POV: Teacher Evaluation vs. Student Achievement: Minimal Correlation

Points_viewMany would believe that the state mandated evaluation system is a fair and appropriate method for evaluating teachers and principals and that teacher evaluations are linked directly and solely to New York state assessment results. Recent news reports have attempted to draw a direct comparison between New York state assessment results and teacher evaluation ratings. However, these misleading commentaries have been based on a lack of understanding of how assessment scores are used in teacher evaluations.

A recent article serves as a good example, comparing teacher and principal evaluation ratings to NYS assessment results from the 2013-2014 school year. Included was that (not counting New York City) about 39% of teachers and 61% of principals received “effective” ratings while 58% of teachers and 33% of principals earned the top rating of “highly effective.” This was contrasted with the 2014 NYS assessment results, where approximately 40% of students in grades three to eight scored at the proficient level or higher on the NYS math and ELA assessments.

Teacher effectiveness is so much more than results on one annual test. In fact, state assessment results are only mandated to be included in the evaluations of math and English teachers, grades 4-8, and in the evaluations of elementary, middle school and junior high building principals. In my school (Shaker Junior High School) that is a total of 16 teachers out of my total faculty of about 75 teachers.

Yes, such comparisons are clearly misleading. The truth is that NYS assessment results are included in the evaluations of only 21% of the teachers in my building, which is probably consistent with every other school in New York state.

To further underscore how misleading such comparisons are, let’s take a closer look at the evaluations of math and English teachers in grades 3-8 and determine how the NYS assessment results are included in them. NYS assessment results constitute 20 of the 100 points that comprise a teacher’s (or a principal’s) evaluation; these point totals are computed and provided by the NYS Education Department. That’s right, only 20% of a math or English teacher’s (or a building principal’s) evaluation is based on state assessment results.

Think about that. NYS assessment results account for 20% of about 21% of NYS teachers’ and principals’ evaluations state wide. If you just use these two percentages to calculate a rough, non-mathematical effect, (i.e. multiply 20% by 21%), you get an effect range of about 4%. Yes, NYS assessment results constitute about 4% of NYS teachers’ and principals’ evaluations. Interesting, as news reports (and politicians) would have you believe something very different. Not even being considered are the many other aspects of teaching that are included in an evaluation, the comparisons would have you believe that assessment data and evaluations are one and the same.

Let’s at least include the pertinent information about evaluations in news reporting and give readers the true data to fully comprehend the numbers. Let’s make sure that readers understand that there exists no significant connection between the state wide evaluation ratings and NYS assessment results. But, that doesn’t provoke readers nor is it of interest to politicians. No, the real story behind the sound bites is often quite un-newsworthy.

This Point of View was submitted by Shaker Junior High School principal Dr. Russell Moore of the North Colonie Central School District. Dr. Moore is currently in his 27th year as a principal. You can read more from him at his blog “Moore Perspective.”

POV: Opportunities in a moment of decision

This Point of View was submitted by Dr. Patrick Michel, District Superintendent for the Hamilton-Fulton-Montgomery BOCES

Points_viewWe are at a moment of decision, not just because it is the beginning of a new year, but because the opportunity now exists to embrace a path that insures a bright educational future for all our children.

I recently sat through a presentation from the College Board, the not-for-profit organization that produces the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). They have established a college and career-ready benchmark and are measuring states to see if high schools are producing seniors who are truly college and career ready. They calculated both a national average as well as state-by-state and school district-by-school district breakdowns. This presentation offered the report of their findings.

I will make two observations based on this report.

First, what we are doing now is evidently not working. The current SAT report sadly echoes the same tale that groups such as the ACT achievement test and the New York State Education Department have been telling for years, that students coming out of high school are not adequately prepared for success at college or in a career.

The data presented is shocking to this educator’s conscience. While the United States spends more than most industrialized countries on public education, our results are abysmal. According to the College Board, barely more than 39 percent of students taking the SAT in New York State are equipped to succeed in college or in a career. Nationally, the number is 43 percent, still less than half of the students taking the test.

The numbers for African-Americans and Hispanics are even more discouraging. According to the SAT, only 14.1 percent of New York’s African-American students are prepared to succeed in college or start a new job. Our Hispanic students perform a little better at 19.3 percent.

So, here comes the College Board with their benchmark on college and career readiness. Here is yet another organization—outside of public education—stating essentially that the Emperor has no clothes.

I would like to believe that with all the money we invest in New York State public education, that our students could excel on a test measuring college and career readiness; at least do better than the national average!

How unfortunate. More than half of the high school students looking forward to a college education (more like two-thirds of New York students) do not reach the benchmark indicating they are prepared to succeed at college or at a job.

My second observation is that the SAT has clearly embraced Common Core. Like it or not, if your school district is not using Common Core-aligned curriculum to prepare students, most will not get the SAT scores needed for admission to the college of their choice.

We presently have a public education system conceived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Much teaching still is done with students aligned in rows of desks, and many schools still run as if they are operating in the 1950s and 60s. This report, and others, illustrates the result of such thinking.

For more than a year, I have listened to the steady rant of people and groups objecting to the Common Core and any other attempt to reform public education.

As much as those leading the anti-common core charge would like us to think we should just do it like we used to do it, today’s reality demands change. Technology and progress are redefining the face of business and community life everywhere, and despite the nostalgia, the ways of the “good ol’ days” will not get our students where they need to go to succeed in today’s world.

Granted, the Common Core is not a panacea and, frankly, is already being outpaced by innovative educational reform around the world. However, Common Core is a step toward the goal, and those objecting have yet to produce a viable alternative.

So why is this important?

If you are fair-minded and look at the data coming in from all over the political spectrum and from both the SAT and the ACT, we can draw only one conclusion.

Because the existing public education system in New York State and the United States is not getting us to where we need to be, an effort to raise the standards so more students can be college and career ready is necessary. A coalition of states chose the Common Core as the strategy to achieve that end.

What is also important to point out is that both the SAT and the ACT have embraced the Common Core and that soon all children who take these gateway exams will be exposed to the standards that the Common Core represents.

So, here is the conundrum. The military, industry, higher education, government and now the SAT and the ACT are all saying we must raise standards and we need to teach differently. It is a matter of our standing in the world economy.

However, the only people not listening are the special interest groups in public education. What solution do they offer in the face of overwhelming evidence that the current system is failing?

Where is the comprehensive curriculum and reform ideas that will give our children a fighting chance in today’s global economy? Do the special interests actually believe that going backward to the good old days will better prepare children for the challenges of today’s world?

I see many groups putting an enormous amount of effort into getting more money to maintain their position in the pile. I wonder how much public education would improve if that same level of effort were applied to the real needs of students instead of the needs of adults protecting their turf.

What is most heartrending in this latest report is the fact that minority communities, those that are traditionally most underserved, are being manipulated by special interest groups to protect the status quo. Those most in need of a robust and successful public education system by all data indicators are the least served.

Most people in the education community will agree with me and say, “There’s nothing new in what you say, but what can be done?”

The difference now is that New York State’s Board of Regents is poised to select a new Commissioner of Education. The special interest groups, characterized by the Governor as “the Education Monopoly”, are lobbying hard for a pawn who will bog down forward-thinking change to protect their interests over what benefits the children.

Today is a significant moment of decision, and my sincere hope is that the Board of Regents will have the courage to choose a leader who will move us forward in the best interests of all students and their futures.

To read more from Dr. Michel, click here.

POV: The pivotal middle school years

Points_viewThis Point of View was submitted by Shaker Junior High School principal Dr. Russell Moore of the North Colonie Central School District. Dr. Moore is currently in the 26th year as principal. He attended SUNY Potsdam, and graduated with a BA in mathematics and education (1976) and a MA in mathematic (1983). Dr. Moore received his MEd. in ed. administration from St. Lawrence University in 1986 and his PhD. in ed. admin. and policy studies from the University at Albany in 1993.

School years end – which is a good thing for students and adults. Courses are developed in yearly format, so there is a defined beginning and a defined end. We finish off one year and look forward to the next. We end the school year, everybody takes a break, we start another one.

At least that’s what it looks like to people outside of education.

Those of us who work in schools, however, know that is not the case.

Within individual school districts there is a lot of work that goes into transitioning students from one grade level to the next. Some considerations for doing so include determining course of level placement for each student, meeting the new year’s teachers, recognizing the accomplishments of the year ending, working with parents as needed to clarify what’s taking place, planning students’ inclusion in summer programs, and several other annual tasks that are geared to help students be prepared for the coming year.

The transition process it even more involved when you consider students who are entering your school for the first time. In my school’s case, we have students entering from six different district elementary schools, in addition to several new entrants from area private schools. Transitioning these students is an important task, as each year our entire seventh grade is new to our school. In addition, working to transition parents is almost as important, as there is a fairly high level of anxiety with many parents, mostly those with their first child entering the junior high. The move from the neighborhood elementary school, which the student has been a part of for the past seven years, to a much larger, differently structured secondary school creates angst.

Schools should not wait until the end of one school year to begin the transition process to the next. Schools need to demonstrate to parents that that they understand their unease and will be working to help them and their incoming kids to get a little more comfortable with their new environment. Kids’ feelings are different; they’re nervous but in an excited, eager to move on to the next level way. Parents are just plain nervous.

One way to begin easing parents into your school is to reach out to them about courses offered. In most middle schools, there aren’t many options for 6th and 7th grade students, but providing a description of all the courses offered in the initial school year is informative and helpful. It’s a plus if your guidance counselors visit each of the elementary schools to meet with the fifth or sixth grade teachers about the incoming kids.

Another way to inform and transition is to post information about your school on your web page. Most schools hold an evening orientation program for parents in early June, at which parents hear information provided by representatives of each department, each teacher team, guidance counselors, perhaps a PTA rep, and building administrators. Many schools also have the kids visit their school sometime in June during the day. At this program the kids can have lunch, hear from some of their specific teachers, guidance counselor and/or building administrators, and see the school.

Yet another outreach is to mail important information to parents during the summer, early enough for parents and kids to read and understand it. It’s very helpful if this mailing includes each child’s class schedule for the year. You may even consider holding an Open School Day before school starts. Such a day is very helpful to students because you can provide students with their schedules and have them try out their lockers to insure they open. Kids also get to see a lot of their future classmates on this day.

A final step in the transition can be a school’s Back to School Night. At this program, parents can walk through their kids’ schedule and hear specific information about each class from their child’s teachers. The information provided during this evening program can be much more content and class focused than the information given at the orientation program in June.

These are just some ideas that can help transition students and parents to a new school. Much of the communication should take place between individual parents and counselors as well, probably in June and July. Some of these conversations would be about specific course options, while others more general in content. Schools should work to insure that parents have a better understanding of the school, how it is structured, how issues are addressed (which may or may not be done differently than was experienced in elementary school), and what they can expect from building leaders.

Parents won’t be completely comfortable until their kids have been at their new school for a period of time and they have experienced how the building regularly functions. Effective transitions do not happen overnight. They take planning, evaluation, revision as needed and adequate attention to all involved parties. Done right, transitioning between schools can work quite well.

You can read more from Dr. Moore by visiting his blog: Moore Perspective.

POV: Finishing strong

Points_viewThis Point of View was submitted by Shaker Junior High School principal Dr. Russell Moore of the North Colonie Central School District. Dr. Moore is currently in the 26th year as principal. He attended SUNY Potsdam, and graduated with a BA in mathematics and education (1976) and a MA in mathematic (1983). Dr. Moore received his MEd. in ed. administration from St. Lawrence University in 1986 and his PhD. in ed. admin. and policy studies from the University at Albany in 1993.

Baseball players, on average, make a lot of money. Power hitters and ace pitchers tend to be the players who pull down the largest contracts, but another position that merits serious pay is that of the closer. The closer is the pitcher who comes out of the bullpen late in the game, usually the ninth inning, to get the final outs to preserve a win. Closers mostly don’t pitch in other situations; they are paid to finish off a victory. They play a very important role in baseball as the need to “close” games is paramount.

Similar to baseball, authors work to begin a story or a book strong, wanting to hook the readers. By doing so interest is piqued and each reader will progress through the story, book or essay anticipating resolution. Good books must have a strong finish as well. The ending is almost more important than the beginning as it resolves whatever issues or events were detailed throughout the piece of writing. If your reading experiences have been like mine, then you’ve read some books that pulled you along but that ultimately fell apart. You were left feeling disappointed because the ending was weak, the author didn’t “close” the narrative effectively.

I’m writing this blog in May, which means the end of our school year is just around the corner. The idea of finishing strong is just as present in schools as it is in baseball and in writing. We want to conclude the school year on a positive note; no one wants to limp into summer break with black clouds hanging over us. We want to feel that we’ve worked hard and deserve the break, not that we need the summer to separate us from a negative experience, to wipe the slate clean so we can start anew in the fall.

Of course this desire to finish strong applies to our students. We work to help students understand that ending the year on a positive note is a goal to strive for. Kids at this age, especially, smell summer break; they are eagerly anticipating days of sun and fun, and they have trouble grasping and attending to the work that needs to be done to end the year on a high note. We need them to stay focused on the many tasks at hand, to not disregard the review and continued preparation that leads to success on final exams and, ultimately for them, their success for the year.

This won’t happen, however, unless the administrators and teachers finish strong as well. Kids, in general, will not stay focused on their own, they need the adults, the professionals, to keep them on task and productive. So it’s imperative that the adults in our school, or in any school, not cut corners, not lessen expectations, not give a different message to students now than was given throughout the first thirty weeks of the year. This is easy for a lot of us, but not so easy for some. Just like with students, some adults can’t wait for summer and they lose the attention to detail that was imperative to get students to this point.

We need to be our own closers, and that hinges entirely on our professionalism. We shouldn’t need a boss looking over our shoulder to insure that we do what needs to be done. Each of us has to maintain high, yet appropriate standards, insist on kids (and staff) meeting them, and not accept less than our best effort. We can’t relax on the little things, shift into summer mode early, because doing so send the wrong message to our students.

To me there’s nothing quite like the feeling experienced when you can reflect on the past year and realize it was a good year and that the year ended well. Having such a sense of accomplishment, and that we did our best effort, makes you forget the struggles that may have occurred. It’s finishing strong that allows us to truly experience the year’s accomplishments…at least that’s my perspective.

You can read more from Dr. Moore by visiting his blog: Moore Perspective.

POV: Students are fighting for our future

Points_view

Today’s POV comes to us from Dan Adamek, a senior at Herkimer Junior-Senior High School.  Dan serves as president of the student council, the founder of Students for Fair Funding – New York, and organizes with the Alliance for Quality Education. This article originally appeared in the Utica Observer-Dispatch on April 21, 2014.

I am a high school senior. On April 10, I should have been eating lunch in my school’s cafeteria worrying about my next test. Instead, I found myself with more than 100 of my peers marching in a mock funeral that symbolized the death of the Herkimer Central School District.

This action was initiated and led by students in a collective effort to end the epidemic of what activists across the state have dubbed as “Cuomo cuts.”

Throughout my high school career, I have not once heard of the introduction of new programs that will enhance my educational experience, nor have I had the opportunity to take classes that will give me an advantage in the globalized, 21st century job market. In fact, I have seen my school district in a constant state of attrition.

This is not because of my community, teachers or school administration. It is not because I have failed to make a conscious effort to self-educate and work diligently. It is, however, because of the systematic orchestration of the failure of schools all around New York state by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Students at Herkimer High School took action because before austerity hit the education system, our elementary school offered character education. In those character education classes we learned about the golden rule. We learned that we should treat others the way we want to be treated.

It is evident that our governor has yet to fully grasp this idea. If he did, he would clearly be fulfilling his duty to provide students with a quality education as outlined in the New York state Constitution. He would certainly not be balancing the state budget on the back of young children through the Gap Elimination Adjustment — a policy that has stolen more than $8.4 billion from schools around New York state since its inception. Nor would he continually fail to put New York back on track with its commitment to the Campaign for Fiscal Equity court order.

Herkimer students acted because in our history classes — the few that are still offered — we have been taught that in the face of adversity, change will not happen with inaction and apathy. Herkimer students realize that the pages of history books are plastered with the struggles of oppressed peoples.

We, the students, are being oppressed by your lack of equitable education funding that thereby deprives us of our right to a quality education, Mr. Governor, and we do not plan on quieting down anytime soon. Each of us is filled with rage, and that rage will not go away until our demands are met and our rights are upheld.

POV: Step 1 to relieve our fiscal stress: end GEA now!

This Point of View was submitted by Watervliet City Schools Superintendent Dr. Lori Caplan. 

Points_viewSince becoming superintendent two years ago, I have been very candid about our district’s fiscal challenges. I have spoken about it frequently during budget workshops and presentations, and written about it often [on my] blog.

In mid-January, the Watervliet school district was thrust into the spotlight after landing at the top of the New York State Comptroller’s Office report of the most fiscally stressed public schools in the state.

Under the state’s new Fiscal Stress Monitoring System, 87 school districts statewide—or 13 percent—were designated in some level of fiscal stress, which is determined by such financial indicators as year-end fund balance, cash position and patterns of operating deficits.

The comptroller’s report itself garnered widespread media attention around the state, but as you might imagine being named the most fiscally strapped school district in the state resulted in a flurry of interviews and local media reports that gave me an opportunity to offer context about our district’s fiscal pressures.

How did our school district get here?

In his press release, NYS Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli acknowledged that,
“… reductions in state aid, a cap on local revenue and decreased rainy day funds are creating financial challenges that more and more school districts are having trouble overcoming. My office’s fiscal stress scores highlight the need for school district officials to manage their finances carefully with an eye towards long-range planning and how they can operate more efficiently.”

I agree with Mr. DiNapoli’s assessment—state aid reductions and the tax levy cap have placed significant financial pressure on schools. I would argue, however, that the issue, especially for districts deemed in significant or moderate fiscal stress, is more complicated than merely a need to “manage finances more carefully.” Three factors by and large have brought us to where we are today:

  1. a lack of equitable and adequate state funding;
  2. the state’s Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA), which has resulted in a $4 million loss of revenue for Watervliet schools alone over the past four years; and
  3. an unending barrage of unfunded mandates that schools must comply with, which increase spending.

First, the inequitable disbursement of state aid continues to shortchange small city schools disproportionately. As a result, districts like ours have made many difficult, often unpopular choices to balance our budgets. In Watervliet, we have downsized staff across the board—instructional, support staff and administrator positions alike, in recent years. In some cases, these reductions have led to larger class sizes. We have cut advanced placement courses and summer school programs; eliminated athletic teams (tennis, bowling and modified sports); and offer fewer extracurricular opportunities for students than before.

It is well past time that our state leaders take action and overhaul the school funding system to ensure that schools in small urban communities receive equitable and sufficient funding so that all New York’s children receive a comparable, high-caliber education regardless of their zip code.

Second, our elected leaders must also eliminate the Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA), another major fiscal stressor confronting our schools. Enacted by then-Governor David Paterson in 2010, the GEA was supposed to be a temporary fix allowing state government to close its own budget shortfall by reducing the share of Foundation Aid that had been promised to schools across the state. Watervliet has lost approximately $4 million in the past four years because of the GEA, and will lose another $500,000 in 2014-15, if state leaders fail to act.

Now that the state’s economy appears to have turned the corner—the governor says the state has a budget surplus—the time has come to do away with the GEA and restore school funding to levels that enable us to offer the education and opportunities that prepare students to be college and career ready in today’s ultra-competitive global economy.

Finally, the state and/or federal governments regularly enact new mandates that school districts must comply with that encompass many areas of school operations, including instruction, transportation, health and safety. More often than not, however, these new regulations come unfunded, or underfunded, which again drives up the cost of operating schools. While mandates increase accountability, and in many cases, help improve educational quality, implementing them without adequate funding only piles on the fiscal stress that schools face.

Whether or not you have children in our schools, a robust education is vital to the future of both our city and our state. For that reason, it is important that parents, community members, students, teachers and staff alike be informed, be engaged and advocate for our schools! The best way to support Watervliet’s schools and students is to contact our elected officials in Albany and urge them to end the state’s Gap Elimination Adjustment, fix the inequities in the school funding system and place a moratorium on new mandates.

POV: The math just doesn’t add up #NYSchoolsInPeril

This Point of View was submitted by Queensbury Central School District superintendent Dr. Douglas Huntley and Board of Education president Raymond Gordon.

Points_viewFor New York’s public schools, the math does not add up: More than 70 percent of school districts, including Queensbury, are currently receiving less state aid than they did five years ago. Queensbury alone has lost $16 million in promised state aid since 2009-10. Now, the governor’s 2014-15 budget places new mandates on schools while maintaining an aid-reduction tactic known as the Gap Elimination Adjustment.

With state projections of a $2.2 billion surplus, it is time to make schools whole by honoring the government’s commitment to educating its children.

In recent years, school districts such as Queensbury had to cut personnel; reduce programs, services, reserves, fund balance; and increase class size to remain fiscally solvent. Additionally, the board limited the local tax levy increase to an average of 1.47 percent over the past five years. We have already lost 85 teaching, support staff and administrative positions. This cannot continue without serious deterioration to the quality of education.

The property tax cap came with promises of relief from the mandates driving up the cost of education. Unfortunately, mandate relief has yet to be realized in any significant way. In fact, the New NY Education Reform Commission appointed to examine issues related to education funding, among other things, actually proposed many initiatives, or mandates, similar to those proposed by the governor. While initiatives like pre-K and a $2 billion technology plan sound intriguing, it seems ill advised to spend huge amounts on new programs when existing programs must be cut due to inadequate state funding.

We call on the N.Y.S. Legislature to restore the funding lost to the GEA and to ensure any new education initiatives do not become more un/underfunded mandates for schools.

Raymond Gordon, President, Queensbury Board of Education
Douglas W. Huntley, Ed.D., Superintendent

POV: Governor Cuomo’s budget raises concerns for future

This Point of View was submitted by Ravena-Coeymans Selkirk Central School District superintendent Dr. Alan McCartney.

Points_viewGovernor Cuomo’s proposed state budget includes initiatives that could have long-term positive results for our students and the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District. It’s next year that I am very concerned about.

Gains that might come from funding new initiatives for prekindergarten, after-school programs, and technology upgrades will most likely not materialize for us due to the fact that our district may not be able to maintain our current program next year.

According to the preliminary estimates provided, under the executive proposal, the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk CSD would see a 2.26% ($278,831) increase in state aid excluding building aid. A preliminary analysis of our Tax Levy Limit indicates that we would be able to generate $319,469 in tax revenues without having to have a super majority vote.

A review of estimated increases for pensions, health insurance, the Affordable Care Act, heat, lights and the overall general costs associated with running a school district indicates that we would need to generate $ 1,064,006 to maintain our current programs as they are today. This creates a gap between available estimated revenues and estimated expenditures of $465,706 without adding new initiatives or programs.

Our community, yet again, will be forced to look at making program and approximately six staff reductions that will affect programs and services to close the gap between available revenues and needed expenditures. Our voters will be forced to make tough choices concerning programs for their children and their ability to pay.

Remaining in the executive proposal is the Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA), which was introduced in 2010 as a way for the state government to close its budget deficit. It did so by spreading the funding shortfall around to all school districts through a GEA reduction to the overall Foundation Aid due to schools. Despite New York’s anticipated surplus, the governor’s proposal calls for only a partial restoration ($323 million) of funds withheld from districts through the GEA.

While a partial restoration of the Gap Elimination Adjustment is helpful, it does not nearly go far enough to solve a problem that is devastating our district and dismantling our educational programs. The rationale originally used for creating the GEA no longer exists; schools throughout the state should receive the aid that they are owed and desperately need.

RCS is slated to lose an additional $2,024,472 to the GEA in 2014-15, bringing the district’s five-year total loss to $12,247,008 under the governor’s plan.

chartDespite School Aid increases in the last two state budgets, we are still getting less help this year than we did in 2008-09. The following chart shows a decrease of $3,991,655 less than we were in 2008-09 or 24.07%.

The Executive Budget also proposes a two-year property tax freeze for homeowners residing in school districts that meet certain conditions. This proposal would force district’s to become involved in a complex time consuming task that will tear districts and communities apart. This an attempt to force consolidations and the large scale sharing of services and costs while leaving the local Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) out of the equation.

During the first year of the freeze, a district would have to pass a budget with a levy that stays within its property tax levy cap. During the second year, in addition to again staying within its cap, a district would have to agree to and implement a state-approved plan for shared services and consolidation. Our budget already includes shared services savings through BOCES and this proposal would shift this responsibility to the largest school district in our BOCES region.

Again the promise of “No Tax Increases” is shifted to the school districts and local governments across our great state. If the program is not successful, school districts and local governments will be blamed for not achieving the savings, not the governor or the state. Creating turmoil at the local level will take focus away from the real issues of educating our students and how we currently fund public education in New York State.
This proposal will create a rift between our district and the community we serve. Taxpayers will now be asked to choose between funding education and receiving a tax break. The financial outlook for New York State government has improved under Governor Cuomo’s leadership. But that has yet to translate into wide gains for our schools. Too many districts still have real fears of insolvency. Too few, like ours, have been able to restore programs and opportunities for their students.

I and the board of education look forward to working with Assembly Members, Senators and the Governor to develop a final state budget that protects and improves the capacity of all districts to continue the practice of teaching and learning that is so important to the future of our state and country.

POV:The Tax Levy Cap Needs Review

Points_viewThis “Points of View” post was written by Thomas J. O’Brien, Superintendent of Schools in the Roxbury Central School District.

As we enter into our third year of the new tax levy legislation, it is time for it to be reviewed. Like all new laws, after time, there are evident unintended consequences.  As this discussion continues about a logical means to adequately fund schools this issue is timely.

If it is the intent of the “tax levy limit” to provide optimal tax relief then we must be able to follow through during the entire levying cycle.  Under the current guidelines, school districts must report to the New York State Comptroller by March 1st their anticipated “Tax Levy Cap” calculation.  Once the Board of Education adopts a budget, by late April, we must re-report and update the calculation based on what the final budget means to the levy calculation.  At that time, the budget and levy are set and presented for a vote on the third Tuesday in May. 

This is the issue.  During July and August, the equalization rates are set by the Office of Real Property and the tax rolls are determined for each of the municipalities within a district.  These factors then are applied to a tax rate calculation spreadsheet to determine the actual tax rate by town.  Depending on all of these factors, each town’s rate will be affected differently.  Prior to the “Tax Levy Cap”, school districts, before the issuance of the tax warrant, could apply additional surplus fund balance (determined after the close of the fiscal year) to reduce the levy.  This would be done to help off-set any imbalance due to any changes from equalization rates or tax roll swings, a problem we are presently experiencing with a portion of our district.

There is now a “perverse disincentive” to take such action with this new legislation.  If a school district chooses to take such action to off-set the imbalance in tax rates, it would be starting out next year’s levy calculation in the hole by any additional surplus applied to reduce the levy.  This problem arises due to the fact that the new year’s levy calculation starts out with the last tax levy reported to the Comptroller’s office.  I propose that school districts be given flexibility in August after the warrant is set, to be able to go on to the Comptroller’s website and revise the levy calculation a final time to reflect the levy actually raised by the school.  This will enable us to assist our homeowners as much as possible, without hindering next year’s levy.

Without this flexibility, school districts face another great challenge.  When we balance our books and our fiscal house is in order and the fund balance is higher than the statutory limit of 4%, the only option that we have is to place it into non-voter referendum reserves, or be cited for being over the 4% limit.  These reserves are important to maintain the long-term viability of a district in meeting its future obligations.  Per recent Comptroller audits, school districts are being cited for over funding these reserves.  This leaves us in a no-win situation.  The Comptroller finds fault with us if we fund our reserves with this money, and we limit our ability to raise funds in future years if we use it to reduce this year’s tax levy.

At first blush a school district could be accused of over budgeting and that is the reason for the surplus.  In some cases that may be so, but in this age of spiraling unpredicted special education costs and other expenses such as fuel oil, I believe a sound fiscal manager can report the rationale for a surplus.  A very basic example would be that if an area experiences a mild winter and uses less oil, in the spring there could be $30,000 in fuel expenses left over. $30,000 could have a significant impact on tax bills in small rural school districts like ours.

 New York State school districts attempt to effectively strike a delicate balance between fiscal accountability and effective educational programming.  We are sensitive to the challenges facing our taxpayers and many districts carried a de facto cap prior to this legislation.  We need to ask our legislators, as I have already done, to assist us in analyzing this issue and help us find a solution to the unfortunate, unintended consequence of this new legislation.  The “Tax Levy Cap” was not enacted to create an impediment to lowering taxes, “Right now, it does!”

POV: “Implementation of the common core has been disastrous”

Points_viewThis “Point of View” post was written by Timothy Farley, a principal at Ichabod Crane Elementary School. It was presented as written testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on Education’s Public Hearing on November 13, 2013. (View media coverage of the hearing. You can also read Farley’s testimony on the Senate’s site here.)

I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for allowing me to testify today on this very important topic, the Regents Reform Agenda.  As the Principal of an Elementary and Middle School (grades 4-8), with 22 years experience, and the father of four school-aged children, I feel I bring a unique perspective to this discussion.  I will focus my testimony on the implementation of Common Core, state and local assessments, and the protection of student privacy.

Common Core Implementation:

To say that the implementation of Common Core has been flawed would be an understatement.  When you have the Chancellor of the Board of Regents saying, “We just need to jump in the deep end”, or the Commissioner of Education stating that, “we are building a plane in mid-air”, we have a serious problem. 

Common Core was adopted by the NYS Education Department January 2011.  Since its adoption, our school has been doing its due diligence in implementing Common Core with less resources, more demands, and less than complimentary words coming from our Governor, Commissioner, and Chancellor.  From my perspective, our teachers have been lambasted and demoralized.

Common Core has never been properly field tested.  Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that it will take ten years to determine if these reforms will actually work.  This is after his last education reform that he pumped in $2 billion of his own money to see if smaller schools were better than larger ones.  I refuse to allow my children to be used as his guinea pigs to see if his latest whim will work.  If Common Core is so wonderful, why do people that are responsible for its implementation not send their own children to the schools that are forced to implement it?  If Common Core is so wonderful, why are so many states pulling out of  it?  There are currently 22 states that are either pulling out completely, partially pulling out, or have paused implementation (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania; Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia). Continue reading