BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER RICHARD P. MILLS
The State Museum opened a memorial exhibit to those lost in the attack on the World Trade Center. This opening coincided with the opening of the new 25,000 square foot gallery that introduces visitors to the regions of New York.
New York’s State aid formula has ceased to function. Fewer than four dozen school districts are actually on the formula. All the others are subject to complex adjustments. The formula is inflexible and inefficient as an instrument of policy and a means to distribute aid. After huge effort every year, schools in great need sometimes return aid unspent because while the money is there and needed, it is in categories that fail to match the need. As Regents have often pointed out, the formula is not closing the gaps in student achievement. The formula includes so many arcane data items that it has become difficult even for very experienced practitioners to verify the data.
The Regents State aid proposal for 2002-2003 is a dramatic improvement. The Regents Subcommittee on State Aid proposes to consolidate 34 formulas into eight broad categories that treat aid for similar purposes in a consistent manner. This provides greater operating flexibility, and builds on strategies that work – for example extra help for students who need it to meet the standards. The policy goal of driving more aid to the highest need districts is applied to the entire amount, not just the increase. The proposal would phase out the caps and save harmless provisions and replace them with limited maximum loss provisions. There is a regional cost index which responds to years of recommendations from many close observers of State aid.
Some people are concerned that their categorical programs will suffer if the aid categories are combined. However, it is essential that we hold firm in our resolve to simplify the formula and direct more of the aid to districts that need it most.
I recommend that the Regents adopt this landmark proposal. The increase will be a reasonable and appropriate amount given the need to support local efforts to raise student achievement.
The students who entered ninth grade in 1996 faced only the Regents English Exam to graduate. They did well – 90 percent of general education students scored 55 or above. That group didn’t have to pass mathematics but 77.2 percent did so nevertheless. Those who entered in 1997 held onto the earlier performance in English (89.1 percent scored 55 or better), and set a new high mark in mathematics (86.6 percent).
The first chart shows the gains in mathematics across all categories of schools. The second chart shows gains at the 65 pass level also.
Meeting Regents Math Graduation Requirement (55-100) after Four Years
Meeting Math Graduation Requirement Scoring 65 or better after Four Years
Students with disabilities also improved in mathematics from the 1996 cohort (38.3 percent scored 55 or above) to those entering in 1997 (50.8 percent at 55 or above).
English language learners improved their English Regents performance from 54.1 percent in the 1996 cohort to 57.4 percent in the 1997 cohort. New York City showed more rapid improvement than the State as a whole among English language learners.
What should we make of this? The results are going up steadily. The widely shared view of some years ago that adding the second Regents exam would lead to failure was mistaken. The rising achievement of students with disabilities continues to impress those who thought the youngsters couldn’t do it. And their achievement is yet another reminder of the need for higher education to get ready for increasing numbers of high school graduates who are well prepared academically but happen to have a disability.
We still need to look more deeply into the data. The cohort data show performance after four years, and we know that there is a long standing pattern in some of the urban schools for students to take five or more years to graduate. And when we examine individual urban schools, we see improvements in some but declines in others.
Since the November Regents meeting, we have held two more Call to Leadership sessions. Regents Bennett and Gardner hosted the ninth session in Buffalo, and Regent Johnson the tenth on Long Island. So far we have met more than 1700 aspiring leaders.
It is clear that the challenge is not to find people willing to lead - they are there in abundance. Rather the challenge is to guarantee the quality of leadership education. Kevin McGuire continues to develop a statement of what we know and believe on that subject – based both on the literature and the emerging experience among senior practitioners and higher education leaders. Regents policy debate on leadership education will begin early in the new year.
In November, the Regents approved accreditation for two institutions: The Utica School of Commerce and the Institute of Design and Construction. This was an important step toward retaining our status as a nationally recognized accrediting agency by the United States Department of Education (USDOE).
In December, two more institutions will be presented for renewal of their accreditation. By the end of December, we will submit our revised petition to USDOE, for continued recognition as a national accrediting agency.
The focus of this initiative is on improving the instruction in reading and math for general and special education students in the 37 school districts participating. Data are not yet available for some of the districts but 25 districts made significant gains in student performance.
Of the 111 buildings involved, 18 were included on our list of most improved schools during the past two years on the elementary English Language Arts assessment. These most improved schools were located in 12 of the 37 participating districts.
VESID is working with the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education to share this information and assist with similar initiatives.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) have agreed to collaborate on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. An equal number of chiefs and governors will be appointed to a joint committee that will develop a policy statement to be issued early next year. I will serve on the panel.
The committee will identify common issues and concerns and work to create a statement that can be ratified by the full memberships of each group. CCSSO and NGA then will work together on advocacy efforts during the reauthorization debate.
A well prepared teacher for every class is the surest way to raise student achievement and meet the standards. We have a serious shortfall in meeting that goal, but finding the right strategies depends on getting the problem right. To that end we have considered data from many sources and sought advice from many partners, including most recently the members of the Higher Education Advisory Committee.
Currently there are 15,000 teachers holding temporary licenses. About 18 percent of New York State teachers are over age 55 and could retire. There are not enough teachers entering mathematics, science, and bilingual education. And there are not enough certified teachers willing to teach in some urban schools.
New York has a large teacher education capacity, and those institutions prepared 18,000 teachers last year. However, only half of them took teaching positions in New York’s public schools. This is consistent with the national pattern. Here are some other interesting numbers:
|
9,000 |
college-recommended 29% |
|
7,000 |
transcript evaluation 23% |
| 4,000 | returning certified 13% |
|
11,000 |
temporary certification 35% |
|
31,000 |
vacancies filled in 1999-2000 |
We should consider strategies to recruit candidates to teacher education who already have the commitment to teach in the cities. We should expand the alternative certification opportunity. Clearly we need to know more about why candidates do not accept positions that are available, and why so many leave so early. The presidents brought great urgency to this issue in a discussion last week, and we will engage many others as we shape practical strategies to meet the shortfall.
The Regents continue to monitor students’ success in meeting the standards. Our policy calls for the minimum passing score to rise from 55 to 65 for the currently enrolled ninth graders. We have new data on how those who entered ninth grade in 1997 fared.
In English, 15.5 percent of the 1996 group scored between 55 and 64. That proportion declined to 13.3 percent in the 1997 group. In mathematics, the change was in the opposite direction – from 4.4 percent in the 1996 cohort to 8.6 percent in 1997.
What do we know about the intensity of the problem? Here is the situation on the English Regents exam: Fewer schools (216 v. 229) had 20 percent or more of their students in the 55-64 gap in the second group. But some schools appear on the 1997 list and not in the 1996 group.
The most significant finding may be this: "…the students most affected by the elimination of the 55-64 safety net are those attending schools in the Big 5 districts, many of which have large percentages of minority and low-income students."
Many have urged the Regents to postpone the move to 65. We can see that such a change would affect particular children. Would it allow the children to continue to improve to meet the standards or would it tend to codify a lower standard for some children? In response to proposals to delay raising the passing score, shouldn’t we ask what specifically would be done to improve the performance of children? Without solid answers and the capacity to follow-through, delay would seem likely to leave particular groups of children performing at lower levels indefinitely, and that is no one’s goal.
Three years of flat data – in the context of steadily rising performance elsewhere – should be enough to convince most people. There are problems with middle school education and the knowledge and experience exists in New York schools to change that situation for the better.
Is there a problem with the conceptual model behind middle grades education? Apparently not from what we read in the latest EMSC report on research they did in concert with practitioners and the Nassau BOCES. Schools that incorporate the elements of middle school to a high degree have higher student performance on the middle grades assessments. Those that don’t have lower performance. Other factors are involved, however. Only the highest performing average and low need schools are implementing the model extensively.
The paper shows that the characteristics and practices of high performing middle schools are well known. These elements are not easy to put in place, but neither do they appear beyond the reach of any group of professionals. Above all, they can be studied and learned.
The paper calls for a multiyear agenda to put effective practices into wider use. I am particularly interested in the series of regional meetings that will start in February. There should be no speeches or formalities of any kind. It should all be about what high performing and rapidly improving middle schools in New York are doing right now to get the good results for children. Only they should speak. All the rest of us should listen. And then act accordingly so children in middle schools everywhere have what their children have.
The Department held a meeting of approximately 30 participants to discuss middle school testing issues. The five major issues addressed were:
The group made some proposals for the State Education
Department to consider when establishing future test schedules.
At the November meeting, the Regents adopted a course of action to resolve performance, governance, and finance issues in the Roosevelt School District. The Regents took the first of those steps immediately by appointing a new member to the Oversight Panel. I directed the Panel to take the next step, which was to review the Roosevelt School Board in relation to the corrective action plan and the five-year financial stabilization plan.
The Panel has reported their findings and recommendations to the Roosevelt School Board and Superintendent and asked for board action by December 17. If it is necessary, I will take additional steps immediately after that date.
The Regents have the Panel report. Here are some of the findings:
This month, the Regents will receive an update on the recommendations of the Task Force, led by Regent McGivern, to address the nursing shortage in New York State. This overview will include a description of solutions already under way and specific initiatives undertaken by the Department.
The 2002 federal legislative agenda is scheduled for review at your December meeting. We have made several substantive revisions to the first draft based on comments since the November meeting and recommendations from your Public Policy Conference. As you recall, there are several federal laws that will be up for review in the near future for which we provide recommendations. These include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Higher Education Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act.
The congressional conference committee concluded work on the reauthorization of the bulk of elementary and secondary education programs. The legislation increases funding and services to disadvantaged students, provides for expanded teacher preparation and development, and supports reading for children in grades K-3. Bilingual education and technology programs were consolidated into separate formula grants. The growing 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which funds after-school and summer activities, has become a federal-state-local formula grant. The push for full funding of the main grant program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act failed. Advocates promise to pursue the issue during next year’s reauthorization debate.
There are new accountability provisions, including the system to test all students in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics. It appears that the federal government will provide sufficient funding to cover our costs in developing those tests. While the Congress gave states more flexibility in designing accountability processes, there are new federal mandates that will have to be addressed.
The Congress plans to complete work on the legislation and also pass an education-funding bill before the holidays.
How should the Regents focus their efforts in the next year or two within the context of the strategic plan? Regents posed that question during their 2001 policy retreat. Here is a suggested answer. If approved by the Board, it will guide their agenda and challenge the Department to align its time, energy and resources while continuing other critical services and initiatives.
I recommend that Regents adopt the statement "Focusing on Critical Needs" as the guide to its agenda and use of time for 2002.
A monthly publication of the State Education Department
Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page