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.