The New York State Board of Regents was founded in 1784, then reorganized in 1787. In their wisdom, the state’s founding fathers (there were no mothers there) decided to place educational policy making in the hands of this body rather than the governor. Governors come and go. Educational decisions should not change with every election.

Unfortunately, Governor Andrew Cuomo has seized control over educational policy, despite the absence of any state constitutional authority. To avenge his anger at the state’s teachers for not endorsing his re-election, Cuomo inserted into the state budget a punitive teacher evaluation plan.

Now, the question is whether the State Board of Regents will endorse the Governor’s seizure of the powers that legally belong to the Regents. They meet on September 16-17 to decide whether to abandon their constitutional authority.

Lisa Eggert Litvin, a public school parent and lawyer, explains why the Cuomo plan is harmful to students, teachers, and e.... She concludes it should be voted down.

It will make tests more consequential than ever. This will certainly fuel the growth of the opt out movement.

“The Regents need to address one of the biggest flaws in the evaluation plan — that this technical plan is apparently not based on any science, research or expert study, in violation of the law, and against all common sense.

“For much of the past year, New York’s teacher evaluation plan has been a central concern of parents and educators. There is wide agreement that an accurate teacher evaluation plan is necessary, with the public urging that the plan be created with experts, based on research, science and best practices, unlike past plans. In its Education Transformation Act of 2015, the state Legislature even specifically directed that the Education Department, which drafts the plan, to consult with experts in education, economics and psychometrics.
Unfortunately, it appears that what was created is not based on expert input. New York’s State Administrative Procedure Act is clear that any studies, research or analyses on which the plan is based be specifically identified in the required notice to the public.

“Summaries, citations and authors must be listed, so that the public may assess the plan’s validity and may comment. But the notice fails to provide any of this information; instead the notice just acknowledges that expert input is mandated. And despite numerous follow-up calls and emails to the Education Department alerting it to its deficient and defective notice, the department still refuses to supply the information or, alternatively, confirm that in fact, the rules aren’t based on any research whatsoever.”

Last June, six Regents voted no -and insisted that any such plan must be based on research and evidence.

Now,

“the other Regents need to join their colleagues and vote “no” this time, and insist on following the law, gathering the appropriate research, and giving the public access, as the law requires. By doing so, they will insure that new rules are scientifically and not politically based and that the Regents are ready to work with the public instead of what has appeared to be against it. And perhaps most important, a “no” vote will show that the Regents want the laws of our state to be respected and enforced, especially when those laws protect the public’s right to transparent and participatory rulemaking.”