Requires annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principals

Summary of specific provisions

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 4-8 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 i 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 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, and require a single hearing officer where the charges 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 far appointment to serve in such expedited hearings.

Section 6 of this bill would add a new §21l-e to the Education Law to authorize the board of education of a school district, or the Chancellor of the New York City School District, to contract with an educational partnership organization, with the approval of the Commissioner, for a term of up to 5 years to manage a school identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school, or a BURR, for the purpose of intervention to turn around such school. An "educational partnership organization" (or "EPO") would be defined to include a board of cooperative educational services, a public or independent higher education institution, a cultural institution, or a private non-profit organization with a proven record of success in intervening in low-performing schools, provided that the term would not include a charter school. The contract would be required to include district expectations and/or benchmarks for school operations and academic outcomes, and provide that failure to meet such expectations or benchmarks may be ground for termination of the contract. The contract would also be required to address the manner in which students will be assigned to the school, the process for employees to transfer to the school, the services the district will provide to the school and the manner in which the school shall apply for and receive allocational and competitive grants.

Under the bill, the EPO would assume the duties of the superintendent of schools with respect to the school, including but not limited to making recommendations to the board of education to implement the educational program, including decisions on budgetary decisions, staffing population decisions, student discipline, decisions on curriculum and determining the daily schedule and the school calendar, consistent with collective bargaining agreements. The board of education would retain ultimate decision-making authority over employment decisions, including hiring, evaluating, termination, granting of tenure, assignment of employees and staff development and over other terms and conditions of employees. However, the EPO would be authorized to exercise all the powers of a superintendent of

schools over employment decisions, including but not limited to making recommendations to the board of education on staff assignments, hiring, tenure., evaluation and discipline and termination of employees. The employees assigned to the school would continue to be solely employed by the school district for all purposes, and would retain all their tenure rights and other employment rights conferred by law.

The board of education, and not the EPO, would be the employer for purposes of the Taylor Law (Article 14 of the Civil Service Law). The employees assigned to the school would remain members of the applicable negotiating unit containing like titles or positions for the school district would be covered by the collective bargaining agreement covering that school district's negotiating unit. However, the duly recognized or certified collective bargaining representative for that negotiating, unit would be authorized to modify or supplement, in writing, the collective bargaining agreement in consultation with the employees of the negotiating unit working in the school. All such modifications of, or supplements to the collective bargaining agreement would be subject to ratification by the employees employed within the school and by the board of education of the school district.

The bill further provides that where the EPO makes a recommendation to the board of education on implementing the educational program or on employment decisions and the recommendation is denied, the board is required to state its reasons for the denial, which shall include an explanation of how the denial will improve student achievement in the school and how such action is consistent with the accountability plans approved by the Commissioner for the school and the district. The board of education would not be prevented, however, from denying a recommendation that is in violation of law or violates a collective bargaining agreement. The bill further provides that if the board of education rejects a recommendation to terminate the probationary appointment of an employee assigned to the school or a recommendation to deny tenure to such an employee, the board of education would be required to transfer the employee to another position in the school district within that employee's tenure area or to create such a position.

The bill also supplies definitions of "board of education," "school district" and "superintendent of schools" for purposes of new §211-e of the Education Law.

Justification

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.

In addition, this bill would enhance the ability of New York school districts to intervene effectively in persistently lowest achieving schools and Schools Under Registration Review by engaging the services of an educational partnership organization with expertise in turning around low-performing schools to manage the operations of the school, subject to the authority of the board of education. Enactment of the bill would provide an additional tool to New York school districts, consistent with Federal requirements, that they do not have under current law to implement a. "restart model," It does so in a way that recognizes the ultimate authority of the board of education in overseeing the school, while preserving the rights of the public employees assigned to the school.

Prior legislative history

New legislation.

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.

Effective date

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