0606emscvesidi3

The Board of Regents asked staff to provide periodic status reports on the three-model middle-level strategy adopted to implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education.

Reason(s) for Consideration

When the Board of Regents revised Commissioner’s Regulations to reflect the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education and the related three-model strategy to implement the Regents Policy, the Regents requested that the State Education Department provide periodic status reports on the implementation of the Regents Policy, the three-model strategy, and related Commissioner’s Regulations. The attached report includes background information, information on applications for Models B and C and Experiments in Organizational Change, and the Essential Elements Schools-to-Watch Recognition Program.

Staff recommends that the Regents review the attached report and identify any additional information they need to monitor implementation of their policy on middle-level education.

REGENTS POLICY STATEMENT ON MIDDLE-LEVEL EDUCATION

In July 2005, the Board of Regents revised Commissioner’s Regulations to reflect a three-model strategy to implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education. The new regulations mandate that schools with middle-level grades must provide each student with a comprehensive education that includes instruction in all of the State’s 28 learning standards.

The Regents, aware that each district has unique needs and conditions, also included several flexibility provisions in the Commissioner’s Regulations that allowed local districts to tailor their educational programs to reflect local circumstances. For some districts, the flexibility available in the regulations was not sufficient to permit them to meet their students’ needs. To accommodate those districts that needed additional flexibility beyond what is explicitly allowed in regulations, the Regents approved the following three-model strategy to implement the Regents policy:

· Model A is for those districts that elect to comply with existing regulations. Districts and schools with middle-level grades (grades 5, 6, 7, 8) continue to comply with the current regulations, making full use of the existing flexibility provisions. All schools with middle-level grades are eligible for Model A. No application is required, and State Education Department approval is not necessary.

· Model B is for districts desiring to strengthen the academic core. Districts, on behalf of their schools with middle-level grades, can propose a program that strengthens the academic core, provides effective academic intervention services, and ensures that all students receive instruction in those standards areas where there are no required State assessments. Only schools that are either newly formed or that have been identified as a school requiring academic progress (SRAP) in year 3, 4, or 5, including a school identified for school improvement for three or more consecutive years under 20 U.S.C. section 6316(b), or a school under registration review (SURR) pursuant to section 100.2(p) of Commissioner’s Regulations, are eligible to submit a Model B application. Model B applications must be approved by the State Education Department.

· Model C is for successful districts that are interested in building on their success and developing the next generation of middle-level schools and programs. Districts, on behalf of their schools with middle-level grades, can propose either new ideas for restructuring the full educational program (Model C-1) or specific program refinements or enhancements in an area where there are no required State assessments (Model C-2). Schools that are either newly formed or do NOT meet the Model B criteria are eligible to submit a Model C-1 or C-2 application. Model C-1 and C-2 applications must be approved by the State Education Department.

Carrying Out the Three-Model Strategy to Implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education

Following the revision of Commissioner’s Regulations in July 2005, the State Education Department solicited applications for Models B, C-1, and C-2 for beginning implementation in September 2006.

The Department received Model B applications from two school districts: Buffalo and New York City. The Buffalo application was for 20 schools with middle-level grades, and the New York City application was for one school (JHS 296 in Region 4, District 32, in Brooklyn). Both applications proposed to increase the amount of time devoted to literacy and numeracy instruction in the middle grades, specifically in grades 7 and 8. To allow time in the schedule for the increased basic skills instruction, the amount of time devoted to the non-tested areas was reduced.

Buffalo: The Buffalo Model B application was approved with the following stipulations:

1. Physical education instruction in the middle grades (grades 5-8) must continue to meet the time requirements specified in Commissioner’s Regulations. Approval of the Model B application does not provide permission to reduce the amount of instruction in physical education below that specified in Commissioner’s Regulations.

2. By September 15, 2006, the Buffalo City School District will provide the State Education Department with a detailed, written curriculum for each of the following courses being offered in grades 7 and 8, beginning in September 2006, as proposed in the Model B application: music, art, home and career skills, technology education and health education. These curricula must:

b. Include specific, locally developed assessments to gauge student achievement, both within schools and across schools.

NOTE: Each curriculum must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the process (actions/steps) and timeline followed to develop the curriculum, along with the related assessments. Districts have been asked to include the names and responsibilities of those who were involved in the preparation of each curriculum. The State Education Department needs to be assured that classroom teachers responsible for teaching the newly constituted courses have had a meaningful and significant involvement in course development.

3. By September 1, 2006, the Buffalo City School District will provide the State Education Department with a detailed, written professional development and monitoring plan for ensuring that staff responsible for teaching the newly constituted courses are:

4. Many of the schools included in the Model B plan have administered the HiPlaces survey for several years as part of their Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) effort. As a result, these schools have an extensive and common set of valid and reliable baseline data related to “opportunity to teach” and “opportunity to learn” conditions and practices. These data are a complement to actual student achievement results. During the period the Buffalo City School District is implementing its approved Model B plan, it needs to continue the annual collection of the HiPlaces data, to track changes in those research-based conditions and practices that are directly and indirectly related to changes in student achievement.

The Department received Model C applications from five districts: North Shore, Lansingburgh, Canandaigua, Buffalo, and New York City.

North Shore: The North Shore Model C-2 application proposed a program enhancement that would provide a core Home and Career Skills program for all students in grade 6, and then, later in their middle grades experience, allow each student in grade 8 to choose four electives during the year. The four electives will consist of one elective course from a health-related field, one elective choice from a Home and Career Skills field, and two other elective courses from a list of approved options. The North Shore application was approved with the following conditions:

1. By January 15, 2007, the North Shore Central School District will provide the State Education Department with the written curriculum for the grade 6 Home and Career Skills course. This curriculum must:

a. Align with the new Home and Career Skills Core Curriculum and its 10 Content Topics published by the State Education Department in the Fall of 2005; and

b. Include specific student performance indicators to gauge the achievement of the Home and Career Skills learning standards.

2. By June 1, 2007, the North Shore Central School District will provide the State Education Department with a written curriculum for each of the proposed grade 8 Home and Career Skills electives. Each elective and its curriculum must:

a. Align with the new Home and Career Skills Core Curriculum and its 10 Content Topics, published by the State Education Department in the Fall of 2005; and

b. Include specific student performance indicators to gauge the achievement of the Home and Career Skills learning standards.

The reviewers also felt the Home and Career Skills electives, as proposed in the application, were not fully reflective of the State Education Department’s newly updated Home and Career Skills curriculum, and they should be revised to align more closely with the recommended program. Possible electives might include: “Clothing and Fashion” (rather than sewing); “Foods and Nutrition” (rather than cooking); “Career Development;” “Human and Child Development;” “Consumer Resource Management and Financial Management;” “Interior Design and Personal Environment;” and “Community Connections.”

3. By June 1, 2007, the North Shore Central School District will provide the State Education Department with a plan for increasing the number of available Home and Career Skills elective choices to four in 2007-08 and five in 2008-09 in order to provide students in grade 8 with additional options from which to choose.

Lansingburgh: The Lansingburgh Model C-2 application proposed a complete integration of the Home and Career Skills learning standards into other instructional areas. The Department did not approve the application, citing the following reasons:

1. The proposal was more an enhancement of the English Language Arts program than the Home and Career Skills program.

2. The lack of a certified Home and Career Skills teacher on staff and the absence of a discrete program “placeholder” for the Family and Consumer Sciences learning standards to ensure that students receive dedicated foundational instruction in the Family and Consumer Sciences learning standards by an appropriately certified teacher were problematic.

3. The idea of enriching the curricula of several standards areas by using real-world experiences that reflected, reinforced, and enhanced the Family and Consumer Sciences learning standards, as proposed in the Lansingburgh application, had merit but only if students had access to a discrete Home and Career Skills program that provided foundational information and was taught by a certified Home and Career Skills professional.

4. The curriculum revision process and the evaluation design proposed lacked sufficient specificity and rigor.

Canandaigua: The Canandaigua Model C-2 application proposed to address the Technology Education learning standards at the intermediate level by providing a core Technology Education program for all students in grades 7 and 8, and to enhance this core program with related instruction in the library media program in grade 7 and the computer education program in grade 6.

The Canandaigua Middle School’s Model C-2 application was approved, effective September 1, 2006, with the following conditions:

1. By September 15, 2006, the Canandaigua City School District will provide the State Education Department with specific student schedules that illustrate:

a. When a representative sample of students will receive the core Technology Education program in grades 7 and 8; and

b. When these same students will receive the enhanced instruction in the grade 7 library media program and in the grade 6 computer education program.

2. By January 15, 2007, the Canandaigua City School District will provide the State Education Department with a detailed written curriculum for the core Technology Education course being taught in grades 7 and 8. This curriculum must:

a. Align with the Technology Education learning standards and include specific, locally developed assessments to gauge student achievement (above and beyond the four State-developed Technology Education assessments); and

b. Indicate clearly where and how it intersects and connects with the enhanced instruction in the library media program and in the computer education program.

3. By January 15, 2007, the Canandaigua City School District will provide the State Education Department with a detailed, written curriculum for both the computer education course being taught in grade 6 and the library media course being taught in grade 7. These curricula must clearly:

a. Show how they align with the Technology Education learning standards, and include specific, locally developed assessments to gauge student achievement; and

b. Indicate where and how both the library media program and the computer education program intersect with (and enhance) the Technology Education learning standards and the instruction occurring in the core Technology Education course.

The reviewers felt that the greatest strength of the proposal was in its interdisciplinary approach to achieving the Technology Education learning standards. State Education Department staff are particularly interested in learning exactly how they are “knitting” the three discrete courses together into an integrated, highly connected, interdisciplinary whole (and how they are ensuring that this “knitting” does not come unraveled) so as to offer students a truly innovative way to achieve the Technology Education learning standards.

Buffalo: The Buffalo Model C-2 application proposed to eliminate discrete instruction in Technology Education and Home and Career Skills and to infuse the intermediate-level technology and family and consumer science learning standards into other courses. The additional instructional time freed up by the elimination of the Technology Education and Home and Career Skills courses would be used to expand instruction in Languages other than English (LOTE). Buffalo’s Model C-2 application was not approved as submitted for the following reasons:

1. Just adding additional time for instruction in a particular discipline (or in the case of LOTE, adding an additional language) is not considered by the State Education Department to be a program enhancement or a refinement.

2. Finding time for additional instruction in one area by reducing time in another is not an acceptable Model C-2 approach. While the Department is prepared to grant relief from the unit of study time requirements for a program being enhanced or refined, it is not prepared to grant relief from the unit of study requirements for a program in one area in order to allow for scheduling changes in another area.

3. The proposed elimination of programmatic placeholders for Technology Education and Home and Career Skills, the reassignment out of the building of staff with the content expertise in these areas, the proposed integration of the standards from these areas into other courses, and the lack of a plan for developing the interdisciplinary programs that would address the Technology Education and Home and Career Skills standards are problematic and not approvable.

New York City: The New York City Model C application involving the Fannie Lou Hamer Middle School in Region 2, District 12, Bronx, is still undergoing review.

With all the conversation and discussion that preceded the development and approval of the three-model strategy, the Department expected to receive a large number of proposals, especially Model C-2 applications. The anticipated influx never happened. Subsequent conversations with middle-level practitioners suggested a number of possible explanations:

· No one wanted to be first. Most districts would rather be pioneers and settlers and were waiting for other districts to be the discoverers and explorers.

· The pressing and immediate demands associated with both the revision of the mathematics curriculum in the middle grades and the planning required for the administration and scoring of the grades 3 through 8 State assessments monopolized the attention of district and building administrators and their staff. In many districts there was no excess “capital” available to devote to the development of a Model B or C application.

· For the first time, many building and district administrators actually knew and understood the flexibility that existed in Commissioner’s Regulations and was available to districts and schools under Model A without having to apply to the State Education Department. They realized they could do what they wanted to do within the current regulations and did not need to seek Department approval.

· Many of the districts with Model B eligible schools had recently experienced (or were about to experience) leadership changes at the top (e.g., Buffalo, Syracuse, Yonkers) and, as a consequence, were unwilling to begin a major initiative like the development of a Model B application.

· There were some indications that a number of school/district leaders believed, albeit wrongly, that the teachers’ bargaining unit must sign off on any Model B or C application and, therefore, decided not to develop a proposal.

· Budgetary pressures, while still there, were not as intense or acute as they were in prior years. Districts were able to accommodate the regulations financially (i.e., follow Model A) and didn’t need to look to Model B or C as a possible means of budget relief.

· Districts, while they still found Model A to be overly restrictive and inflexible, felt the additional flexibility available under Model B or C was not sufficient enough to justify the amount of time and effort needed to develop and implement a Model B or C application.

Research Study on the Three-Model Strategy to Implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education

At the time the Board of Regents approved the three-model strategy, the State Education Department committed to conduct a multi-year evaluation of its implementation. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this evaluation project was released on March 27, 2006. Proposals were due to the State Education Department by May 8, 2006, with the selection of the successful bidder occurring no later than July 1, 2006.

Section 80-5.12 of Commissioner’s Regulations Experiment in Organizational Change

At the time the Board of Regents revised Section 100.4 of Commissioner’s Regulations, it also re-established Section 80-5.12, an Experiment in Organizational Change, to provide districts and middle-level schools with additional flexibility in the assignment of certified staff. This flexibility is not automatically available to schools or school districts. School districts must apply to the State Education Department for it on behalf of their middle-level schools.

When a school district is granted an Experiment in Organizational Change (or, as it is commonly called, “Experimental Middle School Status”), the assignments permissible pursuant to this regulation are:

· A certified elementary school teacher (i.e., a teacher of the common branch subjects) may provide instruction in one or more of the common branch subjects, exclusive of those defined as special subjects in grades seven and/or eight of a middle or intermediate school; and

· A certified teacher of a secondary academic subject may provide instruction only in the academic subject for which he or she is certified in grades five and/or six of a middle or intermediate school.

Since Section 80-5.12 was reauthorized in July 2005, seven school districts have submitted applications to the Department requesting approval for an Experiment in Organizational Change. An additional 46 districts were implementing an Experiment in Organizational Change under prior authorization. Over the years, a total of 186 school districts have had an approved Experiment in Organization Change.

The State Education Department, in partnership with several statewide organizations including the Statewide Network of Middle-Level Education Liaisons, the New York State Middle School Association, the New York State United Teachers, the School Administrators Association of New York State, the New York State Association of Teacher Educators, New York State Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, the New York State Parent-Teachers Association, and the NYC Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, sponsors the Essential Elements: Schools-to-Watch (EE: STW) Recognition Program. The EE: STW program is affiliated with the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform’s Schools-to-Watch program. The purpose of the EE: STW program is to identify and recognize outstanding middle-level schools that will:

Ten middle-level schools submitted applications to be considered for the first cohort of New York’s EE: STW schools. Each application was read and critiqued by a team of middle-level practitioners. Six of the original ten schools were selected to receive a site visit. Following the site visits conducted by teams of middle-level educators, four schools were selected for inclusion in the first cohort of EE: STW schools:

The two remaining middle-level schools that received a site visit, Sayville Middle School and Oliver Winch Middle School in South Glens Falls, met almost all of the criteria for selection and were very close on those they did not fully attain. Each has been provided with specific guidance regarding the steps it needs to take to be designated as an EE: STW school (which could happen within the next few months).

Breaking Ranks in the Middle: In March 2006, the National Association of Secondary School Principals released a new publication titled Breaking Ranks in the Middle, a companion document to its high school document, Breaking Ranks II. The philosophy and recommendations in Breaking Ranks in the Middle mirror those that are in the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education and the Department’s Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs.

Breaking Ranks in the Middle contains multiple examples of research-based, good practice drawn from the experiences of the best middle-level schools in the country, including three from New York State (Cohoes Middle School, Port Chester Middle School, Lehman Alternative Community School in Ithaca). These practices align well with the philosophy and recommendations espoused in the Regents Policy Statement and the Department’s Essential Elements. All three – Breaking Ranks in the Middle, the Regents Policy Statement, and the Department’s Essential Elements – share the following core ideas:

· Appropriate structures/organization (teams, dedicated planning time, flexible schedule, etc.)

The difference between Breaking Ranks in the Middle and New York State’s two documents is not in what they propose but in their purpose. Breaking Ranks in the Middle represents a strategy document for middle-level principals who are interested in leading their school to academic excellence. Its audience is middle-level principals and its focus is academic excellence. As stated in its release announcement: “…Breaking Ranks in the Middle: Strategies for Leading Middle-Level Reform challenges middle-level principals to take responsibility for improving the academic outcomes of all their students and for getting them on track for success in high school and beyond.”

The Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education and the Department’s Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs target the middle-level educational community – students, teachers, parents, central office staff, boards of education, and, of course, administrators. Their major purpose is to define and describe a model middle-level school that addresses the dual needs (academic development and personal growth) of adolescents well. As such, they deal more with describing the “what” of middle-level education rather than providing specific strategies related to “how” to transform a middle-level school. The Regents Policy Statement and the Department’s Essential Elements also advocate for a comprehensive educational experience that reflects all of the State’s 28 learning standards, including those related directly to numeracy and literacy.

Breaking Ranks in the Middle focuses less on describing “what” middle-level education is and more on explaining the “how” of change at the middle level to achieve academic excellence. It is a strategy document specifically for middle-level principals to use to transform their buildings into educational institutions that address the intellectual and development needs of each student. Breaking Ranks in the Middle presents a series of nine cornerstone strategies, thirty specific recommendations, and numerous examples from high performing middle-level schools for improving student achievement. Its target is a series of “essential learnings” in literature and language, writing, mathematics, social studies, science, and the arts.

Regardless of their purpose, Breaking Ranks in the Middle, the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education, and the Department’s Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs all share a common vision – schools with middle-level grades that are addressing successfully the intellectual development and academic achievement of all students and the personal and social development of each student.

Success in the Middle: In May 2006, the National Middle School Association released Success in the Middle: A Policymaker’s Guide to Achieving Quality Middle-Level Education. This publication laid out five general goals, each with a series of specific action steps, needed at national, state and local levels for achieving excellence in the middle grades. The Board of Regents and State Education Department have already acted on each of the five goals and implemented many of the recommended action steps.

Goal #1: Ensure that all middle-level students participate in challenging, standards-based curricula and engaging instruction, and that their progress is measured by appropriate assessments, resulting in continual learning and high achievement.

· In 1996, the New York State Board of Regents adopted learning standards for all content (subject) areas (28 learning standards in seven standards areas). Since then, the State Education Department has issued a series of core curricula, which provide an additional level of specificity to these learning standards. The core curricula are particularly important to local curriculum developers/educators since they contain the State’s expectations of what students must know and be able to do in relation to the content areas. For each learning standard, the core curricula present key ideas (broad, unifying, general statements of what students need to know) and performance indicators (statements of what students should do to provide evidence that they understand the key idea). These core curricula are the foundation upon which State assessments are aligned and developed.

The New York State core curricula and related materials are not designed as local school/district curricula. Rather, they are intended to provide assistance to local schools/districts who maintain responsibility for designing a curriculum that meets the needs of their students. The core curricula and supportive materials respect the tradition of local choice in New York State that empowers educators to select texts, identify products, and use a rich array of instructional strategies and activities to meet student needs.

· The State Education Department prepares intermediate assessments in English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and languages other than English each year. In addition, the Department has developed an intermediate assessment for the technology education program.

· In 2005, following the approval of the three-model strategy, the State Education Department developed a series of Middle-Level Indicators of Achievement Checklists for the Non-Tested Content Areas. These checklists of knowledge and skills assess the strengths and limitations of programs in the non-tested areas, to facilitate student achievement of the State’s intermediate learning standards. The Department recommends that administrators and instructional staff use the checklists to assess their instructional programs in the non-tested areas to determine strengths and alignment with the appropriate learning standards.

Goal #2: Support the recruitment and hiring of teachers and administrators who have strong content knowledge and the ability to use research-based instructional strategies and assessment practices appropriate for middle-level students.

· The State Education Department offers several certification options for teachers, both veteran and prospective, who are interested in teaching in the middle grades and educating young adolescents well:

o Prospective middle-level teachers may elect to pursue a Middle Childhood Certification to teach in grades 5-9. A part of the Middle Childhood preparation program includes instruction in:

o Teaching professionals with a K-6 or 7-12 certification can pursue a grade 7-9 extension or a grade 5-6 extension, respectively. Persons interested in securing a certification extension must take courses that focus specifically on:

Acceptable studies include courses in child development and variations (with focus on middle childhood), introduction to middle school, and teaching reading and writing in the content areas for elementary and middle school classrooms.

Goal #3: Support organizational structures and a school culture of high expectations that enable both middle-level students and educators to succeed.

· In July 2003, the Board of Regents adopted the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education. This Policy Statement identifies seven essential elements that must be in place in a middle-level school if young adolescents are to succeed academically and develop personally:

1. A philosophy and mission that reflect the intellectual and developmental needs and characteristics of young adolescents.

2. An educational program that is comprehensive, challenging, purposeful, integrated, relevant, and standards-based.

3. An organization and structure that support both academic excellence and personal development.

4. Classroom instruction appropriate to the needs and characteristics of young adolescents provided by skilled and knowledgeable teachers.

5. Strong educational leadership and a building administration that encourage, facilitate, and sustain involvement, participation, and partnerships.

7. Professional learning for all staff that is ongoing, planned, purposeful, and collaboratively developed.

· In 2003, the State Education Department also updated its Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs to align with the Regents Policy Statement. The Essential Elements, with its associated rubrics and protocols, serve as resources for schools and districts interested in assuring that their middle-level schools are academically challenging, developmentally appropriate, and socially equitable.

Goal #4: Develop ongoing family and community partnerships to provide a supportive and enriched learning environment for every middle-level student.

· The Regents Policy Statement and the Department’s Essential Elements emphasize and promote school-family partnerships and community connections.

Goal #5: Facilitate the generation, dissemination, and application of research needed to identify and implement effective practices that lead to continual student learning and high academic achievement at the middle level.

· In July 2005, the Board of Regents revised Commissioner’s Regulations related to the middle grades to reflect the Regents Policy Statement and to encourage innovation. The revised regulations included several flexibility provisions allowing local districts to tailor their educational programs in response to local circumstances. For some districts, however, the flexibility available in regulations was not sufficient to allow them to meet their students’ needs. To accommodate those districts that needed additional flexibility beyond that explicitly allowed in regulations, the Regents approved the three-model strategy to implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education and codified it in regulation.

· The three-model strategy to implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education included a longitudinal evaluation of its implementation. The Department has received eight applications from potential contractors and will decide on the successful vendor in June. The evaluation study is scheduled to commence in September 2006.

TO:	EMSC-VESID Committee
FROM:	Jean C. Stevens
SUBJECT:	Implementation of the Regents Three-Model Strategy on Middle-Level Education
DATE:	June 8, 2006
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

EMSC-VESID Committee

SUMMARY

Reason(s) for Consideration

REGENTS POLICY STATEMENT ON MIDDLE-LEVEL EDUCATION

Section 80-5.12 of Commissioner’s Regulations Experiment in Organizational Change