Commissioner's Report to the Board of Regents

November 1995

by State Education Commissioner Richard P. Mills

Higher performance on a few fundamentals

This November report to the Regents is about a few basics:  our
overall mission which encompass far more than just schools,  the
performance of the Department and the public schools,  the few
items that the Regents believe are most important for their own
work and for the coming Legislative session,  and financial results.


Visiting New York with the Regents

As the Regents know,  I am scheduling visits to all of the regions of
New York in order to meet the many people that we serve.  These
regional meetings will represent the full scope of Regents and
Department responsibility.  To that end,  I will be meeting with
VESID staff,  higher education,  professional groups,  library and
cultural institutions,  and public and independent schools.   I am
delighted that Regents will be introducing me to their regions.

I used the recent opportunity of the School Boards Annual Meeting
to tour  the Rochester area,  and was joined by Regents Cooper,
Carballada and Dawson.   This month,  Regent Bennett will show
me around Buffalo.


Commissioner's Review of the Education Department

This month,  the first meeting of the Commissioner's Review of the
Education Department convened under the auspices of the
Rockefeller Institute.   A panel of 15 distinguished citizens oversees
this report that will emerge from interviews with almost 200
individuals including Department staff and our key stakeholders.  
The report is intended to reveal the shared sense that the
Department must dramatically improve performance, and also to
build support for that change.   I had originally planned that all of
the interviews would be conducted by the outside panel,  but a
suggestion from one member of the Department led me to invite 25
Department staff from all levels except senior management to
conduct most of the interviews.   We will report results in sixty days, 
but many of the actions needed will begin well before the report
appears.

In general,  I think that the Department of Education is
characterized by very able and hard working people whose talents
are often blocked by poor systems.  There are too many priorities.  
There is too much focus on process,  and not enough on results.  
We are not capitalizing on the unique fact that this organization
includes the libraries,  museums,  professional associations,  higher
education, VESID, and elementary and secondary education and
that these institutions comprise a huge force to lift the knowledge
and skill of all New Yorkers.   Many information-based activities go
on without modern information management tools.   Known
problems await solution for too long.   The paper flow is massive. 
Little is invested in professional development for Department staff. 
And these are only some of the issues.

These are,  however,  only the impressions of one person who is just
starting to learn about the immense opportunities in New York.   
The Commissioner's Review will focus the experience and views of
hundreds on the work at hand.


Testing Performance in the Schools

The Department is responsible for developing some 93 tests this
year,  counting multiple versions of some tests.  There are seven
different components in the system,  which reflects the steady
accretion of tests over the years.   This is a huge and costly
undertaking.  The Regents exams are well known to the public and
highly regarded.   They represent the gold standard,  and must be
protected.   But there are some other tests such as the Regents
Competency Tests or RCTs which enforce a far lower standard. 
Only 38 percent of New York students earned Regents diplomas
last year.   The public should know that we are asking most New
York students to march to a much slower drum.

The Regents face an interesting problem this year in testing.   You
will adopt new standards between December and June of the
coming year.  We cannot wait years for a new testing system, but
must use the best of what we have now  to show results to the
public.   We need money to pay for any additions to our testing
program but the only way to get it will be to stop spending
somewhere else.  Changes in testing will undoubtedly be met by
concern that the standards are being lowered.   We must
demonstrate convincingly that the opposite is the case,  and that
standards are in fact going up.   How can we navigate those straits? 
What follows is  not a proposal complete in every detail,  for there
are many unresolved questions,  but it is a direction for our work
together.   Suppose that we took these positions:  

       The new standards now under consideration will be
       put in place by Regents vote between December and
       June.  These standards must be shown to be higher
       than existing standards in New York,  and must drive
       future testing as well as curriculum and instruction. 

       Virtually all students should move to a curriculum
       culminating in a Regents exam. 

       The passing score for a Regents Diploma should
       remain at 65 for the time being,  but we should signal
       that soon the passing score will be raised.

       The low standard RCTs should be eliminated, 
       perhaps as early as next year.   A minimal competence
       cut point should be identified on the Regents exams to
       permit the award of a local diploma.   This would
       recognize performance that is below the Regents
       Diploma standard,  but nevertheless would start most
       students along the path toward a higher skill
       curriculum.

       The Regents should review available results from the
       pilot efforts this year to decide which of the new
       performance exams should be added to the New York
       array of testing.   We would use the resources made
       available from the elimination of the low standard
       RCTs to support these new test components.

       Put existing Regents exams on a schedule for
       continuous improvement over the next few years. 
       Monitor this continuous improvement to ensure that
       the tests measure more challenging material.

In summary:   Adopt high academic standards and make them apply
to virtually all students.   Have more students take the Regents
exams.    Eliminate low standards testing.    Using the money and
time saved, pick the most rigorous performance testing ideas now
under study,  develop them, and use them to improve the
comprehensive Regents Examination System for the future.

There are lots of unanswered questions with this approach.   For
example,  how should we provide for students in special education
who now receive diplomas based on the completion of their
individual education plans?   Should students be able to substitute
Advanced Placement Exam passing scores for certain Regents
exams?   What do we do with the elementary reading and
mathematics tests?   How do we resolve technical issues arising
from setting two cut points on the same Regents exam?   What kind
of evidence will convince the public that the standards in the exams
are really going up?   How do we enable more students to raise
their performance?

These are complex questions,  but we can find the answers if we
work at it together.  I have appreciated the advice from many
colleagues so far, including the District Superintendents, many local
superintendents, principals, and a few teachers.  Many more need to
join this effort.


New York City Governance

We have asserted a simple set of principles that focus the attention
of policymakers on what students need.  The main message is
simple:  build the governance system from the school up.    To a
degree,  these ideas are starting to appear in the debate,  and that is
a good sign.   Now we can turn to our own version of a bill that
would bring the principles to life.   The hearings being conducted by
Assemblyman Steven Sanders present an excellent opportunity for
all parties to get specific about proposals,  and we should do
likewise.   I will have an opportunity to speak at the hearing on
November 8.


Strengthening Regents Policy Making

The Regents material arrived in such abundance for the November
meeting that I couldn't read it all prior to the mailing deadline,  
and that led me to look at the system for building the agenda.  
Dave Johnson estimated that an average of 61 separate items
appear on the Regents agenda during each of the eight meetings in
Albany during the year.   Materials average over 1600 pages per
meeting.   Some senior managers are responsible for more than one
committee,  and one supports seven committees and work groups.  
In many cases,  new research assignments are given at one meeting
and due by the following meeting.   In order to meet mailing
deadlines in those cases, staff have little more than two weeks,  and
that is often not sufficient to do first class policy work when they are
also managing programs.   But however they work,  they are not
getting the material in on schedule,  and probably cannot,  given the
volume:   74 percent of all items scheduled for the November
meeting were late according to our internal schedule.  At the
meeting itself,  the volume is too great for the whole Board to be
informed about all the items.

Here are some suggestions to improve this situation and they are in
the spirit of the improvements that the Regents began a year ago
when the Board moved many ministerial items to a consent agenda.  
We are creating a one year schedule for all items expected to come
before the Regents and the standing committees.   I would ask the
Regents to make whatever revisions they would like in that
schedule,  and then we can use it to make better use of staff time.  
Regents might revise that schedule quarterly.   Perhaps the
committees could cut back to a single agenda item each month.   I
propose that the Regents authorize me to remove items from the
agenda on their behalf  if those items  are not provided to me by
senior staff by a due date that allows enough time for me and the
Regents to read the material.   And Regents mailings might be
reduced to 150 pages per month to enable the entire Board to
master all the items.    This would enable the Board to build a
steady series of policy improvements in all of the key areas of
responsibility,  and would emphasize the importance of having all of
our units in one agency under a Board of Regents.


Finance Report

The Board of Regents will receive a monthly financial report for the
first time in November.  This is the first of a series of actions to
improve our financial controls.   Other steps include a chief financial
officer -- we have more than 100 applications -- and a proposal in
the 1997 budget to strengthen the accounting system.  

The finance report presents expenditures in relation to
appropriations in the major state and federal accounts.   The
purpose is to support the Regents' oversight of  the Department
and to ensure accountability of management.   Ruth Henahan,
Acting Chief Financial Officer,  is responsible for this report,  and I
appreciate her efforts.   This month's  report indicates that at the
half way point through the fiscal year,  expenditures in four accounts
exceed revenues,  and I have directed management to correct these
imbalances to prevent end-of-year deficits.   (Those accounts are in
the Teacher Tenure Unit,   the Bureau of Proprietary School
Supervision,  State Archives Records Management,  and in the cost
recovery positions of central administration.) 


A Legislative Agenda

During the last session, we had a legislative agenda of over 60 bills.  
Barely a handful passed.   In the coming session, we might focus
attention on a bare handful of really important bills,  and try to get
all of them passed.   The proposed legislative agenda includes items
that are directly supportive of the Regents' policy directions.