NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
NYSASCSDHome
Board of Directors
Committees
Membership
Directory Newsletters
Officers
Upcoming Meetings
Legal Opinions
Staff
|
|
November 2002 Vol. XVI, No. 10 STATE ELECTIONS HOLD FEW SURPRISES Last week’s elections held few surprises for the State Legislature. The Senate Republicans improved their control of the Majority as did the Assembly Democrats. In fact, the Assembly Democrats now have a “veto proof” majority of 102 to 48 (103 to 47 if Assemblyman Ronald Tocci who ran on the Republican ticket switches back to the Democratic party). This factor may come into play later this year if the Legislature begins wrangling with the Governor as they did two years ago. Governor
Pataki has again been talked about as a possible running mate for Bush in 2004
(That may only be Pataki people floating rumors, however).
In that event, Mary Donohue, the Lieutenant Governor, would be the next
Governor of the State. This may be avoided, however, because there has been talk of
moving her to a judicial appointment, making the next in line Senate Majority
Leader Joseph Bruno. The
Legislature is tentatively scheduled to return to Albany on December 16th
for a special session. There is a
sizable current year deficit and a very large structural State Budget deficit
for 2003-2004. Part of the problem
is that the 2002-2003 budget was balanced by borrowing from special funds that
now have to be paid back. This is a
double hit because in 2003-2004 the State has to pay back the loans and also
fill the hole in the budget. There
was talk of mid-year reduction of education aid, similar to what was done in
1991, which caused school districts tremendous pain. That talk has subsided and it now appears unlikely.
We will have to monitor the less obvious ways of saving money that the
state usually thinks of, particularly in the area of building aid, e.g. placing
a cap on building aid (“you get it but not for a few years” approach). REGIONAL ROUNDTABLE HELD AT BEACON CSD
Robert
Lowry, Dr. Eric Cooper, Dr. Jacquelyn Jackson, Vito DiCesare, Robert
Biggerstaff, Dr. James Gaughan, Pilar Sokol, Michael Lesick, and Charles Winters The
Association held its annual Regional Roundtable in Beacon CSD on November 6,
2002 with Vito DiCesare, Superintendent of Beacon CSD and President of the
Association acting as host. The
topic of the Roundtable was “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” and the
speakers panel included Dr. Jacquelyn Jackson, Acting National Director of Title
I; Robert Lowry, Associate Director of NYSCOSS; and Dr. James Gaughan, State
Director of Title I. A
“reaction” panel consisted of Dr. Eric Cooper of the National Urban
Alliance, Charles Winters, Association Consultant and former Associate
Superintendent for Finance at Newburgh CSD, and Pilar Sokol, Counsel at NYSSBA. Dr.
Jackson was
introduced by Dr. Judith Johnson, Superintendent of Peekskill CSD and
Association Board Member. Dr.
Johnson was instrumental in getting the Acting National Director to come speak
at the Roundtable. Dr. Jackson attempted to give a brief but not comprehensive
overview of NCLB and commented on the key areas of concern that DOE has
identified. She said that her office has established an “instructional
change department’ and with respect to low performing schools, has identified
several areas of concern, including low expectations, lack of capacity to use
data for decision making, non-certified teachers and inconsistent accountability
systems. She said the 30% of
principals surveyed think their schools cannot perform at high levels. Dr.
Jackson stated the corner stones of NCLB are flexibility, parental choice,
accountability and higher standards, and assessments. With respect to standards, NCLB establishes three levels of
achievement, basic proficiency, and advanced, requiring that the standards be
aligned to the curriculum. With
respect to assessments, NCLB requires annual testing in grades 3-8 by 2005-2006
which much be aligned to the standards and have accommodations for the disabled.
New York State assessments have been approved and are one of twenty-one
states that have received approval so far. NCLB
requires accountability through the requirement of annual yearly progress (AYP).
They have found that many Principals do not know that their schools have
been identified as failing to meet AYP guidelines.
NCLB requires that 95% of students and 95% of subgroups must be assessed
and the failure to meet AYP guidelines has consequences: Year one –
School choice and technical assistance; Year two – School choice,
technical assistance and supplemental educational services; Year three
– School choice, technical assistance, supplemental educational services, and
corrective action which includes extended school year or school day, hiring of
experts, or change of program; Year four – adds a requirement of a plan
for restructuring; Year five – requires implementation of that plan and
an alternate governance arrangement which means charter schools or a transfer of
responsibilities to the state. District
sanctions include transfer of students, establishment of a new curriculum and
replacement of the LEA. In year
two DOE can also defer program funding or reduce administrative funding,
among other things. In year
three the state must conduct a peer review of LEA’s with identified low
performing schools. DOE can provide
intensified technical assistance for this. Dr.
Jackson went on to observe that the public school choice requires that LEA’s
have a transportation “set aside” established.
Supplemental educational services (SES) provisions require that the LEA
notify parents of SES availability and the provider of SES must notify the
parents of student progress. Requirements
in connection with paraprofessionals state that they must have at least two
years of undergraduate work or an associate degree. With
respect to technical assistance provisions, such assistance can be provided for
the LEA or for the SEA. Dr. Jackson
noted that half of the school principals surveyed in “schools in
improvement” were either not aware that their school needed to be in the
program or disagreed that the school should be in the program. An
important aspect of NCLB is parental involvement. NCLB treats parents as consumers and requires that there be a
written involvement policy and a school – parent compact.
LEA’s must notify parents if teachers are not qualified (certified) for
more than a four-week period. Reporting
requirements require an annual school review and DOE will be developing guidance
for complying with these reporting requirements. NCLB
also provides for rewards for successful schools. Schools which exceed AYP guidelines for two years
consecutively or which close the gap can receive rewards through recognition or
teacher salary incentives. Robert
Lowry was the
next speaker. His background
includes positions as Education Analyst with the NYS Assembly Ways and Means
Committee, and as such he was the Chief Negotiator for the Assembly for the
Education Budget. He was also the
Chief Education Aid in the Cuomo Administration and worked most recently in the
area of School Finance with NYSUT. Mr.
Lowry stated that NCLB is a significant change in Federal focus, which now
covers all children. The $400
million increase in Title I funding for 2002 is a 1.1% increase which, overall,
is really only an inflationary increase. Nevertheless,
it is highly targeted to the neediest children which is good.
This year Title I increases are proposed at a $141 million level (12%)
and IDEA is being increased by $64 million (10%), with total education funding
to increase by $220 million. These
proposed increases are contained in the President’s Budget. Mr.
Lowry stated that we needed to sort out “first time around” problems from
the enduring problems. We needed to
analyze how NCLB can help states achieve their goals and, most importantly, he
said we needed to make the case for the additional resources necessary to
achieve those goals. An
overwhelming percentage of the public favor higher standards, teacher and
administrator accountability and annual testing.
But they disagree that one test should determine passing or failing and
this is somewhat contradictory. As
E.B. White once wrote “More than half the people are right more than half the
time”. New
York State already has in place many of the pieces required by NCLB.
Nevertheless, there are some areas of conflict between current state
attitudes and NCLB that need to be looked at.
New York SED says that there are two kinds of tests, local tests that are
diagnostic and statewide tests which provide for accountability measures.
In contrast, NCLB says tests should tell teachers and parents what is
necessary to educate their children. Mr. Lowry concluded by reemphasizing for the need for additional resources to achieve the goals set forth in NCLB. He showed that the state “barebones budget” for 2001-2002 resulted in poor and rich districts increasing their taxes approximately the same percentage, between 7 and 8%. However, per pupil spending increases were far different. The range between poor and rich districts in per pupil spending increases was .5% to 5.2%, underscoring the lack of capacity of poor districts to survive without substantial state and federal education aid increases from year to year. Dr.
James Gaughan
was the third speaker on the panel. Dr.
Gaughan had been Director of the SURR Schools Bureau at NYSED from 1995 and is
now the new State Title I Director. He
stated that SURR corrective actions mirror NCLB provisions to a great extent.
For example New York City and UFT, the Teachers Union, agreed to amend union
contracts to allow teacher transfers among these schools to respond to the needs
of the SURR schools. Roosevelt CSD
is another example of SURR corrective actions and has been recently taken over
by the state. SED has experience
which will benefit us under NCLB, the accountability system for which must be
established by January 2003. SED
has its accountability proposals under NCLB on its website (see “NCLB”).
Scheduled seminars are listed there along with Title I grants, and SED is
giving districts technical assistance for schools identified as schools needing
improvement. Dr.
Gaughan then stated that the school choice provision of NCLB will be difficult
to implement. Grants are available
to figure out how to implement these provisions and the Albany Charter School
and Greenberg CSD already have grant awards.
He suggests that districts talk with parents about SES already provided
by the district and that districts add such services before one of their schools
becomes identified. NCLB has in
effect ratcheted up the need for communications between schools and parents.
(Some parents do not even know their child attends a SURR school.)
Accountability for subgroups (race, ethnicity, disability) further
complicates the issue of whether a school was on the AYP list.
Finally, he observed that NCLB provides significant new money for
targeted programs such as reading programs. After
a lunch break the “reaction” panelists took the floor.
Dr. Eric Cooper of the Washington based, National Urban Alliance,
an organization devoted to social justice through balance, kicked the afternoon
proceedings off. Dr. Cooper began
by talking about low expectations. He
observed that Dr. Rueben Foyerstein of Israel works with down’s syndrome
children. Some of his children have
excelled. One is a Doctor and two
are Attorneys, showing the potential for students with disabilities given the
necessary supports. He said that
low expectations are often unconsciously held and impede us in our efforts to
give those necessary supports. He
observed that in a recent study it was shown that poor kids have an average of
300 hours of preschool type preparation by the time they reach kindergarten and
richer kids have 3,000 hours. He
observed that so-called “Texas Miracle” really was accomplished by forcing
kids out of the system. He said
standards and accountability should not be used to pigeonhole kids and limit
their opportunities. His greatest
concern is the quality of teachers and that standards and assessments should not
be used to keep expectations down. He
stated that there are programs currently being funded such as “Success for
all” which are not effective programs and parents in wealthier districts would
never allow their children to be taught in that program. Charles
Winters made
four succinct observations. 1. NCLB
has missed a major opportunity to leverage state funds, i.e. NCLB does not
require a matching of state funds. A
state education aid freeze would virtually wipe out any Title I increases
currently proposed. 2. Title I does
not bring poor districts up to the average per pupil spending levels.
Nevertheless, it holds them to the same academic standards.
3. New York City schools are notoriously under funded but the Governor
says it does not need more money. Three
quarters of AYP schools are in New York City and the remaining AYP schools are
in cities outside NYC. Non-city
schools do not have Title I kids in programs and will not be affected by the
requirements of NCLB. The cities
are doing the hardest job and are provided the fewest resources and the most
restrictions. 4. Schools do not
improve consistently or smoothly. NCLB
must recognize the bumpy ride of progress. Pilar
Sokol followed
and stated that 66 districts in the state out of 700 have already been
identified as having AYP schools. This
number will undoubtedly increase she said.
The assumption in NCLB that every child will obtain proficiency will not
be realized unless socioeconomic factors are recognized and addressed.
She also said that there are a certain percentage of students with a very
low cognitive ability. The cap on
students in the number of students participating in “alternate assessments”
makes obtaining success in each subgroup very hard.
She also observed a major problem with testing requirements.
The NAET test is very different from current New York tests that are
content based. A
question and answer period followed.
Q. NCLB seems to increase the stigma of being identified as a SURR
school and increases the prescriptiveness.
Can schools be involved in corrective solutions? A. Dr. Gaughan.
Yes, for example, in New York City the Regents passed regulations prohibiting
hiring non-certified teachers in SURR schools with the assistance and
cooperation of the Teachers Union and the City.
Dr. Jackson. Congress felt an urgency in addressing our
educational reform. Full corrective action does not take place for seven years
under NCLB and that is already to long. Pilar Sokol. She said she was concerned that we will begin to “teach to
the test” because the consequences under NCLB are so dire.
Dr. Jackson stated that her job is to ensure that NCLB is
implemented and your job is to use it toward your advantage. Dr. Cooper.
Leadership needs to stay focused on improvement, teacher quality and systems for
educational planning consistently applied.
We need to accept responsibility for change. Dr. Gaughan. New York
State Congressional Representatives are lobbying for specific changes in the
special education cap and the measurements of improvement from category one to
category two. We need to continue
to be creative in implementation of NCLB. He
also agreed with Charles Winters’ suggestion to make the BOCES district
be the district for analysis for subgroups when dealing with small schools.
Dr. Jackson. You have to realize that with respect to the current
administration, certain issues are non-negotiable e.g. school choice and SES. Q.
What are the responsibilities of public schools to private schools under NCLB? A.
Dr. Jackson. Regulations are currently being written on this subject.
NCLB probably will not apply to private schools generally.
Public schools have the responsibility to consult with private schools
for Title I kids in services. This consultation process is already in place to
some extent. Q.
With regard to persistently violent schools, some schools are suppressing
data to avoid the label. A. Mr. Lowry. The persistently violent
school provision is not in effect yet. A
child subject to violence has the right of school choice. It is important that
we all play by the rules and implement NCLB consistently. Q.
What is the justification of taking funds from a school that is already failing?
A. Dr. Jackson. We need to look at what funds are being
spent on currently. Then and only
then can we make an intelligent decision about what new funds are needed. Q.
Any systemic change requires three to five years. NCLB takes funds from programs
just established an showing improvement only because the data used under NCLB to
judge progress is two years old. Our
school was put on the AYP list but in the newspapers it was among the “most
improved schools” in Middletown. A.
Dr. Jackson. Congress realizes the problems with delays in getting test
results and with publishers. It has
instituted provisions calling for penalties for lateness in processing tests
among other things. SENATOR WILLIAM LARKIN RECEIVES SMALL CITY SCHOOLS LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD Senator William Larkin, a Republican representing Newburgh, was responsible this past year for obtaining Special Services Aid for five small city school districts which are not members of BOCES and receive no BOCES Aid. Senator Larkin’s legislation had been pending before the legislature for a number of years and the success this session was directly attributable to his leadership and support. Special Services Aid will now bring over $6 million a year to these small city school districts including $2.2 million to Newburgh Enlarged City School District and over $1.5 million to Albany CSD, alone. Senator Larkin was presented with his award on October 29, 2002 at the Newburgh Board of Education Building in recognition of his tireless efforts for Small City School Districts. POST-ELECTION EDITORIAL NEGLECTS EDUCATION The lead editorial in the November 6, 2002 issue of the NY Times attempted to sum up the effect of the 2002 election for New York State and define priorities for the new Pataki administration. It spoke of the $10 billion deficit for 2003-2004, the legislative gridlock in Albany and the need to change the way the State Legislature does business. It concluded by urging the Governor to focus on a crusade to reform election laws and campaign finance. Shockingly, it failed to mention, even in passing, the need for fundamental education reform. This oversight evinces insensitivity to the plight of many of our school children who are not receiving the resources they need to succeed. Attached to this newsletter is a letter to the editor responding to that editorial on behalf of the Association. DATES TO REMEMBER November
22, 2002
Association Board Meeting November
22, 2002
Meetings with DOB Director Carol Stone, January
12, 2003 Association
Board Meeting at NYSSBA March
24, 2003
Legislative Breakfast and Seminar at Fort May/June
Association Board Meeting (Tentative) August
10 and 11, 2003 Summer Conference,
Annual Meeting and New
York Times: to the editor I
am writing in regard to your lead editorial of November 6, 2002.
The editorial purports to define for Gov. George Pataki what the primary
concern of his new administration should be.
The editorial states that the Gov. "must find a way to make it
harder for contributors to state candidates to do business with the state. And he should lead a crusade to clean up the election laws
that serve more to enrich a few lawyers working for incumbents than to encourage
new candidates." While
campaign finance reform and election reform are important issues, they, and even
the looming state budget deficit in 2003-2004, pale by comparison to the need
for fundamental education reform. New
York State has some of the finest elementary and secondary schools in the
nation. It also is home to schools
struggling with grossly inadequate facilities, teachers and instrumentalities of
learning. New York State's
educational system has been criticized as a bifurcated system, where funding and
other educational resources are plentiful in most school districts but woefully
short in many others. This stark
disparity between the funding of education in wealthier districts and in poorer
districts is the greatest and most urgent problem facing state government today.
Most of our poorest districts are found in the 62 cities in our state. With over one million children in New York City, more than
260,000 in the 57 small cities and over 150,000 in the so-called big four cities
upstate, the failure to address the issue of education reform condemns a large
portion of our students to substandard education.
Each year that goes by is another year irretrievably lost in the lives of
these children. It would be nice if we had the luxury of time first to reform
our campaign finance and election laws to be more balanced.
Such reforms would undoubtedly redound to the benefit of children in
poverty, seniors and the other segments of our society that are currently being
shortchanged. Children
in poverty, however, don't have the luxury of time. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, currently on
appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals, has raised this issue to the
highest level of our judiciary system. However, the Gov. and the State
Legislature do not have to wait for the Court of Appeals to speak before they,
who have the constitutional responsibility for education under our State
Constitution, do what's right for all children, not just for children in the
well-to-do school districts. Quality
in our educational system is the most important factor in the health of our
state economy. It is also essential
to the well being and future of the more than 2.6 million children in the public
school system. Regardless of how
the Court of Appeals rules in Campaign for Fiscal Equity vs. New York State,
the most critical issue facing the new administration in 2003 is how to bring
fundamental fairness and a quality education to even the poorest schools in our
State. The failure of the November 6th editorial to rank education reform at the
forefront of state priorities is an oversight which, I hope you will agree,
should be corrected. Robert
E. Biggerstaff
|
Albany
|
