ADVOCATZ: Full Service Advocacy, Support, and Problem-Solving

re-posted from ADVOCATZ' blog:

Advocatz' purpose is to assist any person or group who have been challenged by false reports or evaluations, defamation, libel, and/or who have received charges which are false or life/career-altering. 

We believe that all people have the right to due process of law, as well as the right to expose corruption and fraud. We help you do that.

Betsy Combier

We also assist attorneys in vacating judgments of "substantiated" false claims by investigating the investigators and defending the legal and contractual rights of all who are brought to grievances, mediation, arbitration, and/or want to go to settlement at any administrative hearing. We have extensive experience in winning cases in Education Law 3020-a arbitration. 

We are not attorneys and do not practice law. We investigate, research, seek facts wherever they may be in recorded information, emails, and any other social media sources, and assist the victim in creating a comprehensive and detailed report on exactly how the problem arose ....and can be resolved. 

We believe that the work needed to be done on each case is too much for a single attorney or a single representative who may not have or give the time needed to obtain all the details of what happened and that is why we give our clients unlimited time for discussion and research. All information is discussed and reviewed to give backup support and to manage all the case details for the attorney or client, if the client is pro se. In arbitration, mediation and negotiation where there is no attorney, and the appellant is pro se, we give the same assistance and support. Our opinions are not legal advice.

We help people who feel they have been harmed understand what the process is, and how an individual victimized by false claims can defend him or herself. Arbitration proceedings such as 3020-a hearings, do not take place in a Court of Law and there is no judge or jury.

We work as paralegals with Attorneys who subpoena witnesses, submit Motions To Dismiss charges, and argue for compliance with 3020-a Law on the determination of probable cause, the Just Cause Standard, Section 2590-h, and Section 3020-a. In addition, we research case law for Article 75 and 78 appeals, Part 83 Appeals, First Department Appeals, and civil actions in State and Federal Court.

Paralegal Betsy Combier has 14 years of experience observing, documenting, and studying the 3020-a process as well as the underlying laws which supposedly apply to the discipline process for employees. She is a paralegal, advocate for individual and collective rights, and an investigative reporter. She is a graduate of NYU, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern University, and has been a reporter/journalist/advocate for more than 35 years. She edits the following websites and blogs:
Parentadvocates.org, NYC Rubber Room Reporter, New York Court Corruption, National Public Voice, NYC Public Voice, and Inside 3020-a Teachers' Trials.

We at Advocatz use terms such as "Just Cause" (or 'good cause') and "bad faith" in our defense of a Respondent brought to Education Law 3020-a arbitration. We want the Hearing Officer to look at the facts, or lack thereof, and the fairness and integrity of the process followed in support of those facts.

From Wikipedia:

"Good cause is a legal term denoting adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action, or to fail to take an action prescribed by law. What constitutes a good cause is usually determined on a case by case basis and is thus relative.

Often the court or other legal body determines whether a particular fact or facts amount to a good cause. For example, if a party to a case has failed to take legal action before a particular statute of limitations has expired, the court might decide that the said party preserves its rights nonetheless, since that party's serious illness is a good cause, or justification for having additional time to take the legal action."

 ( Henry Campbell Black; Joseph R. Nolan; Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley (1991). "good cause". Black's Law Dictionary. West Pub. Co. p. 476).

Thus, a sustainable, valid defense in any forum results from a thorough, fact-based inquiry into the background of a case using the "good cause" justification.

Similarly, a valid defense should have a fact-based opposition to any bad faith by the defendant(s).

From Wikipedia:

"Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.

The expression "bad faith" is associated with "double heartedness", which is also translated as "double mindedness". A bad faith belief may be formed through self-deception, being double minded, or "of two minds", which is associated with faith, belief, attitude, and loyalty. In the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, bad faith was equated with being double hearted, "of two hearts", or "a sustained form of deception which consists in entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another". The concept is similar to perfidy, or being "without faith", in which deception is achieved when one side in a conflict promises to act in good faith (e.g. by raising a flag of surrender) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed himself. After Jean-Paul Sartre's analysis of the concepts of self-deception and bad faith, bad faith has been examined in specialized fields as it pertains to self-deception as two semi-independently acting minds within one mind, with one deceiving the other.

Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising; a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false; an insurer who uses language and reasoning which are deliberately misleading in order to deny a claim."

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

President and Founder, ADVOCATZ
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Unemployment Benefits Won After Claimant Resigned For "Good Cause"

The case of Yolanda Cohen decided by the Appellate Division Third Department shows the importance of a fact-based defense by a Claimant showing "good cause" for a resignation due to workplace harassment.

We at Advocatz use terms such as "Just Cause" (or 'good cause') and "bad faith" in our defense of a Respondent brought to Education Law 3020-a arbitration. We want the Hearing Officer to look at the facts, or lack thereof, and the fairness and integrity of the process followed in support of those facts.

From Wikipedia:

"Good cause is a legal term denoting adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action, or to fail to take an action prescribed by law. What constitutes a good cause is usually determined on a case by case basis and is thus relative.

Often the court or other legal body determines whether a particular fact or facts amount to a good cause. For example, if a party to a case has failed to take legal action before a particular statute of limitations has expired, the court might decide that the said party preserves its rights nonetheless, since that party's serious illness is a good cause, or justification for having additional time to take the legal action."

 ( Henry Campbell Black; Joseph R. Nolan; Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley (1991). "good cause". Black's Law Dictionary. West Pub. Co. p. 476).

Thus, a sustainable, valid defense in any forum results from a thorough, fact-based inquiry into the background of a case using the "good cause" justification.

Similarly, a valid defense should have a fact-based presentation of bad faith by the defendant(s).

From Wikipedia:

"Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.

The expression "bad faith" is associated with "double heartedness", which is also translated as "double mindedness". A bad faith belief may be formed through self-deception, being double minded, or "of two minds", which is associated with faith, belief, attitude, and loyalty. In the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, bad faith was equated with being double hearted, "of two hearts", or "a sustained form of deception which consists in entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another". The concept is similar to perfidy, or being "without faith", in which deception is achieved when one side in a conflict promises to act in good faith (e.g. by raising a flag of surrender) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed himself. After Jean-Paul Sartre's analysis of the concepts of self-deception and bad faith, bad faith has been examined in specialized fields as it pertains to self-deception as two semi-independently acting minds within one mind, with one deceiving the other.

Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising; a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false; an insurer who uses language and reasoning which are deliberately misleading in order to deny a claim."

Betsy Combier

President and Founder, ADVOCATZ
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Appellate Division, Third Department

In the Matter of the Claim of YOLANDA COHEN

2017 NY Slip Op 05885

In the Matter of the Claim of YOLANDA COHEN, Respondent.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

Decided July 27, 2017.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 11, 2015, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Michael J. Pastor of counsel), for appellant.

Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for Yolanda Cohen, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Mulvey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EGAN, Jr., J.

Claimant worked for the employer as a paralegal from 2007 to 2012, during which time various disciplinary charges were lodged against her. In February 2012, claimant and the employer entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the most recent round of disciplinary infractions. Pursuant to the terms of that stipulation, claimant would waive her right to a Civil Service Law § 75 hearing and would resign effective March 15, 2012. In the interim, claimant would be allowed to collect her accrued annual leave and, going forward, would receive a "neutral reference" from the employer. Notably, the stipulation of settlement contained no admission of misconduct, and no finding of wrongdoing on the part of claimant was made.

Claimant subsequently filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits, and the Department of Labor issued initial determinations disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits upon the grounds that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause or, alternatively, lost her employment due to misconduct. Following a lengthy hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) overruled the initial determinations, finding that claimant had good cause to separate from her employment and had not otherwise committed disqualifying misconduct. In so concluding, the ALJ found that claimant had been subject to a hostile work environment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently adopted the ALJ's findings and affirmed the ALJ's decision, prompting this appeal by the employer.

We affirm. As a general proposition, a claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her employment without good cause will not be entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits (see e.g. Matter of Flint-Jones [Federal Reserve Bankof N.Y.— Commissioner of Labor], 144 AD3d 1288, 1288-1289 [2016]), and the same holds true for a claimant who engages in disqualifying misconduct (see e.g. Matter of Trunzo [Commissioner of Labor], 145 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2016]). That said, "[a] claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her position in the face of disciplinary charges may qualify for unemployment benefits if the actions did not amount to misconduct" (Matter of Jimenez [New York County Dist. Attorney's Off.—Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 843, 843 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of Cohen [Town of Brookhaven—Commissioner of Labor], 91 AD3d 998, 998 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 831 [2012]; Matter of Straw [Rocky Point Union Free School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2006]). "Whether a claimant has engaged in disqualifying misconduct is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Oberman [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs.—Commissioner of Labor], 143 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Trunzo [Commissioner of Labor], 145 AD3d at 1309).

Claimant and the employer's witnesses presented competing accounts of claimant's work history, her work product, her general demeanor and her interaction with others in her office. Without recounting the extensive testimony offered on these points, suffice it to say that the employer portrayed claimant as an insubordinate malcontent who failed to timely and appropriately complete assignments or respond to various emails or directives. Claimant, on the other hand, testified at length as to the "bullying" and harassment that she endured at the hands of her supervisors, recounted the manner in which she was verbally threatened by certain individuals in her office and disputed the employer's account of her overall work performance. This conflicting testimony presented factual and credibility issues for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Saunders [Life Adj. Ctr., Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 106 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [2013]). As noted previously, the stipulation of settlement entered into between claimant and the employer contained no finding or admission of wrongdoing on the part of claimant. Further, upon crediting claimant's testimony as to the nature of her work environment and her reasons for resigning, the Board agreed with the ALJ's findings that claimant's actions did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct but, rather, were undertaken in direct response to her "hostile" and "untenable" work environment — an environment that, in turn, provided "a compelling reason for her to resign." As there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision in this regard, it will not be disturbed — despite the presence of other evidence in the record that could support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Barrier Window Sys., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 149 AD3d 1373, 1375 [2017]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs

see Matter of Kolmel:

Matter of Kolmel v City of New York

2011 NY Slip Op 07265 [88 AD3d 527]

October 18, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, December 7, 2011

In the Matter of William Kolmel, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

Wolin & Wolin, Jericho (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Edward F. X. Hart of counsel), for respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered June 10, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent Department of Education (DOE) denying petitioner certification of completion of probation and terminating his employment as a probationary teacher, and denying his appeal of an unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2008-2009 school year, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted to the extent of annulling the U-rating and the matter remanded to DOE for proper completion of the final review and recommendation.

The record shows that following three years of probationary service as a high school social studies teacher, petitioner had received satisfactory reviews and year-end reports. However, petitioner was informed he would not be recommended for tenure that year and agreed to enter into an agreement extending his probation through the 2008-2009 school year. During this fourth year, petitioner received two satisfactory and two unsatisfactory classroom reports, two letters to the file for unbecoming conduct, and his principal gave him an unsatisfactory rating in each category on the year-end report (except voice and appearance, which were left blank) and an overall U-rating. As a result, it was recommended that petitioner be denied certification of completion of probation, which required termination of his service and precluded him from being hired by any other high school in the City.

"[A] . . . probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that his or her dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law" (Matter of Brown v City of New York, 280 AD2d 368, 370 [2001]; see Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 765 [1988]). "Evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that performance was unsatisfactory establishes that the discharge was made in good faith" (Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]); the same standard applies when a teacher challenges a "U" rating (see Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ., 50 AD3d 283 [2008]).

Here, the two negative classroom observations cited in the year-end report, which [*2]criticized petitioner's manner of asking questions, and the file letters, could rationally support a finding that petitioner had not developed into a proficient high school social studies teacher, following three years of suggestions and assistance (see e.g. Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 82 AD3d 576 [2011]).

However, petitioner submitted evidence that the principal who made the determination to award the 2008-2009 U-rating did not observe petitioner's teaching during either of his final two years at the school. This was in violation of DOE's rules concerning teacher rankings, which require at least one observation by the principal and pre-observation meetings with probationary teachers in danger of U-ratings. Furthermore, the year-end report, on its face, was completed by the principal in an arbitrary manner, including unsatisfactory rankings in every category, even where unsupported by any evidence or contradicted by evidence in the report itself. Petitioner's assertion that the principal stated at the administrative hearing that she did not rely on the file letters in making her tenure recommendation is not disputed by respondents. Petitioner also submitted a statement by a current DOE employee who formerly worked at the high school, that the principal pressured assistant principals to give negative U-ratings without observing the teachers. These deficiencies in the review process leading to the recommendation to deny tenure and terminate petitioner's employment are not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process (see Matter of Blaize v Klein, 68 AD3d 759 [2009]; Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 82 AD2d 832, 834 [1981]; compare Matter of Davids v City of New York, 72 AD3d 557, 558 [2010] [technical failure to follow rules not bad faith where delays were undertaken in attempt to allow petitioner to bring his performance up to standards]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 31350(U).]

The Renewal Program Disaster Has Failed Schools Called "Failure Factories" by Families for Excellent Schools

Here we go again, mixing fact with fiction to promote a point.

It seems that the point of today's article in the NY POST is the failure of the Renewal Schools program, and the more press the better, I think. The Renewal program failure is really shocking considering how much public money was spent (see the article I re-posted, below, where the POST editors call the Renewal program a "Fiasco").

My problem with this newest attack on this dreadful mistake (WHY NOT create an effective strategy first, and get a panel of successful business people to volunteer to advise you, Mr. Mayor?) is the quote by Clara Hemphill, a person who knows absolutely nothing about NYC teachers and ATRs. I know that teachers and ATRs often want to be in the neediest schools with the neediest kids, but are squashed by the observations without facts and sabotage of principals who need to pass the buck from their own wrong-doing or incompetence. The administrator who sees results of state or local exams which are not good can suddenly rate the teacher/ATR "developing" or "ineffective/Unsatisfactory", accuse this person of some fake crime and remove  him/her to a hidden rubber room. Ms. Hemphill implies that the needy kids get "the worst" teachers who don't know how to teach these kids or don't want to.

I'd like her to prove that. I believe she can't, and thus there it is, the Fake News, passed along with just enough facts to pass close scrutiny.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Inside the NYC schools critics call ‘failure factories’

by Susan Edelman, NY POST Sunday September 3, 2017

They are the schools Mayor de Blasio doesn’t mention.

At 32 city elementary and middle schools, the average English-math proficiency rate on state exams has not exceeded 10 percent of students for four years in a row.

Seventeen of these schools — which enroll nearly 10,000 kids — have been part of the mayor’s signature Renewal program, which has spent $582 million on teacher training, social services and an extra hour a day of instruction. Four did so poorly that the city Department of Education closed them in June.

The other 15 have struggled without the extra aid.

Families for Excellent Schools, a pro-charter-school group that analyzed the test scores, blasted the 32 “failure factories,” saying they “prove that thousands of the city’s neediest kids have yet to see any meaningful improvement since the start of the de Blasio administration.”

Education experts say the schools, where 96 percent of students are black and Hispanic, take a bigger share of homeless, transient and English-learning kids. The 32 schools also enrolled an average 28 percent of students with disabilities, up from 26 percent four years ago.

“These are the worst of the worst, but it’s because they’re concentrating the most challenging kids,” said David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center education professor.

He faulted “DOE policy” for doing little to integrate the schools.

Two of the failing schools share buildings with successful, and popular, charters. PS/MS 149 Sojourner Truth in Harlem, where 5 percent of 256 kids passed math and 13 percent passed English language arts, is dwarfed by the flagship Success Academy charter, where 92 percent of 1,161 students passed math and 80 percent passed ELA.

But 26 percent of kids at Sojourner are homeless, compared with 7 percent at Success Academy. Also, nearly all kids at Sojourner qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, versus 62 percent at the charter.

“It’s a vicious cycle,” said Clara Hemphill, editor of InsideSchools. “It’s very hard for schools with high concentrations of needy kids to gain traction, even if they have strong leaders and effective teachers — which they often don’t. It’s very hard to attract and retain staff in very needy schools.”

Several of the low-performing schools were created for high-need students. Harbor Heights MS in Washington Heights, Academy for New Americans in Astoria, and Entrada in Harlem take non-English-speaking immigrants. New Design MS in Harlem takes over-age kids who have fallen behind.

The only charter school among the 32, Opportunity Charter in Harlem, offers “inclusive” classes with both general-ed and special-ed students. More than half the kids have “moderate to severe learning disabilities, and many suffer social and emotional challenges,” a spokeswoman said.

Eleven percent of students passed the latest English exams, and 2 percent passed math. The DOE wants to close it, but Opportunity has filed suit to stay alive.

The DOE defended its efforts, saying that nearly all the 28 remaining schools are getting new reading coaches to help kindergarten to second-grade teachers, and that several have gotten new principals. The city also aims to support seven magnet elementary schools that can diversify student populations, a spokesman said.

Team de Blasio’s renewal fiasco

By Post Editorial Board

Mayor Bill de Blasio

Mayor de Blasio last week claimed “impressive gains” for the schools in his signature $383 million Renewal turnaround program. We wish it were true.

By the numbers, these schools did make some gains on state exams, relative to other city schools. But that’s largely, maybe exclusively, because the state Regents “dumbed down” the tests.

Simply put: If you make it easier to score as “proficient” (as the Regents have done), then schools where most kids weren’t testing as proficient will make bigger gains than schools where most kids were passing.

And even this mirage of a gain doesn’t make up for the ground the Renewal schools lost in the first two de Blasio school years.

Pretend the progress is real, and the math-proficiency gap between Renewals and the rest of the city still grew from 25.1 points in 2013 to 28.4 points in 2017. The English-proficiency gap grew from 20.2 points in 2013 to 24.7 points.

Plus, Team de Blasio has had to close or merge several of the original 94 persistently failing Renewal schools, thanks to plummeting enrollment or woes too serious for even this administration to tolerate: Only 78 will open this fall.

A Post series this spring shined a spotlight on the Renewal mess: On top of falling enrollment, they suffer from skyrocketing costs, unfit teachers and regular grade-fixing scams. A later Post investigation showed that at least 242 graduates at Renewal high schools earned their diplomas via an appeals process that allowed students to “pass” the Regents’ exams with normally too-low scores.

At least the mayor’s credit actions are more realistic than his happy talk: The city has announced that more Renewal schools soon will be slated for closing or merger — and several will get new principals this year.

The fact remains: His orders have left thousands of students wasting years failing to learn at schools he should have closed back in 2014. He kept them open in a bid to “prove” they could be turned around instead.

Every child stuck at these schools is a victim of his effort to experiment with their lives.

Graduation rates up at Renewal Schools — but there’s a catch

Yoav Gonen, April 24, 2017, NY POST

Mayor de Blasio has been boasting about how graduation rates are up at some of the city’s worst schools — but the improved numbers come with a big asterisk, The Post has learned.

Of the 3,371 graduates at the 31 high schools involved in Hizzoner’s Renewal Schools program, as many as 242 earned their diplomas using an appeals process that allows for lower scores on exams or other side-door routes.

The new appeals, created and approved by the state Board of Regents, allow students graduating in 2016 to pass through on appeal even if they got as low as a 60 on two of their five Regents exams.

The 2015 requirement to file an appeal was 62, while the regular passing mark for a Regents exam is 65.

This led to a tripling of the number of students graduating using the appeals process in 2016 over 2015, city data show.

“There does appear to be a concerted effort to use the appeal process to raise the graduation rate,” said David Bloomfield, a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center who reviewed data provided to The Post by the Department of Education.

If there hadn’t been accommodations made for low-scoring students, graduation rates at Renewals Schools would have ticked up by just 0.6 percent — up to 55.1 percent from 54.5 percent in 2015.

Instead, the graduation rate at Renewal Schools was 59.3 percent last year — an additional 4.2-percent increase.

The board also created a “Superintendent Determination” for special-education students that allows them to graduate based on their coursework if they scored at least a 52 on math and English Regents.

DOE officials said there was no way of determining whether the bulk of appeals students would have otherwise graduated.

“It is not accurate to attribute any increase in graduation rate solely to appeals,” said spokesman Will Mantell. “The State sets policies on pathways to college and career for New York State students, and we support schools as they utilize these options to best serve their students.”

With appeals, schools not under the Renewal program had a graduation rate of 73.7 percent in 2016.

Without them, the graduation rate would have been 71.5 percent, according to figures confirmed by Aaron Pallas, a professor at Columbia University Teachers College.

Last month, The Post documented the struggles of de Blasio’s Renewal Schools program, including dropping enrollment, skyrocketing costs and mixed academic results.