State Board of Regents Acts to Adjust Common Core Implementation

On February 10 and 11 the State Board of Regents met in Albany. Clearly, the matter garnering the greatest interest at this meeting was an action item including the report, The Path Forward: Common Core Learning Standards, Assessments, and Teacher & Principal Evaluation in New York State. The report is based upon the first three and a half years of Common Core implementation, and sets forth “Adjustment Options” to improve statewide implementation.  The report was issued by a Regents Work Group comprised of Regents Robert Bennett, from Tonawanda; James Dawson, from Plattsburgh; James Tallon, from Binghamton; Roger Tilles, from Great Neck; Kathleen Cashin, from Brooklyn;  and Wade Norwood, from Rochester, who served as chairperson.

 

The Regents report includes 19 Adjustment Options. Some of the Adjustment Options were in progress under other initiatives, before the report was issued. Option 6, allow students with severe disabilities to be assessed based on instructional level rather than chronological age; and Option 7, allow English language learners to be assessed via the language acquisition tests (NYSESLAT) rather the English language arts exam for two years are included in the department’s ESEA Waiver Application.

 

For some of the Adjustment Options, the Board of Regents place the responsibility for implementation in the hands of other entities.

• Three Options are contingent upon additional funding by the Governor and state legislature: Option 2 – Equitable funding for common core implementation, including funding for professional development; Option 5 – Reduce field testing and provide increased access to test questions; and Option 8 – develop a native language arts assessments for Spanish-speaking English language learners.
• Two Options, 6 and 7 (discussed above), are dependent upon approval of the department’s ESEA Waiver Application by the US Department of Education.

 

Some of the Adjustment Options may be expected to have significant impact, and others are expected to have little or no impact.

•  Option 1 – Periodically review and update the Common Core learning standards, calls upon New York  and other states to engage stakeholders in order to periodically review and update the Common Core standards. The impact of this option will be dependent upon the willingness of the State Education Department to “listen” to the stakeholders in identifying systemic needs and opportunities for improvement. Although NYSED has demonstrated a willingness to meet, it has generally demonstrated a “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead” response to any recommendations for implementation or schedule revisions.
• Option 11 – Conduct expedited review of Annual Professional Performance Review plans for district/BOCES requests that would reduce testing. SAANYS has raised this issue repeatedly with SED – to no avail. We are glad that the department now plans to take such action, in a manner consistent with legislative bills drafted by the Senate and Assembly.
• Option 17, will result in the development of a “Teacher Portal” to facilitate and promote teacher-to-teacher sharing of curricular resources, including adaptations of modules. Although educational data and technology issues were beyond the scope of the Work Group’s charge, the department will delay the launch of the EngageNY Portal in order to work with the State Legislature to address concerns related to 3rd party vendors, including inBloom.
• Option 14 may be expected to somewhat reduce local testing time by extending APPR flexibility in allowing schoolwide measures for teachers middle school social studies (grades 6-8) and science (grades 6-7).
• Options 16, 18 and 19 will provide needed curricular support for students with disabilities and English language learners. Option 16 entails the development of additional companion materials to the common core modules focused on differentiated instructional practices and supports. Option 18 calls for the development of guidelines to be used by Committees on Special Education (CSEs) to ensure that the individualized education programs (IEPs) of students with disabilities are common core-aligned. Option 19 will result in the development of “guiding questions” for use by parents at CSE meetings and at parent-teacher meetings so as to be better informed as to how their children will be supported to progress in common core curricula.
• Option 15 is intended to safeguard teachers and principals from negative APPR consequences by allowing those who are undergoing a 3020-a termination hearing due to ineffective ratings in the 2012-13 and /or 2013-14 school years to raise as a defense an alleged failure of the board of education to timely implement the common core with adequate professional development and guidance. This option is expected to have no impact, as any principal or teacher undergoing such a procedure may raise such a deficiency regardless of the department’s permission to do so; and there is no assurance that teachers and principals will not be negatively impacted by a lower APPR evaluation due to the flawed roll-out of the Common Core. However, due to many comments received by the department in connection with this option (including Governor Cuomo), the Regents have directed that this option be posted for public comment, with action to be taken at their April meeting.

 

Moreover, up to the present time, the State Education Department has been adamant that APPRs must be a significant factor in employment decisions. Now, the Regents item states that the department advises districts “…to be judicious in considering data when making employment decisions during the (common core) transition period.”

 

Some of the Adjustment Options raise other questions.

• Option 3 will extend the phase-in for Common Core-aligned Regents examination required for graduation from the class of 2017 to the class of 2022 – an option supported by SAANYS.  However, the extent of the transition is unclear. Will students be required to “pass” at a 65 level of proficiency in 2021, and at a 75/80 level of English language arts and math proficiency in 2022?
• Option 4 is intended to reduce (but does not prohibit) high stakes consequences such as promotion and retention decisions for students in grades 3 through 8, based on the common core-aligned tests. The item states that school districts “should” base such decision upon multiple measures.
• Option 9 is intended to “clarify” that level 2 performance on the common core-aligned grade 3-8 tests in aligns with “On Track for Regents Exam Passing for Graduation,” constituting what some would describe as a Low Pass Score. At the March and July meetings of the Board of Regents, action was taken to change the description of level 2 performance from “meets basic standards” to “below proficient,” but was not equated to a 65 on a Regents examination.
• Option 10 would extend through 2014-15 the “hold harmless” provision for the provision of Academic Intervention Services. Although such action reflects sensitivity to fiscal challenges faced by many school districts, the provision of additional resources to provide additional academic services to students is an option that many school districts would prefer.
• Options 12 and 13 over time eliminate the administration of commercially developed standardized tests to students in kindergarten through grade two. Beginning in 2014-15, Option 12 will result in such tests being removed from the SED list of approved locally-selected assessments and the disapproval of district and BOCES APPR plans that include such tests. Option 13 further limits APPR testing by establishing a 1 percent cap on the administration of locally-selected standardized tests for APPR purposes. These measures will require many school districts and BOCES to renegotiate administrator and teacher collective bargaining agreements prior to their expiration. Will SED provide additional guidance in this regard?

 

Several Regents members expressed frustration that they did not have sufficient time to carefully read the item prior to the meeting due to the late release of the item Sunday night. In fact, Regent Rosa reported that some Regents did not have the opportunity to read the report at all prior to the meeting. The item was passed, despite Regents Rosa, Cashin and Cea voting in opposition.

 

For more information regarding the Board of Regents’ adjustments to Common Core implementation, contact James Viola, Director of Government Relations, at JViola@saanys.org.

– See more at: http://www.saanys.org/viewarticle.asp?id=3908#sthash.dSuODMxj.dpuf

SAANYS’ Positions on NYSUT and inBloom

On January 28, SAANYS presented testimony at a joint hearing conducted by the state legislature regarding Governor Cuomo’s proposed Executive Budget. Our written testimony, upon which verbal testimony is based, is available by clicking here. However, since the legislative hearing, we have received numerous inquiries about two matters:

Does SAANYS plan any action similar to that taken by NYSUT, in taking a Vote of No Confidence in Commissioner King?
What is the SAANYS position in regard to Personally Identifiable Information – including inBloom?
We are taking this opportunity to address both of these issues, and it is likely that we will include this information in News & Notes as well.
 
NYSUT’s Vote of No Confidence
 
NYSUT took their Vote of No Confidence on January 25. SAANYS was aware of such a planned action and discussed this matter on this same day with this association’s board of directors. At the close of this discussion the SAANYS board of directors determined that we would not embark upon a similar course of action. There were many reasons for this position including the following:

Is the NYSUT action properly directed? The NYSUT action solely addresses Commissioner King, and the SAANYS board had misgivings as to whether this is appropriate. The board recalled that the current reform effort began with Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and former Commissioner David Steiner. It has been supported by a majority of the Board of Regents, by Regents Research Fellows that some have described as a shadow government, by a legislature that was willing to pass APPR legislation in two days without a hearing, by two different governors, a variety of private foundations and commercial interests, as well as by Secretary Duncan and President Obama. In short, the pro-reform advocates are far more than any one person.

What is to be gained? Board members did not feel that there is any great likelihood that John King would resign or  be fired. Even if he did, the Board of Regents would select a successor who would also continue to pursue implementation of the Regents’ education reform agenda. That said, the SAANYS board reviewed the draft resolution that was presented to the NYSUT board of directors and was sympathetic to much of the rationale NYSUT cited in support of its resolution. The implementation of the reform has been unpiloted, uneven across school districts, and not timely supported by promised curriculum or professional development. There has been excessive testing and a lack of empathy at SED toward students, parents and professional staff at schools. While a No Confidence Vote might provide short-term visceral satisfaction, it takes no real step toward fixing the damage done. The SAANYS board is instead focusing on advocating for the following, which have already been communicated to members of the State Legislature and Board of Regents:

• We support a moratorium on the use of state assessments for high stakes consequences for students and educators until there has been a properly sequenced implementation of the common core curriculum.
• There may not be a properly sequenced implementation until such time as SED generates common core-aligned curricula and professional staff have received professional development in applicable instructional shifts.
• Test questions and answers should be released to allow in-depth item analysis to inform instruction and improve student learning.
•  After implementation, we support an informed, neutral third party analysis of the reform effort to determine what adjustments may be appropriate.

SAANYS Position on “Personally Identifiable Information”
Ordinarily, at Legislative Hearings, verbal testimony will highlight salient aspects of written testimony. The Executive Budget did not address the issue of Personally Identifiable Information and so our written testimony did not address this topic. It is planned that we will lobby the State Education Department and legislature in this regard. We also engaged the SAANYS Board of Directors on this topic at their January 25 meeting. However, because some members of the legislature asked  questions in this regard to those testifying before SAANYS, we took license in going “off script” and addressing this in our verbal testimony. We said that, SAANYS supports the recommendation in the report accruing from the five Senate Hearings conducted by Senator Flanagan for a one-year delay – a stop — in any Race to the Top activities related to the data portal. This time would be essential to thoughtfully consider (and reconsider) this matter.  In that New York State is a local control state, we recommended that decisions regarding whether to opt-in or opt-out of data portal utilization should be done at the local level – as has been the case up to this time. We recommended that the State Education Department “drop inBloom.” We also expressed support for the safeguards included in Senate Bill 6007 and Assembly Bill 6059-a.

These safeguards include:

•     Access based on having a legitimate educational interest.
•     Indemnification for school districts, BOCES and the State.
•     Encryption to protect data in motion.
•     Restrictions on how student data may be used.
•     Specification of what happens upon termination of contract.
•     Actions for suspected and actual data breaches.
•     Prohibited use for commercial purposes.
•     Graduated fines and penalties for Vendors violating requirements.

 

We are doing all that we can to advance the above positions, and other SAANYS positions. SAANYS Executive Director Kevin Casey and I met with Senator Flanagan on February 3 (yesterday), today we discussed considerations related to successful school completion with Deputy Commissioners Slentz and Smith, and tomorrow I am scheduled to meet with Assembly member Nolan.  Coincidentally, moments ago, two news articles were released (attached below), one by leaders of the State Assembly, the other by leaders of the State Senate. Both articles address common core phase-in, and recommend delays in the use of common core-aligned tests for high stakes purposes. Further, leaders from the Assembly recommend, “delay the use of inBloom or any third party vendor in developing a ‘data portal,'” and leaders from the Senate recommend, “delay operation of the Education Data Portal for at least one year.” These calls by the Assembly and Senate are consistent with positions advanced by SAANYS.

Note: On February 10 and 11, the Board of Regents is expected to present their adjusted plan for roll-out of their education reforms. SAANYS will be at this meeting, and we will keep you informed.
 
We hope this information is helpful. All the best. …Jim Viola



New Release 1:

Assembly leader calls for Common Core delay

February 4, 2014 – 11:13 AM

by Tom Precious

ALBANY – Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Education Chairwoman Cathy Nolan today called on the state Board of Regents to delay the state’s common core program for two years. The views of the Assembly Democrats generally influence the Regents, since its members are essentially selected by the Democrats who control the Assembly.

In a written statement, the two lawmakers said:

“New Yorkers share the same goal – to improve our schools and help prepare our students to be successful and college- and career-ready upon graduation. However, given the serious issues that have been raised over the past year, we feel it is both prudent and wise to take the following actions. The use of Common Core aligned tests for high-stakes decisions for teachers, principals and students should be delayed, at a minimum, for two years. At the same time, SED (State Education Department) should continue to develop Common Core aligned curricula and assist local school districts in developing their own curricula so that teachers will be able to successfully teach Common Core aligned subjects while at the same time helping students reach their maximum potential.

“As we have stated in the past, there are equally serious concerns and potential flaws regarding plans to share student data with a private third party vendor. There are persistent questions regarding the ability to protect such data from security breaches, the necessity of the details and categories of such student data that is being shared, as well as the highly inappropriate potential for commercialization. SED should delay the use of inBloom or any third party vendor in developing a “data portal” until all these questions have been answered and the concerns fully satisfied.”

News Release 2:
 


Senate Co-Leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein, and Senate Education Chair John Flanagan Call for Delay of Common Core and Sharing of Student Privacy Data

Senators Skelos, Klein, and Flanagan issued the following statement:

We continue to support the goals of an improved education curriculum that increases standards and ensures that students are college and career ready.

However, after having spent months listening to parents, teachers, administrators and educational professionals at public hearings conducted throughout New York State, it is our belief that while the implementation of Common Core Learning Standards may have been well intended, it has been poorly executed.

We continue to have grave concerns over this flawed roll-out. Unless the Board of Regents acts to alleviate the concerns of parents, teachers, and other educators, we call on the Regents to delay the use of Common Core tests for high-stakes decisions about teachers, principals and students for a minimum of two years. During this time, SED should continue to develop curricula aligned with higher standards and assist local school districts in developing their own curricula so teachers can successfully implement higher learning standards and help students reach their maximum potential.

In addition, students, parents, teachers, privacy experts, and school administrators have raised serious concerns about the ability of unauthorized third-parties to access personally identifiable information (PII) of students, teachers, and principals that will be collected on the state-wide Education Data Portal (EDP). Therefore, we reiterate our call for the Regents to delay operation of the Education Data Portal for at least one year. 

I

n the end, our goal must continue to be the development of higher learning standards in the best interest of our students and their futures.

SED Announces 2014 Summer Food Service Program

The information attached below was received today from the State Education Department. The document pertains to the 2014 Summer Food Service Program, to ensure that low-income students up to the age of 18 years continue to receive nutritious meals.

SED-2104-Summer-Food-Service

We hope you will find this information helpful. We will continue to keep you informed. All the best. …Jim Viola

Three SAANYS Updates

Good afternoon.

We are writing to provide you the following three updates:

1. We have submitted a document recommending two additional provisions to the State Education Department’s ESEA Waiver Application. In it, we recommend that students who remain enrolled in school and graduate with a High School Equivalency Diploma be counted as successful completers. We also recommend that any student who remains enrolled in school and graduates with a high school diploma (or its equivalent) be counted as a successful school completer, regardless of the number of years they are in high school. Read the full recommendation by clicking here.

2. We will present testimony today at a joint meeting of the State Legislature. Read the full testimony by clicking here.

3. We are informed that by mid-February, Michael Rebell will initiate court action, similar to the CFE action in which he prevailed. Preliminary information indicates that the new actions will:
a. Identify courses of study that must be available to students, and require that the State Education Department notify districts of such requirements.
b. Provide districts with methods of improvement.
c. Establish a system of accountability for sufficient resources.
d. Ensure that all districts make services available.
e. Require that the cost study methodology be reviewed every three years.
f.  Revise the state aid formula to ensure sufficient funding, or better, for all school districts.
g. Programmatically, sufficient funding should be benchmarked against college and career readiness, all “at risk” students should have access to early education, and required education programs should include extracurricular activities/clubs and the arts.

We hope that you will find this information helpful. We will continue to keep you informed. All the best.

Jim Viola, director of government relations

Governor Cuomo’s Proposed Executive Budget for 2014-15

On January 21, Governor Cuomo presented his proposed state budget for 2014-2015. A summary of provisions related to K-12 education follows:

• School Aid – $21.88 billion was allocated for school aid; this amount constitutes an increase of $807 million (3.8 percent), with $608 million for formula-based school aid. Most of the allocated increase would be provided through a $323 million partial restoration of the Gap Elimination Adjustment. There would also be a $285 million increase for reimbursable expense-based aid programs such as school construction, pupil transportation, and BOCES. There would be no increase in Foundation Aid. High needs school districts will receive 70 percent of the formula-based increase.
• Property Tax Freeze – The Executive Budget freezes, for two years, the property tax bills of homeowners in school districts that stay within the property tax cap. In the second year, such school districts will also have to agree to and implement a multi-year regional plan of shared services and administrative consolidation that produces recurring property tax savings.
• Smart Schools – Contingent on a November bond referendum, $2 billion would be allocated to schools, based on the school aid formula, upon approval of each school district’s Smart Schools Investment Plan by the Smart Schools Review Board. The program is designed to enhance classroom technology and improvements needed for full-day, pre-kindergarten and after school student support. Such funding may not be used for technology that is leased.
• Universal Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten – $100 million would be allocated in year one, of a five-year program totaling $1.5 billion. Following the governor’s presentation, the state deputy secretary for education, Ian Rosenblum, indicated that such funding may not supplant local funding.
• After-School Programs – $720 million would be allocated over a five-year period; approximately $160 million would be available in 2015-2016, growing to $200 million in 2017-2018. The program is intended to add or expand after-school programs to provide enrichment opportunities for students.
• Teacher Excellence Fund – $20 million would be allocated to reward teachers rated “highly effective.” Deputy Secretary Rosenblum indicated that teachers in all school districts would be eligible for such supplemental compensation, but school principals would not be eligible.
• P-TECH Expansion – $5 million would be allocated to expand to Pathways in Technology and Early College High School program for students in “grades 9 to 14.” The program focuses on proficiencies needed for STEM careers, with participating students receiving both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree at no cost.
• School District Reorganizations – When two or more school districts propose to reorganize, the participating boards of education may opt to have to have the impact deferred for a one-year period and/or phased-in over a period not to exceed 10 years. A common phase-in period must be adopted across all participating school districts.
• Preschool Special Education – The Executive Budget proposes to reduce preschool special education costs by limiting payment for Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) services based on services “actually provided” and by establishing regional reimbursement rates.
• BOCES Services to the Office of Children and Family Services – Section 1950 would be amended with the phrase “and any other programs” to expand the services for which OCFS may contract with BOCES.
• Common Core Panel – The governor proposes to establish a panel of national education experts and legislators to examine and make recommendations regarding all aspects that must be addressed for successful implementation of the common core. Deputy Secretary Rosenblum has indicated that no names have as yet been posited for panel membership and no timeline has been specified for the panel’s work.
• K-2 Student Standardized Test Ban – The governor proposes a ban on standardized testing for students in kindergarten through second grade.
• Waivers for Certain Duties – The Executive Budget includes a new section 4403-a, authorizing school districts and BOCES to submit a waiver “from any requirement” imposed in Sections 4402 and 4403 (Special Schools and Instruction Children with Handicapping Conditions) and corresponding regulations. The purpose of the waiver is to provide an innovative special education program that is consistent with federal requirements and enhances student achievement and/or regular education opportunities.
• Dignity for All Students Act – Education Law would be amended to require that the investigation undertaken in regard to a report of alleged harassment, bullying, and discrimination include a determination as to whether each verified incident is part of a pattern (i.e., multiple incidents) of harassment. The principal or superintendent must “promptly” report a pattern of harassment to the commissioner of education, the Division of Human Rights, and the Division of State Police. In any instance where the  school principal or superintendent fails to complete such duties in regard to a pattern of harassment that is known or that should be known, that commissioner “shall initiate a removal proceeding” pursuant to Section 306 of Education Law. (In such instances, a principal shall be deemed a school officer.)   According to Deputy Secretary Rosenblum, these amendments would not apply to charter schools.
• Age of Criminal Responsibility – The governor proposes to allocate $250,000 for expert services in connection with raising the age at which youths are treated as adults to 18 years of age. The current age is 16 years of age.
• Stemming Recidivism – The governor proposes to allocate $250,000 for to support the work of a Re-Entry Council to stop the “revolving door” into the criminal justice system.

At the January Meeting of the Board of Regents

The State Education Department’s ESEA Waiver Renewal Application

The Board of Regents convened in Albany on January 13 and 14. The first action taken by the full board was to discuss and approve the penultimate ESEA Waiver Renewal application to be submitted to the US Department of Education. The application builds upon the State Education Department’s current ESEA  flexibility waiver and extends from the current school year through 2015-16. Therefore, under the next waiver, 2010-2011 performance data will continue to be used for the identification of priority schools and focus districts and schools. Priority and focus accountability status will not be based on common core-aligned assessment results until 2015-2016 – at the earliest – three years after the first implementation of grade 3-8 common core-aligned tests.

The use of common core-aligned Regents examination results will not be used for accountability purposes for an extended period beyond that of the 3-8 tests, though no contemplated school year was articulated at the Regents meeting. Assistant Commissioner Ira Schwartz reported that, to date, the US Department of Education has provided no guidance to state education agencies regarding the accountability system that will be in place for 2015-2016. However, he also indicated that:

“We are already planning for the 2015-2016 school year. We have an advantage at the high school level … because we are one of the few states that uses a cohort system for high school accountability, which is based on the performance of students … four years after they first enter ninth grade. Most states are using some sort of census test (e.g., tests administered to all students in grade 10). … Our cohort system actually gives us more time to rollout these kinds of changes.”

The assistant commissioner indicated that if the ESEA waiver process is continued after the next ESEA waiver period, that New York State will need to determine the school year for which performance data will be used for accountability. In this regard, he said, “For our purposes, that would be the graduating class of the 2015-2016 school year, which would not yet be one that would have been affected by the changes to the common core (Regents examinations).”

The flexibility requested by the State Education Department in February 2012 was primarily focused on accountability issues. The waiver application now under consideration will also address:

•    Testing for Students with Disabilities – Allowing students with significant cognitive disabilities to be assessed based upon their instructional level, rather than upon their chronological age. The number of grade levels below chronological age would be limited to two years; and the number of eligible students with disabilities included in this waiver may not exceed one percent in ELA and two percent in mathematics of all the students in the grades  assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics.
•    Explicitly Align the Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness (DTSDE) with District Comprehensive Improvement Plans (DCIPs) and School Comprehensive Education Plans (SCEP) — The State Education Department would require school districts with priority and focus schools to prioritize funds for systemic planning training, expanded learning time, and community school programs; and to select activities to be funded by Titles I, II, and III consistent with areas of need identified by DTSDE reviews.
•    Technical Change Regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year results, the “all students” group in a school district or a school will be deemed to have achieved AYP if all the accountability subgroups have achieved AYP. Also, the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for grades 3-8 English language arts and mathematics will be revised to reflect the lower percentages of students who scored at or above Level 2 and at or above Level 3 on the common core-aligned assessments administered in 2012-13.
•    Testing for English Language Learners (ELLs) – Newly arrived ELL students will be exempted from participating in English language arts assessments for two years, and the NYSESLAT results will be used for accountability. Also, beginning in 2015-2016, Spanish Language Arts assessments will be available to school districts as a local option, to measure the progress of Spanish-speaking ELL students. Finally, beginning in 2014-2015, a Performance Index will be in place for newly arrived ELL students in their first two years in the United States, in which growth toward proficiency in language arts will be calculated based on the NYSESLAT assessment.

A condition that must be met by SED in order receive approval of its waiver application, is to address two issues identified during a monitoring visit by the US Department of Education:

1.    NYSED will issue a press release on an annual basis when Title 1 Reward Schools are identified.
2.    For principals of priority schools that are not implementing a School Improvement Grant (SIG), but are following “Turnaround” principles, NYSED must provide additional guidance the school districts as to how they may determine whether the principal should continue in that role.  (A principal of SIG school must be removed if he/she has served in that role for two or more years; a principal of a priority school that is not a SIG school “may” continue to serve in such capacity, regardless of the number of years he/she has served in such role.)

The State Education Department’s ESEA Waiver Application will be posted for public comment from January 16 to January 27, 2014.  Those wishing to review and comment upon the draft waiver should please note the following contacts:
•    New York State’s approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/ESEAFlexibilityWaiver.html
•    The item presented to the Board of Regents may be accessed at: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2014/January2014/114bra6.pdf
•    The proposed amendments can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/documents/ESEAFlexibilityRenewalforPublicComment011614_1.pdf
•    Comments regarding the renewal application or regarding one or more of the amendments may be sent by e-mail to eseasupport@mail.nysed.gov. Comments may also be submitted in writing to Dr. Lisa Long, Supervisor, Office of Accountability, 55 Hanson Place, Room 445, Brooklyn, New York 11217.

Following the comment period, the ESEA Waiver Renewal Application with related amendments will be presented to the board as an action item on February 10, and will be submitted to the US Department of Education by February 28, 2014.

New York State’s Education Reform Agenda

Also noted at the January meeting of the Board of Regents is the growing propensity of board members to express individual positions that are different than the positions adopted by and pursued by the overall board. SED’s education reform agenda, and information pertaining to the senate and assembly hearings that were recently held in regard to the Regents education reform agenda were not included in the board’s January agenda or in the information items that were discussed. Nonetheless, near the close of the full board meeting on January 14, Regent Kathleen Cashin, representing Judicial District 2 – Kings, expressed the following:

“I am here to say a few words about inBloom. … The vast majority (of parents) do not want inBloom or at the very least, they want the ‘opt out’ option. And since I think we function of the people, by the people, and for the people, we should be listening very carefully to that dimension. So I recommend that we withdraw from inBloom – we are the only state that is in inBloom.”

There was no discussion of Regent Cashin’s remarks by the Board of Regents.

For more information regarding the Board of Regents meeting and the Regents education reform agenda, contact James Viola, Director of Government Relations, at JViola@saanys.org.

Update – Release of Personally Identifiable Information

On December 12, 2013, we disseminated information regarding the report released by Senator John Flanagan, based on the testimony  he received during five regional public hearings. Included in the recommendations directed to the State Education Department in connection with the statewide Education Data Portal (EDP) was that “…the Department should impose an immediate one-year delay in the launching of the full operation of the EDP until school districts have sufficiently assessed all the ramifications surrounding this newly designed computer-based technology.” In addition, the Senator has proposed legislation (S-6007), which among other things, calls for a Parents Bill of Rights for Data Privacy and Security.

On November 20, Assembly member Catherine Nolan lead a hearing regarding the release of personally identifiable data. On December 16, 2013, she and 50 other Assembly members sent the attached letter to Education Commissioner John King, indicating that, “We do not believe the State education Department should share this information with InBloom, especially not at this time.” The Assembly letter also references two pieces of legislation that are intended to curb third party access to student data (A-7872-A, Nolan; A-6059, O’Donnell).

Because this is a topic of great concern to many educators and parents, we wanted to provide you this update. We hope you will find it helpful. All the best. …Jim Viola

New York Granted Federal Waiver to Eliminate Double-Testing in Math

Good afternoon.

This morning, the State Education Department released the information below, announcing the US Department of Education’s approval of New York State’s waiver request to end the “double-testing” of seventh and eighth grade students who take Regents Algebra 1 or Regents Geometry examinations. You will recall that NYSED initially intended to frame the waiver request exclusively around grade 8 students taking the Regents Algebra 1 examination. However, based on public comment, NYSED modified the waiver request to include grade 7 students who take the Algebra 1 Regents and to grade 8 students who take the Geometry Regents.

Seventh and eighth grade students who take a Regents exam in mathematics will be counted as “participants” when the department determines whether a school or district has met the 95 percent participation requirement in mathematics. Other considerations related to school/district accountability are included in the Request for Waiver From Double Testing section, that may be accessed through the links embedded in the full news release (click here to download the full news release from SED).

In order to implement  the waiver, SED must now prepare an action item to be considered and approved by the Board of Regents in order to amend the commissioner’s regulations. Given the strong interest expressed by the board, and most especially by Chancellor Tisch, we expect that such an item will receive quick approval.

We hope that you all had a happy holiday season and we hope that you will find this information helpful. We will continue to keep you updated.

Jim Viola, director of government relations

The December to January Transition to the Test Assessing Secondary Completion (TASC)

During the month of December the New York State Education Department conducted regional professional development programs for test center coordinators and examiners regarding the transition from the GED® to CTB/McGraw Hill’s Test Assessing Secondary Completion (TASC).  The training for test center personnel augments the training and webinars provided to the field by SED and by the vendor, including an introductory webinar presented by CTB on September 3, 6, and 9; test administration webinars on October 7 and 10; and the accommodations webinar on November 15.

Information and webinars may be accessed on two websites:

• The SED website, http://www.acces.nysed.gov/ged/ includes general information about the TASC and as well as webinars and PowerPoint presentations containing overview and test administration information.
• The TASC website, http://www.tasctest.com/ includes information describing how the test will evolve over the course of the three-year contract, test structure (including sample questions), procedures related to accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and frequently asked questions.

Read more: December2013TASC

New NY Education Reform Commission

On November 22, Governor Cuomo’s Education Reform Commission convened in the Yonkers Public Library for their third and final public symposium: Optimizing Resources for Student and School Success. Commission members heard from national and local education experts who described New York State’s current system of fiscal support for schools and students, and recommended revisions of varying magnitudes.

Read more:  Dec2013GovCommission.pdf