EDU-26-09-00004-E No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) - School Accountability
12/9/09 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-26-09-00004-E
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXI, ISSUE 49
December 09, 2009
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY RULE MAKING
I.D No. EDU-26-09-00004-E
Filing No. 1329
Filing Date. Nov. 24, 2009
Effective Date. Nov. 28, 2009
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) - School Accountability
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Amendment of sections 100.2(p), 120.2, 120.3 and 120.4 of Title 8 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Education Law, sections 101(not subdivided), 207(not subdivided), 210(not subdivided), 215(not subdivided), 305(1), (2) and (20), 309(not subdivided) and 3713(1) and (2)
Finding of necessity for emergency rule:
Preservation of general welfare.
Specific reasons underlying the finding of necessity:
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the United States Department of Education (USED) on January 8, 2009, in order to increase the percentage of schools designated for Improvement that are able to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years and be returned to Good Standing. The State and local educational agencies, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended.
On January 8, 2009, former Education Secretary Spellings informed Commissioner Mills of New York's approval to participate in the United States Department of Education's (USED) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as a part of its system of interventions under section 1116 of the ESEA. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with the approved plan and to support the implementation of Differentiated Accountability. The proposed amendment will:
(1) reduce the current number of school accountability categories by eliminating dual Title I and non-Title I streams of improvement, integrating federal and State accountability systems and collapsing identifications for improvement into three simplified phases, each of which provides schools with diagnostic tools, planning strategies, and supports and interventions specific to that phase in the improvement process and the school's category of need;
(2) allow for differentiation in the improvement process, permitting schools and districts to prepare and implement school improvement plans that best match a school's designation;
(3) better align the SURR and NCLB processes and ensure that schools with systemic and persistent failure fundamentally restructure or close;
(4) maximize SED's limited resources and utilize the resources of USNY while implementing School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention Teams, and Distinguished Educators to schools in improvement;
(5) strengthen the capacity of districts to assist schools to improve; and
(6) empower parents by increasing combined participation in Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) by offering SES in the first year of a school's identification for improvement and school choice only after an identified school has failed to make AYP.
The proposed amendment was adopted as an emergency rule at the May 2009 Regents meeting, effective July 1, 2009. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published in the State Register on July 1, 2009. The proposed rule was subsequently revised in response to public comment and, as so revised, adopted as a second emergency action at the September 2009 Regents meeting.
The proposed amendment has been adopted as a permanent rule at the November 2009 Regents meeting. Pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act, the earliest the adopted rule can become effective is after its publication in the State Register on December 9, 2009. However, the emergency rule which took effect on September 29, 2009 will expire on November 27, 2009. The expiration of the emergency rule could cause disruptions to the administration of the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program for the 2009-2010 school year.
Therefore, a third second emergency action is necessary for the preservation of the general welfare in order to ensure that the emergency rule adopted at the September 2009 Regents meeting remains continuously in effect until the effective date of its adoption as a permanent rule, in order to avoid disruption to the administration of the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program for the 2009-2010 school year.
Subject:
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) - school accountability.
Purpose:
To implement the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
Substance of emergency rule:
The Board of Regents has amended subdivision (p) of section 100.2 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, subdivisions (g)-(i) of section 120.2; subdivisions (a) and (g) of section 120.3; and subdivisions (b) and (f) of section 120.4 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, as an emergency action, effective November 28, 2009, to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as granted by the United States Department of Education, particularly in terms of revising school accountability to increase the percentage of schools designated for Improvement that are able to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years and be returned to Good Standing.
The substantive amendments to the regulations are as follows:
Section 100.2(p)(2)(ii)(a) is amended to replace the term "identified" with "designated" and to replace the phrase "school requiring academic progress" with "school in Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring."
Section 100.2(p)(5)(vii) is amended to replace the term "identified" with "designated" and to replace the phrase " a school requiring academic progress" with "a school in Improvement (year 1)."
The current paragraph 100.2(p)(6), School Requiring Academic Progress, is repealed and a new paragraph 100.2(p)(6), Differentiated Accountability for Schools, is added, beginning with the 2009-2010 school year. More specifically, the new paragraph 100.2(p)(6) will:
(1) integrate federal and State accountability systems;
(2) reduce the current number of school accountability categories by eliminating dual Title I and non-Title I streams of improvement;
(3) collapse identifications for improvement into three simplified accountability phases; Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring, based upon the number of years that a school failed to make adequate yearly progress on an accountability performance criterion and/or accountability indicator;
(4) further differentiate each phase into three categories of intervention: Basic, Focused and Comprehensive, based upon the number of accountability groups that failed to make adequate yearly progress in an accountability performance criterion and/or accountability indicator for which a school has been identified;
(5) determine a school's accountability designation for the 2009-2010 school year based upon the school's accountability status for the 2008-2009 school year and the school's AYP for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years;
(6) provide schools with diagnostic tools, planning strategies, and supports and interventions specific to that phase in the improvement process and the school's category of need;
(7) allow for differentiation in the accountability process, permitting schools and districts to prepare and implement two-year school improvement/corrective action/restructuring plans that best match a school's designation;
(8) better align the School Under Registration Review (SURR) and NCLB processes and ensure that schools with systemic and persistent failure fundamentally restructure or close;
(9) maximize SED's limited resources and utilize the resources of the University of the State of New York (USNY) to assign School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention Teams, and Distinguished Educators to schools in improvement; strengthen the capacity of districts to assist schools to improve; and
(10) empower parents by increasing combined participation in Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) by providing for SES in the first year of a school's identification for improvement and PSC only after an identified school has failed to make AYP.
Section 100.2p(9) is amended to reference subparagraph 100.2(p)(5)(vi) rather than 100.2(p)(5)(vii) due to general reorganization of the section.
Section 100.2p(10) is amended to set forth the action that is to be taken when a school has been designated as Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring and has been placed on registration review. More specifically, under the amended regulations, a school designated as Improvement (year 1) or Corrective Action (year 1) shall modify its plan to meet the requirements of a restructuring plan for implementation no later than the beginning of the next school year following the year identified for registration review. The amended regulations also provide that a school designated as Restructuring (advanced) may be warned of revocation of registration unless an acceptable plan for closure or phase out has been submitted. In addition, a school identified for registration review may be identified for phase out or closure if after two full academic years of implementing a restructuring plan progress has not been demonstrated.
Section 100.2p(11) is amended to eliminate the provision allowing a board of education to replace a school under registration review with a redesigned school, and to provide for the phase out or closure of such.
Conforming amendments are also made to section 120.2(g), (h) and (i), section 120.3 (a) and (g) and section 120.4(b) and (f), for purposes of ensuring consistency with the above amendments to section 100.2(p).
This notice is intended
to serve only as a notice of emergency adoption. This agency intends to adopt the provisions of this emergency rule as a permanent rule, having previously submitted to the Department of State a notice of proposed rule making, I.D. No. EDU-26-09-00004-P, Issue of July 1, 2009. The emergency rule will expire January 22, 2010.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Chris Moore, State Education Department, Office of Counsel, State Education Building Room 148, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234, (518) 486-1713, email: legal@mail.nysed.gov
Regulatory Impact Statement
STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Education Law section 101 continues the existence of the Education Department, with the Board of Regents as its head, and authorizes the Regents to appoint the Commissioner of Education as the Department's Chief Administrative Officer, which is charged with the general management and supervision of all public schools and the educational work of the State.
Education Law section 207 empowers the Regents and the Commissioner to adopt rules and regulations to carry out State education laws and the functions and duties conferred on the Department.
Education Law section 210 authorizes the Regents to register domestic and foreign institutions in terms of State standards, and fix the value of degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by institutions of other states or countries and presented for entrance to schools, colleges and the professions in the State.
Education Law section 215 authorizes the Commissioner to require schools and school districts to submit reports containing such information as the Commissioner shall prescribe.
Education Law section 305(1) and (2) provide the Commissioner, as chief executive officer of the State's education system, with general supervision over all schools and institutions subject to the Education Law, or any statute relating to education, and responsibility for executing all educational policies of the Regents. Section 305(20) provides the Commissioner shall have such further powers and duties as charged by the Regents.
Education Law section 309 charges the Commissioner with the general supervision of boards of education and their management and conduct of all departments of instruction.
Education Law section 3713(1) and (2) authorize the State and school districts to accept federal law making appropriations for educational purposes and authorize the Commissioner to cooperate with federal agencies to implement such law.
LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:
The proposed rule is consistent with the above authority and is necessary to establish criteria and procedures ensuring State and local educational agency (LEA) compliance with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE).
NEEDS AND BENEFITS:
Section 100.2(p) is amended to establish criteria and procedures ensuring State and LEA compliance with the NCLB school accountability provisions. The State and LEAs are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
The Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program requires the State to implement a new method of categorizing schools identified for improvement; to use differentiated diagnostic tools to assist schools and districts to develop and implement appropriate plans to address the needs of students; to vary the intensity and interventions to match the academic reasons that led to a school's identification; to compress the length of time a school is supported through improvement; to merge elements of the State and NCLB accountability systems; and to reverse the order of Supplemental Educational Services and Public School Choice.
On January 8, 2009, former USDE Secretary Margaret Spellings approved New York's request to participate in the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program. The proposed rule will conform the Commissioner's Regulations with the approved Pilot Program to:
(1) integrate federal and State accountability systems;
(2) reduce the current number of school accountability categories by eliminating dual Title I and non-Title I streams of improvement;
(3) collapse identifications for improvement into three simplified phases: Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring, based upon the number of years that a school failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on an accountability performance criterion and/or accountability indicator for which it has been identified;
(4) further differentiate each phase into three categories of intervention: Basic, Focused and Comprehensive, based upon the number of accountability groups that failed to make AYP;
(5) determine a school's accountability designation for the 2009-2010 school year on the school's accountability status for the 2008-2009 school year and the school's AYP status for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years;
(6) provide schools with diagnostic tools, planning strategies, and supports and interventions specific to that phase in the improvement process and the school's category of need;
(7) allow for differentiation in the accountability process, permitting schools and districts to prepare and implement school improvement plans that best match a school's designation;
(8) better align the SURR and NCLB processes and ensure that schools with systemic and persistent failure fundamentally restructure or close;
(9) maximize SED's limited resources and utilize the resources of USNY to assign School Quality Review Teams, Joint Intervention Teams, and Distinguished Educators to schools in improvement; strengthen the capacity of districts to assist schools to improve; and
(10) empower parents by increasing combined participation in Public School Choice (PSC) and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) by offering SES in the first year of a school's identification for improvement and PSC only after an identified school has failed to make AYP.
COSTS:
Cost to the State: None.
Costs to local government: The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with the State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the United States Department of Education. The State and LEAs, including school districts and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition for their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA.
The proposed amendment may impose costs on LEAs with schools that are in Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring status. These costs would consist of the reasonable and necessary costs associated with the activities required under Differentiated Accountability of SQR teams and curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators. However, the State Education Department anticipates mitigating these costs to schools districts by using State Education Department staff or staff contracted by the Department to serve on SQR and Joint Intervention Teams or as Distinguished Educators. In addition, we anticipate that LEAs that receive Contract for Excellence funding will be able to consider the costs of SQR, curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators to be an allowable program and activity. No additional costs have been identified with respect to the implementation of improvement plans, given the similarities in current requirements and an inability to determine differences aside from those in respect to depth of focus.
Because of the number of schools involved, and the fact that the services and activities required to be provided will vary greatly from school to school, depending on the academic circumstances and needs presented in each school, a complete cost statement cannot be provided. In the event that persons serving as members of an SQR or Joint Intervention team or as a Distinguished Educator are not State Education Department staff or staff contracted for by the State Education Department, the estimated reasonable and necessary annual expenses will range from approximately $900 to $40,000 per school. These estimates are based on the number of anticipated hours that a school district will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by the consulting fees that shall be paid in accordance with Commissioner's Regulations 100.16(c)(1). More specifically: For a school designated as Improvement/Basic, it is anticipated that two days (16 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $57/hour, resulting in costs totaling $912. For a school designated as Corrective Action, it is anticipated that thirteen days (104 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $72/hour, resulting in costs totaling $7,488. For a school designated as Restructuring/Advanced, it is anticipated that thirty days (240 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $102, as well as 20 days (160 hours) will be required to engage the services of a Distinguished Educator, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $112/hour, resulting in costs totaling $42,400. These estimates presume, to the extent appropriate, that the Commissioner appoints qualified employees of the district of location to serve as consultants, that there will be no replacement costs incurred by the district for these employees, and that, in general, the consultants will incur no overnight and minimal travel expenses.
Cost to private regulated parties: None.
Cost to regulating agency for implementation and continued administration of this rule: None.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
The proposed rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations to the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program. LEAs, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition to receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended. The rule will not impose any additional program, service, duty or responsibility beyond those imposed by State and federal statutes.
PAPERWORK:
A public school or charter school subject to the provisions of 100.2(p)(6) that has been newly designated as Improvement shall participate in a school quality review. All Improvement schools shall develop an improvement plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Corrective Action shall participate in a curriculum audit. All Corrective Action schools shall develop a corrective action plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Restructuring shall participate in an assessment of the educational program. All Restructuring schools shall develop a restructuring plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall arrange for the provision of supplemental education services (SES) and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to SES.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement (year 2), Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall provide public school choice to eligible students and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to public school choice.
DUPLICATION:
The rule does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with State and federal requirements, and is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations to the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
ALTERNATIVES:
There were no significant alternatives and none were considered. The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations to the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
FEDERAL STANDARDS:
The rule does not exceed any minimum standards of the federal government for the same or similar subject areas, and is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations to the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program. The State and LEAs are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA.
It is anticipated that regulated parties may achieve compliance with the rule by its effective date.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Small Businesses:
The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as granted by the United States Department of Education, particularly in terms of revising school accountability to increase the percentage of schools designated for Improvement that are able to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years and be returned to Good Standing. The proposed rule applies to school districts, boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) and charter schools. Local educational agencies, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the requirements of the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
The proposed rule does not impose any adverse economic impact, reporting, recordkeeping or any other compliance requirements on small businesses. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed rule that it does not affect small businesses, no further measures were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses is not required and one has not been prepared.
Local government:
EFFECT OF RULE:
The proposed rule generally applies to school districts, boards of cooperative educational services and charter schools that receive funding as local educational agencies (LEAs) pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:
The proposed rule is necessary to establish criteria and procedures, relating to school accountability, to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the United States Department of Education. LEAs, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition to receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended.
A public school or charter school subject to the provisions of 100.2(p)(6), beginning with the 2009-2010 school year, shall implement the requirements set forth [by] in the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
A public school or charter school subject to the provisions of 100.2(p)(6) that has been newly designated as Improvement shall participate in a school quality review. All Improvement schools shall develop an improvement plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Corrective Action shall participate in a curriculum audit. All Corrective Action schools shall develop a corrective action plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Restructuring shall participate in an assessment of the educational program. All Restructuring schools shall develop a restructuring plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall arrange for the provision of supplemental education services (SES) and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to SES.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement (year 2), Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall provide public school choice to eligible students and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to public school choice.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on school districts, BOCES or charter schools.
COMPLIANCE COSTS:
The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the United States Department of Education, relating to school accountability. The State and LEAs, including school districts and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition for their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended.
The rule may impose costs on LEAs with schools that are in Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring status. These costs would consist of the reasonable and necessary costs associated with the activities required under Differentiated Accountability of SQR teams and curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators. However, the State Education Department anticipates mitigating these costs to schools districts by using State Education Department staff or staff contracted by the Department to serve on SQR and Joint Intervention Teams or as Distinguished Educators. In addition, we anticipate that LEAs that receive Contract for Excellence funding will be able to consider the costs of SQR, curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators to be an allowable program and activity. No additional costs have been identified with respect to the implementation of improvement plans, given the similarities in current requirements and an inability to determine differences aside from those in respect to depth of focus.
Because of the number of schools involved, and the fact that the services and activities required to be provided will vary greatly from school to school, depending on the academic circumstances and needs presented in each school, a complete cost statement cannot be provided. In the event that persons serving as members of an SQR or Joint Intervention team or as a Distinguished Educator are not State Education Department staff or staff contracted for by the State Education Department, the estimated reasonable and necessary annual expenses will range from approximately $900 to $40,000 per school. These estimates are based on the number of anticipated hours that a school district will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by the consulting fees that shall be paid in accordance with Commissioner's Regulations 100.16(c)(1). More specifically: For a school designated as Improvement/Basic, it is anticipated that two days (16 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $57/hour, resulting in costs totaling $912. For a school designated as Corrective Action, it is anticipated that thirteen days (104 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $72/hour, resulting in costs totaling $7,488. For a school designated as Restructuring/Advanced, it is anticipated that thirty days (240 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $102, as well as 20 days (160 hours) will be required to engage the services of a Distinguished Educator, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $112/hour, resulting in costs totaling $42,400. These estimates presume, to the extent appropriate, that the Commissioner appoints qualified employees of the district of location to serve as consultants, that there will be no replacement costs incurred by the district for these employees, and that, in general, the consultants will incur no overnight and minimal travel expenses.
ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:
The proposed rule does not impose any new technological requirements on school districts, BOCES and charter schools. Economic feasibility is addressed under the Compliance Costs section above.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed rule is in response to recent guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Education and is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as granted by the United States Department of Education, relating to school accountability. LEAs, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the requirements of the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended. The proposed rule has been carefully drafted to meet specific federal and State requirements.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:
Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from school districts through the offices of the district superintendents of each supervisory district in the State, and from the chief school officers of the five big city school districts. In addition, copies of the proposed rule will be provided to each charter school to give them an opportunity to participate in this proposed rule making. Copies of the proposed rule were also provided to the State Committee of Practitioners (COP), which consists of teachers, parents, district and building-level administrators, members of local school boards, and pupil personnel services staff, who are representative of all constituencies from various geographical locations across the State. The COP includes teachers and paraprofessionals from around the State representing a variety of grade levels and subject areas, directors of teacher-preparation institutions, officials and educators representing the New York City Board of Education, several other urban and rural school systems, nonpublic schools, parent advocacy groups, teacher union representatives and community-based organizations.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF RURAL AREAS:
The proposed rule applies to school districts, boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) and charter schools that receive funding as local educational agencies (LEAs) pursuant to the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, including those located in the 44 rural counties with less than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns in urban counties with a population density of 150 per square mile or less.
REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed rule is necessary to establish criteria and procedures, relating to school accountability, to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as granted by the United States Department of Education, particularly in terms of revising school accountability to increase the percentage of schools designated for Improvement that are able to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years and be returned to Good Standing. LEAs, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition to receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended.
A public school or charter school subject to the provisions of 100.2(p)(6), beginning with the 2009-2010 school year, shall implement the requirements set forth in the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program.
A public school or charter school subject to the provisions of 100.2(p)(6) that has been newly designated as Improvement shall participate in a school quality review. All Improvement schools shall develop an improvement plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Corrective Action shall participate in a curriculum audit. All Corrective Action schools shall develop a corrective action plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school newly designated as Restructuring shall participate in an assessment of the educational program. All Restructuring schools shall develop a restructuring plan no later than three months following designation; implement the plan no later than the beginning of the next school year following its designation; and update the plan annually for implementation no later than the first day of the regular student attendance of each year that the designation continues.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall arrange for the provision of supplemental education services (SES) and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to SES.
A school in receipt of Title I funds that has been designated as a school in the Improvement (year 2), Corrective Action, or Restructuring phase shall provide public school choice to eligible students and shall, immediately upon receipt of such notice, provide written notification to parents of eligible students of the student's right to public school choice.
The proposed rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on school districts, BOCES or charter schools.
COSTS:
The rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, as granted by the United States Department of Education, relating to school accountability. The State and LEAs, including school districts and charter schools, are required to comply with the NCLB as a condition for their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended.
The rule may impose costs on LEAs with schools that are in Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring status. These costs would consist of the reasonable and necessary costs associated with the activities required under Differentiated Accountability of SQR teams and curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators. However, the State Education Department anticipates mitigating these costs to schools districts by using State Education Department staff or staff contracted by the Department to serve on SQR and Joint Intervention Teams or as Distinguished Educators. In addition, we anticipate that LEAs that receive Contract for Excellence funding will be able to consider the costs of SQR, curriculum auditors, Joint Intervention Teams and Distinguished Educators to be an allowable program and activity. No additional costs have been identified with respect to the implementation of improvement plans, given the similarities in current requirements and an inability to determine differences aside from those in respect to depth of focus.
Because of the number of schools involved, and the fact that the services and activities required to be provided will vary greatly from school to school, depending on the academic circumstances and needs presented in each school, a complete cost statement cannot be provided. In the event that persons serving as members of an SQR or Joint Intervention team or as a Distinguished Educator are not State Education Department staff or staff contracted for by the State Education Department, the estimated reasonable and necessary annual expenses will range from approximately $900 to $40,000 per school. These estimates are based on the number of anticipated hours that a school district will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by the consulting fees that shall be paid in accordance with Commissioner's Regulations 100.16(c)(1). More specifically: For a school designated as Improvement/Basic, it is anticipated that two days (16 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $57/hour, resulting in costs totaling $912. For a school designated as Corrective Action, it is anticipated that thirteen days (104 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $72/hour, resulting in costs totaling $7,488. For a school designated as Restructuring/Advanced, it is anticipated that thirty days (240 hours) will be required to engage the services of a consultant multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $102, as well as 20 days (160 hours) will be required to engage the services of a Distinguished Educator, multiplied by consulting fees in the amount of $112/hour, resulting in costs totaling $42,400. These estimates presume, to the extent appropriate, that the Commissioner appoints qualified employees of the district of location to serve as consultants, that there will be no replacement costs incurred by the district for these employees, and that, in general, the consultants will incur no overnight and minimal travel expenses.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed rule is in response to recent approval granted by the U.S. Department of Education and is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program, relating to school accountability. LEAs, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the requirements of the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the ESEA, as amended. The proposed rule has been carefully drafted to meet specific federal and State requirements. Because these requirements are uniformly applicable State-wide to school districts, BOCES and charter schools, it was not possible to prescribe lesser requirements for rural areas or to exempt them from such requirements.
RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:
Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from the Department's Rural Advisory Committee, whose membership includes schools located in rural areas. In addition, copies of the proposed rule will be provided to each charter school. Copies of the proposed rule were also provided to the State Committee of Practitioners (COP), which consists of teachers, parents, district and building-level administrators, members of local school boards, and pupil personnel services staff, who are representative of all constituencies from various geographical locations across the State. The COP includes teachers and paraprofessionals from around the State representing a variety of grade levels and subject areas, directors of teacher-preparation institutions, officials and educators representing the New York City Board of Education, several other urban and rural school systems, nonpublic schools, parent advocacy groups, teacher union representatives and community-based organizations.
Job Impact Statement
The proposed rule is necessary to conform the Commissioner's Regulations with New York State's approval to participate in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program as granted by the United States Department of Education. The proposed amendment applies to school districts, boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) and charter schools, and implements the NCLB Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program in order to increase the percentage of schools designated for Improvement that are able to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years and be returned to Good Standing. Local educational agencies, including school districts, BOCES and charter schools, are required to comply with the requirements of the NCLB as a condition to their receipt of federal funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
The proposed rule will not have an adverse impact on jobs or employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature of the rule that it will have a positive impact, or no impact, on jobs or employment opportunities, no further steps were needed to ascertain those facts and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.
