New York is proposing changes to its school-accountability and receivership regulations, replacing stigmatizing labels with a tiered support system while raising questions about transparency, intervention and how long struggling schools should receive before stronger action.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on publicly available New York State Education Department materials and reporting current as of the publication date.
The changes discussed below were proposed for public review and had not yet been permanently adopted as of July 22, 2026. Some aspects of New York’s revised Every Student Succeeds Act accountability system were approved previously, while the July 2026 proposal focuses more specifically on how school receivership, intervention levels and related terminology would operate within that system.
New To Education is not affiliated with the New York State Education Department, the Board of Regents, the New York State School Boards Association or any school or district potentially affected by the proposal. Families and educators seeking guidance about a particular school should consult official state and district information.
New York is reconsidering how it describes schools with persistent academic difficulties—and what should happen when years of state support do not produce enough improvement.
At the July 2026 meeting of the New York State Board of Regents, State Education Department officials presented proposed changes to the regulations governing school accountability and receivership. The proposal would replace terms such as “failing,” “struggling” and “persistently struggling” with more specific descriptions tied to the level of state intervention a school receives.
The changes would also create a clearer progression of support, beginning with less intensive district-led intervention and potentially escalating to superintendent receivership or independent receivership when a school remains identified for comprehensive support over an extended period.
State officials describe the new model as a “continuum of support” intended to direct resources and intervention toward schools where students are not experiencing adequate educational outcomes. The department says the purpose is not to brand schools as failures but to identify needs and organize an increasingly intensive response.
That shift may reduce the stigma attached to schools serving communities with significant challenges. It also raises an uncomfortable question: can New York improve accountability by changing its language, or will softer terminology make it harder for families to understand when a school has struggled for many years?
What New York Is Proposing
The proposed amendments would revise Sections 100.19 and 100.21 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.
These sections govern New York’s school-receivership system and the accountability structure connected to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, commonly known as ESSA.
Under the proposed model, schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement would move through a tiered structure. The progression would begin with CSI-A, move to CSI-B and then potentially advance to School District Superintendent Receivership and Independent Receivership.
Each level would represent a greater degree of intervention and state involvement.
The proposed regulations would also replace the term “failing school,” previously associated with the category of “struggling school,” with the more procedural description school under School District Superintendent Receivership.
Schools previously described as “persistently failing” or “persistently struggling” would also be identified through the type of receivership and the length of time they had remained within the state’s accountability system.
The language is less emotionally charged, but it is also more technical. A parent may immediately understand what the state means when it calls a school “struggling.” The phrase “CSI-B support tier” requires much more explanation.
Why New York Wants to Move Away From Labels
State officials argue that accountability should focus on improvement rather than punishment.
Theresa Billington, assistant commissioner in the State Education Department’s Office of Innovation and School Reform, told the Board of Regents that the accountability system is meant to advance educational equity.
She said its purpose is to use objective and transparent measures to identify where students may not be receiving the outcomes they deserve and then direct resources, support and intervention toward the schools with the greatest needs.
From that perspective, labels such as “failing” may do more harm than good.
A school can receive that label even when its educators are working under difficult conditions involving concentrated poverty, student mobility, housing instability, chronic absenteeism, staffing shortages or high numbers of students needing specialized services.
The label may discourage families from enrolling, make teacher recruitment more difficult and deepen the instability the accountability system is supposed to correct.
Changing the terminology could help the state communicate that identification is not a permanent judgment about the worth of a school, its students or its community.
The danger is that language can also become so carefully managed that it conceals the seriousness of the situation.
What New York’s Accountability System Measures
New York is required under ESSA to identify schools needing additional support.
At the elementary and middle-school levels, the state uses measures that include weighted academic achievement, core-subject performance, student growth, English-language proficiency and attendance.
At the high-school level, New York also examines graduation rates and college, career and civic readiness.
The system evaluates performance for the overall student population as well as for groups including students with disabilities, English-language learners, economically disadvantaged students and students from different racial and ethnic groups.
A school might therefore receive support not only because its overall results are low but because a particular student group is consistently being underserved.
That distinction is important.
A school could appear successful when its overall average is examined while students with disabilities or English-language learners remain far behind. Subgroup accountability is intended to prevent those disparities from disappearing inside a single schoolwide number.
How the Tiered Support System Would Work
The proposal describes a progression from less intensive to more intensive support.
A school entering the CSI-A level would receive assistance intended to strengthen its improvement planning and instructional systems. If performance problems continued, the school could move to CSI-B, where expectations and state involvement would become more substantial.
A school that remained identified over a longer period could eventually enter School District Superintendent Receivership.
Under this arrangement, the district superintendent serves as the receiver and receives expanded authority to implement improvement measures. That authority may involve staffing, programming, scheduling, budgeting and partnerships, subject to legal and regulatory requirements.
Independent receivership represents the most intensive level. It allows someone outside the district’s ordinary leadership structure to assume responsibility for directing the school’s improvement process.
The proposal also includes a separate pathway for transfer high schools, recognizing that these schools often serve older students who have fallen behind in credits or previously struggled in traditional settings. Their performance may require a different form of analysis than that used for conventional high schools.
Schools Could Receive More Time Before Receivership
One of the most consequential changes concerns how long a school may remain identified before entering superintendent receivership.
The proposed regulations would allow the state commissioner to newly place a school under School District Superintendent Receivership after the school has met Comprehensive Support and Improvement identification criteria for six or more consecutive years, rather than three.
Independent receivership could apply after an even longer period of persistent identification, including schools that have remained within the system for eight or more consecutive years under the proposed structure.
Supporters may argue that meaningful school improvement takes time.
Districts need time to recruit staff, introduce new instructional programs, improve attendance, build relationships with families and determine whether interventions are working. Frequent changes in leadership and strategy can prevent reforms from taking hold.
Critics may see six or eight years very differently.
A student could spend most of elementary school in an institution that repeatedly fails to meet state expectations before the strongest intervention occurs. Families may reasonably ask why a system described as accountable permits persistent problems to continue for so long.
The debate is therefore not only about labels. It is about how much time schools should receive before the state concludes that the existing leadership structure has not produced enough progress.
The Difference Between Support and Consequences
New York’s approach reflects a broader change in education policy.
Older accountability systems often emphasized sanctions, school closures and public rankings. More recent models tend to use the language of technical assistance, continuous improvement, capacity-building and partnership.
That shift has advantages.
Schools rarely improve simply because officials threaten them. They may need specialists, coaching, reliable data, curriculum support, mental-health resources and help addressing staffing or attendance problems.
Punishment does not create a qualified special-education teacher or repair a school building.
However, support without meaningful consequences can become an endless cycle of plans, consultants and revised goals.
Families need to know what happens when a school receives years of assistance but student outcomes remain unacceptably low.
A credible accountability system must do both things: provide enough support to make improvement possible and establish clear escalation when improvement does not occur.
Will the New Terminology Improve Transparency?
Replacing “failing school” with “school under School District Superintendent Receivership” may reduce stigma, but the newer phrase is not necessarily clearer.
Most families do not regularly use terms such as CSI-A, CSI-B, ATSI, TSI or receivership. These categories may be precise for policymakers while remaining nearly meaningless to the public.
New York will need to explain each level in plain language.
Parents should be able to determine why a school was identified, which student groups are affected, how long the school has remained in that status and what additional action will occur if performance does not improve.
A change in terminology should not make it harder to answer basic questions.
State and district reports could provide a short explanation alongside each designation, such as:
“This school has demonstrated persistent difficulties in academic achievement and attendance and is receiving an increased level of state-directed support.”
That type of explanation would communicate the seriousness of the situation without reducing an entire school community to the word “failing.”
Accountability Data Can Be Misleading Without Context
Academic data is essential, but it does not explain everything happening inside a school.
Low assessment results may reflect weak instruction. They may also be influenced by student mobility, chronic absenteeism, language barriers, disability-service gaps or community hardship.
Graduation rates can improve because students receive stronger academic support. They can also rise when schools lower expectations or use questionable credit-recovery practices.
Attendance may decline because students feel unsafe or disconnected. It can also be affected by transportation problems, housing instability, health conditions or family responsibilities.
An accountability system should identify poor outcomes without pretending that a single score explains their causes.
That is why the state’s intervention process must involve careful needs assessments rather than automatic solutions based only on a designation.
Two schools with similar performance results may need very different improvement strategies.
Receivership Gives Leaders Expanded Authority
School receivership is controversial because it changes who has power.
A receiver may receive enhanced authority to reorganize the school, modify educational programs, expand learning time, enter agreements with outside organizations and make certain staffing or operational changes.
Supporters argue that this flexibility is necessary when ordinary district processes have repeatedly failed to produce improvement.
Opponents may worry that receivership weakens local governance, limits the influence of elected school boards or allows major decisions to be made without enough community participation.
Expanded authority does not automatically produce better leadership.
A receiver can act more quickly, but speed is not the same as effectiveness. Decisions involving staffing, curriculum and school culture still require local knowledge and trust.
New York’s revised system should therefore ensure that families, students, teachers and community organizations remain involved even when authority shifts toward a superintendent or independent receiver.
The Proposal Emphasizes Belonging and Family Partnerships
The Regents materials describe the revised model as part of a broader effort to build leadership and systems for continuous improvement.
The goals include stronger core instructional programs, a greater sense of student connectedness and belonging, and improved partnerships among schools, families and communities.
This represents a broader definition of school improvement than test scores alone.
Students who do not feel safe, respected or connected to school are more likely to become chronically absent or disengaged. Families who do not trust administrators may be less likely to participate in improvement planning.
Still, concepts such as belonging can become vague unless the state establishes ways to evaluate them.
Schools may need to examine student surveys, disciplinary disparities, attendance patterns, school climate and participation in extracurricular activities.
Family partnership should also mean more than inviting parents to a meeting after major decisions have already been made.
What Happens to Schools Already in Receivership?
The proposed regulations contain transition provisions for schools already identified under the older system.
Schools previously classified as struggling or persistently struggling would not simply have their status erased. Their continuation, modification or exit from receivership would be determined through the current identification criteria and updated regulatory process.
That continuity is necessary because the state cannot allow a terminology change to interrupt existing improvement obligations.
It also means communities may need help understanding how an old designation maps onto the new framework.
A school described as persistently struggling under the previous regulations may appear under a different name even though the level of state concern remains serious.
Clear communication will be essential during the transition.
Public Comment Will Matter
The proposed amendment was presented for discussion at the Regents’ July 2026 meeting.
According to the Regents materials, a formal Notice of Proposed Rule Making was scheduled for publication in the New York State Register on July 29, followed by a 60-day public-comment period.
That period gives educators, school boards, families, advocacy organizations and community members an opportunity to respond.
Comments could address whether the proposed timelines are too long, whether the terminology is sufficiently clear, whether receivership authority is appropriately defined and whether schools will receive enough resources to meet the state’s expectations.
Public participation is especially important because accountability regulations determine more than how schools are described.
They can influence leadership, staffing, funding, intervention plans and public confidence.
What School Boards Should Be Asking
School boards should examine how the proposed framework affects both governance and district responsibility.
They need to understand what evidence causes a school to move from one tier to another, what improvement planning will be required and which decisions remain under board authority once receivership begins.
Boards should also ask what additional resources accompany each level of support.
A state identification that imposes more planning, reporting and intervention requirements without providing enough funding can increase administrative work without improving instruction.
District leaders should communicate honestly with communities when schools are identified. Attempting to minimize the designation may undermine trust.
At the same time, officials should avoid treating the status as proof that students or educators are incapable of success.
What Families Should Be Able to See
Families should not need expertise in federal education law to understand their school’s status.
New York should make several pieces of information easy to find: the school’s support level, the reason for identification, the length of time it has remained identified, the groups of students most affected and the specific actions included in the improvement plan.
Families should also be told how they can participate and where they can review progress.
Year-to-year changes should be explained in plain language.
A school moving from CSI-A to CSI-B should not appear to families as a routine change in an acronym. It represents an escalation in the state’s concern and should be communicated accordingly.
What Educators Should Watch
Teachers and school staff should examine how receivership affects working conditions, professional evaluation, curriculum decisions and staffing authority.
School improvement often depends on educators, yet accountability plans can be designed without enough input from the people expected to carry them out.
Teachers may identify problems that state data cannot reveal, including inconsistent curriculum, inadequate intervention time, weak student-support systems or frequent leadership changes.
Their involvement should be substantive rather than ceremonial.
At the same time, professional input cannot become a reason to block every change. Schools identified for years of low performance may need to reconsider established practices.
The strongest process gives educators a genuine role while maintaining urgency around student outcomes.
Is New York Reducing Stigma or Avoiding Hard Language?
That is the central controversy surrounding the proposal.
Words such as “failing” can damage schools and oversimplify complicated conditions. A more precise terminology tied to intervention levels may be fairer and more useful.
But language should not become a shield against public accountability.
A school that has failed to meet state expectations for six consecutive years is experiencing a serious problem, regardless of the label attached to it.
Families deserve honesty about that reality.
New York can avoid stigmatizing students and educators while still communicating clearly that persistent underperformance is unacceptable.
The state’s credibility will depend less on what it calls each category than on what support follows, how progress is measured and whether stronger action occurs when years of intervention do not work.
How New To Education Supports Families, Educators and Schools
New To Education publishes accessible reporting and analysis on educational law, school accountability, student rights and policy developments affecting communities.
We also provide tutoring, curriculum support, educational consulting, professional development, web development, educational marketing, and resume and interview assistance.
Accountability systems are often written in technical language that can obscure their practical consequences. Our goal is to help readers understand how policy decisions may affect students, educators, families and local school leadership.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
New York is proposing amendments to the regulations governing ESSA accountability and school receivership. The proposal was discussed during the July 2026 Board of Regents meeting.
The revisions would replace terms such as “failing,” “struggling” and “persistently struggling” with descriptions tied to the type and intensity of state intervention.
Schools would move through a continuum ranging from CSI-A and CSI-B support to superintendent receivership and, in the most persistent cases, independent receivership.
The proposal would generally allow newly identified schools to remain within the Comprehensive Support and Improvement system for a longer period before superintendent receivership becomes possible.
Supporters may see the model as less punitive and better focused on continuous improvement. Critics may worry that technical terminology and longer timelines could reduce urgency or make persistent underperformance less visible to families.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did New York adopt the new accountability regulations in July 2026?
No. The amendments were presented for discussion at the July Board of Regents meeting. A proposed rule was scheduled for publication on July 29, followed by a public-comment period.
Is New York ending school accountability designations?
No. Schools would continue to be identified through the state’s ESSA accountability system. The proposal changes terminology, intervention levels and how receivership connects to those designations.
What does CSI mean?
CSI means Comprehensive Support and Improvement. Schools may be identified for CSI when performance measures show that students are not meeting state expectations.
What is school receivership?
Receivership gives a superintendent or independent receiver expanded authority to implement changes in a school that has experienced persistent performance problems.
Why does New York want to stop calling schools “failing”?
State officials say accountability should identify needs and organize support rather than stigmatize schools and communities. The revised terminology would focus on the intervention being provided.
Could schools receive more time before receivership?
Yes. Under the proposal, a school could generally become newly eligible for superintendent receivership after six or more consecutive years of CSI identification rather than three.
Does changing a school’s label change its academic results?
No. Terminology alone does not improve student outcomes. The effectiveness of the proposal will depend on the support, resources, leadership and interventions connected to each designation.
Final Thoughts
New York is right to question whether labels such as “failing school” help anyone improve.
A school is not a single test score. It is a community of students, educators and families operating within social and economic conditions that may be far more complicated than an accountability designation suggests.
Stigmatizing language can deepen the problems it is meant to expose.
Yet accountability cannot become so gentle that persistent failure disappears behind acronyms and carefully chosen terminology.
Families deserve to know when a school has struggled for years. Educators deserve practical support rather than repeated plans that do not address staffing, instruction or student needs. Students deserve intervention early enough to improve the education they are receiving now—not years after they have moved on.
The proposed continuum of support could create a more coherent system. It may help New York match intervention levels to the seriousness and duration of a school’s challenges.
Its success will depend on three things.
The designations must remain understandable. The support must be adequately funded. Stronger action must occur when improvement does not.
Changing the label may reduce stigma.
Changing the outcome will require much more.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, school accountability, student rights and policy decisions affecting educators and families.
Readers can support this work by sharing our articles, exploring our educational and professional services or contributing through the donation options available on our website.
Related Articles
Mayor Mamdani’s NYC Education Budget Faces New Questions After July 7 School Accountability Report
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/mayor-mamdanis-nyc-education-budget-faces-new-questions-after-july-7-school-accountability-report-6a4db493afecf
New York’s Education Oversight Debate: What Happened and Why It Matters
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/new-yorks-education-oversight-debate-what-happened-and-why-it-matters-6a2fd83a4782c
Sources
New York State Board of Regents — Proposed Amendments Relating to Receivership Under the ESSA Accountability System
https://www.regents.nysed.gov/sites/regents/files/726p12d1.pdf
New York State School Boards Association — SED Proposes Accountability Changes
https://www.nyssba.org/news/2026/07/17/on-board-online-july-20-2026/sed-proposes-accountability-changes/
New York State Education Department — Accountability Designations
https://www.nysed.gov/accountability/essa-accountability-system
New York State Education Department — Final School Accountability Determinations for 2025–26
https://www.nysed.gov/news/2026/state-education-department-releases-final-school-accountability-determinations-2025-26
New York State Education Department — New York State ESSA Plan
https://www.nysed.gov/essa/nys-essa-plan
