June 1999

BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER RICHARD P. MILLS

We can and we will improve student achievement

The results from the fourth grade English test should have surprised no one. The fourth grade test simply reflects the Regents standards. The standards are reasonable. They represent a level of achievement that people want for their children. For example, students should write in complete, grammatical sentences. They should spell and punctuate correctly. They should identify the main themes or ideas in what they read. This is basic. Roughly half of our fourth graders can do that. Many others can do some of that, but need more help to reach the standards. And 11 percent are in serious academic difficulty and need major help.

We are going up from here. It’s time to decide how. Attitude is all-important now. We can and will improve student achievement. Here are some of the State Education Department’s suggestions:

To those already in motion: Press on! Many schools know what to do and they are doing it: tutoring, extra help in reading and writing, summer schools, and teacher training and better curriculum.

To all students: Read 25 books a year. Write 1000 words every month. There is no shortcut to meeting the standards in English. Students need to read and write a lot. Use the public library. Most have summer reading programs.

To school leaders and parents: Study the results and act on them. Give students honest information on their performance. The fourth grade test produced a report on every single student and how well they performed against the standards. Children have a right to know how they are doing, and they need to know that all of the adults are ready to help them. For students farthest from the standards, diagnose the problem and decide what to do. And remember to keep these test results in perspective. In addition to the fourth grade test, there is a lot of other information available on how well students are doing.

To teachers: Learn and apply what works. School districts, Teacher Centers, professional organizations, higher education and BOCES are only a few of the organizations that offer education for professionals. Examine teaching practices in relation to the curriculum and the students’ achievement. Change what you are doing now if the results warrant it.

Devote more time to reading, writing and listening. We are sending 120,000 copies of Essential Elements of Reading to every elementary teacher and a wide variety of parent and educational organizations. Look at the school schedule. How much time are we really giving to this? What could we cut to provide more time? Can we start by cutting some television viewing?

To policy makers: Adopt a budget to pay for extra help and extra time to meet the standards. Adopt Regents policy on academic intervention, more English instruction for students who are still learning the language, and teacher preparation. Make sure that students who need summer school can attend.

To State and local educators: Examine the results of Schools Under Registration Review. This approach has brought much needed help to low performing schools as well as pressure to improve results.

Vocational and occupational education: starting a policy discussion

On a national basis, there has been a decline in recent years in enrollments in vocational education. Some educators in New York worry that high standards may block the opportunity of students to attend technical programs. The business community wants to know that there will be graduates with appropriate technical skills. What are the facts?

Can a student take all the courses required for graduation and also take a full occupational or technical sequence? If not, are there other ways to configure the combination of academic and technical programs? Should the Regents consider a separate Regents diploma in occupations as some have proposed? We will present information for a discussion of the first question at the June Regents meeting.

Recommendation: Here is a way to frame the discussion. Whether or not a student has time to pass courses and meet standards in both academic and technical areas is an empirical matter. Let’s find out how much time it takes first. We can also consider what happens if a student needs to repeat a course. If the data reveal genuine time constraints, are there creative ways to relax the constraints? For example, are half-day programs still the best approach with all of the travel time and costs involved? Are there national models that use time differently?

The Regents will discuss four items in preparation for a July vote on regulations to implement the findings of the Task Force on Teaching. When the Regents decide this matter, they will complete a major element of the structure to improve student achievement by providing for well-prepared teachers. Here are the items.

1. Professional development. This amendment to regulations would require school districts and BOCES to describe how they will provide teachers with substantial professional development. The amendment also requires districts (effective in 2004) to give teachers opportunities to maintain their professional certificates by completing 175 hours of professional development every five years. The plan would be developed through collaboration with a professional development team. Professional development would reflect State standards and test results, among other items.
2. Annual professional performance review. This amendment to regulations would require school districts and BOCES to plan annual performance reviews for teachers, using specified criteria. The district could supplement State criteria with locally developed criteria. Districts would describe how they will deal with teachers who are found to be unsatisfactory, and how administrators will be trained.
3. A consolidated schedule of Regents regulatory actions. This item came to the Regents in April and May. It reflects the work of three Deputy Commissioners and their colleagues, and it responds to deeply felt concerns among school superintendents and higher education deans that some elements of the implementation schedule need adjustment given the number and scope of separate policy actions.
4. Various additional suggestions for revision of the draft regulations. The Professional Standards Board has suggested several changes. In addition, State Education Department staff evaluated the suggestions from the regional hearings and recommended action on each one.

Commissioner’s recommendation: The first two items are about ready for Regents action in July.

I urge the Regents to consider the suggestions for modifying the implementation schedule as described to you in April in a paper from three Deputy Commissioners. While the original schedule is logical, we need to consider the perspective of local educators who are responding to massive challenges created by other elements of the reform, including the standards and the graduation requirements. Large school districts such as the Big Four report no difficulty in meeting the original schedule, but more typical districts are struggling with the confluence of many changes. Specifically, I urge you to modify the time period for the implementation of the first professional development plan from September 2000 to September 2001. This will provide districts with more time to focus on closing the gap for students at risk before initiating a system-wide planning process for professional development. I also support the proposal to allow teacher preparation institutions to implement new programs a year later than originally planned. Under the current schedule, which could be adopted in July but might not be until September, these institutions would have only one year to transform their programs. These modifications are consistent with the intent of the Task Force and will enhance the quality of implementation.

The suggestions from the Professional Standards Board deserve attention because they reflect the views of a body established by the Regents and because they respond to the Regents call for comments. However, many of the suggestions appear to add too much specificity to items that should be the concern of the institutions. The Regents teacher reform sets in motion major change in teacher preparation. The people doing the work at ground level should have some freedom of action as they lead their organizations through that change. They are, after all, accountable for results under the 80 percent rule.

Closing the gaps in student performance

The recent fourth grade test results give new urgency to the Regents Task Force on closing the gaps in student performance.

The problem is that too many students in too many schools are not meeting the standards. There are gaps in performance and gaps in opportunity. We suspect that the costs of not closing the gap will be unacceptably high. At the June Regents meeting we will specify the problem with data on test scores, attendance, graduation rates, and many other indicators of social well being.

The potential solutions, according to a recent publication of The Education Trust, include using state standards for curriculum design, testing, and teacher evaluation; more time for the basics; more professional development; systems to monitor student performance in order to provide extra help; parent involvement to get students to the standards; and accountability for the adults in the system. 1

1  The Education Trust, Dispelling the Myth: High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations, Washington, D.C. 1999.

Monitoring policy implementation is a critical board responsibility. A good example of a report needed to support this board work comes before the Regents this month in the Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continuing Education Committee. It is part one of a four-year study that shows how well people are informed of the standards, what help teachers and students have received, and the strategies schools are using to bring the standards to life. The data are from a survey of assistant superintendents for instruction.

In general most teachers have seen the standards and have been aware of the more challenging tests for over a year in advance of the testing date, and received Resource Guides for English and mathematics. Here are some interesting details:

• 85 percent or more of districts (not including NYC) reported that at least three-quarters of the teachers had copies of the standards.
• 75 percent of the teachers had copies of the English and math resource guides.
• 75 percent of the teachers knew about the 4^th grade English test more than a year in advance.
• 80 percent of districts are already using "academic intervention" strategies to help students who are struggling with the English standards.
• The percentage of teachers in New York City with copies of the standards is only slightly lower than the averages for other districts. However the percentage of New York City teachers with copies of the resource guide is lower. (English: 83.4 for rest of state, 70 percent for NYC).
• In New York City, 40 percent of teachers were notified by their community school district more than 6 months in advance of the new English and math tests (there was additional notification from the central board to the teachers) while the comparable figure for the rest of the state ranged from 59 to 90 percent.

Nearly $320 million in federal special education aid may be delayed until the Legislature brings New York into compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Regents and the State Education Department have campaigned for four years to reform the special education funding, and we are revising our regulations to match the new federal regulations. However, school districts will be hard pressed to implement the regulations without the federal funds. I am sending a letter to each legislator to stress the need to act now.

It’s time for the Regents to pick priorities for the year ahead. In the June Regents meeting I will focus on some of the data that are most compelling – both the successes and the critical needs. Once the board identifies priorities, we will develop the latest revision of our strategic plan for 2000 and beyond.

Kiryas Joel

For the third time, the Court of Appeals has struck down legislation creating a public school district whose boundaries are coterminous with the Village of Kiryas Joel. The Court of Appeals provided a period of transition until June 25. On June 26, unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues a further stay, the district will no longer exist.

The most important concern now is to ensure that students receive the services to which they are entitled under law without interruption. A State Education Department team will work through the transition period with local authorities to see that students have appropriate placements.

Recent and anticipated speaking engagements

• National Assessment Governing Board, May 14 in New York City, on New York’s testing system in the context of reform.
• Black School Board Members Caucus, May 15, on Long Island, on standards.
• MSTe Conference, May 15, on Long Island, on professional development in mathematics, science, and technology.
• Performance Gap Advisory Panel, May 17, in Albany, on the Regents initiative to close the gaps in student achievement.
• Rensselaer County Chamber of Commerce, May 19, in Troy, on school leadership.
• Opening of the Discovery Place exhibit at the State Museum, May 22.
• Commissioner’s Advisory Council on Higher Education, in Albany on June 1.
• Public hearing on School Violence, Lt. Governor’s Task Force, Poughkeepsie, June 2.
• Mt.Vernon community event, June 3, on raising student achievement.

A monthly publication of the State Education Department

Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page