| Printable Version

Spring/Summer 1999 (v3#3)

Learnfare
Coming to a School Near You
by Saeed Shabazz

Most New Yorkers are unfamiliar with the term "Learnfare." Within a year, however, most policy wonks, school system employees and especially parents on public assistance will become all too familiar with it. Learnfare is a state-mandated program designed to improve the attendance of public school children who are on welfare. If a child accrues more than four unexcused absences during a school term, and her/his family receives welfare benefits, then $60 will be deducted from the family’s checks for the following three months. In theory, parent and child will be required to attend counseling sessions and upon completion, the funding will be re-instated if the student has no unexcused absences in the following academic quarter. At present, New York State’s program applies only to children in grades one to six.

According to Brian Wing, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA, which was formerly known as the Office of Social Services) "One of the most important features is the requirement that children who accumulate three unexcused absences, along with their parents, receive counseling. Through these counseling sessions, the events in the student’s home or school that led to the absences may be uncovered. In that manner, an intervention plan and appropriate support can be provided."

Approximately 14,644 students from nine upstate counties and six schools in New York City are currently participating in Learnfare. Locally, some 1,747 students have been targeted for the program. The six area schools designated as Learnfare sites are P.S. 90 (Brooklyn), P.S. 178 (Brooklyn), P.S. 111 (Queens), C.E.S. 114 (Bronx), P.S. 31 (Staten Island), and P.S. 7 (Manhattan).

The program began on a very limited scale in 1997, and was to be phased in over three years to include all schools and districts by September 1999. However, there is currently a bill (S3655) before the State Senate to amend the Learnfare plan to delay implementation to only half the schools in 1999 and expand it to all schools statewide in September 2000.

Learnfare as Welfare Reform
Learnfare was pioneered in 1988 in Wisconsin as a cornerstone of Governor Tommy Thompson’s highly touted welfare reform initiatives. Wisconsin’s program initially focused on high school students, aged 13 to 19. Early evaluations of that initial program showed no improvement in student attendance as a result of Learnfare. In fact, a state-contracted 1992 study by the University of Wisconsin showed a decline in attendance by two-thirds of urban participants from 1988-91 and an increase in the number of dropouts. One troubling finding was that many families identified under Learnfare were already known to social service and/or criminal justice agencies for child abuse or neglect. The reduction in welfare benefits often resulted in greater family instability. Ironically, dropping out of high school does not lead to welfare sanctions, which may explain why there was an increase in dropout rates in urban school districts in Wisconsin. A fourth and final state audit of the Wisconsin Learnfare initiative showed, again, that it did little to boost attendance rates, according to a May 21, 1997 article in Education Week. Despite this lack of success, Learnfare was expanded to the elementary grades in Wisconsin and similar programs have begun in more than 20 other states.

Governor George Pataki proposed a sweeping statewide Learnfare program for New York in 1995. Ultimately, a scaled-down version for students in grades 1 to 6 was passed calling for a three year phase-in starting with a handful of schools in September 1997. In a press release announcing expansion of the program in September 1998, Governor Pataki stated, "Learnfare is about strengthening families and keeping children engaged in school so they can prepare for a future filled with hope and opportunity. Education is essential to breaking the cycle of dependency on public assistance."

Under program guidelines, Learnfare has been implemented to improve student attendance. The minimum standard of attendance for the New York City Board of Education is 90%. In the 97-98 school year, the average rate of attendance for all schools was 91.1%. In the six schools selected for Learnfare, the attendance rates for the 97-98 school year were as follows: P.S. 90- 90.8%; P.S. 178- 86.1%; P.S. 111- 88.8%; P.S. 114- 93.6%; P.S. 31- 89.6%; and P.S. 7- 90.1%. If the standard is 90% and the average is 91%, then with the exception of P.S. 178, most of the selected schools are near or above this standard. That leaves open the criteria for the selection of these schools. According to Robert Diaz, Director of Attendance Improvement Dropout Prevention (AIDP) for the Board of Education and their point person on Learnfare, "We selected the schools at random ...there was no specific criteria other than prior involvement in our AIDP initiative."

Is Learnfare Discriminatory?
Many critics claim that Learnfare singles out and punishes poor children and families. Children of welfare recipients, they point out, are not the only ones with attendance problems. "Why are they really singling out welfare parents?" demands Bertha Lewis of ACORN, a Brooklyn-based advocacy group.

Other critics have also pointed out that although HRA, which is overseeing the implementation of the program, asks for parental permission, those recipients who refuse to participate in the program will be thrown off welfare. "It has been made very clear by this city administration that they are going to get people off of welfare," reminds Gail Aska, of Community Voices Heard, a Manhattan-based welfare advocacy group. "This (Learnfare) is another form of harassment. You say that the Human Resources Administration (HRA) sent out letters asking for parental permission to monitor their child’s attendance? Is this legal? People need to organize around this . . . people need to take a stand."

The letter that is sent by HRA to welfare recipients reads as follows: "You must provide us with some basic information regarding your children along with your authorization allowing your local social service district to collect attendance information." The letter also tells recipients that if they do not return the "Authorization for Release of Information" form within 10 days "your case will be closed."

According to David Ortiz, head of the Family Independence Center for New York City’s Human Resources Administration, "Our philosophical framework is that you (the welfare mother) are being paid to be a parent - that is what welfare assistance is all about. The cash assistance program will assure that you are following through with bettering your child’s future."

District 31 (Staten Island) Deputy Superintendent Marge Emery, one of the local educators charged with administering the program noted, "We have no knowledge that welfare children stay out of school more than children not involved with social services. We have always been involved with attendance. We have nothing to do with the taking away of money." Essentially, the Board of Education’s position is that since this is state-mandated, they have no choice but to help implement Learnfare, by reporting which students are excessively absent.

Principals & Principles In The Middle Of The Storm
How do the respective principals of these targeted schools feel about Learnfare?

Max Glover has been principal at P.S. 178 in Brooklyn for seven years. He has been teaching in the school since 1978. "I welcome Learnfare," said Glover, who stated that he is sending HRA letters regarding 28 parents who have not heeded the warnings on attendance. "I have a teacher-in-charge and a family worker paid through AIDP, which costs over $90,000. Our biggest problem is attendance. Parents give all kinds of excuses, but they won’t put it in writing. Maybe if they do lose money, they will respond differently." Principal Glover also stated that he personally makes home visits and that he uses his AIDP funding to reward students with 100% attendance with trophies and certificates.

Catherine Bala, principal at P.S. 111 in Queens for the past eleven years, says attendance figures have gone from 85.7% in 1996 to 88.8% in 1998. "Our goal for 1999 is 90%," stated the veteran educator, who has over 30 years of teaching experience in the New York City public school system. P.S. 111 was one of three schools, along with P.S. 7, Manhattan and P.S. 114, Bronx involved with Learnfare last year. Principal Bala says that parents, prior to Learnfare, would not write excuse notes. Her biggest concern to date is that because of the confidentiality issue, the school does not know which students and parents are in the program. "This compromises our effectiveness," she stated.

Arnold Obey is entering his eighth year as principal of P.S. 31 in Staten Island. "Attendance was poor here seven years ago . . . there was a lot of moving back and forth. One of our biggest problems was that parents just wouldn’t send in any notes when their child was absent." Obey also stated that his school received $100,000 under AIDP, which allowed him to use a teacher who would deal strictly with attendance issues. "This year we have a family worker who now makes the home visits." Debi Rose, one of only two African-American school board members in Staten Island, stated that she had concerns about Learnfare because there had been no public debate on the issue. She also was bothered by the fact that the school board was never notified of the implementation of Learnfare at the beginning. "We first learned of the program through the local daily, the Staten Island Advance, in an October article, which stated that the program would begin last year. When I questioned our superintendent, Christy Cugini, he told me that he also learned of its implementation from the same article." District 31 Deputy Superintendent Marge Emery noted that P.S. 31 was selected because their attendance fell short of the city-wide norm of 91.1%. A check of the 1998 data shows that this Title I school has registered attendance figures as low as 87.4% in 1996 to 89.6% in 1998.

The one principal who questioned why her school was included in the demonstration project is Eileen Mautschke of C.E.S. 114 in the Bronx. "We are doing well here," she conceded. "Maybe they were looking for a school they thought could be used as a model." According to data on the Board of Education’s Report Card website, C.E.S. 114 (which is part of District 85- the Chancellor’s District) boasted an attendance rate of 91.4% in 1996 and rose to 93.6% last year. Of 932 students, 72.8% of third-graders are reading at grade-level or above.

Does It Work?
According to HRA’s Ortiz, nearly 100 parents have lost money from September, 1997 through January, 1999. "That is pretty good," he stated, adding that there have been some problems with the reporting system, "but we are constantly working on ironing these things out." To date, there has been no evaluation or statistical evidence produced to show Learnfare’s effectiveness. Mr. Ortiz says that there is no mandate to evaluate the program’s effectiveness and protests that he is understaffed.

Ortiz (who described himself as a one-man Learnfare staff) noted, "We have no formal evaluation System . . . anecdotally what the Board of Education is saying is that attendance is improving significantly." The Board of Education’s Bob Diaz, agreed with Ortiz. "If you look at the figures, attendance is up. We have no statistics on whether Learnfare itself is working since that is an HRA initiative. You would have to ask David Ortiz . . . However, since our five-year AIDP program has been in place, our numbers are up."

Question: Is Learnfare to be implemented whether it works or not? ACORN’s Bertha Lewis maintains, "We need to take a look at AIDP . . . if AIDP is funded and is doing good things with attendance, why the need for Learnfare?" Assemblyman Roberto Ramirez (D-Bronx), chair of the Assembly’s Social Service Committee, cautions that there is "no analysis on Learnfare", adding "that is the same with all welfare reform programs. We are constantly debating this with our Republican colleagues everyday. This (Learnfare) is the most ill-advised policy that the state has enacted."

In a March 25 letter to HRA Deputy Commissioner Constance Melville, Cathleen Clements, Chairwoman for the Committee on Social Welfare Law of the New York City Bar Association, asked that the Learnfare law "require an assessment of the results of Learnfare prior to directing that the program be implemented statewide in September 2000, in order to determine whether additional services and time are needed for administration and whether the enormous increase in state and local expenditures is warranted by the results of the first three years."

What Does It Cost?
The cost of Learnfare to date has been $76,000, according to Assemblyman Ramirez. The projected cost for September 1999 is $1.2 million, as the truancy program expands to one-half of all school districts. Ramirez states that Governor Pataki’s budget request is $4 million for administrative costs in the year 2000, when the program expands to all districts.

State Senator Vincent J. Gentile (D-Brooklyn/Staten Island), a junior member of the Social Service Committee, where Senate Bill S3655 will soon be debated says that he, too, is concerned about the cost factor. "We are asking how much money should be spent on Learnfare. We are also asking why are we spending any money at all on this program. The counseling factor, we believe, is the important issue. The reality, though, is who will pay for it."

In that March letter to HRA, Cathleen Clements suggested that "local surplus funds from federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) should be used to fund this endeavor . . . existing school counselors must add this program work to their already burgeoning caseload which, for example, in the case of one Bronx district, means a single school counselor is responsible for counseling 1000 children."

The Future of Learnfare

Ortiz and HRA are now preparing Authorization for Release of Information letters to parents in the school districts which will be included in September 1999. "We know that Learnfare is working," he said. "In November, 1998, thirty people had money removed from their checks; five people by January, 1999 . . . we believe that this is a combination of two things- the Board of Education is doing a more thorough job on catching attendance problems early and our counseling is more aggressive."

As discussion on Learnfare continues, there is one recurring theme - Is Learnfare discriminating against welfare parents? The Association of the Bar is on record as categorically opposed to the program because they feel it discriminates against poor families with attendance and other problems, without sanctioning families with similar problems who are less needy. Bronx Assemblyman Ramirez believes that "Learnfare punishes a child for things not in their control." State Sen. Gentile sees Learnfare as a "punitive measure . . . we seek to penalize the very families we are supposed be helping."

Learnfare: Coming To A School Near You
Post-5 Start-Up
Smaller Classes For NYC In Doubt
Survey Shows City Schools Are "Running On Empty"
Voucher Threat Still Lingers
Printable Version

Subscribe