NYSASCSDHome  Board of Directors   Committees   Membership Directory   Newsletters  Officers   Upcoming Meetings    Legal Opinions     Staff

 

December 2007 Vol. XXI, No. 12 

COMMISSIONER MILLS ATTENDS THE NOVEMBER 26TH BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Richard Mills attended the Association’s board of directors meeting held at the Fort Orange Club in Albany on November 26th as a special guest. Robert Biggerstaff opened the meeting by telling Mills the Association is focusing on a few issues for the coming year including the Contract for Excellence (C4E), charter schools, debt ceiling and recommendations for “tweaking” foundation aid, including the issue of high tax aid. Mr. Mills was invited to give remarks and then board members began a dialogue with the Commissioner regarding the implementation and subsequent difficulties with C4E requirements.

Richard Mills:   I will give some brief comments. The C4E regulations have brought together two previously unrelated conversations, educational quality/achievement and money, it links the issues of performance and cost. Our office looked at the financial structure of 100 plus successful schools, but C4E takes this farther. It takes the district’s own choices for programs aimed at increasing student performance and makes a contract. C4E is truly a “big deal” because it involves over 1 million children and over 1,500 schools. The contract aligns the local statement of need and money for “best practices” with the expectation the district will achieve its self-set goals for improvement. NYC presented some tough problems and their contract held up the process. We also need to look at the issue of monitoring. To date, this is a disjointed process. Johanna Duncan-Poitier in our office is looking to find an effective comprehensive approach. I invite you and your members to a meeting to be held in Albany on December 19th. Its purpose is to talk about what is working and what is not working as we make our way through this process.

Robert Biggerstaff:        I want to make the point that in the context of C4E implementation there is a difference between NYC and the rest of the State. This is an important point to make. Having attended Regents meetings this fall, I understood the Regents to feel that districts were being difficult during this process. The whole State is being painted with the same brush. C4E is a major issue for small cities, one third of small city school districts are on the C4E list and I know all of our superintendents are receptive to this program. They have legitimate concerns, such as timing, but no resentment of this process. The Regents need to know this.

RM:     I encourage you to contact the Regents to communicate this.

Peggy Wozniak (Superintendent Binghamton CSD):          To make a simple analogy, it feels like when a teacher holds a class inside for lunch recess as a punishment for the behavior of one or two students. The students making the trouble deserve to be inside at recess, not the whole class. 

RB:      And the Association does have valid criticism of C4E but it can not be heard because of this. I know our superintendents want this initiative to succeed. 

CM:     I encourage you to come to the December 19th meeting. Johanna is a very open minded person and she understands this rolled out episodically. Actually it was my decision to hold back all information until the issue of NYC could be resolved in the interest of consistency. In retrospect I understand this was a mistake.

PW:     And I worry about the next step. We do not have the last test results and we have implemented new programs. Are these programs considered “new” next year? Our taxpayers cannot carry the cost of these programs if they are not included in the Contract because they are not “new.” What is the process?

CM:     Each year is a separate year for the Regents. But I expect there should be a three year period of continuity. SED did notice that 14 districts used their C4E money for pre-K programs. I know districts had a similar concern about starting pre-k programs with only one year’s assistance assured.

RB:      What do the Regents mean by 3 years?

CM:     That the contract will carry through 3 years. I know Regent Bennett has been vocal about districts having the opportunity to make revisions to the contract. Nothing is codified but we assume some strategies will not be successful and districts should be allowed to make change…you know the Legislature only acts for 1 year.

Fred Wachtmeister (BOE Plattsburgh CSD):          So can we assume the money is sustaining?

CM:     But we must resist the urge to “change” continually. We need time to let this work.

Thomas McGowan (Superintendent Glens Falls CSD):      You stopped short of saying what happens if the money does not carry through. Are districts required to keep their C4E programs?

CM:     I can’t see the Regents supporting contracts with no funding.

TM:      What happens if the Regents cannot enforce this and the district can not afford their programs?

CM:     I don’t know. I think you remember back to 1990-91 when we ran out of money.

TM:      I remember very well what we had to go through, letting teachers go, combining classes. For the wealthier districts that time was a blip, for us it was a true problem. Any one of the small cities can fall into the C4E classification.

William Lynch (Superintendent Fulton CSD):          Time is one of our biggest enemies. We are half way through budget planning when we get our state aid information. Is there a way to move this up? I think our lessons from this year are that for planning purposes the timing needs to be quicker and in order to fulfill accountability requirements, we need timely data.

The Commissioner at this point had to leave for another appointment. He was very interested in the conversation and asked our board to come to see him before the December 19th planning meeting. Robert Biggerstaff will arrange this and let the Commissioner know the Association will have specific recommendations for C4E when they next meet.

 

 

LEARNING SOLUTIONS FORUM

 

JANUARY 12, 2008

The Association will be sponsoring the Learning Solutions Forum in conjunction with NYSCOSS and NYSSBA. The seminar will be held on Saturday, January 12, 2008 at a location to be announced. That date is the day before the NYSCOSS Midwinter Meeting at the Desmond Hotel in Albany and the location of the seminar will be held nearby. Some other details include:

Forum Convener: Dr. Joseph Bowman, NYS Board of Regents (Members of the Board of Regents and SED leadership expected to attend)

Featured Speaker: Quality Quinn, International Education and Literacy Expert

Discussion topics include:

  • Developing a better capacity for understanding and quantifying district needs
  • Contract for Excellence and other new funding opportunities
  • Alternatives to long-term budgetary commitments
  • Cost-effective, Web-based capacities that enhance learning and teaching
  • Hosted by Compass Learning

We will continue to inform our members as details become available.

 

 

CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
UPDATE

CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING UPDATE

Lonnie Palmer met with Jamestown CSD administration on Tuesday, November 13th. Television and newspaper reporters from the area were invited to attend and the following is the article as it appeared online:

THE POST-JOURNAL by: S. Alexander Gerould Wednesday, November 14, 2007

After methodic research and the lobbying of Gov. Eliot Spitzer and New York state representatives, Lonnie Palmer has a point to prove.

The New York State Association of Small City School Districts representative said, after examining more than 300 pieces of data, he and his organization came to the conclusion the Jamestown Public School district should not be required to sign a Contract for Excellence from the state. Districts who must sign a contract are required to increase student performance, improve programs and examine reducing class sizes, enhancing staff development and providing more before- and after-school academic help.

‘‘Our research shows Jamestown and a bunch of other districts that have been identified as Contract for Excellence districts probably shouldn’t have been, and there’s other districts that should have been,’’ Palmer said. ‘‘The data shows pretty clearly Jamestown is a high-performing, high-poverty district in the state when compared to other districts like it.’’

Palmer said he examined districts with similar enrollments and poverty levels as Jamestown and placed the district on a prediction line of where students should be.

‘‘It’s a pretty tight prediction line,’’ he said. ‘‘We can say if you’re at 50 percent free lunch and have a certain amount of consensus poverty, we can tell you what we would predict tests scores would average out to for your district. So, we’ve done that for Jamestown and Jamestown is performing well above the prediction line.’’

Palmer said Jamestown has five-year graduation rates which are among the highest in the state, along with strong Regents results. He also said the district could improve on its fourth and eighth grade English language arts and math assessments, tests results by Hispanic students and requiring more teachers to hold master’s degrees.

‘‘Jamestown has areas that can improve,’’ Palmer said. ‘‘We look at 300 different data points — everything from how much are you spending on operation and maintenance per pupil, how much you are spending on transportation per pupil, how are your fourth grade English/Language arts tests, how are your eighth grade tests scores for Hispanic students. We look at everything across the board and compare it to districts that have similar characteristics. We feel the Contract for Excellence has misidentified Jamestown and it should really by looking at other districts.’’

Ray Fashano, district superintendent, said the results of the study indicated to school officials some area which need to be improved which were not found in the districts own internal audit.

‘‘What we were trying to do is look at a data audit for the whole district,’’ he said. ‘‘You can look at data so long ... but then you want somebody from the outside to take a look at that data and say is it saying what you’re interpreting. That’s really the approach I took.’’

Fashano said the reason the district was placed under a contract was because they did not have the required amount of students taking a certain test. He said district officials worked to correct the problem.

‘‘We solved our participation problem. We went after it. We looked at it. We got the kids in to take these tests ... very, very minor infractions as opposed to saying every school within the district is on some sort of lists,’’ he said. ‘‘You have to admit your weaknesses, look at your strengths, but you’ve still got to still look at your weaknesses before you can improve. You can’t just bury your weaknesses because it doesn’t ever come out then. So we’re taking a strong look at this data ... and the we’re going to try and improve just like we have been doing for the last nine years that I’ve been here.’’

According to information provided by Palmer, the district has three options now available to it. It can work by itself to remedy the problems, hire an experienced consultant, or work with a consultant who can mentor officials in the district.

‘‘We’ll help direct them to districts that are achieving high with those kinds of things right now so they can go in and say what’s going on,’’ Palmer said, ‘‘or is there somebody on their (the other district’s) team who we might bring in for our staff to learn more about how they might do this.’’

Fashano said he was pleased with the results of the study.

‘‘I do feel validated,’’ he said. ‘‘If a student comes to Jamestown and their motivated, they have more opportunities in our school system than anywhere else ... I would think this whole town is behind our kids trying to make them successful. I think this is a validation of all those organizations and the school district working together. It’s a nice snapshot to look at, to see where we are and does it match up with the data analysis we’ve done.’’

 The press was also at Binghamton on November 21st when Mr. Palmer presented the Center’s findings to the administration there. Three articles were written and appeared the following week in the Press & Sun-Bulletin. All three Press articles are posted on the Association website (http://scsd.neric.org) in their entirety. The tone of these articles mirrors that of The Post-Journal’s.

 

November 24, 2007 Report pleases city school officials Consultant stresses solid academic performance, but points to areas that need improvement By George Basler
 November 23, 2007 Binghamton school officials use study to pinpoint areas to improve By George Basler
 November 21, 2007 Consultant: City schools fare well  Binghamton compared to similar districts By George Basler

 

The Center is scheduled to visit Fulton City School District on January 8, 2008 to present its findings to the districts’ administration and board of education.

Any questions about Center activities can be directed to Bob Biggerstaff at the Association’s offices (518-475-9500, reb@biggerstaff-firm.com).

 

 

CENTER FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 

GRANT EXPLORATION

 The Center is also in the process of partnering with ACT, Inc., the Business Council and potentially a higher education third partner in applying for a federal grant designed to increase college attendance and success rates for students from poverty. An email went out to all SCSD superintendents on December 7th to assess the interest for such a grant. We will continue to inform all on the Center’s progress.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SED TO REGENTS

 

 

2008-09 STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

- EXCERPTS -

 

 

TO:

Full Board

FROM:

Johanna Duncan-Poitier

SUBJECT:

Detailed Regents 2008-09 Proposal on State Aid to School Districts

 

DATE:

October 19, 2007

 

REGENTS PROPOSAL ON STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2008-09
 

DETAILED PROPOSAL

Exhibit A summarizes the increase the Regents recommend for school year 2008-09 for New York State school districts: $1.9 billion in six general aid categories.  Of this, the Regents recommend that the Legislature and Governor appropriate a $1.7 billion increase for general purpose aid, including the second year of a phase in of a new, simplified Foundation Aid to help school districts raise student achievement and accelerate gap closing.

 

CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL

The Regents State Aid proposal for 2008-09 will request the resources and funding system needed to provide adequate resources through a State and local partnership so that all students have the opportunity to achieve State learning standards.  This proposal recommends continuation of the foundation formula advocated by the Regents and enacted in the 2007-08 State Budget.

Recommendations

Continue the Foundation Formula

This proposal recommends continuation of the phase-in enacted in the 2007-08 State Budget for the foundation operating aid formula. The Budget reformed the State’s method of allocating resources to school districts by consolidating some thirty existing programs into a new Foundation Aid formula that will distribute funds to school districts based on the cost of providing an adequate education, adjusted to reflect regional costs and concentrations of pupils who need extra time and help in each district.  The Enacted Budget also included a four-year phase-in of Foundation Aid.

District Foundation Aid per Pupil = [Foundation Cost X Pupil Need Index X Regional Cost Index] – Expected Local Contribution.

  • The Foundation Cost is the cost of providing general education services.  It is measured by determining instructional costs of districts that are performing well.
  • The Pupil Needs Index recognizes the added costs of providing extra time and extra help for students to succeed.
  • The Regional Cost Index recognizes regional variations in purchasing power around the State, based on wages of non-school professionals.
  • The Expected Local Contribution is an amount districts are expected to spend as their fair share of the total cost of general education.

Accountability for Student Success

This proposal recommends continuation of the accountability reforms enacted in the 2007-08 State Budget.

Recommendations

Contracts for Excellence as enacted in Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 have created an important dialogue between State Education Department staff and eligible school districts concerning the use of resources for school improvement.  This dialogue should continue and be strengthened with the following statutory modifications:

           

  • Require C4E districts to participate in Contracts for Excellence for a minimum of three years.  School improvement is a continuous process that takes a period of time to plan, develop, implement and sustain.  In the current C4E process districts would be re-identified each year.  In theory, a district could be in the C4E process one year and not the next. 

 

  • Require C4E districts to incorporate the recommendations of Joint Intervention Teams, School Quality Review Teams and Distinguished Educators in school improvement plans to be approved by the Commissioner.
     

The law currently requires Joint Intervention Teams, School Quality Review Teams and Distinguished Educators to make recommendations for school improvement but districts are not required to implement them.  Incorporating the recommendations of Joint Intervention Teams, School Quality Review Teams and Distinguished Educators in school improvement plans subject to approval by the Commissioner will ensure that the benefits of this work are implemented.

 

  • Increase funding to support school improvement in the most challenged schools.  C4E districts should bear the necessary and reasonable basic costs of Joint Intervention Teams, School Quality Review Teams and Distinguished Educators.  For support that goes beyond these basic costs, the State should increase its funding for schools under registration review and allow these funds to be used to support both schools under registration review and schools in C4E school districts that need more extensive assistance, including the promotion of school-family partnerships in SURR schools and C4E districts.
     

A July 2007 report of the Center on Education Policy recommends that states have a separate source of “funds to support school improvement that would provide funds to meet the costs of school improvement without reducing or eliminating any increases in formula allocations that school districts receive.”  While the focus of this report is on Title 1 funds, the same principle is true with the use of state formula allocations.  The intervention of state staff for accountability purposes is enhanced with a separate source of school improvement funds.

 

The Regents recommend that the State Education Department be given $10 million to support the activities of School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention teams and Distinguished Educators during the 2008-2009 school year. In total, the State Education Department expects that between 600 and 700 teams will be in operation during the 2008-09 school year.  Funding will support:

 

1. Recruiting of team members, including an advertising budget to reach out to minority educators and encourage their participation on teams and as distinguished educators.

2. Training. States that have experience with placing intervention teams in schools have cited as critical for success the need for an extensive training component that includes preservice and ongoing professional development.

4. Stipends to compensate selected reviewers during the startup of the distinguished educator program.

5. Funds to reimburse consultants for direct service to schools.  Following the initial review of a school, some schools will continue to receive ongoing technical assistance in curriculum development, instructional implementation and other areas.

6. Funds to reimburse team members for lodging, transportation and other necessary expenses associated with conducting school reviews.

6. Funds for formative and summative program evaluation.

7. Network development funds. This includes funds for bringing key stakeholders together regularly to help sustain the system.

Strengthen Innovative Programs for English Language Learners

The Regents recommend enhancing the weighting for English language learners in the Foundation Aid formula in order to strengthen student access to innovative programs aimed at increasing achievement results for English language learners.  The Department will provide increased guidance and monitoring to ensure enhanced services to English language learners (ELLs) and to improve student achievement and graduation rates.  This guidance will encourage school districts that have English language learners to use Foundation Aid to fund the following sorts of programs: 

  • Bilingual and ESL support services for English language learners in universal pre-kindergarten programs
  • Creation of K-12 Two-Way / Dual Language programs;
  • Services for English language learners that have been identified as students with interrupted formal education (SIFE);
  • Professional development for mainstream teachers and administrators on the educational needs of ELLs (In-district workshops, participation in Bilingual and ESL state and national conferences, etc.);
  • After school and Saturday enrichment and innovative tutorial programs for middle and high school ELLs;
  • Use of a self-evaluation protocol for the education of ELLs;
  • Establishment of “New Comers” programs for ELL in districts with large numbers of recently arrived ELLs;
  • Literacy programs for the education of English speaking immigrant students;
  • Creation or expansion of school and /or public libraries for students/parents that offer materials in different languages that  encourage community participation of ELLs and their parents;
  • Assistance from the Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Center Bilingual and ESL expert consultation services or BOCES to develop and implement the district education plan for ELLs.

Provide Support To Enhance High Quality Career and Technical Education Programs In High Need School Districts

The Regents recommend additional support in to provide increased student access to high quality career and technical education programs in high need school districts to improve student performance and decrease the dropout rate.

Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs that have completed the Regent’s CTE Program Approval Process provide students with meaningful rigorous content that prepares them for post-secondary study and careers. Students completing approved programs obtain high school diplomas at rates higher than the state average. Approved programs emphasize the development of 21st century skills that will be needed in a global economy.  Despite a track record of success, only 22 percent of high school students have access to CTE programs.  This is particularly egregious in high need school districts with large numbers of students living in poverty and at risk of not completing high school or pursuing higher education.

This CTE aid proposal will strengthen new or existing CTE programs by focusing on emerging occupations to better prepare a workforce for the future. High-need school districts meeting criteria for this funding would receive challenge grants to phase in new CTE Approved Programs that address local economic challenges and address student performance through integrated studies in the emerging occupations. This process would establish an incremental approach to allow school districts time to perform a local needs-analysis and target students for this new program. Additionally, teacher content knowledge can be enhanced to provide the high level of instruction required by the new program.

High-need School Districts CTE Program Phase-in

Year 1, Needs Assessment and Planning: Challenge planning grants of $100,000 will be made available to identify local need, select at least one specific program that will complete the Regents CTE Program Approval Process, and plan related teacher professional development and specific facility requirements. Programs that are ready will move to approval and implementation in 2008-09.

Year 2, Program Approval Process Completion:  Based on the results of Year 1 activities, challenge grants of up to $250,000 will be issued to designated high-need school districts to complete the Program Approval Process. High-need school districts complete the Program Approval Process by meeting all requirements of the Regents 2001 CTE Policy for CTE Program Approval including:

·           Hiring or identifying appropriately certified CTE teachers

·           Completing curriculum development

·           Recruiting of students,

·           Procuring of a dedicated facility, equipment and material needs required for program area targeted.

Year 3, Program Implementation:  High-need districts will offer and monitor CTE Approved Programs. Grants of $50,000 will offset the costs of evaluating program performance. Detailed plans for program sustainability through other funding sources will be completed and submitted to NYSED for approval. Programs must be integrated into school district class offerings and made available to all eligible students.

NYSED staff would provide technical assistance and support for funded districts throughout the process.

 Funding Early Childhood Education

Recommendations

The Regents recommend that funding for early childhood education should continue to be provided as a single funding stream, separate from but aligned with funding for kindergarten through grade 12.  Funding for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 should provide school districts with the resources needed to give all students the opportunity to meet State learning standards.  Funding for pre-kindergarten education should be increased to ensure universal availability of pre-kindergarten education to all by 2010‑11.  The phase-in proposed by the Regents last year should be continued, by increasing funding by $104 million over 2007-08.  Additional flexibility in the use of funds is afforded to districts that are already offering universally-available prekindergarten programs and full-day kindergarten, so that they are able to offer full-day prekindergarten programming where appropriate.

Recommendation

The Regents recommend the State continue support for mandated full-day kindergarten statewide, over a three-year transition period, with planning grants available to support the conversion process.

Provide Flexibility in Funding for Instructional Materials

Recommendation

The Regents recommend that the Governor and Legislature consolidate Textbook Aid and Software Aid into a new Instructional Materials Aid.   The definition of eligible instructional materials should include equipment, materials, supplies, kits and other manipulatives used in the instruction of K-12 mathematics and science, and for kindergarten only, educationally-based materials such as developmentally appropriate games and hands-on manipulatives that promote early learning.  

Increase Library Materials Aid to Close the Gap in Student Achievement

Recommendation

The Regents recommend that Library Materials Aid be increased to $10 per pupil in order to enable school libraries in high-need communities to provide a comparable level of collections to their students as those in successful school districts. 

Enact a Simplified Cost Allowance for State Building Aid

The Regents recommend that the Governor and Legislature simplify the maximum cost allowance formula for State Building Aid. The law sets a reasonable cost ceiling for all capital projects. However, the current system is an overly complex and inefficient process that, in some cases, forces a district to compromise the desired educational goal in order to achieve maximum reimbursement.  The Regents propose that the State calculate a cost allowance based on a certain allotment of space and cost per enrolled pupil, according to the following formula:

Cost Allowance = Projected Pupil Enrollment x Allowed Square Feet

Per Pupil x Allowed Cost per Square Foot x Regional Cost Factor

The current New York State Labor Department Cost Index would be used to update allowable costs on a monthly basis. Unlike the Regents Regional Cost Index proposed for Foundation Aid, which is fundamentally a professional wage index, the New York State Labor Department cost index is based solely on the wages of three major occupational titles critical to the building industry.  A simplified cost allowance would offer greater educational flexibility, ease of understanding and transparency.

For a copy of the full text of this memo please follow this link:
 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2007Meetings/October2007/1007bra7.doc.

 
     

 

 

 

UPCOMING
EVENTS

January 12, 2008
9:30AM to 4:00PM
Joint Association Seminar- NYSASCSD, NYSCOSS and NYSSBA
“Learning Solutions Forum”
Location: to be announced 

 January 13, 2008
1:00pm – 3:30pm
Board of Directors meeting in conjunction with NYSCOSS midwinter meeting
Desmond Hotel, Albany, NY 

March 11, 2008
8am – 12pm
Legislative Breakfast
Fort Orange Club, Albany, NY 

June 1-2, 2008
Annual Conference
The Otesaga, Cooperstown, NY

•Albany
•Amsterdam
•Auburn
•Batavia
•Beacon
•Binghamton
•Canandaigua
•Cohoes
•Corning
•Cortland
•Dunkirk
•Elmira
•Fulton
 •Geneva
•Glen Cove
•Glens Falls
•Gloversville
•Hornell
•Hudson
•Ithaca
•Jamestown
•Johnstown
•Kingston
•Lackawanna
•Little Falls
 •Lockport
 •Long Beach
 •Mechanicville
•Middletown
 •Mount Vernon
•New Rochelle
•Newburgh
•Niagara Falls
 •N. Tonawanda
•Norwich
•Ogdensburg
•Olean
•Oneida
•Oneonta
•Oswego
•Peekskill
•Plattsburgh
 •Port Jervis
 •Poughkeepsie
 •Rensselaer
 •Rome 
•Rye
•Salamanca
•Saratoga
 •Schenectady
•Tonawanda
•Troy
•Utica
•Vernon Verona Sherrill
•Watertown
•Watervliet
•White Plains