Summary of Changes to B-801 (School Based Budgeting)

Principals must consult with their SLT in developing the budget. The SLT must align the budget with the CEP. SLTs can request training and technical support for its budget responsibilities.


SUMMARY OF CHANGES
This regulation updates and supersedes Chancellor’s Regulation B-801 dated June 14, 1999.
Changes:
Reflects structural changes implemented following 2002 and 2009 amendments to the Education Law.
Eliminates those sections of the previous version of B-801 dealing with the budget request process and the process of approving the overall Department budget pursuant to Education Law § 2590-q.
Eliminates deadline for issuance of proposed allocation formulas to CECs and superintendents in order to maximize the time for the formulas to be finalized prior to their release (page 1, § I.A).
Creates process by which school principals, school leadership teams ("SLTs"), and community superintendents ensure that a school’s budget is aligned with its Comprehensive Education Plan ("CEP") in compliance with the requirements imposed by the 2009 amendment to the Education Law.
The revised process begins after the Mayor’s Executive Budget ("MEB") is released. The preliminary total budget set forth in the MEB is allocated among individual schools based on the allocation formulas (pages 1-2, § I.B).
The principal of each school, in consultation with the school’s SLT and school community, creates a school-based budget detailing how the school plans to spend its allocated funds (page 2, § II.A).
Principals also create a written justification demonstrating that the school-based budget is aligned with the school’s CEP. If the other members of the SLT reach a consensus that the budget is not aligned with the CEP, the SLT may submit a rebuttal. The justification and rebuttal (if any) are then given to the community superintendent. The superintendent can either approve the school-based budget, or order it to be modified to bring them into alignment with the CEP (page 3, § II.A).
The school-based budgets are then aggregated at the district level and approved by the Chancellor. The aggregated budgets and the Department’s administrative budget are then submitted to the Panel for Educational Policy for its approval (pages 3-4, § II.B).
Streamlines process by which principals and superintendents comment on proposed changes to the capital plan (page 4, § II.C). Previously, each superintendent was required to submit an annual capital needs assessment to the Chancellor. Under the revised regulation, the School Construction Authority does the initial work of drafting the proposed changes, and principals and community superintendents are invited to submit comments.
Clarifies data to be included in Financial Status Reports and School and District-based Reports (pages 4-5, §§ III.A, III.B). The previous regulation included references to categories of information that were overlapping or unclear. The new regulation clarifies these requirements.

When reasonably requested, the Chancellor or his/her designee shall provide training and technical support to SLT members or members of the school community in order to support their participation in the school-based budget development process.

Summary of proposed changes to A-655 Regulation on School Leadership Teams

This is a summary of the new A-655 Chancellor's Regulation for School Leadership Teams. It incorporates changes in the recent School Governance Law. One area of contention is in the clause that the principal makes the final determination on the CEP if consensus can not be reached after appropriate intervention. This appears to conflict with the law (2590-h(15))as the principal is a SLT member, and therefore should not have final determination.Comment period is until January 25th. Comments can be sent to SLTpolicy@schools.nyc.gov.


http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6CD79BF3-24B6-46D6-BA23-79309DA56B60/73820/A655121109.pdf

SUMMARY OF CHANGES
This regulation supersedes Chancellor’s Regulation A-655 dated December 3, 2007.
Changes:

The SLT is responsible for developing the school’s Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP) and ensuring that it is aligned with the school-based budget. (Page 1, Section II.)
SLTs must use a consensus-based decision-making process as their primary means of decision-making. (Page 7, Section VIII.)
The principal is responsible for developing the school-based budget, after consulting with the SLT, and ensuring that it is aligned with the CEP. (Page 1, Section II.A.)
To ensure the alignment of the CEP and the school-based budget, the principal shall provide to the SLT appropriate reports from Galaxy. (Page 1, Section II.A.)
The principal determines that the school-based budget is aligned with the CEP and sends justification to the superintendent. (Page I, Section II.A.)
SLT members, other than the principal, may provide a response to the justification if they reach a consensus that they disagree with the principal’s justification that the school-based budget is aligned with the CEP, and that the principal’s proposed budget is inconsistent with the goals and policies set forth in the CEP. The superintendent must then make a determination. (Page 1, Section II.A.)
If the SLT cannot reach agreement on the CEP, it should seek assistance from the District Leadership Team (DLT) or the community or high school superintendent. If no agreement can be reached following assistance, then the principal makes the final determination on the CEP. (Page 1, Section II; also Page 7, Section VIII.)
Support is provided to SLTs and DLTs by parent engagement staff or superintendents. (Page 1, Section II; also Page 7, Section VIII.)
SLT meetings, which must take place at least once a month during the school year, must take place on school or DOE premises. (Page 7, Section VII.)
Notice of SLT meetings must be provided in a form consistent with the open meetings law. (Page 7, Section VII.)
The SLT must be consulted prior to the appointment of a principal or assistant principal candidate to the school. (Page 7, Section X.)
The SLT shall provide to the superintendent an annual assessment of the principal’s record of developing an effective shared decision-making relationship with SLT members. (Page 2, Section II.B.)
Parent members of the CEC (and in an election year, candidates for the CEC) may serve as parent members of an SLT in the school their child attends. (Page 3, Section III.C.b.1.)

The SLT may amend its by-laws, if necessary. (Page 4, Section IV.B.)
The superintendent (or designee) will consult with the SLT regarding any school restructuring plans. The SLT shall participate in the joint public hearing regarding proposals to close a school or make significant changes in school utilization. (Pages 7-8, Section X.B.)
The DLT develops the District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP), which includes annual goals and objectives for the district aligned with the Chancellor’s goals. (Pages 5-6, Section V.A.)
The Central Plan for school-based planning and shared decision making incorporates the individual district 100.11 plans adopted by the DLTs as well as the procedures set forth in this Regulation. The Office of School Improvement is responsible for maintaining copies of each district’s plan and for compiling them into the Central Plan. (Pages 5-6, Section V.A.)
A citywide high school subcommittee will be formed to meet on a monthly basis to review relevant data and identify issues impacting student performance at the high school level and will report on a monthly basis to the DLTs. (Page 6, Section V.C.)
Each SLT must provide a list of its members and a copy of its current by-laws to the DLT annually, by October 31. (Page 9, Section XII.)
Each DLT must provide a list of all SLT member names from the schools in the district and a list of its own members and by-laws to the Chief Family Engagement Officer annually, by November 15. (Page 9, Section XII.)
Parents may file grievances regarding the election of parents to serve on the SLT in the school their child attends within 7 school days of the election. (Page 9, Section XIV.B.)
Parents may appeal grievance decisions to the Chancellor (c/o The Office of Legal Services) within 10 days of receipt of the superintendent’s decision. (Page 9, Section XIV.C
) school based management teams developed pursuant to paragraph 26 (b) of this subdivision shall possess the following powers and duties: 27 (i) develop an annual school comprehensive educational plan [that is 28 aligned with] AND CONSULT ON THE SCHOOL-BASED BUDGET PURSUANT TO SECTION 29 TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-R OF THIS ARTICLE. SUCH SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE 30 EDUCATIONAL PLAN SHALL BE DEVELOPED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 31 THE SCHOOL-BASED BUDGET SO THAT IT MAY INFORM THE DECISION-MAKING PROC- 32 ESS AND RESULT IN THE ALIGNMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL PLAN 33 AND the [school based] SCHOOL-BASED budget FOR THE ENSUING SCHOOL YEAR.

Role of SLTs in Principal and Assistant Principal Appointments

Changes to C-30 Regulation
All schools

According to recent changes to the C-30 Regulation governing the selection, assignment, and appointment of principals and assistant principals, hiring managers must consult with their School Leadership Teams (SLTs) before finalizing principal and assistant principal appointments.

This consultation can take place at a regularly-scheduled or a specially-scheduled SLT meeting. In order to stay on-track with the recommended three-month guideline for completing C-30s, we encourage hiring managers to schedule a special SLT meeting if one is not imminent. The hiring manager must send an agenda in advance to all SLT members noting an agenda item to discuss the appointment of X position at the SLT meeting on Y date—do not indicate candidates’ names.

Attendees must sign an attendance sheet and the Agreement of Confidentiality/Certification at the SLT meetings. The hiring manager should send these documents, along with the meeting notification and agenda, to the appropriate ISC or CFN. Additionally, the hiring manager should send the appropriate C-30 Coordinator an email stating, “I have consulted with the SLT of [School] on [Date] and wish to appoint [Candidate name] to the position of [specific license area] effective [Date].”

For more information, please consult the Hiring Page on the Principals’ Portal. For questions, contact the Office of School Leadership at SupvSupport@schools.nyc.gov or 718-935-5226.

UFT President promotes SLT Responsibilities Under Governance Law

UFT President Michael Mulgrew gave a power point presentation to Chapter Leaders and delegates on Oct. 14th concerning the responsibilities and powers of School Leadership Teams under the new governance law. He urged Chapter leaders, who are core members of teams, "to exercise those responsibilities immediately".

Mr. Mulgrew said, "we need an active SLT in every school".The vast majority of Chapter Leaders indicated that they had not "been informed of their new responsibilities or tackled their bylaws and the school budget" at the first SLT meeting in September.

The UFT plans to offer training "to educate members and parents about the new SLT role." Mr. Mulgrew said if the principal ignores the new law with regard to SLTs,the UFT district representative should be notified immediately.

I urge parents and the PA President on SLTs, to work with the UFT Chapter Leader on your team, to focus the principal on SLT responsibilities and powers.For more information and resources for School Leadership Teams, visit the SLT Support Center at sltsupport.blogspot.com.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
718 458-4237
calantjis@aol.com

NYCDOE Freedom of Information Law Requests

Freedom of Information Law or FOIL requests, can be made to the NYCDOE by anyone seeking record documents pertaining to the central office, specific district or local school. All you need to do is to send an e-mail to the Central Record Access Officer Joseph Baranello, giving a description of the documents you are seeking and informing him that you wish to inspect them, or receive copies, pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law. His e-mail is jbaranello3@schools.nyc.gov. Also, copy your e-mail to foil@schools.nyc.gov.

For more information, you can access Chancellor's Regulation D-110 on the NYCDOE website or click the link on this site. It will give you specific guidelines and list any restictions in providing documents.

The Central Record Access Officer must respond to your request within five days. The response will acknowledge receipt of your request and state a time frame for searching and producing the documents. There is a cost of 25 cents per page for printing unless you request and they are able to e-mail the documents.

FOIL can be a very powerful tool to inspect or obtain copies of documents that school officials might not want to share pertaining to budgets, school leadership and district leadership teams( ex. Minutes, DLT CEP's), attendance, graduation and other statistics.

Try asking for the records at your local school, district or central office first. If they are not cooperative or give you the "runaround", submit a FOIL request.

For a copy of FOIL, see: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil2.html

Role of Parent Coordinators - by Jacob Morris

A DIPLOMATIC ADVOCATE
Conceptualizing the Optimum Role & Skill Sets of Parent Coordinators in our Education System’s New Ecology of Power
by Jacob Morris
This is an exploratory concept paper - not a training manual. Ultimately how to respond to common problems that arise (a casebook approach) must become part of the training curriculum for Parent Coordinators. For now, let us recognize that the people in these new positions have no power. Influence and effectiveness is the most we can hope for. If we can achieve that, we’ll know we did something right. The key for them being perceived as successful in a system of competing interests and egos, is prompt, positive feedback from the constituency they are being paid to serve - Parents and their Children.
So how do you develop respect for yourself and your new profession from the other players in the Power Ecology of a school community? Integrity and competence are critical to credibility, and innovative diplomatic problem solving must be valued in the nature of communication. Smooth, calm, non-adversarial persistence is essential, and follow though is necessary. A new profession (Parent Coordinator) must be developed by those responsible for productive involvement. Towards that objective, multiple systems and instruments of evaluating satisfaction, responsiveness, and optimum problem-solving should be implemented.
Inventing a new profession is not easy, so don’t expect perfection the first year. If we get continuing improvement we’ll know we’re on the right track.
It is necessary to take a systems approach to solve this problem. The new Coordinators will not interact in isolation. An understanding must be developed as to who the people are that they will need to deal with to solve problems. Principals must be trained to utilize them productively - almost in effect as their ambassadors to the parents, as well as the point of first contact with the school system. Customer service representative is another very valid analogy.
Let’s start with a problem - when you get right down to it, a perception of unfairness or injustice underlies passionate dissatisfaction with any institution or organization. If a Parent feels their child has been unjustly treated, that motivates them to do something about it. Subsequently, if the system is unresponsive, and they feel they’ve been rolled over by the weight of organizational inertia, then we have the present state of affairs - widespread alienation. The Parent Coordinator positions were created precisely to enhance responsiveness and help deal with organizational gridlock within our school system.
It’s been said before, but along with the establishment of the new positions, a fervent commitment must be communicated by the new leaders of our school system for individual schools, clusters, and regional districts as well as the entire system to become learning organizations. What does it mean to become a Learning Organization? Several years ago, I developed a Tool for Under- standing that can be very useful for the leaders of organizations to not just solve the symptoms of problems but to prevent them from arising in the first place. It’s called “Problem Prevention through Encounter Analysis.” This method can be paraphrased as “The Solution is in the Problem.” As the hoped for point of first contact (encounter) with the school, the development and use of an intake processing form will enable us to take an systemic approach for leadership to understand better the nature of the problems that parents feel the need to come to school to deal with. Let’s us emphasis here the deep truth that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
There are various scenarios that can be described when a parent arrives at the school to deal with a problem that has arisen with their child. Among these potential problems are:

1) Referral to special education or resource room
2) A fight or an attack on or by the child
3) A suspension (with or without due process)
4) A failing grade and/or homework problems
5) Problems or questions about admission to the next level of school
6) Transfer to another school or tutoring available under NCLB
7) The child being retained in grade (left back)
8) College admission and scholarship information
9) Push-out of the child to a GED program
10) Attendance and/or cutting
11) Possible malfeasance or arbitrary and capricious behavior within the PTA
The above list is inherently incomplete, but in looking it over I am confident that readers in leadership positions will begin to see an awareness of systemic solutions emerging through insightful description and categorization of problems. At it’s root communication is the key to prevention. A transparent school web-site and voice mail system would do much to alleviate the perception and reality of unresponsiveness that the school system is known for. Wouldn’t that be a resource for all constituencies and make everyone’s lives easier?
Even after the implementation of the school web-site and the closing of the “digital divide” quite a few problems will remain that can only be solved through a personal meeting at the school.
Let us trace the steps of a typical parent with a typical problem from our list to see what understandings we can derive.
The child brings home a failing report card, because the child had the flu for ten days.
Three of the child’s teachers gave a failing grade for that marking period on the child’s report card. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual circumstance, sooner or later every child gets sick. For us, the question arises why do some of the teachers fail the child and yet other teachers understand and do not? Right there we identify a systemic issue. Of course inconsistencies in policy lead immediately to a perception of injustice.
So now we have a parent who is justifiably upset, but when the parent calls the school administration, some how, no one returns the parent’s phone call, (perhaps because of language or other reasons the parent is not able to articulate clearly what underlies their unhappiness). Should not the parent coordinator have a role in helping the parent articulate and communicate the essence of their dissatisfaction to the school administration? But we digress, let’s continue with the scenario. Since the school, for whatever reason, has failed to be responsive within a reasonable time frame in returning the parent’s phone call, Murphy’s Law continues to operate. The justifiably upset parent then comes to the school and meets the school security guards who proceed to treat the parent, who is already upset, in an adversarial manner because they have not been trained to be aware of “The Parent Involvement Policy.” In essence this is an awareness and respect for the fact that “every parent has an integral role in their child’s education.” They wind up blocking the parent from entrance to the school - a totally unsatisfactory result. At present the great majority of schools have no mechanism or waiting area for a parent with a justifiable concern, except perhaps outside the principal’s office which you can’t get to without an appointment. Talk about frustration! It is very conceivable that right there a child’s future has been destroyed. Ask yourself - how it feels to the child to see his or her parent so profoundly disrespected!
Just a description of the scenario gives us insight into answers and solutions. Let’s start with the report card and its inconsistent use by the child’s teachers. If you are the parent coordinator, how do you deal with it, when it is bought to you by the parent?
A systemic solution would be for all teachers to know that the education system’s policy is to give a medical incomplete in the event of illness or accident (broken hand, etc.).
Until the time that the system communicates that uniform policy to its teachers and administrators, the parent coordinator’s job in facilitating a solution to the above problem becomes much more difficult. Let’s keep in mind here that the primary mission of the school is the satisfactory academic improvement of the child. In the event that there are involuntary medical problems, the school’s response should be to remediate, not to punish. Failing a child under these circumstances is punitive and destroys motivation.
The parent coordinator would then bring this problem to the attention of the principal who, in lieu of a system wide policy, could establish a school wide policy allowing the use of medical incomplete as a grade on the report card. If not, then hopefully the principal would see the negative ramifications of inconsistencies in grading. He would have to delegate to his respective APs and department chairs the solving of this problem. Of course this approach is much more time consuming for the organization because then the school must deal with each individual circumstance on a case by case basis. This eats up a tremendous amount of managerial time. Let’s not forget that on an individual basis, if the teacher refuses to change the grade then either the child is screwed or the child must be transferred out of that teacher’s class. This leads straight to huge scheduling problems which must be coordinated with the guidance office; obviously a lot of follow-through attention would be demanded of the parent coordinator. Its easy to see that a simple policy change is a lot easier for all concerned. This brings us right back around to the concept of a learning organization - what do we learn how- and how do we learn what?
There are universal principles in implementing continuous organizational quality service improvement:
1) Focus on the student
2) Streamline the process and conception of solutions
3) Leaders and administrators must value system-wide quality improvement
4) The vision of the school must be compelling and exciting
5) Use team work and partnerships to solve problems - each person can be a part
of the solution
6) Invest in creating a learning organization
7) Understand that a few big things done right, is better than a lot of small things done halfway (strategic understanding)
Remember; here are many ways to feel pressured and do things wrong.
1) Be defensive
2) Blame others
3) Go for the quick fix
4) Demand uncritical allegiance
5) Ignore suggestions for improvement
6) Insist everything be an immediate priority
7) Keep your vision a secret (if you have one)
8) Become incapable of delegating responsibility
9) Be rude, abrupt, and insulting ( or bury people under meaningless verbiage).
Today, more than ever, it is the people in our schools who will determine what quality improvement will mean. Appreciation of quality and a search for excellence and discovery breeds a respect for others which improves us all. Quality improvement is something you practice with others - not to them. These principles are as appropriate at home as they are at school or any work place. More than a type of management practice, it becomes an underlying value for a better way of life for all of us; especially if we desire to fully develop the potential of our children!
- Show quoted text -
.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

How new State Legislation Affects School Leadership Teams

The new legislation passed by the Assembly and State Senate in many ways strengthens the role of School Leadership Teams. You can view a summary of the legislation or read the bill by going to the legislative sites and searching for Assembly Bill A08550 or Senate Bill A8903A.

The law still gives SLT's the authority to collaboratively develop the Comprehensive Educational Plan by means of shared decision making. It also mandates that CEP's be posted on the school's internet website, where it can be scrutinized by the public. The law also strengthens the District Superintendent's supervision of principals and gives them oversight of the CEP and budget process.This means that SLT's will have a place to go when a principal is uncooperative in collaboratively developing the CEP or providing transparency and consultation concerning the development of the school based budget.

The law now has more specific language concerning the budget responsibilities of the SLT and as stated, provides for Superintendent oversight and principal accountability. It states that principals must consult with their SLT's concerning the development of the school based budget and it must be aligned with the Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP). This means that SLT's must be actively involved in how the budget is prepared and funds allocated, providing for school budget transparancy. The Superintendent must approve the school based budget after certifying it is "sufficiently aligned" with the school's CEP. The principal must submit written justification that the budget is aligned with the CEP and the SLT can respond to the principal's certification.

The law also allows any SLT member to dispute any decision made by the principal, to the Superintendent, where Team members reach a consensus that the decision is inconsistent with the goals and policies set forth in the existing CEP. The Superintendent must then communicate his decision in writing to the SLT and principal. In addition, the law provides for Superintendents to evaluate principals on how effective they were in developing shared decision making relationships with their SLT's (referred to as School Based Management Teams). The Superintendent will also consider comments contained in an annual assessment of the principal made by the SLT.

An amendment to the law proposed by the State Senate ,will provide money for the creation of a Parent Training Center, to be operated under CUNY. It is an understanding that the Parent Center will provide training concerning SLT's CEP and budget duties, as well as Parent Association (PA) and Community Education Council ( CEC) responsibilities. The law continues to mandate that SLT members be trained in their CEP and budget responsibilities.

School Governance in New York City III by Jacob Morris

School Governance in New York City III
The Naked Dictator by Jacob MorrisOr the Negative Evolution of a Benevolent Dictator
There is a New Sociological “Law of Power” It states that regardless of the initial Benevolent Intent of the Controlling Authority – as time passes Maintenance of Unfettered Control outweighs the original Benevolent Intent – In other words having to Listen irritates them – “Don’t Bother Me”
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it” - William Pitt
We’ve just had to endure repeated over the top hysterical warnings about the coming of the apocalypse and rioting in the Streets if Mayoral Control did not get renewed. In the calm of the morning after the expiration of the Law, we get a chance to rationally assess - Where Are We Now?
In my humble opinion, William Pitt and Lord Acton knew what they were talking about in regards to the negative effects Power has on the Minds of those who imagine they have it. In the wake of the passing of their hysterical language – which I feel it very significant that we remember they used – their credibility and believability has been impeached. There is an attitude on the part of the administration of, “How dare you oppose me”. Word has been received of Robo-Calls to constituents of various Senators who have supported a School Governance structure that facilitates Parent & Community input.
This garbage must be exposed and confronted!! So now we have a Board of Education – WOW – and they have a meeting where the Public and Parents are not allowed to speak. At least with the old Board of Education – there was a respected mechanism for Public Input and to get on the Agenda. I personally remember speaking before the old Board in 1998-9 about Asthma & Absenteeism along with the problem of Disproportionate Placement of Black & Hispanic Boys in Special Education, and having them listen.
Borough President Rueben Diaz Jr. made a very salient observation the other day in regards to the newly reconstituted Board of Education. The phrase he used was related to the individual brainpower of the Board Members – and the Structural Waste of their “Intellectual Capital”. This is why I used the “Naked Dictator” title above.
EVERYTHING IS NOT PERFECT!!!
The Math & Science Achievement Gap, the statistical “Black Hole” of the “Pushout Problem”, the increasing number of our Children in Special Education, and the continuing problem of Asthma & Absenteeism, are only a few of the major issues that our Public Education System must work on solving.
So it’s back to – “Where are we Now”? If the State Senate was to approve the Legislation approved by the Assembly – and then pass their Amendments separately – the Mayor would never dignify their action with the respect of a Negotiation. It must be newly crafted Legislation. So the basic questions remain –
What do we Want? – And also, What do we as a Society Need?
I nominate “Transparency” as something we should value highly. If we attain that then it would be a short step to “Accountability”. So that whatever governance structure we finally arrive at can be viewed as Healthy and Functioning with the Objective of Better Quality Decision Making on behalf of our Children.
How do we attain “Transparency”?
The simple answer to that is “Alignment & Professional Development Training”.
The Management Structure must meet with the Participatory Structure’s Entities monthly. Also the Agenda can not be controlled only by Management. There must be a mechanism for ALL participatory members to place items on the Agenda for consideration. However, if the members don’t feel knowledgeable – we’ll find their ability to participate in a meaningful manner problematic.
Now imagine if you will – that you are a Parent in NYC – and you have your child in a Public School. You participate in the PTA, people come to like you, and feel that you have the ability to contribute input of value to the School, and the opportunity arises for you to get elected to the School’s Leadership Team. If you knew that you could be fired “At Will” by the Principal, would you bother to participate? Could you go to a meeting of the Team knowing that arbitrarily and capriciously, one word or look could get you humiliated by the person with the POWER / AUTHORITY?
So the question remains – Why bother to have a Panel, Council, or Board at all, if the intelligent people appointed or selected are going to do their imitation as Potted Plants? In a recent interview former Chancellor Harold Levy made an interesting point, the Mayor must FEEL in Control. The reason why is because only then will that Mayor deliver resources (i.e. MONEY) to the School System. There is no question that Mayor Bloomberg has dramatically raised the amount of money in the System’s Budget, since he took over.

From his perspective he probably feels like he’s doing a good job.
In a business you throw money at a problem – pick your own, hopefully competent people – and tell them to fix it. Unfortunately – an Educational System and the nature of Human Learning are not quite so suitable for an Executive top down approach to solving problems. In a Public School System you need to get “Buy In”, from the people you have to work with. This way they become invested in being part of the solution.
Recent Examples of Major Negative Credibility Issues
1). Education Panel, Forgotten, Rushes to Approve Budget June 20, 2009
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
If there was ever any question over the lack of influence wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — a group of 13 responsible for overseeing city education matters but often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up.
The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the blessing of the panel, as required by State Law, before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council.
After Patrick J. Sullivan, a Manhattan parent on the panel, pointed out the relevant statute, the city scrambled to call an emergency meeting of the panel for Friday, just hours before the expected Council vote. The public was given 54 minutes of notice.
(--- But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who controls 8 of the panel’s 13 seats — made plain during the negotiations that he preferred no panel at all, and over the past seven years, he and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, who as the panel’s chairman, have eased it into irrelevance. The volunteer panelists — rarely engage in discussions with those who rise to address them. They do not debate the educational issues of the day, but spend most sessions applauding packaged presentations by staff. Some have barely uttered a public word during their tenures. )
2). WHY ARE DROPOUTS LEAVING SCHOOL YEARS EARLIER THAN BEFORE THE SUPPOSED END OF SOCIAL PROMOTION???
When you leave a child back multiple times – they leave School – then they go to Jail….
So why are they getting Left Back over and over? The answer is simple – it’s the failure of Administrators to deliver effective Remediation to these young people – a broken promise….

3). WHEN THE MAYOR GAVE THE AT LENGTH ANALOGY OF HIMSELF AS NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN – WHAT DID HE MEAN???
If you know History you know the answer – to even infer that Members of the State Senate who are advocating for a System of NYC School Governance – in good faith – seem like Hitler is an insult to the meaning of History – again demonstrating that having to listen irritates him - now he wants to pretend he did not hear the question
4). WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE ENTITY YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH HAS A TRACK RECORD OF BROKEN COURT AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATIONS???
Literally- NYCDOE has repeatedly broken State Education Law - basically destroying the Community School Districts – and their Superintendents – as well as ignoring the Decision by Commissioner Mills that their revision of the regulations governing School Leadership Teams was illegal – daring anyone to bring a lawsuit – and then quietly ignoring Court Orders…- This is a Problematic (ie. Bad) Track Record -
**NONE-THE-LESS** MAYORAL CONTROL IS OK
The reason is why is simple - if the Mayor feels he has Control then the School System is given more money
What we want is for the Bloomberg/Klein Administration to LISTEN!!!
THE NEW BOARD MUST BE A POLICY MAKING BODY
Also given that the prior structure of Community School Districts has been in effect destroyed by the Bloomberg/Klein Administration; we have an opportunity to establish a new structure of Community School Districts that is naturally aligned with an existing, healthy, respected, and functioning Community Board District Structure:
a) We therefore recommend that a new Community School District structure in New York City be established that aligns exactly with the existing Community Board District Lines.
b) That the current members of the Community Education Councils (CEC’s) be designated and become Community Board members on their Community Boards with the appropriate jurisdictions. Furthermore, that they be specifically designated to serve on the Education Committees of those respective Community Boards.

c) That a Community Board District Superintendent be designated for each Community School District as their primary responsibility, and of course have a Real Office in that district that is accessible to the Community, with a real staff that actually functions. It is expected that the Superintendent would meet monthly with the Education Committee of that Community Board and form a mutually respectful relationship with that Community Board. Of course we also expect that the District Superintendent would also meet with the District Leadership Team on a monthly basis.
3) We call for replacement of the failed “Parent Coordinator” job category. In their place, we would establish a new job category, for which all existing Parent Coordinators would have a preference in applying and qualifying for.
4) The title for this new job category would be that of “Parent Ombudsman.” The functions of these Parent Ombudsmen would be to help solve the problems of parents who would call or come to the School in respond to issues that arise in their Child’s path through the Educational System.
We expect that not only will the Board of Education work to facilitate the competence and credibility of the Parent Ombudsman so that they can do their jobs better on behalf of the parents and their children, but they will also be allowed to choose their Union Representation in a transparent process.
5) In regards to School Leadership Teams (SLTs), we call for:
a) Two year terms in the terms of election of team members so as to preserve the continuity of team function and knowledge.
b) The restoration of discretionary professional development training funds to the Teams so that they feel empowered and respected by the Educational System in which they can play such a potentially positive role.
c) Restoration of a Competitive Professional Development Vendor Training Catalog.
d) Giving responsibility to the School Leadership Teams for the maintenance of the content of their respective school web-sites. This would be in harmony with a critical element of their mission under State Law to communicate effectively with their respective constituents.
e) On an annual basis the SLT members will elect a member from their team to represent them on the District Leadership Team. This would promote the flow of information about problems and issues up from the School Based Level.
6) We recommend that the respective five Borough Presidents establish Education Advisory Councils, analogous to the council that has been functioning in Queens under the purview of that esteemed Borough President.
a) Obviously we recommend that the core membership of the Boroughs Advisory Councils have among their members the chairs of the various district leadership teams and community board educational committees within their respective Boroughs.
b) In the event these Education Advisory Councils elect or designate a chairperson, the Borough President could seriously consider designating that person as their representative to the Citywide Education Policy Council.
7) In regards to the newly established “Citywide Educational Policy Council”, we would build on the UFT proposal and add members; a least two more appointees for the Mayor and one each to represent the Community Boards and also the District Leadership Teams; they would be respectively elected by a separate Citywide gatherings of the Chairs of the District Leadership Teams, and also the chairs of the Education Committees of every Community Board in NYC. Further, it is critical that any member in good standing of the Citywide Education Policy Council be empowered to make a motion to place items on the Agenda for the following month’s meeting, and hopefully allow for Public Input at the end of the meetings.
Envisioning a Community & Parent Friendly Naturally Aligned Structure for School Governance in NYC
Conjecture
What should be the Purpose of a System of School Governance?
Answer: Better Decisions and Responsiveness on Behalf of the Children
Axiom #1
The School is the Fundamental Unit of a School Governance System
Axiom #2
The Management Structure and the Participatory Structure Must be Aligned
Axiom #3
Continuity has a Value – It Enables us to Build on a Foundation over Time
Axiom #4
A Desire for Consensus Should not be allowed to Degenerate into Paralysis
Axiom #5
Team Participation in Decision Making Promotes Buy-In of Implementation
Axiom #6
The System will never be Perfect – Nonetheless it should Strive to Emulate a Learning Organization so it can Grow from both Acknowledgement of Mistakes and also Anticipation of Possible Problems

School Governance in NYC II - by Jacob Morris

School Governance in New York City II
From Control to Contempt by Jacob Morris

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" – Lord Acton
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt

Personally I do not like the word Power, in my view, Power is an Illusion and Responsibility is a much healthier concept for us to keep foremost in our mind as something we value. All too many people have become careless in their interchangeable use of the words Power, Control, and Authority. Actually, the terms Control and Authority are much more precisely understood and utilized in general discourse for this analysis.What is Control? Is it like an on/off switch, or can it work on a sliding scale? Then there's the question of what is it you are controlling, a machine or something that is alive? And lastly, what are the limits? When do we cross the line towards disrespect and/or contempt for whatever it is, man or machine that we have control over, or responsibility for?

Let there be no doubt, it is just as possible to disrespect a machine, (and have it breakdown on you) as it is to disrespect Human Beings and also whatever Panel, Team, Entity, the function of which those human beings happen to be participating in.Ultimately, if someone holds (like the Mayor or the Chancellor for example), the absolute authority over someone to dismiss them at will, that translates into an example of arbitrary and capricious Absolute Power. This is not a healthy situation, either for its Possessor or the Human Beings serving in such a state of discretionary limbo. If you appointed them to this position, to advise on educational and issues policies, because you believe in their qualities of Knowledge and Intelligence, then what are you afraid of? What it may be is that you do not believe in discussion or the integrity of the people you appoint, and when Push comes to Shove, what you are really saying is that you want them to be Robots.

In a Transportation System, like a poorly made car, people when they stop believing in its quality and utility, stop buying it or riding in it (Sound familiar, GM & Chrysler?). In a School Governance System, when people stop believing in its credibility, they stop participating in it, they hold it in ridicule and they call it a rubber stamp.

Given the critical societal importance in which we hold the quality of decision-making regarding the education of our children, to give such arbitrary and capricious absolute power over the individuals serving on such an ostensibly valuable Educational Policy Panel will inevitably lead to the holders of that power viewing those Individuals, the Panel and the functions of that Panel in Contempt.What do we want? The answer is "Fixed Terms", and the ability to place items on to the Agenda. Even if the Mayor has a majority of appointments, as long as the members have fixed terms, they need be able to maintain some reasonable level of personal Intelligence and Integrity in regards to the discussion of various Educational Policy Issues that come before them in their roles as members of the Panel.Also, in approaching this from the perspective of quality team functioning, provision for independent and completive Professional Development must be delineated clearly by Legislative Authority as a resource for the Panel to render quality decisions on the quality of our Children's Schooling and to increase the credibility in which the Panel's deliberations are viewed by our Community.
__._,_.___

Open Meetings Law and SLT's

STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT

41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231
(518) 474-2518
Fax (518) 474-1927
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html

OML-AO-3828

June 22, 2004

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.

Dear

I have received your letter concerning meetings of School Leadership Teams ("SLT’s") and school based management teams operating in New York City.

By way of background, in 2003 you questioned the status of the entities in question under the Open Meetings Law, and I prepared an advisory opinion in response. An element of the opinion suggested that the time of the meetings of your interest, 7:20 a.m., conflicted with the judicial construction of the Open Meetings Law. Based upon that advice, you initiated a grievance with the New York City Board of Education and received the following response from the Office of Counsel:

"The Open Meetings Law states that ‘public business be performed in an open and public manner.’ Section 2590-h15(b-1)(ii) of the Education Law has been amended to require that the school leadership teams hold their monthly meetings at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives. Thus, if the parents on the SLT have agreed that their meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m this is consistent with law. If other people wish to attend it is their obligation to make themselves available at the time the team has chosen to meet."

From my perspective, while participation by parent members of school based management teams is clearly a consideration, the ability of others to attend is also relevant.

As indicated in the opinion addressed to you on December 29, 2003, the entities at issue are, in my view, "public bodies" required to comply with the Open Meetings Law. They are creations of law, and it is my understanding that they are the New York City entities that carry out the shared decision making functions required to be accomplished pursuant to §100.11 of the regulations promulgated by the NYS Commissioner of Education.

The provision cited by the Office of Counsel does not, in my opinion, affect the obligation of an SLT or a school based management team to comply with the Open Meetings Law. Section 2590-h(15)(b)(ii) requires that school board management teams shall:

"hold at least one meeting per month during the school year. Each monthly meeting shall be held at a time that is convenient for the parent representatives."

As the foregoing relates to the Open Meetings Law, I believe every statute, including the Open Meetings Law, must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent. In the only decision that dealt with meetings held as early as those held by the body of your interest, the court found that the entity at issue failed to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
To reiterate a point offered in last year’s opinion, the intent of the Open Meetings Law is clearly stated in §100 as follows:

"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of an able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it."

In short, the Open Meetings Law confers a right upon the public to attend and listen to the deliberations of public bodies and to observe the performance of public officials who serve on such bodies.

Further, in the decision to which reference was made involving meetings held at 7:30 a.m., it was stated that:

"It is...apparent to this Court that the scheduling of a board meeting at 7:30 a.m. -- even assuming arguendo that such meetings were properly noticed and promptly conducted -- does not facilitate attendance by members of the public, whether employed within or without the home, particularly those with school age or younger children..." (Matter of Goetchius v. Board of Education, Supreme Court, Westchester County, New York Law Journal, August 8, 1996).

While meetings held at 7:20 a.m. may be convenient for parent members of an SLT or school based management team, many others interested in attending may be unable to do so because they have small children, because of work schedules, commuting, and other matters that might effectively preclude them from attending meetings held so early in the morning. In consideration of those persons and the holding by the court, I continue to believe that it would be unreasonable and inconsistent with law for an SLT or school based management team to conduct meetings at or near 7:20 a.m.

I hope that I have been of assistance.

Sincerely,


Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director

CEP Planning Conference -July 17,2009

2009 Summer
Comprehensive Educational Planning Conference:
Planning for Success
Sponsored by The Office of School Improvement and
The Office of English Language Learners, Division of Teaching and Learning
• Learn effective strategies for
planning for school success from
well‐known author Mike
Schmoker.

• Attend clinics conducted by the
Office of School Improvement,
Office of English Language
Learners, Division of
Accountability and Achievement
Resources, SSO/ISC/CFN partners,
and Office for Family
Engagement and Advocacy.
Clinics will address the various
components of the cycle of
continuous school improvement,
as well as specific parts of the
CEP.

• Receive assistance in developing
SMART Goals, Action Plans,
Language Allocation Policies,
Parent Involvement Policies and
School‐Parent Compacts.

• Receive feedback on your
school’s preliminary CEP.

• Receive training for the iPlan CEP
development tool.
Friday, July 17, 2009
8:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.
New York Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge
333 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
About the keynote: Mike Schmoker has worked on school and district
improvement, assessment, curriculum and staff development as a central
administrator in two school districts. His practical ideas and key strategies
have provided school communities with the tools to become “assessment
literate,” keeping them on the path of con‐
tinuous school improvement. His conceptual
framework emphasizes teamwork, goals,
performance data, accelerating results, and
drawing on the knowledge base, as well as
the need to act through broad‐based leader‐
ship. All conference participants will receive
a complimentary copy of Mike Schmoker’s
latest book, Results Now: How We Can
Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning.
•
Who should attend? Principals, Teachers, Parent Leaders, and other
School Leadership Team Members, as well as Network Leaders and
other non‐school‐based staff.

•
How do you register? DOE employees can register on Protraxx at
http://pd.nycoit.org. Parents who are members of School Leadership
Teams can register at: http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/OFEA. For further
information, please contact the Office of School Improvement at
212‐374‐5757. This a free professional development opportunity that is
not to be missed!
Constituents from school
communities will have an
opportunity to work with the
keynote speaker and represen‐
tatives from Central Office in
developing their 2009‐10
Comprehensive Education Plan
(CEP), gaining a deeper
understanding of the
continuous improvement
planning process.
__._,_.___

NYC School Governance- by Jacob Morris

School Governance in New York City
The Four Options

The Essence of the Problem
1).Is that they Control the Agenda -
Which means they don’t have to Listen to things they don’t want to Hear,
Even when they have an overwhelming Majority of the Panel Votes
2). The Disabling of the Grassroots Participatory Structure
(SLT’s, CEC’s, PTA’s, & CPAC)
(Substandard & Boring Professional Development Disempowers & Disrespects)
3). As well as the Bypassing of the Panel (PEP) designated under
State Law to advise on Policy – leading to bad Decisions,
And problems with the Credibility of their Data Reporting -
Such as the “Push Out” Problem and H.S. Graduation Rates
Or the number of children who have Asthma who are retained in Grade

EXAMPLES OF BAD DECISIONS
1). The rerouting and elimination of School Bus Routes
in the Middle of Winter!!!
2). The School Leadership Team Regulation Change
Which was found to be in Violation of State Law

The Key Top Down Option Questions
Mayoral Majority or Minority?
Advisory or Policy Making?
**Who is the Chair and who sets the Agenda?**

A Healthy & Functioning Structure
Must have Structural Linkage from the Grassroots levels
To the Citywide Policy Making Panel

A HYBRID PLAN
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN NYC
Outline of a Systemic Structure that is Naturally Aligned & Facilitates Greater Responsiveness Along with the Flow of Information from the Bottom Up as well as the Top Down
(by Jacob Morris – on behalf of The School Leadership Team Empowerment Alliance)
1) That the UFT School Governance Proposal is an excellent foundation to build upon.
2) Given that the prior structure of Community School Districts has been in effect destroyed by the Bloomberg/Klein Administration; we have an opportunity to establish a new structure of Community School Districts that is naturally aligned with an existing, healthy, respected, and functioning Community Board District Structure:
a) We therefore recommend that a new Community School District structure in New York City be established that aligns exactly with the existing Community Board District Lines.
b) That the current members of the Community Education Councils (CEC’s) be designated and become Community Board members on their Community Boards with the appropriate jurisdictions. Furthermore, that they be specifically designated to serve on the Education Committees of those respective Community Boards.
c) That a Community Board District Superintendent be designated for each Community School District as their primary responsibility, and of course have a Real Office in that district that is accessible to the Community, with a real staff that actually functions. It is expected that the Superintendent would meet monthly with the Education Committee of that Community Board and form a mutually respectful relationship with that Community Board. Of course we also expect that the District Superintendent would also meet with the District Leadership Team on a monthly basis.
3) We call for replacement of the failed “Parent Coordinator” job category. In their place, we would establish a new job category, for which all existing Parent Coordinators would have a preference in applying and qualifying for.
4) The title for this new job category would be that of “Parent Ombudsman.” The functions of these Parent Ombudsmen would be to help solve the problems of parents who would call or come to the School in respond to issues that arise in their Child’s path through the Educational System.
We expect that not only will the Board of Education work to facilitate the competence and credibility of the Parent Ombudsman so that they can do their jobs better on behalf of the parents and their children, but they will also be allowed to choose their Union Representation in a transparent process.
5) In regards to School Leadership Teams (SLTs), we call for:
a) A staggered two year term in the election of team members so as to preserve the continuity of team function and knowledge.
b) The restoration of discretionary professional development training funds to the Teams so that they feel empowered and respected by the Educational System in which they can play such a potentially positive role.
c) Restoration of a competitive professional development Vendor Training Catalog.
d) Giving responsibility to the School Leadership Teams for the maintenance of the content of their respective school web-sites. This would be in harmony with a critical element of their mission under State Law to communicate effectively with their respective constituents.
e) On an annual basis the SLT members will elect a member from their team to represent them on the District Leadership Team. This would promote the flow of information about problems and issues up from the School Based Level.
6) We recommend that the respective five Borough Presidents establish Education Advisory Councils, analogous to the council that has been functioning in Queens under the purview of that esteemed Borough President.
a) Obviously we recommend that the core membership of the Boroughs Advisory Councils have among their members the chairs of the various district leadership teams and community board educational committees within their respective Boroughs.
b) In the event these Education Advisory Councils elect or designate a chairperson, the Borough President could seriously consider designating that person as their representative to the Citywide Education Policy Council.
7) In regards to the newly established “Citywide Educational Policy Council”, we would build on the UFT proposal and add four members; two more appointees for the Mayor and one each to represent the Community Boards and also the District Leadership Teams; they would be respectively elected by a separate Citywide gatherings of the Chairs of the District Leadership Teams, and also the chairs of the Education Committees of every Community Board in NYC. Further, it is critical that any member in good standing of the Citywide Education Policy Council be empowered to make a motion to place items on the Agenda for the following month’s meeting.

Envisioning a Community & Parent Friendly Naturally Aligned Structure for School Governance in NYC
Conjecture
What should be the Purpose of a System of School Governance?
Answer: Better Decisions and Responsiveness on Behalf of the Children
Axiom #1
The School is the Fundamental Unit of a School Governance System
Axiom #2
The Management Structure and the Participatory Structure Must be Aligned
Axiom #3
Continuity has a Value – It Enables us to Build on a Foundation over Time
Axiom #4
A Desire for Consensus Should not be allowed to Degenerate into Paralysis
Axiom #5
Team Participation in Decision Making Promotes Buy-In of Implementation
Axiom #6
The System will never be Perfect – Nonetheless it should Strive to Emulate a Learning Organization so it can Grow from both Acknowledgement of Mistakes and also Anticipation of Possible Problems

Comptroller's Report on "Powerless Parents"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2009
Contact: Kristen McMahon, (212) 669-2589,
kmcmaho@comptroller.nyc.gov

THOMPSON REPORT: PARENTS ARE POWERLESS TO INFLUENCE SCHOOL POLICIES
- Comptroller Offers 7 Key Recommendations to Maximize Parent Participation -
New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. today charged that the Department of Education (DOE) has failed to ensure that parents have a meaningful role in education decision-making, even where that role has been carefully delineated by State law.
“Parents are essential stakeholders in our public education system,” Thompson said. “There is no group more invested in the success of our students. Yet too often in our city recently, our parents have been told to sit quietly on the sidelines as others make the critical decisions about their children’s education.”
Speaking at a news conference, Thompson unveiled a report entitled Powerless Parents: How the New York City Department of Education Blocks Parent Influence in Local School Governance. The report can be viewed at www.comptroller.nyc.gov.
“Clearly, a well-run education system needs and depends upon the input, passionate commitment and insight of its parents for success,” Thompson said.In New York City, there are three key ways for parents to become involved in education policy decisions affecting their children. They include: local district Community Education Councils, or CECs; school-based leadership teams, or SLTs; and parent associations.

In order to prepare the report, Thompson’s staff surveyed officers of 24 of the city’s 32 CECs and other parent leaders in order to determine the nature and quality of parental influence on City school governance.

“What we found was deeply troubling,” Thompson said. “CECs, designed to represent elementary and middle school parents at the community school district level, are effectively blocked from exercising the powers and duties given to them by the Education Law. School Leadership Teams are likewise of very limited effectiveness, while far too many schools do not even have a functioning Parent Association or Parent/Teacher Association.”
Thompson’s report determined that at least 10 different provisions of the Education Law governing Community Education Councils are currently not being followed by DOE.

Perhaps most significantly, CECs are not consulted by Tweed before the opening, closing or reconfiguration of schools, or of special programs in schools, in their districts. At the same time, CECs have been largely unable to evaluate the Superintendents in their districts because the Superintendents have been reassigned to spend up to 90 percent of their time working to improve achievement in districts outside of their own.

“CEC officers we spoke with believe their influence has steadily diminished ever since the first group was elected in 2004 and that CECs have essentially become irrelevant,” Thompson said. “This has all occurred as a direct result of DOE decision-making. In fact, CECs have at times needed to resort to court action to maintain parental input codified in state law, such as their authority to approve proposed changes in school attendance zones, which is a key CEC power.”

In the case of School Leadership Teams, Thompson said that many schools across the city do not have functioning SLTs. Many others are dominated by principals unwilling to engage the leadership team on fundamental matters such as the school’s budget and comprehensive educational plan. Education Law requires principals to solicit SLT input when writing the school based budget but this frequently does not occur.

Thompson charged that DOE’s opposition to an independent and meaningful role for SLTs was made clear in 2007, when a revised Chancellor’s Regulation was issued that gave the principal final authority over the Comprehensive Educational Plan. However, the law clearly states that School Leadership Teams are charged with developing CEPs.

With respect to parent associations, State Education Law requires that every school have a PA or a PTA, a requirement that is supposed to be enforced by the school principal. However, the most recent data suggests that close to 18 percent of our public schools have either no parent association whatsoever, or an association with so few parent officers it could not effectively function.

Thompson’s report also determined that understaffing at DOE’s Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy has stymied its ability to fill the gap. There are at most only three Family Advocates per district, and some districts have only one. Furthermore, because they report to Tweed rather than the district superintendent, their ability to resolve parent concerns is limited.

In order to clarify and strengthen the role and authority of parents serving on CECs, SLTs and in PTA’s, Thompson offered the following seven recommendations:

District superintendents should work primarily in their home districts, as intended by the State legislature and ordered by a State court.

State law should be amended to help ensure that principals collaborate fully with School Leadership Teams (SLTs) in preparing the school’s comprehensive education plan and assure the SLT has full input into the school-based budget.

DOE must upgrade the training for parents who serve on SLTs and CECs, in accordance with existing law, thus encouraging more parents to participate.

Education Law should be amended to ensure that CECs are notified and have ample time to advise and be consulted before significant actions are taken that affect a district school or schools.

DOE should put superintendents in charge of District Family Advocates.

DOE ought to publicly disclose basic information about which schools have functioning SLTs and parent associations, along with data regarding the performance of CECs; and

DOE should streamline the current structure for parent engagement.

Thompson believes that implementing these recommendations would go a long way toward giving parents the kind of meaningful role in the development and implementation of education policy that they deserve and to which they are largely already entitled under current law.

“Adopting my proposals would also help to begin to correct the impression that Tweed has created among parents that it is aloof at best and arrogantly disdainful of including parents in its process at worst,” he said. “If that perception is to change, a fundamental rethinking of how to include parents in our city’s education system must now take place. I hope this report generates the discussion among policy makers, elected leaders and, most importantly – parents – that we must have about how to do that.”

# # #

Chancellor's Letter to Principals RE 2009-2010 CEP Process

On May 5th, Chancellor Klein issued a memo to Principals instructing them on the 2009-2010 CEP process until Regulation A-655 is revised.

The Pollicino Decision issued by Commissioner Mills on Dec. 31, 2008, instructed the NYCDOE to submit A-655 ( Dec. 2007) to the District Leadership Teams of each CEC for input and approval. A draft A-655 was submitted to the DLT's last month. The NYCDOE is still in the process of revising A-655.

The Chancellor's memo provides guidelines for developing the 2009-2010 CEP until A-655 is finalized. It states that SLT's "develop and review the school's CEP"and "consult with the principal in developing a school based budget and staffing plan aligned with the CEP." It also states that "SLT's must use a consensus-based decision-making process as their primary means of making decisions."

A copy of the memo can be obtained through the link provided on this site.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis

CEP INFO FROM NYCDOE

Dear Mr Calantjis,

My office is in the process of posting the finalized 2008-09 CEPs on each school's NYCDOE website. We expect to complete this activity by the end of this month. Regarding the 2009-10 CEP, we are planning to release the updated template to schools on May 19th. Schools will be expected to develop drafts of their 2009-10 CEPs by the end of June, in response to the continuous improvement needs assessment they have engaged in this spring and with consideration of their FY'10 school-based budgets, which we are anticipating will be available by the end of May. Finalized school CEPs will be submitted to the Central DOE by the end of September for review and feedback. As always, we will provide professional development and technical assistance to schools as they engage in these planning processes. Please feel free to call me at 212-374-5757 if there are school-specific concerns you would like to discuss.

Best regards,
Sharon
------------------------------------
Sharon Rencher
Executive Director, Office of School Improvement
Division of Teaching and Learning
NYC Department of Education

Principals Must Be Held Accountable for SLT's

Dear Parents, Educators and Community Leaders,

Comptroller William Thompson testified at the Assembly's School Governance Hearing in Brooklyn yesterday. Part of his testimony expressed concerns about School Leadership Teams.He stated his office was "shocked" to learn that most parents do not even know what SLT's and CEC's are.He quoted an OFEA SLT survey last year which showed that nearly half that were surveyed did not have a functioning SLT. He went on to say that where they do have a functioning SLT, principals too often fail to work collaboratively, as State law requires, in preparing school budgets and developing a CEP.

The Comptroller recommended that principal's be evaluated, in part, on their record in developing an effective, collaborative School Leadership Team.

Today's NY Daily News reported on Mr. Thompson's testimony. In the last sentence, it states, "to help shore up parental involvement,Thompson said principals should be held accountable for creating effective school leadership teams".

Principals must be held accountable. In the revised draft for SLT Regulation A-655, required by the Pollicino decision of the Commissioner, there is no real accountability. Appealing to a district OFEA official and/or a District Leadership Team that meets infrequently, does not provide effective conflict resolution when principals are not cooperating with the process. We must remove the clause that gives principal's final determination on the CEP if consensus is not reached and provide a more effective measure for conflict resolution that will insure accountability.SLT's should also have access to the school's Galaxy Budget System, which would provide transparency concerning school spending and better able SLT's to align the budget with the CEP. I urge District Leadership Teams that are reviewing the draft A-655 on SLT's to demand changes before endorsing the document.

In addition, we need to restore SLT's ability to collaboratively develop the school budget, which was in place until A-655 of Dec. 2007.We can do that by strengthening the language of the law (2590-h-15 and 2590-r) which is up for renewal in June. I hope Assembly Member Nolan and State Senator Oppenheimer will push for SLT law strengthening as heads of their respective education committees.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
sltsupport.blogspot.com
calantjis@aol.com
718 458-4237

CR100.11 2008 Biennial Reviews of SLT's by DLT's

Dear Education and Parent Leaders,

The NYSED requires that District Leadership Teams complete the Biennial Review concerning the District 100.11 plan for shared decision making for School Leadership Teams.The Review asks the DLT's to answer six questions relating to CR100.11 concerning their SLT's and then to fill out an evaluation as to how well the SLT's have implemented these objectives in their districts.The ratings are from A-E: A-not addressed,B-Inconsistent Implementation,C- Minimal Implementation,D- Moderate Implementation and E- Consistent Implementation and success.

The five categories are:

1) Educational Issues subject to shared decision making
2) Involvement of all parties.
3) Means and standards used to evaluate improvement of student achievement
4) Accountability for decisions
5) Dispute resolution process
6) Coordination of State and Federal Requirements for Parental involvement

I attempted to get this information from a FOIL to NYCDOE first. They eventually sent me only the narrative portion of the Reviews that the districts were suppose to answer concerning each of the six points. They left out the evaluation data of the SLT's for each district. I re contacted them for the missing data and I am still waiting.

I sent a FOIL to the NYSED a few weeks ago for this information and received it promptly.

I have compiled the results of the Biennial Review evaluations of SLT's on a spreadsheet. Please contact me for a copy.

The Biennial Reviews also include the signature pages of those who participated on the District Leadership Teams.

This Review is from Spring 2008. The next Review will be in January 2010.

In reviewing the results, you will find that most of the districts did not accurately rate their SLT's. You would be hard pressed to find an SLT that is functioning with the involvement of all parties in shared decision making. Yet, all but three of the districts gave ratings of D (moderate implementation) and most gave an E ( Consistent Implementation and Success). Districts 9,23, 30, gave themselves a B ( Inconsistent Implementation)or a C ( Minimal Implementation).

Most of the districts were more realistic in their rating for "educational Issues subject to shared decision making", with most giving their SLT's a C ( Minimal Implementation).

The following districts gave themselves an E( Consistent Implementation and success) in all six categories:
Districts 8,16,17,18,27.

Districts 9 and 23 seemed to be the most critical in their evaluations

I would like to hear from individuals from these and all districts about the ratings that were given.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
SLT Empowerment Alliance
sltsupport.blogspot.com
718 458-4237
calantjis@aol.com

SLT Legislation Proposal by Jacob Morris

TheSchool Leadership Team Website Responsibility Act


It has come to the attention of the members of this legislative body that the original intent of the legislation that went into effect in 1996 regarding School Leadership Teams and their empowerment so that they could effectively collaborate in the discharge of their lawful responsibilities, which included communicating and disseminating information to the constituencies they represent, has been outmoded by the impact of new technologies (especially the Internet) on our Society, Families, and Schools.

Given our desire to improve effective parental involvement in education, which has been decisively proven in multiple scholarly studies as leading to the improved academic achievement of their children, we herein mandate that SLT's, DLT's and their constituent members be given the collaborative responsibility to have input as to the content of their respective School and District Websites, for their calendar & course/teacher email access as well as extracurricular, and the professional development training necessary to meet that responsibility.

This amendment will enhance the partnership between Families, Schools, and the Communities they are located in by improving Transparency, Accountability, Communication, and most of all the flow of Information that Parents need to help their children do well, in School and in Life, and affirm their potential.

SLT Legislation Proposal by Jacob Morris

The SLT Empowerment Discretionary Training Funds
Restoration Amendment

It has come to the attention of the members of this legislative body that the original intent of the legislation that went into effect in 1996 regarding School Leadership Teams and their empowerment so that they could effectively collaborate in the discharge of their lawful responsibilities, has been eviscerated in reality by the NYC Board of Education. This voiding of the intent of the enabling legislation has occurred through the mechanism of the school administrators total diversion of the SLT's discretionary training funds. Originally, the SLT's were empowered to make their own decisions on what training they needed from an excellent and extensive group of third party training providers, as set forth in a Vendor Catalog approved through the RFP process, and published by the NYC Board of Education.

While the stipends for SLT members remain in place, many of those members wonder what real input they have into their school's “Comprehensive Educational Plan” that they have the designated responsibility for, because their ability to decide on their own training has been taken away from them.

Therefore, given that it is clearly understood in the intent of the original enabling legislation that the school is the fundamental unit of governance in our public education system, and being desirous of improving effective parental involvement in their children's education, which studies have shown leads to the improved academic achievement of their children, we herein mandate that the original intent of the legislation be honored and that sufficient discretionary training funds be restored to both individual School and District Leaderships Teams so that they can decide on the appropriate professional development for themselves within a team framework.

It is through this mechanism that we will return to the essence of participatory democracy by enabling grass roots voices to be heard with the goal of improving collaborative decision making. Often administrators need to hear about problems before they can began to address them, and parents need to not be alienated by having enough confidence in our Public Education System to believe that their time is not wasted or participation ignored, and that their professionally developed voices will at least be heard by the appropriate administrators.

Strengthening SLT State Education Law

On February 6th, Jacob Morris and myself testified before Assembly Education Chair, Cathy Nolan's, School Governance Committee. It was almost nine hours (7PM)before we were able to speak. The primary issue of her committee was whether Mayoral Control should be renewed in June, and if so, in what form. Most speakers favored Mayoral Control with more authority given to the PEP,CEC's and SLT's.We focused on the need to strengthen SLT's by rewriting the language in the law (2590-h-15 and 2590-r), removing any ambiguities. We emphasized the need to restore budget development responsibilities to the SLT's which had always been the intent of the law, but not clearly stated. The language we propose would also clarify that the budget is aligned with the CEP and not the other way around. School Leadership Team legislation is also up for renewal in June.

On February 18th, Jacob and I visited State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer, at her Port Chester office. She is the new chair of the State Senate Education Committee. It was a very pleasant visit as we again spoke about the need to strengthen SLT legislation to empower parents and teachers in local school governance.Her legislative aide suggested we find a State Senator in NYC to sponsor the legislation change.

I would appreciate opportunities to speak with NYC Assembly Persons and State Senators concerning sponsoring SLT legislation changes. If you have a good rapport with any and can set up an appointment, please contact me. In addition, I would like to meet with Cathy Nolan with a small group of parents if that can be arranged.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
SLT Empowerment Alliance
718 458-4237
646 541-5082
calantjis@aol.com

Pollicino Decision Strengthens SLT's

State Education Commissioner Mills issued his decision in Pollicino v. NYCDOE on Dec. 31, 2008. It is a major victory for parents and teachers on school leadership teams. The NYCDOE had attempted to give total control of SLT's to principals by revising Regulation A-655 ( Dec. 2007) to give principals final determination on the development of the CEP and school budget. Commissioner Mills ruled this change concerning the CEP violated State Education Law 2590h-15 (see link).

The Commissioner's decision restores SLT's to shared decision making status rather than just advisory. The SLT collaboratively develops the CEP using a consensus model of shared decision making. The Commissioner did rule that principals have final determination on the school budget. However, SLT's have a major role to play in aligning the budget with the CEP. In addition, Commissioner Mills emphasized that principals must consult SLT's before budget decisions are made.

The decision was also a victory for the CEC's and District SLT's as Commissioner Mills ruled that the process the NYCDOE used to revive A-655 was flawed by not following CR 100.11 (see link). He ordered the NYCDOE to revise the current A-655 Regulation and submit it to the CEC's for input and approval.

You can read the Commissioner's decision by clicking the title of this post.