PROPOSED RESOLUTION 9 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall advocate for timely decisions on school aid.

RATIONALE Budget development is a long process that begins with presentations to our communities in January and February of each year based on the governor's preliminary budget. Often the proposed school aid requires cuts and boards spend countless hours making hard decisions to work within the school aid and tax levy limits. Then when we are close to adopting our budgets, the state budget is passed by the legislature and often our aid is increased, which negates the needed cuts. This is a waste of hours of work and creates more work to adjust the budget. School boards need more reliable and timely decisions for school aid. 

DEI Committee Review: Support

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 14 Submitted by the West Babylon, Hicksville, Locust Valley, Massapequa, Plainedge School Boards (7/03/24) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall advocate for direct funding assistance to school districts for any student/s who enters a BOCES Career and Technical Education (CTE) program or any affiliated career training program resulting in a post-graduation license or certificate. 

RATIONALE Absent from the current foundation aid formula is any direct funding for students attending BOCES occupational and career training.  If we agree that “not every student is college-bound,” they, too, deserve the same state-funded support as those who choose to attend college for their post-graduation future. Relying primarily on localized school district funding to provide such occupation training can limit student participation and post-graduation career opportunities.  This represents a glaring disparity of support for students beyond their high school years.  In contrast, the college-bound peers of BOCES students have access to various state and federal financial assistance programs for their career paths, which do not rely solely on direct local tax revenue. The future of those students choosing a career path before high school graduation should not be limited by the economic constraints of local school districts, nor should the taxpayer, who is already funding various higher education scholarship and tuition programs, be expected to do so again locally. 

DEI Committee Review: Support

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 26 Submitted by the Hewlett Woodmere School Board (6/28/24) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association supports legislation to eliminate Regents Exam Testing at the high school level in favor of State Final Exams that comply with ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) regulations in 10-11th grade for ELA (1 exam), Math (1 exam), and Science (1 exam). 

RATIONALE 1. New York is one of only seven states that still require students to pass exams to receive a high school diploma. The other are Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming. 

RATIONALE 2. ESSA provided guidance to states to reduce standardized testing when it was introduced by President Obama in 2015. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee acknowledged the current work the New York State Education Department and Board of Regents are undertaking in response to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations for amending the state’s graduation requirements. Noting that state level conversations have focused on the importance of multiple pathways to a high school diploma that could include Regents exams, the Committee voted against recommending a blanket elimination of such exams. Furthermore, some recognized the value of Regents exam results to inform whether educators are effectively teaching in accordance with NYS standards. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 27 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall ADVOCATE for a cap on BOCES budget increases. 

RATIONALE School districts are limited to a 2% tax levy cap. They are under great pressure to meet all the demands on their budgets from mandated expenses, one of them the BOCES administration fee. BOCES should be subject to a cap on their budgets as their member districts. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee found that such a cap could be problematic for districts and BOCES, as it would not reflect the realities of increasing costs and labor scarcity. The Committee also found that school district oversight of BOCES’ budgets is a sufficient level of local control, paired with district ability to opt-out of services. The Committee also felt that such a cap would have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged students as well as students with special needs. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards The committee's concerns about a cap on BOCES budget increases overlooking rising costs and labor scarcity are valid, but not insurmountable. School districts already face these same challenges while operating under a tax levy cap, and BOCES should share in the responsibility of controlling costs. The existing oversight by school districts is insufficient, as many districts are forced to absorb ever-increasing administrative fees without a real ability to influence BOCES budgets. A cap would ensure BOCES prioritizes efficiencies, without disproportionately affecting disadvantaged students, as these essential services can still be preserved through better resource management.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 28 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall ADVOCATE for the new Foundation Aid formula to be voted on by the NYS LEGISLATURE and not through regulatory actions of NYSED. 

RATIONALE NYS is a vast state, and each region has its own set of challenges and circumstances. Our elected officials should be the ones to determine the aid formula with input from their constituents. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee noted that the New York State Education Department does not possess the authority referenced in this resolution. Rather, the state constitution provides the state legislature with the authority to change state law and direct funding of schools.  The Committee also felt there was a lack of a clear reasoning for this resolution, given current state constitutional powers. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards While it is true that the state legislature holds the authority to determine school funding, the intent behind Resolution 28 is to ensure that this process remains solely within the purview of the legislature, where elected officials can be held accountable by their constituents. Recent trends have shown regulatory bodies like NYSED exerting influence over how policies are implemented, even within areas traditionally governed by legislative action. By advocating that the Foundation Aid formula remains strictly a legislative matter, we protect the voice of local communities and ensure that their unique challenges are considered by their elected representatives. This resolution seeks to reaffirm the role of the legislature and safeguard local input in the funding process.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 29 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association ADVOCATE for the REPEAL of the 2019 law that removed the religious/moral exemption to immunization. 

RATIONALE All medical interventions have side effects, and the government should not force families to accept a risk that they do not believe is in the best interest of their child in order to receive an education. These decisions are best left to the parents in consultation with their family physician. Rationale 2: Medical exemptions are not a reliable counter as physicians are routinely discouraged from writing an exemption. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee found value in continuing to uphold longstanding student vaccination requirements, in the health and safety interests of students. The Committee further noted that they generally agreed with the sentiments and votes from 2022 and 2023 when similar resolutions were not recommended by the Resolutions Committee and voted down by delegates at the Business Meeting. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards While the importance of health and safety through vaccination is acknowledged, the removal of the religious/moral exemption disregards parental rights and autonomy in making medical decisions for their children. Parents, in consultation with their family physicians, are best positioned to assess the risks and benefits of medical interventions for their children. The argument that medical exemptions provide sufficient protection is weakened by the fact that physicians often face pressure not to issue these exemptions, limiting families' options.  Upholding the repeal removes a critical balance between public health and individual freedom, which should be restored by reinstating the exemption. Furthermore, Thirty States, along with Washington DC allow exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunizations. Thirteen States allow exemptions for personal or religious reasons. Asking for a reinstatement of regulation allowable in the majority of the United States is both reasonable and just.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 30 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich and Locust Valley School Boards (7/02/2024)

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall ADVOCATE for LOCAL CONTROL of education administration to the County Executive or school board when appropriate. 

RATIONALE NYS is vast, with 62 counties, each area of the state has differing needs and challenges. NYC’s Mayor is given the authority to manage NYC schools, all counties throughout the state should be afforded the same opportunity. Local government is the most responsive and informed on issues affecting their communities. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee felt that this change would minimize the authority, autonomy, and effectiveness of school boards. The Committee noted the current separation of powers among local governments, and between the state and local governments. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards While the Resolutions Committee expresses concerns that advocating for local control would diminish the authority, autonomy, and effectiveness of school boards, the intent of this resolution is quite the opposite. By empowering local entities such as County Executives or school boards, we aim to enhance the responsiveness and adaptability of education administration to the unique needs of each community. The committee's focus on maintaining separation of powers overlooks the core issue: the one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the state does not account for the vast diversity among New York’s counties. Each region faces its own distinct challenges, and local governments are better positioned to make informed decisions about education in alignment with community values. The success of NYC’s mayoral control over its schools demonstrates that localized oversight can be effective. Extending this opportunity to counties does not diminish school board authority but rather strengthens it by aligning decision-making with local priorities.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 31 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall OPPOSE any legislation or NYSED regulation MANDATING comprehensive “K-12 gender and sexuality education”. RATIONALE Recent legislative actions have been moving towards 

MANDATING sexual and gender education. Taking curriculum decisions away from Boards of Education undermines their authority and disenfranchises the voters of the school districts. We also note the last two years have seen increasing support for this resolution as school boards are willing to voice their opposition. For clarification, any school district that wants to enact comprehensive K-12 gender and sexuality education would be free to do so. The opposition is to the MANDATE that districts adopt one. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee recognized NYSSBA’s current position statement to oppose legislative curriculum mandates. Furthermore, the Committee upheld that one of the central roles of the State Education Department is to streamline curriculum and learning standards to ensure uniform expectations for all students, and acknowledged that NYS standards are age-appropriate. The Committee further noted that they generally agreed with the sentiments and votes from the last two years, when similar resolutions were not recommended by the Resolutions Committee and voted down by delegates at the Business Meeting. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose  

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards While we respect the Committee's acknowledgment of the State Education Department's role in setting learning standards, we believe that mandating K-12 gender and sexuality education across all districts undermines the authority of local Boards of Education. Local boards, elected by their communities, are best positioned to determine the appropriateness of curriculum content based on the unique values and needs of their districts. By opposing this mandate, we are not suggesting that gender and sexuality education should be banned, but rather that each community should retain the right to decide what is best for their students. Mandates strip local voters of their input, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that may not reflect the values of all school districts. Instead of a top-down requirement, districts should be free to choose the curriculum that aligns with their community’s expectations, while still allowing those who support comprehensive education on these topics to adopt such programs. This respects both local control and diversity across New York State.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 32 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association oppose any legislation or NYSED regulation that would allow biological males to participate in female athletics. RATIONALE The Board of Regents has introduced amendments to Mixed Sports Competition, eliminating the “adverse effect” clause which allows school districts to deny biological males to try out for biological female only sports teams if there would be an adverse effect to biological female participation and/or opportunity. If the regulation takes effect in September 2024 as planned, we need to advocate to repeal this regulation. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee had concerns with the specific wording of this resolution. They acknowledged that not all students feel that the gender assigned to them at birth most accurately portrays who they are. The Committee voted to recommend Resolution 22 for adoption which focuses more specifically on the recently proposed regulations that would change participation in some school sports. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 33 Submitted by the Massapequa, Hicksville, Oyster Bay- East Norwich, Locust Valley and Plainedge School Boards (7/02/2024)

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall oppose any legislation or NYSED regulation that would mandate any recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission including mandating the culturally responsive-sustaining education framework. RATIONALE School boards must be allowed the autonomy and local control over curriculum in our schools. Any MANDATE from state education regarding content to be taught in our schools would violate local control and disenfranchise the voters in the school district.

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee recognized that the State Education Department’s Blue Ribbon Commission put significant time into a review of current learning standards and that school districts across the state had already begun the work of weaving the main principles of NYSED’s Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Framework into their policies, procedures and instruction. They noted the Commission included a school board member. They felt that it was important that NYSSBA be supportive of efforts currently underway to make schools as inclusive as possible. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Massapequa and Locust Valley School Boards While we recognize the efforts of the Blue Ribbon Commission and acknowledge the valuable work that has already taken place in weaving the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining (CRS) Framework into various school districts, the core issue at hand remains local control. The framework itself may have merits, but any state mandate that compels districts to adopt specific educational content undermines the autonomy of locally elected school boards and disenfranchises the voters who entrusted them with the responsibility of shaping the education in their communities. The principle of local control ensures that the unique needs and values of individual districts are respected. Mandating frameworks from the state level, regardless of how inclusive they are intended to be, strips districts of their ability to reflect the priorities and culture of their communities. School boards must have the final say in curriculum decisions, allowing them to collaborate with parents and educators to make informed choices that best serve their students.  Supporting the work currently underway does not require blanket mandates, and it is imperative that we maintain the flexibility to tailor our approaches to inclusivity without sacrificing local authority. Therefore, we urge our colleagues to support Resolution 33 in defense of local control.

****************************

PROPOSED RESOLUTION 35 Submitted by the Sullivan West, Eldred, Fallsburg, Liberty, Livingston Manor, Massapequa and Roscoe School Boards and Sullivan BOCES Board (7/8/24) 

RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association supports legislation that would grant judges the ability to require bail in cases of violent threats against school districts and/or staff and/or students at school districts. 

RATIONALE New York State has made several changes to the criminal law regarding monetary bail policies. These changes have eliminated the ability of judges to use their discretion to set monetary bail for various criminal offenses, which means criminal offenders are released without any option to impose bail. Sullivan West Central School District along with other schools in this country have faced threats which require increased security, closing of schools, cancellation of sports, extracurricular activities, and increased social emotional services. There should be a higher standard for threats made against schools, as schools should always be a safe place for children and faculty. Currently, those that threaten violence in a school setting in New York State are released the very same day as they made that threat, many times before classes are over. 

EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee raised concerns that bail restrictions lead to inequity in many cases, and that this proposal was not in alignment with NYSSBA’s advocacy and equity goals. Lastly, the Committee felt that this is a highly charged political issue, too outside of the scope of NYSSBA’s advocacy, and that NYSSBA would not benefit from becoming engaged on this subject. 

DEI Committee Review: Oppose 

REBUTTAL Submitted by the Sullivan West School Board While, generally speaking, bail reform may be a “highly charged political issue,” this resolution is not intended to address bail reform as a whole. It is intentionally written very narrowly to address only threats of violence involving schools. The safety of our students is our number one priority, and NYSSBA should be using its voice to advocate that judges have the ability to impose bail on those that would dare to threaten that safety.