senate Bill S6732

Signed by Governor

Relates to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals

download pdf

Bill Status


  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed by Governor
view actions

actions

  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • REFERRED TO RULES
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.365
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • MESSAGE OF NECESSITY - 3 DAY MESSAGE
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • PASSED SENATE
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • SUBSTITUTED FOR A9554
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • ORDERED TO THIRD READING RULES CAL.16
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • MESSAGE OF NECESSITY - 3 DAY MESSAGE
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • PASSED ASSEMBLY
  • 14 / Mar / 2012
    • RETURNED TO SENATE
  • 15 / Mar / 2012
    • DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR
  • 27 / Mar / 2012
    • SIGNED CHAP.21

Summary

Relates to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals; relates to tenured teacher disciplinary hearings.

do you support this bill?

Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A9554
Versions:
S6732
Legislative Cycle:
2011-2012
Law Section:
Education Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §3012-c, Ed L

Sponsor 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 §3012-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 §3012-c also establishes the parameters for a teacher to
appeal an ineffective evaluation rating. Education Law §3020-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. (§§ 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.

view bill text
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

    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

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD12117-02-2

S. 6732                             2                            A. 9554

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:

S. 6732                             3                            A. 9554

  (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

S. 6732                             4                            A. 9554

  (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

S. 6732                             5                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                             6                            A. 9554

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;

S. 6732                             7                            A. 9554

  (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

S. 6732                             8                            A. 9554

  (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

S. 6732                             9                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                            10                            A. 9554

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.

S. 6732                            11                            A. 9554

  (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.

S. 6732                            12                            A. 9554

  (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

S. 6732                            13                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                            14                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                            15                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                            16                            A. 9554

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

S. 6732                            17                            A. 9554

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.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.