February 2006
BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER
RICHARD P. MILLS
The Meeting in
Brief: Urgent follow through on the Summit,
A Call to Action, and related elements of the Regents priorities
continue to frame the Regents work this month. The Regents will discuss the 2000 and
2001 cohort results and their implications for closing the achievement gap. The EMSC-VESID committee will again
discuss high school policy options, and will take up a specific component of
high school reform—Career and Technical Education—for a review of current
policy. The Regents will adopt
their federal agenda and discuss the Executive budget, both of which are arenas
for action on the gap. The Quality Committee will discuss the Commissioner’s
performance agreement and a renewed version of the 24-Month Policy Calendar,
both of which outline action on the gap. The Cultural Education Committee will
exercise its trustee function by reviewing major aspects of the state museum and
library. The Regents will be asked
to approve the appointment of Jean Stevens as Interim Deputy Commissioner, EMSC.
The Committee on Higher Education and the Professions will discuss a report on
alternative teacher certification.
64 Percent Graduate in
Four Years:
Problem and Solution in
Brief
That is a
shocking number. It is unacceptable. In our large cities, the proportion is even
lower. As we will see this month,
it is lower still for children with disabilities, for children of color, and for
students learning English. The 127 lowest performing high schools as a group
graduate, on average, 40 percent of their students after four years.
Facts like these
compelled us to hold the USNY Summit. We wanted others to share the urgency we
feel. And we wanted to drive action
at state, regional and local levels along the lines the Regents have discussed
in each of the last several months.
To improve high school results,
there are potential actions Regents could take to improve teacher quality,
monitoring, effective practice, public engagement and use of data, including
creating performance targets. Additional Regents actions could improve
achievement for children with disabilities and English language learners. These
possibilities are outlined below, and we can discuss them in detail at the
Regents meeting.
This month, we
will publish graduation rates for every high school in New York. Confronting the
facts will convince most people that the gap is not some distant condition
affecting others, but something right in our town. And that is the beginning of
the next chapter in the campaign to raise achievement.
Who are the 36
percent of the 9th graders of 2001 who should have graduated after
four years but did not? They were
4th graders in 1995 and 1996 before the Regents adopted the
standards. They did not receive the
benefits of the standards in elementary school. Few of them attended
pre-Kindergarten. Their teachers were not required to meet the new Regents
standards for teaching passed in 1998 and 1999; many in the lowest performing
schools had teachers with temporary licenses, a practice ended last year. Most
of them were in school districts that did not benefit from an equitable state
aid distribution. The children we speak of were in the 8th grade in
2000, just after the higher standards tests began. In that year, 25 percent statewide
scored at level 1 in mathematics; 44 percent of New York City 8th
graders were at level 1. We have in
the past examined data that indicated the low probability of passing the Regents
exam from a level 1 start in 8th grade. Many of them probably repeated
9th grade. In the districts many of the students attended, a third or
more did not even take the Regents exams because they had not passed their
courses.
We have visited
many of the low performing high schools and seen teachers and administrators try
hard to improve outcomes for children in this group. It is for those children especially that
the Regents required Academic Intervention, 55 as a low pass option, and the
special education safety net. In many cases, their schools were under
registration review and all the improvement efforts that this entails. But we
must do much more.
Is anything
working? Yes, there is a lot that’s
working. We must keep both the failures and the successes in the same
conversation at all times for several reasons. The recent gains promise better
performance in the near future, and teachers, parents, and the public need to
see the successes to keep going. Later classes, for example, showed higher
performance in elementary grades and in middle school mathematics. Fewer students in the later classes
repeated 9th grade. Kati
Haycock said at the Summit that NAEP results show New York is #2 and #3 among
all the states in narrowing the reading gap for Latino and African-American
students respectively. Our own
exams show similar gains. More students are graduating, a higher proportion of
them with a Regents diploma. New York leads the nation in the proportion with
qualifying scores on AP exams and in the proportion taking SAT
exams.
Pointing to both
the gains and the remaining gaps is essential to the case we make in the budget
advocacy for state aid. The gains and the remaining gap together justify both
the $1.5 billion requested by the Regents, and their proposed Foundation
approach to aid distribution. New York invested $7 billion more in state aid in
the last decade, and that contributed to the improvements. However, in constant
dollars this amounted to about $2 billion more over a decade, or an average 1.7
percent over the rate of inflation each year. That was a significant enhancement
of capacity. And yet the state aid
distribution and capacity enhancement did not follow the need.
All societies
have a mix of successes and failures in their education systems, but we will be
measured on how we build on the one and greatly reduce the other.
The Summit
correctly framed the challenge: raise achievement overall and close the gap
while in the presence of formidable global competitors racing to accomplish the
same goals. The six USNY aims are the right ones, and USNY itself is an
instrument for the work ahead. We
must communicate the problem urgently, and build state, regional and local
networks to do the work. And we must change policy and practice at three points:
early education, high school, and higher education. The Board has, in fact,
adopted policy in early education and higher education and pursues high school
reforms urgently.
The gap,
especially the gap in graduation, and the gains, mostly in elementary and middle
school, demand additional action, and it is critical that we take decisive
action this year:
Regents action to improve high
schools, particularly urban high schools, can build upon policy already
established by the Board, including higher standards, assessments and
accountability, course requirements for graduation, a governance system with a
pre-K through 16 reach, teacher standards and improvements in teacher education,
and the Foundation proposal to resolve the state aid problem. That policy framework is strong but not
sufficient. For the last year we
have convened leaders from 12 districts and 127 schools to pursue a short list
of practical actions to raise graduation rates. This work is called
Destination Diploma. That, too, is a sound approach, but not sufficient.
Here, again, are the seven additional actions that can advance the Regents work
on high schools.
Set targets and measure
results. The Regents can direct that the 127 high schools set
targets for graduation and attendance and describe what they must do to meet
them. The Regents would accept these targets or require other targets. The
school boards would report results to the Regents annually. The Regents would
define consequences for school boards that do not make reasonable progress.
Make
local school boards
accountable for high school performance. The Regents can require reports from school
boards on results in the 127 high schools, and meet with the presidents and vice
presidents of those boards to hear what they will do to gain improvements. In
the case of New York City, the meeting would be with the chancellor of the New
York City Department of Education. The responses may lead the Regents to take
more action or define new policy.
Check teacher qualifications and order changes where
necessary. By a date certain, direct that each of the 127
schools will have all teachers certified in the subjects they are teaching, with
particular attention to the subjects required for graduation. Monitor to ensure
compliance.
Strengthen teaching. Faculties and administrators in high
performing schools conduct continuous professional development focused on proven
curricula and practice with opportunities for colleagues to further develop
subject matter knowledge. If the Commissioner determines that this is necessary
in any of the 127 schools, he will require schools to provide such professional
support.
Ensure safety. The Commissioner would review safety plans for the
127 schools and the data about incidents, including suspensions. Where
necessary, the Commissioner will require immediate corrective action and
evidence of follow-through.
Here are three other
actions that would provide information essential to new policy on high
schools:
Engage the public. Using expert help, engage the public in these school
communities to build a willingness to change the school for higher achievement.
Many of the changes that will be needed to produce dramatically better results
are likely to seem “not high school” to parents and other members of the public.
The public owns the high schools, knows what they are supposed to look like, and
will withhold support unless we engage and listen.
Engage the students. What do
the students say? We haven’t asked them in a systematic way in New York, but
earlier national surveys report that students want higher standards, something
done about disruptive students, and teachers who treat them with respect. Technology adds another element to
consider in the design of high schools. The co-chairs of the USNY Council on
Technology Policy and Practice observe that many children live in parallel
learning environments: the traditional one found in most schools and the digital
learning environment outside.
Support the highest performers. The proposals just outlined are for some of the
lowest performing high schools. What about the highest performers? Our global
competition pays particular attention to the most proficient students. Higher
education and business leaders who think about preserving our lead in innovation
also think about our top students. We should recognize the highest performing
schools, meet their students and teachers, encourage their continued reaching
for still higher achievement, and we should make manifest what they
do.
In
addition to actions needed to improve results in high schools overall, the 2001
cohort data prompt us to consider actions to improve results for children with
disabilities and students who are English language learners. Here are some suggestions for Regents
action, which we can describe more fully at the Regents
meeting.
·
Produce accurate and
timely data, set targets for improved outcomes, and increase public awareness of
results to leverage change.
·
Refocus monitoring to
hold schools accountable for improving instructional
practice.
·
Focus technical
assistance networks through increased accountability for student
performance.
·
Increase the supply of
qualified special education teachers and other staff.
·
Expand high quality
in-state special education options for students with the most severe
disabilities.
Actions to Improve Results for
English Language Learners:
The Organizational
Framework:
The Commissioner’s proposed
performance agreement and the 24-month policy calendar (see below) includes
commitments to refine measures of the gap, evaluate current gap-closing
strategies against current best practice, and create new delivery systems and
innovations to accelerate gap closing.
We have partnership agreements with
the Big Four school districts, which define what local and state partners will
do about leadership, teaching, curriculum, professional development, and other
essentials. Three of the Big Four
have new superintendents and these agreements need renewal. We are in ongoing discussions with New
York City leaders, including Chancellor Klein and his colleagues. The SURR
process continues to support school improvement. In addition, 127 high schools
with the lowest graduation rates are in an intense, continuing development
effort with us called Destination Diploma. Teams from each of the schools worked
together in three two-day sessions last year on a short list of promising
practices. The district superintendents have created networks to support school
improvement, and the School Support Centers are working in the urban school
systems. We will again examine how these structures work to improve results, and
make changes where necessary. The Regents may want to meet with the leaders of
the Big Five school districts one by one to strengthen the joint work on closing
the gap.
Policy Review of Career and
Technical Education
Career
and Technical Education (CTE) is part of the high school reform and one of the
specific strategies being pursued in the Destination Diploma work. The Regents will discuss a second report
on the independent evaluation of CTE policy implementation from MAGI Educational
Services. Also included is a NYC
profile. Here are some
findings:
Recommendations are summarized in
the Regents item. The most significant recommendations
include:
Renewed 24-month Policy
Calendar
The
Quality Committee will discuss a renewal of the 24-month calendar. The purpose
is to schedule the policy decisions and policy reviews so that there is
sufficient time for the Board to define the problems, evaluate options, seek
public comment, review research, and make effective decisions. It promotes efficient use of Regents
time. The calendar also benefits
the public and educational and cultural institutions because they have
sufficient time to engage the Board and present their views. The renewed 24-month calendar in
concert with the performance agreement will coordinate the work of the Board and
Commissioner.
The Quality
Committee will discuss a proposed Commissioner’s performance agreement and will
recommend action to the Full Board. The proposed agreement reflects discussions
between the Chancellor, the chair of the Quality Committee, and me. It
incorporates the topics the Regents agreed to in January during our annual
performance review.
The proposed
agreement says the Commissioner will concentrate on raising achievement and
accelerating gap closing throughout the PreK-16 system. I will concentrate on
three means to achieve that end:
Each of the three approaches is
clearly defined by a stated focus, many specific actions and a list of measures,
which we will use together to monitor results periodically with formal reviews
every six months. This agreement
would be in effect during 2006 and 2007. I will use the performance agreement to
concentrate my time and that of the Deputy Commissioners on the work of highest
priority to the Regents.
Executive Budget
The Regents have
an analysis of the Executive budget.
The Deputy Commissioners and I have testified on the Regents budget
recommendations for over four hours in two sessions of the joint finance
committees. We have begun
continuous advocacy with leaders, committee chairs, and individual members. Here are some major
points:
Regents Federal
Agenda
The
Regents will consider for approval a revised draft statement of their priorities
for federal legislation. The draft reflects Regents policy priorities and the
aims developed at the Education Summit. It contains several new items the
Regents asked to have included. This USNY oriented document underscores the
connections among federal, state and local financial commitments. The
109th Congress will take up reauthorization debates that mirror many
of the Regents policy discussions and prior decisions. No Child Left Behind
reauthorization is scheduled for the 110th Congress but important
preparations will begin this year. Workforce Investment Act reauthorization is
important to the Regents work on closing the gap and developing the vocational
rehabilitation system of the future.
Congress made changes to the Higher Education Act student loan programs
in the federal fiscal year 2006 budget reconciliation act; the program elements
remain to be reauthorized. Congress continues to negotiate reauthorization of
the USA Patriot Act, which could affect library records. The Regents policy
discussion on early education will have a federal counterpart in the Head Start
reauthorization. Regents interest
in the congressional debates on cultural education will focus on continuation of
federal funding.
The
Regents decision on their federal legislation agenda will frame our advocacy
during the 109th Congress, both in New York and especially in
Washington, DC. We will share it
with members of the Congress, congressional staff, and the many interested
groups.
Cultural Education
Trusteeship
The Regents are
trustees of the collections in the State Museum, State Library, and State
Archives. The Cultural Education Committee meeting this month will act on that
responsibility on behalf of the Full Board. The focus this month will be two-fold:
1) the current use of information technology to conserve and make available the
collections, and a three-year blueprint to improve in this area; and 2) the
initiative to renew the State Museum and construct a collection research
facility.
The State
cultural institutions have created an array of demonstrations, pilots, and small
systems to test ways to extend our use of technology. It’s time to decide how we
will invest in the most promising of these efforts. Deputy Commissioner Carole
Huxley and her colleagues have provided a CD that enables the Board to see what
our quality competitors around the nation are doing. This is benchmarking of the kind we
promised in the SED of the Future initiative. In this case, we can see that the State
cultural institutions are on the right path but far behind the
pathfinders.
To put this in
context, we might reflect on the discussions about renewing the collections
facilities and the museum exhibits a few years ago. The Board and the State Education
Department studied what we had in relation to our growing needs, and also looked
at the highest performing institutions around the nation. The result was the
Regents plans for the new records retention center and the renewal of the
exhibits. And now those concepts appear in the Executive Budget for a Cultural
Education trust fund. The work we
are doing now in the use of technology to access the collections is on the same
course. We might envision it as the virtual version of what we did earlier with
the facilities. Both are indispensable to the future of the cultural
institutions under the direct care of the Regents.
The Committee on
Higher Education and the Professions will discuss the annual report on
alternative teacher certification programs. Alternative teacher certification
programs exist in 24 colleges and universities. This partnership between schools
and higher education is yet another example of USNY in action. The monitoring
report shows that more than 8800 teachers have entered the profession through
this path since 2001. One-year retention appears high, and improving retention
has been a focus for both program leaders and local educators. The report tracks the fluctuating
retention rates since Fall 2000. A
significant proportion of the Teaching Fellows have been prepared for subjects
where there are shortages. The
report also presents data about placements. For example, 39 percent of 2004
Teaching Fellows are in Schools in Need of Improvement. The report provides a foundation for the
Regents ongoing review of one element of their policy on teacher
preparation.
The
Regents will discuss draft regulations for school leadership certificates. We recently implemented the new Regents
requirement that future leaders complete approved higher education programs
focused on what leaders must know and be able to apply. The first cohort will
graduate this spring. The proposed amendments to strengthen the certification
requirements include: the experience requirement, professional development,
alternative pathways for exceptionally qualified candidates, and assessment. The
Regents will need to decide how to respond to feedback from the field related to
the proposed assessment for school leaders.
A monthly publication of the State Education Department
Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page