Subject: Peer Validator Program
Dear Teacher,
Based on current records of your 2013-14 overall Annual Professional Performance Review rating, you will be assigned a Peer Validator during school year 2014-15.
The Peer Validator program is a joint initiative of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) that exists as part of Advance, our teacher evaluation and development system.
This program, which is new this school year, provides all teachers who received an
overall Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating of “Ineffective” (Safety
Net Result, if applicable) for the 2013-14 school year with a Peer Validator in the 2014-15 school year. The Peer Validator’s job is to independently evaluate a teacher’s classroom performance.
Peer Validators are trained New York City teachers who are assigned to the Division of Teaching and Learning. Each Peer Validator applied to work in the program and met qualifications consistent with the terms set forth in the DOE’s collective bargaining agreement with UFT. They were selected for the position by a hiring committee comprised of DOE and UFT representatives. Each teacher who is assigned a Peer Validator will receive three unannounced, full-period classroom observations.
The Peer Validator will assess teacher practice based on components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d of the Danielson Framework for Teaching. The Peer Validator will not communicate with you or your school’s administration about the APPR process. His/her role is to observe you in your classroom, in order to provide an independent assessment of the Measures of Teacher Practice component of the APPR. The Peer Validator cannot disclose his/her ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over, at which point both you and your lead evaluator will be provided with copies of the three completed Peer Validator observation reports.
The following answers to frequently asked questions will help you to understand more
about this program and how it supports you:
1. Why was the Peer Validator program created?
New York State Education Law 3012-c requires that Independent Validators be assigned
to teachers who received an overall APPR rating of “Ineffective” in a school year who were not rated “Ineffective” the year prior. As part of the DOE-UFT contract agreement this summer, the Independent Validators were replaced with Peer Validators, in recognition of the skills and abilities of teachers who work within our schools.
2. What do Peer Validators do?
Peer Validators perform their work entirely independent of the school-based evaluation process. They confer with neither teachers nor their supervisors during the program year. Visits are unannounced for both the school and the teacher. Peer Validators do not have access to any historical information regarding the teachers who they are observing. Finally, they do not disclose their ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over,
at which point both lead evaluator and teachers are provided with copies of the three completed observation reports.
Peer Validators provide teachers being served by the program with three independent and unannounced observation visits to their classrooms. The observations must occur at least 20 school days apart. During those visits, the Peer Validator takes notes of what she/he sees and hears, and develops observation ratings for components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d using the same process and tools that school-based evaluators do.
3. What should I expect during a Peer Validator visit?
Each Peer Validator observation will be unannounced and last a full period. When the
Peer Validator comes to your classroom, she/he will greet you and give you a copy of this letter. She/he will then observe and take detailed notes. As is also true for school-based evaluators, she/he may circulate around the classroom, examine student work, confer
with students and take photographs unobtrusively. When the observation is concluded,
the Peer Validator will leave. Other than the initial greeting, there is no communication between the teacher and Peer Validator.
If you have additional questions about the Peer Validator program, please contact the Advance Support Team at AdvanceSupport@schools.nyc.gov
Thank you.
- The Advance Support Team
NYS Senate:
Bill S6732-2011
Relates
to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building
principals
Law:Amd
§3012-c, Ed L
Actions
Mar
27, 2012: SIGNED CHAP.21
Mar
15, 2012: DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR
Mar
14, 2012: returned to senate
Mar
14, 2012: passed assembly
Mar
14, 2012: message of necessity - 3 day message
Mar
14, 2012: ordered to third reading rules cal.16
Mar
14, 2012: referred to ways and means
Mar
14, 2012: DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
Mar
14, 2012: PASSED SENATE
Mar
14, 2012: MESSAGE OF NECESSITY - 3 DAY MESSAGE
Mar
14, 2012: ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.365
Mar
14, 2012: REFERRED TO RULES
Meetings
Calendars
Votes
VOTE:
COMMITTEE VOTE: - Rules - Mar 14, 2012
Ayes
(12): Skelos, Farley, Fuschillo, Johnson, Larkin, LaValle, Libous, Marcellino, Maziarz, Nozzolio,
VOTE:
FLOOR VOTE: - Mar 14, 2012
Ayes
(36): Alesi, Ball, Bonacic, Carlucci, DeFrancisco, Farley, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Gallivan, Golden,
Griffo, Grisanti, Hannon, Johnson, Klein, Lanza, Larkin, LaValle, Libous, Little, Marcellino, Martins, Maziarz, McDonald, Nozzolio, O'Mara, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, Robach, Saland, Savino, Seward, Skelos, Valesky, Young, Zeldin
Absent (24): Adams, Addabbo, Avella, Breslin, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Gianaris, Hassell-Thomps, Huntley, Kennedy, Krueger, Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Sampson,
Memo
BILL
NUMBER:S6732
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the education law, in relation to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals and the teacher evaluation appeal process in the city of New York
PURPOSE:
This bill would create a statewide teacher and principal evaluation system to be implemented by local school districts and would make changes to the teacher evaluation appeals process for the city of New York.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill would amend subdivision 1 of section 3012-c of the education law to clarify that this section would not affect a school district or board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) ability to terminate a probationary teacher or principal.
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law and add subdivisions 2-8 to establish state and local assessments (objective) and teacher performance (subjective) measures of the annual professional performance review (i.e. the teacher and principal evaluation system, hereinafter referred to as "the evaluation system") and to develop and assign scoring ranges for each of the rating categories within the evaluation system.
Section 3 of the bill would amend paragraphs b and c of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish a timeline and set forth parameters, including the standards for selecting local measures for student achievement and the implementation of the evaluation system.
Section 4 of the bill would amend paragraphs e, f, g of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to explicitly describe the types of locally selected assessments that may be used in the evaluation system.
Section 5 of the bill would amend paragraph h of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish rigorous standards and scoring of the remaining 60 percent of the evaluation system including, but not limited to multiple classroom observations.
Section 6 of the bill would add a new paragraph j to subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to add an "anti-gaming" provision requiring that it be possible for a teacher or principal to receive one of the four ratings (highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective) in the applicable scoring range, for each subcomponent. This section would also require that a superintendent, district superintendent or chancellor, and where applicable the president of the collective bargaining representative, certify that it has incorporated and will follow the scoring standards set forth in this section.
Section 7 of the bill would amend subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new paragraph k to set forth the requirements and timeline for the governing body of each district or BOCES to adopt a plan for the annual professional performance review of its classroom teachers and principals. This section would also require that the commissioner approve or reject each plan by September first, two thousand twelve, or as soon as practicable thereafter. Finally, this section would require that if all the terms of the plan are not finalized by July first of any subsequent year as a result of unresolved collective bargaining, the entire plan shall be submitted to the commissioner upon resolution of its terms.
Section 8 of the bill would amend subdivision 4 of section 3012-c of the education law to make a technical correction.
Section 9 of the bill would amend subdivision 5 of section 3012-c of the education law to provide for a timely and expeditious appeals process. Section 9 of the bill would also add new paragraphs b and c. Paragraph b would ensure that nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the authority of the governing body of a school district or BOCES to grant or deny tenure to or terminate probationary teachers or building principals. Paragraph c would set forth that nothing in this section shall trigger the appeals process prior to the receipt of a composite effectiveness score.
Section 10 of the bill would add a new subdivision 9 to section 3012-c of the education law to allow the department to monitor and analyze trends and patterns around the teacher and principal evaluation plan.
Section 11 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new subdivision 5-a to make changes to the ineffective rating appeals process in New York City. Paragraphs a-o of this section set forth the parameters for an expedited appeals process, including:
- The process for a teacher to appeal an ineffective rating.
- The creation of an independent three-member panel where the United Federation of Teachers may appeal up to thirteen percent of cases.
- Timelines for initiating and implementing the appeals process.
- The establishment of an independent evaluator.
- The process for the New York City Department of Education to bring 3020a charges under the new provision.
Section 12 of the bill provides that this bill would take effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law before.
EXISTING LAW:
Education Law º3012-c (APPR) and section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's Regulations were enacted in 2010 and 2011 respectively to create a teacher and principal evaluation system in New York State, but to date neither has been implemented.
Education Law º3012-c also establishes the parameters for a teacher to appeal an ineffective evaluation rating. Education Law º3020-a establishes the process a school district must follow before removing or disciplining a tenured teacher. In New York City, alternative procedures specified in the collective bargaining agreement between the teachers union and the New York City Department of Education may also be used. (ºº 2590-f(1)(c), 3020(4)).
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:
New York's public schools spend more money per pupil than those in any other state. Yet, in measures of student performance, New York ranks 38th nationally in graduation rates. Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in a student's achievement and success. In 2010, the federal government created the Race to the Top program which, among other things, required a teacher and principal evaluation system. New York was a winner, yet has failed to implement an evaluation system. Such a system is critical in strengthening and supporting teachers so that they best serve our student's needs by preparing all students for college and careers.
This bill would make New York State a national leader in education by creating a new groundbreaking statewide teacher and principal evaluation system. The proposed teacher evaluation system would provide clear standards and significant guidance to local school districts for the implementation of a teacher evaluation system that is based on multiple measures of performance including student achievement and rigorous classroom observations.
This bill follows through on the state's commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.
Details of the teacher and principal evaluation plan are as follows:
Teacher and Principal Performance - 60 points
The bill would provide that 60 percent of a teacher's evaluation be based on rigorous and nationally recognized measures of teacher performance, This bill would also require that a majority of the teacher performance points be based on multiple classroom observations by an administrator or principal, at least one of which must be unannounced. The remaining points would be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.
This bill would also provide that 60 percent of a principal's evaluation be based on broad assessments of leadership and management actions, which would include multiple school visits by a supervisor and trained evaluator, of which one must be unannounced.
Student Achievement in State and Local Assessments- 40 points
Under this provision, forty percent of a teacher's evaluation would be based on student academic achievement, with 20 percent (25 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from state testing and 20 percent (15 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from a list of three testing options including state tests, third party assessments/tests approved by the SED and locally developed tests that would be subject to SED review and approval. Under this proposal, school districts would also have the option of using state tests (but applying a different growth formula than the one used by the state) to measure up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating.
Rating System
The teacher evaluation scoring system to ensure student achievement and teacher performance would be significantly tightened under this provision. The new rating system would prohibit a teacher or principal who is rated ineffective in the objective measures of student growth (40pts) from receiving a developing score overall. The scoring system would be as follows:
Ineffective: 0 - 64 Developing: 65 - 74 Effective: 75 - 90 Highly Effective: 91 - 100
Assigning a Curve for the Ratings
For the first time, this bill would establish a standard for school districts and teacher unions to set the allocation of points or the "curve" for the teacher ratings. The curve would be allocated in a manner that a teacher could receive one of the four ratings, and the SED Commissioner would be able to reject insufficiently set curves.
SED Commissioner Final Review
The bill would also give the Commissioner of Education the authority to approve evaluation plans, or deny local evaluation plans that are deemed insufficient, thereby adding rigor to the process and ensuring evaluation plans comply with the law.
Appeals
A teacher and principal evaluation plan must contain a locally established appeals procedure to allow a teacher or principal to challenge the substance of an annual professional performance review. This bill would clarify that this appeals process be timely and expeditious and allow districts to terminate probationary teachers and principals or grant or deny tenure while an appeal is pending. This bill would also codify an agreement reached by the United Federation of Teachers and the New York City School District to implement such an appeals system as part of its teacher and principal evaluation plan, should alternative procedures not be collectively bargained by January 16, 2013.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 enacted a statewide system of teacher evaluation, which has not been implemented.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
This bill would ensure that New York met its commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.
School districts that have not implemented a teacher and principal evaluation system consistent with this proposal by January 17, 2013, would not receive their share of state school aid increases for the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This bill would take effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law.
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the education law, in relation to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals and the teacher evaluation appeal process in the city of New York
PURPOSE:
This bill would create a statewide teacher and principal evaluation system to be implemented by local school districts and would make changes to the teacher evaluation appeals process for the city of New York.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the bill would amend subdivision 1 of section 3012-c of the education law to clarify that this section would not affect a school district or board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) ability to terminate a probationary teacher or principal.
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law and add subdivisions 2-8 to establish state and local assessments (objective) and teacher performance (subjective) measures of the annual professional performance review (i.e. the teacher and principal evaluation system, hereinafter referred to as "the evaluation system") and to develop and assign scoring ranges for each of the rating categories within the evaluation system.
Section 3 of the bill would amend paragraphs b and c of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish a timeline and set forth parameters, including the standards for selecting local measures for student achievement and the implementation of the evaluation system.
Section 4 of the bill would amend paragraphs e, f, g of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to explicitly describe the types of locally selected assessments that may be used in the evaluation system.
Section 5 of the bill would amend paragraph h of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish rigorous standards and scoring of the remaining 60 percent of the evaluation system including, but not limited to multiple classroom observations.
Section 6 of the bill would add a new paragraph j to subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to add an "anti-gaming" provision requiring that it be possible for a teacher or principal to receive one of the four ratings (highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective) in the applicable scoring range, for each subcomponent. This section would also require that a superintendent, district superintendent or chancellor, and where applicable the president of the collective bargaining representative, certify that it has incorporated and will follow the scoring standards set forth in this section.
Section 7 of the bill would amend subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new paragraph k to set forth the requirements and timeline for the governing body of each district or BOCES to adopt a plan for the annual professional performance review of its classroom teachers and principals. This section would also require that the commissioner approve or reject each plan by September first, two thousand twelve, or as soon as practicable thereafter. Finally, this section would require that if all the terms of the plan are not finalized by July first of any subsequent year as a result of unresolved collective bargaining, the entire plan shall be submitted to the commissioner upon resolution of its terms.
Section 8 of the bill would amend subdivision 4 of section 3012-c of the education law to make a technical correction.
Section 9 of the bill would amend subdivision 5 of section 3012-c of the education law to provide for a timely and expeditious appeals process. Section 9 of the bill would also add new paragraphs b and c. Paragraph b would ensure that nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the authority of the governing body of a school district or BOCES to grant or deny tenure to or terminate probationary teachers or building principals. Paragraph c would set forth that nothing in this section shall trigger the appeals process prior to the receipt of a composite effectiveness score.
Section 10 of the bill would add a new subdivision 9 to section 3012-c of the education law to allow the department to monitor and analyze trends and patterns around the teacher and principal evaluation plan.
Section 11 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new subdivision 5-a to make changes to the ineffective rating appeals process in New York City. Paragraphs a-o of this section set forth the parameters for an expedited appeals process, including:
- The process for a teacher to appeal an ineffective rating.
- The creation of an independent three-member panel where the United Federation of Teachers may appeal up to thirteen percent of cases.
- Timelines for initiating and implementing the appeals process.
- The establishment of an independent evaluator.
- The process for the New York City Department of Education to bring 3020a charges under the new provision.
Section 12 of the bill provides that this bill would take effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law before.
EXISTING LAW:
Education Law º3012-c (APPR) and section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's Regulations were enacted in 2010 and 2011 respectively to create a teacher and principal evaluation system in New York State, but to date neither has been implemented.
Education Law º3012-c also establishes the parameters for a teacher to appeal an ineffective evaluation rating. Education Law º3020-a establishes the process a school district must follow before removing or disciplining a tenured teacher. In New York City, alternative procedures specified in the collective bargaining agreement between the teachers union and the New York City Department of Education may also be used. (ºº 2590-f(1)(c), 3020(4)).
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:
New York's public schools spend more money per pupil than those in any other state. Yet, in measures of student performance, New York ranks 38th nationally in graduation rates. Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in a student's achievement and success. In 2010, the federal government created the Race to the Top program which, among other things, required a teacher and principal evaluation system. New York was a winner, yet has failed to implement an evaluation system. Such a system is critical in strengthening and supporting teachers so that they best serve our student's needs by preparing all students for college and careers.
This bill would make New York State a national leader in education by creating a new groundbreaking statewide teacher and principal evaluation system. The proposed teacher evaluation system would provide clear standards and significant guidance to local school districts for the implementation of a teacher evaluation system that is based on multiple measures of performance including student achievement and rigorous classroom observations.
This bill follows through on the state's commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.
Details of the teacher and principal evaluation plan are as follows:
Teacher and Principal Performance - 60 points
The bill would provide that 60 percent of a teacher's evaluation be based on rigorous and nationally recognized measures of teacher performance, This bill would also require that a majority of the teacher performance points be based on multiple classroom observations by an administrator or principal, at least one of which must be unannounced. The remaining points would be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.
This bill would also provide that 60 percent of a principal's evaluation be based on broad assessments of leadership and management actions, which would include multiple school visits by a supervisor and trained evaluator, of which one must be unannounced.
Student Achievement in State and Local Assessments- 40 points
Under this provision, forty percent of a teacher's evaluation would be based on student academic achievement, with 20 percent (25 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from state testing and 20 percent (15 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from a list of three testing options including state tests, third party assessments/tests approved by the SED and locally developed tests that would be subject to SED review and approval. Under this proposal, school districts would also have the option of using state tests (but applying a different growth formula than the one used by the state) to measure up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating.
Rating System
The teacher evaluation scoring system to ensure student achievement and teacher performance would be significantly tightened under this provision. The new rating system would prohibit a teacher or principal who is rated ineffective in the objective measures of student growth (40pts) from receiving a developing score overall. The scoring system would be as follows:
Ineffective: 0 - 64 Developing: 65 - 74 Effective: 75 - 90 Highly Effective: 91 - 100
Assigning a Curve for the Ratings
For the first time, this bill would establish a standard for school districts and teacher unions to set the allocation of points or the "curve" for the teacher ratings. The curve would be allocated in a manner that a teacher could receive one of the four ratings, and the SED Commissioner would be able to reject insufficiently set curves.
SED Commissioner Final Review
The bill would also give the Commissioner of Education the authority to approve evaluation plans, or deny local evaluation plans that are deemed insufficient, thereby adding rigor to the process and ensuring evaluation plans comply with the law.
Appeals
A teacher and principal evaluation plan must contain a locally established appeals procedure to allow a teacher or principal to challenge the substance of an annual professional performance review. This bill would clarify that this appeals process be timely and expeditious and allow districts to terminate probationary teachers and principals or grant or deny tenure while an appeal is pending. This bill would also codify an agreement reached by the United Federation of Teachers and the New York City School District to implement such an appeals system as part of its teacher and principal evaluation plan, should alternative procedures not be collectively bargained by January 16, 2013.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 enacted a statewide system of teacher evaluation, which has not been implemented.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
This bill would ensure that New York met its commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.
School districts that have not implemented a teacher and principal evaluation system consistent with this proposal by January 17, 2013, would not receive their share of state school aid increases for the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This bill would take effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law.
Text
STATE
OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
S.
6732
A. 9554
S
E N A T E - A S S E M B L Y
March
14, 2012
___________
IN SENATE
-- Introduced by
COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (at request of the
Governor) -- read twice and ordered printed,
and when printed to be
committed to the Committee on Rules
IN ASSEMBLY
-- Introduced by
M. of A. SILVER -- (at request of
the
Governor) -- read once and referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means
AN
ACT to amend the education law, in relation
to annual professional
performance
review of classroom teachers and
building principals and
the teacher evaluation appeal process in the
city of New York
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY,
DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section
1. Subdivision 1 of section 3012-c of the education law, as
added
by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows:
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, rule or regulation to
the contrary, the annual professional performance
reviews of all class-
room
teachers and building principals employed by
school districts or
boards
of cooperative educational services shall be conducted in accord-
ance
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 profes-
sional performance reviews shall be a significant
factor for employment
decisions
including but not limited to, promotion,
retention, tenure
determination, termination,
and supplemental compensation, which deci-
sions
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 PRINCI-
PAL
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.
S 2. Paragraph a of subdivision 2 of section
3012-c of the education
law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010,
is amended to read as
follows:
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 MEAS-
URES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT WHICH
SHALL COMPRISE TWENTY OR
FIFTEEN
PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION; AND (III) AN OTHER MEASURES OF TEACH-
ER
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 regu-
lations
of the commissioner.
(2)
FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD-
ANCE 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.
(B) EFFECTIVE IF
THEY ACHIEVE A
COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF
75-90.
(C) DEVELOPING IF THEY ACHIEVE A
COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE
OF
65-74.
(D)
INEFFECTIVE IF THEY
ACHIEVE A COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF
0-64.
(3) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD-
ANCE 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 PARAGRAPH F OF THIS
SUBDIVISION
FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL
YEAR FOR
CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD
OF
REGENTS HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCI-
PALS
EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR
WHICH THERE IS
NO APPROVED
PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED
MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE STUDENT GROWTH
ON
STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE
IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING
PRINCIPAL
SHALL RECEIVE:
(A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS
SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR
PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS
ARE WELL-ABOVE THE
STATE AVERAGE FOR
SIMILAR
STUDENTS
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 18-20;
(B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN-
CIPAL'S RESULTS
MEET THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY
ACHIEVE
A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 9-17; OR
(C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN-
CIPAL'S
RESULTS ARE BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE
FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS
AND
THEY
ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-8; OR
(D)
AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT, IF THE TEACHER'S
OR
PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS
ARE WELL-BELOW THE
STATE AVERAGE FOR
SIMILAR
STUDENTS
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2.
(4)
FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH
PARAGRAPH G OF
THIS SUBDIVISION FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND
TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND
THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR
FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN
SUBJECTS
AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD
OF REGENTS HAS
APPROVED A
VALUE-ADDED MODEL
AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR
PROGRAMS
FOR WHICH THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE
SCORING
RANGES FOR THE STUDENT GROWTH ON STATE
ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER
COMPARABLE MEASURES
SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS
SUBPARAGRAPH.
A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE:
(A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS
SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR
PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS
ARE WELL-ABOVE THE
STATE AVERAGE FOR
SIMILAR
STUDENTS
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 22-25;
(B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN-
CIPAL'S RESULTS
MEET THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY
ACHIEVE
A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 10-21; OR
(C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN-
CIPAL'S
RESULTS ARE BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE
FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS
AND
THEY
ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-9; OR
(D)
AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT, IF THE TEACHER'S
OR
PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS
ARE WELL-BELOW THE
STATE AVERAGE FOR
SIMILAR
STUDENTS
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2.
(5)
FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD-
ANCE 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
PARAGRAPH F OF
THIS
SUBDIVISION FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL
YEAR
FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE
BOARD
OF
REGENTS HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCI-
PALS EMPLOYED
IN SCHOOLS OR
PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED
PRINCIPAL
VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED
MEASURES
OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS
SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND
BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL
RECEIVE:
(A) A
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE
WELL-ABOVE
DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVE-
MENT
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 18-20; OR
(B)
AN EFFECTIVE RATING
IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS MEET
DISTRICT-ADOPTED
EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE
A
SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 9-17; OR
(C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE RESULTS ARE BELOW
DISTRICT-ADOPTED
EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE
A
SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-8; OR
(D)
AN INEFFECTIVE RATING
IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE
RESULTS ARE
WELL-BELOW
DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR
ACHIEVEMENT AND
THEY
ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2.
(6)
FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD-
ANCE 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
PARAGRAPH G OF
THIS
SUBDIVISION FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL
YEAR
FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE
BOARD
OF REGENTS HAS APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND
FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS
EMPLOYED
IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL
VALUE-ADDED
MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES
OF STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
SUBPARAGRAPH.
A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE:
(A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS
SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE
WELL-ABOVE DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT
GROWTH OR ACHIEVE-
MENT
AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 14-15; OR
(B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS
SUBCOMPONENT IF THE
RESULTS MEET
DISTRICT-ADOPTED
EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE
A
SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 8-13; OR
(C) A
DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE BELOW
DISTRICT-ADOPTED
EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE
A
SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-7; OR
(D) AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT
IF THE RESULTS
ARE
WELL-BELOW DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND
THEY
ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2.
(7) FOR THE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN--TWO
THOUSAND FOURTEEN SCHOOL YEAR
AND
THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL REVIEW THE SPECIFIC SCORING RANG-
ES FOR
EACH OF THE RATING CATEGORIES ANNUALLY BEFORE THE START OF EACH
SCHOOL
YEAR AND SHALL RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR
CONSIDERATION.
(8) Except for the student growth measures ON
THE STATE ASSESSMENTS OR
OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES OF STUDENT GROWTH
prescribed in paragraphs e,
f
and g of this subdivision, the
elements comprising the
composite
effectiveness score
AND THE PROCESS
BY WHICH POINTS ARE ASSIGNED TO
SUBCOMPONENTS
shall be locally developed, consistent with the
standards
prescribed in the
regulations of the commissioner AND THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS
SECTION, through negotiations
conducted, pursuant to the
requirements
of article fourteen of the civil service law.
S
3. Paragraphs b
and c of subdivision 2 of section
3012-c of the
education
law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, are amended
to
read as follows:
b.
(1) Annual professional
performance reviews conducted by school
districts
[on or after July
first, two thousand eleven] OR
BOARDS OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR THE TWO THOUSAND
ELEVEN--TWO THOU-
SAND
TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR of classroom teachers of common branch subjects
or English language arts or mathematics in
grades four to eight and all
building
principals of schools in which such teachers are employed shall
be
conducted pursuant to this subdivision and
shall use two
thousand
ten--two thousand
eleven school year student data
as the baseline for
the
initial computation of the composite teacher or principal effective-
ness
score for such classroom teachers and principals.
(2) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH K OF THIS SUBDIVISION
THE ENTIRE ANNUAL
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED TO THE
TEACHER
OR PRINCIPAL AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN NO
CASE LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER FIRST,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE. THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS
TWO
AND THREE OF PARAGRAPH C OF THIS SUBDIVISION
SHALL APPLY TO
SUCH
REVIEWS.
c.
(1) Annual professional
performance reviews conducted by school
July first, two thousand twelve] FOR THE TWO THOUSAND
TWELVE--TWO THOU-
SAND
THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER of all classroom teachers
and
all building principals shall be conducted
pursuant to this subdivision
and
shall use two thousand eleven--two thousand
twelve school year
student data as the baseline for the initial
computation of the compos-
ite
teacher or principal effectiveness score for such classroom teachers
and
principals. For purposes of this section, an administrator in charge
of
an instructional program of
a board of
cooperative educational
services
shall be deemed to be a building principal.
(2)
SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
K OF THIS SUBDIVISION THE ENTIRE ANNUAL
PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED TO THE
TEACHER OR
PRINCIPAL AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER
FIRST OF THE SCHOOL YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE
SCHOOL YEAR FOR
WHICH
THE CLASSROOM TEACHER OR BUILDING PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IS BEING
MEASURED. THE TEACHER'S AND PRINCIPAL'S SCORE AND
RATING ON THE LOCALLY
SELECTED
MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT, IF AVAILABLE, AND ON THE OTHER MEASURES
OF TEACHER
AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT FOR A TEACHER'S OR
PRINCIPAL'S
ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE COMPUTED AND
PROVIDED
TO THE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL, IN WRITING, BY NO LATER THAN
THE
LAST DAY OF THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR WHICH THE TEACHER
OR PRINCIPAL IS BEING
MEASURED.
NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A
TEACHER OR
PRINCIPAL TO TRIGGER THE APPEAL PROCESS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF
HIS
OR HER COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE AND RATING.
(3) EACH SUCH ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW SHALL BE BASED ON
THE
STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER
COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT,
THE
LOCALLY SELECTED
MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
SUBCOMPONENT AND THE
OTHER
MEASURES OF TEACHER AND
PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT,
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION
AND
THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER, FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR
WHICH
THE
TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IS MEASURED.
S
4. Paragraphs e, f and g of
subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the
education
law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, are amended
to
read as follows:
e.
(1) For annual
professional performance reviews
conducted in
accordance
with paragraph b of this subdivision [in] FOR the two
thou-
sand eleven--two
thousand twelve school
year, forty percent of the
composite
score of effectiveness shall be based on
student achievement
measures as
follows: (i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be
based
upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the
commissioner
or a comparable measure of student growth
if such growth
data is not
available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other
locally
selected measures of student achievement that are determined to
be rigorous
and comparable across
classrooms in accordance with the
regulations
of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner
consistent
with procedures negotiated pursuant to
the requirements of
article
fourteen of the civil service law.
(2)
SUCH LOCALLY SELECTED
MEASURES MAY INCLUDE MEASURES OF STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR
DEPARTMENT APPROVED EQUIVALENT, PROVIDED THAT SUCH
MEASURES ARE DIFFER-
ENT
FROM THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO CLAUSE (I) OF
SUBPARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS PARAGRAPH. THE REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSIONER
SHALL
DESCRIBE THE TYPES OF MEASURES OF STUDENT
GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
THAT MAY BE LOCALLY SELECTED. THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE(S) AS
DESCRIBED
IN THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
BOARD
OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL BE
DETERMINED THROUGH COLLEC-
TIVE
BARGAINING.
f.
(1) For annual
professional performance reviews
conducted in
approved use of a value-added growth model, but not earlier than] FOR
the
two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school year AND THEREAFT-
ER FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES
FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF
REGENTS
HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS
EMPLOYED
IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL
VALUE-ADDED
MODEL, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness
shall
be based on student achievement measures as
follows: (i) twenty
percent of
the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on
state
assessments as prescribed by the commissioner
or a comparable
measure
of student growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii)
twenty percent
shall be based
on other locally selected measures of
student
achievement that are determined to be
rigorous and comparable
across
classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner
and as
are developed locally
in a manner consistent with procedures
negotiated
pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil
service
law.
(2) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF
CLASS-
ROOM
TEACHERS:
(I)
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAM-
INATIONS AND/OR
DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE
EXAMINATIONS AS
DESCRIBED IN
THE REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSIONER INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED
TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE
EXAMINATIONS,
AND SAT II, USING A MEASURE THAT IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE
GROWTH SCORE
PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR STUDENT GROWTH ON SUCH
ASSESSMENTS
OR EXAMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE
STATE ASSESSMENT OR
OTHER
COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT THAT IS EITHER:
(A)
THE CHANGE IN
PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS WHO ACHIEVE A
SPECIFIC LEVEL
OF PERFORMANCE AS
DETERMINED LOCALLY, ON
SUCH
ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS COMPARED
TO THOSE STUDENTS' LEVEL OF PERFORM-
ANCE
ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR
SUCH
AS A THREE PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STUDENTS
EARNING THE PROFICIENT
LEVEL
(THREE) OR BETTER PERFORMANCE LEVEL
ON THE SEVENTH
GRADE MATH
STATE ASSESSMENT COMPARED TO THOSE SAME STUDENTS'
PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON
THE
SIXTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT, OR AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE
OF
A TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING THE ADVANCED PERFORMANCE LEVEL (FOUR) ON
THE FOURTH
GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS OR MATH STATE
ASSESSMENTS
COMPARED
TO THOSE STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE
LEVELS ON THE
THIRD GRADE
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS; OR
(B)
A TEACHER SPECIFIC GROWTH SCORE
COMPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED
ON
THE PERCENT OF THE TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING A DEPARTMENT DETERMINED
LEVEL
OF GROWTH. THE METHODOLOGY TO TRANSLATE
SUCH GROWTH INTO
THE
STATE-ESTABLISHED
SUBCOMPONENT SCORING RANGES SHALL BE DETERMINED LOCAL-
LY;
OR
(C)
A TEACHER-SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT
OR GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED IN A
MANNER
DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A MEASURE OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE
ON
THE STATE
ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED
ALTERNATIVE
EXAMINATIONS OTHER THAN THE MEASURE DESCRIBED IN ITEM (A) OR
(B)
OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH;
(II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
COMPUTED IN A
MANNER DETERMINED
LOCALLY BASED ON A STUDENT ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT PURSU-
ANT
TO A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION
PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN
THE REGU-
LATIONS
OF THE COMMISSIONER;
(III)
STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER
DETERMINED
LOCALLY
BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT
IS
RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS;
(IV) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF EITHER STUDENT
GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
BASED
ON EITHER:
(A) A STATE-PROVIDED STUDENT GROWTH SCORE
COVERING ALL STUDENTS IN THE
SCHOOL THAT TOOK THE STATE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH-
EMATICS
IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH EIGHT;
(B) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF STUDENT GROWTH
OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN
A
MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR
BOARD OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS
AND
COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS
OR A DEPARTMENT
APPROVED STUDENT
ASSESSMENT
OR BASED ON A STATE ASSESSMENT; OR
(V) WHERE APPLICABLE, FOR TEACHERS IN ANY
GRADE OR SUBJECT WHERE THERE
IS NO
GROWTH OR VALUE-ADDED
GROWTH MODEL APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
REGENTS AT
THAT GRADE LEVEL
OR IN THAT
SUBJECT, A STRUCTURED
DISTRICT-WIDE STUDENT
GROWTH GOAL-SETTING PROCESS TO BE
USED WITH ANY
STATE
ASSESSMENT OR AN APPROVED
STUDENT ASSESSMENT OR
A DISTRICT,
REGIONAL OR
BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE
ACROSS
CLASSROOMS.
(3) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF PRINCI-
PALS, PROVIDED
THAT EACH MEASURE
IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS
CLASSROOMS
AND THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE SHALL BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT
USED
FOR
THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT:
(I)
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
ON STATE ASSESSMENTS
IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN
GRADES FOUR TO
EIGHT SUCH AS
PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL WHOSE PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON STATE
ASSESSMENTS
ARE PROFICIENT OR ADVANCED, AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF
THE
COMMISSIONER;
(II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE
OR OTHER
ASSESSMENTS IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT FOR
STUDENTS
IN EACH OF THE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS
OF
THE COMMISSIONER;
(III)
STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO
EIGHT FOR STUDENTS
WITH
DISABILITIES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT;
(IV)
STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON ANY OR ALL OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE LOCALLY
SELECTED
MEASURES APPROVED FOR USE IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS;
(V) FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH
HIGH SCHOOL GRADES, FOUR,
FIVE
AND/OR SIX-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND/OR DROPOUT RATES;
(VI) PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO EARN A
REGENTS DIPLOMA WITH ADVANCED
DESIGNATION AND/OR
HONORS AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMIS-
SIONER,
FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES;
(VII) PERCENTAGE OF A COHORT OF STUDENTS THAT
ACHIEVE SPECIFIED SCORES
ON
REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINA-
TIONS INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED
PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS,
INTERNATIONAL
BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS AND SAT
II, FOR PRINCIPALS
EMPLOYED IN A
SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES SUCH AS THE PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS
IN THE TWO THOUSAND NINE COHORT THAT SCORED AT LEAST A THREE ON
AN
ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATION SINCE
ENTRY INTO THE
NINTH GRADE;
AND/OR
(VIII) STUDENTS' PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION
IN THE SCHOOL USING STRONG
PREDICTIVE INDICATORS,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NINTH AND/OR TENTH
GRADE
CREDIT ACCUMULATION AND/OR THE PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS THAT PASS
NINTH AND/OR
TENTH GRADE SUBJECTS MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH GRADU-
ATION AND/OR
STUDENTS' PROGRESS IN
PASSING THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED
REGENTS
EXAMINATIONS FOR GRADUATION, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL
WITH
HIGH SCHOOL GRADES.
(IX)
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS
OR BOARDS OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES THAT CHOOSE TO USE MORE THAN ONE SET OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS-
URES
DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH FOR PRINCIPALS IN THE SAME OR
SIMILAR
GRADE
CONFIGURATION OR PROGRAM SUCH AS ONE SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS-
URES IS USED TO EVALUATE PRINCIPALS IN SOME K-5
SCHOOLS AND ANOTHER SET
OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES IS USED TO EVALUATE PRINCIPALS IN THE OTHER
K-5
SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT, THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DISTRICT SUPERINTEN-
DENT SHALL, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW PLAN, CERTIFY THAT
THE
SETS OF MEASURES ARE COMPARABLE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TESTING
STANDARDS
AS DEFINED IN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER.
(X)
FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH
THERE
IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE TYPES OF
LOCALLY
SELECTED
MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH SPECIFIED IN SUBPARA-
GRAPH
THREE OF PARAGRAPH G OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE USED. IN ADDITION,
A STRUCTURED
DISTRICT-WIDE STUDENT GROWTH GOAL-SETTING PROCESS TO BE
USED
WITH ANY STATE ASSESSMENT OR AN APPROVED STUDENT ASSESSMENT
OR A
DISTRICT, REGIONAL
OF BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT
THAT IS RIGOROUS AND
COMPARABLE
ACROSS CLASSROOMS MAY BE A LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURE.
(4) THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE
OR MEASURES AS
DESCRIBED IN
SUBPARAGRAPHS TWO
AND THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
SHALL BE DETER-
MINED
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
g.
(1) For annual
professional performance reviews
conducted in
added growth model] TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL
YEAR and
thereafter FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES IN
WHICH
THERE IS A VALUE-ADDED GROWTH MODEL APPROVED
BY THE BOARD
OF
REGENTS AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN
SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR
WHICH
THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, forty percent of
the
composite score of effectiveness shall be based on student achieve-
ment measures
as follows: (i)
twenty-five percent of the evaluation
shall
be based
upon student growth
data on state
assessments as
prescribed
by the commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth
if such growth data is not available; and (ii)
fifteen percent shall be
based
on other locally selected measures of student achievement that are
determined
to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance
with
the regulations of the commissioner and as are locally developed in
a
manner consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the require-
ments
of article fourteen of the civil service law. The department shall
develop
the value-added growth model and shall consult with the advisory
committee established
pursuant to subdivision
seven of this section
prior
to recommending that the board of regents approve its use in eval-
uations.
(2) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF
CLASS-
ROOM
TEACHERS:
(I)
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAM-
INATIONS AND/OR
DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE
EXAMINATIONS AS
DESCRIBED IN
THE REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSIONER INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED
TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE
EXAMINATIONS
AND SAT II, USING A MEASURE THAT IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE
GROWTH SCORE
PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR STUDENT GROWTH ON SUCH
ASSESSMENTS
OR EXAMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE
STATE ASSESSMENT OR
OTHER
COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT THAT IS EITHER:
(A)
THE CHANGE IN
PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS WHO ACHIEVE A
SPECIFIC LEVEL
OF PERFORMANCE AS
DETERMINED LOCALLY, ON
SUCH
ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS COMPARED
TO THOSE STUDENTS' LEVEL OF PERFORM-
ANCE
ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR
SUCH
AS A THREE PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STUDENTS
EARNING THE PROFICIENT
LEVEL
(THREE) OR BETTER PERFORMANCE LEVEL
ON THE SEVENTH
GRADE MATH
STATE ASSESSMENT COMPARED TO THOSE SAME STUDENTS'
PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON
THE
SIXTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT, OR AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE
OF
A TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING THE ADVANCED PERFORMANCE LEVEL (FOUR) ON
THE FOURTH
GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS OR MATH
STATE ASSESSMENTS
COMPARED
TO THOSE STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE
LEVELS ON THE
THIRD GRADE
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS; OR
(B) A TEACHER SPECIFIC GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED
BY THE STATE BASED ON THE
PERCENT OF
THE TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING A
STATE DETERMINED LEVEL OF
GROWTH.
THE METHODOLOGY TO TRANSLATE SUCH GROWTH INTO THE STATE-ESTABL-
ISHED
SUBCOMPONENT SCORING RANGES SHALL BE DETERMINED LOCALLY; OR
(C)
A TEACHER-SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT
OR GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED IN A
MANNER
DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A MEASURE OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE
ON
THE STATE
ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED
ALTERNATIVE
EXAMINATIONS OTHER THAN THE MEASURE DESCRIBED IN ITEM (A) OR
(B)
OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH;
(II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
COMPUTED IN A
MANNER DETERMINED
LOCALLY BASED ON A STUDENT ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT PURSU-
ANT
TO A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION
PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN
THE REGU-
LATIONS
OF THE COMMISSIONER;
(III)
STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER
DETERMINED
LOCALLY
BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT
IS
RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS;
(IV) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF EITHER STUDENT
GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
BASED
ON EITHER:
(A) A STATE-PROVIDED STUDENT GROWTH SCORE
COVERING ALL STUDENTS IN THE
SCHOOL THAT TOOK THE STATE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH-
EMATICS
IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH EIGHT; OR
(B) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF STUDENT GROWTH
OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN
A
MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR
BOARD OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS
AND
COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS
OR A DEPARTMENT
APPROVED STUDENT
ASSESSMENT
OR BASED ON A STATE ASSESSMENT.
(3) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE
EVALUATION OF PRINCI-
PALS,
PROVIDED THAT EACH MEASURE IS
RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE
ACROSS
CLASSROOMS AND
THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE SHALL BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT USED
FOR
THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT:
(I)
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
ON STATE ASSESSMENTS
IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS
AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN
GRADES FOUR TO
EIGHT SUCH AS
PERCENTAGE
OF STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL WHOSE PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON
STATE
ASSESSMENTS
ARE PROFICIENT OR ADVANCED, AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF
THE
COMMISSIONER;
(II)
STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE OR OTHER ASSESSMENTS
IN
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES
FOUR TO EIGHT
FOR
STUDENTS IN EACH OF THE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DESCRIBED
IN THE REGULATIONS
OF
THE COMMISSIONER;
(III)
STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO
EIGHT FOR STUDENTS
WITH
DISABILITIES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT;
(IV)
STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON ANY OR ALL OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE LOCALLY
SELECTED
MEASURES APPROVED FOR USE IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS;
(V) FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH
HIGH SCHOOL GRADES, FOUR,
FIVE
AND/OR SIX-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND/OR DROPOUT RATES;
(VI) PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO EARN A
REGENTS DIPLOMA WITH ADVANCED
DESIGNATION AND/OR
HONORS AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMIS-
SIONER,
FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES;
(VII) PERCENTAGE OF A COHORT OF STUDENTS THAT
ACHIEVE SPECIFIED SCORES
ON
REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINA-
TIONS INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED
PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS,
INTERNATIONAL
BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS AND SAT
II, FOR PRINCIPALS
EMPLOYED IN A
SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES SUCH AS THE PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS
IN THE TWO THOUSAND NINE COHORT THAT SCORED AT LEAST A THREE ON
AN
ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATION SINCE
ENTRY INTO THE
NINTH GRADE;
AND/OR
(VIII) STUDENTS' PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION
IN THE SCHOOL USING STRONG
PREDICTIVE INDICATORS,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NINTH AND/OR TENTH
GRADE
CREDIT ACCUMULATION AND/OR THE PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS THAT PASS
NINTH AND/OR
TENTH GRADE SUBJECTS MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH GRADU-
ATION
AND/OR STUDENTS' PROGRESS IN
PASSING THE NUMBER
OF REQUIRED
REGENTS
EXAMINATIONS FOR GRADUATION, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL
WITH
HIGH SCHOOL GRADES.
(IX)
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS
OR BOARDS OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES
THAT CHOOSE TO USE MORE THAN ONE SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS-
URES DESCRIBED
IN THIS PARAGRAPH FOR PRINCIPALS IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR
GRADE
CONFIGURATION OR PROGRAM, THE SUPERINTENDENT
OR DISTRICT SUPER-
INTENDENT SHALL, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW PLAN, CERTIFY
THAT
THE SETS OF MEASURES ARE COMPARABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TESTING
STANDARDS
AS DEFINED IN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER.
(4) THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE
OR MEASURES AS
DESCRIBED IN
SUBPARAGRAPHS TWO
AND THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
SHALL BE DETER-
MINED
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
(5)
The department shall
develop the value-added growth
model and
shall
consult with the advisory committee established pursuant to subdi-
vision
seven of this section prior to recommending
that the board
of
regents
approve its use in evaluations.
S
5. Paragraph h of subdivision 2
of section 3012-c of the education
law,
as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as
follows:
h. The
remaining SIXTY percent of the evaluations, ratings and effec-
tiveness
scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the
stand-
ards prescribed in the regulations of the
commissioner, through negoti-
ations
conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law.
(1) A MAJORITY OF THE SIXTY POINTS FOR CLASSROOM
TEACHERS SHALL BE
BASED ON
MULTIPLE CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS CONDUCTED BY A PRINCIPAL OR
OTHER
TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED
IN-PERSON OR BY
VIDEO. FOR
EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIR-
TEEN
SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, AT LEAST ONE SUCH OBSERVATION SHALL BE
AN
UNANNOUNCED VISIT.
(2)
FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THESE SIXTY POINTS FOR
EVALUATIONS
FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO
THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL
YEAR, THE
COMMISSIONER'S
REGULATION SHALL PRESCRIBE THE OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE OF
TEACHER
AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS THAT MAY BE USED.
(3)
FOR EVALUATIONS OF
CLASSROOM TEACHERS FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND
TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE REMAINING
PORTION OF
THESE SIXTY POINTS
SHALL BE BASED ON ONE OR MORE OF
THE
FOLLOWING:
(I) ONE OR MORE CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS BY
INDEPENDENT TRAINED EVALU-
ATORS SELECTED
BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE
EDUCA-
TIONAL
SERVICES WHO ARE TEACHERS OR FORMER TEACHERS WITH A DEMONSTRATED
RECORD
OF EFFECTIVENESS AND HAVE NO PRIOR AFFILIATION WITH THE SCHOOL IN
WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION AND NO
OTHER RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE
TEACHERS BEING EVALUATED THAT WOULD AFFECT THEIR IMPARTIALITY;
(II) CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS BY TRAINED
IN-SCHOOL PEER TEACHERS; AND/OR
(III) USE OF A STATE-APPROVED INSTRUMENT FOR
PARENT OR STUDENT FEED-
BACK;
AND/OR
(IV)
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE THROUGH
LESSON
PLANS,
STUDENT PORTFOLIOS AND OTHER
ARTIFACTS OF TEACHER
PRACTICES
THROUGH
A STRUCTURED REVIEW PROCESS.
(4) A
MAJORITY OF THESE SIXTY POINTS FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS SHALL BE
BASED
ON A BROAD ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
BASED ON THE PRINCIPAL PRACTICE RUBRIC BY THE
BUILDING PRINCI-
PAL'S
SUPERVISOR, A TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR OR A TRAINED INDEPENDENT EVAL-
UATOR, WITH
ONE OR MORE VISITS CONDUCTED BY THE SUPERVISOR, AND,
FOR
EVALUATIONS
FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
SCHOOL
YEAR AND
THEREAFTER, THAT SUCH
ASSESSMENT MUST INCORPORATE MULTIPLE
SCHOOL
VISITS BY A SUPERVISOR, A TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR OR OTHER TRAINED
EVALUATOR, WITH
AT LEAST ONE VISIT CONDUCTED BY
THE SUPERVISOR AND AT
LEAST
ONE UNANNOUNCED VISIT. FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF
THESE SIXTY
POINTS FOR EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND
ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
SCHOOL
YEAR, SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL ALSO PRESCRIBE THE
OTHER FORMS OF
EVIDENCE
OF PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS THAT MAY BE USED CONSISTENT WITH THE
STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER.
(5)
FOR EVALUATIONS OF
BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR
THE TWO THOUSAND
TWELVE--TWO
THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE REMAINING
PORTION
OF THESE SIXTY POINTS SHALL INCLUDE, IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRE-
MENTS
OF SUBPARAGRAPH THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, AT LEAST TWO OTHER SOURC-
ES OF
EVIDENCE FROM THE
FOLLOWING OPTIONS: FEEDBACK FROM
TEACHERS,
STUDENTS, AND/OR
FAMILIES USING STATE-APPROVED INSTRUMENTS;
SCHOOL
VISITS BY OTHER
TRAINED EVALUATORS; AND/OR REVIEW OF SCHOOL DOCUMENTS,
RECORDS,
AND/OR STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES.
ANY SUCH REMAINING
POINTS SHALL
BE ASSIGNED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF ONE OR MORE AMBITIOUS
AND
MEASURABLE GOALS SET COLLABORATIVELY WITH PRINCIPALS
AND THEIR
SUPERINTENDENTS
OR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS AS FOLLOWS:
(I)
AT LEAST ONE
GOAL MUST ADDRESS THE PRINCIPAL'S CONTRIBUTION TO
IMPROVING
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING: IMPROVED
RETENTION OF HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS, THE CORRE-
LATION
BETWEEN STUDENT GROWTH SCORES OF
TEACHERS GRANTED TENURE
AS
OPPOSED TO
THOSE DENIED TENURE;
OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
PROFICIENCY
RATING
OF THE PRINCIPAL ON SPECIFIC TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS STANDARDS
IN
THE
PRINCIPAL PRACTICE RUBRIC.
(II)
ANY OTHER GOALS
SHALL ADDRESS QUANTIFIABLE
AND VERIFIABLE
IMPROVEMENTS
IN ACADEMIC RESULTS OR THE SCHOOL'S LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUCH
AS STUDENT OR TEACHER ATTENDANCE.
(6)
THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
SHALL
ESTABLISH
SPECIFIC MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SCORING RANGES FOR EACH PERFORM-
ANCE
LEVEL WITHIN THIS SUBCOMPONENT BEFORE THE START OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR
AND SHALL ASSIGN POINTS TO A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL
FOR THIS SUBCOMPONENT
BASED ON THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION-
ER,
ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND SUBJECT TO, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PARA-
GRAPH
J OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
S
6. Subdivision 2 of section
3012-c of the education law is amended
by
adding a new paragraph j to read as follows:
J. (1) THE PROCESS BY WHICH POINTS ARE
ASSIGNED IN SUBCOMPONENTS AND
THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE SUBCOMPONENTS MUST BE
TRANSPARENT AND AVAIL-
ABLE
TO THOSE BEING RATED BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR. THE
PROCESS
BY WHICH POINTS ARE ASSIGNED IN THE RESPECTIVE SUBCOMPONENTS ARE
TO
BE DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
(I)
FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES
SUBCOMPO-
NENT,
THAT PROCESS SHALL BE FORMULATED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE
APPROVAL
OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS.
(II)
FOR THE LOCALLY
SELECTED MEASURES OF THE STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
SUBCOMPONENT,
THAT PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY THROUGH NEGOTI-
ATIONS
CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
(III)
FOR THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL
EFFECTIVENESS
SUBCOMPONENT,
THAT PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY THROUGH NEGOTI-
ATIONS
CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICES LAW.
(2)
SUCH PROCESS MUST
ENSURE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A
TEACHER OR
PRINCIPAL
TO OBTAIN EACH POINT IN THE APPLICABLE SCORING RANGES, INCLUD-
ING
ZERO, FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOM-
PONENT, THE
LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPO-
NENT
AND THE OVERALL RATING CATEGORIES. THE
PROCESS MUST ALSO
ENSURE
THAT IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL TO OBTAIN EACH POINT IN
THE
SCORING RANGES PRESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT OR
BOARD OF COOPERATIVE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
FOR THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL
EFFECTIVENESS
SUBCOMPONENT.
(3) THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT
SUPERINTENDENT OR CHANCELLOR AND THE
PRESIDENT
OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE (WHERE ONE EXISTS)
SHALL CERTIFY
IN ITS PLAN
THAT THE PROCESS WILL USE THE NARRATIVE
DESCRIPTIONS
OF THE STANDARDS FOR THE SCORING
RANGES PROVIDED IN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSIONER TO EFFECTIVELY DIFFERENTIATE A TEACHER
OR
PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IN EACH OF THE
SUBCOMPONENTS AND IN
THEIR
OVERALL
RATINGS TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION.
(4) THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE OTHER MEASURES
OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL
EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY
THROUGH NEGOTI-
ATIONS
CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
S 7. Subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the
education law is amended
by
adding a new paragraph k to read as follows:
K.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER
PROVISION OF LAW, RULE OR REGULATION TO
THE
CONTRARY, BY JULY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE, THE GOVERNING BODY OF
EACH
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL
ADOPT A
PLAN, ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, FOR THE ANNUAL
PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ALL OF ITS CLASSROOM
TEACHERS AND
BUILDING PRINCIPALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION
AND
THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND SHALL SUBMIT SUCH PLAN
TO
THE COMMISSIONER
FOR APPROVAL. THE PLAN MAY BE AN ANNUAL OR MULTI-YEAR
PLAN,
FOR THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ALL OF ITS
CLASSROOM TEACHERS
AND BUILDING PRINCIPALS.
THE COMMISSIONER SHALL
APPROVE
OR REJECT THE PLAN BY SEPTEMBER FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE,
OR
AS SOON
AS PRACTICABLE THEREAFTER. THE
COMMISSIONER MAY REJECT A PLAN
THAT
DOES NOT RIGOROUSLY ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION AND
THE REGULATIONS
OF THE COMMISSIONER. SHOULD ANY
PLAN BE REJECTED, THE
COMMISSIONER
SHALL DESCRIBE EACH DEFICIENCY IN THE
SUBMITTED PLAN AND
DIRECT
THAT EACH SUCH DEFICIENCY BE RESOLVED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAIN-
ING TO THE
EXTENT REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
LAW.
IF ANY MATERIAL CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
OR BOARD
OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES MUST SUBMIT THE MATERIAL
CHANGES,
ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, TO
THE COMMISSIONER
FOR APPROVAL. TO THE EXTENT THAT BY JULY FIRST,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE, OR
BY
JULY FIRST OF ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IF ALL THE TERMS OF THE PLAN HAVE
NOT
BEEN FINALIZED AS A RESULT OF UNRESOLVED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGO-
TIATIONS, THE
ENTIRE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMISSIONER UPON
RESOLUTION
OF ALL OF ITS TERMS, CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE
CIVIL
SERVICE LAW.
S 8. Subdivision 4 of section 3012-c of the
education law, as added by
chapter
103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows:
4.
Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary,
upon
rating a teacher or a
principal as developing
or ineffective
through an annual professional performance review conducted
pursuant to
subdivision
two of this section, the school district or board of cooper-
ative
educational services shall formulate and
commence implementation
of
a teacher or principal improvement plan for such teacher or principal
as soon
as practicable but in no case later than ten SCHOOL days after
[the date on which teachers are required to report prior
to] the opening
of
classes for the school year. Such improvement plan shall be consist-
ent with
the regulations of the commissioner and developed locally
through
negotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil
service
law. Such improvement plan shall include, but need not be limit-
ed
to, identification of needed areas of
improvement, a timeline
for
achieving
improvement, the manner in which improvement will be assessed,
and,
where appropriate, differentiated activities to support a teacher's
or
principal's improvement in those areas.
S 9. Subdivision 5 of section 3012-c of the
education law, as added by
chapter
103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows:
5. A. An appeals procedure shall be locally
established in each school
district and in each board of cooperative educational
services by which
the
evaluated teacher or principal may only challenge the substance
of
the annual
professional performance review, the school district's or
board
of cooperative educational services' adherence
to the standards
and methodologies
required for such reviews, pursuant to this section,
the
adherence to the regulations of the commissioner and compliance with
any
applicable locally negotiated procedures,
as well as
the school
district's
or board of cooperative educational services' issuance and/or
implementation of
the terms of the
teacher or principal improvement
plan,
as required under this section. APPEAL
PROCEDURES SHALL PROVIDE
FOR THE
TIMELY AND EXPEDITIOUS
RESOLUTION OF ANY APPEAL UNDER
THIS
SUBDIVISION.
The specifics of the appeal procedure
shall be locally
established through negotiations conducted pursuant to
article fourteen
of
the civil service law. An evaluation
which is the
subject of an
appeal shall
not be sought
to be offered in evidence or placed in
evidence
in any proceeding conducted pursuant to
either section three
thousand twenty-a
of this article or any locally
negotiated alternate
disciplinary
procedure, until the appeal process is concluded.
B.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ALTER
OR DIMINISH
THE AUTHORITY
OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD
OF
COOPERATIVE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO GRANT OR DENY TENURE TO OR TERMINATE
PROBATIONARY
TEACHERS OR PROBATIONARY BUILDING PRINCIPALS
DURING THE
PENDENCY OF
AN APPEAL PURSUANT
TO THIS SECTION FOR STATUTORILY
AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY
PERMISSIBLE REASONS OTHER THAN THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCI-
PAL'S
PERFORMANCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.
C.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A TEACHER
OR
PRINCIPAL TO TRIGGER THE APPEAL PROCESS PRIOR TO
RECEIPT OF THEIR
COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS
SCORE AND RATING FROM THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF
COOPERATIVE
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.
S 10. Section 3012-c of the education law is
amended by adding a new
subdivision
9 to read as follows:
9.
A. THE DEPARTMENT
SHALL ANNUALLY MONITOR AND ANALYZE TRENDS AND
PATTERNS
IN TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION RESULTS AND DATA TO IDENTI-
FY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
AND/OR
SCHOOLS WHERE
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT A MORE RIGOROUS EVALUATION SYSTEM
IS NEEDED
TO IMPROVE EDUCATOR
EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT
LEARNING
OUTCOMES.
THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BOARDS OF COOP-
ERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES AND/OR SCHOOLS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN THE
REGULATIONS
OF THE COMMISSIONER.
B. A SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT
OR BOARD OF
COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES IDENTIFIED
BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES ENUMER-
ATED
IN PARAGRAPH A OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAY
BE HIGHLIGHTED IN
PUBLIC
REPORTS AND/OR
THE COMMISSIONER MAY
ORDER A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN,
WHICH
MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE DISTRICT
OR
BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
ARRANGE FOR ADDITIONAL
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING
AND/OR
UTILIZE
INDEPENDENT TRAINED EVALUATORS TO REVIEW
THE EFFICACY OF THE
EVALUATION SYSTEM,
PROVIDED THAT THE PLAN SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH LAW
AND
NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
S 11 Section 3012-c of the education law is
amended by adding a new
subdivision
5-a to read as follows:
5-A.
IN THE CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NOTWITH-
STANDING
ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY
TO
CLASSROOM TEACHERS:
A. A
TEACHER WHO DID NOT RECEIVE AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THE
ANNUAL
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW FOR THE PRIOR SCHOOL YEAR
IS IN "YEAR
ONE
STATUS".
B. A TEACHER WHO RECEIVED AN INEFFECTIVE
RATING IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL
YEAR
IS IN "YEAR TWO STATUS", UNTIL AND UNLESS THAT
RATING IS EITHER
CHANGED BY
THE PRINCIPAL OR REVERSED ON
APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS
OF THIS SUBDIVISION, OR UNTIL AND UNLESS THE TEACHER REVERTS
TO YEAR
ONE STATUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVI-
SION.
C. A TEACHER WHO IS RATED INEFFECTIVE FOR A
SCHOOL YEAR IN WHICH THE
TEACHER HAS YEAR ONE STATUS SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO
APPEAL THAT RATING TO
THE
CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, WHO SHALL
MAKE A FINAL
DETERMINATION, UNLESS
AN APPEAL IS INITIATED TO A THREE-MEMBER PANEL
SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THE UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
(UFT)
MAY APPEAL TO A THREE-MEMBER PANEL THE INEFFECTIVE RATINGS OF UP
TO THIRTEEN
PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO RECEIVED
SUCH INEFFECTIVE RATINGS
FOR
A SCHOOL YEAR. ANY SUCH APPEAL MAY ONLY
BE MADE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE INEFFECTIVE
RATING WAS GIVEN
DUE TO HARASSMENT OR REASONS NOT
RELATED
TO JOB PERFORMANCE. THESE APPEALS SHALL BE
KNOWN AS A
"PANEL
APPEALS". THE THREE-MEMBER
PANEL SHALL CONSIST OF A PERSON SELECTED BY
THE
UFT, A PERSON SELECTED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND
AN INDEPENDENT PERSON, NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE UFT OR THE
DISTRICT
AND SELECTED
BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, WHO SHALL BE THE CHAIR
OF
THE PANEL AND CONDUCT THE APPEAL HEARING. IF THE PANEL SUSTAINS
THE
APPEAL,
THE PRINCIPAL MUST SUBMIT TO THE PANEL A DIFFERENT RATING, WHICH
MUST BE
APPROVED BY THE PANEL. ANY INEFFECTIVE RATING THAT IS APPEALED
TO THE
PANEL MAY NOT BE APPEALED TO THE
CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
D. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
SHALL NOTIFY THE UFT OF
ALL INEFFECTIVE RATINGS. EACH SCHOOL YEAR, IF THE
UFT IS NOTIFIED OF AN
INEFFECTIVE
RATING PRIOR TO OCTOBER FIRST, A PANEL APPEAL OF THAT RATING
MUST
BE INITIATED BY THE UFT BY NOVEMBER FIRST, PROVIDED THAT MORE THAN
THIRTEEN PERCENT OF THESE RATINGS MAY BE APPEALED TO
THE PANEL. THE UFT
AND
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL NEGOTIATE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOURTEEN
OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, A PROCEDURE
FOR ENSURING THAT
EACH SCHOOL
YEAR, NOT MORE THAN THIRTEEN PERCENT OF THE RATINGS
RECEIVED BY THE UFT
AFTER
OCTOBER FIRST ARE APPEALED TO THE PANEL.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
SHALL
MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ISSUE RATINGS AND NOTIFY THE UFT OF
INEFFECTIVE RATINGS
BY OCTOBER FIRST. ANY RATING NOT APPEALED TO THE
PANEL
MAY BE APPEALED BY THE INDIVIDUAL TEACHER TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT. APPEALS MADE TO THE
CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN SCHOOL DAYS AFTER THE UFT WOULD OTHER-
WISE
BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF A PANEL APPEAL.
E. FOR ALL TEACHERS IN YEAR TWO STATUS,
UNLESS AND UNTIL THE INEFFEC-
TIVE
RATING THEY RECEIVED IN THE PRIOR YEAR IS CHANGED BY A PRINCIPAL OR
OTHERWISE
CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION,
AN INDEPENDENT
VALIDATOR SHALL BE APPOINTED TO EVALUATE THE TEACHER ON
EACH
COMPONENT OF THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
IN WHICH
THE SCORING
OF THE COMPONENT
IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRINCIPAL.
THESE
COMPONENTS SHALL NOT NECESSARILY BE LIMITED
TO TEACHER PERFORM-
ANCE, BUT
SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COMPONENTS IN WHICH THE SCORING OF THE
COMPONENT
IS OUTSIDE THE DISCRETION OF THE PRINCIPAL, EVEN IF THE PRIN-
CIPAL
HAS DISCRETION IN A RELATED GOAL-SETTING PROCESS PRIOR TO SCORING.
THE INDEPENDENT
VALIDATOR SHALL PERFORM THREE
OBSERVATIONS DURING THE
COURSE
OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE OBSERVATIONS
SHALL
BE NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF
THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
F.
THE UFT AND THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION SHALL JOINTLY SELECT AN ORGAN-
IZATION
OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT EMPLOY
CERTIFIED EDUCATORS, INCLUDING
TEACHERS, TO
PERFORM THE WORK AS INDEPENDENT VALIDATORS. INDEPENDENT
VALIDATORS
SHALL NOT BE EMPLOYED SIMULTANEOUSLY BY THE BOARD OF
EDUCA-
TION OR
SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION. SHOULD EITHER THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE
UFT NOTIFY THE
DEPARTMENT
THAT AFTER A GOOD FAITH EFFORT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE
UFT ARE
UNABLE TO JOINTLY SELECT ORGANIZATIONS, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL
NAME
ORGANIZATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THE BOARD
OF
EDUCATION SHALL
SET FORTH A
REQUIRED NUMBER OF VALIDATORS,
AND THE
COMMISSIONER
SHALL NAME ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN
PROVIDE AT LEAST
THIS
NUMBER OF VALIDATORS WHOM THE COMMISSIONER DEEMS
QUALIFIED. THE COMMIS-
SIONER
SHALL NAME ORGANIZATIONS BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THIS
SUBDIVISION THAT APPLY TO THE MUTUAL SELECTION PROCESS
FOR THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION
AND THE UFT AND SHALL ALSO CONSIDER POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST.
G. IN AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE INDEPENDENT
VALIDATOR DOES NOT COMPLETE
THE REVIEW PROCESS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND
THE CONTROL OF THE BOARD
OF
EDUCATION, THE TEACHER SHALL REMAIN IN YEAR TWO STATUS THE FOLLOWING
SCHOOL YEAR.
SHOULD THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR NOT COMPLETE THE REVIEW
PROCESS
FOR A SECOND CONSECUTIVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANY REASON IN THE
SECOND YEAR FOR OTHER THAN A LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR
CHRONIC ABSENCE ON THE
PART
OF THE TEACHER, THE TEACHER SHALL RETURN TO
YEAR ONE STATUS
THE
FOLLOWING
SCHOOL YEAR.
H.
AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED WITH
THE
PRINCIPAL
WHEN AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR'S SCORING, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH
THE SCORING
OF COMPONENTS NOT REVIEWED BY THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS SUBDIVISION, WOULD RESULT IN A RATING IN THE
SAME
CATEGORY
ON THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW THAN WOULD RESULT
FROM
THE PRINCIPAL'S RATING.
I. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, AN
INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL BE
DEEMED TO
HAVE DISAGREED WITH
THE PRINCIPAL WHEN
AN INDEPENDENT
VALIDATOR'S
SCORING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCORING OF
COMPONENTS NOT
REVIEWED BY THE
INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBDIVI-
SION,
WOULD RESULT IN A RATING IN A DIFFERENT
CATEGORY ON THE
ANNUAL
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW THAN WOULD RESULT FROM THE PRINCIPAL'S
RATING.
J. IF A TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE
RATING FOR A SCHOOL YEAR
IN
WHICH THE
TEACHER IS IN YEAR TWO STATUS AND
THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR
AGREES,
THE DISTRICT MAY BRING A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS THREE
THOUSAND TWENTY
AND THREE THOUSAND TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE BASED ON A
PATTERN
OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE.
IN SUCH PROCEEDING, THE
CHARGES
SHALL ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYING BOARD HAS DEVELOPED AND SUBSTAN-
TIALLY
IMPLEMENTED A TEACHER IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDI-
VISION FOUR
OF THIS SECTION FOR THE EMPLOYEE
FOLLOWING THE EVALUATION
MADE
FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS IN YEAR ONE STATUS AND
WAS
RATED INEFFECTIVE.
THE PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE
TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE
SHALL
GIVE RISE TO A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF INCOMPETENCE AND IF THE
PRESUMPTION IS NOT
SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED, THE FINDING, ABSENT EXTRAOR-
DINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL BE JUST CAUSE FOR REMOVAL.
IN THESE HEAR-
INGS,
THE TEACHER SHALL HAVE UP TO THREE DAYS TO PRESENT HIS OR HER CASE
FOR EVERY ONE DAY USED BY THE DISTRICT TO PRESENT
ITS CASE. THE HEARING
OFFICER
SHALL RENDER A WRITTEN DECISION WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE LAST DAY
OF
THE HEARING.
K. IF THE TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE
RATING BY THE PRINCIPAL IN A
SCHOOL YEAR
IN WHICH THEY ARE IN YEAR TWO STATUS AND THE
INDEPENDENT
VALIDATOR
DISAGREES, THE INEFFECTIVE RATING REMAINS BUT THE DISTRICT MAY
NOT
BRING PROCEEDING BASED ON A PATTERN
OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING
OR
PERFORMANCE, AS
DEFINED IN THIS SECTION, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT NOTHING
IN
THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION FROM CHARGING
A
TEACHER BASED
ON INCOMPETENCE AND ENTERING THE PRINCIPAL'S EVALUATIONS
INTO
EVIDENCE.
L. IF UPON THE COMPLETION OF A HEARING
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
THREE
THOUSAND TWENTY
AND THREE THOUSAND
TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE, BASED
EITHER
ON A PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE OR CHARGES OF
INCOMPETENCE
IN WHICH YEAR ONE OR YEAR TWO EVALUATIONS WERE ENTERED INTO
EVIDENCE,
AND A HEARING OFFICER FINDS
THE TEACHER INCOMPETENT,
BUT
DECIDES
NOT TO TERMINATE, THE TEACHER REMAINS IN YEAR TWO STATUS FOR THE
SCHOOL YEAR
IN PROGRESS OR THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR IF THE FINDING IS
MADE
IN BETWEEN SCHOOL YEARS. IF UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING, THE
HEARING
OFFICER EXONERATES THE TEACHER OF CHARGES
OF INCOMPETENCE THE
TEACHER SHALL
REVERT TO YEAR ONE STATUS IF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL
YEAR
OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR IF THE FINDING IS
MADE
IN BETWEEN SCHOOL YEARS.
M.
IF THE TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN
YEAR TWO BY THE
PRINCIPAL
AND THE VALIDATOR AGREES, AND THE DISTRICT DOES NOT BRING
AN
EXPEDITED PROCEEDING
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
THREE THOUSAND TWENTY AND
THREE
THOUSAND TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE, THE TEACHER MAY APPEAL THE YEAR
TWO
INEFFECTIVE RATING TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
WHO SHALL
MAKE A FINAL
DETERMINATION. IF THE RATING IS
UPHELD, THE
TEACHER
SHALL REMAIN IN YEAR TWO STATUS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SCHOOL YEAR,
BUT IF
FOLLOWING THAT YEAR
THE TEACHER IS NOT CHARGED, THE
TEACHER
REVERTS
TO YEAR ONE STATUS FOR THE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR.
N. A PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TO EVALUATE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SPECIFIC
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN THIS SUBDIVISION AFTER TWO YEARS FROM
THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT A FAILURE
OR DELAY
IN ESTABLISHING THAT
PROCESS SHALL NOT
INVALIDATE ANY
PROVISIONS
OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
O. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF
LAW TO
THE CONTRARY, THE
BOARD
OF EDUCATION AND THE UFT MAY ALTER ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVI-
SION
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
S 12.
This act shall take effect immediately; provided that: (a) The
appeals
process will go into effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city
school
district of the city of New York
enters into a
collectively
bargained
teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section
3012-c
of the education law and with the approval of the commissioner of
education.
(b)
The chancellor of the District
shall notify the legislative bill
drafting
commission upon the occurrence of the events
provided for in
subdivision (a) of
this section in order that the commission may main-
tain
an accurate and timely effective data base of the official text of
the laws
of the state of New York in furtherance of
effectuating the
provisions
of section 44 of the legislative law and section 70-b of the
public
officers law.
