐based harassment is also included in OCR’s Sexual Harassment Guidance, available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html.

Page 9‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

psychiatric evaluation, but did not discipline the offending students. As a result, the harassment continued. The student, who had been performing well academically, became angry, frustrated, and depressed, and often refused to go to school to avoid the harassment.

In this example, the school failed to recognize the misconduct as disability harassment under Section 504 and Title II. The harassing conduct included behavior based on the student’s disability, and limited the student’s ability to benefit fully from the school’s education program (e.g., absenteeism). In failing to investigate and remedy the misconduct, the school did not comply with its obligations under Section 504 and Title II.

Counseling may be a helpful component of a remedy for harassment. In this example, however, since the school failed to recognize the behavior as disability harassment, the school did not adopt a comprehensive approach to eliminating the hostile environment. Such steps should have at least included disciplinary action against the harassers, consultation with the district’s Section 504/Title II coordinator to ensure a comprehensive and effective response, special training for staff on recognizing and effectively responding to harassment of students with disabilities, and monitoring to ensure that the harassment did not resume.18

I encourage you to reevaluate the policies and practices your school uses to address bullying19 and harassment to ensure that they comply with the mandates of the federal civil rights laws. For your convenience, the following is a list of online resources that further discuss the obligations of districts to respond to harassment prohibited under the federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by OCR:

•

Sexual Harassment: It’s Not Academic (Revised 2008): http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.html

•

Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Harassment Issues (2006):

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/sexhar‐2006.html

•

Dear Colleague Letter: Religious Discrimination (2004):

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious‐rights2004.html

•

Dear Colleague Letter: First Amendment (2003):

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html

18 More information about the applicable legal standards and OCR’s approach to investigating allegations of disability harassment is included in OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter: Prohibited Disability Harassment (July 25, 2000), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/disabharassltr.html.

19 For resources on preventing and addressing bullying, please visit http://www.bullyinginfo.org, a Web site established by a federal Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs. For information on the Department’s bullying prevention resources, please visit the Office of Safe and Drug‐Free Schools’ Web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS. For information on regional Equity Assistance Centers that assist schools in developing and implementing policies and practices to address issues regarding race, sex, or national origin discrimination, please visit http://www.ed.gov/programs/equitycenters.

Page 10‐ Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying

•

Sexual Harassment Guidance (Revised 2001): http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html

•

Dear Colleague Letter: Prohibited Disability Harassment (2000): http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/disabharassltr.html

•

Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students (1994): http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/race394.html

Please also note that OCR has added new data items to be collected through its Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), which surveys school districts in a variety of areas related to civil rights in education. The CRDC now requires districts to collect and report information on allegations of harassment, policies regarding harassment, and discipline imposed for harassment. In 2009‐10, the CRDC covered nearly 7,000 school districts, including all districts with more than 3,000 students. For more information about the CRDC data items, please visit http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/whatsnew.html.

OCR is committed to working with schools, students, students’ families, community and advocacy organizations, and other interested parties to ensure that students are not subjected to harassment. Please do not hesitate to contact OCR if we can provide assistance in your efforts to address harassment or if you have other civil rights concerns.

For the OCR regional office serving your state, please visit: http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm, or call OCR’s Customer Service Team at 1‐800‐421‐3481.

I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure equal access to education, and to promote safe and respectful school climates for America’s students.

Sincerely,

/s/

Russlynn Ali

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Each participant will have five minutes to talk to
Kaya Henderson, to raise an issue, provide feedback or ask a question.
There are 24 five-minute slots available for parents, and will be scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. We look forward to seeing you!
 
Tuesday, October 19, 2010

6-8 p.m.

Johnson Middle School (Ward

1400 Bruce Pl. SE

Washington, D.C. 20020

Ms. Henderson has served under Chancellor Rhee as deputy chancellor for “human capital”.

Washington, DC – Today, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty named Beth Colleye as interim State Superintendent of Education, overseeing all aspects of the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE). Colleye previously served as the OSSE general counsel.

As general counsel, Colleye built the OSSE General Counsel’s Office into an integral part of the agency and managed successful legal strategies to get the District out of special education class action lawsuits. Representing the District in multiple federal government audits and enforcement actions, Colleye has assisted in saving the city millions of dollars in potential audit findings. Additionally, Colleye helped draft and implement compliance policies, state-level standards and legal opinions central to education reforms.

“Beth Colleye has served as a valuable asset to the education team, and will play a vital role in furthering OSSE’s goals,” said Mayor Fenty. “I’m confident she will work as hard as humanly possible to ensure the best interest of our students remains a priority for the agency.”

“Beth Colleye has worked tirelessly to improve education for all District youth,” said Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso. “Her compassion, sense of urgency, and hard work has helped move the District and education reform in the right direction.”

Beth Colleye

Interim State Superintendent of Education

As the interim state superintendent of education, Colleye will utilize her existing experience and knowledge of the agency to continue the education reforms set forth by Mayor Fenty while aiding transition efforts in preparation for new leadership.

Prior to joining OSSE, Colleye served as counsel for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP and as an associate for Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP. In both of those positions, she managed complex financial investigations domestically and abroad.

A graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and Columbia College in New York City, Colleye currently resides in Ward 3 where her school-aged daughters attend DC Public Schools.

“We are extremely excited about the changes occurring in our classrooms and families across the district are sharing that enthusiasm by enrolling their children in DC public schools,” Mayor Fenty said. “This historic reversal in enrollment proves that our hard work over the past three years has created quality schools that appeal to families and set a foundation for future growth.”

* 73 schools saw their enrollments rise this school year.

* Enrollment increased at schools in all 8 wards.

* Powell Elementary, Hardy Middle, Turner Elementary at Green, and Coolidge High are among those schools that saw significant increases, 32 percent, 24 percent, 15 percent and 12 percent, respectively.

* Early Childhood Education continues to be an area of growth: 481 more preschool and pre-kindergarten students enrolled this year versus last.

* Older students are choosing to remain in DCPS: there was no decrease in K-12 enrollment.

“Our neighborhood public schools are becoming an increasingly attractive option for families throughout the city seeking a quality education,” said Chancellor Rhee. “Inside and out, our schools are getting better and our test scores are improving. We still have a long way to go, but the stabilization we saw last year and the gains we’re seeing this fall illustrate that we are indeed moving in the right direction.”

As part of a more robust enrollment and recruitment push, every DCPS school held at least one open house during the 2009-10 school year. In addition, DCPS chose its second Recruitment Schools cohort, an initiative geared at ramping up enrollment at traditionally under-enrolled schools throughout the city through targeted media and community events.

DCPS will submit final enrollment numbers to the Office of State Secretary of Education (OSSE) today, to be released in detail at a later date.

The proposed rules address state-level standards for student conduct policies and procedures at local education agencies (LEAs) in the District of Columbia. The proposed rules recognize there must be a balance between individual rights and responsibilities and the rights and responsibilities of the school community. The proposed rules give LEAs flexibility to develop standardized expectations relating to student conduct and disciplinary responses consistent with the state standards. LEAs are encouraged to establish policies and procedures with a broad range of strategies and interventions. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) recognizes the necessity to make available to LEAs ongoing state-level guidance to assist with implementation of this chapter.

Consistent with best practices and a policy letter dated July 31, 2009, from the U.S. Secretary of Education to chief state education officers, these revisions address the appropriate and selective use of seclusion and restraint techniques in schools. Finally, new to this proposal is a provision to address aggressive behavior such as bullying.

Subtitle A, Title 5 of the DCMR is amended to add a new Chapter 25 to read as follows:

CHAPTER 25 STANDARDS FOR STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT

2500 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE

2500.1 The legal authority for this chapter includes section 3(b)(11) of the State Education Office Establishment Act of 2000, effective October 21, 2000, (D.C. Law 13-176; D.C. Official Code § 38-2602(b)(11) (2009 Supp.)).

2500.2 The purpose of this chapter is to provide uniform standards for the development of policies and procedures governing student conduct and discipline in the District of Columbia public schools.

2500.3 This chapter establishes standards by which an LEA may develop a broad spectrum of strategies to address inappropriate student conduct.

2501 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

2501.1 Each LEA shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures governing student conduct and discipline. The policies and procedures shall be consistent with the standards set forth in this chapter.

2501.2 The disciplinary responses to inappropriate student conduct contained in the policies and procedures of the LEA shall be fair and appropriate, minimize disruption to a student’s instructional program, and foster the health and safety of all students.

2501.3 LEAs are encouraged to utilize school-wide strategies for prevention, intervention, and remediation of inappropriate student behavior to meet the needs of the school community and promote student academic achievement.

2501.4 The policies and procedures of the LEA shall include the following basic elements:

(a) A statement of purpose and philosophy regarding student conduct;

(b) Standards for student conduct, including prohibited student conduct; the range of disciplinary action which may be imposed for prohibited conduct; the criteria for disciplinary actions, which shall include the utilization of a progressive approach to discipline; and interventions and strategies to prevent and address misbehavior which take into consideration a student’s developmental level among other factors; and

(c) Written policies and procedures to address:

(1) Maintenance of disciplinary records and information;

(2) Distribution of the student disciplinary policies and procedures to students and their parents or guardians within thirty (30) days after the first (1st) day of each school year or upon registration;

(3) Access to the policies and procedures through an effective means of communication such as printed copies or electronic links to copies of the policy and procedure on the LEA’s website consistently;

(4) Use of student suspension in compliance with clearly defined procedures;

(5) Use of student expulsion in compliance with clearly defined procedures in extreme and rare occasions and as a response to only the most serious misconduct or behaviors, which may cause serious physical injury or are a major disruption to the school environment;

(6) Compliance with federal and District laws which require LEAs to expel from school for a period of not less than one (1) year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to school or to have possessed a firearm at a school. The chief administrative officer of the LEA may modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis, if that modification is in writing;

(7) Prohibitions with regard to bullying conduct. The policies and procedures shall affirm that the LEA does not tolerate bullying of any kind;

(8) Re-entry of students to school upon completion of an off-site suspension or expulsion;

(9) Establishment and timely distribution of an education plan for a student who is suspended or expelled that enables the student to maintain academic work on pace with work that the student would have been completed if the student was not subject to any disciplinary action;

(10) Applicability of the student conduct and disciplinary policies during regularly-scheduled school hours and at all school-sponsored events, as specified by the LEA; and

(11) Compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and regulations promulgated pursuant to the IDEA, including 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5) and 34 C.F.R. §300.530 and §300.504, and utilization of procedural safeguards to prevent disproportional disciplinary actions against the population of individuals covered by the IDEA.

2501.5 The policies and procedures of the LEA shall provide that:

(a) An in-school suspension shall not exceed fifteen (15) school days;

(b) An off-site school suspension shall not exceed ninety (90) school

days; and

(c) A full suspension shall not exceed ninety (90) school days.

2502 RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION

2502.1 The use of restraint or seclusion is prohibited except in an emergency circumstance, which is defined as a circumstance that meets both of the following criteria:

(a) Intervention is necessary to protect the student or another person from imminent, serious physical harm; and

(b) Other less intrusive, nonphysical interventions have failed or have been determined inappropriate.

2502.2 For a student with a behavior intervention plan or an Individualized Education Program (IEP), restraint may be used only when it is included in the student’s IEP or a Section 504 Accommodation Plan under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The restraint must be used to address specific behaviors under defined circumstances and must be implemented by appropriate staff.

2502.3 Any restraint or seclusion shall be applied only by school personnel who are trained in the appropriate use of specific authorized techniques. Any chemical restraint must be ordered by a physician, determined to be medically necessary, and administered as detailed in the medical action plan.

2502.4 A space used for seclusion shall, at a minimum, be free of objects and fixtures with which a student could self-inflict bodily harm, shall provide school personnel an adequate view of the student from an adjacent area, and shall provide adequate lighting and ventilation.

2502.5 School personnel must be able to see the student placed in seclusion at all times and must speak with the student at least once every ten (10) minutes.

2502.6 After thirty (30) minutes of seclusion, the school director, head of special education, or other senior member of the school’s staff shall personally observe the student to assess the need for continued seclusion.

2502.7 No seclusion shall continue longer than one (1) hour.

2502.8 Each LEA shall maintain written incident reports for each incident involving a restraint or seclusion. The reports shall be placed in the student’s permanent file and maintained along with disciplinary records.

2503 NOTIFICATION AND HEARING

2503.1 The student conduct and discipline policies and procedures of each LEA shall provide for the proper and timely notification to the student and his or her parent(s) or guardian(s) with regard to student misconduct.

2503.2 The student conduct and discipline policies and procedures of each LEA shall provide procedural safeguards with regard to student misconduct, including the following:

(a) Notification to all appropriate parties provided at a reasonable amount of time prior to a hearing setting forth the following information:

(1) Written description of the charge(s) of misconduct;

(2) Basis for the disciplinary action;

(3) An explanation of the student’s rights, including the right to a hearing and appeal; and

(4) A description of the disciplinary process, procedures, and potential consequences.

(b) Procedures before a neutral decision maker including the opportunity for conferences, a hearing, and appeal.

2504 REPORTS

2504.1 Each LEA shall maintain a copy of its disciplinary policies and procedures. The LEA policies and procedures shall be made available to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education upon request. An LEA shall provide to OSSE, upon request, all information necessary to comply with any requests made by OSSE pursuant to this chapter

2504.2 Each LEA shall ensure that all data and information related to disciplinary actions are reported in a manner that complies with all requirements specified by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education and the U.S. Department of Education.

2599 DEFINITIONS

2599.1 For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed.

Alternative setting or school program – means an educational program other than that in which the student was placed prior to disciplinary action.

Bullying – means intentional verbal, physical, or written conduct that creates a hostile environment. Bullying includes actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a student’s actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the pupil’s association with another person and based on the other person’s characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs. This also includes any type of use of information and communication technologies to exhibit this behavior known as cyber-bullying.

Expulsion – means the denial of the right of a student to attend a school or program, including all classes and school activities, except alternative settings, for one (1) calendar year or such shorter period as deemed appropriate.

In–school suspension – means the mandatory assignment of a student to attend an assigned alternative school program in lieu of previously assigned curricular activities for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) school days.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA – means the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, approved November 29, 1975 (89 Stat. 773; 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.).

Local education agency or LEA – means the District of Columbia Public School system or any individual or group of public charter schools operated under a single charter in the District of Columbia.

Medical action plan- means a medical treatment plan for an individual student that is developed and submitted to a school in accordance with section 4 of the Student Access to Treatment Act of 2007, effective February 2, 2006 (D.C. Law 17-107; D.C. Official Code §38-651.03)).

Off-site school suspension – means the mandatory assignment of a student to attend another appropriate site or alternative school program in lieu of previously assigned activities for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days.

Restraint – the use of force to limit a student’s freedom of movement.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973- means the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, approved September 26, 1973; (87 Stat 394; 29 U.S.C. § 794).

Seclusion – means the involuntary confinement of a student alone in an area from which he or she is physically prevented from leaving.

Suspension – means the denial of the right of a student to attend any school or program, including all classes and school activities, except in an approved alternative setting, in no event exceeding ninety (90) school days pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Weapon – includes, but is not limited to, the following: weapons enumerated in D.C. Official Code § 22-4514 (2001), Act of July 8, 1932, (ch. 465, 47 Stat. 650); firearms as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a) (2000), approved, June 19, 1968, (82 Stat 226); and knives, razors, martial, arts devices and other weapons or instruments designed to be or commonly used as weapons.

All persons desiring to comment on the subject matter of this proposed rulemaking should file comments in writing not later than thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice in the D.C. Register to the following website at osse.publiccomment@dc.gov; or to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, Attn.: Jessica Morffi, re: Student Code of Conduct; 810 First Street, NE 9th Floor Washington, DC 20002. Additional copies of this rule are available from the above address and on the Office of the State Superintendent of Education website at www.osse.dc.gov.

Chancellor’sCommunityForumSeriesCheck in with two key parts of a successful school year:

•Meet the Instructional Superintendents. This year, all principals and their schools will have the benefit of more attention and guidance from instructional “supes.” Meet them and learn how their work will benefit your child’s school.

•Meet the Comprehensive School Plan. Each DC public school must complete one each year. What’s their purpose? How important are they? What do they have to do with your child’s learning? How can they be improved for next year?

Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2010 6:30 –8 p.m. at Cleveland Elementary School

1825 Eighth St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

Good afternoon, my name is Weadé Wallace, I am a project director with Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc, an organization dedicated to educating parents, youth, and the community about the laws governing public education, specifically for children with special needs.

As the federally mandated Parent Training and Information Center of D.C., we also seek to empower youth and parents to be effective advocates and youth to self advocate by providing direct services and trainings to parents of students, regarding special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

On behalf of Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc, we commend the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) for the proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP) Process Policy to ensure that students with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). We support this proposed policy and believe that it will strengthen parental engagement and promote school accountability.

In our work relating to the IEP process, we have discovered that the core of the challenges faced by parents lies within the implementation of this policy. Implementation of the IEP Process policy is very important to the progress of students with disabilities. Some of the challenges faced by many of our parents include the unwillingness of the public school agency to identify and evaluate children who are suspected of being disabled and in need of special education, even if they’re passing from grade to grade. Prior to commencing the initial evaluation process of a child suspected of being in need of special education, some schools often implement supports and pre-interventions like the Student Support Team (SST). However, there is a lack of follow-through or systematic evaluation to examine the effectiveness of these pre-interventions, like the SST. Also, all local educational agencies must be made aware that the Student Support Team (SST) process is not a prerequisite to referring a child for initial evaluations. Both of these processes can and should occur concurrently.

The public school agency has 120 days to evaluate a child from the date a parent submits a written request and consent for evaluation. This process does not always occur in a timely manner. Some local educational agencies (LEAs) prolong this process by waiting until a few weeks before the 120 day period to convene the Multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review existing data about the child and to identify what evaluations are needed.

Frequent communication with parents must be a key component to the implementation of the IEP Process policy. The LEAs must adhere to the evaluation procedures and schedules of a child’s IEP. Parents should be informed of their child’s progress in all areas of services on a quarterly basis, or as stated on their child’s IEP.

As part of the recent Easy IEP process, schools are not obligated to take notes during IEP meetings. Note taking must be mandatory to reflect parents’ concerns, issues addressed by the IEP team and all decisions made by the IEP team. Parents are the primary stakeholder in their children education and it’s necessary that they leave their child’s IEP meeting with meeting notes for their personal records. Meeting notes are an important document for parents and should be mandatory at all IEP meetings.

All IEP meetings must include at least one general education teacher. Despite the overall efforts of IDEA to get more students in general education with the appropriate supports, general education teachers are not always invited to IEP meetings. Also, the LEA must increasingly notify parents of their option to invite a representative of Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to IEP meetings when discussing post-secondary transition. The presence of RSA will provide parent with more knowledge and resources about their child’s transition options.

Local Educational Agency (LEA) representatives at non-public schools should also be fully knowledgeable of the students’ needs and services when attending IEP meetings. These individuals should be present at all IEP meetings and have some authority to make important decisions when necessary.

In closing, we are pleased with the efforts of the OSSE to strengthen the implementation of the IEP process for students with disabilities. We realize that this is a collective effort and that all participants of the IEP Team, including parents, must be fully engaged in this process. It is our hope that the local educational agencies (LEAs) will consistently implement the IEP Process policy to develop successful and valid IEPs for all students with disabilities.

This agency within OSSE is responsible for coordinating early childhood education services for children from birth to kindergarten for the District of Columbia.
 
Due to the move, the Division of Early Childhood Education offices will be closed beginning on Thursday, September 16th and will reopen for business on September 20th at the new offices.  Please contact (202) 727-1839 or visit OSSE’s website for more information.

Along with Maryland, DC was one of 9 states to receive the award in this second round of the competition.

The competition is funded through the 2009 economic stimulus law.  It encourages ideas to connect student performance data to individual teachers and principals, targeting low-performing schools, adopting common national standards and creating public charter schools.

The public comment period is for 30 days beginning Friday, August 20, 2010, and concluding Monday, September 20, 2010. A public hearing for the proposed policy will be held Tuesday, September 7, 2010. A copy of the hearing notice can be found here*.
Individuals who wish to submit their comments as part of the official record should do so no later than 5 pm Monday, September 20, 2010 to:

Tameria Lewis, Assistant Superintendent for Special Education

c/o Desirée Brown

Office of the State Superintendent of Education

Division of Special Education

810 1st St. NE – 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

or

e-mail to osse.publiccomment@dc.gov

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth found that there was no “genuine dispute” that [the District] only provided a [free and appropriate education] to approximately 600 students per year, which is half of the qualifying 3- to 5-year-old children in the District” who qualified.  He relied on data for the years 2000 to 2007.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/dcs-special-needs-pre-schoolers-vindicated-in-court-100432679.html#ixzz0wzyxYWVV

Eight DCPS elementary schools met the benchmark, down from 29 in 2009 and 38 in 2008. Two of those schools, Mamie D. Lee and Sharpe, provide services exclusively to special needs students. Of the remaining six, Mann, Key and Stoddert elementary schools are in Ward 3, Kenilworth is in Ward 7, and Ludlow-Tayor is in Ward 6.  Montgomery was merged into Ward 6′s Walker Jones Educational Campus in June. Two senior high schools joined the ranks as did four public charter elementary schools.

Light snacks and childcare will be provided.
 
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

7-8 p.m.

DCPS Central Office

1200 First Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20002

The news was better for middle and high schools, which saw continued gains in reading and math on the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS), administered every April.

After rising 20 percentage points from 2007 to 2009, the elementary math proficiency rate dipped 4.6 points this year, to 43.4. The elementary reading proficiency rate, which had risen 11 percentage points from 2007 to 2009, fell 4.4 points, to 44.4 percent. The proficiency rate is essentially a measure of the portion of students who pass the tests.

School-by-school scores will not be available until later this month.

Rhee, who joined Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to announce the 2010 scores in a mid-morning news conference at Ballou High School, said she couldn’t account for the drop in elementary scores, and that it would require some study.

“We’re going to dig into the data,” she said.

Rhee and Fenty emphasized the overall record of test score gains since the mayor appointed Rhee in 2007. School reform has become a key issue in Fenty’s reelection campaign against challenger Vincent C. Gray (D), the D.C. Council chairman.

Rhee called the three-year gains at the middle and high school levels — an average of 14 percentage points in reading and 17 points in math — a significant achievement. In a statement distributed to reporters, Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, which consults with urban school districts, called the growth “unusual and important,” adding that the District is one of the few cities in the country to see double-digit growth at the secondary level.

Officials also reported that the percentage of students scoring at advanced levels has doubled in elementary and secondary schools since 2007.

This post has been updated since it was first published.

– Bill Turque

To submit comments in writing on this rule send them to Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 810 First Street, N.E., 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20002, Attn: Jessica Morffi, Title 5, Chapter A-28; or Osse.publiccomment@dc.gov. All comments must be received by OSSE not later than thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the D.C. Register. Copies of this rulemaking may be obtained from the OSSE website at osse.dc.gov or at the above referenced location.

In addition to the Chancellor, Deputy Chancellor Richard Nyankori will attend. There will be a brief open discussion and then break-out sessions. One of the break-out sessions is “DCPS Alternatives to Nonpublic Schools”. The forum will be held at Randle Highlands Elementary School located at 1650 30th Street, SE, this Wednesday, May 26, from 6:30 until 8:00pm.

The tentative agreement would raise the average annual salary from about $67,000 to $81,000 – by 21.6%. It would also create a privately financed performance compensation program to begin in 2013, potentially adding $20,000 to $30,000 a year to teacher pay based on criteria such as improvement in student test scores. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604392.html

If you have any questions, please contact Luke Kohlmoos at (202) 442-5194 or luke.kohlmoos@dc.gov.

Place of the workshop: 2041 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE Suite 400 WDC.
Date and Time: March 30, 2010 from 5p.m. to 7p.m.
Incentives: Bus Tokens, Childcare and Dinner.

March 10, 2010
8am-noon
Jack Morton Auditorium and Marvin Center
The George Washington University

featuring Keynote Addresses on
Autism and Developmental Disabilities
by

Daniel H. Geschwind, M.D., Ph.D.
Director, Center for Autism Research and Treatment, UCLA

Mark Batshaw, M.D.
Director, Children’s Research Institute
Children’s National Medical Center

Followed by Town Hall Panel Discussion with GW Faculty*
working on various aspects of Autism
*Donna Betts, Art therapy; Cathleen Burgess, Speech/communication therapies; Margaret Dunkle, Public Policy; Valerie Hu, Biomedical/genetic studies, Anthony LaMantia, Neurodevelopment; Marian Jarrett, Special Education; Francys Subiaul, Social cognition; Lorri Unumb, Legal/legislative issues;
Ben Yerys, Brain imaging

For more information: http://gwumc.edu/research/researchday.html

Please RSVP at: http://www.doodle.com/55tya3n6d3g53xy8 by March 3rd to reserve a free program booklet and complimentary box lunch.

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
6:30 pm – 8:00 pm

Ronald Brown Middle School
4800 Meade St., NE
Washington, D.C. 20019

For child care, disability accommodations, and/or language interpretation services (Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Amharic, French, and American Sign Language), call or email Sang Yoon at (202) 480-0860 (Sang.Yoon@dc.gov) at least two days in advance.

Learn about the many charter school options; talk with school leaders, charter school parents and students;
Children’s entertainment; door prizes (include Target and Giant giftcards);
The first 500 children that attend will receive giftbags!

This event is free for D.C. families and metro-area teachers.

For more information, please check out: http://www.dcpubliccharter.com/Parents-and-Community/Charter-School-Expo.aspx

Some headlines you may have missed…
“Education Secretary Leads Chorus Calling for Big City-Hall Role”
-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes that more mayors need to put their reputations on the line for education. Education Week

“Anger Over Layoffs Vented in 18-Hour Hearing”-The public hearing over teacher layoffs began on Friday at 10:00am and went until 4:00am the next day. Washington Post
Public hearing, Committee of the Whole on October 16, 2009 that showcased testimony from hundreds of teachers and community members regarding the teacher layoffsD.C. City Council Website
For links to these stories and to view the full video of the public hearing, please see below.

Reforming the Reform?
D.C. education continues to receive only a fraction of the focus, participation, and public voice necessary at the Council level to ensure student development and success. So, as asked by Council Member Michael Brown during the October 16th Council Hearing on DCPS, is it time to “Reform the reform”?

In 2007 the D.C. Council gave full oversight of DCPS issues to the Mayor and the mayoral appointed Chancellor. An education committee was eliminated and the Committee of the Whole took charge of D.C.’s most pressing issue, public education.
The intentions are understood, but the actual benefits are debatable. While the previous committee consisted of five Council Members, the Committee of the Whole is chaired by the Council Chairperson and consists of all 13 Council Members. The urgency and interest from the full Council appeared to be the first step toward a 13 person commitment for reform, but as seen during the recent Council Hearing on October 16th, only a handful of Council Members are really involved. A mere 5 Council Members were present any significant portion of time during the 18 hour hearing.

District of Columbia Councilmember Muriel Bowser and Roosevelt Parent Teacher Association to Lead Ward 4 List of Hosts in Releasing Ready Schools Project Research Results Ward 4 Council on Education and Ward 4 State Board of Education Member Sekou Biddle also to Lead Host

Committee as part of Ward by Ward Town Hall Schedule
Washington, DC- Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser joins the town hall series as a co-host. DC VOICE is proud to announce that the first Ready Schools Project 2010 Town Hall meeting in the November Series will take place in Ward 4 at Roosevelt Senior High School. This Ward 4 town hall has a diverse list of co-hosts that have proclaimed their support for community involvement in education reform. One such co-host is Councilmember Muriel Bowser, who joins DC VOICE in the release of the school data collected at over 100 schools. “We can only achieve educational reform by working together. It is my hope that by attending this town hall, more community members will become inspired to advocate for the betterment of our schools” said Councilmember Bowser about DC VOICE’s upcoming town hall series.

The Ward 4 Ready Schools Project 2010 Town Hall meeting will take place on Monday, November 9th at 6:30pm at Roosevelt Senior High School, 4301 13th St NW, 20011.

Results of the Ready Schools Project 2010 will be released across the city as part of DC VOICE’s November town hall series.

If your organization would like information on hosting a table at a town hall meeting, please send an email to skashim@dcvoice.org.

Demand Reform Demand Equity Campaign Update
This Friday, DC VOICE and the Coalition for Community Schools will accompany a small group of parents, students, and advocates to Carlin Springs Elementary School, a local community school. This learning trip will allow community members to see firsthand how a community school operates. The group will meet with the school principal and the community school coordinator. Testimonials from this community school learning trip will be featured at the Ready Schools Project Town Hall series.

Some other community events…
The DC State Board of Education (DCSBOE) will hold its regularly scheduled public meeting during which the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) will present on two issues. OSSE’s Health and Wellness team will present an overview of a grant proposal through the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). The Board will also receive an overview of OSSE’s progress on implementation of the Pre-K Enhancement and Expansion Act.
Where: 441 4th Street, NW, in the District of Columbia State Board of Education Chambers, located on the lobby level of the building
When: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.

For more information, please contact
Beverley Wheeler at (202)741-0884 or by e-mail at Beverley.Wheeler@dc.gov.

Also, please join the D.C. Open Government Coalition for a discussion about getting access to government information in the District of Columbia. Join moderator Colbert I. King of the Washington Post, former D.C. Council member Kathy Patterson, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, journalists Bill Myers from the Examiner and Mark Segraves from WTOP Radio, and others as we discuss how D.C. compares with other cities and states, the success stories, the roadblocks and the next steps for improving public access to government information in D.C. A public discussion will follow the panel.

When: Wednesday, October 21st, from 6:30-8:30 p.m.Where: Charles Sumner School at 17th and M Streets NWWho: The event is FREE and open to the public For more information, please contact Melissa Davenport at mdavenport@dcogc.org, or (202)489-8576. WWW.DCOGC.ORG

Don’t forget to read the DC VOICE Ostrich’s new blog!

Sincerely,
Jeff Smith
Executive DirectorDC VOICE
For further information on DC VOICE, please visit our website at www.dcvoice.org or call our office at 202-986-8535.

1. Some participants were concerned about the huge number of regulations/policies that are being adopted by OSSE. They said that they did not have sufficient time to discuss with their clients on the regulations since they are many and adopted at the same time. OSSE admitted that a number of regulations are being issued very quickly but they promised to issue regulations within a reasonable period of time. They said the reason they are adopting many regulations at the same time is because the District is being sued before courts for its failure on SPED and the supervision from DOE is getting very strict.

2. OSSE was also asked if there will be more regulations coming up soon. We were informed that there will be regulations on Procedural Safeguards and they want to review DCMR on IDEA soon. And

3. Lastly, participants were concerned on the low number of attendance in the hearing. OSSE promised that they would do their best to attract more people through outreach. And they mentioned that they need AJE’s and other CBO’s help to get more people in hearings.

Thanks!

Bereket Banbore