November 2003 Vol. XVII, No. 9

SCSD
DEBT CEILING REFERENDUM
 NARROWLY
DEFEATED

Voters on November 4^th narrowly voted down Proposition 2, the repeal of constitutional debt ceiling for small city school districts. Association staff has collected unofficial results from each New York State county (with these exceptions, Columbia, Jefferson and 4 New York City counties). This data shows the proposition being defeated by a small margin of votes 48% for the repeal and 52% against. A swing of a little more than 28,000 votes out of the more than one million cast would have reversed the result.

The vote was also close in counties with small city school districts. Forty-eight percent of small city school districts’ counties voted for the repeal. Overall, thirteen counties passed Proposition 2 and ten of these counties are home to at least one small city school district.

The swing votes totaled only 10,500 within small city counties and a larger voter turnout would have put the vote over the top and repealed the debt limit. The official vote will be made available in December. The board of directors will consider further efforts on this issue at its December 5^th meeting. Options include

1)      re-introduction of debt ceiling referendum bill

2)      a building aid deduction bill, and

3)      a DASNY financing exemption from debt ceiling bill.

ASSOCIATION
BOARD GIVES
CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL TO
REFORM
PROPOSAL
“FUNDING
FOR
ACHIEVEMENT"
 

pictured around table
clockwise from bottom:
Charlie Winters,
SCSD Consultant,
Professor William
DunCombe,
Syracuse University,
Sue Skidmore,
President SCSD
and Board Member
Elmira CSD,
Tom McGowan,
Superintendent
Glens Falls CSD,
Bob Biggerstaff,
SCSD Counsel,
Michael SanAngelo,
Superintendent of Business
Schenectady CSD,
Fred Wachtmeister,
Board Member
Plattsburgh CSD,
Bill Wynans,
Board Member
Norwich CSD
and Joan Purtell,
Board Member
Binghamton CSD

On October 21^st, the board of directors gave conceptual approval to the proposal for education finance reform developed by the state aid committee. The committee proposal is structured to implement the Association’s long espoused goal of achieving equity in distribution of state aid by greater recognition of student need and district wealth. This proposal, Funding for Achievement, is based on five major principles.

1.      Spending (Target Spending) for all districts must be based on the cost of achievement as measured by actual spending in districts that have achieved success as defined by the Regents.

2.      The added cost of achievement for students with certain deficits or for districts with special burdens should be determined from data of actual spending and achievement and should be reflected in the basic aid formula by student weightings.

3.      The cost of retention of save harmless must be quantified and funded.

4.      The cost of reform, which will be significant, must be phased in over multiple years, by use, of a percentage cap on annual increases in state aid necessary to reach target spending.

5.      A minimum local effort, expressed by property tax rates, must be used to determine state aid per district.

The proposal was developed under the direction and with the able assistance of Charles Winters, education finance consultant. Committee members who participated and are to be thanked include Thomas McGowan, Glens Falls CSD, Michael Pacella, Newburgh CSD, Fred Wachtmeister, Plattsburgh CSD, Joan Purtell, Binghamton CSD, Sue Skidmore, Elmira CSD, Michael Santangello, Schenectady CSD, William Winans, Norwich CSD and Dan Lowengard, Utica CSD. Also, our thanks goes out to Professor William Duncombe of Syracuse University, a nationally recognized expert in the field of school finance for his insights and suggestions.

Funding for Achievement will be used as the basis for the Association’s advocacy for small city schools in the coming months and years, as reform of education financing continues to unfold.

LEGISLATIVE
HEARING ON
LEARNING
STANDARDS
AND
ASSESSMENTS

The Education Committees of the Legislature held several hearings in October on the Regents Learning Standards and Graduation Requirements. These joint hearings focused on five questions involving the most controversial issues surrounding the higher standards and testing requirement (teaching to the test, the impact of high stakes tests, retention of the 55% passing score and the preparation process for the Regents Exams.)

Sue Skidmore, Association President and board Member from Elmira CSD, delivered testimony at the October 22^nd hearing on behalf of the small city schools (this testimony and the survey it was based on can be accessed on the Association website, http://scsd.neric.org). Sue addressed each of these issues concluding that

a.       for some, alternative assessments are appropriate

b.      for some, including children with disabilities, retention of the 55% passing score is appropriate

c.       material potentially covered by the tests needs to be narrowed and consistent from year to year, and

d.      teaching tot the test is not necessarily bad if the quality of the test is high.

Sue Skidmore’s testimony was based on survey responses from superintendents, assistant superintendents for instruction, chairs of departments of math, English and science and teachers. Our appreciation goes out to the superintendents, teachers and guidance counselors who took the time to participate in the development of this testimony, including those from Beacon CSD, Canandaigua CSD, Cortland CSD, Fulton CSD, Glens Falls CSD, Jamestown CSD, Johnstown CSD, Mechanicville CSD, Newburgh CSD, North Tonawanda CSD, Norwich CSD, Oneonta CSD, Oswego CSD, Poughkeepsie CSD, Rensselaer CSD, Saratoga Springs CSD, Tonawanda CSD and Watertown CSD, among others.

Commissioner Mills began the October 22^nd hearing in Albany defending the standards and assessments. He noted that the Regents, however, have agreed to extend the 55% passing score two more years. While 65% is not a problem for most districts, 65% of students passing in NYC get between 55% and 65% on tests. A number of Legislators in attendance at the hearing urged return to Regents and Local Diplomas. Commissioner Mills replied that for career and technical students industry approved courses are being developed. Senator Saland noted that these students are still required to pass all five Regents exams.

NYC Chancellor Joel Klein observed that testing is like democracy, highly imperfect but essential nonetheless. However, despite the imperfections the Chancellor stated the Regents were on the right path with only a few exceptions. Assessments must be broader, richer than currently established under the high stakes tests. Also, there is too much emphasis on whether a child is a three or a four. That does not indicate anything necessarily about the quality of his or her school. Improvement or “value added” must be more important. He stated that, although NYC is the highest performing large urban district in the country, it suffers from chronic underperformance of students and teachers. Standards have not been set too high.

Timothy Kremer, executive director of NYSSBA, stated his association supports the learning standards but recommends a local diploma, still rigorous and linked to the standards, to recognize that “one size does not fit all” students. The model (William Sanders, SASS Institute) for “value added” and multiple assessments is already being developed and explored in a number of states.

Toni Cortese, 1^st Vice President of NYSUT, recommended the following:  mandated curricula and syllabi, increased teacher training, 4^th and 8^th grade exam should be shortened, narrow curricula on Regents Exam courses, SED funding to align tests and curricula and support and guidance to teachers should be increased and extra funding for AIS and special education, especially in high need districts should be provided.

Some of the most dynamic interchanges occurred between Senator Saland and Regent Tallon over modification of the high stakes testing, and particularly over the graduation requirements. These sparks occurred perhaps because there are high stakes involved in this issue for the Legislators themselves, who will have to provide funding to satisfy the dictates of the CFE decision and, therefore, contemplate increased taxes.

Regents James Tallon and Harry Phillips appeared and Regent Phillips expressed his concern about drop out statistics and the unreliability of our graduation rates. He also recognized the somewhat opposing goals of graduating as many students as possible and raising standards at the same time. Regent Tallon reminded the Committees that the greatest complaints about the dual track local diploma system, came from outside the education community. Returning to a dual system will lower standards and also lower the cost of compliance with the Court of Appeals CFE decision. Current suggestions include,

a.       locally prepared exams,

b.      have Regents Exams count less and

c.       tweak existing safety net provisions i.e. i.e.p. diploma, 55% passing score.

His concern was not to lessen the momentum for improvement that has gathered over the last 6 years.

DATES TO
REMEMBER

December 5, 2003 (10:30am, Education Building)
Meeting with Commissioner Mills and Board of Directors
Albany 

December 5, 2003 (12:30pm, Offices of Degraff-Foy)
Board of Directors meeting
Albany 

January 11, 2004 (1:00pm, Desmond Hotel)
Board of Directors meeting in conjunction with NYSCOSS conference
Albany

March 23, 2004 (8:00am, Fort Orange Club)
Legislative Breakfast and Seminar
Albany

% of vote

yes

county

school district

yes votes

no votes

passed?

53%

albany

albany

17,108

15,327

yes

cohoes

watervliet

51%

broome

binghamton

8,800

8,532

yes

47%

cattararaugus

salamanca

4,541

5,072

no

olean

52%

cayuga

auburn

4,873

4,555

yes

50%

chautauqua

dunkirk

8,225

8,118

yes

jamestown

42%

chemung

elmira

2,766

3,799

no

42%

chenango

norwich

1,768

2,417

no

47%

clinton

plattsburgh

3,482

3,920

no

47%

columbia

hudson

4,329

4,848

no

51%

cortland

cortland

3,517

3,400

yes

delaware

47%

dutchess

beacon

11,757

13,333

no

poughkeepsie

50%

erie

tonawanda

57,927

57,872

yes

lackawanna

39%

fulton

greater jamestown

2,154

3,436

no

gloversville

49%

genesee

batavia

2,653

2,773

no

40%

herkimer

little falls

2,420

3,560

no

jefferson

watertown

#

53%

madison

oneida

2,478

2,240

yes

38%

montgomery

amsterdam

2,055

3,394

no

50%

nassau

glen cove

52,409

52,381

yes

long beach

41%

niagara

niagara falls

9,553

13,708

no

north tonawanda

lockport

44%

oneida

rome

10,003

12,635

no

utica

vvs

46%

ontario

geneva

5,611

6,719

no

canadaigua

48%

orange

middletown enlarged

13,056

13,902

no

newburgh

port jervis

47%

oswego

oswego

4,950

5,673

no

fulton(?)

49%

otsego

oneonta

3,338

3,447

no

47%

rensselaer

rensselaer

9,351

10,479

no

troy

46%

st. lawrence

ogdensburg

3,545

4,100

no

48%

saratoga

saratoga springs

10,553

11,235

no

mechanicville

46%

schenectady

schenectady

8,334

9,707

no

38%

steuben

hornell

3,489

5,594

no

corning

50%

tompkins

ithaca

5,112

5,069

yes

49%

ulster

kingston

13,233

14,017

no

49%

warren

glens falls

4,225

4,359

no

50%

westchester

mount vernon

32,633

32,366

yes

new rochelle

peekskill

rye

white plains

48%

TOTALS

330,248

351,987

YES=11

NO=22

# figures unavailable