94 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12206 518-432-5315

Chancellor Merryl Tisch

New York State Board of Regents
89 Washington Avenue, Room 110 EB
Albany, New York 12234
Dear Chancellor Tisch and Members of the Board of Regents:
AQE is very focused on the needs of students in struggling schools across New York State. The Board of Regents faces
a critical responsibility this Monday June 15 when you will be voting on emergency regulations governing schools
which by law are classified as failing and persistently failing.
We have met with Acting Commissioner Beth Berlin, Assistant Commissioners Ira Schwartz and Renee Rider and
other SED staff members regarding these regulations. We brought parents with students enrolled in struggling
schools to participate in the SED stakeholder meeting regarding these regulations. We wish to commend
Commissioner Berlin and all of the SED team members with whom we met for their dedication and receptivity to our
recommendations. In particularly we wish to commend Mr. Schwartz and his team for the thoughtfulness and hard
work they have devoted to these regulations.
There are a number of parts of the proposed regulations where they have incorporated the recommendations of AQE
and others which have improved the proposed regulations. For instance, the proposed regulations would eliminate
the stigmatizing label of failing from these schools. They ensure that parents and other stakeholders elect their
own representatives to the important Community Engagement Team and clarify some of the important roles of this
Team. They make public hearings more accessible to parents. They establish appropriate qualifications for
independent receivers. They protect existing students against being displaced as a result of these regulations. They
recognize that demonstrable improvement should vary based upon the needs of students and communities served
by different schools and the starting point of those schools when this new intervention begins.
While we commend these important components of the proposed regulations, there remains a need for
improvement in several key areas before you vote on the regulations at Mondays Regents meeting. We have
attached eight regulatory amendments for your consideration. The focus on four key areas: 1) Developing High
Quality School Improvement Plans; 2) Successful Parent and Community Engagement; 3) Rules Governing the
Abolition of Teaching and other Positions; and 4) No Supplanting of Existing Funds.
We hope you will consider, debate and adopt our proposed amendments. Should you have any questions I can be
reached at 518-461-9171 or beaston@aqeny.org. It is essential that we set these schools up for success, not failure.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,

Billy Easton
Executive Director
cc: Members of the Board of Regents, Commissioner Berlin, Charles Szuberla, Ira Schwartz, Renee Rider

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Section 100.19 of the Regulations of the Commissioner Relating to School Receivership
These proposed amendments are designed to be considered individually or as a package.

Requiring High Quality Plans

Amendments #1 to #4
Amendment #1: Planning is Essential to Success
In order to prioritize the importance of assembling a high quality plan, the regulations should specify
that the development of a plan is one of the factors the commissioner will consider when making a
determination about demonstrable improvement.
On page 24 in current paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), the current language says that one of the factors
the commissioner will consider in assessing demonstrable improvement is:
. . .the degree to which the superintendent has successfully utilized the powers of a school receiver to
implement the schools approved comprehensive plan or department-approved intervention plan.
Before implementing a plan, the superintendent must develop a plan and the quality of this plan should
be a factor in assessing demonstrable improvement.
Amendment Language #1
On page 24 in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), the amendment only adds two words:
. . .the degree to which the superintendent has successfully utilized the powers of a school
receiver to develop and implement the schools approved comprehensive plan or departmentapproved intervention plan.
Amendment #2: Allowing Locally-Selected Measures in Superintendents Plan
The proposed regulations allow that the independent receivers school plan may include locally-selected
measures of progress that are approved by the commissioner. It was our impression that the same
locally selected measures would be allowed for school plans developed by the superintendent receiver
and that these measures would be part of demonstrable improvement. These locally selected measures
are allowed under paragraph (7) of subdivision (f) on page 35 of the regulations.
Current language contained in current paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) on page 24 includes the
following:
. . . the commissioner shall consider, in addition to the metrics specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision
(f) of this section . . .
Since the language does not include paragraph (7) of subdivision (f) then locally-selected measures
would not be included in the plan under superintendent receivership or in measuring demonstrable
improvement. This may have been an inadvertent omission as our impression was that the intent was to
include locally-selected measures during superintendent receivership.

Amendment Language #2
On page 24, in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) the new language would be as follows:
. . .the commissioner shall consider in addition to the metrics specified in paragraphs (6) and (7)
of subdivision (f) of this section . . .
Amendment #3: Conducting a Comprehensive Needs Assessment is Essential to Developing a
Successful Plan
Under the proposed regulations independent receivers are required to conduct a comprehensive needs
assessment and analyze this needs assessment prior to developing a plan. Conducting a high quality
needs assessment seems like a necessary precursor to developing a high quality plan, yet there is no
comparable requirement for superintendent receivers. This amendment would apply the same
requirement on superintendent receivers and the language is taken from subparagraphs (8)(iii) and
(8)(iv) of subdivision (f) of the proposed regulations.
Amendment Language #3
The following amendment would be inserted on page 24 as a new paragraph (2) in subdivision (d) of the
regulations. The numeration of subsequent paragraphs would need to be adjusted accordingly.
(2) Superintendent receivers shall be required to conduct a comprehensive school and community
needs assessment in such form and format and according to such timeline as may be prescribed by
the commissioner and complete a thorough analysis of the needs assessment results unless they
can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commissioner that no such needs assessment is needed.
This needs assessment shall be the basis for the development or modification of the
comprehensive education plan or department approved intervention and the plan must be
designed to meet the academic and other needs of students.
Amendment #4: Planning Process for Superintendent to Convert School into Community School
The proposed regulations state that although there is a requirement in law that independent receivers
convert schools into a community schools, these regulations state that there is no such requirement of
superintendent receivers. However, the regulations should specify the process to be followed if the
superintendent receiver opts to do so.
Amendment Language #4
The following amendment would be inserted on page 25 as a new paragraph prior to current paragraph
(4) in subdivision (d) of the regulations. The numeration of subsequent paragraphs would be adjusted
accordingly. It provides that they have the same timeframe as an independent receiver to develop such
a plan should they choose to convert the school to a community school and would fulfill the same
process and requirements.
(4) If a superintendent receiver opts to convert the school into a community school then they shall
be granted the same six month timeframe to develop and issue a plan that is allotted to the
independent receiver under subdivision (f) of this section and they shall follow the same process
and meet the same requirements pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (f) of this section.

Family and Community Engagement

Amendments #5 & #6
Amendment #5: Prioritizing Parent Engagement
Under the law and regulations, the Community Engagement Team is key to family and community
engagement. It provides representation for families, communities, staff and other stakeholders in
developing the school plan and monitoring and evaluating its implementation. However, under the
current proposed regulations one parent representative on the Team would suffice no matter how large
the Community Engagement Team is. New York Citys Chancellors regulations for School Leadership
Teams require that parents and staff have equal representation. For consistency we recommend the
same requirement.
Amendment Language #5
The proposed amendment incorporates this language from the Chancellors regulations. It also ensures
collaboration between the Community Engagement Team and pre-existing school-based teams. This
language would be inserted on page 23 in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The
underlined language is the addition.
(ii) the way in which members of the community engagement team are selected, the community
engagement teams membership is modified, or vacancies are filled, provided that administrator,
teacher and parent members of the community engagement team must be selected through the
process established in section 100.11(b) of this Part and provided that the community engagement
team must have an equal number of parents, or persons in parental relationship, and staff, that
nothing in this section shall preclude persons from serving on both the community engagement
team and other school-based teams, and that the community engagement team shall consult and
coordinate with existing school-based planning and leadership teams.
Amendment #6: Ensuring Meaningful Parent and Community Engagement
Some superintendents and receivers have good skills at engaging parents and communities and a
sincere desire to do so. Others fall short in these areas. You cannot mandate good skills or good will.
What you can do is create checks and balances that give parents and community members certain
defined powers. The Community Engagement Team cannot overrule the Superintendent or Receiver,
nor should they, only the Commissioner can. Commissioners Regulations Section 100.11 on
Participation of parents and teachers in school-based planning and shared decision-making recognize
the need for this check and balance by providing a process for appeals to the Commissioner by
participants in the planning process. This appeals process relies on the section 310 appeals process, but
adds criteria that are specific to school-based planning, however, unless they do not apply under these
new regulations and by themselves the existing Part 310 regulations are inadequate for these schools.
The expectation is that by allowing a similar appeals process, it will leverage and incentivize greater
collaboration and the actual appeals, which are cumbersome to file, will be few.
Amendment Language #6
The language below is based upon paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 100.11 of existing
commissioners regulations. This language would be incorporated on page 22 as a new subparagraph (v)
in paragraph (2) in subdivision (b) of Section 100.19. The changes to the Section 100.11 language to be
incorporated in the new regulations are noted as follows: deletions are contained within brackets and
highlighted, additions are underlined. This does not alter the existing 100.11 regulations.
(v) Any aggrieved party who participated in the development of the district plan may also appeal
to the commissioner pursuant to section 310 of the Education Law from action of the [board of

education or BOCES] the superintendent receiver or the independent receiver in adopting,

proposing, [amending, or recertifying] modifying, or developing the department approved
intervention model, comprehensive education plan, or the school intervention plan or its
additional components. The grounds for such an appeal may include, but shall not be limited to,
noncompliance with any requirement of [subdivision (c) of] this section and failure to provide
[within the district plan for] meaningful participation in school-based planning and shared
decision making or not giving adequate consideration to the recommendations of the community
engagement team within the intent of this section.
Rules Governing Abolition of Teaching and Other Staff Positions
Amendment #7
School improvement in struggling schools is extremely challenging. The research shows that
collaboration of all stakeholders is essential. The law allows that the superintendent receiver or the
independent receiver may abolish all of the teaching, administrative and supervisory staff positions and
hire back only 50%. This threat over the heads of educators undermines collaboration and has the
potential to turn staff against the efforts to improve the school. The Regents should enact regulations
that set clear standards and oversight to ensure this power is not used arbitrarily and that it is only used
if it is shown to be beneficial to the students.
The regulations as currently proposed took important steps in this direction, but do not go far enough.
They set a standard that abolition of positions is supposed to result in improved student performance.
However, there is no oversight to ensure this standard is met. Likewise the regulations require a needs
assessment by the superintendent receiver or independent receiver, an examination of the professional
development staff have received, and the expected impact and potential disruption of abolition on the
educational program. These are the right standards, but they need oversight and the regulations do not
currently provide for that.
Amendment Language #7
The following language should be inserted on page 43 in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (4) of
subdivision (g). The underlined language is the addition to the current proposed regulations. The
standards are those defined in the current proposed regulations. By requiring commissioner approval of
the plan it provides the necessary oversightthis does not involve the commissioner in reviewing
individual employment decisions.
(v) The school receiver shall provide the commissioner with an electronic copy of all
correspondence related to abolition of staff positions. The commissioner shall review the plan for
abolition of staff and shall consider all correspondence related to the abolition of staff positions.
The commissioner shall approve the plan, reject the plan or require modifications to the plan
based upon factors including but not limited to: (a) the adequacy of the needs assessment, (b) the
analysis of whether the professional development over the prior two years provided the necessary
supports for the staff positions, (c) whether the abolition of the positions will result in improved
student performance, and (d) the expected impact on the educational program of the school and
other schools in the district including whether adequate efforts have been made to minimize
disruption to the educational program of the school or of other schools in the district.

No Supplanting of Existing Funds

Amendment #8
Any additional funds awarded to these schools pursuant to these regulations must be used to
supplement and not supplant existing funds.
Amendment Language #8
This language would be inserted on page 46 as a new paragraph (8) in subdivision (g). Renumbering of
subsequent paragraphs would be required. The entire paragraph is new language.
(8) No Supplanting
(i)

(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

For schools receiving state funds for the department approved plan or intervention,
whether under superintendent receiver or independent receiver, these funds shall be
used to supplement and not supplant existing funds;
If the school district makes no across the board budget cuts, there may be no cut in
existing resources for these schools.
If the school district makes across the board budget cuts, then cuts to these schools
may not exceed on a per pupil basis the cuts to any other school in the school district.
If the school district makes funding increases in their district budget then the increases
to these schools must be no smaller on a per pupil basis than those at any other school
in the district.