As students rushed back to classrooms, school districts across New York were already gearing up for several changes that will alter the face of education, student learning and classrooms forever
“There are so many changes swirling around schools this year, issues that will become more thorny as the year goes along,” said Superintendent Susan Swartz. “We will plug away at each of them in a methodical way.”
The APPR revised state evaluation system
The so-called APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review) was approved by the Board of Regents in May.
The staff evaluation system used by school districts will be revamped and require that certain benchmarks, such as student testing information, be used in evaluations.
It begins this year with grades 3-8 English and math teachers and their principals. All teachers and principals will be covered by the system next school year. Teachers and principals will receive scores that translate as “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing” and “ineffective.”
The evaluation process in New York was changed to comply with the state’s successful Race To The Top (RTTT) federal application for funding last year.
Under RTTT, each district must create networks of professionals to develop best practices for the new evaluation system. Scotia-Glenville has joined with 21 other districts to hire the Capital Region Network Team (through the Capital Region BOCES) to meet this requirement.
Provisions of the APPR were successfully challenged by the New York State United Teachers labor union because the law allowed up to 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation to be based on the same standardized testing results. The court ruled that only 20 percent of the evaluation could be based on the same test results; the other 20 percent must be negotiated and must use other tests or forms of testing.
Common Core Learning Standards
The Board of Regents approved the use of New York State Common Core Learning Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) and Literacy and Mathematics.
So far, 44 states have adopted the same general standards, which are an initiative of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators and experts to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare children for college and the workforce.
S-G teachers are now meeting to update their instruction to align with the Common Core standards and to plan for the full use of them in the 2012-13 school year.
Property tax cap: an issue of semantics
The so-called state “property tax cap” law becomes effective in January for towns, villages and counties and for the 2012-13 school budget votes next May.
The law states that a school district’s tax LEVY (not RATE) increases will be limited to a “maximum allowable tax LEVY” amount computed for each school district.
There are eight areas that are factored into the “maximum allowable tax LEVY” calculation, including inflation, growth in state pension costs, exemptions for court judgements and capital costs and allowable tax base growth.
The law says that if a school budget were proposed with a higher tax LEVY than is allowed, 60 percent of voters must approve it. If the LEVY is less than is allowed, a simple majority (more than 50 percent) may approve it.
“The property tax cap is the issue that will cause the most confusion in the community,” said Swartz. “There are so many provisions and nuances to this legislation.”
Another problem involves pure semantics: tax LEVIES and tax RATES are not the same thing.
Tax RATES are used to compute a property’s tax bill. Tax LEVIES are the total amount of dollars collected by a government or school district and have little to do with tax bills.
Every year is unique and depends on many
issues, such as equalization rates, fund balance and state aid.
For example, the 2011-12 budget approved by the community this
past May increased the tax LEVY by 1.1 percent. The resulting tax
RATE increased by 1.86 percent.
The opposite was true of the 2010-11 budget approved in May 2010: the tax LEVY increased 3.8 percent but the resulting tax RATE increased by 0.75 percent – less than 1 percent.
Educators fear that the pressure to keep spending low to comply with the allowable tax LEVY amount will mean draconian budget cuts at districts that have already faced three years of state aid reductions.
Here is a PDF brochure about the state's 'property tax cap.' [MORE]
