§ 3012-C — Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals

§ 3012-c. Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers\nand building principals. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,\nrule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance\nreviews of all classroom teachers and building principals employed by\nschool districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be\nconducted in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such\nperformance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two\nthousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of\nsubdivision two of this section where applicable, shall include measures\nof student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section.\nSuch annual professional performance reviews shall be a significant\nfactor for employment decisions including but not limited to, promotion,\nretention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental\ncompensation, which decisions are to be made in accordance with locally\ndeveloped procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article\nfourteen of the civil service law where applicable. Provided, however,\nthat nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the unfettered\nstatutory right of a school district or board of cooperative educational\nservices to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any\nstatutorily and constitutionally permissible reasons, including but not\nlimited to misconduct and until a tenure decision is made, the\nperformance of the teacher or principal in the classroom. Such\nperformance reviews shall also be a significant factor in teacher and\nprincipal development, including but not limited to, coaching, induction\nsupport and differentiated professional development, which are to be\nlocally established in accordance with procedures negotiated pursuant to\nthe requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law.\n 2. a. (1) The annual professional performance reviews conducted\npursuant to this section for classroom teachers and building principals\nshall differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using the\nfollowing quality rating categories: highly effective, effective,\ndeveloping and ineffective, with explicit minimum and maximum scoring\nranges for each category, for the state assessments and other comparable\nmeasures subcomponent of the evaluation and for the locally selected\nmeasures of student achievement subcomponent of the evaluation, as\nprescribed in the regulations of the commissioner. There shall be: (i) a\nstate assessments and other comparable measures subcomponent which shall\ncomprise twenty or twenty-five percent of the evaluation; (ii) a locally\nselected measures of student achievement subcomponent which shall\ncomprise twenty or fifteen percent of the evaluation; and (iii) an other\nmeasures of teacher or principal effectiveness subcomponent which shall\ncomprise the remaining sixty percent of the evaluation, which in sum\nshall constitute the composite teacher or principal effectiveness score.\nSuch annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single\ncomposite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates\nmultiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in\nthe regulations of the commissioner.\n (2) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand\neleven--two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional\nperformance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraphs f and g of\nthis subdivision for the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen\nschool year, the overall composite scoring ranges shall be in accordance\nwith this subparagraph. A classroom teacher and building principal shall\nbe deemed to be:\n (A) Highly Effective if they achieve a composite effectiveness score\nof 91-100.\n (B) Effective if they achieve a composite effectiveness score of\n75-90.\n (C) Developing if they achieve a composite effectiveness score of\n65-74.\n (D) Ineffective if they achieve a composite effectiveness score of\n0-64.\n (3) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand\neleven--two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional\nperformance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph f of this\nsubdivision for the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school\nyear for classroom teachers in subjects and grades for which the board\nof regents has not approved a value-added model and for building\nprincipals employed in schools or programs for which there is no\napproved principal value-added model, the scoring ranges for the student\ngrowth on state assessments or other comparable measures subcomponent\nshall be in accordance with this subparagraph. A classroom teacher and\nbuilding principal shall receive:\n (A) a highly effective rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are well-above the state average for similar\nstudents and they achieve a subcomponent score of 18-20;\n (B) an effective rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results meet the state average for similar students and they\nachieve a subcomponent score of 9-17; or\n (C) a developing rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are below the state average for similar students and\nthey achieve a subcomponent score of 3-8; or\n (D) an ineffective rating in this subcomponent, if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are well-below the state average for similar\nstudents and they achieve a subcomponent score of 0-2.\n (4) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph g of this subdivision for the two thousand\ntwelve--two thousand thirteen school year for classroom teachers in\nsubjects and grades for which the board of regents has approved a\nvalue-added model and for building principals employed in schools or\nprograms for which there is an approved principal value-added model, the\nscoring ranges for the student growth on state assessments or other\ncomparable measures subcomponent shall be in accordance with this\nsubparagraph. A classroom teacher and building principal shall receive:\n (A) a highly effective rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are well-above the state average for similar\nstudents and they achieve a subcomponent score of 22-25;\n (B) an effective rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results meet the state average for similar students and they\nachieve a subcomponent score of 10-21; or\n (C) a developing rating in this subcomponent if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are below the state average for similar students and\nthey achieve a subcomponent score of 3-9; or\n (D) an ineffective rating in this subcomponent, if the teacher's or\nprincipal's results are well-below the state average for similar\nstudents and they achieve a subcomponent score of 0-2.\n (5) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand\neleven--two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional\nperformance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph f of this\nsubdivision for the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school\nyear for classroom teachers in subjects and grades for which the board\nof regents has not approved a value-added model and for building\nprincipals employed in schools or programs for which there is no\napproved principal value-added model, the scoring ranges for the locally\nselected measures of student achievement subcomponent shall be in\naccordance with this subparagraph. A classroom teacher and building\nprincipal shall receive:\n (A) a highly effective rating in this subcomponent if the results are\nwell-above district-adopted expectations for student growth or\nachievement and they achieve a subcomponent score of 18-20; or\n (B) an effective rating in this subcomponent if the results meet\ndistrict-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and they achieve\na subcomponent score of 9-17; or\n (C) a developing rating in this subcomponent if the results are below\ndistrict-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and they achieve\na subcomponent score of 3-8; or\n (D) an ineffective rating in this subcomponent if the results are\nwell-below district-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and\nthey achieve a subcomponent score of 0-2.\n (6) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand\neleven--two thousand twelve school year and for annual professional\nperformance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph g of this\nsubdivision for the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school\nyear for classroom teachers in subjects and grades for which the board\nof regents has approved a value-added model and for building principals\nemployed in schools or programs for which there is an approved principal\nvalue-added model, the scoring ranges for the locally selected measures\nof student achievement subcomponent shall be in accordance with this\nsubparagraph. A classroom teacher and building principal shall receive:\n (A) a highly effective rating in this subcomponent if the results are\nwell-above district-adopted expectations for student growth or\nachievement and they achieve a subcomponent score of 14-15; or\n (B) an effective rating in this subcomponent if the results meet\ndistrict-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and they achieve\na subcomponent score of 8-13; or\n (C) a developing rating in this subcomponent if the results are below\ndistrict-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and they achieve\na subcomponent score of 3-7; or\n (D) an ineffective rating in this subcomponent if the results are\nwell-below district-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and\nthey achieve a subcomponent score of 0-2.\n (7) For the two thousand thirteen--two thousand fourteen school year\nand thereafter, the commissioner shall review the specific scoring\nranges for each of the rating categories annually before the start of\neach school year and shall recommend any changes to the board of regents\nfor consideration.\n (8) Except for the student growth measures on the state assessments or\nother comparable measures of student growth prescribed in paragraphs e,\nf and g of this subdivision, the elements comprising the composite\neffectiveness score and the process by which points are assigned to\nsubcomponents shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards\nprescribed in the regulations of the commissioner and the requirements\nof this section, through negotiations conducted, pursuant to the\nrequirements of article fourteen of the civil service law.\n b. (1) Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school\ndistricts or boards of cooperative educational services for the two\nthousand eleven--two thousand twelve school year of classroom teachers\nof common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in\ngrades four to eight and all building principals of schools in which\nsuch teachers are employed shall be conducted pursuant to this\nsubdivision and shall use two thousand ten--two thousand eleven school\nyear student data as the baseline for the initial computation of the\ncomposite teacher or principal effectiveness score for such classroom\nteachers and principals.\n (2) Subject to paragraph k of this subdivision the entire annual\nprofessional performance review shall be completed and provided to the\nteacher or principal as soon as practicable but in no case later than\nSeptember first, two thousand twelve. The provisions of subparagraphs\ntwo and three of paragraph c of this subdivision shall apply to such\nreviews.\n c. (1) Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school\ndistricts or boards of cooperative educational services for the two\nthousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school year and thereafter of all\nclassroom teachers and all building principals shall be conducted\npursuant to this subdivision and shall use two thousand eleven--two\nthousand twelve school year student data as the baseline for the initial\ncomputation of the composite teacher or principal effectiveness score\nfor such classroom teachers and principals. For purposes of this\nsection, an administrator in charge of an instructional program of a\nboard of cooperative educational services shall be deemed to be a\nbuilding principal.\n (2) Subject to paragraph k of this subdivision the entire annual\nprofessional performance review shall be completed and provided to the\nteacher or principal as soon as practicable but in no case later than\nSeptember first of the school year next following the school year for\nwhich the classroom teacher or building principal's performance is being\nmeasured. The teacher's and principal's score and rating on the locally\nselected measures subcomponent, if available, and on the other measures\nof teacher and principal effectiveness subcomponent for a teacher's or\nprincipal's annual professional performance review shall be computed and\nprovided to the teacher or principal, in writing, by no later than the\nlast day of the school year for which the teacher or principal is being\nmeasured. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to authorize a\nteacher or principal to trigger the appeal process prior to receipt of\nhis or her composite effectiveness score and rating.\n (3) Each such annual professional performance review shall be based on\nthe state assessments or other comparable measures subcomponent, the\nlocally selected measures of student achievement subcomponent and the\nother measures of teacher and principal effectiveness subcomponent,\ndetermined in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section\nand the regulations of the commissioner, for the school year for which\nthe teacher's or principal's performance is measured.\n d. Prior to any evaluation being conducted in accordance with this\nsection, each individual who is responsible for conducting an evaluation\nof a teacher or building principal shall receive appropriate training in\naccordance with the regulations of the commissioner of education.\n e. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph b of this subdivision for the two thousand\neleven--two thousand twelve school year, forty percent of the composite\nscore of effectiveness shall be based on student achievement measures as\nfollows: (i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon\nstudent growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the\ncommissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth\ndata is not available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other\nlocally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to\nbe rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the\nregulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner\nconsistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of\narticle fourteen of the civil service law.\n (2) Such locally selected measures may include measures of student\nachievement or growth on state assessments, regents examinations and/or\ndepartment approved equivalent, provided that such measures are\ndifferent from those prescribed by the commissioner pursuant to clause\n(i) of subparagraph one of this paragraph. The regulations of the\ncommissioner shall describe the types of measures of student growth or\nachievement that may be locally selected. The selection of the local\nmeasure(s) as described in this paragraph to be used by the school\ndistrict or board of cooperative educational services shall be\ndetermined through collective bargaining.\n f. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph c of this subdivision for the two thousand\ntwelve--two thousand thirteen school year and thereafter for classroom\nteachers in subjects and grades for which the board of regents has not\napproved a value-added model and for building principals employed in\nschools or programs for which there is no approved principal value-added\nmodel, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness shall be\nbased on student achievement measures as follows: (i) twenty percent of\nthe evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on state\nassessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a comparable measure of\nstudent growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii) twenty\npercent shall be based on other locally selected measures of student\nachievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across\nclassrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner and as\nare developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated\npursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service\nlaw.\n (2) One or more of the following types of locally selected measures of\nstudent achievement or growth may be used for the evaluation of\nclassroom teachers:\n (i) student achievement or growth on state assessments, regents\nexaminations and/or department approved alternative examinations as\ndescribed in the regulations of the commissioner including, but not\nlimited to, advanced placement examinations, international baccalaureate\nexaminations, and SAT II, using a measure that is different from the\ngrowth score prescribed by the department for student growth on such\nassessments or examinations for purposes of the state assessment or\nother comparable measures subcomponent that is either:\n (A) the change in percentage of a teacher's students who achieve a\nspecific level of performance as determined locally, on such\nassessments/examinations compared to those students' level of\nperformance on such assessments/examinations in the previous school year\nsuch as a three percentage point increase in students earning the\nproficient level (three) or better performance level on the seventh\ngrade math state assessment compared to those same students' performance\nlevels on the sixth grade math state assessment, or an increase in the\npercentage of a teacher's students earning the advanced performance\nlevel (four) on the fourth grade English language arts or math state\nassessments compared to those students' performance levels on the third\ngrade English language arts or math state assessments; or\n (B) a teacher specific growth score computed by the department based\non the percent of the teacher's students earning a department determined\nlevel of growth. The methodology to translate such growth into the\nstate-established subcomponent scoring ranges shall be determined\nlocally; or\n (C) a teacher-specific achievement or growth score computed in a\nmanner determined locally based on a measure of student performance on\nthe state assessments, regents examinations and/or department approved\nalternative examinations other than the measure described in item (A) or\n(B) of this subparagraph;\n (ii) student growth or achievement computed in a manner determined\nlocally based on a student assessment approved by the department\npursuant to a request for qualification process established in the\nregulations of the commissioner;\n (iii) student growth or achievement computed in a manner determined\nlocally based on a district, regional or BOCES-developed assessment that\nis rigorous and comparable across classrooms;\n (iv) a school-wide measure of either student growth or achievement\nbased on either:\n (A) a state-provided student growth score covering all students in the\nschool that took the state assessment in English language arts or\nmathematics in grades four through eight;\n (B) a school-wide measure of student growth or achievement computed in\na manner determined locally based on a district, regional or board of\ncooperative educational services developed assessment that is rigorous\nand comparable across classrooms or a department approved student\nassessment or based on a state assessment; or\n (v) where applicable, for teachers in any grade or subject where there\nis no growth or value-added growth model approved by the board of\nregents at that grade level or in that subject, a structured\ndistrict-wide student growth goal-setting process to be used with any\nstate assessment or an approved student assessment or a district,\nregional or BOCES-developed assessment that is rigorous and comparable\nacross classrooms.\n (3) One or more of the following types of locally selected measures of\nstudent achievement or growth may be used for the evaluation of\nprincipals, provided that each measure is rigorous and comparable across\nclassrooms and that any such measure shall be different from that used\nfor the state assessment or other comparable measures subcomponent:\n (i) student achievement levels on state assessments in English\nlanguage arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight such as\npercentage of students in the school whose performance levels on state\nassessments are proficient or advanced, as defined in the regulations of\nthe commissioner;\n (ii) student growth or achievement on state or other assessments in\nEnglish language arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight for\nstudents in each of the performance levels described in the regulations\nof the commissioner;\n (iii) student growth or achievement on state assessments in English\nlanguage arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight for students\nwith disabilities and English language learners in grades four to eight;\n (iv) student performance on any or all of the district-wide locally\nselected measures approved for use in teacher evaluations;\n (v) for principals employed in a school with high school grades, four,\nfive and/or six-year high school graduation and/or dropout rates;\n (vi) percentage of students who earn a regents diploma with advanced\ndesignation and/or honors as defined in the regulations of the\ncommissioner, for principals employed in a school with high school\ngrades;\n (vii) percentage of a cohort of students that achieve specified scores\non regents examinations and/or department approved alternative\nexaminations including, but not limited to, advanced placement\nexaminations, international baccalaureate examinations and SAT II, for\nprincipals employed in a school with high school grades such as the\npercentage of students in the two thousand nine cohort that scored at\nleast a three on an advanced placement examination since entry into the\nninth grade; and/or\n (viii) students' progress toward graduation in the school using strong\npredictive indicators, including but not limited to ninth and/or tenth\ngrade credit accumulation and/or the percentage of students that pass\nninth and/or tenth grade subjects most commonly associated with\ngraduation and/or students' progress in passing the number of required\nregents examinations for graduation, for principals employed in a school\nwith high school grades.\n (ix) For school districts or boards of cooperative educational\nservices that choose to use more than one set of locally selected\nmeasures described in this paragraph for principals in the same or\nsimilar grade configuration or program such as one set of locally\nselected measures is used to evaluate principals in some K-5 schools and\nanother set of locally selected measures is used to evaluate principals\nin the other K-5 schools in the district, the superintendent or district\nsuperintendent shall, in their professional performance review plan,\ncertify that the sets of measures are comparable, in accordance with the\ntesting standards as defined in regulations of the commissioner.\n (x) For building principals employed in schools or programs for which\nthere is no approved principal value-added model, the types of locally\nselected measures of student achievement or growth specified in\nsubparagraph three of paragraph g of this subdivision may be used. In\naddition, a structured district-wide student growth goal-setting process\nto be used with any state assessment or an approved student assessment\nor a district, regional of BOCES-developed assessment that is rigorous\nand comparable across classrooms may be a locally selected measure.\n (4) The selection of the local measure or measures as described in\nsubparagraphs two and three of this paragraph to be used by the school\ndistrict or board of cooperative educational services shall be\ndetermined through collective bargaining.\n g. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in\naccordance with paragraph c of this subdivision for the two thousand\ntwelve--two thousand thirteen school year and thereafter for classroom\nteachers in subjects and grades in which there is a value-added growth\nmodel approved by the board of regents and for building principals\nemployed in schools or programs for which there is an approved principal\nvalue-added model, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness\nshall be based on student achievement measures as follows: (i)\ntwenty-five percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth\ndata on state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a\ncomparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not\navailable; and (ii) fifteen percent shall be based on other locally\nselected measures of student achievement that are determined to be\nrigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the\nregulations of the commissioner and as are locally developed in a manner\nconsistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of\narticle fourteen of the civil service law. The department shall develop\nthe value-added growth model and shall consult with the advisory\ncommittee established pursuant to subdivision seven of this section\nprior to recommending that the board of regents approve its use in\nevaluations.\n (2) One or more of the following types of locally selected measures of\nstudent achievement or growth may be used for the evaluation of\nclassroom teachers:\n (i) student achievement or growth on state assessments, regents\nexaminations and/or department approved alternative examinations as\ndescribed in the regulations of the commissioner including, but not\nlimited to, advanced placement examinations, international baccalaureate\nexaminations and SAT II, using a measure that is different from the\ngrowth score prescribed by the department for student growth on such\nassessments or examinations for purposes of the state assessment or\nother comparable measures subcomponent that is either:\n (A) the change in percentage of a teacher's students who achieve a\nspecific level of performance as determined locally, on such\nassessments/examinations compared to those students' level of\nperformance on such assessments/examinations in the previous school year\nsuch as a three percentage point increase in students earning the\nproficient level (three) or better performance level on the seventh\ngrade math state assessment compared to those same students' performance\nlevels on the sixth grade math state assessment, or an increase in the\npercentage of a teacher's students earning the advanced performance\nlevel (four) on the fourth grade English language arts or math state\nassessments compared to those students' performance levels on the third\ngrade English language arts or math state assessments; or\n (B) a teacher specific growth score computed by the state based on the\npercent of the teacher's students earning a state determined level of\ngrowth. The methodology to translate such growth into the\nstate-established subcomponent scoring ranges shall be determined\nlocally; or\n (C) a teacher-specific achievement or growth score computed in a\nmanner determined locally based on a measure of student performance on\nthe state assessments, regents examinations and/or department approved\nalternative examinations other than the measure described in item (A) or\n(B) of this subparagraph;\n (ii) student growth or achievement computed in a manner determined\nlocally based on a student assessment approved by the department\npursuant to a request for qualification process established in the\nregulations of the commissioner;\n (iii) student growth or achievement computed in a manner determined\nlocally based on a district, regional or BOCES-developed assessment that\nis rigorous and comparable across classrooms;\n (iv) a school-wide measure of either student growth or achievement\nbased on either:\n (A) a state-provided student growth score covering all students in the\nschool that took the state assessment in English language arts or\nmathematics in grades four through eight; or\n (B) a school-wide measure of student growth or achievement computed in\na manner determined locally based on a district, regional or board of\ncooperative educational services developed assessment that is rigorous\nand comparable across classrooms or a department approved student\nassessment or based on a state assessment.\n (3) One or more of the following types of locally selected measures of\nstudent achievement or growth may be used for the evaluation of\nprincipals, provided that each measure is rigorous and comparable across\nclassrooms and that any such measure shall be different from that used\nfor the state assessment or other comparable measures subcomponent:\n (i) student achievement levels on state assessments in English\nlanguage arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight such as\npercentage of students in the school whose performance levels on state\nassessments are proficient or advanced, as defined in the regulations of\nthe commissioner;\n (ii) student growth or achievement on state or other assessments in\nEnglish language arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight for\nstudents in each of the performance levels described in the regulations\nof the commissioner;\n (iii) student growth or achievement on state assessments in English\nlanguage arts and/or mathematics in grades four to eight for students\nwith disabilities and English language learners in grades four to eight;\n (iv) student performance on any or all of the district-wide locally\nselected measures approved for use in teacher evaluations;\n (v) for principals employed in a school with high school grades, four,\nfive and/or six-year high school graduation and/or dropout rates;\n (vi) percentage of students who earn a regents diploma with advanced\ndesignation and/or honors as defined in the regulations of the\ncommissioner, for principals employed in a school with high school\ngrades;\n (vii) percentage of a cohort of students that achieve specified scores\non regents examinations and/or department approved alternative\nexaminations including, but not limited to, advanced placement\nexaminations, international baccalaureate examinations and SAT II, for\nprincipals employed in a school with high school grades such as the\npercentage of students in the two thousand nine cohort that scored at\nleast a three on an advanced placement examination since entry into the\nninth grade; and/or\n (viii) students' progress toward graduation in the school using strong\npredictive indicators, including but not limited to ninth and/or tenth\ngrade credit accumulation and/or the percentage of students that pass\nninth and/or tenth grade subjects most commonly associated with\ngraduation and/or students' progress in passing the number of required\nregents examinations for graduation, for principals employed in a school\nwith high school grades.\n (ix) For school districts or boards of cooperative educational\nservices that choose to use more than one set of locally selected\nmeasures described in this paragraph for principals in the same or\nsimilar grade configuration or program, the superintendent or district\nsuperintendent shall, in their professional performance review plan,\ncertify that the sets of measures are comparable, in accordance with the\ntesting standards as defined in regulations of the commissioner.\n (4) The selection of the local measure or measures as described in\nsubparagraphs two and three of this paragraph to be used by the school\ndistrict or board of cooperative educational services shall be\ndetermined through collective bargaining.\n h. The remaining sixty percent of the evaluations, ratings and\neffectiveness scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the\nstandards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner, through\nnegotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service\nlaw.\n (1) A majority of the sixty points for classroom teachers shall be\nbased on multiple classroom observations conducted by a principal or\nother trained administrator, which may be performed in-person or by\nvideo. For evaluations for the two thousand twelve--two thousand\nthirteen school year and thereafter, at least one such observation shall\nbe an unannounced visit.\n (2) For the remaining portion of these sixty points for evaluations\nfor the two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve school year, the\ncommissioner's regulation shall prescribe the other forms of evidence of\nteacher and principal effectiveness that may be used.\n (3) For evaluations of classroom teachers for the two thousand\ntwelve--two thousand thirteen school year and thereafter, the remaining\nportion of these sixty points shall be based on one or more of the\nfollowing:\n (i) one or more classroom observations by independent trained\nevaluators selected by the school district or board of cooperative\neducational services who are teachers or former teachers with a\ndemonstrated record of effectiveness and have no prior affiliation with\nthe school in which they are conducting the evaluation and no other\nrelationship with the teachers being evaluated that would affect their\nimpartiality;\n (ii) classroom observations by trained in-school peer teachers; and/or\n (iii) use of a state-approved instrument for parent or student\nfeedback; and/or\n (iv) evidence of student development and performance through lesson\nplans, student portfolios and other artifacts of teacher practices\nthrough a structured review process.\n (4) A majority of these sixty points for building principals shall be\nbased on a broad assessment of the principal's leadership and management\nactions based on the principal practice rubric by the building\nprincipal's supervisor, a trained administrator or a trained independent\nevaluator, with one or more visits conducted by the supervisor, and, for\nevaluations for the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school\nyear and thereafter, that such assessment must incorporate multiple\nschool visits by a supervisor, a trained administrator or other trained\nevaluator, with at least one visit conducted by the supervisor and at\nleast one unannounced visit. For the remaining portion of these sixty\npoints for evaluations for the two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve\nschool year, such regulations shall also prescribe the other forms of\nevidence of principal effectiveness that may be used consistent with the\nstandards prescribed by the commissioner.\n (5) For evaluations of building principals for the two thousand\ntwelve--two thousand thirteen school year and thereafter, the remaining\nportion of these sixty points shall include, in addition to the\nrequirements of subparagraph three of this paragraph, at least two other\nsources of evidence from the following options: feedback from teachers,\nstudents, and/or families using state-approved instruments; school\nvisits by other trained evaluators; and/or review of school documents,\nrecords, and/or state accountability processes. Any such remaining\npoints shall be assigned based on the results of one or more ambitious\nand measurable goals set collaboratively with principals and their\nsuperintendents or district superintendents as follows:\n (i) at least one goal must address the principal's contribution to\nimproving teacher effectiveness, which shall include one or more of the\nfollowing: improved retention of high performing teachers, the\ncorrelation between student growth scores of teachers granted tenure as\nopposed to those denied tenure; or improvements in the proficiency\nrating of the principal on specific teacher effectiveness standards in\nthe principal practice rubric.\n (ii) any other goals shall address quantifiable and verifiable\nimprovements in academic results or the school's learning environmental\nsuch as student or teacher attendance.\n (6) The district or board of cooperative educational services shall\nestablish specific minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each\nperformance level within this subcomponent before the start of each\nschool year and shall assign points to a teacher or principal for this\nsubcomponent based on the standards prescribed in the regulations of the\ncommissioner, all in accordance with, and subject to, the requirements\nof paragraph j of this subdivision.\n i. For purposes of this section, student growth means the change in\nstudent achievement for an individual student between two or more points\nin time.\n j. (1) The process by which points are assigned in subcomponents and\nthe scoring ranges for the subcomponents must be transparent and\navailable to those being rated before the beginning of each school year.\nThe process by which points are assigned in the respective subcomponents\nare to be determined as follows:\n (i) For the state assessment or other comparable measures\nsubcomponent, that process shall be formulated by the commissioner with\nthe approval of the board of regents.\n (ii) For the locally selected measures of the student achievement\nsubcomponent, that process shall be established locally through\nnegotiations conducted under article fourteen of the civil service law.\n (iii) For the other measures of teacher and principal effectiveness\nsubcomponent, that process shall be established locally through\nnegotiations conducted under article fourteen of the civil services law.\n (2) Such process must ensure that it is possible for a teacher or\nprincipal to obtain each point in the applicable scoring ranges,\nincluding zero, for the state assessment or other comparable measures\nsubcomponent, the locally selected measures of student achievement\nsubcomponent and the overall rating categories. The process must also\nensure that it is possible for a teacher or principal to obtain each\npoint in the scoring ranges prescribed by the district or board of\ncooperative educational services for the other measures of teacher and\nprincipal effectiveness subcomponent.\n (3) The superintendent, district superintendent or chancellor and the\npresident of the collective bargaining representative (where one exists)\nshall certify in its plan that the process will use the narrative\ndescriptions of the standards for the scoring ranges provided in the\nregulations of the commissioner to effectively differentiate a teacher\nor principal's performance in each of the subcomponents and in their\noverall ratings to improve student learning and instruction.\n (4) The scoring ranges for the other measures of teacher and principal\neffectiveness subcomponent shall be established locally through\nnegotiations conducted under article fourteen of the civil service law.\n k. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to\nthe contrary, by July first, two thousand twelve, the governing body of\neach school district and board of cooperative educational services shall\nadopt a plan, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, for the annual\nprofessional performance review of all of its classroom teachers and\nbuilding principals in accordance with the requirements of this section\nand the regulations of the commissioner, and shall submit such plan to\nthe commissioner for approval. The plan may be an annual or multi-year\nplan, for the annual professional performance review of all of its\nclassroom teachers and building principals. The commissioner shall\napprove or reject the plan by September first, two thousand twelve, or\nas soon as practicable thereafter. The commissioner may reject a plan\nthat does not rigorously adhere to the provisions of this section and\nthe regulations of the commissioner. Should any plan be rejected, the\ncommissioner shall describe each deficiency in the submitted plan and\ndirect that each such deficiency be resolved through collective\nbargaining to the extent required under article fourteen of the civil\nservice law. If any material changes are made to the plan, the school\ndistrict or board of cooperative educational services must submit the\nmaterial changes, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, to the\ncommissioner for approval. To the extent that by July first, two\nthousand twelve, or by July first of any subsequent year, if all the\nterms of the plan have not been finalized as a result of unresolved\ncollective bargaining negotiations, the entire plan shall be submitted\nto the commissioner upon resolution of all of its terms, consistent with\narticle fourteen of the civil service law.\n k-1. If material changes are submitted pursuant to paragraph k of this\nsubdivision for an approved plan that solely relates to the elimination\nof student assessments that are not required by state or federal law,\nthe commissioner shall expedite his or her review of such material\nchanges and solely review those sections of the plan that relate to the\neliminated student assessments to ensure compliance with this section\nand the regulations of the commissioner, provided that the governing\nbody of such school district or board of cooperative educational\nservices provide a written explanation of the material changes submitted\nfor approval, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, and certify that\nno other material changes have been made to any other sections of the\ncurrently approved plan, and provided further that the commissioner\nshall complete such review of material changes properly and completely\nsubmitted under this paragraph within ten business days of submission.\n k-2. The commissioner shall take actions to reduce time spent on field\ntests for students taking the state administered standardized English\nlanguage arts and mathematics assessments for grades three through eight\nto the extent federal funds are allowable for such purpose under the\nstate stabilization fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\nof 2009 or are otherwise available.\n l. In the event a school district does not have an annual professional\nperformance review plan approved by the commissioner for the applicable\nschool year as of September first of that year, the collectively\nbargained plan most recently approved or the plan determined by the\ncommissioner shall remain in effect until a subsequent plan is agreed to\nby the parties in accordance with this section and is approved by the\ncommissioner.\n 3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse school\ndistricts or boards of cooperative educational services from complying\nwith the standards set forth in the regulations of the commissioner for\nconducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers\nor principals, including but not limited to required quality rating\ncategories, in conducting evaluations prior to July first, two thousand\neleven, or, for classroom teachers or principals subject to paragraph c\nof subdivision two of this section, prior to July first, two thousand\ntwelve.\n 4. Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary,\nupon rating a teacher or a principal as developing or ineffective\nthrough an annual professional performance review conducted pursuant to\nsubdivision two of this section, the school district or board of\ncooperative educational services shall formulate and commence\nimplementation of a teacher or principal improvement plan for such\nteacher or principal as soon as practicable but in no case later than\nten school days after the opening of classes for the school year. Such\nimprovement plan shall be consistent with the regulations of the\ncommissioner and developed locally through negotiations conducted\npursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. Such improvement\nplan shall include, but need not be limited to, identification of needed\nareas of improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner\nin which improvement will be assessed, and, where appropriate,\ndifferentiated activities to support a teacher's or principal's\nimprovement in those areas.\n 5. a. An appeals procedure shall be locally established in each school\ndistrict and in each board of cooperative educational services by which\nthe evaluated teacher or principal may only challenge the substance of\nthe annual professional performance review, the school district's or\nboard of cooperative educational services' adherence to the standards\nand methodologies required for such reviews, pursuant to this section,\nthe adherence to the regulations of the commissioner and compliance with\nany applicable locally negotiated procedures, as well as the school\ndistrict's or board of cooperative educational services' issuance and/or\nimplementation of the terms of the teacher or principal improvement\nplan, as required under this section. Appeal procedures shall provide\nfor the timely and expeditious resolution of any appeal under this\nsubdivision. The specifics of the appeal procedure shall be locally\nestablished through negotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen\nof the civil service law. An evaluation which is the subject of an\nappeal shall not be sought to be offered in evidence or placed in\nevidence in any proceeding conducted pursuant to either section three\nthousand twenty-a of this article or any locally negotiated alternate\ndisciplinary procedure, until the appeal process is concluded.\n b. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the\nauthority of the governing body of a school district or board of\ncooperative educational services to grant or deny tenure to or terminate\nprobationary teachers or probationary building principals during the\npendency of an appeal pursuant to this section for statutorily and\nconstitutionally permissible reasons including the teacher's or\nprincipal's performance that is the subject of the appeal.\n c. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a teacher\nor principal to trigger the appeal process prior to receipt of their\ncomposite effectiveness score and rating from the district or board of\ncooperative educational services.\n 5-a. In the city school district of the city of New York,\nnotwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the following\nshall apply to classroom teachers:\n a. A teacher who did not receive an ineffective rating in the annual\nprofessional performance review for the prior school year is in "year\none status".\n b. A teacher who received an ineffective rating in the previous school\nyear is in "year two status", until and unless that rating is either\nchanged by the principal or reversed on appeal in accordance with the\nprovisions of this subdivision, or until and unless the teacher reverts\nto year one status in accordance with the provisions of this\nsubdivision.\n c. A teacher who is rated ineffective for a school year in which the\nteacher has year one status shall have a right to appeal that rating to\nthe chancellor of the city school district, who shall make a final\ndetermination, unless an appeal is initiated to a three-member panel\nsubject to the following requirements. The united federation of teachers\n(UFT) may appeal to a three-member panel the ineffective ratings of up\nto thirteen percent of teachers who received such ineffective ratings\nfor a school year. Any such appeal may only be made on the ground that\nthe ineffective rating was given due to harassment or reasons not\nrelated to job performance. These appeals shall be known as a "panel\nappeals". The three-member panel shall consist of a person selected by\nthe UFT, a person selected by the chancellor of the city school district\nand an independent person, not affiliated with the UFT or the district\nand selected by the state education department, who shall be the chair\nof the panel and conduct the appeal hearing. If the panel sustains the\nappeal, the principal must submit to the panel a different rating, which\nmust be approved by the panel. Any ineffective rating that is appealed\nto the panel may not be appealed to the chancellor of the city school\ndistrict.\n d. The chancellor of the city school district shall notify the UFT of\nall ineffective ratings. Each school year, if the UFT is notified of an\nineffective rating prior to October first, a panel appeal of that rating\nmust be initiated by the UFT by November first, provided that more than\nthirteen percent of these ratings may be appealed to the panel. The UFT\nand the board of education shall negotiate, pursuant to article fourteen\nof the civil service law, a procedure for ensuring that each school\nyear, not more than thirteen percent of the ratings received by the UFT\nafter October first are appealed to the panel. The board of education\nshall make all reasonable efforts to issue ratings and notify the UFT of\nineffective ratings by October first. Any rating not appealed to the\npanel may be appealed by the individual teacher to the chancellor of the\ncity school district. Appeals made to the chancellor of the city school\ndistrict must be filed within ten school days after the UFT would\notherwise be required to notify the board of education of a panel\nappeal.\n e. For all teachers in year two status, unless and until the\nineffective rating they received in the prior year is changed by a\nprincipal or otherwise changed in accordance with the provisions of this\nsubdivision, an independent validator shall be appointed to evaluate the\nteacher on each component of the annual professional performance review\nin which the scoring of the component is at the discretion of the\nprincipal. These components shall not necessarily be limited to teacher\nperformance, but shall not include any components in which the scoring\nof the component is outside the discretion of the principal, even if the\nprincipal has discretion in a related goal-setting process prior to\nscoring. The independent validator shall perform three observations\nduring the course of the school year. The terms and conditions of the\nobservations shall be negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article\nfourteen of the civil service law.\n f. The UFT and the board of education shall jointly select an\norganization or organizations that employ certified educators, including\nteachers, to perform the work as independent validators. Independent\nvalidators shall not be employed simultaneously by the board of\neducation or simultaneously have an individual contract with the board\nof education. Should either the board of education or the UFT notify the\ndepartment that after a good faith effort the board of education and the\nUFT are unable to jointly select organizations, the commissioner shall\nname organizations subject to the following requirements. The board of\neducation shall set forth a required number of validators, and the\ncommissioner shall name organizations that can provide at least this\nnumber of validators whom the commissioner deems qualified. The\ncommissioner shall name organizations based on the criteria set forth in\nthis subdivision that apply to the mutual selection process for the\nboard of education and the UFT and shall also consider potential\nconflicts of interest.\n g. In an instance in which the independent validator does not complete\nthe review process due to circumstances beyond the control of the board\nof education, the teacher shall remain in year two status the following\nschool year. Should the independent validator not complete the review\nprocess for a second consecutive school year and for any reason in the\nsecond year for other than a leave of absence or chronic absence on the\npart of the teacher, the teacher shall return to year one status the\nfollowing school year.\n h. An independent validator shall be deemed to have agreed with the\nprincipal when an independent validator's scoring, in conjunction with\nthe scoring of components not reviewed by the independent validator in\naccordance with this subdivision, would result in a rating in the same\ncategory on the annual professional performance review than would result\nfrom the principal's rating.\n i. For purposes of this subdivision, an independent validator shall be\ndeemed to have disagreed with the principal when an independent\nvalidator's scoring, in conjunction with the scoring of components not\nreviewed by the independent validator in accordance with this\nsubdivision, would result in a rating in a different category on the\nannual professional performance review than would result from the\nprincipal's rating.\n j. If a teacher receives an ineffective rating for a school year in\nwhich the teacher is in year two status and the independent validator\nagrees, the district may bring a proceeding pursuant to sections three\nthousand twenty and three thousand twenty-a of this article based on a\npattern of ineffective teaching or performance. In such proceeding, the\ncharges shall allege that the employing board has developed and\nsubstantially implemented a teacher improvement plan in accordance with\nsubdivision four of this section for the employee following the\nevaluation made for the year in which the employee was in year one\nstatus and was rated ineffective. The pattern of ineffective teaching or\nperformance shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption of incompetence\nand if the presumption is not successfully rebutted, the finding, absent\nextraordinary circumstances, shall be just cause for removal. In these\nhearings, the teacher shall have up to three days to present his or her\ncase for every one day used by the district to present its case. The\nhearing officer shall render a written decision within ten days of the\nlast day of the hearing.\n k. If the teacher receives an ineffective rating by the principal in a\nschool year in which they are in year two status and the independent\nvalidator disagrees, the ineffective rating remains but the district may\nnot bring proceeding based on a pattern of ineffective teaching or\nperformance, as defined in this section, provided however that nothing\nin this section shall prevent the board of education from charging a\nteacher based on incompetence and entering the principal's evaluations\ninto evidence.\n l. If upon the completion of a hearing pursuant to sections three\nthousand twenty and three thousand twenty-a of this article, based\neither on a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance or charges of\nincompetence in which year one or year two evaluations were entered into\nevidence, and a hearing officer finds the teacher incompetent, but\ndecides not to terminate, the teacher remains in year two status for the\nschool year in progress or the following school year if the finding is\nmade in between school years. If upon the completion of the hearing, the\nhearing officer exonerates the teacher of charges of incompetence the\nteacher shall revert to year one status if in the middle of the school\nyear or at the beginning of the following school year if the finding is\nmade in between school years.\n m. If the teacher receives an ineffective rating in year two by the\nprincipal and the validator agrees, and the district does not bring an\nexpedited proceeding pursuant to sections three thousand twenty and\nthree thousand twenty-a of this article, the teacher may appeal the year\ntwo ineffective rating to the chancellor of the city school district,\nwho shall make a final determination. If the rating is upheld, the\nteacher shall remain in year two status for the subsequent school year,\nbut if following that year the teacher is not charged, the teacher\nreverts to year one status for the next school year.\n n. A process shall be established to evaluate the effectiveness of the\nspecific procedures established in this subdivision after two years from\nthe effective date of this subdivision, provided however that a failure\nor delay in establishing that process shall not invalidate any\nprovisions of this subdivision.\n o. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the\nboard of education and the UFT may alter any provisions of this\nsubdivision through collective bargaining.\n 6. For purposes of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to sections three\nthousand twenty and three thousand twenty-a of this article, a pattern\nof ineffective teaching or performance shall be defined to mean two\nconsecutive annual ineffective ratings received by a classroom teacher\nor building principal pursuant to annual professional performance\nreviews conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section.\n 7. The regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall be developed\nin consultation with an advisory committee consisting of representatives\nof teachers, principals, superintendents of schools, school boards,\nschool district and board of cooperative educational services officials\nand other interested parties. The regulations shall also take into\naccount any (i) professional teaching standards; (ii) standards for\nprofessional contexts; and (iii) standards for a continuum of system\nsupport for teachers and principals developed in consultation with the\nadvisory committee. Regulations promulgated pursuant to this section\nshall be effective no later than July first, two thousand eleven, for\nimplementation in the two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve school\nyear.\n 8. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to\nthe contrary, all collective bargaining agreements applicable to\nclassroom teachers or building principals entered into after July first,\ntwo thousand ten shall be consistent with requirements of this section.\nNothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting\nprovisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect on July\nfirst, two thousand ten during the term of such agreement and until the\nentry into a successor collective bargaining agreement, provided that\nnotwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon\nexpiration of such term and the entry into a successor collective\nbargaining agreement the provisions of this section shall apply.\nFurthermore, nothing in this section or in any rule or regulation\npromulgated hereunder shall in any way, alter, impair or diminish the\nrights of a local collective bargaining representative to negotiate\nevaluation procedures in accordance with article fourteen of the civil\nservice law with the school district or board of cooperative educational\nservices.\n 9. a. The department shall annually monitor and analyze trends and\npatterns in teacher and principal evaluation results and data to\nidentify school districts, boards of cooperative educational services\nand/or schools where evidence suggests that a more rigorous evaluation\nsystem is needed to improve educator effectiveness and student learning\noutcomes. The criteria for identifying school districts, boards of\ncooperative educational services and/or schools shall be prescribed in\nthe regulations of the commissioner.\n b. A school, school district or board of cooperative educational\nservices identified by the department in one of the categories\nenumerated in paragraph a of this subdivision may be highlighted in\npublic reports and/or the commissioner may order a corrective action\nplan, which may include, but not be limited to, requirements that the\ndistrict or board of cooperative educational services arrange for\nadditional professional development, provide additional in-service\ntraining and/or utilize independent trained evaluators to review the\nefficacy of the evaluation system, provided that the plan shall be\nconsistent with law and not in conflict with any applicable collective\nbargaining agreement.\n 10. Each school district and board of cooperative educational services\nshall fully disclose and release to the public and the department the\nfinal quality ratings and composite effectiveness scores from the annual\nprofessional performance reviews of its teachers and principals as\nprovided in this subdivision.\n a. The commissioner shall fully disclose professional performance\nreview data for teachers and principals in each school district and\nboard of cooperative educational services on the department website and\nin any other manner to make such data widely available to the public.\nSuch data shall be suitable for research, analysis and comparison of\nprofessional performance review data for teachers and principals. Such\npublic disclosure shall include but not be limited to the final quality\nratings and composite effectiveness scores by school district for\nprincipal evaluation data, by school building for teacher evaluation\ndata and, within each district and school building, by class, subject\nand grade; final quality ratings and composite effectiveness scores by\nregion, district wealth, district need category, student enrollment,\ntype of school (i.e. elementary, middle and high school), student need\n(e.g., poverty level), and district spending; final quality ratings and\ncomposite effectiveness scores by the percentage or number of teachers\nand principals in each final quality rating category, moving to a higher\nrating category than the previous year, moving to a lower rating\ncategory than the previous year, and retained in each rating category;\nand data on tenure granting and denial based on the final quality rating\ncategories.\n b. Each school district and board of cooperative educational services\nshall fully disclose and release to the parents and legal guardians of a\nstudent the final quality rating and composite effectiveness score for\neach of the teachers and for the principal of the school building to\nwhich the student is assigned for the current school year upon the\nrequest of such parents and legal guardians. The governing body of each\nschool district and board of cooperative educational services shall\nprovide conspicuous notice to parents and legal guardians of the right\nto obtain such information. Parents and legal guardians may review and\nreceive such data in any manner, including by phone or in person; shall\nreceive an oral or written explanation of the composite effectiveness\nscoring ranges for final quality ratings; and be offered opportunities\nto understand such scores in the context of teacher evaluation and\nstudent performance. Reasonable efforts shall be made to verify that any\nsuch request is a bona fide request by a parent or guardian entitled to\nreview and receive such data pursuant to this paragraph.\n c. The department and each school district and board of cooperative\neducational services shall ensure that any release to the public of\nannual professional performance review data, or any other data that is\nused as a component of annual professional performance reviews, does not\ninclude personally identifying information for any teacher or principal,\nprovided, however, that nothing shall impair the right of parents and\nlegal guardians to review and receive the final quality rating and\ncomposite effectiveness score of individual teachers and principals as\nprovided in paragraph b of this subdivision. Annual professional\nperformance reviews of individual teachers and principals shall not be\nsubject to disclosure pursuant to article six of the public officers\nlaw.\n d. Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the department from\ncollecting such data and materials from school districts and boards of\ncooperative educational services as is necessary to carry out its\nfunctions and duties, including its responsibilities related to the\nfederal Race to the Top program.\n