Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Sunday, October 26, 2014

The New Termination - Oops, "Evaluation" - Program of the UFT/DOE: The Peer Validator Program (PVP)


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<mailto: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

Same as:A9554-2011

VersionsS6732-2011

Sponsor: RULES COM

Law Section: Education Law

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: substituted for a9554

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

SalandSeward  Ayes W/R (3): AlesiHannonSmith 

VOTE: FLOOR VOTE: - Mar 14, 2012


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.




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

districts or boards of cooperative educational  services  [on  or  after

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

accordance with paragraph c of this  subdivision  [in  any  school  year

prior  to  the  first  school  year  for  which the board of regents has

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

accordance with paragraph c of this  subdivision  [in]  FOR  the  [first

school  year for which the board of regents has approved use of a value-

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.