1998 Biennial Review of Shared Decision Making (CR 100.11)
Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 requires all public school districts and BOCES to review their plans for shared decision-making and submit them to the Department every two years by February 1. For the 1998 biennial review, a total of 695 biennial reviews were returned and included in the following analyses (94% return rate). Several districts were given extensions of the February 1 deadline, others were sent in late.
Districts were asked to describe the adequacy of their plans in relation to the six required components: educational issues subject to shared decision-making, the involvement of all parties, means and standards used to determine student improvement, accountability for decisions, the method for dispute resolution, and the coordination of parental involvement. Districts were also asked to describe a decision that was made and implemented in one of the school buildings. These decisions were then classified into academic and non-academic decisions. Finally districts were asked for any recommendations for amending Commissioner’s Regulation 100.11 to help make it more viable for improving student performance.
Most districts checked responses at the upper end of the five-point Likert scale that was provided for their responses to the first six items. Thus, most districts feel that their plans for shared decision-making are either moderately successful or consistently successful.
Most decisions (67%) that were made and implemented in the buildings were considered to be academic in nature, while 33% were classified as non-academic in nature. For those that fell into this latter category, most of those decisions related to student conduct and recognition or school policy development. Thus, most districts are focusing on issues related to the improvement of student achievement. When asked to what extent these issues were successfully addressed, most districts (79%) indicated either that plans were implemented to address the issues, or the plans had been implemented, evaluated, and modified as needed.
When asked to what extent all parties had been successfully involved in planning and decision-making, most districts (84%) indicated that the involvement of all parties was equitable and either moderately or consistently successful.
When asked to what extent the identified means and standards that were used to evaluate improvement in student achievement were successful, most districts (62%) responded that the means and standards were either moderately successful, or led to the successful evaluation of the improvement of student achievement.
When asked to indicate the extent to which the means by which all parties would be held accountable for the decisions that they shared in making were successful, most districts (58%) indicated that the identified means were either moderately useful or were successful in holding all parties accountable.
When asked to what extent the locally-identified dispute resolution process was successful, most districts (78%) indicated that the process was either moderately useful or successful in resolving disputes.
When asked to what extent the manner of coordinating required parental involvement was successful, most districts (86%) replied that the identified manner of coordinating parental involvement was either moderately useful or successful.
When asked to provide recommendations for amending CR 100.11, most districts (50%) said that there should be no change. Only 2% of the responses called for its elimination.
Some problem areas still exist. Several districts (21% of the respondents) apparently are still having difficulty with the measurement aspects of student improvement. Other problem seem to be more procedural in nature, as exemplified when the superintendent and/or board do not take the letter or the spirit of CR 100.11 seriously and seek to circumvent it. The SDM teams are often used as a forum for other issues, and they become bogged down with issues and concerns not related to the improvement of student achievement. In many districts, teachers have refused to participate in any SDM activities once contract negotiations become problematic.
The data suggest that CR 100.11 and shared decision-making is indeed having its intended effect of providing a viable means by which districts can focus on issues relating to the improvement of student achievement. The regulation has proved its worth by also providing a means by which districts can include the voices of its stakeholders in making these decisions.
Recommendations
In its current state, CR 100.11 refers to "school-based planning" and shared decision-making. While this has served its purpose well, it appears that it is time to link CR 100.11 with the planning for and the development of comprehensive district educational planning (CDEP) efforts. Districts must increasingly focus on the larger perspective of education from a district-wide standpoint in terms of setting long-range goals, allocating resources, and measuring the impact of their efforts on student performance. It makes good sense to link shared decision-making, at both the district and the building levels, to comprehensive planning efforts. The following general recommendations are offered; specific details will be provided for revising CR 100.11 as part of the revision of all of Part 100.
- Combine the requirements of comprehensive district educational planning (CDEP) and CR 100.11, including a new submission date, yearly reviews, and elimination of a biennial review.
- Require that the district-level committee be maintained.
- Educational issues subject to cooperative learning and shared decision-making should reflect educational learning standards, New York State graduation requirements, and locally-identified educational/curricular needs.
- The notion of accountability, at both the district and the building levels, must be more clearly defined.
- The means and standards by which improvement in student achievement is measured must be data-driven.
- Flexibility should be provided to BOCES regarding the methods used to assure parental involvement.