Groups Voice Alarm Over Scheduled State Education Vote on English Language Learners
Nineteen organizations that work with, and advocate for, students and English Language (EL) learners expressed alarm today at action being considered by the Council of Elementary and Secondary Education that would undermine EL programs offered by school districts. In , the groups called on the Council to reject its plan to approve an administrative ruling that would have that effect.
More than three years ago, the ACLU of Rhode Island and Rhode Island Legal Services filed an administrative complaint against the Providence School District (PSD) for its violation of EL students’ rights. Among other violations, the complaint targeted the illegality of PSD’s “Consultation Model” of teaching EL students, a model that provided virtually no direct services to students by EL certified teachers. In March of 2019, however, former RIDE Commissioner of Education Ken Wagner upheld PSD’s use of this model, and did so six months after the U.S. Department of Justice had determined that the Consultation Model violated the rights of EL students in Providence, was “educationally unsound,” and could not continue to be used. Ignoring that finding as irrelevant, the former Commissioner’s decision concluded that the Consultation Model “does not violate the Rhode Island Regulations.” ACLU and RILS appealed that ruling to the Council, which is scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to accept it.
The organizations signing the letter urging rejection of the decision include Parents Leading for Educational Equity, the Latino Policy Institute, the R.I. Center for Justice, Progreso Latino, R.I. KIDS COUNT, Dorcas International Institute of RI, and Disability Rights Rhode Island. The letter argues:
“The consequences of the Council upholding this disturbing ruling – coming as it does after the DOJ findings of illegality, after the release of the Johns Hopkins report that cited numerous professionals raising additional concerns about the adequacy of the Providence school district’s EL programs, and after the current Commissioner of Education used that information as a basis for taking over that school district – are potentially devastating to the EL youth attending our schools. It can only encourage other school districts to skimp on providing appropriate EL services, and it severely undermines all of RIDE's recent messaging about the importance of supporting the rights of EL students.
“Frankly, we cannot fathom how state regulations governing EL instruction that are explicitly designed to implement federal law can be interpreted as providing less support to those students than federal law itself requires. Further, if state education officials are convinced that the ruling is an accurate interpretation of the state’s EL regulations, we are appalled that, almost one year after the decision, the Department has taken no action to strengthen those regulations on behalf of EL students.”
The letter concludes by urging the Council to “do right by the state’s EL population” and reverse the decision. A full list of the organizational signatories, and brief quotes from a few of them, appear below. The Council’s meeting is tomorrow at 5:30 PM, and a number of the signatories to the letter plan to speak at it. . More background information about the case can be found and .
Veronika Kot, Staff Attorney, R.I. Legal Services: “Upholding the previous Commissioner’s Decision would have disastrous consequences for all English Learners in RI. If the virtually nonexistent level of services in the Consultation Model is deemed consistent with RI Regulations – as the previous Commissioner’s Decision determined -- then almost anything is. This isn’t what the regulations say, it can’t be what they intend, and it would leave all RI English Learners without any protection or real access to an education.”
Paige Clausius-Parks, Senior Policy Analyst, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT: “Rhode Island’s Multilingual/English learners are among the lowest performing students in the nation as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. High-quality instruction from certified EL teachers is essential to closing the unacceptable gaps for multilingual learners.”
SIGNATORIES TO THE LETTER TO THE COUNCIL
American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island
AMOR (Alliance to Mobilize Our Resistance)
ARISE (Alliance of Rhode Island Southeast Asians for Education)
Coalition for a Multilingual Rhode Island
Disability Rights Rhode Island
Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island
Economic Progress Institute
Latino Policy Institute
NAACP, Providence Branch
PLEE (Parents Leading for Educational Equity)
Progreso Latino
Providence Promise
Providence Student Union
Ready to Learn Providence
Rhode Island Center for Justice
Rhode Island KIDS COUNT
Rhode Island Legal Services
RITELL (Rhode Island Teachers of English Language Learners)
TESOL Program at RIC
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint