When tenants have a right to counsel in eviction cases, but there aren't enough lawyers to help
Icy snow crusted the sidewalks outside the Bronx housing courthouse on a Thursday in late January, a bitterly cold day in a string of bitterly cold days. Inside, spread out over three floors, dozens of people in puffy coats, some cradling babies or hunched over canes, waited to find out whether they would be kicked out of their homes or what it would take to stay housed. Every few minutes, a lawyer or court employee exited one of the courtrooms and shouted a name down the hall, searching for whoever was needed to proceed with an eviction hearing.
Even more people were crowded inside the hearing rooms on each floor. Inside Room 550, around 11 a.m., a man in a black-and-white tracksuit and gold chain sat next to a woman in a sweatshirt and jeans who was wiping away tears. They faced a judge with long black twists and large, round glasses. No lawyer was with the couple, only the court's Spanish-language interpreter, in a blue suit and neat gray beard. Their landlord wasn't in the room, either; the landlord's attorney was there instead, texting and stepping into the hallway to talk to his client on the phone. The couple was trying to move back into the home they'd been evicted from, but the judge denied their request, informing them that they had to remove all their belongings within five days. "Good luck," the judge said at the end of the proceedings.
The next defendant, a Black woman dressed all in black, had accumulated $27,849 in outstanding rent; she was given until the end of February to pay it off, plus the next month's rent. If she paid up, then the case would end, the judge told her. But if not, the landlord would have the right to seek an eviction warrant. Because she had no lawyer to help her parse the proposed deal, the judge had to stand in to make sure she could legally agree to it.
Did she understand that she was waiving her right to a trial? Yes. Was she coerced into entering into the agreement? No. "Good luck, ma'am," the judge told her. "Thank you," she said softly as she left.
For a brief time in the depths of the pandemic, the hallways and courtrooms of this courthouse had sat empty; eviction moratoria kept most cases from moving forward, and any that did proceed happened online only. But those measures are now long gone, and courts across the city have filled back up.
"Housing court is like what it was before," said Munonyedi Clifford, attorney-in-charge of the citywide housing practice at The Legal Aid Society. Yet one key thing has changed: All of these tenants are, by law, supposed to have legal representation at their side. As the late January proceedings in Room 550 would prove, however, that right on paper has not prevented thousands of people from facing eviction all by themselves.
Economic Hardship Reporting Project and The Baffler examined the high number of eviction cases in New York City, in which most tenants have no legal help despite residents' right to counsel. Other jurisdictions that have passed similar laws should pay attention to New York's current predicament.
The unrepresented
This isn't supposed to happen in New York City. In 2017, it became the first place in the country to enact a right to counsel in eviction cases, a guarantee of legal help for tenants navigating the process. In much of the rest of the country, just 4% of tenants have lawyers at their sides in eviction cases, compared to 83% of landlords.
This creates a "huge imbalance," according to Peter Hepburn, associate director at The Eviction Lab, a research project at Princeton University, "not just in terms of power but just of procedural knowledge."
Landlords find themselves in eviction proceedings frequently, and their attorneys deal with it daily. "The system works very well for them," Hepburn said. For tenants, eviction yanks them into an unfamiliar and often confusing world of legal maneuvering. "It doesn't work so well for them."
New York City's landmark Universal Access to Legal Services law-codifying the right to counsel-was designed to fix this imbalance for households earning up to 200% of the poverty line, or $64,300 for a family of four. It started in just three zip codes per borough and was supposed to expand gradually, with five new zip codes added each year for five years, until the entire city would be covered. Before the pandemic began, right to counsel applied to only 25 of the city's 180 zip codes.
The program quickly proved successful. Research published in a June 2023 issue of the Journal of Public Economics found that tenants who got legal representation through the program faced smaller monetary judgments and were less likely to be evicted. For tenants lucky enough to have representation in court in 2023, 84% percent were able to stay in their homes. The program has also reduced the number of eviction filings in the first place. "There's no question that the right to counsel works," Clifford said.
After COVID-19 hit, the city's program was abruptly opened to all low-income tenants in early 2021 in an effort to keep people housed and healthy. At the time, caseloads were low, thanks to eviction moratoria, and in early 2022, close to 70% of tenants facing eviction were represented by an attorney. But after the CDC's nationwide moratorium was struck down in August 2021, and New York City's version ended a few months later, the floodgates were flung wide open.
Stalled eviction cases started to move forward just as landlords filed a flurry of new ones: Eviction filings jumped 83% between 2022 and 2023. "It's back to business as usual," Clifford said. As a result, things quickly deteriorated. The percentage of tenants represented by an attorney declined steadily after January 2022. According to a paper written in 2023 by 11 legal services organizations, the right-to-counsel program has been plagued by "client eligibility outstripping provider capacity, funding shortfalls, and staff attrition, while tenant needs continue to rise."
There were 111,830 eviction filings across the city last year, compared to just 42,203 in 2021. The Bronx is consistently the hardest hit, experiencing an eviction rate double that of the other four boroughs. And the majority of those Bronx tenants go it alone.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024, only 42% of people facing eviction in New York City received full legal representation, while about half had no legal help at all; in the Bronx, less than a third were fully represented, while about 60% went through eviction proceedings by themselves.
When a New York City tenant receives an eviction notice, they must reply to avoid automatic eviction. Their response triggers an "intake part," or IP, date. That's where, if they're lucky, they'll be assigned a legal aid lawyer who can help them. But there are 80 households at each IP date, which are held over Microsoft Teams for cases in the Bronx, and legal aid lawyers "just don't have the capacity" to cover all of them, said Jennie Stephens-Romero, deputy director of the housing unit at Bronx Legal Services.
Her organization and the five others that offer free legal help to tenants facing eviction in the Bronx use a calendar system to make sure that one of them covers at least some of each weekday's IP date. Stephens-Romero's team was "very big," but they could only cover part of their assigned day; for a while they were able to cover either the morning or the afternoon, but after staff departures, they can only take on the first 20 tenants on their given day.
Other organizations, she imagines, can take on even less. "It's really luck of the draw," she said, as to whether a tenant's IP date corresponds with the part of the day when attorneys are able to tune in and help.
Everyone else is left to fend for themselves. It's "incredibly rare," Stephens-Romero said, for a tenant facing eviction to be able to afford their own lawyer without the help of a legal aid attorney. Last year, 11,587 tenants without representation called The Legal Aid Society's hotline (some may not be eligible for the right to counsel, and others may get a lawyer later in the process). Stephens-Romero said it's unusual for her to come to housing court and not be approached by somebody asking how to get a lawyer.
Post-pandemic flood
There doesn't seem to have been any planning for what would happen when the housing court system returned to its pre-pandemic state. Right-to-counsel lawyers in the city quickly realized that they couldn't handle all of the cases for eligible tenants; they didn't have adequate funding to meet the demand. So they, along with elected officials, asked housing judges to issue adjournments and postpone cases for tenants who weren't yet represented to give them time to get an attorney. The courts refused.
"Courts are totally aware legal service providers can't handle all these cases," Stephens-Romero said. Indeed, as Community Service Society of New York policy analysts Oksana Mironova and Yvonne Peña write, courts are "choosing to move cases faster than the legal services providers can take them on, prioritizing speed over the tenants' right to due process." These priorities are precisely backward, Stephens-Romero said. "We're pushing tenants' rights to the side to clear the docket."
Meanwhile, New York City's right-to-counsel program has only expanded further. In 2023, eligibility was extended to anyone of any income age 60 or older facing eviction. Legal service providers calculated that they needed $16 million a year to be able to handle those new cases-an alarming number, as the program wasn't fully funded even before that expansion.
In 2023, legal aid providers told the city that it would take at least an additional $351 million to adequately serve the tenants they were already taking on plus all of the qualified tenants who were estimated to go through the process solo in 2024. Yet legal services providers in the city were granted only an additional $36.6 million for this work last year, and even then, the Eric Adams administration failed to pay out the money on time, forcing some organizations to contemplate cutting the help they offer. This is despite the fact that an analysis found in 2016 that the city would actually save $320 million a year in foregone shelter and housing costs by providing tenants with attorneys in eviction cases.
"We want the right to counsel to really have the true meaning of what the tenant movement and folks who fought for this right really wanted, which is that everybody will get it," Clifford said. "But the city doesn't seem to be putting resources toward that kind of idea."
More funding could also ease the staffing problems plaguing legal services organizations. Of the $351 million that these organizations have asked for, $226 million would go toward hiring more than 880 staff attorneys, a badly needed influx. Public interest lawyers face crushing workloads on salaries far lower than what they could command at private practices.
In 2023, legal aid organizations reported attrition rates ranging from 20 to 55%; one provider lost six of 13 new hires within a year. "This is a tough job," Stephens-Romero said. If caseloads could be brought down and salaries increased, more people might stick around. The state court system released a report in 2023 recommending that attorney caseloads be limited to 48 a year. That represents an improvement from what caseloads used to be; Clifford said lawyers were routinely taking on more than 60 a year. But it's still a high number, according to Stephens-Romero, especially when some can be lengthy. Housing laws "are pretty complicated and complex, and each housing case requires a tremendous amount of work," Clifford said.
Legal service lawyers wouldn't have to work so hard, however, if there weren't so many eviction cases inundating the system to begin with. As much success as the right-to-counsel program has shown for the tenants it's able to reach, New Yorkers would be much better off if they could simply stay housed in the first place. Yet New York City has long struggled to build and provide affordable housing, and the housing crunch is now the worst it's been in 50 years. "So many people wouldn't be ending up in housing court if apartments were eminently affordable," Clifford said.
The city could also offer more help covering rent. Vouchers, which help low-income tenants afford apartments on the private market, are notoriously hard to use: The eligibility limits are stringent, and although it's illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to voucher holders, many do in practice. But the city has struggled to make improvements. In 2023, the city council overrode Mayor Eric Adams' veto to expand eligibility for some voucher programs, but Adams refused to implement the expansion, claiming it was too costly. After the city council sued over his refusal, a judge sided with Adams last summer.
Other attempts to protect tenants might prove more successful. New York State approved good cause legislation for the city in 2024, which, for covered buildings, caps rent increases and bans landlords from evicting tenants except for things like nonpayment of rent or illegal behavior. But the law has a number of carveouts, including for buildings constructed after 2009, luxury units, rentals in condos and co-ops, and those owned by landlords with small portfolios. The hope, Clifford said, is that the law will eventually push the number of eviction filings down. "It's not everything that we wanted," Stephens-Romero said. But "it's definitely something we can use."
Going national
The early success of New York City's right-to-counsel program inspired other lawmakers around the country. "It basically made right to counsel seem achievable for lots of places," said John Pollock, coordinator at the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. In the three years after New York City enacted its program, four other jurisdictions-Cleveland, Philadelphia, Newark, and San Francisco-passed their own.
Then the pandemic, which exposed not just the way job loss deprives people of the income to pay rent but also the impact of housing on people's health, lit a spark. Since the start of 2020, 14 cities, two counties, and five states have passed programs. Three states and six cities added their programs in 2021 alone. That frenzy has calmed down, but "we're still seeing the momentum rolling forward," Pollock said.
These jurisdictions, and any others that join in, will have to heed the lessons of New York. Funding is one of the biggest question marks for other right-to-counsel programs, too. Many were set up with pandemic-era federal aid, money that has all been disbursed.
When Hepburn and his colleagues at the Eviction Lab recently interviewed people working on implementing all the right-to-counsel programs across the country, "underfunding was something that came up throughout," he said. Still, Pollock hasn't seen any jurisdiction renege on its right-to-counsel program even as federal funding has dried up, and many are turning to their own sources to keep it going. In Hepburn's research, he and his colleagues found that thirteen programs are supported by state and local funding, including four that have their own revenue streams from things like taxes on landlords or developers.
But even if programs were flush with cash, there is still a shortage of lawyers interested in and willing to do this work. "This is a sector-wide problem," Pollock said. Fixing it, as in New York, will take not just enough funding to make salaries competitive and workloads bearable but also a steady pipeline of new lawyers ready to go into housing law, which some law schools don't even cover.
Then there are the court systems themselves, which have appeared to resist slowing things down to make sure tenants get the legal representation that they're due. "That approach of continuing cases when lawyers are not available, making tenants go through when unrepresented, that's a huge part of the problem," Pollock said. Courts tend to favor the interests of landlords. But in Washington State, judges are required to delay a case if a tenant who is eligible for the right to counsel appears solo. "Courts could take a different approach. They're choosing not to," Pollock said.
He pointed out that, at less than 8 years old, the movement for the right to counsel in eviction proceedings is a relatively new one. "As with any movement, you expect there are going to be challenges," he said. But if New York wants to retain its status as a leader, it will have to pave a path toward finding the resources and the political willpower to make a groundbreaking right mean something real for everyone to whom it's owed.
Pay up
None of the half dozen Bronx tenants who were called before the judge in Room 550 over the course of an hour on that morning in late January had a lawyer helping them make sense of the process.
A woman with the court's Spanish interpreter and no one else by her side was told she had to pay $3,554 by the end of February to avoid an eviction warrant. A white-haired man, also accompanied only by the translator, had accrued $2,221 in outstanding rent; the eviction warrant against him would be put on hold, the judge said, if he paid his February and March rents on time. "Good luck sir," she told him.
Another woman, her dark hair tied up in a bun, sat next to her landlord's attorney. She owed $24,660 in outstanding rent. She was told, with the help of the interpreter but no lawyer, that her warrant would also be put on hold if she paid by the end of February. Last was a man who had accumulated $5,395 in outstanding rent; he had nine days to pay $3,200, plus the following months' rent, in order to stave off his eviction warrant. He, too, faced the judge alone.
These judgments represent staggering amounts of money for most low-income renters. Many of Stephens-Romero's clients are "in really dire straits," she said. A large number have physical and mental limitations that prevent them from working, while others struggle to find jobs, or at least ones that offer enough hours and pay to make rent.
If the tenants in Room 550 had had a lawyer on their side, they would likely have pushed back against the judge and managed to lower the amounts that their clients had to pay, or at least bought them more time. None of the tenants had the capacity to argue on their own behalf. Instead, they all accepted the sums that were handed down, whether they could afford them or not.
Right to counsel "is a law," Stephens-Romero said, "and we aren't meeting it."
Co-published by Economic Hardship Reporting Project and The Baffler.
This story was produced by Economic Hardship Reporting Project and The Baffler, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
© Stacker Media, LLC.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
10 hours ago
- New York Times
Robin Lakoff, Expert on Language and Gender, Is Dead at 82
Robin Lakoff, a linguist who analyzed what she considered the unique ways women speak and argued that language enforces the power imbalance between the sexes — an insight that inspired an entire academic field, the study of language and gender — died on Aug. 5 in Walnut Creek, Calif. She was 82. Her son, Andrew, said she died in a hospital from complications of a fall that led to respiratory failure. Dr. Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, from 1972 to 2012, maintained that women and men communicate differently, and that women are brought up to speak in a way that triggers their powerlessness. ''Woman's language' has as foundation the attitude that women are marginal to the serious concerns of life, which are pre-empted by men,' she wrote in 1973 in a groundbreaking paper, 'Language and Woman's Place,' which was expanded into a 1975 book. Dr. Lakoff's thesis that women are raised to accept a secondary role in the world, one enforced partly by the speech they are taught, sets off academic arguments to this day. Her 1973 paper 'created a huge fuss,' the linguists Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet wrote in 2012. 'Thus was launched the study of language and gender.' Dr. Lakoff observed that women's speech was marked by hedging phrases ('like,' 'y'know'), which convey that the speaker is uncertain; empty adjectives like 'adorable' and 'lovely,' which trivialize statements; so-called tag questions at the end of sentences, like 'John is here, isn't he?,' which convey hesitancy; overly polite phrases like 'Won't you please close the door?,' which suggest submissiveness; and a habit of ending declarative statements with a rising tone of voice that saps them of force. She also observed that women are less likely to tell jokes than men, less likely to use vulgarity, more likely to use hyper-correct grammar and to speak with exaggerated politeness, and more likely to 'speak in italics' — that is, stressing words because the speaker fears she is not being listened to. She acknowledged that men also sometimes use these speech patterns, and that not all women employ them to the same degree. (She herself had a well-developed sense of humor; she began a book chapter about Hillary Clinton with Clinton jokes.) 'But,' she wrote, 'it happens that, as a result of natural gender, a woman tends to have, and certainly tends to feel she has, little real-world power compared with a man; so generally a woman will be more apt to have these uses than a man will.' Early in her academic career, Dr. Lakoff developed an interest in an emerging area of study: sociolinguistics, 'a way to talk about how language makes us who we are, how language creates personal and social identity,' as she explained in a 2023 oral history for Berkeley. Her arguments kicked off a burst of research and debate. Other linguists recorded and analyzed men's and women's speech to test her claims, while critics sought to rebut her notions that men and women speak differently, and that any differences enforce a power imbalance. 'There was a period where every article on language and gender would start by attacking Lakoff,' said Deborah Tannen, a former graduate student of Dr. Lakoff's who popularized some of her ideas in the 1990 blockbuster 'You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation,' which spent nearly four years on The New York Times's best-seller list. As a student in the Berkeley linguistics department in the 1970s, Dr. Tannen once asked Dr. Lakoff why she didn't attend academic conferences. Her answer, she said, was 'I don't need to go and sit there while everybody tears my work apart.' Dr. Lakoff was primarily vilified in her male-dominated field for saying there were differences between men's speech and women's. 'They didn't like the implications,' Dr. Tannen said. Nevertheless, she added, Dr. Lakoff 'was a towering figure' whose 'influence was enormous.' Robin Beth Tolmach was born on Nov. 27, 1942, in Brooklyn, and grew up in the Stuyvesant Town area of Lower Manhattan. Her father, Samuel Tolmach, was a high school social studies teacher, and her mother, Beatrice (Bressler) Tolmach, taught elementary school. Her parents, democratic socialists who were active in union organizing in New York's public schools, were members of Three Arrows, a communitarian summer colony in Putnam Valley, N.Y. She attended Hunter College High School in Manhattan and graduated from Radcliffe College with a bachelor's degree in classics. In her sophomore year, she met George Lakoff, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was taking a class with the famous linguist Noam Chomsky, who believed that the underlying structure of language was inborn in human beings. She also began to attend the class. 'Linguistics at M.I.T. during that period was a cult in all but name,' Dr. Lakoff recalled in the oral history. She and Mr. Lakoff, who received a Ph.D. in linguistics from Indiana University, married in 1964. She earned an M.A. in linguistics there and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. In 1968, M.I.T. published her dissertation on Latin subjunctives. ('Went right to the top of the best-seller list,' she once wryly noted.) After a year as a postdoctoral scholar at M.I.T., she taught with her husband at the University of Michigan. In 1972, they were both hired by Berkeley. The marriage ended in 1975. Besides her son, she is survived by a sister, Martha Bauer; a brother, Philip Tolmach; and two grandchildren. Dr. Lakoff moved away from teaching in the Chomskyan school of linguistics, which involved analyzing rules of grammatical syntax, and became an influential figure in the evolving field of sociolinguistics, the study of how language is shaped by culture and social groups. But after kick-starting the field of language and gender, Dr. Lakoff did little academic work in that area; instead, she wrote more often as a cultural critic. Her 2000 book, 'The Language War,' was a collection of essays on the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, the O.J. Simpson trial, Hillary Rodham Clinton as first lady and other cultural minefields of the 1990s. Dr. Lakoff wrote 'more as a lefty pundit and media critic than a linguist,' a review in Salon noted. Similarly, in an essay for Time on the eve of the 2016 presidential election, Dr. Lakoff seethed over the attacks on Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, while nodding just slightly at the topic of speech. 'But here's Hillary Rodham Clinton,' she wrote, 'the very public stand-in for all bossy, uppity and ambitious women. Here are her emails. And since it's a woman, doing what decent women should never do — engaging in high-level public communication — well, there must be something wrong with that, even if we can't quite find that something. Her other books included 'Face Value: The Politics of Beauty,' with Raquel L. Scherr (1984), and 'Talking Power: The Politics of Language' (1990). In the Berkeley oral history, looking back on her early years of teaching as the only woman on the linguistics faculty, Dr. Lakoff drew some parallels with female candidates in the 2020 presidential primaries. 'How to be a woman in a man's place?' she said. 'You get criticized for being schoolmarmish or overbearing or a scold. And only women are criticized for that. A woman using a public voice is in trouble.'
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are Black Mothers Ruining Their Boys?
I am my mother's oldest son. I love who I am today, and despite many issues, she shaped me. My father was gone for goodcby the time I was 10. Even when he was around, he only taught me what I didn't want to be. I love Black mothers, and what I'm bringing up here is a discussion, not a critique. Over years of observations and recent conversations, I've noticed a pattern. Some people may be familiar with the cliche: Black mothers raise their daughters and love their sons. I hadn't heard it before, but I immediately understood it when I did. Several women in my life believe their mothers favor their brothers. The girls were expected to achieve more academically, have more chores, and be more independent. The boys are coddled in a way the girls are not afforded. This isn't just some bias specific to these women. I've seen it with my own eyes. One woman, although the youngest child, was expected to cook, clean, and iron her mother's clothes while her brothers played video games. I remember her telling me that for Christmas, she received a pack of Oreo cookies while her brothers received something more substantial. Even as an adult, she is expected to solve every family problem. I've also seen this in the classroom when teaching siblings. Although this isn't always the case, I'm much more likely to see a mother struggle to believe her son is doing something 'bad'. 'Not my baby!' is a phrase I've heard from many mothers almost exclusively when I'm calling about their sons. I recently received a video in which a man argued that Black mothers were ruining their sons because they loved on them too much for too long. He argued they are raising boys, not men, and went on to say the mothers wouldn't even date the type of man they are raising. Love is a good thing. It is a crucial thing, but everything in moderation. Love your son, but don't hide him from the real world. Make him work. Allow him to fail. Have the same expectations for success you would have for your daughter. Research shows it is possible to love your children too much. A bit of frustration and struggle in childhood creates adults who are better able to navigate the real world. When kids are overly protected, they struggle on deciding career paths and relationships. Depression, anxiety, and emptiness are all common symptoms. The brother of the woman mentioned earlier is going through this right now. He is 40 years old, living at home, depressed, angry, and with no hope for the future. His sister is independent, career-driven, and financially successful. Is the cliche true? I acknowledge my bubble, and even within that, there are exceptions to the rule. If reading this, I would love to know your experiences, but I did decide to do a bit of research before throwing out my observation. A 2010 study broached this topic. They took 1500 kids with Black mothers, and the results show there are some significant differences between sons and daughters, especially if we ignore boys who are born first. Boys who are born first and girls end up with similar results, but boys who are born later stand out. 'The results showed that later-born boys had fewer chores, argued more with their mothers, lived in less cognitively stimulating homes, and were not allowed to make the same decisions as were the girls or firstborn boys at the same age. The later-born boys were also lowest in achievement and highest in externalizing behaviors.' -source Although again we are working with a smaller sample size, it does suggest there is some truth to the idea that 'boys are being loved too much.' But why do mothers favor their sons? There isn't an easy answer to any of this, but I've found a common thread in my personal bubble and online. There seems to be an attempt to shield these boys from a harsh, racist world. Some people argue Black men have it harder, especially when we look at the prison system. Police brutality is a rampant problem for everyone, but Black people, and especially Black men, are disproportionately the victims. The justice system was built to criminalize and punish Black men to the extreme. From this angle, it isn't hard to see why a mother would want to shield her son from that world. The way a mother perceives the world likely impacts how she treats her son, but the way she perceives Black men will likely have just as much impact. Centuries of propaganda and perhaps personal experiences may teach Black women to believe Black men can't succeed. They are going to end up in a gang, or jail, etc. Why push him to succeed if he can't succeed? One study shows Black mothers have lower expectations for their sons and believe them to be less academically competent. This study consisted of 334 African American mothers from diverse backgrounds. Some were married, some were from urban areas, etc. This supports what I generally see in the classroom. On average, Black mothers are more likely to push their sons when they are athletes. In relation to this mindset, mothers push their daughters so hard because of the same belief, men will fail you. Black women have to be successful, independent, and educated to conquer the world. Men raised by those same parents enter the world with only the goal of surviving and staying out of trouble. Sadly, in many situations, this mindset hurts everyone. Once they grow up, many of these successful daughters are expected to raise these sons, who were never raised by their mothers. Despite my claims here, every situation is different. This isn't an indictment on how anyone is raising their children. I also need to point out while doing research, I saw some pretty negative comments, especially toward Black women. I'm relatively certain those people just look for any reason to attack Black women because the comments didn't relate to the actual topic. To be clear, this is about Black people, and people in general, as a whole. I encourage people to join the conversation, but please keep your unrelated hatred to yourself. Motherhood is hard. They are expected to be perfect and receive most of the blame whenever something goes wrong. In comparison, fathers are rewarded for doing the bare minimum. (Have you ever seen a father go to the grocery store with the kids?) Mothers usually do the best they can with the tools they receive. I doubt any mother is consciously favoring their sons, especially if they understand how it may impact them in adulthood. Hopefully, this works as another tool, something to consider while navigating the most difficult job in the world. This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of LG Ware's work on Medium. Solve the daily Crossword


Boston Globe
20 hours ago
- Boston Globe
BPS English learners face limited bilingual education options
BPS is slowly rolling out an expansion to its multilingual and bilingual program, but it hasn't been enough to keep up with the district's growing immigrant population. About a third of BPS's 48,000-student population are English learners, and half of pre-K and kindergarten students entering the district are. Most are being placed in an English immersion program under the district's new inclusion model. The growth of the bilingual programs will be incremental, and only five new teachers being added for the next school year districtwide. The new bilingual programs are aimed at younger students, and are only available in a select number of schools; 220 students in kindergarten and first grade this coming school year will be placed in a dual language program, considered among researchers to be the gold standard of bilingual education for which students are taught in both English and the students' native languages. However, many students like Camila, who arrived to Boston without speaking English and who would benefit the most from bilingual instruction, generally don't get access to these classrooms. Related : Advertisement By the 2032-22 school year, BPS plans to add a total of 40 teachers and 1,060 students in multilingual or bilingual classrooms, which would be able to serve a fraction of the current EL population. Advertisement Manuel Ramirez, BPS director of bilingual programs under Office of Multicultural and Multilingual Education, said the new program expansions are specifically designated to areas where the district identified the most need for home language inclusion. 'We're working in collaboration with communities so that students not only have greater access districtwide, but are also having their specific needs addressed,' Ramirez said. Advocates say the district's current programs are not well equipped to teach students from different language backgrounds, and students' academic progress is suffering as a result. Only over a quarter of EL and former EL students met or exceeded In late 2023, the majority the BPS task force created to advise the School Committee on how to best serve the needs of students learning English The current program 'is tragic because it is failing so many of the large proportion of EL students in Boston,' Mudd said. Advertisement Still, Joelle Gamere, chief of multilingual office said while just a handful of bilingual classrooms and teachers will be added to the district, it's much more of an investment than in years past. 'In the last 18 months, we've expanded on bilingual education more so than we've done in the last 40 years,' Gamere said. Jackelyn Elias started teaching in Blackstone nine years ago for the English learner program, and will now lead the new bilingual program at Blackstone. Elias said she is translating the kinder program into Spanish before the beginning of the school year. The bilingual program for kindergarten at Blackstone will teach phonetics, learning centers, and beginner reading in Spanish. Each year, the program will expand to the following grade, so the same students can continue to learn in the bilingual program. In third grade, the classroom will then switch from teaching mostly in Spanish, to half English instruction and half Spanish instruction. Elias said she is excited about the expansion and about teaching kids in Spanish, which she said will help bilingual students get ahead. 'We're just trying to form a strong program, we're working very hard on trying to learn what we need for students,' Elias said. In 2010, Department of Justice officials found BPS was violating the rights of thousands of English learners and failed to provide English learners with specialized instruction, setting up an agreement to monitor the school's progress, which just Advertisement Next year, seven BPS schools in the K-12 level will have some sort of bilingual program available to a few students, most classrooms will be for kindergarteners. In Quincy, for example, the school will offer math in Mandarin. For Ordoñez, Camila's transition to Blackstone had some positives, particularly the support in Spanish she received. Camila was awarded for a story she wrote in English, and finished Blackstone as a top student. Still, as Ordoñez couldn't find more language supports in BPS upper grades for her daughter's grade level next year, she is moving Camila out of the district and into a neighborhood charter school, which also doesn't have a bilingual program. Erik Berg, president of the Boston Teachers Union said there is a need for more teachers in the district specifically trained in bilingual education, and new programs should consider the wide variety of students' backgrounds and needs, especially during the landscape of the Trump administration and the deportation of families that may need these programs. 'It is critical that in rolling out any new program that the school community and language community are included on the planning,' Berg said. 'And that they take time to be thoughtful and provide parents with a plan that won't disrupt student learning.' Maria Probert can be reached at