Home » 2012 Issues » May 09, 2012 » EDU-23-11-00006-E Annual Professional Performance Reviews for Classroom Teachers and Building Principals
EDU-23-11-00006-E Annual Professional Performance Reviews for Classroom Teachers and Building Principals
5/9/12 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-23-11-00006-E
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXIV, ISSUE 19
May 09, 2012
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY RULE MAKING
I.D No. EDU-23-11-00006-E
Filing No. 399
Filing Date. Apr. 24, 2012
Effective Date. Apr. 24, 2012
Annual Professional Performance Reviews for Classroom Teachers and Building Principals
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Amendment of section 100.2(o); and addition of Subpart 30-2 to Title 8 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Education Law, sections 101 (not subdivided), 207 (not subdivided), 215 (not subdivided), 305(1), (2) and 3012-c(1)-(9), as added by L. 2010, ch. 103 and amended by L. 2012, ch. 21 (as enacted by S.6732/A.9554)
Finding of necessity for emergency rule:
Preservation of general welfare.
Specific reasons underlying the finding of necessity:
The proposed rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and amended by Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012 (as enacted by S.6732/A.9554), relating to the annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals. The proposed rule implements the statute by adding a new Subpart 30-2 to the Rules of the Board of Regents to establish the requirements for the evaluation system pursuant to the statute and make conforming amendments to section 100.2(o) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.
On May 28, 2010, the Governor signed Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010, which added a new section 3012-c to the Education Law, establishing a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. An emergency rule was adopted at the May 2011 Regents meeting to implement Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010, with the provisions regarding a new Subpart 30-2 becoming effective on May 20, 2011 and the amendments to section 100.2(o) becoming effective on July 1, 2011.
On June 28, 2011, litigation was commenced against the proposed rule in State Supreme Court. On August 24, 2011, State Supreme Court, Albany County (Lynch, J.) issued a Decision and Order in New York State United Teachers, et al. v. Board of Regents, et al. finding sections 30-2.4(c)(3)(d), 30-2.4(d)(1)(iii), 30-2.4(d)(1)(iv)(c), 30-2.12(b), 30-2.1(d) and 2.11(c), and 30-2.6(a)(1) of the proposed regulations invalid to the extent set forth in the Decision and Order. An appeal is being taken from that Decision and Order. The appeal has been held in abeyance due to settlement negotiations and in anticipation of legislation to address the issues in the litigation.
The proposed rule was subsequently readopted by emergency action at the July 18-19, 2011, September 12-13, 2011, November 14, 2011, January 9-10, 2012 and March 19-20 Regents meetings.
Substantial revisions have now been made to the proposed rule in order to conform the rule to and implement the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012 as enacted in S.6732/A.9554, which was signed into law by the Governor on March 27, 2012 and is made immediately effective; except for the appeals process in the City of New York as prescribed in the law, which is generally made effective on January 16, 2013, subject to collective bargaining. The appeals process in the city of New York is not included in the proposed rule.
Since the Board of Regents meets only at prescribed intervals, the earliest the revised proposed rule can be presented for adoption, after publication of a Notice of Revised Rule Making in the State Register and expiration of the 30-day public comment period prescribed in State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) section 202(4-a), is the May 21-22, 2012 Regents meeting. If adopted at the May meeting, the earliest the proposed rule could take effect pursuant to the section 202(5) of the State Administrative Procedure Act is June 6, 2012. However, the March emergency action will expire on June 2, 2012. A lapse in the rule's effective date will disrupt administration of the annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals required under Education Law section 3012-c. Another emergency adoption is therefore necessary at the April 23-24, 2012 Regents meeting to ensure the emergency rule, as revised, remains continuously in effect until it can be adopted as a permanent rule.
The rule is being adopted as an emergency measure upon a finding by the Board of Regents that such action is necessary for the preservation of the general welfare in order to immediately revise the rule to conform to and implement the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012 (as enacted in S.6732/A.9554) relating to the annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals and thereby ensure that school districts and BOCES are given sufficient notice of the new APPR requirements to timely implement them in accordance with the statute, and to otherwise ensure that the emergency rule, as revised, remains continuously in effect until it can be adopted as a permanent rule.
It is anticipated that the proposed rule will be presented for adoption as a permanent rule at a subsequent meeting after publication of a Notice of Revised Rule Making in the State Register and expiration of the 30-day public comment period prescribed in State Administrative Procedure Act section 202(4-a).
Subject:
Annual professional performance reviews for classroom teachers and building principals.
Purpose:
Establish standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principal.
Substance of emergency rule:
The Commissioner of Education proposes to amend section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's Regulations and add a new Subpart 30-2 to the Rules of the Board of Regents, to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and as amended by Chapter 21of the Laws of 2012 (S.6732/ A.9554), by establishing standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services.
The following is a summary of the substance of the revised proposed rule.
Section 100.2(o) is amended to clarify that classroom teachers who are not subject to the provisions of Education Law section 3012-c in the 2011-2012 school year must still comply with the existing annual professional performance review set forth in section 100.2(o). A new provision was also added to section 100.2(o) to require that beginning July 1, 2011, all building principals that are not required to be evaluated under Education Law § 3012-c must be evaluated on an annual basis based on a plan agreed to by the building principal and the governing body of the school district or BOCES.
A new Subpart 30-2 is added to the Rules of the Board of Regents to establish requirements for the new annual professional performance review (APPR) system established by Education Law section 3012-c.
Section 30-2.1 sets forth applicability provisions. For the 2011-2012 school year, school districts shall ensure that the APPR of all classroom teachers of common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades four to eight, and of all building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed, are conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 3012-c and Subpart 30-2; and that reviews of classroom teachers and building principals (other than classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts (ELA) or mathematics in grades four to eight) are conducted in accordance with section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's regulations.
For an APPR conducted in the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter, the school district or BOCES shall ensure that the reviews of all classroom teachers and building principals are conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 3012-c and Subpart 30-2. However, nothing shall be construed to preclude a school district or BOCES from adopting an APPR for the 2011-2012 school year that applies to all classroom teachers and building principals in accordance with this Subpart or for BOES, for classroom teachers of common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades four to eight and all building principals in which such teachers are employed.
The section also provides that nothing in Subpart 30-2 shall abrogate any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect on July 1, 2010 during the term of such agreement and until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement, at which time the provisions in Subpart 30-2 will apply.
This section further provides that nothing shall be construed to affect the statutory rights of a school district or BOCES to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for statutorily and constitutionally permissible reasons other than the performance of the teacher or principal in the classroom or school, including but not limited to misconduct.
Section 30-2.2 provides definitions for certain terms used in the Subpart.
Section 30-2.3 sets forth the content requirements for APPR plans submitted under Subpart 30-2. By September 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt an APPR plan for its classroom teachers of common branch subjects, ELA or mathematics in grades four to eight and building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. By July 1, 2012, each school district/BOCES shall adopt and submit an APPR plan to the Commissioner for approval, on a form prescribed by the Commissioner, which may be an annual or multi-year plan, for the APPR of all of its classroom teachers and building principals. The Commissioner shall be required to approve or reject the plan by September 1, 2012. To the extent that by July 1, 2012 or by July 1 of any subsequent year, any of the items required to be included in the plan are not finalized by such date, as a result of unresolved collective bargaining negotiations, the entire plan shall be submitted to the Commissioner upon resolution of its terms.
Section 30-2.4 sets forth requirements for evaluating classroom teachers of common branch subjects, ELA or mathematics in grades four to eight for the 2011-2012 school year. 20 points of the evaluation will be based on student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures and 20 points will be based on locally selected measures as described in the section. 60 points of the evaluation will be based on multiple measures of teacher and principal effectiveness as described in this section. A teacher's performance must be assessed based on a teacher practice rubric(s) approved by the Department. A principal's performance must be assessed based on an approved principal practice rubric. Provision is made for granting a variance for use of existing rubrics. At least 31 of the 60 points for teachers shall be based on multiple classroom observations. At least 31 of the 60 points for principals shall be based on a broad assessment of the principal's leadership and management actions by the principal's supervisor or a trained independent evaluator. This section also prescribes options for any remaining points of the 60 points.
Section 30-2.5 sets forth requirements for evaluating all classroom teachers and building principals for the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter. The section explains how the requirements for the State assessment and locally selected measures subcomponents will differ, including the points assigned for each subcomponent, depending on whether the Board of Regents has approved a value-added growth model for particular grades, courses. This section also describes the options that may be used for the State assessment subcomponent for non-tested subjects, the options for locally selected measures and the other measures of teacher and principal effectiveness.
Section 30-2.6 describes the procedures for scoring and rating the evaluations, including a requirement that the rating category ("Highly Effective", "Effective", "Developing", or "Ineffective") assigned to teacher and building principal is determined by a single composite effectiveness score that is calculated based on the scores received by the teacher or principal in each of the subcomponents. This section prescribes specific scoring ranges for each rating category for the State assessment subcomponent and the locally selected measures subcomponent and the overall rating categories.
Section 30-2.7 describes the criteria and approval process for teacher and principal practice rubrics to be used in the evaluation of teachers and building principals.
Section 30-2.8 describes the criteria and approval process for student assessments to be used in the evaluation of teachers and building principals.
Section 30-2.9 describes requirements for the training of evaluators and the training and certification of lead evaluators.
Section 30-2.10 describes requirements for teacher and principal improvement plans.
Section 30-2.11 describes requirements for appeals procedures through which an evaluated teacher or principal may challenge their APPR and provides that appeals must be timely and expeditious.
Section 30-2.12 provides that the Department will annually monitor and analyze trends and patterns in teacher and principal evaluation results and data to identify districts, BOCES and/or schools where evidence suggests that a more rigorous evaluation system is needed to improve educator effectiveness and student learning outcomes. A school, district or BOCES identified by the Department may be highlighted in public reports and/or the Commissioner may order a corrective action plan, which may include, but not be limited to, a requirement that the school district or BOCES arrange for additional professional development, provide in-service training and/or utilize independent trained evaluators to review the efficacy of the evaluation system, where appropriate.
This notice is intended
to serve only as a notice of emergency adoption. This agency intends to adopt the provisions of this emergency rule as a permanent rule, having previously submitted to the Department of State a notice of proposed rule making, I.D. No. EDU-23-11-00006-EP, Issue of June 8, 2011. The emergency rule will expire June 22, 2012
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Mary Gammon, NYS Education Department, Office of Counsel, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 112, Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@mail.nysed.gov
Regulatory Impact Statement
1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Education Law section 101 charges the Department with the general management and supervision of the educational work of the State and establishes the Regents as head of the Department.
Education Law section 207 grants general rule-making authority to the Regents to carry into effect State educational laws and policies.
Education Law section 215 authorizes the Commissioner to require reports from schools under State educational supervision.
Education Law section 305(1) authorizes the Commissioner to enforce laws relating to the State educational system and execute Regents educational policies. Section 305(2) provides the Commissioner with general supervision over schools and authority to advise and guide school district officers in their duties and the general management of their schools.
Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and amended by Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, establishes requirements for the conduct of annual professional performance reviews (APPR) of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES).
2. LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:
The proposed rule is consistent with the above authority vested in the Regents and Commissioner to carry into effect State educational laws and policies, and is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as amended by Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, by prescribing criteria for APPR of classroom teachers and building principals.
3. NEEDS AND BENEFITS:
Education Law section 3012-c establishes a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. This evaluation system is a critical element of the Regents reform agenda-an agenda aimed at improving teaching and learning in New York and increasing the opportunity for all students to graduate from high school ready for college and careers.
A primary objective of the evaluation system is to foster a culture of continuous professional growth. The system's three components are designed to complement one another:
• Statewide student growth measures will identify those educators whose students' progress exceeds that of their peers, as well as those whose students are falling behind compared to similar students.
• Locally selected measures of student achievement will reflect local priorities, needs, and targets.
• Teacher observations, school visits, and other measures will provide educators with detailed, structured feedback on their professional practice.
Together, this information will be used to tailor professional development and support for educators to grow and improve their instructional practices, with the ultimate goal of ensuring an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school.
4. COSTS:
a. Costs to State government: The rule implements Education Law section 3012-c and does not impose any costs on State government, including the State Education Department, beyond those costs imposed by the statute.
b. Costs to local government: Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and as amended by Chapter 21 of the laws of 2012 as proposed by S.6732/A.9554, establishes requirements for the conduct of annual professional performance reviews (APPR) of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES).
The estimated value of staff time discussed here are based on the following: (1) an estimated hourly rate for teachers of $46.46 (based on an average annual teacher salary of $66,902 divided by 1,440 hours per school year); (2) an estimated hourly rate for principals of $71.90 (based on an average annual principal salary of $126,544 divided by 1,760 hours per school year); and (3) an estimated hourly rate for superintendents of $85.71 (based on a median annual superintendent of schools salary of $150,850 divided by 1,760 hours per school year). The Department anticipates that the proposed rule will require the estimated value of staff time of school districts/BOCES employees. The estimated value of staff time below assume that school districts and BOCES employees will need to dedicate extra time to accomplish the duties required by the statute and/or the proposed rule. However, most districts and BOCES are or should be performing these activities currently, but the State does not have data on the amount of hours currently dedicated to these activities. Moreover, in 2010, the Department was awarded a nearly $700 million in Race to the Top grant award, of which it is estimated that approximately $460 million of these funds have been or will be made available to school districts and BOCES and portions of those monies will be available to offset some of the estimated value of staff time.
State assessments or Other Comparable Measures
The statute requires that 20% of a teacher or principal's evaluation be based on student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures (increases to 25% upon implementation of a value-added growth model). There are no additional costs or staff time beyond that time imposed by statute for evaluating a teacher based on State assessments.
For non-tested subjects where there is no approved growth or value-added model for such grade/subject, the proposed amendment requires the district/BOCES to evaluate teachers and principals using a State-determined district- or BOCES-wide student growth goal setting process with an approved student assessment or a district, BOCES or regional assessment provided that it is rigorous and comparable across classrooms. The Department estimates that for non-tested subjects, a teacher or principal will spend approximately 4 hours to set his/her goals for the year and that a principal/superintendent will take approximately 1 hour per year to work with a teacher/principal on the goal setting process. Based on the estimated hourly rates described above, the Department estimates that the goal-setting process will require an estimated value of school district/BOCES staff time of $257.74 per teacher (4 teacher hours to set goals plus 1 principal hour to review goals with teacher) and $373.31 per principal (4 principal hours to set goals plus 1 superintendent hour to review goals with principal).
The goal-setting process also requires the use of a student assessment. In core subjects where no State assessment or Regents examination exists for such grades/subjects, the district/BOCES must use the goal setting process with an approved third-party assessment (at a cost per student of $10-$20 per student) or a Department-approved alternative examination (which the Department expects would have no additional cost) or a district, regional or BOCES-developed assessment (which the Department expects would have minimal costs, if any). For all other non-tested grades/subjects, districts must use the goal-setting process with either a State assessment (which will have no additional cost), an approved third-party assessment (at a cost of $10-$20 per student), a district-, regional or BOCES-created assessment or a school- or BOCES-wide, group or team results based on State assessments.
Locally Selected Measures
An additional 20% of the evaluation must be based on locally selected measures. The statute provides districts/BOCES with several options for this component in the 2012-2013 school year (decreases to 15% upon implementation of a value-added growth model). For teacher evaluations in the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter, the statute provides the following options: approved third-party assessments; district-, regional- or BOCES-developed assessments; a school-wide measure of student growth or achieved based on prescribed options; student achievement or growth on State assessments, Regents examinations and/or Department approved alternative examinations based on prescribed options listed in the statute, using a measure that is different from the growth score used for purposes of the state assessment or other comparable measures component; and 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. The proposed amendment does not impose costs beyond those costs imposed by the statute. If districts/BOCES select the State assessment option or use of the group or team metric, the Department estimates that there are no additional costs or estimated value of staff time. If the district/BOCES uses the goal-setting process, the estimated value of staff time is the same as those described above for a goal-setting process. If the district/BOCES already uses a student assessment from the State's approved list, which the Department expects will be the case in many instances, there will be no additional costs imposed by the proposed amendment. If a district/BOCES does not already use an approved local assessment and does not opt to use a measure based on a State assessment, the Department estimates the cost of purchasing a third-party student assessment will cost approximately $10-$20 per student, depending on the particular assessment selected.
For principals, the statute provides many options for the locally selected measures subcomponent for the 2012-2013 school year, which include, but are not limited to, student achievement on State assessments in grades 4-8 ELA and/or math for certain subgroups and/or based on the percentage of students in the school at certain performance levels and/or for students in each of the performance levels on the State assessments (proficient or advanced), student performance on district-wide locally selected measures approved for use in teacher evaluations, graduation and drop out rates for high school grades, progress toward graduation, etc. The proposed amendment does not impose costs or staff time beyond those imposed by the statute. As described above, if the district/BOCES selects a locally selected measure based on State assessments, Regents examinations, graduation rates, the percent of students who earn a Regents diploma, Department approved alternative examination or progress toward graduation rates, the Department expects these costs and staff time to be negligible and to be absorbed by existing staff. If the district/BOCES selects student performance on any or all of the district-wide locally selected measures for teachers, the Department expects that there will be no additional cost or estimated value of staff time for principals if the costs or estimated value of staff time were already incurred for teachers.
Other Measures
For the remaining 60% of the evaluation, the statute requires that a majority (31) of a teacher's 60 points be based on multiple classroom observations for teachers by a principal or other trained administrator, at least one of which must be unannounced in the 2012-2013 school year and a majority (31) of a principal's 60 points be based on a broad assessment of the principal's leadership and management actions by the building principal's supervisor, a trained administrator or a trained independent evaluator which incorporates multiple school visits, with at least one visit by the supervisor, and at least one unannounced visit in the 2012-2013 school year. The statute also prescribes specific requirements for the remaining portion of the 60 points for teachers and principals and the proposed amendment merely reiterates those requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not impose any additional estimated value of staff time beyond that staff time imposed by statute.
The proposed amendment also requires that the 60 points be assessed based on a teacher or principal practice rubric approved by the Department or a rubric approved through a variance process. The Department estimates that more than one rubric on the State's approved list will be available to districts/BOCES at no cost. While some rubrics may offer training for a fee and others may require proprietary training, any costs incurred for training are costs imposed by the statute. Many rubric providers do not require a school district/BOCES to receive training through the provider and some providers even provide free online training. The Department estimates that districts/BOCES can obtain a principal practice in the following range: $0-$360 per principal evaluated. Some principal practice rubrics may charge an additional fee for training on the rubric, although most rubric providers do not require a user to receive training through the rubric provider.
Reporting and Data Collection
The proposed amendment requires that school districts or BOCES annual professional performance review plan describe how the district or BOCES will report information to the Department on enrollment and attendance data and any other student, teacher, school, course and teacher/student linkage data. The majority of this data is required to be reported under the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Therefore, no additional costs are imposed by the proposed amendment. To the extent that such information is not required to be reported under federal law, the Department expects that most districts/BOCES already compile this information and, therefore, these reporting requirements are minimal and should be absorbed by existing district or BOCES resources.
The proposed amendment also requires that every teacher and principal be provided an opportunity to verify the subjects and/or student rosters assigned to them. The Department estimates that it will take a teacher 4 hours to review his/her student roster. This will require an estimated value of staff time of $185.84 per teacher. For principals, the Department estimates that it will take a principal 8 hours to review his/her student roster. This will require an estimated value of staff time of $575.20 per principal.
As for the additional reporting requirements contained in section 30-2.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents, school districts or BOCES are required to report many of these requirements under the existing APPR regulations (section 100.2[o])- i.e., explanation of evaluation system used and description of timely and constructive feedback) and the Department expects that most districts or BOCES would put their evaluation process, including appeal procedures in writing and, therefore, reporting of such information would not impose any additional staff time on a school district or BOCES.
Vested Interest
The proposed amendment also requires that districts certify that teachers and principals not have a vested interest in the test results of students whose assessments they score. The Department believes that most districts already have this security mechanism in place. However, in the event a district currently allows a teacher to score their own assessment, the Department expects that districts/BOCES can assign other teachers or faculty to score such assessments. Therefore, the Department believes that estimated value of staff time imposed by this requirement, if any, are minimal.
Scoring
The statute requires that a teacher receive a teacher or principal composite effectiveness score based on their score on three subcomponents (student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures; locally selected measures of student achievement and other measures of teacher and principal effectiveness). The proposed amendment sets forth the scoring ranges for the rating categories in two of these subcomponents and overall rating categories as prescribed by the statute. The proposed amendment does not require any additional staff time beyond that time imposed by statute.
Training
The statute requires that all evaluators be properly trained before conducting an evaluation. The proposed amendment requires that a lead evaluator be certified by the district/BOCES before conducting and/or completing a teacher's or principal's evaluation and that evaluators be properly trained. Since the training is required by statute, the only additional estimated value of staff time imposed are associated with the district or BOCES' certification and recertification of lead evaluators, which are expected to be negligible and capable of absorption using existing staff and resources.
Teacher and Principal Improvement Plans and Appeal Procedures
The statute also requires school districts/BOCES to develop teacher and principal improvement plans (TIP or PIP) for teachers rated ineffective or developing and to develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher or principal may challenge their APPR. The proposed amendment reiterates these statutory requirements and does not require any additional staff time on districts/BOCES relating to the development of TIP/PIPs or an appeal procedure, beyond those imposed by statute.
c. Costs to private regulated parties: None. The rule applies to annual professional performance reviews of teachers and building principals that are conducted by school districts/BOCES and does not impose any costs on private parties.
d. Cost to regulatory agency for implementing and continued administration of the rule: See above cost to State government.
5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:
Education Law section 3012-c establishes a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. The majority of the requirements in the proposed amendment do not impose any program, service, duty or responsibility on school districts and BOCES beyond those imposed by the statute.
The statute requires each classroom teacher and building principal to receive an APPR resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and rating of "highly effective," "effective," "developing," or "ineffective." The composite score is determined as follows:
• 20% is based on student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures of student growth (increased to 25% upon implementation of a value-added growth model).
• 20% is based on locally-selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms as defined by the Commissioner (decreased to 15% upon implementation of value-added growth model).
• The remaining 60% is based on other measures of teacher/principal effectiveness consistent with standards prescribed by the Commissioner in regulation.
For the 2011-2012 school year, the new law only applies to classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and the building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. In the 2012-2013 school year, the new evaluation system will apply to all classroom teachers and building principals. However, the Department recommends that, to the extent possible, districts and BOCES begin the process of rolling this system out for the evaluation of all classroom teachers and building principals in the 2011-2012 school year so that New York can quickly move to a comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation system. By law, the APPR is required to be a significant factor in employment decisions such as promotion, retention, tenure determinations, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as a significant factor in teacher and principal professional development.
If a teacher or principal is rated "developing" or "ineffective," the law requires the school district/BOCES to develop and implement a teacher or principal improvement plan (TIP or PIP). Tenured teachers and principals with a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance - defined by law as two consecutive annual ineffective" ratings - may be charged with incompetence and considered for termination through an expedited hearing process.
The statute also requires all evaluators to be appropriately trained consistent with standards prescribed by the Commissioner and that appeals procedures be locally developed in each school district/BOCES.
6. PAPERWORK:
The amendment to section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's regulations requires that beginning July 1, 2011, each school district evaluate their building principals on an annual basis according to procedures developed by the governing body of each school district. Such procedures shall be filed in the district office and available for review by an individual no later than September 10th of each year.
Section 30-2.3 of the proposed amendment requires that by September 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt an APPR plan for its classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and its building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. By July 1, 2012, each school district/BOCES shall adopt an APPR plan, on a form prescribed by the Commissioner, which may be an annual or multi-year plan, for all of its classroom teachers and building principals and shall submit the plan to the Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner shall approve or reject the plan by September 1, 2012, or as soon as practicable thereafter. The Commissioner may reject a plan that does not rigorously adhere to the regulations and the law. 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 bargaining to the extent required under article 14 of the Civil Service Law.
This section also requires that the APPR plan describe the school district's or BOCES' process for ensuring that the Department receives accurate teacher and student data, including certain identified information; how the district or BOCES will report subcomponent scores and the total composite effectiveness score for each classroom teacher and building principal in the school district or BOCES; the assessment development, security and scoring processes utilized by the school district or BOCES, which includes a requirement that any process and assessment or measures are not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessments they score; describe the details of the evaluation system used by the district or BOCES; how the district or BOCES will provide timely and constructive feedback to teachers and building principals and the appeal procedures used by the district or BOCES.
The proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES that selected certain locally selected measures to certify, in its annual professional performance review plan, that the measure is rigorous and comparable across classrooms and explain how the locally selected measure meets these requirements. For school districts or BOCES that use more than one locally selected measure for a grade/subject, they must certify in their APPR plan that the measures are comparable, in accordance with the Testing Standards.
If a school district or BOCES seeks to use a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that was self-developed or developed by a third-party or a newly developed rubric, the school district or BOCES must seek a variance from the Department for the use of such rubric.
The proposed amendment also requires that the process by which points are assigned in the various subcomponents and the scoring ranges for the subcomponents must be transparent and available to those being rated before the beginning of each school year.
A provider seeking to place a practice rubric in the list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on the list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements of sections 30-2.7 and 30-2.8, respectively. An approved rubric or approved assessment may be withdrawn for good cause. The provider may reply in writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of Commissioner's notification of intent to terminate approval.
The governing body of each school district is required to ensure that evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation under this section and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.
If a teacher or principal is rated "developing" or "ineffective," the school district or BOCES is required to develop and implement a teacher or principal improvement plan (TIP or PIP) that complies with section 30-2.10. Such plan shall be developed locally through negotiations pursuant to Civil Service Law Article 14, and include identification of needed areas of improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which the improvement will be assessed and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support improvement in those areas.
In accordance with the requirements of the statute, the proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES to develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher or principal may challenge their annual professional performance review.
The regulations also require the Commissioner to annually monitor and analyze trends and patterns in teacher and principal evaluation results and data to identify districts, BOCES and/or schools where evidence suggests a more rigorous evaluation system is needed to improve educator effectiveness and student learning outcomes. A school district or BOCES identified by the Department in one of the categories enumerated above 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 BOCES arrange for additional professional development, provide additional in-service training and/or utilize independent trained evaluators to review the efficacy of the evaluation system.
The above changes require that the "Compliance Schedule" section of the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement" be revised to read as follows:
7. DUPLICATION:
The rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c and does not duplicate existing State or Federal requirements.
8. ALTERNATIVES:
In September 2010, the Department convened an advisory committee known as the Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness ("Task Force"), which is comprised of representatives of teachers, principals, superintendents of schools, school boards, school districts and board of cooperative educational services officials, and other interested parties. The Task Force has been meeting since September 2010 and they have been divided into workgroups to provide guidance and consider certain aspects of Education Law 3012-c.
After months of discussion and deliberations, the Task Force generated a written report of their recommendations. At the April 2011 Regents meeting, the Task Force presented their recommendations to the Board of Regents. Thereafter, the Department presented their recommendations, which incorporated most of the Task Force's recommendations. At that point, the Regents directed the Department to draft regulations reflecting the Department's recommendations.
On April 15, 2010, the Department posted draft regulatory language on our website for the public to review and provide informal comment. The Department received and reviewed over 250 comments on the proposed amendment, including comments from district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators across the State. Many of these comments have been incorporated in the proposed amendment or will be addressed in guidance.
At their March meeting, the Board of Regents adopted revised regulations to implement the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, which amended Education Law § 3012-c. Prior to adopting these revised regulations, the Department sent the draft regulatory language for comment to the members of the Task Force, which included district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, the Council of School Supervisor & Administrators, New York City, the Conference of Big 5 School Districts NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators and public interest groups across the State. Some of these comments were incorporated into the proposed amendment.
9. FEDERAL STANDARDS:
The rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c. There are no applicable Federal standards concerning the APPR for classroom teachers and building principals as established in Education Law section 3012-c.
10. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The proposed amendment will become effective on its stated effective date. No further time is needed to comply. By September 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt a plan for the APPR of its classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and its building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed, and by July 1, 2012, each school district and BOCES shall adopt a plan, on a form prescribed by the Commissioner, which may be an annual or multi-year plan, for the APPR of all classroom teachers and building principals and submit such plan to the Commissioner for approval.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(a) Small businesses:
The purpose of the proposed rule is to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and amended by Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, by establishing standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services. The proposed rule does not impose any reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, and will not have an adverse economic impact, on small business. Because it is evident from the nature of the amendment that it does not affect small businesses, no further steps were needed to ascertain that fact and one were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses is not required and one has not been prepared.
(b) Local governments:
1. EFFECT OF RULE:
The rule applies to all school districts and boards of cooperative educational services ("BOCES") in the State.
2. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:
Education Law section 3012-c establishes a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. The majority of the requirements in the proposed amendment do not impose any program, service, duty or responsibility on school districts and BOCES beyond those imposed by the statute.
The statute requires each classroom teacher and building principal to receive an APPR resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and rating of "highly effective," "effective," "developing," or "ineffective." The composite score is determined as follows:
• 20% is based on student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures of student growth (increased to 25% upon implementation of a value-added growth model).
• 20% is based on locally-selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms as defined by the Commissioner (decreased to 15% upon implementation of value-added growth model). The rule provides a list of local options/measures for the evaluation of teachers and principals under this subcomponent.
• The remaining 60% is based on other measures of teacher/principal effectiveness consistent with standards prescribed by the Commissioner in regulation. The rule requires that, for teachers, at least 31 of the 60 points be based on multiple classroom observations conducted by a principal or other trained administrator and, for principals, at least 31 of the 60 points be based on a broad assessment of leadership and management actions by the supervisor or a trained administrator or other trained evaluator.
For the 2011-2012 school year, the new law only applies to classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and the building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. In the 2012-2013 school year, the new evaluation system will apply to all classroom teachers and building principals. However, the Department recommends that, to the extent possible, districts and BOCES begin the process of rolling this system out for the evaluation of all classroom teachers and building principals in the 2011-2012 school year so that New York can quickly move to a comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation system. By law, the APPR is required to be a significant factor in employment decisions such as promotion, retention, tenure determinations, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as a significant factor in teacher and principal professional development.
The proposed amendment also prescribes the following requirements:
The amendment to section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's regulations requires that beginning July 1, 2011, each school district evaluate their building principals on an annual basis according to procedures developed by the governing body of each school district. Such procedures shall be filed in the district office and available for review by an individual no later than September 10th of each year.
Section 30-2.3 of the proposed amendment requires that by September 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt an APPR plan for its classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and its building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. By July 1, 2012, each school district/BOCES shall adopt an APPR plan, on a form prescribed by the Commissioner, which may be an annual or multi-year plan, for all of its classroom teachers and building principals and shall submit the plan to the Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner shall approve or reject the plan by September 1, 2012, or as soon as practicable thereafter. The Commissioner may reject a plan that does not rigorously adhere to the regulations and the law. 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 bargaining to the extent required under article 14 of the Civil Service Law.
This section also requires that the APPR plan describe the school district's or BOCES' process for ensuring that the Department receives accurate teacher and student data, including certain identified information; how the district or BOCES will report subcomponent scores and the total composite effectiveness score for each classroom teacher and building principal in the school district or BOCES; the assessment development, security and scoring processes utilized by the school district or BOCES, which includes a requirement that any process and assessment or measures are not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessments they score; describe the details of the evaluation system used by the district or BOCES; how the district or BOCES will provide timely and constructive feedback to teachers and building principals and the appeal procedures used by the district or BOCES.
The proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES that uses certain locally selected measures to certify, in its annual professional performance review plan, that the measure is rigorous and comparable across classrooms and explain how the locally selected measure meets these requirements. For school districts or BOCES that use more than one locally selected measure for a grade/subject, they must certify in their APPR plan that the measures are comparable, in accordance with the Testing Standards.
If a school district or BOCES seeks to use a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that was self-developed or developed by a third-party or a newly developed rubric, the school district or BOCES must seek a variance from the Department for the use of such rubric.
The proposed amendment also requires that the process by which points are assigned in the various subcomponents and the scoring ranges for the subcomponents must be transparent and available to those being rated before the beginning of each school year.
A provider seeking to place a practice rubric in the list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on the list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements of sections 30-2.7 and 30-2.8, respectively. An approved rubric or approved assessment may be withdrawn for good cause. The provider may reply in writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of Commissioner's notification of intent to terminate approval.
The governing body of each school district is required to ensure that evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation under this section and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.
If a teacher or principal is rated "developing" or "ineffective," the school district or BOCES is required to develop and implement a teacher or principal improvement plan (TIP or PIP) that complies with section 30-2.10. Such plan shall be developed locally through negotiations pursuant to Civil Service Law article 14, and include identification of needed areas of improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which the improvement will be assessed and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support improvement in those areas.
In accordance with the requirements of the statute, the proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES to develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher or principal may challenge their annual professional performance review.
The regulations also requires the Commissioner to annually monitor and analyze trends and patterns in teacher and principal evaluation results and data to identify districts, BOCES and/or schools were evidence suggests a more rigorous evaluation system is needed to improve educator effectiveness and student learning outcomes. A school district or BOCES identified by the Department in one of the categories enumerated above 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 BOCES arrange for additional professional development, provide additional in-service training and/or utilize independent trained evaluators to review the efficacy of the evaluation system.
3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
The proposed amendment does not impose any additional professional services requirements on school districts or BOCES.
4. COMPLIANCE COSTS:
See the Costs Section of the Regulatory Impact Statement that is published in the State Register on this publication date for an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule.
5. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:
The rule does not impose any additional technological requirements on school districts or BOCES. Economic feasibility is addressed above under Compliance Costs.
6. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and as amended by Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012 (S.6732/A.9554). The rule has been carefully drafted to meet statutory requirements while providing flexibility to school districts and BOCES.
7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:
In September 2010, the Department convened an advisory committee known as the Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness ("Task Force"), which is comprised of representatives of teachers, principals, superintendents of schools, school boards, school districts and board of cooperative educational services officials, and other interested parties. The Task Force has been meeting since September 2010 and they have been divided into workgroups to provide guidance and consider certain aspects of Education Law 3012-c.
After months of discussion and deliberations, the Task Force generated a written report of their recommendations. At the April 2011 Regents meeting, the Task Force presented their recommendations to the Board of Regents. Thereafter, the Department presented their recommendations, which incorporated most of the Task Force's recommendations. At that point, the Regents directed the Department to draft regulations reflecting the Department's recommendations.
On April 15, 2010, the Department posted draft regulatory language on our website for the public to review and provide informal comment. The Department received and reviewed over 250 comments on the proposed amendment, including comments from district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, the Council of School Supervisor & Administrators, New York City, the Conference of Big 5 School Districts NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators and public interest groups across the State. Many of these comments have been incorporated in the proposed amendment or will be addressed in guidance.
At their March meeting, the Board of Regents adopted revised regulations to implement the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, which amended Education Law § 3012-c. Prior to adopting these revised regulations, the Department sent the draft regulatory language for comment to the members of the Task Force, which included district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, the Council of School Supervisor & Administrators, New York City, the Conference of Big 5 School Districts NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators and public interest groups across the State. Some of these comments were incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
1. TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RURAL AREAS:
The proposed amendment applies to all school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) in the State, including those located in the 44 rural counties with fewer than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns and urban counties with a population density of 150 square miles or less.
2. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010, and as amended by a Chapter of the Laws of 2012 (S.6732/A.9554) establishes a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. The majority of the requirements in the proposed amendment do not impose any program, service, duty or responsibility on school districts and BOCES beyond those imposed by the statute.
The statute requires each classroom teacher and building principal to receive an APPR resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and rating of "highly effective," "effective," "developing," or "ineffective." The composite score is determined as follows:
• 20% is based on student growth on State assessments or other comparable measures of student growth (increased to 25% upon implementation of a value-added growth model).
• 20% is based on locally-selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms as defined by the Commissioner (decreased to 15% upon implementation of value-added growth model). The rule provides a list of local options/measures for the evaluation of teachers and principals under this subcomponent.
• The remaining 60% is based on other measures of teacher/principal effectiveness consistent with standards prescribed by the Commissioner in regulation. The rule requires that, for teachers, at least 31 of the 60 points be based on multiple classroom observations conducted by a principal or other trained administrator and, for principals, at least 31 of the 60 points be based on a broad assessment of leadership and management actions by the supervisor, a trained administrator or other trained evaluator.
For the 2011-2012 school year, the new law only applies to classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and the building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. In the 2012-2013 school year, the new evaluation system will apply to all classroom teachers and building principals. However, the Department recommends that, to the extent possible, districts and BOCES begin the process of rolling this system out for the evaluation of all classroom teachers and building principals in the 2011-2012 school year so that New York can quickly move to a comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation system. By law, the APPR is required to be a significant factor in employment decisions such as promotion, retention, tenure determinations, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as a significant factor in teacher and principal professional development.
The proposed amendment also prescribes the following requirements:
The amendment to section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's regulations requires that beginning July 1, 2011, each school district evaluate their building principals on an annual basis according to procedures developed by the governing body of each school district. Such procedures shall be filed in the district office and available for review by an individual no later than September 10th of each year.
Section 30-2.3 of the proposed amendment requires that by September 1, 2011, each school district shall adopt an APPR plan for its classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4-8 and its building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed. By July 1, 2012, each school district/BOCES shall adopt an APPR plan, on a form prescribed by the Commissioner, which may be an annual or multi-year plan, for all of its classroom teachers and building principals and shall submit the plan to the Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner shall approve or reject the plan by September 1, 2012, or as soon as practicable thereafter. The Commissioner may reject a plan that does not rigorously adhere to the regulations and the law. 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 bargaining to the extent required under article 14 of the Civil Service Law.
This section also requires that the APPR plan describe the school district's or BOCES' process for ensuring that the Department receives accurate teacher and student data, including certain identified information; how the district or BOCES will report subcomponent scores and the total composite effectiveness score for each classroom teacher and building principal in the school district or BOCES; the assessment development, security and scoring processes utilized by the school district or BOCES, which includes a requirement that any process and assessment or measures are not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessments they score; describe the details of the evaluation system used by the district or BOCES; how the district or BOCES will provide timely and constructive feedback to teachers and building principals and the appeal procedures used by the district or BOCES.
The proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES that select certain locally selected measures to certify, in its annual professional performance review plan, that the measure is rigorous and comparable across classrooms and explain how the locally selected measure meets these requirements. For school districts or BOCES that use more than one locally selected measure for a grade/subject, they must certify in their APPR plan that the measures are comparable, in accordance with the Testing Standards.
If a school district or BOCES seeks to use a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that was self-developed or developed by a third-party or a newly developed rubric, the school district or BOCES must seek a variance from the Department for the use of such rubric.
The proposed amendment also requires that the process by which points are assigned in the various subcomponents and the scoring ranges for the subcomponents must be transparent and available to those being rated before the beginning of each school year.
A provider seeking to place a practice rubric in the list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on the list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements of sections 30-2.7 and 30-2.8, respectively. An approved rubric or approved assessment may be withdrawn for good cause. The provider may reply in writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of Commissioner's notification of intent to terminate approval.
The governing body of each school district is required to ensure that evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation under this section and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.
If a teacher or principal is rated "developing" or "ineffective," the school district or BOCES is required to develop and implement a teacher or principal improvement plan (TIP or PIP) that complies with section 30-2.10. Such plan shall be developed locally through negotiations pursuant to Civil Service Law article 14, and include identification of needed areas of improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which the improvement will be assessed and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support improvement in those areas.
In accordance with the requirements of the statute, the proposed amendment also requires a school district or BOCES to develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher or principal may challenge their annual professional performance review.
The regulations also requires the Commissioner to annually monitor and analyze trends and patterns in teacher and principal evaluation results and data to identify districts, BOCES and/or schools were evidence suggests a more rigorous evaluation system is needed to improve educator effectiveness and student learning outcomes. A school district or BOCES identified by the Department in one of the categories enumerated above 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 BOCES arrange for additional professional development, provide additional in-service training and/or utilize independent trained evaluators to review the efficacy of the evaluation system.
3. COSTS:
See the "Costs" Section of the Regulatory Impact Statement that is published in the State Register on this publication date for an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule, which include costs for school districts and BOCES across the State, including those located in rural areas.
4. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:
The rule is necessary to implement Education Law section 3012-c. The rule has been carefully drafted to meet statutory requirements while providing flexibility to school districts and BOCES. Since the statute applies to all school districts and BOCES throughout the State, it was not possible to establish different compliance and reporting requirements for regulated parties in rural areas, or to exempt them from the rule's provisions.
5. RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:
In September 2010, the Department convened an advisory committee known as the Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness ("Task Force"), which is comprised of representatives of teachers, principals, superintendents of schools, school boards, school districts and board of cooperative educational services officials, and other interested parties. The Task Force has been meeting since September 2010 and they have been divided into workgroups to provide guidance and consider certain aspects of Education Law 3012-c.
After months of discussion and deliberations, the Task Force generated a written report of their recommendations. At the April 2011 Regents meeting, the Task Force presented their recommendations to the Board of Regents. Thereafter, the Department presented their recommendations, which incorporated most of the Task Force's recommendations. At that point, the Regents directed the Department to draft regulations reflecting the Department's recommendations.
On April 15, 2010, the Department posted draft regulatory language on our website for the public to review and provide informal comment. The Department received and reviewed over 250 comments on the proposed amendment, including comments from district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, the Council of School Supervisor & Administrators, New York City, the Conference of Big 5 School Districts NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators and public interest groups across the State. Many of these comments were incorporated in the proposed amendment adopted in May 2011 or have be addressed in guidance.
At their March meeting, the Board of Regents adopted revised regulations to implement the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, which amended Education Law § 3012-c. Prior to adopting these revised regulations, the Department sent the draft regulatory language for comment to the members of the Task Force, which included district superintendents, the Council of School Superintendents, the School Boards Association, the Governor's Office, the Council of School Supervisor & Administrators, New York City, the Conference of Big 5 School Districts NYSUT, SAANYS and teachers and administrators and public interest groups across the State. Some of these comments were incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Job Impact Statement
The purpose of the proposed rule is to implement Education Law section 3012-c, as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and Chapter 21 of the Laws of 2012, by establishing standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed rule that it will have no impact on the number of jobs or employment opportunities in New York State, no further steps were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.
