[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6633524,"mediaKeyId","2664291-9f6c5f8d1d74b99847ec959256ff65f3","parentId",2664291,"title","Community Board 2 members, parents and Council member press for reinstatement or redesign of NYC Summer Youth Employment Program","audioSeconds",802,"startMs",3994000,"endMs",4796000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664291-9f6c5f8d1d74b99847ec959256ff65f3&start=3994&end=4796","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664291-9f6c5f8d1d74b99847ec959256ff65f3/thumbnail_3994000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6633524/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Community-Board-2-members-parents-and-Council-member-press-for-reinstatement-or-redesign-of-NYC-Summer-Youth-Employment-Program","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633524-ec8042ae106bc66ab21cd69246d83135/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154583&Signature=oW~UcuF4J9XiIHA1QV0gag9IbDNS0DpHOLis3zXlbYW9fR8jJetFrFQ0L4UwoNFky5C4V5FxrLdGI08Ha8RdFgAdRs-P6Zdx6iIrUlbbxkW~nCIjo7VRX99d4Qf1Qy0i0xKe3nnSswE9H-c68p16rRSCwBGXMzzO8-T6mVrPreEFJ9lkPw3JJpTDqAGtrCR4tU81urEt0sQpurXjkPyTAXcZmJ2sXggPjubm2IcJf1NqdsWDZj4DVxNMtxNklL8WTfUTqt6qm9sCrUQxB26p71MkaU35w2QuOpUcD2Wu~syhmNav2Uu3p1nuw48hnMHPHAmoYQE50QC2brSDpLetgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Manhattan, NY","date","2025-03-17T21:34:07.933Z","article","Community Board 2’s Schools & Education Committee discussed the city’s recent decision to cut the Summer Youth Employment Program and urged elected officials and the Department of Youth and Community Development to restore or redesign the program so young people can receive paid summer work or training.

Janine (committee organizer) told the meeting that New York City had cut a $124,000,000 program earlier in the month. The program historically ran six weeks and employed roughly 75,000 young people ages 14 to 24. Committee members, nonprofit providers and parents said the cut disproportionately affects underrepresented youth, including New York City Housing Authority residents, youth involved with criminal justice programs and young people in foster care.

Amy Brenna, who said she was working with partner organizations, said the immediate reason given for the cancellation was not only budgetary but public‑health related: program operators had raised concerns that traditional SYEP placements could not meet social‑distancing requirements. “It is how do you create a program,” she said, noting providers were exploring virtual and retooled options.

Participants proposed alternatives: convert some placements into virtual certification or paid internship programs that provide job‑readiness skills; create remote roles (constituent outreach, administrative support for nonprofit partners, remote tutoring); and identify COVID‑related roles such as contact‑tracing support or contactless food distribution for youth who are able and whose households are not high risk.

Council Member Ben Kallos joined the call and described a choice for the city: “We can either take these 75,000 kids and pay them and keep them out of trouble for the summer,” he said, or risk greater costs and harms later. Kallos and other local elected officials were named by participants as potential allies in efforts to reinstate the program or fund alternatives.

Parents and providers also raised logistical and equity concerns: some SYEP participants are immunocompromised or live with vulnerable family members, so in‑person assignments would not be appropriate for all youth; nonprofit providers that had already incurred expenses worry about reimbursement; and young people who are older than typical program ages (SYEP reaches to age 24) may be especially in need of paid opportunities.

Committee members discussed next steps: the committee will seek to sign a citywide letter urging reinstatement or reimagining of SYEP, coordinate with other community boards and CEC partners, and request that the City Council and mayor’s office produce a plan that includes both safe on‑site placements (where feasible) and remote, skills‑based alternatives that can be offered to youth who cannot participate in person.

No formal board vote was taken in the meeting; participants asked the committee chair to circulate a draft letter and noted that Community Board 9 had already passed a related resolution (text and date not specified). The committee asked for a follow‑up that would identify specific provider needs, reimbursement questions and protections for participants with health vulnerabilities.

Ending

Speakers emphasized that SYEP serves both youth and nonprofit providers: it provides paid opportunities, helps prevent summer disengagement, and supports organizations that deliver youth services. The committee agreed to circulate and co‑sign a letter advocating for reinstatement or a redesigned model that includes remote training, certifications and safe in‑person options where feasible.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 April 23 2020 - Schools & Education Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Community Board 2 members, parents and youth advocates pressed for restoration or redesign of New York City’s Summer Youth Employment Program after the city cut the $124 million program, saying alternatives should include remote internships, certification tracks and safe on‑site placements where possible.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6633528,"Manhattan CB2 members press DOE for citywide grading policy during remote learning",7598,92000,7690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664291-9f6c5f8d1d74b99847ec959256ff65f3&start=92&end=7690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664291-9f6c5f8d1d74b99847ec959256ff65f3/thumbnail_92000.jpg","/articles/6633528/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Manhattan-CB2-members-press-DOE-for-citywide-grading-policy-during-remote-learning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633528-260a4bc7b9472809a073f1514c4d709f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154583&Signature=FYjSj7pmxD7OZoul8DmnRJuijFk64k7g3QFs29O94HeOqLbJy6wL3sGw2pulld061a8GPHmsJX8gxg~8IlbepqrvPkUYAusms50ZDdZHOYnja2in1Oe7gOJMvuUTfGHw-yIkTqSU1HLHZjYpdwrKHBfBlmOevV12-kjHiV9T3FKjOrRM4tBp1qQyyoyehbCvIg9h9JRTqAhCG1601K8WQSv1sITzbi~rG9d~f05HItNw9xEAZne85UEOQNSWeErHaaxlKQeweTxCqDYgnT6G87OvY7dJmgvxxFpK~lmKM~qr5OszFyvzfdXufCNNa0wLLSXRb-PPOKZHLRB~PV7Oww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Manhattan Community Board 2 Schools & Education Committee met by video conference to press the New York City Department of Education for a single, citywide grading policy during the district’s period of remote instruction.

Committee members, school parents and representatives of the District 2 Citywide Education Council said inconsistent local grading decisions risked amplifying existing inequities and creating confusion for families applying to middle and high schools. The committee agreed to draft a resolution urging DOE guidance; members indicated a majority preference for a binary/pass‑fail model for the year, paired with teacher narrative comments.

The issue framed the meeting: Janine (committee organizer) opened the call saying the main agenda item was “grading during remote learning.” Mar Fitzgerald, a public member of the committee, summarized the stakes: “Who cares about grading? I think the quick answer is everyone.”

Speakers described how remote instruction has affected different students. The committee’s presentation included districtwide figures cited during the call: 73 percent of New York City students live in poverty (about 819,000 students), roughly 300,000 students (about 27 percent) lacked access to Wi‑Fi or a reliable device when remote learning began, 20 percent are students with diagnosed disabilities (IEPs), 13 percent are English language learners and 12 percent live in temporary housing. Committee members said those disparities shape how grading choices will help or harm students.

Parents and CEC members told the committee they want systemwide clarity. Tricia Joyce, chair of the Schools and Education Committee for Community Board 1, and Emily Hillstrom, a CEC District 2 member, said families and parent leaders reported steep drops in performance for students with learning disabilities and stressed the need for consistency across schools. Robin Broshy, representing the ECC survey effort, said nearly 12,000 responses had been collected citywide and that “a large majority want a citywide direction.”

Several grading approaches drew discussion: keep grades unchanged (average for the year), drop the lowest grade or allow grades only to rise, apply pass/fail for the remote period only, or adopt pass/fail for the full year. Committee members repeatedly raised the particular impact on students in admissions years (fourth, seventh and eleventh grades) and asked how any change would affect middle‑ and high‑school admissions calculations.

Supporters of a citywide binary approach argued it would protect vulnerable students from being penalized by circumstances beyond their control and would reduce pressure on attendance and participation. Opponents and some teachers’ representatives warned about unintended consequences: a blanket policy could reduce student engagement (school officials cited San Francisco’s experience with a universal A grade leading to lower attendance) or complicate technical reporting and admissions algorithms unless the DOE sets clear standards.

The committee discussed several clarifying additions to any policy: require teacher narrative comments or diagnostic assessments so hiring schools and families can understand each student’s performance; issue uniform DOE guidance rather than leave decisions to individual schools; and use diagnostics over the summer and early fall to measure learning loss and target remediation.

After extended discussion, the committee’s chair said she would revise a draft resolution and circulate it for committee approval. Janine said the draft will call for citywide DOE guidance and incorporate the committee’s preference that any citywide model include narrative commentary from teachers and a commitment to diagnostics and planning over the summer.

The committee did not adopt a formal binding vote during the meeting; members agreed to circulation and further action. The committee also asked that the DOE and CEC continue collecting parent input and that diagnostic assessments be prioritized so schools can target supports if remote learning continues.

The committee identified next steps: circulate the draft resolution for approval, forward feedback from parents and the ECC/CEC surveys to the DOE, and schedule follow‑up conversations focused on learning diagnostics and planning for the fall.

Ending

Committee members and parent representatives emphasized two recurring priorities: equity for students with limited devices, English‑language learners and students with disabilities; and clarity on how grading changes would affect admissions. The committee will circulate a draft resolution reflecting those concerns and the majority preference expressed during the meeting; it asked the DOE to provide citywide guidance before schools finalize local grading policies.","Community Board 2 Schools & Education Committee members, parents and CEC representatives urged the Department of Education to issue citywide guidance on grading during remote learning, with many expressing support for a pass/fail (binary) model for the year accompanied by teacher narrative comments to address equity and admissions concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Community Board 2 members, parents and Council member press for reinstatement or redesign of NYC Summer Youth Employment Program

Manhattan CB2 members press DOE for citywide grading policy during remote learning