Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees clash over letter to the editor alleging lowered standards; board leaders defend sustained literacy work
Summary
A trustee's letter alleging that state adjustments lowered accountability benchmarks prompted an extended board exchange. Supporters said literacy and district gains reflect multi‑year work; the dissenting trustee said transparency requires calling out lowered benchmarks.
A letter to the editor by trustee Christine Bello triggered a prolonged exchange at the Feb. 25 Newburgh board meeting over whether district gains reflect real instructional progress or changes in state accountability measures.
Trustee Christine Bello said she wrote the editorial to press for oversight and transparency, arguing the state "lowered its benchmarks and made it much easier" for some schools to move off the worrisome list. "I told the truth," she said, and declined to apologize for raising the issue.
Other trustees responded directly. Trustee Miss Politi said implying progress is merely the result of lower standards "is misleading" and stressed that the New York State Department of Education recalibrates accountability measures annually under federal ESSA rules. She said the district’s science‑of‑reading work predates the current administration’s most recent year and had been presented to the board multiple times in 2024.
Dr. Freeman Mack and other administrators told the board the district’s improvement is the product of sustained curriculum replacement, professional learning, instructional coaching, progress monitoring and fidelity checks implemented over multiple years. "Improvement is never seen in one year," Dr. Mack said, and presented the accountability factors the state measures — academic performance, chronic absenteeism, graduation outcomes and attendance — as evidence that the district met revised criteria.
Several trustees, including Mr. Levenstein and Mr. Howard, urged recognition of measurable gains and of teachers’ work while welcoming constructive oversight. The exchange included repeated assertions and rebuttals from both sides; administrators and multiple trustees urged that disagreements not place students and educators in the middle of political debate.
The board did not take formal action on the editorial itself; the discussion remained in the public‑comment and trustee‑remarks portion of the meeting.
