Relates to intervention in chronically underperforming school districts

Summary of provisions:

Section 1 of the bill would permit the commissioner of education to designate a school district as being in stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status, stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status, and stage three academic and/or fiscal restructuring status. A district would be designated as being in stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status where (1) it has been a district requiring academic progress for at least three school years or a focus district and/or has one or more schools identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school or a school under registration review or a focus or priority school and/or (2) its board of education has failed to exercise appropriate fiscal management of the school district by failing to take actions necessary to keep the school district budget in balance and/or maintain an appropriate fund balance for a period of at least two school years. In the case of a school district that meets the criteria for identification as being in stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status and has been designated as a district requiring academic progress and/or a focus district for eight or more years and has nine or more schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools, schools under registration review or focus or priority schools, the commissioner may immediately identify such district as being in stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status pursuant to subdivision two of the bill.

With the assistance of a joint school intervention team/integrated intervention team appointed by the commissioner, a district in stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status would be required, within ninety days of such designation, to develop a plan or include in its existing plan specific, measurable goals designed to remove the district from such status. The bill would require that the district's plan be supported by targeted technical assistance and professional development from an approved external provider approved by the commissioner at an expense to be borne by the district and that the plan be submitted to the commissioner for approval. The reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the joint school intervention team/integrated intervention team's duties would be a charge upon the school district.

A district would be removed from stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status if it meets and maintains its plan goals for three consecutive school years. If the district fails to do so, the commissioner would identify the district as being in stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status. The commissioner could

also, at any time during stage one academic and/or fiscal at-risk status, identify the district as being in stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status where the district is found to be in noncompliance with its plan or is unwilling or unable to make substantial progress towards accomplishing its plan goals.

Upon identification of a school district as being in stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status, the bill would permit the commissioner to appoint a distinguished educator, pursuant to Education Law § 211-c, and/or a fiscal administrator to monitor and assist the district in meeting its plan goals. The reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of the distinguished educator and/or fiscal administrator would be a charge upon the school district.

Pursuant to the bill, the duties of the distinguished educator and fiscal administrator would include reviewing and monitoring the district's implementation of and compliance with its plan and recommending measures to the board to assist the district's progress toward meeting its plan goals. The distinguished educator would also have the duty to review district and school systems, structures, operations and facilities; assess the district's capacity to promote and support teaching and learning; work with district administration and the board of education to review data, analyze district and school structures, plan for improvement, assist in targeting district priorities; facilitate increased student performance across the district; and recommend administrative and operational improvements to strengthen systems. The fiscal administrator's duties would include approving any proposed contract or other obligation having a projected cost of $50,000.00 or more, making recommendations concerning strategies to achieve cost reductions and other fiscal efficiencies, reviewing all estimates of district revenues to ensure accuracy, and making findings regarding whether the authorization by the board of education of items of expenditure and other appropriations are consistent with the requirements of a balanced budget and the district's plan goals.

The bill provides that the distinguished educator and/or fiscal administrator would submit periodic reports to the commissioner on the district's progress toward meeting its plan goals and may make certain recommendations to the commissioner.

A district would be removed from stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status if it meets and maintains its plan goals for three consecutive school years. If the district fails to do so, the commissioner would identify the district as potentially being in stage three academic and/or fiscal restructuring status. The commissioner could also, at any time during stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status, identify the district as potentially being in stage three academic and/or fiscal restructuring status where the district is found to be in noncompliance with its plan or is unwilling or unable to make substantial progress towards accomplishing its plan goals.

Upon identification of a district as potentially being in stage three academic and/or fiscal restructuring status, the commissioner would appoint an independent review team to assess the reasons for the

district's potential designation and the prospects for improvement and report to the Board of Regents. If the independent review team concludes that the board of education's actions and/or omissions have interfered with implementation of the district's plan, the Board of Regents may declare that problems in governance are a substantial factor in the district's chronic underperformance and that the district is in stage three academic and/or fiscal restructuring status. In this case, the Board of Regents would appoint a three-member team to serve as an education oversight board for the school district, which would have all the powers and duties of he board of education. Upon appointment of the education oversight board, all members of the board of education would be removed from office and no new board members could be elected or appointed while the education oversight board is in place. Where the independent review team so recommends and the Board of Regents accepts such recommendation, the superintendent of schools would vacate his or her office and would be deemed removed for cause and the education oversight board would have the authority to appoint a new superintendent of schools.

If the independent review team does not conclude that the board of education has interfered with the implementation of the district's plan or the Board of Regents does not declare that governance problems are a substantial factor in the district's chronic underperformance, as described above, the bill provides that the district would return to stage two academic and/or fiscal intervention status until it meets and maintains its plan goals for three consecutive school years.

The bill would also provide the Board of Regents with the authority to appoint an education oversight board in school districts in which the commissioner has removed at least a majority of the members of a board of education pursuant to Education Law § 306.

An education oversight board would report directly to the commissioner; its members would be appointed for terms of up to four school years and would serve at the pleasure of the Board of Regents. Members of the education oversight board would be provided defense and indemnification by the state pursuant to section 17 of the Public Officers Law. Pursuant to the bill, at least once every four years, the commissioner would appoint an independent review team to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board of Regents as to the oversight board's effectiveness and the need, if any, for such board to continue.

The bill also provides a petition process through which the commissioner would determine whether the appointment of an education oversight board should be modified or eliminated and whether the school district is no longer in academic and/or fiscal status. The bill provides that the commissioner's determination would be subject to review by the Board of Regents. Should the Board of Regents determine that the education oversight board be eliminated, the bill provides that the commissioner would order that a special election be held and when all newly elected board members take office, the appointment of the education oversight board would terminate.

For purposes of this bill, "school district" would mean a common, union free, central, central high school or city school district,

other than a city school district in a city having a population of one million or more.

§ 2 of the bill would be the effective date.

Statement in support of the bill: The Regents Reform Agenda is closely aligned with the school turnaround initiatives in the Department's successful 2010 Race to the Top application, and the recently granted ESEA Waiver. The close alignment of this bill to the elements of those reform initiatives provides another critical tool to help New York achieve its goal of graduating students college and career ready.

Consistent with current accountability frameworks and the Department's ESEA waiver application, the purpose of this bill is to provide a system of targeted and progressive supports and interventions that will strengthen and improve school district governance in chronically underperforming school districts as well as a mechanism by which boards of education are held accountable for the academic and/or fiscal performance of their districts where governance problems are a substantial factor in the district's chronic academic and/or fiscal underperformance. School boards have played a critical role in the history of American public schools and they represent our country's firm belief in the importance of local governance. While effective school boards support and enhance staff instructional focus and student academic achievement, ineffective school boards can negatively impact all levels of district performance and fiscal stability.

To address the need for school governance teams to focus on increasing student achievement and maintaining fiscal stability, this bill would provide authority for the Board of Regents and State Education Department to implement a system of progressive interventions in academically and/or fiscally distressed districts, including appointment of an education oversight board in cases where governance problems are a substantial factor in the district's chronic underperformance. The education oversight board would have all the powers and duties of the board of education. Upon appointment of the oversight board, all members of the board of education would be removed from office, no new board members could be elected or appointed while the education oversight board is in place, and, in certain circumstances, the superintendent of schools would vacate his or her office and would be deemed removed for cause. The education oversight board would have the authority to appoint a new superintendent of schools.

This bill builds on the framework of supports established by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2007 and the Department's ESEA waiver application in order to build the capacity of the board of education and its members through professional development, training, and the assistance of accomplished practitioners who can help the board and district achieve the appropriate focus on governance that will positively impact student achievement. In cases where both an independent review team and the board of regents find that board governance is a factor in the most serious academic and/or fiscal distress, the bill also provides a structure for holding such boards accountable while assisting and supporting the district in achieving academic and/or fiscal stability.

Budgetary implications of the bill: While the bill does not impose direct costs to the State, the Department will be required to redirect existing resources to fulfill the technical assistance, oversight and monitoring responsibilities set forth in the bill.

It is expected that an identified school district that moves through all three stages described in the bill would incur the following annual costs: $15,000 for expenses related to the appointment of a joint school intervention team; $10,000 for training and/or professional development (based on a seven-member board receiving five trainings per year), $100,000 for an appointed Distinguished Educator, and/or $150,000 for an appointed fiscal administrator (based on a 1.0 FTE).

Prior legislative history: In 2011, this bill was introduced in the Assembly as A.8319, referred to the Education Committee, and no further action was taken. In 2012, this bill was introduced in the Senate as S.6687 and reintroduced in the Assembly as A.8319. Subsequently, in 2013 and 2014 the bill was introduced in the Senate as S.4183 and in the Assembly as A.6480. Both bills were referred to the Education Committee and no further action was taken.

Effective date: The bill would take effect immediately.