Blog Viewer

Thanks for reading School Business Matters, formerly called Deborah’s Blog, now with a new improved name and another awesome blogger. I’m Kimberly Shannon, Deputy Director of Education and Research at NYSASBO, and I’ll be posting along with my colleague Deborah Cunningham to keep the conversation flowing about school business.

We encourage you to subscribe to this blog by clicking here to receive email notifications when we post. We’ll post every week or two, so it won’t be enough to overwhelm your inbox, but it will be just enough to keep you in the loop and get your feedback.

On Wednesday, Deborah and I attended the NYS Assembly’s public hearing on receivership. NYSASBO has a number of business official members at districts that are involved in this program, so we wanted to make sure their concerns are heard. Deborah testified about the needed time, money, and other changes that would make the program more effective, and she did a great job!

The receivership program expands authority for superintendents in Struggling and Persistently Struggling Schools with the goal of meeting various measures of success and making “demonstrable improvement.” After one year for Persistently Struggling Schools and two years for Struggling Schools, the Commissioner will evaluate these schools’ progress and determine whether to place them under the authority of district-appointed “independent receivers” (charter school operators, individuals, other school districts, etc.). Persistently Struggling Schools get funding from a pot of $75 million; Struggling Schools get no additional funding.

I know what you’re thinking: How can they get all that done in one to two years with little to no money!? Well, it turns out that’s what everyone has been thinking—administrators, school boards, even SED. Deborah echoed these concerns, and she also highlighted some other pieces.

For example, the receiver can submit modifications to the budget up to 25 days before the budget hearing. Isn’t that unfair to the business officials and community members who have given input for months before the budget hearing?

And here’s another one: Schools are expected to make major changes without having “undue impact” on other schools in their district. Ummm….how? Districts are systems where every school works together and shares services to make education work. Making changes without impacting other schools is nearly impossible, especially with no extra funding.

Another piece of the receivership model is that if an independent receiver is appointed, they have to make the school into a “community school” that provides wraparound services to ensure that children’s mental and physical needs are being met in addition to their academic needs. We think that’s a great idea, but in order for it to work, schools are going to need tons of planning, and their costs should be eligible for state aid.

We also really wanted to drive home the point that Foundation Aid needs to be fully funded. This is money that the courts accepted to be necessary for an adequate education. The State recognized that those schools need a certain amount of money to succeed, then denied them that money, and is now faulting the schools for their lack of sufficient success. Not cool, State. Not cool.

It looks like the public hearing might lead to change. After hearing everyone's testimonies, members of the Assembly agreed that these schools need more time, and said they'll continue pushing for funding for struggling schools. Check out this article in Politico New York to read more about that.

Deborah emphasized a few other points in her testimony, and you can read about them in this press release.

 But I’m curious to know what you think of the receivership program. If your school were to be put under receivership, what do you think the biggest challenges would be? Do you think this is a good idea to reform struggling schools? Have you read about other similar programs, and if so, what have you read?