At‑large Board of Regents interviews spotlight school funding, mental health and cell‑phone policies

Applicants for two at‑large seats on the New York State Board of Regents appeared before the Legislature’s joint education committees in Albany, where lawmakers and candidates emphasized three recurring priorities: school funding and the Foundation Aid formula, expansion of school‑based mental‑health services, and policies on student cell‑phone use.

The interviews, conducted by Assemblyman Mike Benedetto, chair of the Assembly Education Committee, and members of the Senate education panel, brought more than a dozen applicants, each given a brief opening statement followed by questions. The proceedings also surfaced candidate views on STEM teacher recruitment, dual‑enrollment and early college options, enforcement of “substantial equivalency” in nonpublic schools, school safety and culturally responsive curriculum amid recent federal policy changes.

Why it matters: The Board of Regents sets statewide education policy and oversees the State Education Department; the two at‑large seats up for appointment shape decisions that affect curriculum, testing and funding rules for K‑12 and higher education across New York. Legislators told candidates they expect appointees to understand both statewide policy and local district impacts.

Several candidates framed Foundation Aid reform as urgent. Nan Eileen Mead, a former regent and co‑chair of a state‑aid subcommittee, noted the formula is “nearly 20 years old” and said shifting student needs — including more English‑language learners, migrant students and post‑pandemic mental‑health demand — require a rewrite. Assembly members and senators pressed applicants on how they would balance phased policy changes with rapid budget pressures at the district level.

Mental‑health services inside schools drew broad support. Candidate Cinnamon Baldwin, a school board member, described a Catskill district pilot that has students deposit phones on arrival and reported mostly positive teacher and parent feedback. Nan Eileen Mead said mental health “was a really high priority for many folks who testified” in past public forums and urged the regents to prioritize funding and staffing. Several applicants — including a candidate with long experience in school mental‑health programs — recommended co‑located clinics or stronger use of school social workers to expand access.

The governor’s proposed statewide cell‑phone restriction was a frequent subject. John Willis, who described himself as a STEM educator and former substitute teacher, said he supports restrictions on classroom phone use but questioned how a strict bell‑to‑bell ban would be enforced. Candidate Michelle Lopez, who works on higher‑education affirmative‑action and DEI policy, said she is “troubled” by a blanket ban because parents and students sometimes need phones for safety and communications during emergencies; she favored empowering districts to craft workable rules that reflect local conditions.

Teacher recruitment and STEM education were recurring themes. John Willis cited the gap between starting salaries in industry and in K‑12 teaching — saying the average starting STEM teacher salary in New York is "about $49,000," while industry starting pay is higher — and called for incentives and training pipelines to attract content experts to classrooms. Several candidates proposed partnerships with industry and institutions to expand teacher pipelines and dual‑enrollment options that let students earn college credit in high school.

Enforcement of standards in private and religious schools also surfaced. Public commenter Dan Lipsman urged stronger action on the state’s “substantial equivalency” requirement for yeshivas and suggested criminal statutes as an enforcement path if administrative enforcement proved insufficient; legislators noted the State Education Department and the Board of Regents have recently taken action on a number of New York City yeshivas found not substantially equivalent.

Several applicants raised the recent presidential executive order on classroom instruction and federal funding shifts as a looming challenge. Candidates said they would review district and higher‑education grant language and be prepared to advise how state policies and funding priorities might respond if federal support or regulatory guidance changes.

Other topics discussed included school safety and visitor/entry protocols, the role of athletics and arts in student development, and use of reserve funds and capital reserves at the district level. Candidates repeatedly emphasized they would consult educators and districts before endorsing major shifts in policy.

The committees did not make appointments at the hearing. Legislators told candidates they expect to notify applicants of decisions in the coming weeks.