PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action:
Amendment of sections 100.16 and 100.17 of Title 8 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Education Law, sections 207, 305(1), (2), (20), 211-b(1)-(5) and 211-c(1)-(8)
Subject:
Distinguished educators.
Purpose:
To modify criteria for appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures for distinguished educators to ensure that they are better able to carry-out their statutory responsibilities and functions to assist low performing schools.
Text of proposed rule:
Subdivisions (c), (d), and (f) of section 100.17 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education are amended, effective July 30, 2014, as follows:
(c) Appointment. (1) . . .
(2) From the applications submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision, the Board of Regents delegates to the commissioner the authority pursuant to Education Law § 211-c(1) to designate a pool of eligible individuals to serve as distinguished educators. Individuals [in the pool] shall serve [a maximum of] in the pool for three years, provided that an individual's service in the pool may be renewed [for an additional year] annually upon submission of evidence of ongoing professional development.
(3) From the pool of distinguished educators designated pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subdivision, the commissioner shall appoint distinguished educators who have expressed their willingness to assist low performing districts in improving their academic performance, pursuant to the following:
(i) The commissioner may appoint [a distinguished educator as a consultant] one or more distinguished educators as consultants to a school district [or] and/or assign [him or her] such distinguished educator(s) to school(s) within such district:
(a) when such district has one or more schools designated as a priority school or focus school pursuant to section 100.18(g) of this Part and/or identified as persistently lowest achieving and placed under registration review pursuant to section 100.2(p)(9) and (10) of this Part, and [are at risk of closure for failure to make satisfactory progress under Federal and State accountability standards] failed to achieve adequate yearly progress for four or more years; and/or
(b) as a member of a joint intervention team pursuant to Education Law section 211-b(2)(b) and as provided in section 100.18(g)(2)(v) and (l)(2) of this Part.
(ii) The distinguished educator shall be appointed for a one-year term and, upon satisfactory annual evaluation pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section, may be reappointed for one or more additional one-year terms.
(iii) . . .
(iv) . . .
(v) . . .
(d) Roles and responsibilities.
(1) . . .
(2) School districts.
(i) The school district to which a distinguished educator is appointed shall cooperate fully with an appointed distinguished educator. Such cooperation shall include, but not be limited, to:
(a) providing the distinguished educator with a space to work and a district email address to be used for official correspondence;
(b) placing on the district website, reports of the distinguished educator and contact information for the distinguished educator;
(c) providing the distinguished educator with an opportunity to present a report to the board of education at least quarterly on the implementation of the improvement efforts of the district and/or any schools to which a distinguished educator is assigned; and
(d) promptly scheduling meetings with district personnel as requested by the distinguished educator.
(ii) . . .
(iii) . . .
(iv) . . .
(v) . . .
(vi) . . .
(f) Reporting requirements. Within [45] forty-five (45) days of appointment to the school district, a distinguished educator and the district shall work collaboratively to develop an action plan outlining [his/her] the goals and objectives for the district and the distinguished educator for the ensuing school year [and shall also submit such action plan to the commissioner or his or her designee for approval]. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, an outline of the goals and objectives the district is responsible for achieving and the technical assistance the distinguished educator will provide in order to support the district in achieving its goals and objectives. The distinguished educator shall submit such action plan to the commissioner or his or her designee for approval. Upon approval, the distinguished educator shall provide a copy of the action plan to the school district. The distinguished educator shall also submit quarterly reports to the commissioner or his or her designee in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Kirti Goswami, State Education Department, Office of Counsel, State Education Building, Room 148, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@mail.nysed.gov
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:
Ken Slentz, Deputy Commissioner, State Education Department, Office of P-12 Education, State Education Building, 2M, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-5520, email: NYSEDP12@mail.nysed.gov
Public comment will be received until:
45 days after publication of this notice.
This rule was not under consideration at the time this agency submitted its Regulatory Agenda for publication in the Register.
Regulatory Impact Statement
STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Education Law section 207 empowers the Regents and the Commissioner to adopt rules to carry out State education laws and the functions and duties conferred on the Department by Law.
Education Law section 305(1) and (2) provide Commissioner, as chief executive officer of the State's education system, with general supervision over all schools and institutions subject to the Education Law, or any statute relating to education, and responsibility for executing all educational policies of the Regents. Section 305(20) provides Commissioner shall have such further powers and duties as charged by the Regents.
Education Law section 211-b provides for the inclusion of distinguished educators in joint school intervention teams that are appointed by the Commissioner to assist school districts in developing, reviewing and recommending plans for reorganizing or reconfiguring of schools in restructuring status or schools under registration review (SURR) status that have failed to demonstrate progress as specified in their corrective action plan or comprehensive education plan.
Education Law section 211-c directs the Regents to establish a distinguished educator program providing for the appointment of distinguished educators to assist low performing districts in improving their academic performance.
LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the above statutory authority and is necessary to ensure that distinguished educators are better able to carry-out their statutory responsibilities and functions to assist low performing schools.
NEEDS AND BENEFITS:
The proposed amendment relates to criteria for appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures for distinguished educators to assist low performing school districts and schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. The proposed rule will ensure the appointment, consistent with statutory requirements, of qualified individuals, who have demonstrated consistent growth in academic performance or educational expertise including superior performance in the classroom, to serve as distinguished educators to assist low performing schools.
At the February 2011 Board of Regents meeting, the Board added section 100.17 of the Commissioner’s Regulations to implement the provisions of Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c pertaining to the establishment of a Distinguished Educator Program to assist low performing school districts and schools in improving their academic performance.
The proposed amendment of section 100.17 is intended to address matters reflected in the State Education Department’s experiences and “lessons learned” in implementing the Distinguished Educator program. Among those experiences and lessons are the following:
• Persons selected for the pool of distinguished educators should be able to remain in the pool and eligible for assignment as a distinguished educator for a period of more than three years so long as these persons demonstrate that they are participating in appropriate professional development.
• The Commissioner should have the flexibility to reappoint a distinguished educator to multiple one-year renewal terms and should be able to appoint more than one distinguished educator to serve a district, if needed.
• Districts would benefit from a more explicit delineation of the ways in which districts are expected to fully cooperate with a distinguished educator so as to make the work of the distinguished educator more productive and helpful to the district.
• The action plan that results from the assignment of a distinguished educator should be jointly developed by the district and the distinguished educator.
COSTS:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any costs beyond those inherent in the statutes.
(a) Costs to State government: None.
(b) Costs to local government: Consistent with Education Law sections 211-b(2)(b) and 211-c(7), existing regulations provide that the reasonable and necessary expenses, including consulting fees, incurred in the performance of a distinguished educator's duties shall be paid by the school district or charter school that operates the school to which the distinguished educator is appointed.
The vast majority of districts will not incur additional costs as a result of the proposed amendment because they do not meet the criteria for appointment of a distinguished educator and, therefore, will not be assigned a distinguished educator. Even in the event a distinguished educator is assigned, this regulation imposes additional cost only if the distinguished educator is assigned beyond the initial two year period or is assigned to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. Moreover, the costs for districts assigned a distinguished educator will vary based on factors such as the extent of the district’s need, the terms of the contract between the distinguished educator and the district, and the distinguished educator’s level of involvement.
The proposed amendment will range in cost from approximately $34,000 to $250,000 annually in the event that the Commissioner continues the assignment of a distinguished educator beyond the initial two year period or appoints a distinguished educator to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. The lower range is based on a distinguished educator providing 300 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region of the State with the lowest costs and requiring that the distinguished educator receive no reimbursement for meals, lodging, or travel. The upper range assumes the distinguished educator will provide 1,200 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region with the highest costs and that the distinguished educator will receive reimbursement for meals and lodging for approximately 160 days of services plus approximately 7,800 miles of use of a personal vehicle per year. In the event that the Commissioner appoints a distinguished educator in either of the above circumstances included in the regulatory amendment, the cost will most likely be approximately midway between these two examples.
(c) Costs to private regulated parties: None. Participation as a distinguished educator is voluntary. As discussed above, under costs to local government, the reasonable and necessary expenses of appointed distinguished educators shall be a charge on the school district or charter school that operates the school to which the distinguished educator is appointed.
(d) Costs to regulating agency for implementation and continued administration of this rule: None. The proposed amendment does not impose any additional costs to the State Education Department beyond those inherent in Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any additional program, service, duty or responsibility upon any county, city, town, village, school district, fire district or other special district, beyond those inherent in the statutes.
Pursuant to the statute, the school district to which a distinguished educator is appointed shall cooperate fully with an appointed distinguished educator. The proposed amendment specifies that such cooperation shall include, but not be limited, to:
(a) providing the distinguished educator with a space to work and a district email address to be used for official correspondence;
(b) placing on the district website, reports of the distinguished educator and contact information for the distinguished educator;
(c) providing the distinguished educator with an opportunity to present a report to the board of education at least quarterly on the implementation of the improvement efforts of the district and/or any schools to which a distinguished educator is assigned; and
(d) promptly scheduling meetings with district personnel as requested by the distinguished educator.
PAPERWORK:
The existing regulation requires that, within forty-five (45) days of appointment to the school district, a distinguished educator develop an action plan outlining the goals and objectives for the district and the distinguished educator for the ensuing school year. The proposed amendment requires that the district work collaboratively with the distinguished educator in developing such plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, an outline of the goals and objectives the district is responsible for achieving and the technical assistance the distinguished educator will provide in order to support the district in achieving its goals and objectives. The distinguished educator shall submit such action plan to the commissioner or his or her designee for approval. Upon approval, the distinguished educator shall provide a copy of the action plan to the school district. The distinguished educator shall also submit quarterly reports to the commissioner or his or her designee in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
DUPLICATION:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with State or federal legal requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following significant alternative was proposed, but ultimately rejected: to compensate distinguished educators at the highest wage in the salary distribution based on available wage data collected by the New York State and/or Federal departments of labor.
This alternative was rejected because a specific set of skills are required to move struggling schools and districts from failure to proficiency. Therefore, the objective is not necessarily to procure the highest paid personnel, but rather the most skilled. As a result, the highest level of compensation is not necessary to procure effective distinguished educators.
FEDERAL STANDARDS:
There are no applicable federal standards for distinguished educators appointed pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
It is anticipated that regulated parties can achieve compliance with the proposed rule by its effective date.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Small Businesses:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. The proposed amendment does not impose any economic impact, or other compliance requirements on small businesses. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendment that it does not affect small businesses, no further measures were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses is not required and one has not been prepared.
Local Governments:
EFFECT OF RULE:
The proposed amendment applies to each public school district and charter school in the State to which a Distinguished Educator may be appointed pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. To date, the Commissioner has appointed one Distinguished Educator, for the Buffalo City School District.
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any compliance requirements on school districts beyond those inherent in the statutes.
Pursuant to the statute, the school district to which a distinguished educator is appointed shall cooperate fully with an appointed distinguished educator. The proposed amendment specifies that such cooperation shall include, but not be limited, to:
(a) providing the distinguished educator with a space to work and a district email address to be used for official correspondence;
(b) placing on the district website, reports of the distinguished educator and contact information for the distinguished educator;
(c) providing the distinguished educator with an opportunity to present a report to the board of education at least quarterly on the implementation of the improvement efforts of the district and/or any schools to which a distinguished educator is assigned; and
(d) promptly scheduling meetings with district personnel as requested by the distinguished educator.
The existing regulation requires that within forty-five (45) days of appointment to the school district, a distinguished educator and the district shall work collaboratively to develop an action plan outlining the goals and objectives for the district and the distinguished educator for the ensuing school year. The proposed amendment requires that the district work collaboratively with the distinguished educator in developing such plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, an outline of the goals and objectives the district is responsible for achieving and the technical assistance the distinguished educator will provide in order to support the district in achieving its goals and objectives. The distinguished educator shall submit such action plan to the commissioner or his or her designee for approval. Upon approval, the distinguished educator shall provide a copy of the action plan to the school district. The distinguished educator shall also submit quarterly reports to the commissioner or his or her designee in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. The proposed amendment imposes no additional professional services requirements on school districts beyond those inherent in the statutes.
COMPLIANCE COSTS:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any costs beyond those inherent in the statutes.
Consistent with Education Law sections 211-b(2)(b) and 211-c(7), existing regulations provide that the reasonable and necessary expenses, including consulting fees, incurred in the performance of a distinguished educator's duties shall be paid by the school district or charter school that operates the school to which the distinguished educator is appointed.
The vast majority of districts will not incur additional costs as a result of the proposed amendment because they do not meet the criteria for appointment of a distinguished educator and, therefore, will not be assigned a distinguished educator. Even in the event a distinguished educator is assigned, this regulation imposes additional cost only if the distinguished educator is assigned beyond the initial two year period or is assigned to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. Moreover, the costs for districts assigned a distinguished educator will vary based on factors such as the extent of the district’s need, the terms of the contract between the distinguished educator and the district, and the distinguished educator’s level of involvement.
The proposed amendment will range in cost from approximately $34,000 to $250,000 annually in the event that the Commissioner continues the assignment of a distinguished educator beyond the initial two year period or appoints a distinguished educator to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. The lower range is based on a distinguished educator providing 300 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region of the State with the lowest costs and requiring that the distinguished educator receive no reimbursement for meals, lodging, or travel. The upper range assumes the distinguished educator will provide 1,200 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region with the highest costs and that the distinguished educator will receive reimbursement for meals and lodging for approximately 160 days of services plus approximately 7,800 miles of use of a personal vehicle per year. In the event that the Commissioner appoints a distinguished educator in either of the above circumstances included in the regulatory amendment, the cost will most likely be approximately midway between these two examples.
ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:
The proposed amendment does not impose any new technological requirements on school districts. Economic feasibility is discussed in the Compliance Costs section above.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed amendment modifies criteria for appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures for distinguished educators to ensure that distinguished educators are better able carry-out their statutory responsibilities and functions to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. The proposed amendment does not impose any compliance requirements or costs beyond those inherent in the statute.
The proposed amendment is necessary to provide well-defined guidelines to ensure that the work of the distinguished educator is productive and helpful to the school district. In order to achieve this goal:
• school districts should be provided with a more explicit delineation of the ways in which they are expected to fully cooperate with a distinguished educator;
• the action plan that results from the assignment of a distinguished educator should be jointly developed by the district and the distinguished educator;
• persons selected for the pool of distinguished educators should be able to remain in the pool and eligible for assignment as a distinguished educator for a period of more than three years so long as these persons demonstrate that they are participating in appropriate professional development; and
• the Commissioner should have the flexibility to reappoint a distinguished educator to multiple one year renewal terms and should be able to appoint more than one distinguished educator to serve a district, if needed.
The implementation of these provisions of the proposed amendment will maximize the effectiveness of the program. School districts will benefit from a more explicit delineation of the ways in which districts are expected to fully cooperate with a distinguished educator so as to make the work of the distinguished educator more productive and helpful to the district.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:
Copies of the proposed amendment have been provided to District Superintendents with the request that they distribute it to school districts within their supervisory districts for review and comment. Copies have also been provided for review and comment to the chief school officers of the five big city school districts and to charter schools. Copies were also provided for review and comment to the chief school officers in districts with Focus and Priority Schools.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF RURAL AREAS:
The proposed amendment applies to each public school district and charter school in the State for which a Distinguished Educator may be appointed pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, including those located in the 44 rural counties with less than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns in urban counties with a population density of 150 per square mile or less. Currently, the Commissioner has not appointed any Distinguished Educators to school districts or charter schools located in rural areas.
REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any compliance requirements on school districts beyond those inherent in the statutes.
Pursuant to the statute, the school district to which a distinguished educator is appointed shall cooperate fully with an appointed distinguished educator. The proposed amendment specifies that such cooperation shall include, but not be limited, to:
(a) providing the distinguished educator with a space to work and a district email address to be used for official correspondence;
(b) placing on the district website, reports of the distinguished educator and contact information for the distinguished educator;
(c) providing the distinguished educator with an opportunity to present a report to the board of education at least quarterly on the implementation of the improvement efforts of the district and/or any schools to which a distinguished educator is assigned; and
(d) promptly scheduling meetings with district personnel as requested by the distinguished educator.
The existing regulation requires that within forty-five (45) days of appointment to the school district, a distinguished educator and the district shall work collaboratively to develop an action plan outlining the goals and objectives for the district and the distinguished educator for the ensuing school year. The proposed amendment requires that the district work collaboratively with the distinguished educator in developing such plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, an outline of the goals and objectives the district is responsible for achieving and the technical assistance the distinguished educator will provide in order to support the district in achieving its goals and objectives. The distinguished educator shall submit such action plan to the commissioner or his or her designee for approval. Upon approval, the distinguished educator shall provide a copy of the action plan to the school district. The distinguished educator shall also submit quarterly reports to the commissioner or his or her designee in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
The proposed amendment imposes no additional professional services requirements on school districts in rural areas beyond those inherent in the statutes.
COSTS:
The proposed amendment establishes requirements relating to the appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, and will not impose any costs beyond those inherent in the statutes.
Consistent with Education Law sections 211-b(2)(b) and 211-c(7), existing regulations provide that the reasonable and necessary expenses, including consulting fees, incurred in the performance of a distinguished educator's duties shall be paid by the school district or charter school that operates the school to which the distinguished educator is appointed.
The vast majority of districts will not incur additional costs as a result of the proposed amendment because they do not meet the criteria for appointment of a distinguished educator and, therefore, will not be assigned a distinguished educator. Even in the event a distinguished educator is assigned, this regulation imposes additional cost only if the distinguished educator is assigned beyond the initial two year period or is assigned to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. Moreover, the costs for districts assigned a distinguished educator will vary based on factors such as the extent of the district’s need, the terms of the contract between the distinguished educator and the district, and the distinguished educator’s level of involvement.
The proposed amendment will range in cost from approximately $34,000 to $250,000 annually in the event that the Commissioner continues the assignment of a distinguished educator beyond the initial two year period or appoints a distinguished educator to a school before the point at which the school is at risk of having its registration revoked. The lower range is based on a distinguished educator providing 300 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region of the State with the lowest costs and requiring that the distinguished educator receive no reimbursement for meals, lodging, or travel. The upper range assumes the distinguished educator will provide 1,200 hours of service per year to a district or school in the region with the highest costs and that the distinguished educator will receive reimbursement for meals and lodging for approximately 160 days of services plus approximately 7,800 miles of use of a personal vehicle per year. In the event that the Commissioner appoints a distinguished educator in either of the above circumstances included in the regulatory amendment, the cost will most likely be approximately midway between these two examples.
MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The proposed amendment modifies criteria for appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures for distinguished educators to ensure that distinguished educators are better able carry-out their statutory responsibilities and functions to assist low performing schools pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c. The proposed amendment does not impose any compliance requirements or costs beyond those inherent in the statute. The proposed amendment is necessary to ensure the work of the distinguished educator is more productive and helpful to the school district. In order to achieve this goal:
• school districts should be provided a more explicit delineation of the ways in which they are expected to fully cooperate with a distinguished educator;
• the action plan that results from the assignment of a distinguished educator should be jointly developed by the district and the distinguished educator;
• persons selected for the pool of distinguished educators should be able to remain in the pool and eligible for assignment as a distinguished educator for a period of more than three years so long as these persons demonstrate that they are participating in appropriate professional development; and
• the Commissioner should have the flexibility to reappoint a distinguished educator to multiple one year renewal terms and should be able to appoint more than one distinguished educator to serve a district, if needed.
The implementation of these provisions of the proposed amendment will maximize the effectiveness of the program. School districts will benefit from a more explicit delineation of the ways in which districts are expected to fully cooperate with a distinguished educator so as to make the work of the distinguished educator more productive and helpful to the district.
Furthermore, since the proposed rule will establish State-wide standards for the appointment of distinguished educators to assist low performing schools, consistent with Education Law sections 211-b and 211-c, it was not possible to establish different requirements for regulated parties in rural areas, or to exempt them from the rule's provisions.
RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:
Comments on the proposed amendment were solicited from the Department's Rural Advisory Committee, whose membership includes school districts located in rural areas.
Job Impact Statement
The proposed amendment modifies criteria for appointment, roles, responsibilities, protocols and procedures of Distinguished Educators appointed to a school district or charter school pursuant to Education Law sections 211-b or 211-c. The proposed amendment will not have a substantial adverse impact on job or employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature and purpose of the proposed amendment that it will have no impact on jobs or employment opportunities, no further measures were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.
