June 1997
For the second year in a row, VESID convened teams from around the State to consider breakthroughs in best practices for vocational rehabilitation services. For example, teams presented how they reduced the time it takes to make a person eligible for services, how they increased the average placements of counselors by operating as teams, and how better use of technology has dramatically reduced the time it takes to respond to an employer's request for a qualified candidate.
Why mention all of this? VESID has once again beaten their own record for placement of individuals with disabilities. In 1990, only two offices out of fifteen placed more than a thousand people annually. Today, nine offices meet this standard.
It's not easy to compare performances because it makes people uncomfortable. VESID has found a way. We are now incorporating the same approach into our reporting on special education placements in schools. We intend to focus attention on communities that are able to achieve high results. And it's more than focusing attention. We want everyone to learn how to do what works.
During the last five weeks, the Regents and I have taken an extraordinary tour of New York State. We have listened to and talked with parents, educators, business leaders, students, and many others from Buffalo to Long Island, Yonkers to Vestal, East Rochester and Syracuse to New York City. The meeting this week in Saratoga completed the circuit. Much of the travel was due to an extraordinary series of forums to prepare for the Regents decision on graduation requirements which is pending for the fall, but there was also time for the usual round of regional visits to schools, colleges, BOCES and other elements of the University of the State of New York.
One central fact is impossible to miss: the educational system is in motion. The schools are evaluating the spring test results, adjusting curriculum offerings to get ready for the new standards, and preparing for a summer of professional development. Libraries and schools are awaiting final word on new federal regulations concerning technology. CUNY is going through a wrenching discussion of standards. VESID has again surpassed its previous record for the number of persons with disabilities employed. New York City has presented revised plans to redesign another cohort of low performing schools.
Now we must sift what we have heard in the regional forums and prepare to decide the matter of graduation requirements. This month, we will present a summary of what people said; in July I will offer a more detailed review of the major themes to help the Regents prepare for decision; in September I will recommend the graduation requirements.
The most important point is that course requirements must help students meet the standards. Many other issues arose quite naturally in the meetings. One teacher of technology wanted to know if he would continue to have a job; would the Regents, in other words, mandate a course in technology? Many parents of children with disabilities argued for a "safety net" out of concern that their children might not meet new graduation standards. At every meeting people wanted to know about funding. And there were so many other issues. But the central purpose is to find ways to give all children more -- more knowledge and skill, more of a chance to thrive in the world ahead of them. As more than one Regent said during the forums, we must find ways to be guided by our dreams, not our fears.
I have hundreds of pages of notes to review before making a recommendation on this subject, but some basics are clear. The standards should drive it all. Students need more rigorous course work to prepare them to meet the standards and to pass the Regents exams. We should not try to mandate every element of the curriculum at the state level -- it really is a big state out there and students are incredibly diverse in what they need. The three tier diploma system we have now is inadequate: different standards, different tests, different course work. It challenges few students with the kind of education that they are really going to need. In place of this, we need a single set of standards, a single testing system, and courses that challenge everyone to learn more.
Many students with disabilities will not be able to meet all the standards, but I am uneasy about the "safety net" discussion because it could lead to inappropriately low expectations. We really don't know how far many students with mild disabilities can go and we don't now give them much of a chance to show what they can do against high standards. We should give students with disabilities more challenging course work, and an opportunity to take the exams with appropriate accommodations. And let's find ways to measure and recognize their achievements. That should be the starting point.
Change will cost money but the Regents and the Department have advocated for funds to fuel the reform. Almost every one of our budget numbers appears in either the Governor's budget proposal or the Speaker's. We just have to continue to persuade, and also prepare a multi-year budget proposal starting with fiscal year 1998-99 to support our multi-year reform plans.
Important decision points for low-performing schools are coming within the next month. I am looking carefully at two groups of schools that are under corrective action.
There are 23 schools that I placed under corrective action in November 1996. 1 in Rochester, 1 in Hempstead and 21 in New York City. All must now have a corrective action plan or a plan for their complete redesign. Chancellor Crew has said that he will redesign virtually all of them. An external review panel appointed by the State Education Department has examined the City's preliminary plans. They found a need for revised plans in some cases. The Chancellor has agreed and has said that he will place a number of these schools in the Chancellor's district and will use his new powers aggressively to hold new superintendents accountable for results.
Final redesign plans were due to me on June 10. I will review the plans and decide if they are acceptable. Among other things, we will look for strong and permanent leadership able to drive the plan, commitment to the state standards, a curriculum based on research, qualified staff, adequate funding, assessment that is routinely used to improve practice, parent involvement and training, libraries and facilities in general that are safe, inviting and barrier free. In short, the big question is: will the plans do the job of improving the schools?
I placed a second group of 13 schools under corrective action in October 1995. All are in New York City. I approved Chancellor Crew's redesign plans for these schools last June and in the ensuing year the Department has monitored progress. Our monitoring shows serious problems in one school, mixed results in two others. The remaining schools seem to be making progress. We will get test scores late in June. I will analyze both the test results and the reports on our monitoring and decide on the next steps. The key questions for these schools are equally direct: have they improved? Should any be closed or reorganized?
The Strategic Plan, our staff survey of last winter, and the Rockefeller Institute study of 1995 all demand strengthening management capability in the State Education Department. This month we began management performance planning for all 200 managers, starting with the Commissioner and the Chief Operating Officer. My performance agreement reflects discussions with the Quality Subcommittee of the Board of Regents. All 200 of us will be responsible for specific performance indicators in three areas: leading change, managing performance, and creating the capacity for both of the above. The essential feature is that all managers will have consistent performance expectations and the whole structure will be linked to our strategic plan. All of us will present results quarterly. After Richard Cate, the Deputies and I negotiated performance measures among senior management, we presented the concept to all Department managers. All managers will have performance agreements signed by mid-July.
The individual manager performance contracting builds on the team reviews that we have conducted for some time. This month, we completed the most recent quarterly performance reviews for each of the six teams in the State Education Department this month. Since this process began more than a year ago, we have held 30 of these hour and a half sessions.
Our efforts to improve quality are attracting notice. The Governor's Office of Employee Relations invited us to train representatives of other state agencies in the entire scope of our internal redesign from the Rockefeller Institute study through the development and implementation of the strategic plan and our most recent work to measure team and individual manager performance.
Not every measure looks good. For example, we have been very concerned about increasing the diversity of the Department. As all managers cycle through the training program on this topic, we are becoming more aware of what we can do. In one of the quarterly reviews it developed that there were more than a hundred members of various advisory groups in a particular part of the Department but there were few members of minority groups represented. I directed that the situation be corrected through new appointments within 30 days. As word spread through the Department, each succeeding quarterly report included similar charts. We can and will change this. Many thanks to the team members who had the foresight to present the facts so that we could act.
Roosevelt has improved since the State intervened but progress has slowed and the district is not likely to complete important parts of the Corrective Action Plan on schedule. Among the accomplishments are several that are very important: fiscal stability, safe facilities, and a new curriculum aligned to the standards. But there are problems. District Superintendent Daniel Domenech has told me that the Board is spending little time on the Action Plan, has not moved effectively to appoint a superintendent, has spent only $800,000 of the budgeted facilities funds. I am concerned about the recent departures of the business managers and other personnel.
In view of this, I have directed our panel in Roosevelt to take all appropriate actions to see to it that the Corrective Action Plan is completed. I expect detailed monthly reports on results for me and the Regents. I will take direct action in the near future if the results continue to be insufficient.
The court declared unconstitutional the Kiryas Joel school district on June 4. On that day, I wrote to the Monroe-Woodbury School District to begin the transition process to ensure that the children continued to receive an education. I directed District Superintendent William Bassett to oversee the transition. A Department team with experts in finance, law, and special education immediately began work and on June 9 they were in this district to identify specific issues that must be resolved in the transition. Dr. Bassett has reported to me daily on progress and the children continue to receive an appropriate education during this transition period. While the children are going to school, the adults are confronting some very complex issues that have endured for many years. Finding solutions will take hard work.
This week, I was sued to enjoin the Department's efforts to enforce the court's order. Counsel Kathy Ahearn will report on the details of this litigation in executive session during the Regents Meeting.
In early July, Chancellor John Ryan of SUNY, Chancellor Ann Reynolds of CUNY, and I will spend two days together with colleagues from around the nation to explore connections between the higher education and secondary sectors, with particular reference to the nation wide effort to improve standards.
American fourth graders score with the top performers in science but by the eighth grade we are "near the bottom of the middle" according to a report from William Schmidt. Coordinator of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results released today. In mathematics, our fourth graders are above international averages but by the eighth grade that ranking drops. The explanation lies in the curriculum. Even in the eighth grade, American schools continue to focus on arithmetic while other nations have moved onto algebra. This should be of particular concern in New York because 1995 comparative data show that relatively fewer New York students were taking algebra by the time they graduated than did their peers around the nation.
Stand by for some really interesting results on July 1. We will then see New York results in mathematics and science from the NAEP data linked to the results from 40 nations that participated in the TIMSS. This will give us the first data that shows how we stand against world standards.
