Source: http://edjustice.org/category/press/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:50:58+00:00

Document:
St. Paul, MN – The nonprofit organization Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ) has issued a statement regarding Forslund v. Minnesota, and announced that the parent plaintiffs have decided not to pursue additional appeals in the teacher quality lawsuit seeking to reform the state’s teacher tenure laws. Therefore, the current case has come to an end.
Last month the state’s intermediate appeals court ruled to dismiss the case. However, in its ruling, the court reconsidered its prior decision to dismiss and reversed its prior reasoning for dismissal, now making a critical ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, that the case did not present a non-justiciable political question. In addition, the court also agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that they had standing to pursue these claims. However, the court also made new dispositive findings and ultimately ruled to dismiss the case on alternative grounds.
“We are proud to have supported the Forslund parents in their pursuit of educational justice and we look forward to seeing what will come next from this courageous group of parents who have ignited a movement for reform in their state,” said Nekima Levy Pounds, pro bono attorney for the Forslund plaintiffs.
“I am proud of the parents in this case who against all odds showed up to speak their truth, for not only their children, but all children in Minnesota impacted by the inequities in education in our state. This is not the end of these parents and others’ truth being told to the powers that be. As a parent of children of color and a community organizer, I am committed to the fight for educational excellence for kids, as well as their parents. Through the ground gained in this case and the work of a parent-led organization I’ve recently founded, together, we will unapologetically stand-up and demand our children’s academic success,” said Latasha Gandy, Parents Radically Organized (PROs).
“After careful consideration, the brave parent plaintiffs who brought questions about the link between teacher quality and student rights before the Minnesota courts have decided against another appeal to the state’s Supreme Court. Although the dispositive component of the state’s intermediate appeals court’s decision ruled against the parents’ claims, we recognize significant grounds gained in the marathon of change in a lasting, meaningful way.
Forslund v. Minnesota has opened the courthouse doors by settling an essential matter of the law: that there is not a limited scope for parents to ask the courts to assess educational adequacy claims. Two parts of the dismissal ruling actually empower more families to build strong cases for reform, by establishing the courtroom is the place to bring educational adequacy claims, and that parents are the proper parties to make those claims.
Those key precedents will remain. We’ve learned from this case, when education laws are failing kids, lawmakers aren’t the only ones who can make change, because parents have a voice that the courts will hear.
Like other movements that have used impact litigation to achieve reform, we know wars aren’t won in a single battle or court case—and it’s always the right time to get informed and involved. Right now in New York, a similar case has entered a precedent-setting discovery phase that may soon show us the scope of impact that outmoded teacher tenure laws have on students’ educational experience. We look forward to seeing continued progress,” said PEJ Executive Director Alissa Bernstein.
Forslund v. Minnesota was filed on April 14, 2016, by four mothers from across Minnesota. The lawsuit challenged the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws. The plaintiffs alleged that these laws perpetuate disparities in education outcomes by preventing dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit following unsuccessful bi-partisan legislative efforts to reform teacher employment statutes. The Forslund v. Minnesota plaintiffs were represented by pro bono attorneys from the law firms Fishman Haygood, Bassford Remele, and civil rights attorney Nekima Levy-Pounds.
Newark, NJ – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to deny the appeal of the HG v. Harrington plaintiffs, whose lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff laws as they are applied in Newark.
“We are incredibly disappointed that public school parents whose children have suffered ongoing harm due to antiquated layoff laws have been denied their day in court. While the Supreme Court’s decision means these parents have exhausted the appeals available for their case in court, this lawsuit has brought voice and momentum to a national movement to reform misguided last-in, first-out laws that rob students of a quality public education. Since this lawsuit was filed, Pennsylvania and Minnesota have passed positive legislative LIFO reforms. In addition, the Wright v. NY teacher quality lawsuit, which challenges New York’s version of the LIFO law, has moved forward to litigate the merits of the issue in the trial court. We are honored to have fought alongside these courageous Newark parents, and we will keep fighting for educational justice with them and our network of parent advocates across the country,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
“While the court’s decision was disappointing, the result of HG v. Harrington should not dissuade any parent from seeking to protect their children’s constitutional rights to an education,” said Kathleen Reilly, pro-bono attorney from Arnold & Porter.
“Of course I’m disappointed that the courts have denied our appeals, but I don’t for a second regret being part of this lawsuit. Any parent would do the same if they saw their child hurt by a broken public education system that values the jobs of chronically ineffective teachers over the future of young students. I have been able to elevate my voice through this lawsuit, and parents like me have banded together to fight for educational justice in New Jersey. It’s up to us, the parents, to make positive change. We’re stronger together, and we will keep on fighting until every child in New Jersey has equal access to the high-quality education they deserve,” said Tanisha Garner, Newark public school parent and the lead plaintiff in HG v. Harrington.
HG v. Harrington is a parent-led lawsuit asking the courts to declare New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statutes unconstitutional. These seniority-based layoff laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.
Newark, NJ – Two amicus briefs were filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of the HG v. Harrington educational justice case. Two leading education advocacy organizations, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) and TNTP, joined together to support the plaintiffs’ challenge of New Jersey’s last-in-first-out (LIFO) laws. The NCTQ/TNTP brief is available here. Also submitting a brief with the court was Concerned Parents of Newark, a group of Newark public school parents. The Concerned Parents of Newark brief is available here.
The plaintiffs in HG v. Harrington have filed a formal appeal to overturn a previous decision to dismiss their case. The plaintiff parents assert their right to bring the case and to have the case determined on the merits.
“The court filings from advocacy organizations and parents not involved in the lawsuit underscore the critical public importance of the issues raised in HG v. Harrington, and the need for the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal,” said Bernstein. “Every day that these Newark families are denied their day in court is another day that Newark schoolchildren are denied their constitutional right to a quality education—causing immediate and ongoing harm to children who are depending on the public school system to open the doors of opportunity. We are counting on the court to give these courageous families their day in court,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
NCTQ and TNTP, organizations dedicated to improving educator quality, find that there is no in-school factor more crucial for providing a through and efficient education than effective teachers. Abandoning the LIFO requirements would help ensure schools could retain their most effective teachers and that critical education funding is not wasted on ineffective teachers who are not even in the classroom.
In the amicus brief, NCTQ provides data from states demonstrating that implementation of lay-off policies that consider teacher effectiveness as measured by classroom performance have not significantly decreased the number of certified teachers in Colorado or Florida. TNTP provides data demonstrating that in Shelby County Schools (TN) and DC Public Schools (DC), school districts with policies that, among other policies, consider teacher effectiveness in layoffs and hiring policies have improved the quality of their teaching force and student achievement.
Concerned Parents of Newark is an unincorporated association of parents who all have had one or more children who attend public schools in Newark (‘Concerned Parents’). Members of Concerned Parents have fought tirelessly for their children to receive at least an adequate education. Of course, they hope for more, they hope for a high-quality education for their children. Members of Concerned Parents have met with teachers, visited schools, met with principals, and have struggled to understand and ‘work’ Newark’s school choice procedures to get their children into schools known to have effective teachers, adequate building conditions, and school safety measures in place. Concerned Parents have seen first-hand the effects of an ineffective teacher on their children, and the effects of poor learning conditions. In sum, they contend that any dollar that, in the words of the Newark Public Schools, ‘essentially protect the interests of adults over the rights of the children of Newark’ is unacceptable.
They submit this brief to help the Court understand the harm children in Newark’s public schools suffer as a direct result of New Jersey’s last-in-first out, or ‘LIFO’ statute, which is the subject of this litigation. They write to help the Court to see that this harm gives the plaintiffs in this case standing to bring their claims, and that the case is most assuredly ripe for judicial review.
HG v. Harrington is a parent-led lawsuit that asks the courts to declare New Jersey’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) quality-blind teacher layoff statutes unconstitutional. These seniority-based layoff laws unjustly require Newark, a struggling school district, to retain ineffective teachers, while cutting millions of dollars each year from other areas of education spending or laying off more effective teachers when faced with funding deficits.
St. Paul, MN – The plaintiffs in the Forslund v. Minnesota educational justice case filed a supplemental brief yesterday with the Minnesota Court of Appeals arguing that their case should move forward and be determined on the merits. On August 21, the Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ prior decision to dismiss Forslund, and directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in the Twin Cities school desegregation lawsuit, Cruz-Guzman v. Minnesota. In Cruz-Guzman, the Supreme Court determined that the educational adequacy claims raised were subject to judicial review. In their supplemental brief, the Forslund plaintiffs argue that Cruz-Guzman removes any doubt that Forslund’s claims are subject to judicial review, because the Supreme Court’s Cruz-Guzman analysis applies with equal weight to their case. The plaintiffs’ brief can be found here.
“The Minnesota Supreme Court’s finding in the Cruz-Guzman lawsuit confirms that Minnesota students have a fundamental right to a baseline level adequate education, which is a right to more than ‘anything that might be labeled as “education.”’ There is no doubt that effective teachers are necessary to deliver on that promise. It is now up to the courts to allow the Forslund parents to argue their case on the merits. These families deserve their day in court,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
“In 2016, when the brave parents of Forslund filed suit against the state of Minnesota, we all knew we had a fight ahead for our children, and we were ready. The recent Supreme Court order that vacated the dismissal of Forslund is a win in the fight for the parents who filed this lawsuit, and the thousands of parents across the state of Minnesota fighting every day to ensure their children have access to a high quality education to live their dreams post K-12. It is the hope of all parents that this victory leads to the ultimate victory; students across Minnesota receiving a high quality K-12 education and being taught by highly effective teachers. The parents of Forslund are seeking to make their case for not only their children but all of our children,” said Latasha Gandy, local parent and K-12 education advocate.
The Court of Appeals judges deciding the Forslund case will conference on the matter on November 9, 2018. They will decide the case based on the written submissions previously filed and supplemental filings submitted in light of the Supreme Court’s August 21 Order vacating the dismissal. No oral argument will be heard.
St. Paul, MN – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on today’s order in the Forslund v. Minnesota case. The Minnesota State Supreme Court lifted the stay on the case and vacated the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and its prior determination that the lawsuit’s claims were not subject to judicial review. The order also directs the Court of Appeals to reconsider its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cruz-Guzman v. Minnesota, a school desegregation lawsuit, where it determined that the educational adequacy claims raised were subject to judicial review. The court’s order can be found here.
“We are pleased that the Minnesota Supreme Court has asked the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in light of the recent decision that recognized the importance of judicial review for educational justice claims. We look forward to the Forslund case moving to the next stage. Every child in Minnesota has a fundamental right to an adequate education, and these brave mothers are standing up and asking the State to deliver on that promise. PEJ is honored to be supporting this effort, and we will keep pushing until every child gets the education they deserve,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
Forslund v. Minnesota was filed on April 14, 2016, by four mothers from across Minnesota. The lawsuit challenges the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws. The plaintiffs allege that these laws perpetuate disparities in education outcomes by preventing dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit following unsuccessful bi-partisan legislative efforts to reform teacher employment statutes. The Forslund v. Minnesota plaintiffs are represented by pro bono attorneys from the law firms Fishman Haygood and Bassford Remele.
Newark, NJ – The plaintiffs in HG v. Harrington filed a request to appeal their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging the state’s highest court to review and overturn the lower court‘s decision to dismiss the matter. The plaintiff parents assert that the ongoing harm the state’s quality-blind layoff laws inflict on their children justifies their right to have their case move forward and be determined on the merits. The plaintiffs’ filing can be found here.
“New Jersey’s courts have acknowledged that students ‘have but one chance to receive a constitutionally adequate education. That right, once lost, cannot be reclaimed…’ These parents know that their children, and every child in Newark, deserve that chance. We are honored to be working alongside these courageous parents, who have refused to tolerate unjust laws that force Newark public schools to divert limited resources away from their children’s classrooms and deprive students the quality education they deserve,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
New York, NY – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on yesterday’s ruling in the Wright v. New York case. The Intermediate Appellate Court, 2nd Department of the New York State Supreme Court, unanimously denied the defendants’ requests to further appeal previous rulings from the lower courts. The case has been pending for four years, with plaintiff victories at each stage.
“These nine families have been waiting four years to litigate the merits of their case. It’s been long enough. It’s time for the delaying tactics to end and to argue this case on the merits. We are pleased with the court’s decision because it brings these families, and families across New York State, another step closer to getting a quality education for their children,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.
The Wright v. New York case was first filed in 2014, when nine families from across the state brought suit against the State of New York and others, claiming that teacher tenure, dismissal, and quality-blind layoff laws deprive New York children of their right to a sound basic education as guaranteed under the New York State Constitution.
Newark, NJ – The Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division today affirmed a previous decision by the trial court to dismiss HG v. Harrington in a hard fought battle for students’ rights.
New York, NY – Partnership for Educational Justice issued the following statement on yesterday’s ruling in the Wright v. New York case. The trial court ordered the defendants to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint by July 18, 2018.
“We are pleased that the trial court has ordered the defendants to finally answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. By setting a firm deadline, the court rejected efforts to completely stall the Wright v. NY litigation from moving forward. Now, the defendants will have to submit responses to each allegation in the plaintiffs’ complaint, which will move the case another step forward. The Wright parents will not be deterred by the defendants’ further delay tactics and desperate attempts to avoid litigating the issues on the merits, and we won’t stop fighting until there is educational justice for every child in New York,” said Alissa Bernstein, Executive Director of Partnership for Educational Justice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.