June 1996
A parent told me that during one of the teleconferences on standards recently. It's worth thinking about for two reasons. First, we tend to forget that parents also set academic standards. The Board of Regents has an historic responsibility to lead a statewide discussion about standards and to bring that discussion to a conclusion. The Board has done so. Yet there is another discussion taking place over the dinner table in thousands of homes. Parents set standards all the time when they ask about homework, when they pursue their own further education, and when they just read a book.
A second thought suggested by the parent's comment was that parents sometimes set higher standards than we do. The Department and the Regents have given a lot of attention to the passing score for the Regents exams. We are moving to the new standards gradually by permitting a score of 55 until the year 2000 and 65 thereafter. It's worth remembering that many parents will be impatient with this pace. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that two years from now -- after the first set of English Regents scores appear -- that we may find our students capable of reaching even higher.
In the quest for higher expectations, we have powerful allies in the parents of New York. We must remember that we are speaking to them as well as to the educators and students.
We promised a strategic plan by May and it is now completed. It comes before the Regents for approval this month. As difficult as the development of the plan has been, the really significant work all lies ahead because now we must follow through. We must deploy the plan throughout the Department. We must also communicate and advocate for our strategic directions in the most vigorous way possible throughout state government and with the general public.
Among the most visible early signs that the plan is taking hold will be our performance evaluations. The next set of quarterly team evaluations are scheduled for the second week in July and each group of managers will be expected to show their contributions to the performance measures and strategies in our strategic plan. As we begin preparation for the next budget cycle, we will see a very different approach to financial planning in that it will follow from a coherent strategy. Finally, we will rethink the work that we do. In the face of this new strategic direction, and also our current financial situation, we must eliminate nonessential work.
The Regents School Reform strategy requires an equally assertive public engagement strategy. At their May meeting in Delhi, Regents stressed their interest in stronger communications. We will focus on this again at our June meeting.
The extensive media coverage of the standards and the Regents exam strategy over the last several months cannot lull us into believing that everyone understands what we are trying to do. The vast majority of the public agrees with the notion of raising standards but few citizens have actually seen a copy of our standards. We have listened carefully to the questions and prepared answers but I always leave a community dinner without my personal copy of the questions and answer pamphlet because we haven't yet distributed copies to everyone. That's going to change fast. When I mentioned that incident at a meeting of the School Boards Association Board, Executive Director Lou Grumet volunteered to distribute copies for free to every board member if we would provide them. And we will. Let's look at a comprehensive communication strategy.
Communication begins with a basic message that is consistent, clear, and sensible. New York can and must raise standards and must put in place the fundamental elements in all schools to bring those standards within the grasp of every student. We will build capacity and require accountability. The Regents will take corrective action to close or improve failing schools.
We have many opportunities to spread these messages, starting with the Regents meetings themselves. For months, each Regents meeting has produced action along consistent lines. In November we announced the Regents exam proposal. In January the first standards were adopted. In February we saw the School Report Card concept. This month we will decide what to do with the New York City schools under registration review.
Press conferences after each Regents meeting have a very long reach. On occasion, as many as 20 television stations have monitored our satellite feed. The Regents themselves are active communicators through regional meetings, countless visits with Editorial Boards, and talks to community groups throughout their region. Question and answer sheets help make those talks consistent and we will provide more of that kind of support.
We must respond to more than the mainstream media that we must respond to. This week, Regent Sanford, Associate Commissioner Shelia Evans-Tranumn, and I met with representatives of minority newspapers, radio and television stations in New York City. We have a good story to tell and we are going to have to tell it a lot more often.
Educators meet too often in separate groups and not often enough with their natural partners from other perspectives. Look at any calendar of meetings. There are gatherings of principals, teachers, Catholic superintendents, big city principals, and school board members. And it is important to respect the unique point of view of each group. But I can't help thinking that the Regents regional community meetings point us in a better direction. Schools that win recognition for high performance send a mixed group to pick up the award. Why? It required the best efforts of students, parents, teachers, board members, business people, librarians and so many others working together.
Last month, Chancellor Hayden and I met two representatives from each of the major associations. It wasn't a "summit meeting" but a gathering of partners with a commitment to the same high standards. For two hours we examined our common interest in three topics: communications, building local capacity to reach the standards, and resources. Among the common themes were these: we must show solidarity behind the standards. We must spend more time reaching out to others and not just to the education family. As David Shaffer of the Business Council said, "Action is the best communication." When parents see their children doing more, working harder, they will understand what the standards are about. We must join forces to build a case for the resources that education requires.
The gathering was valuable in two ways. At the state level, we have a new forum to get important work done. We also showed how high performing schools always do it: they join forces.
The Wayne Central High School in Ontario Center is just one of countless schools with an effective special education program. They have virtually no self-contained classes, and they got there with high expectations for all students and lots of training for teachers. As one teacher told me, "Regents exams are an expectation for all of our students." In the year ahead it would be helpful for all of us to renew our front line understanding of special education, because we have some troubling numbers to deal with.
Larry Gloeckler reports that the average public school cost per student with a disability is nearly $13,000 as compared to an average of $5,870 for a child who is not disabled. The average cost for private placement in special education is $23,000 per child. As he is quick to point out, we are still not certain of the true costs of special education because of the way we collect the data and the resulting assumptions necessary to report the costs.
The concerns of local board members and administrators are understandable when we look at who pays for special education. On average, the federal government pays 6 percent, the state 39 percent and local budget carries 55 percent of the cost of special education. A recent report from the RAND Corporation shows that much of the increase in educational spending over the last decade in New York has been for special education and not for general education expenditures that might properly be connected to test score performance.
In every discussion of the new Regents standards, someone is sure to ask about how the standards will affect students in special education. We have been saying that 80 percent of the students with disabilities could graduate with a Regents diploma, a local diploma, or a GED. You might think that statement hard to defend until you see the performance of some of the big five cities and many other districts who already come close to this performance level. Yet there are significant differences among districts in terms of the completion rates and drop out rates for students with disabilities.
The reform of the cost and quality of special education is at the heart of the drive to improve education throughout New York. We need to understand the costs in a profound way. We also must understand the results and what drives improvements in cost containment and quality improvement. The Regents will discuss these matters in depth at the June meeting and in a special board member to board member meeting with the board of the School Boards Association.
The 1997 budget process has sailed right off the map. No one knows these waters. Under the circumstances, it is all the more important for everyone to lend a hand. We are using a single sheet of paper that summarizes the main elements of the Regents budget proposal, and lots of phone calls and visits to individual members of the Legislature. Senator Bruno and I talked about the budget as we toured Tamarac Elementary School and earlier this week Chancellor Hayden and I had a similar conversation with Speaker Silver in his office. There is strong support for education on both sides and yet still no budget.
Among the items that we stressing are these: the $269 million state aid increase and a particular plug for the $2 million increase for CIMS (Comprehensive Instructional Management System) which pays for our new work on standards and assessment, $1.4 million to maintain Department functions in higher education, $1 million to support the 3020a Teacher Tenure Hearings, $2.6 million to avoid additional personnel reductions in the Department, $2 million in vocational rehabilitation case services to avoid being forced into an "Order of Selection" process, and at least $6 million for the electronic doorway library services bill. Eventually, there will come a time in some early morning meeting when the budget will be resolved and we want our numbers to be fresh in the minds of those making the final decisions. Keep calling the members of the Legislature.
It's time to decide the matter of the New York City schools under registration review since last October. The essential position is unchanged: the schools listed must improve and if they do not, they must be reorganized or closed. We must see results. That means improved student achievement, or if the schools are to be redesigned, it means that the plans must meet certain key requirements such as effective leadership, standards and assessment, curriculum, staffing, professional development, and parent and community involvement.
All along I have been confident about Chancellor Crew's commitment to meet these requirements. Months ago the Chancellor announced that he would not wait for the end of the school year but would reorganize the schools himself. And I have supported that approach. New York City school authorities must prepare plans to reorganize those schools and we must see resources in the form of dollars and people committed to implementing those plans before I can approve them. For example, the schools must have qualified principals.
The Education Department will monitor action in relation to the plans. I expect that the plans for these schools will succeed, but if they do not, I will recommend that the Board of Regents remove the registration of any of those listed schools that continues to show failing performance.
Last month Chancellor Crew and I went over the details of a schedule for the final days of this work. Plans for the schools were due May 20, in the week that followed there were internal Department reviews of those plans followed by an opportunity from May 30 to June 2 for the New York City Board of Education to revise the plans as necessary. On June 3 and 4 a distinguished panel of external reviewers examined all of the plans in detail. In the days that followed the New York City authorities revised the plans as necessary prior to final submission on June 10. In addition, early results from the state assessments became available this week. I will make recommendations to the Board of Regents on June 14.
On September 3 New York will have it's first ever statewide faculty meeting. I am inviting the teachers to meet by teleconference to hear from their own colleagues about the new standards. The nine teleconferences this year and scores of visits to schools have convinced me of the extraordinary talent of New York teachers. Changing one's professional practice can be daunting when one stands alone. But New York teachers don't stand alone in this matter of educating all students to higher expectations. I have already seen every new practice that we need in a school somewhere in New York. We just need to help expert teachers share what works with one another.
