BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER RICHARD P. MILLS
February 1999
BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER
RICHARD P. MILLS
The budget hearings begin on February 9 and we have a job to do. While the Governor’s budget reflects the Regents priorities in some ways, there are also obvious problems. For example:
State Aid Increase to Meet High Standards
 |
The 173 High Need Districts (including the Big 5) educate 1.47 million pupils or 51.2 percent of pupils statewide. |
| Note: This chart assumes that the $130M in grant program reductions, included in the Executive Budget, will be restored through new programs during the 30-day amendment period. | |
There are, of course, some positive elements in the Executive budget. It includes the Regents proposed funding for school facilities. It endorses the concepts behind the Regents special education reform, although with significant differences in detail that must be resolved for the measure to pass. The Executive budget also provides aid to support implementation of the standards.
Regents visited nonpublic schools for two days in January, and also met with the Nonpublic School Advisory Council. This has brought new energy to the discussions about standards in the nonpublic schools. All parties are more aware of the aims and concerns of others and are searching for a framework to renew the agreement on accountability that we decided in the 1980s during the last raising of Regents standards.
Some sectors of the nonpublic community are already implementing the Regents standards and exams while others still have issues. There is respect on all sides and an apparent willingness among most to find a resolution. Discussions are continuing and I expect to be able to bring a proposal to the Regents soon.
We worked hard to improve preschool special education and the legislation enacted two years ago was the result. Now we see some of the benefits for children. The rate of integration of preschool students with disabilities has grown from 32 percent to 45 percent in two years. Now we have to be vigilant to see that universal prekindergarten programs become fully integrated as they grow throughout New York.
Final data show that placement rates in special education have slowed to the lowest rate of increase in the last five years – an increase of just a tenth of one percent last year. There is a two-year drop in the number of districts classifying more than 15 percent of their students. These are early indicators of success in prevention efforts statewide.
There has also been a drop in the use of separate settings for students with disabilities. In 1996, 77 districts placed more than 15 percent of their students with disabilities in separate settings. In 1997, this number fell to 59. At the recent Quarterly Performance Review for VESID, District Superintendent William Bassett described the intense local and regional effort to accomplish this goal.
There are other findings that raise questions. Minority students are identified for special education in greater proportion to total enrollment than are white students. Minority students are more likely to be placed in separate settings. Minority students also are more likely to spend less time in the general program than are white students. We will probe deeply into these findings in particular districts.
Finally, these new results reinforce the need for action this year on special education reform. While the proportion of students with disabilities in general education more than 80 percent of the time is close to the national average, there is a problem with more restrictive programs. Nationally, 21.7 percent of students are in general classes for less than 40 percent of the day; New York’s figure is 34.8 percent. The current funding system encourages this more restrictive placement.
We need to support leadership – and also recruit new leaders. One way to do that is to show the public many examples of effective school leaders. I co-host a monthly PBS television program on leadership which airs statewide. There have been six of these programs so far, and with the talent at hand, there is no end in sight to the series. This month, I will be recording a program on the critical relationship between boards and superintendents. Our guest will be Superintendent Josephine Moffett of Freeport. The programs include studio discussions and short video clips of the leaders in action in the community.
Deputy Commissioner Gerald Patton convened the Task Force on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness on January 26 to develop criteria and guidelines for assessing performance in colleges and universities. They will concentrate on institutional missions, criteria for measuring performance and linkage with accreditation activities in New York. He will convene a related Policy Advisory Committee on February 16 to set up the framework for higher education assessment that preserves the diversity of New York’s higher education institutions. The goals are straightforward: accountability and the preservation of critical differences among institutional missions that constitute the strength and breadth of New York’s colleges and universities.
Starting this month, applicants for professional licenses can get applications and forms from our web page. We started with nursing, which includes 40 percent of all new candidates for professional licenses, and will add the other professions one by one. By June, all professions will have the same service.
In January, Office of the Professions added a new feature to an already persistent effort to answer questions from customers. Our Customer Service staff resolve hundreds of questions every day as fast as they come in. However, some questions and problems are complex and involve referral to other units for research. Customer Service now tracks those more complex customer issues and calls back in 48 hours to check that the customer is satisfied. Early reaction from customers: astonishment at this focus on quality. My reaction: just what one would expect from the team that won a Governor’s Workforce Champion Award.
There is a sunset provision in the authorizing legislation for the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund. December 31, 2000 is the key date but we must prepare to act now. This fund generates $12 million a year and has been key in bringing to New York’s State Archives every major national award for excellence in the field.
More to the point, the Fund has brought enormous improvements in government records management since it began in 1989. For example, in 1989 only 3 county governments had an archive; now 29 do. Before there was almost no systematic microfilming of records; now over 60 percent of counties, 29 percent of towns and 40 percent of cities have such programs. Fewer than 12 local government centers had records centers or inventories of their modern records; now there are over 1000. In addition, more than 1000 educators received training in the educational use of records.
I informed the Regents earlier of meetings that individual Regents and I convened in each of the Big Four districts to focus on the performance gap and to muster local partnerships to improve student performance. These meetings included superintendents and boards, mayors and county executives, parents, unions, higher education, leaders of cultural education, business and many others.
Local leaders have taken dramatic action to give students more help. In Rochester, for example, half of the 3,000 fourth graders attended four days of extra instruction in reading and writing during the holidays. Superintendent Clifford Janey plans to offer the same opportunity in February and April. In Buffalo, Superintendent James Harris sent workbooks and video tapes to families to explain the standards and to help parents support the schools’ effort to ready students for the fourth grade test.
Small City School leaders are fully aware of the Regents determination to see the performance gap closed and have agreed to meet in the late winter.
The key factor is the data. What used to be a thing to be avoided is now the centerpiece as local school leaders put unacceptable performance data in front of people and use that data to call for local support for improvement plans. This strategy demands boldness from local leaders. There have been few rewards for those who point to low test scores in their own communities. We must back this leadership.
Regional scoring concluded last week and we have positive reports. Many commented on the rigor – even rigidity – of the safeguards we had in place to ensure security and consistent scoring. These included intense training, random re-scoring of a tenth of the test papers, and a scoring protocol that required teachers to score only one question so that they could be trained to a high level of reliability.
Teachers in some parts of the state reported positively on the opportunity to assemble with colleagues from around the region. There are very few times when they can do that, and almost never with student work as the sole focus.
I have names and a charge for the panel to review the test and will make those appointments this week. We are changing test printing and delivery systems to eliminate the delay that was so frustrating to local educators and students.
The panel’s review will determine if there was any exposure of confidential material resulting in an unfair advantage to students. The review will specifically address the following questions:
Stage 1. An impartial panel of six experts will review the test development procedures to address the first question. These experts will include: an expert on public policy, a school superintendent, two testing experts, a fourth grade teacher, and an expert in English language arts. After review of the methods used to identify and select passages, this panel will advise me on any possible adjustments that could improve the test development process.
Stage 2. The State Education Department will issue a Request for Proposals to study empirically the impact of possible exposure. I will review the analysis to determine the appropriate use of test data.
Stage 1 should be completed by mid-March. Stage 2 should be completed by the end of April.
A monthly publication of the State Education Department
Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page