Relates to the powers and duties of BOCES, the operation and management of and enrollment at charter schools, and increasing the cap on the total number of charter schools

Summary of provisions

PART A

Section 1: Authorizes boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) to provide services to charter schools on a non-aidable basis.

Section 2: Requires charter school applicants to specify a procedure for publicizing and conducting board meetings at the charter school.

Section 3: Establishes that the duration of a charter shall be 5 instructional years, in addition to the time between the approval of the charter and the opening of the school for instruction.

Section 4: Requires the code of ethics articulated in the charter school application to include standards regarding conflicts of interest, in accordance with the requirements for traditional public school boards under sections 801-806 of the General Municipal Law.

Section 5: Requires charter schools applying for renewal to demonstrate the steps they have taken to recruit and retain students at risk of educational failure and requires that the information be included in renewal deliberations.

Section 6: Raises the cap on the number of charter schools from 200 to 460 to be shared between SUNY, the Board of Regents and local school districts; and establishes that revoked charters will no longer count against the cap.

Section 7: Establishes that the duration of a charter shall be five instructional years, in addition to the time between the approval of the charter and the opening of the school for instruction.

Section 8: Permits authorizing entities to grant approval for the board of a single charter school to offer a single grade at multiple sites, with each additional site counted against the cap; authorizes charter schools to offer special education services at an alternative site, that would not count against the cap.

Section 9: Authorizes charter schools to contract with one another to provide special education services; authorizes charter schools to offer special education services at an alternative site, that would not count against the cap.

Section 10: Authorizes charter schools to contract with one another to provide special education services; authorizes charter schools to offer education services at an alternative site, that would not count against the cap.

Section 11: Applies the same conflict of interest provisions and code of ethics to charter board members, officers, and charter school employees as apply to officers, board members and employees of public school districts.

Section 11-a: Authorizes the Comptroller to audit school districts at his/her discretion.

Section 12: Directs the commissioner of education to create a common student application for all charter schools and that such applications be made available in languages predominant in the local community. Directs the Commissioner to promulgate regulations to ensure that all admission lotteries are conducted in a transparent and equitable manner. Requires that such lotteries be held in a manner consistent with public officers law. Clarifies that a charter school may focus its services on students in need of special assistance, including English language learners and students with disabilities. Allows for admission to oversubscribed charter schools without an open lottery for students with disabilities and students who are English language learners. Designates the district of location for charter high schools in the city of New York as the city district, not the community school district. Authorizes kindergarten through eighth grade schools in the city of New York to use the enrollment process for zoned schools, at the discretion of the school. Requires that charter schools which are found to be serving less than 50% of the population of students with disabilities and English language learners represented in the school district of location to automatically admit students in these subgroups outside the lottery until all applicants are admitted or they population reaches 75%.

Section 13: Requires charter schools to make their annual reports more widely available to the public through posting on the school's website, distribution to the local newspapers and availability at charter school board meetings. Requires charter school annual reports to include information regarding the charter school's efforts to recruit and retain high-need students during the previous school year and their plans to attract, recruit and retain such students in the coming year.

Section 14: Requires the annual Education Department charter school report to include the number of charter schools that were closed in the prior year and the reason for their closing.

Section 15: Requires the Board of Regents to conduct an annual review of charter school best practices and make such information available to public school districts.

Section 16: Authorizes Boards of Education to contract with educational management organizations to assist in the turn-around of persistently low-achieving schools. Requires the Department to establish a list of qualified management organizations for districts to partner with.

Section 17: Establishes the severability clause.

Section 18: Establishes the effective date.

PART B

Section one of the bill would add a new §3012-c of the Education law, establishing the requirements for new, more rigorous annual professional performance reviews (APPRs) of classroom teachers and building principals.

The new §3012-c would provide for a phase-in of the new comprehensive evaluation system, beginning for certain teachers and principals in grades 4B in the 2011-2012 school year. The evaluations would generate a single composite effectiveness score based on multiple measures of effectiveness and would have to be made a significant factor in employment decisions, including but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as teacher and principal professional development (including coaching, induction support and differentiated professional development).

The phase-in would provide for an orderly process under which the new evaluation process will first apply to teachers in common branch subjects or English language arts (ELA) or mathematics, for whom the grades 3-8 state assessments are available for use in measuring student growth and their principals, and then be expanded out to all teachers and principals. As the requirements are phased in, evaluations of teachers and principals will be required to base 40a of the composite effectiveness score on student achievement measures. In addition, the percentage of the 401 that must be based on student growth will increase when the state implements a value-added growth model. An advisory committee would be established so that input is received from practitioners in the field as standards are developed for teachers of subjects for which there are no state assessments in multiple years (and their principals). Specifically, the phase-in would be as follows:

* In 2011-2012, only teachers in grades 4-B common branch subjects and ELA and math and the principals of their schools will be subject to the new evaluation standards. These are the grades and subjects in which state assessments have been in place. Forty percent of their evaluation must be based on student achievement measures, including 20% based on student growth on the state assessments or other measures of student growth prescribed by the state, and 20% based on student growth on the state assessments or other measures of student growth prescribed by the state, and 20% based on other rigorous and comparable measures of student achievement that are locally established consistent with standards prescribed in commissioner's regulations, with student performance in the 2010-2011 school year used as the baseline. The remaining 60% of the score must be based on

other locally selected measures, developed through Collective bargaining, consistent with standards prescribed in commissioner's regulations.

* In 2012-2013, the new evaluation standards become applicable to all classroom teachers and building principals. If the Regents have not adopted a value-added growth model for the 2012-2013 school year, all teachers become subject to the requirement that applied to common branch and ELA and math teachers in grades 4-8 in 2011-2012: 40% of their evaluation must be based on student achievement measures, including 20% based on student growth on the state assessments or other measures of student growth prescribed by the state, and 20% based on other rigorous and comparable measures of student achievement that are locally established consistent with commissioner's regulations, with student performance in the 2011-2012 school year used as the baseline. The remaining 60% of the score must be based on other locally selected measures, developed through collective bargaining, consistent with the standards prescribed in commissioner's regulations.

* Commencing in the first school year for which the Regents have adopted a value-added growth model, which can be as early as 2012-2013, the percentage of the evaluation that must be based on state assessment measures of student growth increases from 20% to 25%.

In addition, the new §3012-c would;

* Require that appropriate training be provided to each individual responsible for conducting an evaluation of a teacher or building principal pursuant to the revised APPR.

* Establish in statute requirements for teacher or principal improvement plans that must be developed for any teacher or principal who receives a rating of "developing" or "ineffective," including: identification of needed areas of improvement; timeline for achieving improvement; the manner in which improvement will be assessed; and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support improvement in those areas.

* Require a locally established appeals procedure in each school district or BOCES under which the employee may only challenge the substance of the APPR, the district's or BOCES' adherence to the standards and methodologies for such reviews, adherence to the commissioner's regulations and locally negotiated procedures, and the issuance or implementation of a teacher or principal improvement plan.

* Require the Department to consult with an advisory committee (consisting of representatives of teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards, school district and BOCES officials, and other interested parties).

* Prior to recommending that the Board of Regents approve use of a value-added growth model in evaluations; and

* In developing regulations for the APPR.

* For purposes of disciplinary proceedings under §3020 and §3020-a, define a "pattern of ineffective teaching or performance" as two consecutive annual ratings of "ineffective."

* Require that all collective bargaining agreements for teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010, be consistent with these new provisions. Provides that any conflicting provisions of collective bargaining agreements in effect on' July 1, 2010. are not abrogated and remain in effect until there is a successor agreement. Preserves the right of local collective bargaining representatives to negotiate evaluation procedures with a school district or BOCES per the Civil Service Law.

Section 2 of the bill would amend Education Law §3020, on contractual alternatives to tenured teacher hearing procedures under §3020-a, to require that collective bargaining agreements with contractual alternatives that become effective after July 1, 2010, provide for an expedited hearing process before a single hearing officer on charges of incompetence based upon a pattern of ineffective teaching and provided that a pattern of ineffective teaching shall constitute very significant evidence of incompetence which may form the basis for just cause removal.

Section 3 of the bill would amend Education Law 53020-a(2)(c) to remove the employee's option for either a three-member panel or a single hearing officer where the charges of a pattern of incompetence are based solely upon a pattern of ineffective teaching.

Section 4 of the bill would amend Education Law §3020-a(3)(a) to require the commissioner to notify the employing board and the employee of the hearing officer's record in his or her last five cases commencing and completing hearings in a timely manner.

Section 5 of the bill would add a new subparagraph (1-a) to §3020-a(3) (c) to provide for an expedited hearing under §3020-a where charges of incompetence are brought based upon a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance. As with the contractual alternatives, the bill provides that a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance constitutes very significant evidence of incompetence, which may form the basis for just cause removal of a teacher or building principal. The charges in such an expedited hearing would be required to allege that the employing board developed and implemented a teacher or principal improvement plan for the employee following the first rating of "ineffective" and in the preceding evaluation if the teacher was rated "developing" in that year.

Under the expedited hearing process:

* The hearing must be completed within 60 days after the pre-hearing conference, with limitations on adjournments. o The hearing would be held before a single hearing officer.

* The hearing would have to be commenced 7 days after the pre-hearing conference.

* The hearing officer would be required to establish a schedule for the hearing at the pre-hearing conference to ensure compliance with

the 60-day timeline and to ensure equitable distribution of days between the employing board and the employee.

* Hearing officers would be authorized to grant an adjournment that would extend the hearing 60 days only if it is limited to circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would result if no adjournment is granted.

* The commissioner would be authorized to enforce the time limitations for such expedited hearings by removing hearing officers who demonstrate a continued failure to commence and complete expedited hearings in a timely manner from the list of hearing officers available for appoint meant to serve in such expedited hearings.

Existing law

Under current law:

* BOCES are not authorized to contract with charter schools. * The duration of a charter agreement is five years from the date of approval or renewal. * There is no requirement that charter school board meetings be held at the site of the charter school. * There are no statutory conflict of interest or financial disclosure requirements for charter board members, staff, officers or employees, only those laid out in the charter agreement. * There is no specific statutory consideration of the efforts to educate students with disabilities and English language learners in the charter renewal process. * The number of startup charter schools in New York State is limited to 200. * The SUNY Board of Trustees is authorized to approve 100 charters while the Regents and local districts are authorized to authorize an additional 100 in total. * Once a charter is issued, it continues to count against the cap of 200 even if revoked. * A single charter school board is prohibited from offering a single grade at more than one site. * Charter schools cannot collaboratively offer special education services, nor can they designate sites in non special education schools as special education sites. * Each charter school is authorized to establish their own application and oversee their own lottery process. * There are no specific requirements regarding the publishing and distribution of charter school annual reports. * Charter schools are required to make a "good faith" effort to recruit high need students, including students with disabilities and English language learners. * Boards of education are not authorized to contract with educational management organizations.

Justification

To date, charter schools in New York have largely succeeded in providing access to high-quality, public education, primarily serving low income students in urban areas. New York has a strong reputation for high standards of accountability and rigorous authorization. This

legislation would build on that reputation by increasing charter school oversight and accountability. This increased oversight would extend to not only financial oversight, but also ,operational and management oversight, which would allow the best practices of charters schools to be shared and replicated, and any inappropriate practices to be identified and eliminated.

This legislation would also enhance the public's confidence in charter schools by requiring charter board members to meet the same conflict of interest and ethical obligations as traditional school board members, and establishing uniformity and oversight in t.he lottery and application process.

For educational opportunities to continue to improve for all students in New York, it is important that we not only continue to make school choice opportunities available to students, but also that we allow school districts the opportunity to access all possible resources to assist them in their endeavors. Enactment of this legislation would not only increase educational opportunities for children, but would also enhance the competitiveness of New York State in Phase II of the federal Race to the Top competition and allow low achieving school districts to access hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Title I school improvement grant funding to aid in their turnaround plans.

This bill would enact a comprehensive statewide system of teacher and principal evaluation that measures teacher and principal effectiveness in a sophisticated way that makes student performance a major factor in the evaluation. The bill would require that the evaluation be based on multiple measures of effectiveness, but that objective data on student growth and other measures of student achievement constitute 400 of the composite effectiveness score of the teacher or principal. The remaining GO% would be locally developed measures that would include classroom observations and other measures of teacher performance. Rather than provide for an automatic rating of ineffectiveness based on student assessment data, this allows for an evaluation that takes into account all factors bearing on teacher or Principal performance.

Legislative history

This is a new bill.

Fiscal implications

This bill would make New York more competitive for additional federal funding available in the Race to the Top grant pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Local fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

PART A: This act shall take effect immediately; provided however that sections three, even and eight shall take effect July 1, 2010 and

sections five, twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen, shall take effect January 1, 2011.

Part b

Immediate, provided that sections 1 through 5 take effect July 1, 2010.