Aug 1, 2016 - Dear Secretary King: ... encouraged by the promise that the new law would re-focus the federal role ... co
August 1, 2016 Charles S. Dedrick Executive Director
[email protected] Robert N. Lowry, Jr. Deputy Director for Advocacy, Research and Communications
[email protected] 518.435.5996
2016 - 2017 Officers Patricia Sullivan-Kriss President West Hempstead 252 Chestnut Street West Hempstead, NY 11552 Laura Feijoo President-Elect NYC Dept of Education Lorna R. Lewis Vice President Plainview-Old Bethpage Kevin C. McGowan Treasurer Brighton Maureen E. Donahue Past President Southwestern
Executive Committee Jason A. Andrews Windsor (2018) Luvelle C. Brown Ithaca City (2018) Thomas R. Burns St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES (2018) Martha Group Sherrill City (2017) Phyllis S. Harrington Oceanside (2017) Robert R. Ike Palmyra-Macedon (2017) Randall W. Squier Coxsackie-Athens (2017) Michael B. Wetherbee Wayland-Cohocton (2018) Marie Wiles Guilderland (2017)
Hon. John B. King, Jr. Secretary of Education United States Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202 Dear Secretary King: I am writing to submit comments on behalf of the New York State Council of School Superintendents on proposed regulations for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) issued by your Department in May. Like educators and elected officials throughout the nation, our members were encouraged by the promise that the new law would re-focus the federal role in education policy, promoting greater discretion and innovation by states and school districts, and reversing over-emphasis on standardized test results as a measure of the value of what is being accomplished in our schools. With that perspective in mind, the proposed regulations are a mixed bag, with the Department exercising welcome restraint in some areas, but over-reaching on others. 95 percent participation New York State bears the distinction of leading the nation as the “hot-bed” of test refusal activism. We believe that the majority of New York’s school superintendents desire students to participate in state assessments. But we believe the strategy for promoting participation embodied in the proposed regulations would be more harmful than helpful. New York’s constitution promises “…a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.” State learning standards help define the contemporary meaning of that promise. Regular state assessments provide a uniform, universal measure of whether schools are fulfilling the promise for all their students. That was the original purpose of statewide, pre-commencement assessments, long pre-dating enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act − to enable educators to assess how well their school’s instruction aligned with expectations for learning defined in state policy. We note, also, that our state began disaggregating test results by student sub-groups before NCLB was enacted, or in fact even proposed.
NYS Council of School Superintendents 2
In our surveys, New York superintendents overwhelmingly reject the notion that the current grades 3 through 8 assessments are yielding information useful for evaluating teachers, principals, or even schools. But they continue to find some value in those assessments in assessing overall strengths and weaknesses of instruction. This continuing appreciation for the historical role of regular statewide assessments is one reason we believe most superintendents in our state hope students will participate in those assessments. The other reason is more long-term and not driven by preoccupation with participation rates in one year or another. Rather, in college and throughout adult life, our students will encounter obligations for which refusing a test is not an option. Anecdotally, our members share stories of families attempting to opt children out of other forms of assessment and from any measure which might be used in professional evaluations to gauge the impact of teaching upon learning. The law itself continues the 95 percent participation rate requirement but leaves to the states to determine how to promote participation. The regulations go further, however, prescribing options which essentially require designating schools falling short of 95 percent participation as low-performing. The Department’s December 2015 letter to chief state school officers raised the specter of financial sanctions upon states if their response to low participation is deemed insufficiently robust. In our state, we anticipate that continuing down this path would be counter-productive and inflammatory. In New York, what must instead happen is to rebuild a system of assessments that educators and families recognize as having value toward improving learning and achievement by their students. When that occurs, families will decide for themselves to participate in state assessments. Efforts to rebuild trust in our assessment system are underway and could be aided by flexibility afforded through ESSA. For all the foregoing reasons, we recommend deleting proposed section 200.15(b)(2) which would prescribe actions required to be taken against schools that fall short of 95 percent participation in required state assessments. Graduation Rate Calculation The ESSA statute requires states to identify for intervention high schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. The statute also provides that states may use an extended graduation rate in addition to the required four-year rate as an accountability indicator. But the proposed
NYS Council of School Superintendents 3
regulations would provide that only the four-year rate is to be used in determining whether schools have met the 67 percent graduation rate target. We believe the proposed regulations are contrary to the law. We also believe that students who persist in school and complete diploma requirements after the four-year graduation date of their cohort deserve to be recognized as successes. Accountability systems should be structured to acknowledge and reward the effort of schools who support the successful persistence of these students. Accordingly, we recommend that this regulation be amended to permit consideration of an extended graduation rate, as well as the four-year rate, in determining whether high schools have met the 67 percent target. Timeline for Implementation for Comprehensive Supports We oppose the proposal to require states to identify schools for improvement and support by the beginning of the 2017-18 school year. States will not have their accountability plans developed and approved until well into the 2016-17 school year. This rushed schedule shortchanges opportunities for thoughtful development of additional accountability indicators as permitted by law and engagement with stakeholders as required by law. It impairs effective implementation to the detriment of students we are all intending to support. Also, the timeline necessarily means that some schools will be identified as needing support based on data from the 2016-17 school year – results generated under the prior accountability system. Given that 2017-18 is the first year of ESSA implementation, it follows that identification under ESSA should come after ESSA-related data has been collected, at the end of the 2017-18 school year for use optimistically during the 2018-19 or realistically in the 2019-20 school year. We recommend the proposed regulations be amended to require states to identify schools for improvement by the start of the 2018-19 school year. Local Approval of Improvement Plans The proposed regulations would require that plans for comprehensive support and improvement in inadequately performing schools be approved by the state education agency, the local education agency, and the school itself. We strongly support engaging school level stakeholders in the development of improvement plans as sound practice as well as a requirement under the law. But schools exist within districts and districts are led by officials charged by law and entrusted by voters with local decision making authority. The lowest
NYS Council of School Superintendents 4
performing schools should not be given an effective veto over the judgments of democratically accountable district leaders. We ask that the regulations be amended to eliminate the requirement that school improvement plans be approved by the affected schools.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations and look forward to working with state and federal authorities to accomplish the best possible implementation of ESSA. Sincerely,
Charles S. Dedrick Executive Director
