The Future State Education
Department
The Regents
charge to the Commissioner in the performance agreement is to “prepare the State
Education Department for the future” to implement policy effectively. In fact,
the entire leadership group, including all Deputies and managers, are focused on
this task.
This is an
urgent matter. In a dynamic global economy, all nations recognize that effective
education systems are a competitive edge. Our competitors pursue their own
education reforms with intensity. We must execute our strategies with equal or
greater intensity, and also effectively.
Education is about preparing
citizens. The burdens of citizenship today can be very heavy, and public
questions before us now are daunting. We need an education that lights the way
in these times.
Education at its best enables
all to realize their potential. The aim is to educate everyone to become
competent, caring, productive adults of a free society. Consequently, the expectations are high
for all educational institutions. In that context, the State Education
Department must carry out its mission with wisdom, skill and dispatch.
The matter
is urgent for other reasons. We anticipate rapid turnover in Department staff.
The state, nation, and world are experiencing a generational shift with
proportionally more older people and fewer younger ones, and that will lift
priorities other than education to public attention. And we face the persistent
achievement gap, which is a barrier to achieving all our goals.
We decided
at the outset to involve many people in preparing the Department for the future.
We talked to the entire Department about the anticipated staff turnover. With
half the Department reaching retirement age within five years, no one can deny
the need to prepare quickly. We are talking to our partners in education because
we will need their engagement as our work with them changes. In those
conversations we have invoked the global challenges because all educational
institutions must rethink what they do and how they do it.
We envision
a future State Education Department that is oriented toward the full scope of
the University. We want to be a standard setter in every field we enter, a gap
closer, problem solver, and talent convener. We envision a diverse staff
possessing high skills that are continually renewed. We want to be deliberate in
policy development, but fast in execution. We envision a strong monitor who acts
on assessments of risk, and who is good about follow-through. We want to be
effective partners with other organizations, and tightly connected with regional
networks. Do we have the vision right?
We will
describe for the Board ten major categories of our work and then outline how
each will change. In all but a few of these, we already have projects in motion
that will bring the changes to life. As the Board listens to these statements of
projected changes, we will ask, “do they match Board intent?”
We have
grounded our work on the future Department on Regents decisions on the strategic
plan, the Regents priorities, and the 24-month policy calendar. While these are
statements about the near term, they also define the first steps toward our
future. Are we building squarely on the foundation?
Rather than
move boxes around on organization charts, we have identified barriers, which we
call “log jam” systems because the Deputies and I conclude that rapid
improvements in these areas – human resources, information technology, and
contract management systems – will enable rapid progress throughout the
Department. We have also selected several other systems as “levers of change”
because we think that redesign of these systems will drive change more generally
in the Department within the context of the future we envision.
Finally, we
are connecting the work on the future Department to the Board’s focus on the
University of the State of New York. The future Department must embrace USNY,
and pursue the aims of USNY as they emerge in the regional meetings leading to
the November education summit.
The Chancellor and I will lead a
Full Board discussion of what has been done to respond to the Regents charge and
what will be done in the coming months. The Regents continuing role in this
matter is to provide policy direction and decision. This discussion, therefore,
is a check-in to ensure that the work is consistent with Board intent.
Policy Discussion on SED
Staffing Capacity
The State
Education Department is managing its way through a transition in staffing
capacity. There has been a 44 percent turnover in staff since 1999 but the
decline in total staff stands at 5 percent since 1997. The total number of
filled positions has remained the same for the last three years. Transitions of
this magnitude are challenging but we have appropriate strategies in place. For
example, we have provided data to all Department staff through copies of a
staffing report, and an “all hands” meeting last year. We have talked about the
emerging Department of the future to many staff groups. We have professional
development programs at all levels, and have made leadership development a
visible priority.
In December 2004 the Regents
discussed a report that described State Education Department staffing patterns
and anticipated problems due to retirements over the next five years. A second
report this month responds to Regents questions about new work taken on by the
State Education Department. Every organization that intends to thrive, whether
it is in government or the private sector, changes the work it does as
conditions and demands change. To the extent we can, we have made these changes
in our work deliberately.
As the staffing transition
continues at the rate of about 300 departures a year, we have an obligation to
reevaluate the skills needed before filling each vacancy. The deputy
commissioners and Human Resources Director Gayle Bowden are thinking through
that problem now in the context of preparing the Department for the future.
Policy Decision Graduation
Standards
The EMSC-VESID
Committee co-chairs propose a four-year phase-in of the requirement that
students pass Regents exams at 65 or above, and an appeals process for students
who score within three points of 65, provided that the students attempt the
exams twice, maintain a 95 percent attendance, and meet other criteria. If
adopted, this proposal will conclude the two-year pause in the move to 65 as a
minimum Regents exam score, which the Board adopted in 2003. The proposed
phase-in recognizes the rising high school achievement of recent years, and
would provide sufficient time for school districts to add capacity to close an
important aspect of the gap in student achievement.
More About
Mathematics
When the
Regents adopted the revised mathematics standards recommended by the Mathematics
Standards Committee, the Board deferred consideration of other committee
recommendations. We return to those recommendations this month. The Mathematics Standards Committee
recommended creating three mathematics Regents exams, with one to be passed for
a Regents diploma and all three for a Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation.
The committee also proposed the number of courses students must pass at each
level. The Regents will begin discussion of these recommendations, with a
decision anticipated in September. The State Education Department prepared a
paper with responses to the recommendations, and three options for when the new
exams would be given for the first time.
The timing
of the exams merits particularly careful reflection. The Department paper
defines the consequences of beginning in 2006-07, and in the two subsequent
years. Crucial to the decision are: the time required to prepare exams of
technical quality, time required under case law to enable students to prepare
for the exams, and the time required for teachers to get ready. It would be
helpful to focus on which group of children would be first affected by each of
the three implementation dates. For example, a first test administration in
2008-2009 means that the 6th graders of 2005 will get the additional
benefit of the instruction leading to the new exams.
Policy Decision on Statewide
Plan for Higher Education
The Committee on Higher
Education and Professional Practice will consider the Statewide Plan for Higher
Education for adoption. The committee has reviewed drafts since September and
the Board has listened to testimony in public hearings. The draft plan includes
the plans of all four sectors of higher education, and responds to the Regents
higher education priorities. When
the Board adopts the plan, our attention will quickly shift to implementation.
The Regents pending decisions on budget recommendations and legislative
priorities for 2006 are early opportunities to bring the plan to life.
Student Record
System
The Regents
will discuss a report on the implementation of the student record system. In
June 2004 the Regents discussed a schedule for implementing the student data
system by using regional information centers, a unique student identifier, and
an array of reports to support school and district operations and state policy
making. We had an early look at the value added by collecting individual student
data in January, when we saw patterns of student achievement data in sharp
detail for the students who entered 9th grade in 2000. This month the
Regents will discuss the status of this student record project. We now have the
student identifier system, data currently in the regional information centers is
being organized using the student identifier, and that process will be complete
by December. The data we collect in August will be collected using the
identifier system.
Health and
Achievement
The
EMSC-VESID Committee will discuss a report on the connections between certain
health conditions and student achievement. The report presents information on
asthma, diabetes, poor nutrition, and exposure to lead and mercury and
concurrent indicators of low achievement in school. We have many programs that
address these problems but the problems are severe and, in some cases,
increasing in severity. The paper outlines additional potential strategies,
including more intensive information sharing, more connections between education
and health care programs, and potential budget recommendations.
Regents Policy Priorities
and How to Address Them
In
December, the Regents adopted ten policy priorities. Deputy commissioners and
their colleagues prepared a five-page paper on each priority to suggest an
approach to address them through the appropriate Regents committee and then the
Full Board. The papers define the issues, important questions, interested
parties, sources of information from multiple perspectives, and places to visit
to see the policy problem and its potential resolution in action. These papers
are ways to link Board decisions about which issues are most important to Board
and Department actions to resolve those issues.
IDEA - Proposed Regulations
Part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, becomes effective on July 1,
2005. The Department has proposed
legislation and conforming amendments to State regulations, which will be before
the EMSC-VESID Committee for discussion in June. Individualized education
programs (IEPs), transition services, committee on special education member
participation, and parental placement of students in nonpublic elementary and
secondary schools are elements requiring Regents policy decisions. The Department has conducted seven
public hearings and has met with constituent groups and parents on IDEA
implementation and the proposed amendments. Information on the comments received
will be shared at the meeting, and we will report the status of the federal
regulations.
Regulating
Accountancy
The
Committee on Higher Education and Professional Practice will discuss proposed
amendments in regulations for accountancy. The new provisions will define
unprofessional conduct to include the imposition of any discipline, penalty or
sanction on a New York licensed certified public accountant or registered public
accounting firm for violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The regulations will also
include independence standards for accountants or firms that audit publicly
traded companies not registered with the SEC and require CPA's to report certain
conduct or events critical to the ethical practice of their profession. The
amendments will establish standards of unprofessional conduct that specify
certain reportable events.
Regents Trusteeship of the
State Library, Museum, and Archives
The Regents
are trustees over three cultural institutions of national importance – the State
Library, the State Museum, and the State Archives. To focus that trusteeship
role, Deputy Commissioner Huxley will discuss with the Cultural Education
Committee five major issues requiring Regents guidance. They concern
implementing New Century Libraries, ensuring attention to the history of
under-documented groups, renewing the State Museum exhibits, stewardship of the
collections, and closing the performance gap through the use of cultural
resources. These issues require careful thought in the context of preparing for
the future legislative and budget cycles.
Identification
of Persistently Dangerous Schools
Staff will
update the EMSC-VESID Committee on the criteria that will be used to identify
persistently dangerous schools. The
criteria are consistent with federal and state legislation as well as guidance
previously provided by members of the Board. In addition, the report will describe
what the Department has done to improve the quality of the data and the use of a
School Violence Index beginning with the 2003-04 school year data. Staff will also describe a Supportive
Learning Environment Index that would provide information about conditions of
school buildings that affect the learning process. We will seek comment from
teachers, administrators and the public and report the results to the Board next
spring.
