FOIL Request for Documents Related to the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

I am writing to request access to documents related to the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework (CRSEF) recently released by the New York State Education Department. Specifically, I am requesting the following documents:

1. All communications between the New York State Education Department and any third/outside parties related to the creation, verification, and collection of source material for the CRSEF.
2. All communications between the New York State Education Department and any members of the CRSEF team and writers related to the creation, verification, and collection of source material for the CRSEF.
3. Any interim work product related to the genesis of the CRSEF project, including scoping out key themes and the nine key areas identified in the report.
4. Any data or documents related to the funding and establishment of the CRSEF team and writers.
5. Any and all emails, memoranda, letters, notes, reports, and other documents referencing or discussing the CRSEF or any of its themes or recommendations.

In light of the recent proposed legislation S1402, which would require public schools to be aligned to this document, I respectfully request that this request be handled with urgency and that any responsive documents be provided as soon as possible, if there are any delays it is ok to produce documents on a rolling release schedule.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jackson Parker

Dear Records Access Officer,

Thank you for the documents you provided in response to my FOIL request regarding the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework (CRSEF). However, upon review of the materials and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and its amendment between the New York State Education Department and the City University of New York — Asian American/Asian Research Institute, it appears that there may be additional responsive documents that were not included in your response.

The MOU and its amendment specify several deliverables, including the development of materials for training sessions, meetings with stakeholders, and the creation of a final draft of the principles and framework. Communications related to these deliverables, as well as any interim work products, should be included in the response to my FOIL request.

Additionally, the MOU mentions a previously existing set of three guiding principles and a "draft of principles and framework" that were due to CUNY prior to their meetings in NYC, Buffalo, and Albany. These documents should also be included in the response to my FOIL request.

I kindly request that you review the MOU and its amendment and provide any additional documents that are responsive to my request. I understand that this may take some time, and I am willing to accept these documents on a rolling basis.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Dear Commissioner Rosa,

I am writing to appeal the partial denial of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request (#FL-CL-23/564), dated April 30, 2023. My original request sought access to documents related to the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework (CRSEF) recently released by the New York State Education Department.

**Appeal for Request Item #1 and #2: All communications between the New York State Education Department and any third/outside parties, and any members of the CRSEF team and writers related to the creation, verification, and collection of source material for the CRSEF.

The denial of these parts of my request was based on the assertion that any such communications are exempt from release pursuant to Public Officers Law (“POL”) §87(2)(g) as non-final and/or deliberative inter-agency materials. However, I would like to highlight that the presence of third parties in these communications could potentially break the inter-agency exemption. As per the advisory opinion FOIL-AO-19160 from the Committee on Open Government, records shown to persons other than agency employees would remove the records from the scope of §87(2)(g) of FOIL.

**Appeal for Request Item #3: Any interim work product related to the genesis of the CRSEF project, including scoping out key themes and the nine key areas identified in the report.

The denial of this part of my request was also based on the assertion that these communications are exempt from release pursuant to POL §87(2)(g) as non-final and/or deliberative inter-agency materials. However, as per the advisory opinion FOIL-AO-19160, the presence of third parties in these communications could potentially break the inter-agency exemption.

Furthermore, the MOU and Amended MOU provided in response to my request indicate that there were already activities in development specifically for CR-S and that a draft of the principles and framework would be provided prior to the start of workshops. This suggests that there should be additional responsive materials related to the genesis of the CRSEF project.

**Appeal for Request Item #4: Any data or documents related to the funding and establishment of the CRSEF team and writers.

While I appreciate the information provided about the $160,000 grant from the New York Community Trust and the expenditure of the total amount allotted in the Amended MOU (i.e., $470,452), I believe there should be additional responsive materials. Specifically, the MOU and Amended MOU mention the development of materials for training sessions, meetings with stakeholders, and the creation of a final draft of principles and framework. These materials, as well as any related communications, should be responsive to my request.

**Appeal for Request Item #5: Any and all emails, memoranda, letters, notes, reports, and other documents referencing or discussing the CRSEF or any of its themes or recommendations.

The denial of this part of my request was based on the assertion that it is not a “request for a record reasonably described” (POL §89(3)(a)). However, I would like to highlight that even if the content of certain communications is exempt from disclosure under POL §87(2)(g), the factual information about the communication itself, such as the sender, recipient, date, and subject line, should still be disclosed. This metadata does not typically contain deliberative or advisory content, but rather factual information about the communication itself. Therefore, I request that this factual information be disclosed in response to my FOIL request, even if the content of the communications is exempt.

I understand the constraints and challenges involved in fulfilling such requests, but I believe it is in the public interest to have a comprehensive understanding of the CRSEF, particularly in light of the recent proposed legislation S1402. I kindly request that you review my appeal and provide the requested information at the earliest.

In addition, I would like to emphasize that the denial of access to these records hinders the public's ability to fully understand the development and implementation of the CRSEF. This is especially pertinent given the significant public interest in the CRSEF and its potential impact on the education system in New York State. Transparency in this process is crucial for fostering public trust and ensuring accountability.

Lastly, I would like to remind you of the principle of "maximum access" that underlies the Freedom of Information Law, as stated by the Court of Appeals in Capital Newspapers v. Burns. The Court held that the statute is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to government records. I believe that providing the requested information aligns with this principle.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.