November 1996
The State Education Department will issue a report card on every school in New York next month. It should come as no surprise. Schools already have the data. We have worked on this concept for nearly a year, and the idea has been discussed for many years. And yet with all of the advanced word, there will still be some caught unprepared. But it is not too late.
School boards, and whole school communities for that matter, should get ahead of the report card by talking to the public about school performance. A board member who meets with me periodically as a member of the School Boards Advisory Committee said that the superintendent in his district wrote to twenty or so "key communicators" or opinion leaders to point out the low third grade reading scores and the necessity for improvement. That's leadership, and a good example of how to get ahead of the Report Card.
The most basic principle is to own the results. Many people are still raising technical issues with the report card -- it doesn't recognize mobility, it doesn't report enough information on the social issues that hinder performance -- and all of these issues are real. But these results do reflect student performance in that school. The discussion has to begin somewhere, so let it start with what data we have. There will never be one set of data that satisfies everyone. School authorities need not let the discussion rest entirely on the Education Department's report card. They can add anything they want to the discussion.
Many people have warned that the results will be taken out of context. And they are correct. But school boards can create the positive context. A good way to do that is to show the community the work that students do, and then discuss the standards used to evaluate that work. Traditional "back-to-school" nights aren't up to the task. Do parents really want to sit in those little chairs and go through a truncated version of our children's schedule while the adults talk in generalities about the school? Communities need something very different this year and school boards have the primary responsibility in providing it: a discussion about expectations, results, and the way ahead to better results. Communities need a School Report Card Night where parents, students, teachers, and the wider community gather to look at results in the context of the work that the students actually produce in the school -- the writing, mathematics, art, science, and all the rest of it. And having the children there is essential.
Some communities will look for some individual -- superintendent, principal, fourth grade teacher -- to blame for the results. It's inevitable. And it won't help. The school board must stand up to people who take that view. And it must stand up for superintendents and other leaders who point the school in the right direction. School results reflect lots of things: student effort, the school's contribution, availability of resources, parental expectations, and so much else. If the discussion is to be about whom to blame, better bring a lunch, because it will be a long meeting. The school board needs to lead the community in a sensible discussion of the results. That requires a search for causes, obstacles, and strategies.
Building a climate that supports high performance and continuous improvement is not so difficult. At the State Education Department, we have a strategic plan with goals and performance measures. Every three months, I meet each of the six management teams in a public discussion of their contribution to the plan as a team. The results are not all positive, but after three such quarterly meetings, some of the improvements are stunning. The Professions group, for example, is responsible for relicensing more than 600,000 professionals in the state. It used to take six weeks to get relicensed. Last summer it took two days. Last week, it took one.
Schools are much more complicated than this, you will say. But let's look at those reading scores. Some schools have found strategies to teach almost every student to read at grade level. Not all at once, but they have kept at it and the results have come. It all starts with a cold-eyed look at the results. And straight talk. It's harder to get that good start if one plays a defensive game.
The Department will help. I have talked to school board members at the School Boards Association Convention, and also written about this topic for publication in their newsletter. District Superintendents have talked in detail with superintendents in their regions. The Department will distribute concrete suggestions on how to engage the public on this matter beginning with a teleconference next week. There is a great deal of anxiety among some educators over the Report Card, and yet we must press on. The discussion about performance has to happen in every community.
School funding must support improved school performance. The long term needs and the political obstacles to achieving them are plain to see in many recent studies. And they will take a long time to resolve. But we must create a practical budget that will help schools right now in their reform efforts. And that is the proposal that we bring to the Regents this month.
I recommend that State Aid increase for 1997-98 by a total of $306 million. This includes increases of $36 million to improve elementary school reading, $20 million for instructional materials, and $50 million for staff development, together with needed increases in other aids.
Reading scores are far too low in some schools, and we have made vigorous use of school registration powers to press for improvements. Now we need to provide the financial support. The curriculum must become much more challenging to meet the new performance standards. Now we need to help provide new textbooks and instructional materials to match. Low wealth communities must strain even harder to rise to the new standards. The State share of operating costs should rise and our proposal provides for that.
State Aid does not provide adequately for students with disabilities. Achievement results for students with disabilities are too often exceptionally low. At the same time, the existing formula encourages unnecessary referrals to special education and too many referrals to separate settings. This makes it harder for students with disabilities to reach the higher standards needed for a high school diploma. Since 1983, the total number of students classified as disabled has increased by 36 percent and the number of learning disabled has increased by nearly 54 percent. Almost 12 percent of school enrollment is in special education, and the system was never designed to meet the needs of so many. Our proposal outlines a major change in special education funding to align good practice with sound funding.
The special education proposal is only part of the comprehensive package, but here are some details. I propose that every school district get a set amount of aid for special education based on the statewide percentage of students with disabilities (11 percent), the number of students in poverty in each district, and the district's overall wealth. (Districts would receive support for very high cost programs separately from this aid.) Districts that employ cost effective special education practices would reinvest any savings in prevention programs aimed at keeping students in general education. Those that employ less cost effective practices would have to cover the additional costs on their own. A transition proposal would limit gains and losses each year. With this proposal in place, I would recommend that funding for special education remain the same for FY 1997-98 as it would have been under the existing formula ($17 million over the FY 96-97 level).
This concept needs wide discussion over the coming month before the Regents act upon it. The value of the proposal is that it supports special education, encourages instructional practices that will reduce inappropriate placements, and supports prevention efforts in a material way. The gradual phase-in will allow school leaders to look ahead and change programs to protect their schools.
To be credible, a request for new funding must rest on a genuine effort to reallocate what we already have. To that end, Chancellor Hayden and I have met repeatedly with leaders of the education associations to reach consensus on a short "sources and uses of funds" statement. These discussions continue. Agreement on the uses of funds is easy. The sources -- the places from which to reallocate funds -- is a more difficult issue. Nevertheless, we know that much of the resources needed to meet high standards will come from more focused use of currently available categorical monies, professional development, staff and time. We must be prepared to commit to these reallocations.
No one argues about the need for higher standards. The conversation now is about how to bring the standards to life. People have very specific questions and the same questions appear everywhere: What about the child who just can reach these standards? Where will the money come from? When will we see the new tests?
We have very specific answers. They are written down. The answers have become specific because many of us have been listening, finding solutions, trying them, listening again, adjusting, and moving deeper into the implementation. That joint search for good answers is worth mentioning because some people still appear to believe that every question can be anticipated and will be answered from the State Education Department. A transformation as profound as the one that now engages us could never be led in so top down a manner. We are making such rapid progress because we have engaged the talents of so many people at the front line. The process is messy, but the results will endure.
It's not over yet. Every serious discussion of the standards eventually gets to a point where the questions push against the limits of what we know or have decided. That moment sets the stage of the next set of design questions and the next set of answers. One key to this is having firm points when things are promised and delivered: the standards, the Resource Guides, the prototype tests. People may want things faster, but we have to take the time to do it right, so sometimes the best answer is to point to the schedule and say, "patience, the answer to that one is coming." You can only do that when you meet your deadlines. And we have so far.
Most important is firmness in our purpose. The standards are real expectations for student performance. The State Education Department and the Regents will not back away from these expectations.
Leaders in higher education are speaking out about our plans to create performance reports for all the sectors of New York's higher education system. And that's helpful. Since reporting to the Regents on this matter in October, I have met with leaders of the proprietary institutions, have agreed to discuss the matter with presidents of the private colleges and universities, and have continued discussions with interested legislative leaders.
Higher education is far too important for the Regents to leave the matter of quality unexamined. There are many complexities. Institutions have different missions and it makes little sense to compare, say, a research university to a community college. But aren't community colleges comparable to one another?
Enormous amounts of public and private money are invested in higher education. Citizens go into debt to gain the benefits of higher education. But what are the benefits? Do graduates of this particular institution get the jobs they expected? Do they graduate? How long does it take? Do they pass the professional exams needed to enter the career they dreamed about? Can it be a bad idea to give people information about the success of those institutions in meeting the expectations of students who came before them?
Some argue that data will be misused by those who simply want to eliminate educational opportunities. True. But reliable data on performance will also help people who care about the institutions to improve them. We are unlikely to get the improvement we need without an informed discussion of our current situation and future needs.
Some people have argued that the institutions themselves should report their performance in their own way. And they should do that. But someone should present the basic information on all institutions in an unbiased, comparable manner. That "someone" is the Board of Regents and the State Education Department.
Last month deans of teacher preparation programs, the Department of Education, and the New York City Board of Education agreed on a joint venture to "put qualified teachers in front of every class and keep them there." It was a gathering of those who educate teachers, those who hire them, and those responsible for licensing the teachers and the programs that produce them.
It didn't start that way. For a while, each of us patiently told the other two members of the discussion what they needed to do to fix their problems, extolled our own efforts to improve our systems -- no, we don't need your help, thank you -- and we didn't listen very well. Suddenly, someone said something positive about the achievements of someone else. And the discussion changed. What would it be like, someone else asked, if we acted like one organization? If we look at the situation together, we can admit that some teachers graduate, get licensed, and get jobs when they really don't belong in the classroom. And others start and would be successful, but they leave. All players have a part in this drama. And we can change the lines that don't work.
We decided to reassemble this fall as a joint work team with an outside facilitator to keep the discussion moving. More later.
Major reforms in the Office of the Professions are producing major improvements in public protection and customer service for New Yorkers. The Office is moving swiftly toward an advanced level of operational effectiveness which is having a major positive effect on the public we serve. The following are some accomplishments to date:
