September 2004
BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER
RICHARD P. MILLS
Meeting in Brief: The Regents will discuss their potential 2005-06 State aid recommendation and next federal agenda. The Board is scheduled to adopt the non-state aid portion of the 2005-06 budget proposal. They will examine the student achievement gap from another perspective: jobs and workforce preparation. Teacher quality is part of the gap closing strategy, and the Board will continue its earlier discussion of proposed regulations for supplementary teaching certificates. The Regents will continue their review of Department implementation of policy on assessment by discussing a report on improvements in assessment over the last year, and will decide their schedule for reviewing additional assessment topics. The Board will define a framework for their future decisions on charter schools.
The budget vetoes were
disappointing. Consider the list at right. The funds were needed in January when
we advocated for them at the joint legislative committees, we spoke to that need
throughout the session, and the need is still there today. Therefore we ask that these funds be
restored.
Every part of the University of the State
of New York is affected, including the State Education Department. On the list
are dollars needed to enable students to complete higher education, connect
persons with disabilities to jobs, sustain libraries, counter school violence,
prepare students for work, rescue low performing schools, and prepare future
teachers. We will again communicate the importance of these programs to
legislative leaders, the educational community, and the
public.
This has been an unusual budget cycle. Even now there is no end to the uncertainty facing local educators and leaders of cultural institutions. So let 2004 also be remembered as the year when our budget advocacy never stopped.
General
Fund State Operations $2,100,000
Education
of Children of Migrant Workers
4,500
AIDS
Education Funding
34,600
The Regents have in
committee and in the Full Board developed their recommendations for the
non-state aid portion of their 2005-06 budget proposal. The Board scheduled a
September vote on this recommendation. Accordingly, the budget bluebook will be
before the Board. The Board will want to discuss SED capacity. This is an issue
that the Board has already engaged and will continue to discuss during the fall.
We advocated for more staff in certain critical areas during the 2004-05 budget
debate and will need to do so again.
Key question: Will the
Regents adopt their 2005-06 recommendation for the non-state aid portion of the
budget?
During the last legislative
session and in the CFE process, state aid and accountability issues have been
joined. The Regents discussed this in May. It is important, therefore, that the
Regents take up both issues together and the Board will do so in the EMSC-VESID
committee.
The decision on the Board’s
2005-06 state aid proposal is scheduled for December. However, the schedule of
panel of referees in the CFE case concludes by the end of November. As requested
by the Regents, Counsel and Chief of Staff Kathy Ahearn filed a request for the
Regents to appear as amicus and that
request was granted. Included in the request were the Board’s 2004 state aid
proposal and a summary of our accountability system.
A hallmark of the Regents
attention to accountability has been the Board’s determination to seek
continuous improvements in the policy and its implementation. We did this most recently when the Board
revised their already rigorous accountability system to be consistent with No
Child Left Behind. The CFE matter
presents another such opportunity.
The Regents item on
accountability presents a number of ideas that have appeared before the Board
before – the student record system, and the regional support centers, to cite
two examples – but now shows how they might enhance the accountability system by
enabling schools to improve.
Federal
Agenda
In December, the Regents
will adopt their federal legislative priorities. In September, the Regents will react to
a framework for that decision. We propose a concise statement to support
advocacy with members of Congress.
Still pending reauthorizations (IDEA, WIA) may be completed this year and
would be removed from the paper. We will focus on expected congressional action
in the 109th Congress: reauthorizations of Higher Education and
Perkins, and possible revisions to No Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind needs
more discussion. As the Board can see from the recent Education Commission of
the States report, New York is one of a handful of states that have implemented
all of the main provisions of the law. New York was also in the minority of
states that implemented the predecessor to NCLB. Deputy Commissioner Kadamus
notes that we used NCLB to create a $100 million after school program capacity
and a scientifically-based reading program. We used the grade-by-grade testing
requirements to engage local educators to create the next generation of
assessment. We have also defined specific points that need revision and continue
to pursue those matters in Washington. We need allies to get changes, but our
interests are not identical with all the other states.
Key question: Does the Board
agree with this framework and does the Board have guidance to offer in preparing
the new federal advocacy materials?
One result of a good
education is a good job. Preparation for work is not the only reason for a good education.
Readiness for citizenship, development as a caring, responsible human being –
these are big parts of the American rationale for education, too. But Anthony Carnevale and Donna
Desrochers note that without a job, the other parts of the dream fade quickly.
Consider this from their Standards for
What? The Economic Roots of K-16 Reform:
“Those who are not equipped
with the knowledge and skills necessary to get, and keep, good jobs are denied
full social inclusion and tend to drop out of the mainstream culture, polity,
and economy. Hence, if the standards reform movement cannot fulfill its economic
mission to help youth and adults become successful workers, it also will fail in
its cultural and political missions to create good neighbors and good
citizens.”[1]
The economic imperative for high standards education is a dimension of the achievement gap discussion. Many have responded to the Regents relentless focus on standards and results with concern about the pace and rigor of the standards. “Slow down” is the message. The economic argument goes in the opposite direction: toward still higher standards and faster, too.
Jobs today require higher
skills than before. Assistant Secretary of Education Susan Sclafani reminded the
chief state school officers that 60 percent of all jobs were unskilled in 1950,
but by the end of the 20th century that proportion had dropped to 15
percent. Jobs that don’t require a college degree nevertheless require more than
a high school level of knowledge and skill.
The workplace pays a premium
to workers at successively higher levels from dropout to high school diploma,
some college, BA and so on. However the economic argument is not about
credentials. As the Hudson Institute notes in Workforce 2020, employers are buying
skills, not just any diploma.
Former Labor Secretary
Robert Reich has said that work is being transformed around the world. Work that
is routine is being automated or eliminated. He cites as an example, “welders” in
auto manufacturing who sit at computers controlling the robotics. These workers
are few, highly skilled, and highly productive.
The business community sees
these changes and has long supported the Regents effort to raise standards and
achievement. Demographics alone would be enough to give employers a stake in
closing the achievement gaps. Millions of baby boomers are thinking about
retirement. The generations behind them are much smaller. Workforce experts say
that there will not be enough workers to do the work of the future. It follows
that no economy can afford to poorly educate anyone.
Globalization is one more
part of this. As John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable said,
financial markets compel businesses to move quickly. The jobs go wherever there
are educated people.
University of Tennessee
Professor William Sanders told a group in Albany that 40,000 engineers graduated
recently in the United States. In one year, India graduated 140,000 while China
graduated 340,000. I had an
opportunity to listen to the vice-minister for education of the People’s
Republic of China. He spoke of China’s determined effort to close its own
achievement gap.
As part of the continuing
series of expert presentations on Regents priorities, we will hear from Anthony
Carnevale and from Linda Sanford, senior vice president, IBM. Dr. Carnevale is a national expert on
the gaps from a workforce perspective. Ms. Sanford has been a leader in the
Business Council’s Engage New York
campaign to build additional business support for the Regents standards and the
need for higher student achievement.
Key questions: How does this
information deepen our understanding of the gap closing strategy? How can we
strengthen the alliance with business partners in closing the
gap?
The Regents will discuss a
report on improvements in test development and administration since last
September and the new exams required by No Child Left Behind. This item is
pursuant to the Regents commitment to study and monitor the Department’s
implementation of the Board’s policies on assessment. The EMSC-VESID will decide
their schedule for reviewing three more assessment topics: the 8th
grade exams, the graduation requirement of five Regents exams, and 65 as a
minimum passing score for graduation.
In June the EMSC-VESID
Committee considered -- but did not
commit to -- the possibility of defining more than one model for a middle
school. In September, the Committee
will discuss a framework of three models.
The starting point is the
Regents policy on middle level education adopted in 2003. The question is how to implement that
policy in approximately 800 middle schools serving children with very different
needs.
The paper includes ten
design principles that would help even the strongest middle school improve. We
would build a self-help tool around those principles for local
use.
The heart of the paper is
table 1, which shows how all middle schools on a continuum of five different
conditions could choose among three different models. The three are clearly
distinguished, and while some would not be available to some schools, every
school would have at least two choices.
There are several potential
gains from such an approach. The Board would be able to offer three distinct
ways to implement its middle level policy in schools facing different
conditions. The schools themselves would be encouraged to invent the most
workable middle schools of the future. And the principles would lead to improved
practice in all or most middle schools.
Teaching Policy
The Regents policy on
teaching is now almost six years old and last May, approximately 18,000 new
teachers graduated – the first group to prepare under the new policy. The Board committed to review of the
policy in 1998, and has followed through and will continue to do so this month.
The Regents will discuss a
report on three items that the Regents Task Force on Teaching discussed long and
carefully in 1998:
·
Master’s degree in three
years instead of five as required formerly.
·
Full-time faculty in
sufficient numbers for a majority of the courses.
·
Faculty workload
limits.
The Task Force and the Full
Board had good reasons for the positions taken on these issues. However, they
continued to listen to differing perspectives throughout the implementation. The
Department’s paper presents data from college and university presidents on these
issues, and summarizes the views of others. The paper outlines an approach that
would allow more flexibility on the faculty issues for institutions that achieve expected
results. This thinking is
consistent with the Regents discussions over the years on “winning
compliance.”
Throughout the six-year
implementation, the Regents have balanced firmness and flexibility to get the
result they sought from the beginning – a well-prepared teacher in every
classroom. Keeping the balance has
never been easy. One more point
that might be helpful: Consider the overall condition of teaching and the
patterns of shortages and oversupply. Teachers need rigorous preparation to
enable their future students to meet the standards. Too many teachers are being
prepared in some fields, and too few in others. We need to search, as the Board always
has, for the policy framework that ensures rigorous preparation of a sufficient
number of teachers where they are needed. This is consistent with the 1998 Task
Force report that drew attention to gaps in teacher preparation and
placement.
The Board will have an
unprecedented database to evaluate teacher policy as the research of James
Wyckoff, Hamilton Lankford, Donald Boyd, Pam Grossman, and Susanna Loeb
emerges.
Key question: Does the
experience of the last six years support modification of Regents policy to
provide teacher preparation programs with greater success more regulatory
flexibility?
Teacher shortages continue
in mathematics, science, special education and bilingual/ESL. In June the Higher Education and
Professional Practice committee discussed a supplemental certificate that would
respond to this need. The matter comes to the Committee again with revisions
after consultation with Regents, educators from around the State, and the
Professional Standards and Practices Board for Teaching. The supplemental
certificate would be available in fields with shortages for candidates who
already hold a teaching certificate, earn specific academic credits, pass
required courses and the Content Specialty Test, and enroll in a higher
education institution to complete requirements. Schools that employ such teachers would
commit to support them to ensure quality instruction.
Key questions: Do the
proposed regulations respond to Regents intent that we must create a larger pool
of qualified teachers in fields with shortages? Does the Board want to adopt new
regulations?
The Higher Education and
Professional Practice Committee will continue the discussion on the Regents 2004
- 2012 Statewide Plan for Higher Education. At the September meeting the
Committee will begin discussions on the Department and sector initiatives that
will support several Regents priorities as identified in the Plan. In addition, the Committee will discuss
the need for hearings on the CUNY and SUNY plans as well as a hearing on the
Tentative Statewide Plan.
Charter School Critical
Issue
Charter school decisions are
complex and time-consuming for Regents and the affected parties. The charter school legislation was
intended to stand alone without regulations. With experience, the Board has
become aware of the issues that recur in charter school approvals and renewals.
To make best use of that experience and to focus their deliberations, the
Regents agreed that they would consider a list of common issues and after
hearing advice from the State Education Department, would define and adopt a
framework for charter decisions.
Key question: What policy
guidance do the Regents have on the first three topics in the charter
framework?
Advocacy for New Century
Libraries
We have scheduled three
leadership meetings to discuss the New Century Library initiative: September 16,
Clarkson University in Potsdam; November 10, Bath; and November 29, New York
Public Library in New York City.
The Regents Cultural Education committee will prepare for their advocacy
for New Century Libraries for the 2005-06 legislative
session.
The Regents have eight priorities for state legislative action in the 2003-2004 session. The legislature has ended its formal session. It is not known at this time whether the legislature will take up any of these bills in special session between now and the end of the year. Here is the current status of these priorities.
Regents Priority
Legislative Proposals for 2003-2004 | |
New Century Libraries |
Regents bill introduced in both houses. Similar but not identical bill introduced in Assembly. All left in committees. |
Improvement of Postsecondary Disability Services |
Regents bill introduced in both houses. Similar but not identical bill introduced in Assembly. All left in committees. |
Access to School-Based Health and Mental Health Clinics |
Regents bill introduced in Senate. Similar but not identical bills introduced in both houses. S.2778-A (similar bill) passed Senate. |
State Aid |
State budget approved by the legislature and governor contains $740 million (school year basis). |
Allowing Retired Public Employees to Return to Teaching and Administrative Jobs Without Loss of Pension |
Regents bill introduced in Senate. Similar but not identical bills introduced in Assembly. All left in committees. |
Nursing Faculty Scholarship Program |
Regents bill introduced in Senate. Similar but not identical bills introduced in both houses. All left in committees. |
Revising the Public Accountancy Law |
Regents bill introduced in both houses. Senate amended its bill; Assembly did not. Both left in committees. |
Planning and Reporting |
Not introduced in either house. |
[1] Anthony P. Carnevale, Donna M. Desrochers, Standards for What? The Economic Roots of K-16 Reform. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 2003. Page 2.
A monthly publication of the State Education Department
Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page