Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Accountability Receiverhip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines NYS accountability changes; three schools enter receiverhip and will write continuation plans
Summary
District leaders told the board that the reimagined New York State accountability model led to three schools being designated for receiverhip. The administration described needs assessments, state coaching, and quarterly continuation plans for 2026–27.
Schenectady City School District officials briefed the board March 25 on New York State’s reimagined accountability system and the district response after several schools were newly identified for intensive state support.
Chief Academic Officer Tia Cornell said the state now identifies schools on a three‑year cycle and has shifted toward a support model; labels include LSI, PTSI, TSI, ATSI, CSI and receiverhip. Under the updated framework, some schools with prior CSI status were designated receiverhip for 2025–26. Cornell reported that the district currently has six LSI schools, one TSI school, five CSI schools and three schools in receiverhip.
When a school enters receiverhip, Cornell said, state rules require a rapid set of actions within 30 days: written notification to families, public hearings at each building, and an intensive needs assessment that includes school self‑assessments and surveys of families, staff and students. Each receiverhip school must produce a continuation plan tied to demonstrable improvement indicators the state sets; those plans will be implemented in 2026–27 and tracked with quarterly reports to the board.
District staff told the board that the receiverhip process includes designated state coaches, ongoing calls with the state office, and weekly school improvement team meetings to analyze survey and assessment outcomes. The administration said district staff are also conducting a needs assessment to align district supports with school priorities.
Board members asked whether the state’s new model penalizes schools that had growth under the previous system. Cornell and other staff responded that several receiverhip schools showed measurable growth on certain assessments but were identified because other indicators — notably chronic absenteeism and overall proficiency rates — did not meet the state’s thresholds. The district highlighted work underway to address attendance and align multi‑year coaching and professional learning with the needs assessments.
Cornell said that the district will continue weekly meetings with school improvement teams and produce continuation plans and quarterly reports that specify the indicators the state will monitor.
