Homepage | Schools | Calendar | Contacts  

SHARED DECISION-MAKING AND

SCHOOL-BASED PLANNING

The Board of Education encourages the participation of the community in improving education in our schools. In accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner, the Board has adopted a plan for the effective participation of parents, teachers, administers, and the school board in shared decision-making at the building level. This plan should specify:

2.         the manner and extent of the expected involvement of all parties;

4.         the means by which all parties will be held accountable for the decisions made;

6.         the manner in which all state and federal requirements for the involvement of parents in planning and decision-making will be coordinated with and met by the overall plan.

            A copy of the Plan for Participation by Teachers and Parents in School-Based Parenting and Shared Decision-Making shall be available at each school and at the Education Center; individual copies of the plan will be provided upon request.

            Every two years, the Board shall, request that the District wide Shared Decision Making Team submit a list of recommendations to revise and/or update the District Level Shared Decision-Making Plan. The Board of Education will review the recommendations from the DLSMDT at a regular meeting. Any amendment or recertification of the plan will be developed and adopted in accordance with section 100.11 of the Regulations of the Commissioner.

            The amended or decertified plan together with a statement of the plan's success in achieving its objectives, shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Education for approval no later than February 1st of each year in which biennial review takes place. The first such review shall be submitted to the Commissioner.

Headnote:

            Every Board of Education and Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) must have in place a district plan for the participation by teachers, parents and administrators in school- based planning and shared decision-making. This plan must be recertified every two years, beginning February 1, 1996.

General Discussion:

            The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education provide that every school district and BOCES have in place a plan for the participation of parents and teachers with administrators and school board members in school-based planning and shared decision-making. The plan must specify:

1.      the educational issues which will be subject to cooperative planning and shared decision- making at the building level by teachers, parents, administrators, and, at the discretion of the board of education or BOCES, other parties such as students, school district support staff; and community members;

2.         the manner and extent of the expected involvement of all parties;

4.         the means by which all parties will be held accountable for the decisions which they share in making;

6.         the manner in which all state and federal requirements for the involvement of parents in planning and decision making will be coordinated with and met by the overall plan.

            The Commissioner's regulations do not provide a definition of "educational issues." Therefore, school boards should work together with their shared decision-making committees to define what issues the shared decision-making committees will examine. In defining the issues appropriate for shared decision-making, Board members should be aware that the Commissioner has held that certain obligations which are by law committed to the Board’s discretion are not delegable to the shared decision-making process. Examples of Board obligations that cannot be delegated include formulating the district budget, determining what instructional programs are to be offered, formulating policy, scheduling staff development days and adopting a student code of conduct. A district's shared decision-making committee may, however, offer input as the Board prepares to act on these issues.

            According to the state Committee on Open Government, whenever a district-wide or local shared decision-making committee is required to have a quorum to conduct business and is actively involved in the making of  recommendations at any level, the meetings of the committee are subject to the Open Meetings Law and must be publicized in the same manner as other public meetings.

Biennial Review of the Plan

            The district’s plan must be reviewed every other year by the Board. Amending or recertifying the plan must follow the same participatory procedure outlined in the Regulations of the Commissioner § 100.11 for initially adopting it. That is, it must be reviewed in collaboration with a committee composed of the Superintendent of Schools, administrators selected by the districts administrative bargaining organization, teachers selected by their collective bargaining organization and parents (not employed by the district or a collective bargaining organization representing teachers or administrators in the district) selected by school-related parent organizations.  In districts in which teachers or administrators are not represented by a collective bargaining organization or there are no school-related parent organizations, teachers, administrators and/or parents shall be selected by their peers in the manner prescribed by the Board to participate in the development of such plan.

            According to the Commissioner, additional members may be appointed by the Board for service on the district-wide committee if the mandated members of the committee, by consensus, agree to such appointment. However, the Commissioner has held that it is inappropriate for Board members to serve on the district-wide committees. The intent of the shared-decision making regulation is for Board members to work in collaboration with the district planning committee and not to serve on the committee itself.

            The district’s amended plan or a recertification of the previous plan must be adopted by the Board at a public meeting after consultation with and full participation by the designated representatives of the teachers, administrators, and parents, and after the endorsement of the amended or recertified plan by such designated representatives has been sought.  It must be made available to the public. The Commissioner has rejected amended plans which shared decision-making committees have been asked to ratify without adequate time for consideration and debate.

            While the Board is required to seek the endorsement of the shared decision making committee, the Commissioner has held that the committee's endorsement of the plan is not a precondition for approval. In one case, the Commissioner upheld a Board's adoption of the district plan even though the Board was unsuccessful in its attempts to reach consensus with the shared decision-making committee on the process for selecting parent representatives to the committee. As a result, the Board was not able to get the committee's approval of the plan.

Filing of Amended or Recertified Plan

            Following each two-year review, the amended or recertified plan, along with an evaluation of progress toward objectives, must be filed with the District Superintendent, where applicable, and submitted to the Commissioner for approval no later than February 1 of the year in which such biennial review takes place.

Appeal of Rejection of Amended or Recertified Plan

            Any aggrieved party who participated in the development of the district plan may institute an appeal to the Commissioner pursuant to the Education Law §310 from action of the Board in adopting, amending, or recertifying the plan. The grounds for such an appeal may include but are not to be limited to, noncompliance with any of the six specified requirements of the plan (e.g., failure to identify the means and standards by which parties will evaluate improvement in student achievement) and failure to provide within the district plan for meaningful participation in school- based planning and shared decision-making. In addition, there must also be some demonstration that a Board has acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In one case, the Commissioner held that, absent such proof; mere disagreement with a district shared decision-making plan is no basis for ordering a Board to adopt changes in its plan.

Ref:      Education Law §§l0l;207;215;305(l)and(2);309;311
            8 NYCRR§l00.1l
            Appeal of Moravia Teachers' Association. 36 EDR 412 (1997) (scheduling staff
            development days and adopting student code of conduct not delegable)
            Appeal of Zaleski and Gimmi, 36 EDR 284 (1997) (curriculum matters not
            delegable)
            Appeal of Chester.35 EDR 512(1996)
            Appeal of Meyer, Milton and Weckerle, 34 EDR 329 (1995)
            Appeal of Kastberg, Emond and Kastberg, 35 EDR 208 (1995)
            Appeal of Passino, 34 EDR 6(1994)
            Matter of St. Victor, 33 EDR 679(1994)
            Matter of Thompson, 34 EDR 134 (1994)
            Dept. of State, Committee on Open Government,OML-AO-2204 (4/1/93);
            OML-AO-2305 (1/19/94)