176 schools facing 'failing' designation |
On Board Online • February 9, 2015
By Eric D. Randall
Editor-in-Chief
Under a plan that's part of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's state budget proposal, 176 schools across the state could be designated as "failing" and taken over by an overseer, called a receiver, appointed by the commissioner of education.
If the plan is approved by the Legislature, schools would be candidates for receivership at the discretion of the commissioner if they have been in the bottom 5 percent of all schools for three years ("priority schools" in the state's existing accountability system).
Among such schools are 91 in New York City, 68 in the "Big 4" of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, and three in Albany. All of the districts with schools on the list have significant minority populations, including Mount Vernon, Roosevelt, Utica and Wyandanch.
In the case of a school takeover, the authority of the receiver would override that of the school board and superintendent in managing and operating the school.
There are provisions for takeover of entire school districts by a receiver if they are in the bottom 2.5 percent of schools under a performance system designed by the commissioner. Appointed by the commissioner, the receiver would have full powers of management and operation, superceding the school board and superintendent. The receiver would have unique powers under state law to alter labor contract language and remove all staff assigned to a failing school.
The plan is based on a system created in Massachusetts about four years ago, in 2010.
Here are some questions and answers:
Is takeover automatic if a school or district is designated as a failing?
The language in Cuomo's executive budget says districts can be identified as failing if the commissioner of education determines that they are in the bottom 2.5 percent of schools, and schools shall be designated as failing if they are in the bottom 5 percent of schools for three years.
What happens in a takeover of a school or district?
A receiver may be an individual, another school district or a not-for-profit entity. The receiver receives a salary or fee at the discretion of the commissioner. The receiver must create an intervention or turnaround plan for the school or district.
The plan must include student outcome-based goals and include the creation of community schools, alteration of the curriculum, increased salaries, inclusion of more rigorous coursework and changes in professional development, induction and evaluation procedures.
The plan may include the elimination of all staff (who would be offered the opportunity to reapply for probationary roles), conversion to a charter school or extending the school day. In a reduction in force, decisions regarding who within a given tenure area would lose their job would be based on the state growth score, not seniority. Employees removed would have no bumping rights elsewhere in the district.
The receiver also is empowered to restructure the school or district budget, change labor contracts or add kindergarten or prekindergarten.
Teachers must be removed by eliminating the position of the person with the lowest state growth score in the tenure area. Seniority would be used only as a tiebreaker.
The improvement plan can be for no more than three years, with an option for renewal. The board of education would have the right to petition for an early end to the receivership. During the receivership, the receiver would be subject to annual evaluations by the commissioner.
How similar is this to Massachusetts' plan?
Similar but not identical. Massachusetts' law has more protections for teachers. It requires good cause for dismissal and provides for appeal to an arbitrator. The power to alter labor agreements is similar, but the Massachusetts law allows an opportunity for the board and union to agree to changes.
Another difference is that Massachusetts allows the superintendent to take steps to develop and implement turnaround plans, rather than have authority go immediately to a receiver. Also, the governor's proposal places full authority in the hands of a receiver, while Massachusetts has authority reside with both the receiver and the commissioner.
How well has this worked in Massachusetts?
It's too early to say. So far, four schools have been taken over. One district - Lawrence, Mass. - now has an experienced superintendent as its receiver. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited the district in 2014 and praised the district for its progress.
What is NYSSBA's position on this proposal?
There are a number of components that NYSSBA supports as useful tools in school reform and improvement. These include flexibility to alter collective bargaining agreements, elimination of last-in first-out provisions, and increased authority to remove staff without giving them bumping rights in other schools.
"If these are good things for receivers to have to effect change in chronically underperforming schools or districts, boards of education ought to have the same discretion," said NYSSBA President Lynne Lenhardt. "If school boards had the kind of authority that the governor proposes giving to receivers, there would be fewer issues with long-term academic underperformance in schools and districts."
Lenhardt also noted that, while the commissioner has some discretion in the determination of which districts are failing, the governor's proposal automatically would designate "in receivership" status for all schools that have been placed in accountability status as a "priority school" for at least three years.
"One thing school boards know is that one size does not fit all and there is a better result when decision-makers have some discretion," Lenhardt said.