When I do an incompetency case, I bring it up when I know that my client has terrific student data. Why? Because if an educator is alleged to be totally a failure at teaching, and his/her students have high scores on tests, grades, etc., I believe that the educator cannot be proven to be a failure at teaching. The data is one more item added to the list as part of the defense.
If an educator does not have good scores on tests, then this data is not brought in because there are too many intervening factors to have this data prove that the person is truly incompetent. Thus if the Respondent teacher is appointed to a CTT class or self-contained class, the student data does not reflect the progress or learning of the students, necessarily, as these students may not have been given their services, extended time, and other accommodations.
The data should never be used alone, of course. This is part of an entire defense, planned and implemented by the legal team. Added to the mix are: hostile work environment, hatred/revenge/wrongdoing by the administrators or other people in the building, lies and misinformation. Winning a 3020-a is both time-consuming and work intensive, but worth every minute. The DOE Attorneys have a very heavy burden most of the time. They get half the story - most of which may not be true - and have to argue for termination or resignation, not something in between. How does a late student assessment prove incompetency? How does a lesson plan that does not have a formula in it prove that a teacher cannot teach math? I don't know.
The DOE attorneys argue that the student data is not "relevant". This is also the ruling of one of the most biased against teachers, Arbitrator Haydee Rosario who, in
 |
| Haydee Rosario, Esq. |
2006, was an attorney for the NYC DOE and prosecuted educators brought to 3020-a.She believes that all student data for a teacher charged with incompetency is not relevant to the charges. Ridiculous. If students have great standardized test scores, certainly a part of the result is due to the teaching that went on in that class that year. At least that's what I think.
In fact teacher data reports include the vague "student progress" in test scores, ruled by New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern, with teacher's names. Now THAT's unfair. Scores and student data are part of a package of facts, and should not be used without all the other elements of bad faith in public policy, the improper determination of probable cause, hostility by a person in the building, grievances filed by the Respondent, facts which can bring charges against an employee and which do not prove by a preponderance of evidence that the teacher is incompetent..
Betsy Combier
N.Y. Education Law 3012-c – Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals
§ 3012-c. Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance reviews of all classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such performance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two thousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of subdivision two of this section where applicable, shall include measures of student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section. Such annual professional performance reviews shall be a significant factor for employment decisions including but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation, which decisions are to be made in accordance with locally developed procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law where applicable. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the statutory right of a school district or board of cooperative educational services to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for statutorily and constitutionally permissible reasons other than the performance of the teacher or principal in the classroom or school, including but not limited to misconduct. Such performance reviews shall also be a significant factor in teacher and principal development, including but not limited to, coaching, induction support and differentiated professional development, which are to be locally established in accordance with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law.
2. a. (1) The annual professional performance reviews conducted pursuant to this section for classroom teachers and building principals shall differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using the following quality rating categories: highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective, with explicit minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each category, for the state assessments and other comparable measures subcomponent of the evaluation and for the locally selected measures of student achievement subcomponent of the evaluation, as prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner. There shall be: (i) a state assessments and other comparable measures subcomponent which shall comprise twenty or twenty-five percent of the evaluation; (ii) a locally selected measures of student achievement subcomponent which shall comprise twenty or fifteen percent of the evaluation; and (iii) an other measures of teacher or principal effectiveness subcomponent which shall comprise the remaining sixty percent of the evaluation, which in sum shall constitute the composite teacher or principal effectiveness score. Such annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in the regulations of the commissioner.
(2) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand eleven–two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraphs f and g of this subdivision for the two thousand twelve–two thousand thirteen school year, the overall composite scoring ranges shall be in accordance with this subparagraph. A classroom teacher and building principal shall be deemed to be:
(A) Highly Effective if they achieve a composite effectiveness score of 91-100.
No comments:
Post a Comment