December 2005
BY STATE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER
RICHARD P. MILLS
The Meeting
in Brief: The Regents will conduct their annual
evaluation of the Commissioner in executive session. The Full Board will discuss their
advocacy for Regents policy and budget recommendations on making higher
education more accessible for persons with disabilities. The EMSC-VESID
committee will discuss the proposed design for the Vocational Rehabilitation
system, pending a policy decision scheduled for March 2006. That committee will
discuss data from 127 high schools with low graduation rates. The Regents will
review an early childhood policy document to reflect comments from the field and
Board members in November. Board
action is scheduled for January. The Regents may also decide the implementation
schedule for the new Math Regents exams. The Cultural Education Committee will
continue to discuss the Regents trusteeship responsibilities for the State
Museum, State Library, and State Archives. The Quality Committee will provide
for necessary time for the Regents to review their role as trustees of the USNY.
The Regents will review and act on charter school
applications.
Leaders
from all sectors of the University of the State of New York (USNY) convened on
November 2 for the Education Summit. Here is the consensus from the table
discussions:
The
Chancellor asked that a strategy to guide that follow through be presented at
the December Regents meeting.
Therefore, the Regents will discuss A Call to Action, which
reflects the work of the Summit, the Regents priorities, and the Regents
expectation for urgency.
A Call
to Action presents
a communication plan; a structure for state, regional and local action; and
guidance for both policy and practice in early education, high school, and
higher education. The material on
policy and practice builds upon on-going Regents policy discussions. To achieve
urgency, the paper points to the most immediate, high-leverage actions.
The Summit
mobilized USNY and focused attention on the two-fold problem of the achievement
gap and the imperative to raise achievement overall. Nevertheless, continuous communication
to the educational community and the public are essential, and it needs to
answer this question: Why is this my problem?
The Summit
speakers and the data they presented created urgency and momentum. We must act now to put that momentum to
work. On issues of improving practice, we turn immediately to regional and local
leaders.
Only the
Regents can decide the policy questions, and policy making has to be
deliberate. Nevertheless, the
Regents are close to completing their work on early education and they already
adopted the Statewide Plan for Higher Education. The following section in this report
responds to the Regents debate on high school in November.
“The
traditional high school model is rigid, obsolete, and needs large-scale
redesign.” So reads one conclusion for the USNY Summit in November. At the National Governor’s Association
High School Summit earlier this year, Bill Gates said simply, “The American high
school is obsolete.” To grasp that
something is wrong we need only look at our results in New York, where 67
percent graduate in four years.
While the problem has deep roots, as we see in the 15 percent who repeat
ninth grade, those who cannot read well by the 4th grade and those
who don’t have pre-kindergarten, what about high school
itself?
This month
the EMSC-VESID Committee will discuss data that describe the 127 high schools
with graduation rates below 70 percent. The schools represent 12 school
districts. We will use these data to monitor progress.
Regents
demand urgent improvement in high school performance. The proposals that follow suggest how to
do that. But first, let’s consider that the Board has already enacted as policy
many elements recommended in the national discussion about high school. Those
include higher standards, assessments, accountability, course requirements for
graduation, a governance system with a pre-K through 16 reach, teacher standards
and improvements in teacher education, and proposals for adequate state aid
designed to close the gaps in opportunity.
In
addition, the new data capability enabled us to concentrate on the schools with
graduation rates below 70 percent, and to establish an on-going capacity
building with teams from those schools. That work has concentrated on a short
list of practices with a high probability of success. What can we add to this
mix to build urgency?
Set targets and measure
results. The Regents can direct that the 127 high schools set
targets for graduation and attendance and describe what they will have to 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 could 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
further improvements. In the case of New York City, the meeting would be with
the Chancellor of New York City. The responses may lead the Regents to define
new policy.
Check teacher qualifications and order changes where
necessary. The school boards responsible for the 127 schools
would report the proportion of teachers who are certified in the subjects they
are teaching, with particular attention to the subjects required for high school
graduation. Regents could require
necessary improvements.
Strengthen teaching. Faculties and administrators in high
performing schools often conduct continuous professional development focused on
proven curricula and lesson plans 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 could provide modest financial support
and require schools to provide 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 would require immediate corrective action and
evidence of follow through.
Here are
two 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.
Meet the students. What do
the students say? We haven’t asked them in a systematic way in New York, but the
Public Agenda report called Getting By: What American Teenagers Really Think
About Their Schools reported that 65 percent of students surveyed said they
could do better if they tried. They wanted higher standards, something done
about disruptive students, and teachers who treated them with respect.
One student said, “You can just glide through…I mean you can do whatever you want…” That report was written in 1997. Unfortunately, it’s all too current. A student at the 2005 Regents Education Summit said almost the same words. In addition to all the other things we will do to improve high schools, let’s hear from the students in a systematic way. And let’s let the people of New York in on that conversation.
What about the highest performers?
These proposals are about 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.
As we
embark on change, what keeps high school the way it is? Everyone knows what it’s
supposed to look like. Bad as high school can be for some students, it works for
many. We are not alone in
confronting this problem. A Chinese education leader called high school reform
in his country the “last resort.” I understood that to mean that although many
recognized the problems with the hyper-competitiveness and a narrow curriculum,
the system works for those who survive it.
A principal in a high performing Chinese high school, who would prefer a
broader curriculum, said it was unlikely since parents and students demanded
even more mathematics, chemistry and physics, because that is the established
path to a top university. In New
York, we too must understand the barriers to changing this resilient institution
called high school.
Nearly
half of New York high school graduates with disabilities plan to attend college.
While the number of persons with disabilities attending college has increased by
52 percent in a dozen years, only about half of New York colleges enroll more
than 60 persons with disabilities.
The Regents, the Department and the four sectors of higher education have
proposed incentives to help other colleges expand that
opportunity.
All four
higher education sectors first joined us in this strategy in 2000. In
retrospect, it almost seems a precursor of the joint venture that culminated
this year in the Statewide Plan for Higher Education. That plan includes higher education’s
response to the Regents priority for access and success for students with
disabilities.
The Full
Board will discuss this issue in the context of preparing to advocate for this
policy, and for the $15 million budget recommendation that can bring it to life.
Actions include a coordinated advocacy for legislation, changes in TAP to
support services for persons with disabilities, and changes in the Higher
Education Act.
There is
strong support among teachers for rapid implementation of the new Integrated
Algebra Examination, but major gaps in knowledge of the revised standards,
curriculum alignment, and professional development. These are among the findings
of an SED survey of teachers.
This new
information will help the EMSC-VESID Committee evaluate the options for when to
begin the new examination. As of
this writing, 56 percent of respondents said that their curricula were not well
aligned with the standards, and 82 percent said professional development had not
been created. These and other
findings suggest it will be hard to get accurate field test results and that a
low level of preparedness among teachers could damage the program if we move too
quickly.
The
Regents will consider a range of issues in making the scheduling decision, and
these data are only part of the picture.
Nevertheless, whatever schedule we adopt will have to ensure readiness in
the schools. If we were to go
forward without that readiness, the predictable result will be lower than
expected performance on the examination and pressures to change the test. The issue now is not the test but the
level of preparation in the schools.
The
EMSC-VESID Committee continues its discussion of a draft policy on early
education, with an anticipated decision in January. The current draft reflects
the recent discussions with many people who are interested in the issue.
A major
strength of the proposal is that it is comprehensive and systematic. The components of the proposal are not
unrelated good ideas but rather a structure of interlocking parts. That said, a
few of the components offer particularly strong leverage for change. Among them
are: statewide pre-kindergarten, age 5 as the compulsory school age, full-day
kindergarten, professional preparation, and USNY. While many people will focus on the cost
of early education, as they should, professional preparation is likely to be the
greatest long-term determinant of success.
We need well prepared professionals in abundance for the policy to work.
When New Jersey made a major commitment to expand early education a few years
ago, the involvement of higher education in the rapid expansion of teacher
preparation was especially important.
VESID
has produced a design for a renewed vocational rehabilitation (VR) system that
responds to the global economic challenge, expands capacity, and helps realize
the potential of USNY. It is a particularly thoughtful example of the emerging
State Education Department of the future.
The
EMSC-VESID Committee will discuss this design in preparation for a March Full
Board policy decision that will lead immediately to
implementation.
The Regents
have espoused a compelling vision about the independence of persons with
disabilities and with the State Education Department, they have pursued
strategies to bring that vision to life in pre-kindergarten, state aid systems,
teacher policy, regional facilities planning, access to the regular curriculum
in school, advocacy for Independent Living Centers, and higher education access.
Approximately 300,000 New Yorkers of working age have a disability but no
job. Having a job is part of
independence for most people. New
York has not yet made significant inroads into the employment of persons with
disabilities.
The VESID
design for a renewed vocational rehabilitation system promises a much higher
level of achievement. Among the
many attractive features are:
·
Rapid
access to services
·
Transition
services from school to employment
·
Enhanced
collaboration with other public agencies
·
Expanded
one-stop access for consumers
·
Linkage
with the Workforce Investment Board system
·
Electronic
records
·
More
efficient use of the critical skills of VR counselors though a team
concept
·
Better
milestones to assess system performance
·
Comprehensive
marketing
This
design responds to Regents priorities and public needs at many levels, and it
merits support leading to rapid implementation.
A monthly publication of the State Education Department
Back to Report Home Page | Return to SED Home Page