EDU-27-15-00019-E Annual Professional Performance Reviews of Classroom Teachers and Building Principals

7/15/15 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-27-15-00019-E

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXXVII, ISSUE 28

July 15, 2015

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

EMERGENCY RULE MAKING

 

I.D No. EDU-27-15-00019-E

Filing No. 560

Filing Date. Jun. 30, 2015

Effective Date. Jun. 30, 2015

Annual Professional Performance Reviews of 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 Subpart 30-2; and addition of Subpart 30-3 to Title 8 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Education Law, sections 101 (not subdivided), 207 (not subdivided), 215 (not subdivided), 305(1), (2), 3009(1), 3012-c(1-10) and 3012-d(1-15); L. 2015, ch. 56, part EE, subparts D and E

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 sections 3012-c and 3012-d, as amended and added by Subpart E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015, regarding annual professional performance reviews (APPRs) of classroom teachers and building principals.

Since the Board of Regents meets at fixed intervals, the earliest the proposed rule can be presented for regular (non-emergency) adoption, after expiration of the required 45-day public comment period provided for in the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) sections 201(1) and (5), would be the September 16-17, 2015 Regents meeting. Furthermore, pursuant to SAPA section 203(1), the earliest effective date of the proposed rule, if adopted at the September meeting, would be October 7, 2015, the date a Notice of Adoption would be published in the State Register. However, Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 was signed by the Governor on April 13, 2015, and the provisions of Subpart E of Part EE became effective immediately and require the Commissioner to promulgate regulations to implement the new Education Law § 3012-d by June 30, 2015. Therefore, emergency action is necessary at the June 15-16, 2015 Regents meeting for the preservation of the general welfare in order to immediately establish standards to timely implement the provisions of Subpart E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 relating to a new annual evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals and thereby ensure that school districts and BOCES may timely implement the new evaluation requirements for classroom teachers and building principals in accordance with the statute.

It is anticipated that the proposed rule will be presented for adoption as a permanent rule at the September 16-17, 2015 Regents meeting, which is the first scheduled meeting after expiration of the 45-day public comment period prescribed in the State Administrative Procedure Act for State agency rule makings.

Subject:

Annual Professional Performance Reviews of Classroom Teachers and Building Principals.

Purpose:

To Implement subparts D and E of part EE of chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015.

Substance of emergency rule:

The Commissioner of Education proposes to amend Subpart 30-2 and add a new Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s regulations, relating to the Annual Professional Performance Reviews (APPR) for teachers in New York State. The rule has been adopted as an emergency action at the June 2015 Regents meeting. The following is a summary of the substance of the emergency rule.

The title of section 30-2 and section 30-2.1 is amended to clarify that Subpart 30-2 only applies to APPRs conducted prior to the 2015-2016 school year or APPRs conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on or before April 1, 2015 which remains in effect on or after April 1, 2015 until a subsequent agreement is reached.

Section 30-2.1(d) is amended to clarify that a school district or BOCES has an unfettered statutory right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason, including but not limited to misconduct, and until a tenure decision is made, the performance of a teacher or principal in the classroom or school. Section 30-2.11 clarifies that a school district or BOCES may terminate a probationary teacher or principal during an appeal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason, including a teacher’s or principal’s performance.

A new Subpart 30-3 is added to implement the new evaluation system.

Section 30-3.1 clarifies that the new evaluation system only applies to CBA’s entered into after April 1, 2015 unless the agreement relates to the 2014-2015 school year only. It further clarifies that nothing in the new Subpart shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any CBA in effect on effect on or after April 1, 2015 during the term of such agreement and until entry into a successor CBA agreement. It further clarifies that APPRs shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and teacher and principal development, consistent with the prior law, as well as the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason. This section also requires the Regents to convene workgroup(s) comprised of stakeholders and experts in the field to provide recommendations to the Regents on assessments and metrics that could be used for APPRs in the future.

Section 30-3.2 defines several terms used in the Subpart.

Section 30-3.3 prescribes the requirements for APPR plans submitted under the new Subpart.

Section 30-3.4 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of classroom teachers under the new law, including that teachers be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the teacher observation category.

Section 30-3.5 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of building principals under the new law, including a principal evaluation system that is aligned to the new teacher evaluation system set forth in Education Law § 3012-d and evaluates principals based on two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

Section 30-3.6 describes how a teacher or principal’s overall rating is computed, based on the evaluation matrix established by the new law, which combines the teacher’s or principal’s ratings on the student performance category and the observation/school visit category.

Section 30-3.7 lists the prohibited elements, as set forth in Education Law § 3012-d(6), which precludes districts/BOCES from using as part of a teacher’s and/or principal’s evaluation.

Sections 30-3.8 and 30-3.9 set forth the approval processes for student assessments and teacher and principal practice rubrics.

Section 30-3.10 sets forth the training requirements for evaluators and lead evaluators, which will require evaluators and lead evaluators to be trained on certain prescribed elements relating to observations and the applicable teacher/principal practice rubrics.

Section 30-3.11 addresses teacher and principal improvement plans (TIPS/PIPS) to make the existing provisions of Education Law § 3012-c(4) applicable to evaluations under Education Law § 3012-d, as required by § 3012-d(15). The proposed rule makes two changes with respect to TIPS/PIPS. It now allows the superintendent in the exercise of his/her pedagogical judgment to develop the improvement plans and requires that such plans be implemented by October 1st rather than within 10 days of the opening of classes in the school year.

Section 30-3.12 addresses appeal procedures to make the existing provisions of Education Law § 3012-c(5) applicable to evaluations under Education Law § 3012-d, as required by § 3012-d(15). Currently, Education Law § 3012-c sets forth the grounds for an appeal which includes the ability of a teacher or principal to challenge the substance of their APPR in an appeal. The proposed amendment defines the substance of an APPR to include appeals in circumstances where a teacher or principal is rated Ineffective on the student performance category, but rated Highly Effective on the observation/school visit category based on an anomaly.

Section 30-3.13 addresses monitoring and consequences for non-compliance to make the existing provisions of Education Law § 3012-c(9) applicable to evaluations under Education Law § 3012-d, as required by § 3012-d(15). The proposed rule incorporates § 3012-c(9) and the provisions on monitoring and corrective action in the regulations implementing § 3012-c(9) without change, except that the proposed amendment provides that the Department may require changes to a collective bargaining agreement as part of a corrective action.

Section 30-3.14 codifies the statutory requirement that no student be assigned to two teachers in the same subject in two consecutive school years, each of whom received a rating of Ineffective pursuant to an evaluation conducted pursuant to Education Law § 3012-d in the school year immediately prior to the year in which the student is placed in the teacher’s classroom. The proposed amendment provides for a teacher-specific waiver from the Department from such requirement where it is impracticable to comply with this requirement as required by the statute.

Section 30-3.15 describes the extent to which provisions of Education Law § 3012-c(2)(d), (k), (k-1), (k-2) and (l), (4), (5), (5-a), (9) and (10) are carried over into the new evaluation system, as required by Education Law § 3012-d(15).

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-27-15-00019-P, Issue of July 8, 2015. The emergency rule will expire September 27, 2015.

Text of 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, [phone], email: [e-mail]

Regulatory Impact Statement

1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

Education Law sections 101(not subdivided), 207(not subdivided), 215(not subdivided), 305(1) and (2), 3012-c(1-10) and 3012-d(1-15).

2. LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:

The rule is necessary to implement Subparts D and E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015.

3. NEEDS AND BENEFITS:

The statute requires the Commissioner to adopt regulations necessary to implement the new evaluation system for teachers and principals by June 30, 2015, after consulting with experts and practitioners in the fields of education, economics and psychometrics.

4. COSTS:

a. Costs to State: The rule does not impose any costs beyond those imposed by statute.

b. Costs to local government: Costs are based on the following:

(1) estimated hourly rate for teachers of $53.18 (based on an average annual teacher salary of $76,572.00 divided by 1,440 hours per school year [180 days, 8 hours each day]);

(2) estimated hourly rate for principals of $67.20 (based on an average annual principal salary of $118,269.00 divided by 1,760 hours per school year [220 days, 8 hours each day]); and

(3) an estimated hourly rate for superintendents of $86.59 (based on an average annual superintendent of schools salary of $166,244.00 divided by 1,920 hours per school year [240 days, 8 hours each day]).

The estimated costs assume that school districts/BOCES will need to pay for extra time for personnel at current rates, most are or should be performing these activities currently. The Department does not have data on the hours currently dedicated to these activities.

The rule may result in additional costs on school districts/BOCES related to:

Collective bargaining. Since collective bargaining is already required by Education Law § 3012-d(10) and it is impossible to ascertain what issues might trigger additional bargaining in over 700 school districts and BOCES, the Department has no basis for determining additional collective bargaining costs beyond those imposed by statute.

Required Student Performance Category

For teachers whose courses end in a State-created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model and at least 50% of a teacher’s students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such teachers shall have a State-provided growth score based on such model, and there are no additional costs. For principals with at least 30% of their students covered under a State-provided growth measure, such principals shall have a State-provided growth score and there are no additional costs.

For a teacher whose course does not end in a State-created or administered test or where less than 50% of the teacher’s students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such teachers shall have a Student Learning Objective (“SLO”) consistent with a goal setting process determined by the Commissioner that results in a student growth score; provided that for any teacher whose course ends in a State-created or administered assessment for which there is no State-provided growth model, such assessment must be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO. For a principal where less than 30% of their students are covered under a State-provided growth measure, such principals shall have a SLO consistent with a Commissioner-determined goal setting process that results in a student growth score; provided that for any principal whose course building/program includes courses that ends in a State-created or administered assessment for which there is no State-provided growth model, such assessment must be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO. The Department estimates a teacher/principal will spend approximately 3 hours to set goals and will take approximately 1 hour/year to work with a teacher/principal/superintendent on the goal setting process. The goal-setting process will cost $226.74 per teacher (3 teacher hours to set goals plus 1 principal hour to review goals with teacher) and $288.19 per principal (3 principal hours to set goals plus 1 superintendent hour to review goals with principal).

In grades/subjects where no State-created or administered assessment exists, the district/BOCES must use the SLO process with either an approved third-party assessment (at a cost per student of approximately $2.50-$14.00 per student), an approved district, regional, or BOCES-developed assessment (which would have minimal costs), or a State assessment (which would have no additional cost).

Optional Student Performance Category

Since optional, there are no additional costs for teachers or principals. If a district/BOCES elects to use a State-designed supplemental assessment, purchasing an assessment may cost approximately $2.50-$14.00 per student, depending on assessment selected. If a district/BOCES elects to use a second State-provided growth score, there should be no additional costs.

Teacher Observation/Principal School Visit Category

Based on models currently in use, a teacher will spend approximately 3 hours per classroom observation for pre- and post-conference meetings with the principal/evaluator, including the 1 hour in the observation itself, totaling to 6 hours per year (1 hour for pre-conference, 1 hour for observation, and 1 hour for post-observation). Depending on the model, estimates could decrease to 1 hour and 10 minutes for classroom observations that include a post-conference and walkthrough observation with the principal/evaluator, which would equate to 2 hours and 20 minutes for the year. Based on the extended-observation model, a principal/evaluator would spend approximately 1 hour for a teacher classroom observation and 3 additional hours for pre-conference and post-conference meetings associated with the conference (1 hour for each pre-conference, 1 hour for preparation for post-conference, and 1 hour in post-conference), equating to 4 hours/observation or 8 hours/teacher/year. For each teacher, approximately $856.68/year would be spent on classroom observations. This cost may vary depending on external independent evaluators selected.

Since use of peer observers is optional, there are no additional costs. However, if a district/BOCES elects to use peer observers, the Department estimates a peer observer for teachers may cost approximately $372.26 per observation (total time for teacher observation cycle plus total time for peer observer in the teacher observation cycle times the teacher hourly rate), and will be dependent upon the particular parameters determined locally. A principal will spend approximately 3 hours preparing for a school visit by a supervisor/other trained administrator and that a supervisor/other trained administrator will spend approximately 3 hours assessing and observing a principal’s practice per visit. Therefore, for each principal, a school district or BOCES would spend approximately $1325.94 per year on school site visits. This cost may vary upon the use of external independent evaluators.

Since peer observers is optional, there are no additional costs for principals. However, if a district/BOCES elects to use peer observers, the Department estimates a peer observer may cost approximately $604.80 per site visit (total time for principal observation cycle plus total time for peer observer in the principal observation cycle times the principal hourly rate), and will dependent upon the particular parameters determined locally.

The majority of rubrics on State’s approved list are available at no cost. While some rubrics may offer training for a fee and others may require proprietary training, any costs incurred for training are imposed by the statute. Most rubric providers do not require a school district/BOCES to receive training through the provider and some providers even provide free online training. Districts/BOCES can obtain a teacher or principal practice in the following price range: $0-$360 per educator evaluated. Some may charge an additional fee for training, estimated to cost approximately $0-$8,000, although most rubric providers do not require a user to receive training through the provider.

Reporting and Data Collection

The majority of this data is required under federal law and no additional costs are expected. To the extent such information is not required under federal law, the Department expects most districts/BOCES already compile this information and, therefore, these reporting requirements are minimal and should be absorbed by existing district/BOCES resources.

Verification of subjects/student rosters assigned to a teacher/principal is part of normal BEDS data verification process for principals and therefore any principal-related costs are minimal. For teachers, it will take a teacher 1.5 hours to review his/her student roster, costing $79.77 per teacher. School districts/BOCES are required to report many requirements contained in § 30-3.3under existing APPR regulation (§ 30-2.3). Therefore, reporting of such information would not impose any additional costs.

Vested Interest

Most districts have a security mechanism to ensure teachers/principals do not have a vested interest in the test results of students whose assessments they score, since it is a current requirement for evaluations conducted under Education Law § 3012-c. For those that don’t, districts/BOCES can assign other teachers or faculty to score such assessments, and any costs are minimal.

Scoring

The rule does not impose any additional costs beyond those imposed by statute.

Training

Since training is required by statute, the only additional cost is associated with the district/BOCES’ certification/recertification of lead evaluators, which would be negligible and capable of absorption using existing staff and resources.

Teacher and Principal Improvement Plans and Appeal Procedures

The rule does not impose any additional costs beyond those currently imposed by Education Law § 3012-c(4) and (5). Only change to the TIP/PIP requirement is with respect to its timing and clarification that superintendent/superintendent’s designee, in exercise of pedagogical judgment develops the TIP/PIP. Neither change should generate costs. Only change to appeals provision is clarification that an appeal from the substance of the evaluation, which is a ground for appeal under Education Law § 3012-c(5), includes an instance in which the teacher/principal receives a Highly Effective rating on the observation/school visit category and an Ineffective rating on the student performance category and challenges the result based on an anomaly, as determined locally. This added ground for appeal may result in additional costs if the district/BOCES locally determines an appeal based on an anomaly may be taken where such an appeal could not be brought previously. The Department has no basis for determining extent to which that may occur or resulting costs from such appeals, since the appeals procedures negotiated locally vary widely in their scope and complexity.

c. Costs to private regulated parties: none.

5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:

The rule does not impose any mandates beyond those imposed by, or inherent in, the statute.

6. PAPERWORK:

Each school district shall adopt an APPR plan, and any materials changes, for its classroom teachers and building principals and submit such plan to the Commissioner for approval pursuant to the rule’s requirements.

If use is sought of a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that is self-developed, developed by a third-party or a newly developed, a variance must be sought from the Department.

The entire APPR must be completed and provided to the teacher/ principal pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. The teacher’s/principal’s score and rating on the observation/school visit category and in the optional subcomponent of the student performance category, if available, shall be computed and provided to the teacher or principal, in writing, pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. A provider seeking to place a practice rubric on list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements in the rule. The district is required to ensure evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.

If a teacher/principal is rated “Developing” or “Ineffective,” the district/BOCES must develop/implement a TIP or PIP that complies with § 30-3.11.

A school district/BOCES must develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher/principal may challenge their APPR.

A student may not be instructed by two teachers in the same subject, in two consecutive years, by teachers who are rated ineffective. A waiver may be sought from the Commissioner under specified conditions.

7. DUPLICATION:

The rule does not duplicate existing State/Federal requirements.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

Since the major requirements are statutorily imposed, there were no significant alternatives and none were considered.

9. FEDERAL STANDARDS:

None.

10. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:

It is anticipated parties may achieve compliance by the rule’s effective date.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(a) Small businesses:

The proposed rule implements, and otherwise conforms the Commissioner’s Regulations to, Subparts D and E of Part EE of Ch.56, L.2015, relating to Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) in order to implement new Education Law § 3012-d. The 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 rule 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 each of the approximately 695 school districts and 37 boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) in the State.

2. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:

Each school district shall adopt an APPR plan, and any material changes, for its classroom teachers and building principals and submit such plan for Commissioner’s approval.

If use is sought of a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that is self-developed, developed by a third-party or a newly developed, a variance must be sought from the Department.

The entire APPR must be completed and provided to the teacher/ principal pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. The teacher’s/principal’s score and rating on the observation/school visit category and in the optional subcomponent of the student performance category, if available, shall be computed and provided to the teacher or principal, in writing, pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. A provider seeking to place a practice rubric on list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements in the rule. The district is required to ensure evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.

If a teacher/principal is rated “Developing” or “Ineffective,” the district/BOCES must develop/implement a TIP or PIP that complies with § 30-3.11.

A school district/BOCES must develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher/principal may challenge their APPR.

A student may not be instructed by two teachers in the same subject, in two consecutive years, by teachers who are rated Ineffective. A waiver may be sought from the Commissioner under specified conditions.

3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:

The proposed rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on local governments beyond those imposed by, or inherent in, the statute.

4. COMPLIANCE COSTS:

See the Costs section of the Summary of the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith for an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule to school districts and BOCES.

5. ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY:

The rule does not impose any additional technological requirements on school districts or BOCES. Economic feasibility is addressed in the Costs section of the Summary of the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

6. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:

The rule is necessary to implement, and otherwise conform the Commissioner’s Regulations to, Subparts D and E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 relating to the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services in order to implement new Education Law § 3012-d. Since these provisions of the Education Law apply equally to all school districts and BOCES throughout the State, it was not possible to establish different compliance and reporting requirements.

The proposed rule reflects areas of consensus among stakeholders, and in areas where there were varying recommendations, the Department attempted to reconcile those differences to reflect best practices while also taking into consideration recommendations in the Testing Reduction Report regarding the reduction of unnecessary testing.

7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION:

The new law requires the Commissioner to adopt regulations necessary to implement the evaluation system by June 30, 2015, after consulting with experts and practitioners in the fields of education, economics and psychometrics. It also required the Department to establish a process to accept public comments and recommendations regarding the adoption of regulations pursuant to the new law and consult in writing with the Secretary of the United States Department of Education on weights, measures and ranking of evaluation categories and subcomponents. It further required the release of the response from the Secretary upon receipt thereof, but in any event, prior to the publication of the regulations.

By letter dated April 28, 2015, the Department sought guidance from the Secretary of the United States Department of Education on the weights, measures and ranking of evaluation, as required under the new law and the Secretary responded.

In accordance with the requirements of the statute, the Department created an email box to accept comments on the new evaluation system ([e-mail]). The Department has received and reviewed over 4,000 responses and has taken these comments into consideration in formulating the proposed amendments. In addition, the Department held a Learning Summit on May 7, 2015, wherein the Board of Regents hosted a series of panels to provide recommendations to the Board on the new evaluation system. Such panels included experts in education, economics, and psychometrics and State-wide stakeholder groups including but not limited to NYSUT, UFT, School Boards, NYSCOSS and principal and parent organizations. Since the new law was enacted in April, the Department has also been separately meeting with individual stakeholder groups and experts in psychometrics to discuss their recommendations on the new evaluation system.

Rural Area Flexibility Analysis

1. TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RURAL AREAS:

The proposed rule 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:

Each school district shall adopt an APPR plan, and any material changes, for its classroom teachers and building principals and submit such plan for Commissioner’s approval.

If use is sought of a teacher or principal practice rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that is self-developed, developed by a third-party or a newly developed, a variance must be sought from the Department.

The entire APPR must be completed and provided to the teacher/ principal pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. The teacher’s/principal’s score and rating on the observation/school visit category and in the optional subcomponent of the student performance category, if available, shall be computed and provided to the teacher or principal, in writing, pursuant to the time limit specified in the rule. A provider seeking to place a practice rubric on list of approved rubrics, or an assessment on list of approved assessments, shall submit to the Commissioner a written application that meets the requirements in the rule. The district is required to ensure evaluators have appropriate training before conducting an evaluation and the lead evaluator must be appropriately certified and periodically recertified.

If a teacher/principal is rated “Developing” or “Ineffective,” the district/BOCES must develop/implement a TIP or PIP that complies with § 30-3.11.

A school district/BOCES must develop an appeals procedure through which a teacher/principal may challenge their APPR.

A student may not be instructed by two teachers in the same subject, in two consecutive years, by teachers who are rated Ineffective. A waiver may be sought from the Commissioner under specified conditions.

The rule does not impose any additional professional services requirements on local governments beyond those imposed by, or inherent in, the statute.

3. COSTS:

See the Costs section of the Summary of the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith 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, and otherwise conform the Commissioner’s Regulations to, Subparts D and E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015, relating to the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) in order to implement new Education Law § 3012-d. Because the statute upon which the proposed amendment is based applies to all school districts and BOCES in the State, it is not possible to establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or to exempt schools in rural areas from coverage by the proposed amendment.

The proposed rule reflects areas of consensus among stakeholders, and in areas where there were varying recommendations, the Department attempted to reconcile those differences to reflect best practices while also taking into consideration recommendations in the Testing Reduction Report regarding the reduction of unnecessary testing.

5. RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:

The new law requires the Commissioner to adopt regulations necessary to implement the evaluation system by June 30, 2015, after consulting with experts and practitioners in the fields of education, economics and psychometrics. It also required the Department to establish a process to accept public comments and recommendations regarding the adoption of regulations pursuant to the new law and consult in writing with the Secretary of the United States Department of Education on weights, measures and ranking of evaluation categories and subcomponents. It further required the release of the response from the Secretary upon receipt thereof, but in any event, prior to the publication of the regulations.

By letter dated April 28, 2015, the Department sought guidance from the Secretary of the United States Department of Education on the weights, measures and ranking of evaluation, as required under the new law and the Secretary responded.

In accordance with the requirements of the statute, the Department created an email box to accept comments on the new evaluation system ([e-mail]). The Department has received and reviewed over 4,000 responses and has taken these comments into consideration in formulating the proposed amendments. In addition, the Department held a Learning Summit on May 7, 2015, wherein the Board of Regents hosted a series of panels to provide recommendations to the Board on the new evaluation system. Such panels included experts in education, economics, and psychometrics and State-wide stakeholder groups including but not limited to NYSUT, UFT, School Boards, NYSCOSS and principal and parent organizations. Since the new law was enacted in April, the Department has also been separately meeting with individual stakeholder groups and experts in psychometrics to discuss their recommendations on the new evaluation system.

Job Impact Statement

The purpose of proposed rule is to implement Subparts D and E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 relating to Annual Professional Performance Reviews of classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts and boards of cooperative educational services in order to implement Education Law § 3012-d. 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.