At the Oyster Bay-East Norwich Central School District’s Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, district Superintendent Francesco Ianni and board President Laurie Kowalsky addressed the potential implications of state-initiated regionalization for district operations. Their discussion illuminated the board’s unease over the state’s proposal, and the ambiguity surrounding regionalization, which they and many neighboring district leaders believe could compromise local control.
The concept of regionalization, as outlined in recent state documents, was introduced as a post-pandemic measure to address declining enrollment and financial challenges. According to the State Education Department, regionalization will require school districts to report their findings on local needs and areas for potential collaboration, potentially sharing resources, staff and services as needed.
Ianni emphasized, however, that despite the state’s emphasis on collaboration, regionalization may impose unforeseen obligations on local school districts.
“We were assured in multiple presentations that reorganization is not regionalization,” Ianni stated, noting the confusion between reorganization — a longstanding method for district mergers — and the newly proposed regionalization. “The words are very similar, but they imply vastly different im-pacts.”
Ianni referred to documents from the State Education Department published in July and September, which highlighted the emergency nature of the regulation and the state’s intent to facilitate local partnerships between districts. But he questioned whether the state’s rhetoric matched the reality in the policy documents.
“The state claims this is just about opening a conversation,” Ianni said, “but the requirements for compliance are detailed, with specific timelines and mandates on what districts must submit.”
He referenced the emergency regulation that went into effect in September, which stated that it was meant to preserve general welfare and educational equity, but the language in the document indicates that compliance would not be optional.
Last month, the NYSED released additional guidelines detailing the role of district superintendents — which refers in this case to BOCES administrators, not the superintendents of individual districts— in overseeing the regionalization process. According to the document, district superintendents would have the authority to implement educational initiatives across component districts, or districts that fall under the Nassau County BOCES’ administration, a point that raised concern among Oyster Bay-East Norwich officials.
“This is something more than a local conversation,” Kowalsky said. “It grants the BOCES superintendent extensive authority to enforce plans and conduct oversight of the regionalization plan.”
Assemblyman Chuck Lavine, whose district includes Oyster Bay-East Norwich, had issued a statement on Tuesday in response to many districts’ discussions of the topic, urging school leaders to keep an open mind about regionalization’s potential benefits.
“Regionalization could provide districts with access to more resources and support for enhanced educational opportunities,” Lavine stated. He acknowledged, however, that implementation would require “careful consideration of local concerns and protections for district autonomy.”
The potential impact on local control remained a major focus of the board meeting. Kowalsky emphasized the board’s commitment to community-driven decision-making, noting that any regionalization plan could limit the district’s flexibility to tailor programs and services.
“One regionalization plan for every district in a supervisory region does not equate to local control,” Kowalsky said. “We are accountable to our parents and students, and that is who we serve.”
Another issue raised was the requirement that each district within a supervisory region develop and submit a regionalization plan at least every 10 years, which would be reviewed and approved by the BOCES superintendent. That implies a recurring compliance obligation for districts, challenging the assertion that regionalization would only be a “local conversation.”
In addition, state documents revealed that the regionalization regulation includes provisions for site visits and performance monitoring. According to the guidelines, if a district fails to meet performance metrics, the state could enforce corrective actions.
“This could lead to oversight that borders on direct governance from BOCES,” Ianni said. “The possibility of intervention raises questions about our district’s ability to maintain autonomy.”
Community feedback has been overwhelmingly opposed to regionalization, according to Kowalsky, who noted that thousands of letters were submitted in protest. In response to the district’s concerns, the Education Department offered a clarification late last month, explaining that regionalization is intended as a tool to facilitate collaboration, not a mandate for forced restructuring. But the written regulation, Kowalsky argued, still leaves room for more extensive control.
Adding to the complexity, the state excluded its five largest districts — New York City, Buffalo, Yonkers, Syracuse and Rochester — from regionalization requirements, creating what many see as a double standard. “If regionalization is really about equity, it’s unclear why the largest districts are exempt,” Kowalsky said, suggesting that smaller districts like Oyster Bay-East Norwich could bear a disproportionate regulatory burden.
The emergency nature of the policy has only amplified board trustees’ concerns. Typically, new education regulations undergo a standard rule-making process with ample opportunities for public comment, but the state’s emergency declaration bypassed these steps, implementing the policy immediately and allowing only a 60-day comment period.
“The bypassing of usual channels makes it difficult for us and other districts to fully prepare or adjust for potential impacts,” Ianni said.
The trustees plan to submit formal comments to the state during the feedback period, advocating for increased transparency and protections for local governance. They also intend to keep the community informed as they continue to examine how the policy might impact district operations.
“We want our community to know that we are not passively accepting these changes,” Kowalsky said. “Our responsibility is to protect the quality and integrity of our schools.”
