The time lines are organized around the four RTTT priority areas:

• Standards and Assessments;
• Data Systems;
• Great Teachers and Leaders; and
• Turning Around Low Performing Schools.

The Department anticipates issuing more than a dozen RFPs (requests for proposals) in just the next year for RTTT-related work.

The time lines were part of an update to the Board of Regents earlier this week.  Here is the accompanying prose summary given to the Regents.

Here is my compilation of some of the items of greatest concern to school district leaders:

States are permitted to add to the Common Core Standards.

Over the past summer, the State Education Department assembled work groups to recommend additions for new York.

Now SED is seeking reactions to the recommended additions through online surveys.

You may review the recommendations and complete the surveys here:

• English Language Arts and Literacy
• Mathematics

The SED website explains,

The State Education Department will be gathering input from October 20th, 2010 to November 29th, 2010. After the survey data and comments are compiled, there will be a revision period in December prior to the submission of the final materials for Board action in January 2011.

Perhaps most notably, the Department will continue to administer January Regents Exams.

Here is the Department’s memo outlining planned changes to the state’s assessment program for the coming school year.

Below are the reductions the Department will still implement:

• Discontinuation of paper-based scoring materials for Regents Exams. All scoring materials and answer keys will be posted to the Department’s website and schools will be responsible for downloading prior to scoring
• Elimination of Component Retesting in Math & ELA
• Elimination of Grades 5 and 8 Social Studies Exams
• Elimination of Grade 8 Second Language Proficiency Exams
• Elimination of August Administration of Algebra 2/Trigonometry and Chemistry Exams
• Elimination of HS Foreign Language Regents exams except for Spanish, French and Italian

SED also cautions that further reductions will eventually be necessary, if additional funding is not forthcoming.

TRS has also published a more extensive notice on the implications of the legal challenge to the previously enacted NYSUT-only 55-25 incentive (Chapter 45 of the Laws 2010).

Below is a slightly updated rendition of the email message I sent earlier on state retirement incentives.

New incentives

Legislation signed by Governor Paterson provides two new two retirement incentive options:  a more or less traditional incentive, providing one month of credit for each year of service up to a maximum of three years additional credit (Part A), and another “55-25” incentive open to state, local and school employees (Part B), but this time without a requirement that they hold a position represented by New York State United Teachers.

Elected officials and agency heads – including school superintendents – are not be eligible.

The already enacted “NYSUT” 55-25 incentive did not authorize employers to opt in or out of participation and it required all employers to help pay for the cost of the incentive, whether or not they have participating retirees.  Nor did it require employers to show savings for any position vacated by a retiree taking the incentive.

In contrast, the new incentives would allow employers, including school districts, to decide whether or not to participate.  Districts would also be required to pay the cost of the incentive for their participating retirees over a five-year period in this bill; costs would not be spread over all employers, only those which elect to participate and then have employees retire with the incentive would pay.

Districts would be required to show savings over a two-year period under the Part A “one month credit for one year’s service” incentive, but not for the new Part B 55-25 incentive.

Retirees will not be permitted to take advantage of both new incentives, nor to combine either with the previously enacted NYSUT-only incentive.

The law requires retirees taking the Part A incentive to waive participation in any local retirement incentive, but also permits employers to exempt any of its retirees from this requirement.

To be clear, NYSUT members could be permitted to take advantage of either of the new incentives, but again could not combine either with the previously enacted 55-25 “NYSUT” incentive.

The cost for an individual district is lower if a NYSUT member uses the previously enacted 55-25 incentive, rather than the new law.  All districts share in the cost of the enacted 55-25 NYSUT-only incentive, whether or not they have participating retirees, while under the new incentives, districts will be billed for the cost of the incentive for their participating retirees.

Time lines (Part A): Districts and BOCES are required to decide whether to offer the Part A (one month credit for one year of service) incentive by July 30, 2010.  Districts or BOCES determine the open period for employees to retire with the incentive.  It can be between 30 and 90 days but cannot extend past August 31, 2010.

Time lines (Part B): Districts or BOCES are required to decide whether to offer the new Part B 55-25 incentive by July 1, 2010.  The open period for employees would start June 1 or the date the district decides to offer the incentive and cannot extend past August 31, 2010.

Legal challenge to NYSUT-only 55-25 incentive

A school principals’ group has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NYSUT-only 55-25 incentive and seeking to have eligibility broadened.

Its request for an injunction to prevent implementation of the incentive was rejected in State Supreme Court, but a decision on the merits of its challenge remains to be made.

In the meantime, TRS advises it “is moving ahead with administering the 55/25 incentive as written.”

As is often the case, the bill creating this incentive includes a standard “severability” clause which states that if any part of the law is found invalid, that will not invalidate the whole law.

More uniquely, this one goes on to add, “It is hereby declared to be the intent of the legislature that  this  act  would  have been enacted even if such invalid provisions had not been included herein.”  This clause could affect how a court ruling affects the incentive.

The TRS notice referenced above cites a few possible outcomes of the litigation:  the law could be upheld, it could be ruled unconstitutional and implementation halted altogether, or it might be ruled unconstitutional but,

“the Court could rule that the severability clause of Chapter 45 permits the constitutional defect to be cured by removing the limitation to such positions and Chapter 45 can be implemented for all members who have attained age 55 and 25 years of service regardless of their representation.”

TRS concludes,

“It cannot be predicted whether the Court’s ruling, when issued will be the last word in the case or whether one or more of the losing parties will appeal that ruling to the appellate court – nor can it be predicted how long such an appeal might take.”

Earlier this week the State Board of Regents voted to adopt three recommendations originating with the Council to help school districts retain good teachers who might otherwise be laid off.

Guidance on the new regulations has been released by the State Education Department.

SED sums up the intent,

Essentially, the changes from a certification perspective will permit general education and special education teachers currently in a school district to be reassigned by the district to teach in grades close to their current certification area; specifically, for kindergarten and the Middle Childhood grades, in order to avoid or mitigate layoffs. These new regulations address certification issues only. Hiring decisions or appointments to tenure areas continue to be governed by existing law and rules.

To give an example, a school district facing a need to layoff a proven effective 1st grade school could, under certain conditions, retain him or her to fill a vacancy for a kindergarten teacher.

We are grateful to SED officials Joseph Frey, Robert Bentley, Kenneth Slentz, and John King and the Regents for quickly responding to this request from superintendents.

Some districts have already sent out layoff notices due to collective bargaining agreement requirements.

I explained to some of the Regents that this initiative was less about saving money than about saving careers.

The materials include a letter from the two state agency commissioners; a guidance document; a sample memorandum of understanding for the use of school facilities for this purpose; a parent/guardian H1N1 vaccination consent form; a sample letter to parents/guardians; and a summary of relevant legal issues.

Individual items may be obtained below:

• NYSED and NYSDOH November 17, 2009 Joint memo on School-based Vaccination Clinics for 2009 H1N1 Influenza virus. (32 KB)
• School-based Vaccination Clinics Guidance for Schools (51 KB)
• MOU for use of a School or School District Setting for Immunization of Persons (School Children/Residents) Against 2009 H1N1 Influenza
• 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Consent Form for Schools (37 KB)
• Consent Letter to Parents
• Summary of Relevant Legal Issues (58 KB)

All the items, plus additional guidance, may also be obtained here:  http://usny.nysed.gov/swine-flu-info.html#November

The guidance is available here.

The CDC also has a communications toolkit for school leaders here.

The Council is planning a webinar for the first week of September to provide district leaders with the latest advice on dealing with flu outbreaks.  Details on logistics will be provided soon.

Newspaper reporting on the guidance has focused on a shift in the government’s advice on school closings.  For example, the Associated Press noted,

The government is urging school officials to stay calm when swine flu strikes this fall, closing buildings only in drastic cases and allowing sick students to return as soon as 24 hours after their fever is gone.

States and schools should also be planning now for the possibility of schoolwide vaccinations beginning in mid-October.

Federal officials know more now about swine flu than they did last spring, when alarm and confusion led hundreds of schools to temporarily shut down. New guidance issued Friday reflects what the officials have learned.

Closing schools is rarely warranted, even if students or teachers have swine flu, said Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

]]> http://blog.nyscoss.org/2009/08/11/new-guidance-for-schools-on-h1n1-swine-flu/feed/ 0 http://blog.nyscoss.org/2009/07/28/30-million-available-to-support-energy-conservation-projects/ http://blog.nyscoss.org/2009/07/28/30-million-available-to-support-energy-conservation-projects/#comments Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:17:10 +0000 Robert Lowry http://blog.nyscoss.org/?p=891 A few weeks back we posted an item about the availability of funding for energy conservation studies through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

Now NYSERDA asks that we pass along notice of availability of more substantial funding to support implementation of energy conservation initiatives.

Below is the notice NYSERDA provided:

NYSERDA announces the availability of $74 million through RFP 1613, Project Implementation for State Energy Program.

RFP 1613 has a competitive application process and funds will be awarded based on the value of the project. Selection criteria include cost effectiveness, leveraging of funds, benchmarking, and compliance with New York State Energy Conservation Code.

Eligible applicants include municipal governments, public K-12 schools, public universities or colleges (including SUNY, SUNY community colleges, CUNY, CUNY community colleges), hospitals and non-profit organizations (defined as a Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) qualifying organization formed prior to February 17, 2009).

Each proposed project must fall into one of the following categories: energy efficiency; renewable energy; or alternative fuel vehicles.

Each applicant will be eligible to receive funding up to 100% of the project cost with a limit of $1,000,000 per applicant.

The RFP application can be viewed here http://www.nyserda.org/funding/1613rfp.asp .

We have been advised that $30 million is specifically available to support school projects.

The SED invites questions on the implementation for inclusion in a “Q&A” document to be released shortly. Questions may be forwarded through the Office of State Assessment, or The Council.

In advance of that document, we believe one clarification may be useful – the column titled “Administration Dates” indicates the range of dates on which the first day of testing must occur. For multi-day exams, the administration may continue beyond the date range specified (for example, to accommodate students with disabilities or to conduct make-ups). Obviously all other rules for administration of these exams remain unchanged (all students in a single district must start the same test on the same day, etc.). We believe this clarification will be spelled out in more detail in the SED Q&A document, once released.

Later this month, NYSERDA will be issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to allocate $30 million in federal stimulus funds for school energy efficiency and conservation projects.

Pursuant to federal requirements, the window for school districts to apply for these funds will be very narrow – the RFP is expected to be released on July 27, and the first round of applications will be due back on August 24.

Districts will be able to submit proposals for this funding based upon previously developed plans for projects which can meet criteria for the program.

To assist districts which do not have suitable projects already under development, NYSERDA will be awarding up to $5 million in funding for school districts to complete Energy Conservation Studies. Completed studies could then be used to support applications for the upcoming $30 million implementation grant program.

Examples of studies which could receive funding include building improvements to support energy efficiency, certain alternative energy source projects, and studies of alternative fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles.

Applicants may apply for funding up to the lesser of $30,000 or 100 percent of the cost of the study, or 25 percent of the annual energy cost of the facilities or vehicle fleets to be studied.

For more information about how to apply for Energy Conservation Study grants, please see here.

Sometime soon information about the $30 million implementation grant program will be available here.

Maximum funding per applicant under the implementation grant program will be $1 million.