Sunday, September 29, 2013

Heartbeat Away From NYC Mayoralty: Education, Other Issue Contrasts of James, Squadron

In the New York City public advocate run-off Tuesday, 10/1, it is essential to remember that the most important feature of the office is that it is the successor to the mayor, should anything happen to the mayor. You would not vote for a Democrat for president and then vote for Paul Ryan for vice president. Likewise, we should make sure that the new public advocate is a kindred spirit with the mayor, and will work well with him, not be an awkward contrast. And should the unthinkable happen we would not want municipal policies to swing to the right.

Thus, it is essential that we give close consideration to crucial issue distinctions between the remaining two Democratic candidates for public advocate.

On education, Letitia James has actively opposed co-locations to accommodate charter schools in public schools, speaking out at Panel for Educational Policy ("PEP") meetings, long before her declared candidacy for public advocate.

She has laid the blame for educational shortcomings with funding, not following the in-vogue teacher bashing.
Her opponent, Daniel Squadron, voted for for the final disclosure features amendment to governor Cuomo's APPR teacher evaluation law in June, 2012.
And irresponsibly, and never with explanation on the campaign trail was his ABSENCE from the March 14, 2012 state senate vote that made the APPR system into law. For a law that spelt out accountability for thousands of principals and teachers across the state, Squadron was absent, along with 24 politicians that themselves evaded accountability. (Scroll to the end of this blog for the full text on this law, after James' special campaign piece on education.) Within days, press reports came out with principals uncomfortable with practical day to day effects of the new law. One principal said that principals will become more of a "bureaucrat" than be able to assist students. See "Principals are Concerned with New Teacher Evaluation System" in the "Legislative Gazette" of Albany.
Two years earlier he voted in the state senate to expand the number of charter schools. In 2009 he was the first Democratic politician to support the extension of mayoral control of the New York City schools, co-sponsoring a bill to that goal, as reported in this Daily News story.

[News: Excellent new analysis this morning at Perdido Street School on how Daily News' endorsement of Squadron is bad news on him. He's pro-charter and anti-union. And has been endorsed by the rabidly pro-charter, pro-school closure, anti-union DFER group, as far back as 2010.
Another PSS expose this afternoon: several DFER tycoons have been among his donors; and he refused to sign onto UFT lawsuits against school closures and co-locations. Also, this afternoon, the New York Post endorsed Squadron. When a tabloid rag, publisher of racist cartoons ridiculing de Blasio's marriage, that's a clear sign that Squadron is the Christine Quinn of public advocate candidates.]

Of concern to all city workers, Squadron probably opposes retro-active raises to city workers, as indicated in the Daily News, he expresses skepticism on available funds. Baloney. There have been record years for Wall Street / the stock market since city workers have last had contracts. The mayor used Squadron's line on the empty municipal piggy-bank, only to see flush revenue years. Then, there is always the option to tax the half-millonaire pluses. Say they'll move to New Jersey. Are you kidding me? New Jersey has some good cultural institutions. But the millionaires around millionaire mile / museum mile (Jessica Lappin's district) won't find museums in walking distance if they flee the city; nor will the younger set find chic bars and clubs a mere 15 minute cab away.

On public libraries, see Letitia James and her council colleague, Stephen Levin, in the video, "Letitia James & Stephen Levin Fight Library Selloff Schemes," detailing the scope of how the city's libraries are under threat from developers, particularly in high value sections of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Citizens Defending Libraries said on their blogpost about candidates to support in the 2013 elections, "Vote for City Council member Tish James and don’t vote for Senator Daniel Squadron."

Note by contrast, her opponent Squadron's waffling on the selling off on library closures, Squadron Campaign Kickoff: Equivocation on Libraries? In the latter video Squadron dodged on-camera question –from what appears to have been from NY1 staffer— as to whether he would state on the record whether he is opposed to selling off Brooklyn libraries. Under prime threat are the Brooklyn Heights branch and the Pacific and Fourth Avenue branch, near the Atlantic Yards complex. He dodged attending a forum on saving public libraries. Instead, he sent surrogate Mark Green, who dodged questions about Squadron's stances on library sales. Watch him blather on, killing time, hoping to distract from the issue at hand. Note that a staffer refuses to text the AWOL Squadron to pin him down on his stance on the selling off of libraries issue. If you have little patience for listening to the long video, you can read Citizens Defending Libraries' narrative of the episode.
The narrative adds, "Given Squadron's failure to protect libraries, Citizens Defending Libraries strongly recommends that primary voters support libraries champion Tish James for Public Advocate on Tuesday, September 10th."
Watch the videos at the right. Do you want her to succeed a tragedy-stricken mayor, or do you want someone that cannot give a straight answer about policies of selling off public libraries?

These are the last day before the Tues, Oct. 1 run-off:
Call 212-260-8813 to volunteer for the Letitia James campaign
New York City Poll site locator: http://nyc.pollsitelocator.com/Search.aspx
She was endorsed by her primary opponent, Reshma Saujani, see this video, and by over a dozen union locals in the area.

Condemning disclosures today in Daily Kos on Daniel Squadron. While he is supposedly a mainstream liberal, know him by who his supporters are:
*Endorsed for state senate by mayor Bloomberg in 2008/Failed to endorse Thompson in 2009
*Donations from charter school developers *Donations from people involved in the selling-off of public libraries (a scandal discussed in detail by councilors Letitia James and Stephen Levin in this video of their testimony) *Donations from developers seeking to develop luxury housing in city parks
Truly the tweet of the week from one commenter,
Go Tish (0+ / 0-)
I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Tish James on Tuesday. She is a fighter. 

SUN SEP 29, 2013 AT 07:05 AM PDT

What's wrong with Daniel Squadron, anyway?


We here in New York City have an election coming up Tuesday, Oct. 1. If you follow me here, you know that I've been blogging on behalf of Public Advocate candidate Letitia "Tish" James. I've been trying to make my case as positively as possible, which is pretty easy given that she is an excellent candidate and extremely well suited for the job by experience, by personality and by character.

However, during a televised debate last week, her opponent, Daniel Squadron, attempted to smear her with some very misleading allegations, questions that had long since been addressed, and did so in an extremely condescending manner. Therefore, I feel it necessary to discuss some of Mr. Squadron's background here, and why it makes him only the second-best candidate for this office. Please comment below:

Mr. Squadron has close and long-standing ties with the true rulers of New York City, its real-estate developers. This is hardly a good omen for a prospective Public Advocate. While he loudly proclaims that he accepts no corporate PAC money, he has no problem accepting donations in the maximum allowable amount from private individuals with significant ties to the real estate industry, such as the following people connected to Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner, the developer of the widely-opposed Atlantic Yards project:

Ellen Ratner (sister of Bruce) and her spouse Cholene Espinoza (resident of Cleveland, OH), $4950 each
Forest City Ratner VP Mary Anne Gilmartin, $200

He is also a flip-flopper. After running for the State Senate on a promise to prevent housing from being built in then-developing Brooklyn Bridge Park, Squadron assented to a deal that allowed luxury housing to be built there.

Among his donors are the following promoters of luxury housing in city parks:
Richard Moore of Day Pitney LLP, and wife Barbara ($6000 in late 2012, $7450 in 2013)
William Rifkin of JP Morgan Investnment Banking and wife Susan($5000 in 2012, $1000 in 2013)
Henry Guttman of Simpson Thatcher Bartlett and wife Carolyn ($4500 in 2012, $7425 in 2013)
Timothy Ingrassia of Goldman Sachs & Co, Co-Chairman Global Mta and wife Stephanie ($2500 in 2012, $9350 in 2013)

Others of note include:

Library sell-off promoter NY Public Library Chief Operating Officer David Offensend and wife Janet ($2100 in 2012, $5325 in 2013) Fred Wilpon (owner of the New York Mets) and wife Judith Wilpon, $4550 each Helena Durst VP of The Durst Organization, $4950 The Winkelvoss twins, $4950 each

You can learn more about his donor base on the NYC Campaign Finance Board Searchable Database “Election cycle: 2013”. You can compare Letitia James' donor base on the same site, here.

James has about $800,000 from 3659 donors. Squadron has about $1,750,000 from 5309 donors, many more of which are maximum quantity donors ($4950) than are James’ donors. Daniel Squadron has 3.5 times as many contributors of the maximum $4950 as does Letitia James (58 to 16).

James’ support is more widespread, as she has endorsements from most of the unions, local papers, democratic organizations, and many churches. While she does not have so many major donors, a recent fundraiser netted over $10,000 from about 100 fervent supporters.

Squadron, who must have small donors as well, made fundraising pitches directly to major law firms, including Davis, Polk; Becker, Glynn; and Wolf, Haldenstein. Tradition has it that donations from members of such firms are often refunded to the donors in the form of bonuses.

Background is not an inarguable diagnostic of character, but consider the following: Squadron is a product of the exclusive Fieldston School and Yale. His political company revolves around Chuck Schumer and the circle of young men who were, or are, his proteges, including Anthony Weiner and TLC Commissioner David Yassky. When he ran for State Senate, in 2008 at the age of 28, he apparently had 200K in annual income from his trust fund. His defense is that he no longer has the trust fund, since his family's fortune was invested, and lost, with Bernie Madoff. But the fact that he no longer has it is less important than that during his formative years he had one.

While I know that there were some small investors who were put into the Madoff crosshairs by wealthier relatives or employers (as a favor!), the vast majority of the people who lost money to Madoff were exceedingly wealthy. That, combined with his support from the Wilpons, also very wealthy people who lost their shirts to Madoff, gives me some idea of the company he keeps. It's not a crime or a sin to feel you should be advancing the interests of your friends, but Squadron's friends have had plenty of advancement these last twelve years. I don't want my interests guarded by someone who was endorsed by Emperor Bloomberg in his last campaign. It's time for some advancement for ordinary New Yorkers.

Tish James, on the other hand, is the child of a janitor and an office-maintenance worker. She made her way through New York City public school, Lehman College, Howard University Law School and into the bar on her own hard work, intelligence and determination.

Letitia James understands that the primary function of the office to which they both aspire is, in the words of Finley Peter Dunne, "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". I have a hard time believing that anyone whose life has been as comfortable as Squadron's could be as determined to accomplish those ends as Tish James, daughter of the people.

(h/t to Steve Ettlinger for the link to the NYCFB database, and his invaluable editorial advice - thanks, Steve!)
TAGS
Daniel SquadronElectionsLetitia JamesNew York CityNew York City Public Advocate
COMMENT PREFERENCES EXPAND SHRINK HIDE AUTO REFRESH?
4 COMMENTS | PERMALINK

* There really is a difference, (4+ / 0-)
and a decision, to be made here. Please don't forget to vote Tuesday, Oct. 1!!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)
by sidnora on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

* In 2009 Squadron was endorsed by Bloomberg (1+ / 0-)
And Squadron failed to endorse the Democratic opposing Bloomberg
by rexxnyc on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:20:35 AM PDT

* I mentioned (0+ / 0-) his endorsement by Bloomberg above, but you're right, Squadron's not endorsing Thompson was just as bad!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)
by sidnora on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:30:40 AM PDT

* [new] Go Tish (0+ / 0-)
I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Tish James on Tuesday. She is a fighter. I only wish that the Public Advocate post was a more powerful one.
by woodyNYC on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:55:50 AM PDT 

 #  #  #  #

 #  #  #  #

The language of New York Senate Bill S6732-2011, passed, March 14, 2012. For a bill that detailed accountability for teachers and principals, Squadron was among 24 politicians that themselves evaded accountability. This is the law that has further driven the teach to the test madness in New York State:

BILL NUMBER:S6732

TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the education law, in relation to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals and the teacher evaluation appeal process in the city of New York

PURPOSE:

This bill would create a statewide teacher and principal evaluation system to be implemented by local school districts and would make changes to the teacher evaluation appeals process for the city of New York.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill would amend subdivision 1 of section 3012-c of the education law to clarify that this section would not affect a school district or board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) ability to terminate a probationary teacher or principal.

Section 2 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law and add subdivisions 2-8 to establish state and local assessments (objective) and teacher performance (subjective) measures of the annual professional performance review (i.e. the teacher and principal evaluation system, hereinafter referred to as "the evaluation system") and to develop and assign scoring ranges for each of the rating categories within the evaluation system.

Section 3 of the bill would amend paragraphs b and c of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish a timeline and set forth parameters, including the standards for selecting local measures for student achievement and the implementation of the evaluation system.

Section 4 of the bill would amend paragraphs e, f, g of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to explicitly describe the types of locally selected assessments that may be used in the evaluation system.

Section 5 of the bill would amend paragraph h of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to establish rigorous standards and scoring of the remaining 60 percent of the evaluation system including, but not limited to multiple classroom observations.

Section 6 of the bill would add a new paragraph j to subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law to add an "anti-gaming" provision requiring that it be possible for a teacher or principal to receive one of the four ratings (highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective) in the applicable scoring range, for each subcomponent. This section would also require that a superintendent, district superintendent or chancellor, and where applicable the president of the collective bargaining representative, certify that it has incorporated and will follow the scoring standards set forth in this section.

 Section 7 of the bill would amend subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new paragraph k to set forth the requirements and timeline for the governing body of each district or BOCES to adopt a plan for the annual professional performance review of its classroom teachers and principals. This section would also require that the commissioner approve or reject each plan by September first, two thousand twelve, or as soon as practicable thereafter. Finally, this section would require that if all the terms of the plan are not finalized by July first of any subsequent year as a result of unresolved collective bargaining, the entire plan shall be submitted to the commissioner upon resolution of its terms.

Section 8 of the bill would amend subdivision 4 of section 3012-c of the education law to make a technical correction.

Section 9 of the bill would amend subdivision 5 of section 3012-c of the education law to provide for a timely and expeditious appeals process. Section 9 of the bill would also add new paragraphs b and c. Paragraph b would ensure that nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the authority of the governing body of a school district or BOCES to grant or deny tenure to or terminate probationary teachers or building principals. Paragraph c would set forth that nothing in this section shall trigger the appeals process prior to the receipt of a composite effectiveness score.

Section 10 of the bill would add a new subdivision 9 to section 3012-c of the education law to allow the department to monitor and analyze trends and patterns around the teacher and principal evaluation plan.

Section 11 of the bill would amend section 3012-c of the education law by adding a new subdivision 5-a to make changes to the ineffective rating appeals process in New York City. Paragraphs a-o of this section set forth the parameters for an expedited appeals process, including:

- The process for a teacher to appeal an ineffective rating.

- The creation of an independent three-member panel where the United Federation of Teachers may appeal up to thirteen percent of cases.

- Timelines for initiating and implementing the appeals process.

- The establishment of an independent evaluator.

- The process for the New York City Department of Education to bring 3020a charges under the new provision.

Section 12 of the bill provides that this bill would take effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law before.

EXISTING LAW:

 Education Law §3012-c (APPR) and section 100.2(o) of the Commissioner's Regulations were enacted in 2010 and 2011 respectively to create a teacher and principal evaluation system in New York State, but to date neither has been implemented.

Education Law §3012-c also establishes the parameters for a teacher to appeal an ineffective evaluation rating. Education Law §3020-a establishes the process a school district must follow before removing or disciplining a tenured teacher. In New York City, alternative procedures specified in the collective bargaining agreement between the teachers union and the New York City Department of Education may also be used. (§§ 2590-f(1)(c), 3020(4)).

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:

New York's public schools spend more money per pupil than those in any other state. Yet, in measures of student performance, New York ranks 38th nationally in graduation rates. Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in a student's achievement and success. In 2010, the federal government created the Race to the Top program which, among other things, required a teacher and principal evaluation system. New York was a winner, yet has failed to implement an evaluation system. Such a system is critical in strengthening and supporting teachers so that they best serve our student's needs by preparing all students for college and careers.

This bill would make New York State a national leader in education by creating a new groundbreaking statewide teacher and principal evaluation system. The proposed teacher evaluation system would provide clear standards and significant guidance to local school districts for the implementation of a teacher evaluation system that is based on multiple measures of performance including student achievement and rigorous classroom observations.

This bill follows through on the state's commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.

Details of the teacher and principal evaluation plan are as follows:

Teacher and Principal Performance - 60 points

The bill would provide that 60 percent of a teacher's evaluation be based on rigorous and nationally recognized measures of teacher performance, This bill would also require that a majority of the teacher performance points be based on multiple classroom observations by an administrator or principal, at least one of which must be unannounced. The remaining points would be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.

This bill would also provide that 60 percent of a principal's evaluation be based on broad assessments of leadership and management actions, which would include multiple school visits by a supervisor and trained evaluator, of which one must be unannounced.

 Student Achievement in State and Local Assessments- 40 points

Under this provision, forty percent of a teacher's evaluation would be based on student academic achievement, with 20 percent (25 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from state testing and 20 percent (15 percent beginning in 2012-2013) from a list of three testing options including state tests, third party assessments/tests approved by the SED and locally developed tests that would be subject to SED review and approval. Under this proposal, school districts would also have the option of using state tests (but applying a different growth formula than the one used by the state) to measure up to 40 percent of a teacher's rating.

Rating System

The teacher evaluation scoring system to ensure student achievement and teacher performance would be significantly tightened under this provision. The new rating system would prohibit a teacher or principal who is rated ineffective in the objective measures of student growth (40pts) from receiving a developing score overall. The scoring system would be as follows:

Ineffective: 0 - 64 Developing: 65 - 74 Effective: 75 - 90 Highly Effective: 91 - 100

Assigning a Curve for the Ratings

For  the  first  time, this bill would establish a standard for school districts and teacher unions to set the allocation of  points  or  the "curve"  for  the  teacher  ratings. The curve would be allocated in a manner that a teacher could receive one of the four ratings,  and  the SED Commissioner would be able to reject insufficiently set curves.

SED Commissioner Final Review

The  bill  would also give the Commissioner of Education the authority to approve evaluation plans, or deny local evaluation plans  that  are deemed  insufficient, thereby adding rigor to the process and ensuring evaluation plans comply with the law.

Appeals

A teacher  and  principal  evaluation  plan  must  contain  a  locally established  appeals  procedure  to  allow  a  teacher or principal to challenge the substance of an annual professional performance  review. This  bill  would  clarify  that  this  appeals  process be timely and expeditious and allow districts to terminate probationary teachers and principals or grant or deny tenure while an appeal is pending.    This bill  would  also codify an agreement reached by the United Federation of Teachers and the New York City School District to implement such an appeals system as part of its teacher and principal  evaluation  plan, should alternative procedures not be collectively bargained by January 16, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

 Chapter  103 of the Laws of 2010 enacted a statewide system of teacher evaluation, which has not been implemented.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

This  bill  would  ensure  that  New York met its commitment to put in place a real and effective teacher evaluation system as a condition of the $700 million granted through the federal Race to the Top program.

School districts that have not implemented  a  teacher  and  principal evaluation  system  consistent with this proposal by January 17, 2013, would not receive their share of state school aid  increases  for  the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This  bill  would  take  effect immediately, provided that the appeals process would take effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city  school district  of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section  3012-c of the education law.


Text


STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ S. 6732 A. 9554 S E N A T E - A S S E M B L Y March 14, 2012 ___________
IN SENATE -- Introduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (at request of the Governor) -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. SILVER -- (at request of the Governor) -- read once and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals and the teacher evaluation appeal process in the city of New York THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows: 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance reviews of all class- room teachers and building principals employed by school districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be conducted in accord- ance with the provisions of this section. Such performance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two thousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of subdivision two of this section where applicable, shall include measures of student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section. Such annual profes- sional performance reviews shall be a significant factor for employment decisions including but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation, which deci- sions are to be made in accordance with locally developed procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law WHERE APPLICABLE. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO TERMINATE A PROBATIONARY TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL FOR STATUTORILY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE REASONS OTHER THAN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TEACHER OR PRINCI- PAL IN THE CLASSROOM OR SCHOOL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MISCONDUCT. Such performance reviews shall also be a significant factor in teacher
and principal development, including but not limited to, coaching, induction support and differentiated professional development, which are to be locally established in accordance with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law. S 2. Paragraph a of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows: a. (1) The annual professional performance reviews conducted pursuant to this section for classroom teachers and building principals shall differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using the following quality rating categories: highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective, with explicit minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each category, FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT OF THE EVALUATION AND FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT OF THE EVALUATION, as prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner. THERE SHALL BE: (I) A STATE ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT WHICH SHALL COMPRISE TWENTY OR TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION; (II) A LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS- URES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT WHICH SHALL COMPRISE TWENTY OR FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION; AND (III) AN OTHER MEASURES OF TEACH- ER OR PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT WHICH SHALL COMPRISE THE REMAINING SIXTY PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION, WHICH IN SUM SHALL CONSTITUTE THE COMPOSITE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SCORE. Such annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in the regu- lations of the commissioner. (2) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH PARAGRAPH B OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPHS F AND G OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR, THE OVERALL COMPOSITE SCORING RANGES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE: (A) HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IF THEY ACHIEVE A COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF 91-100. (B) EFFECTIVE IF THEY ACHIEVE A COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF 75-90. (C) DEVELOPING IF THEY ACHIEVE A COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF 65-74. (D) INEFFECTIVE IF THEY ACHIEVE A COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE OF 0-64. (3) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH PARAGRAPH B OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH F OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCI- PALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE STUDENT GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE:
(A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS ARE WELL-ABOVE THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 18-20; (B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN- CIPAL'S RESULTS MEET THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 9-17; OR (C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN- CIPAL'S RESULTS ARE BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-8; OR (D) AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT, IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS ARE WELL-BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2. (4) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH PARAGRAPH G OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE STUDENT GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE: (A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS ARE WELL-ABOVE THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 22-25; (B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN- CIPAL'S RESULTS MEET THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 10-21; OR (C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRIN- CIPAL'S RESULTS ARE BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-9; OR (D) AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT, IF THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S RESULTS ARE WELL-BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE FOR SIMILAR STUDENTS AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2. (5) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH PARAGRAPH B OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH F OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCI- PALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE: (A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE WELL-ABOVE DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVE- MENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 18-20; OR (B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS MEET DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 9-17; OR (C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE BELOW DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-8; OR
(D) AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE WELL-BELOW DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2. (6) FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH PARAGRAPH B OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH G OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBPARAGRAPH. A CLASSROOM TEACHER AND BUILDING PRINCIPAL SHALL RECEIVE: (A) A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE WELL-ABOVE DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVE- MENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 14-15; OR (B) AN EFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS MEET DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 8-13; OR (C) A DEVELOPING RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE BELOW DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 3-7; OR (D) AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THIS SUBCOMPONENT IF THE RESULTS ARE WELL-BELOW DISTRICT-ADOPTED EXPECTATIONS FOR GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT AND THEY ACHIEVE A SUBCOMPONENT SCORE OF 0-2. (7) FOR THE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN--TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL REVIEW THE SPECIFIC SCORING RANG- ES FOR EACH OF THE RATING CATEGORIES ANNUALLY BEFORE THE START OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR AND SHALL RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR CONSIDERATION. (8) Except for the student growth measures ON THE STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES OF STUDENT GROWTH prescribed in paragraphs e, f and g of this subdivision, the elements comprising the composite effectiveness score AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH POINTS ARE ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMPONENTS shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, through negotiations conducted, pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law. S 3. Paragraphs b and c of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, are amended to read as follows: b. (1) Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school districts [on or after July first, two thousand eleven] OR BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOU- SAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR of classroom teachers of common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades four to eight and all building principals of schools in which such teachers are employed shall be conducted pursuant to this subdivision and shall use two thousand ten--two thousand eleven school year student data as the baseline for the initial computation of the composite teacher or principal effective- ness score for such classroom teachers and principals. (2) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH K OF THIS SUBDIVISION THE ENTIRE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED TO THE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEPTEMBER FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE. THE PROVISIONS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS
TWO AND THREE OF PARAGRAPH C OF THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL APPLY TO SUCH REVIEWS. c. (1) Annual professional performance reviews conducted by school districts or boards of cooperative educational services [on or after July first, two thousand twelve] FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOU- SAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER of all classroom teachers and all building principals shall be conducted pursuant to this subdivision and shall use two thousand eleven--two thousand twelve school year student data as the baseline for the initial computation of the compos- ite teacher or principal effectiveness score for such classroom teachers and principals. For purposes of this section, an administrator in charge of an instructional program of a board of cooperative educational services shall be deemed to be a building principal. (2) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH K OF THIS SUBDIVISION THE ENTIRE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED TO THE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEPTEMBER FIRST OF THE SCHOOL YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR WHICH THE CLASSROOM TEACHER OR BUILDING PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IS BEING MEASURED. THE TEACHER'S AND PRINCIPAL'S SCORE AND RATING ON THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT, IF AVAILABLE, AND ON THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT FOR A TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE COMPUTED AND PROVIDED TO THE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL, IN WRITING, BY NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR WHICH THE TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL IS BEING MEASURED. NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL TO TRIGGER THE APPEAL PROCESS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF HIS OR HER COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE AND RATING. (3) EACH SUCH ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SHALL BE BASED ON THE STATE ASSESSMENTS OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT, THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT AND THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT, DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER, FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR FOR WHICH THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IS MEASURED. S 4. Paragraphs e, f and g of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, are amended to read as follows: e. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph b of this subdivision [in] FOR the two thou- sand eleven--two thousand twelve school year, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness shall be based on student achievement measures as follows: (i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law. (2) SUCH LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES MAY INCLUDE MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED EQUIVALENT, PROVIDED THAT SUCH MEASURES ARE DIFFER- ENT FROM THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO CLAUSE (I) OF SUBPARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS PARAGRAPH. THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER SHALL DESCRIBE THE TYPES OF MEASURES OF STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT
THAT MAY BE LOCALLY SELECTED. THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE(S) AS DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL BE DETERMINED THROUGH COLLEC- TIVE BARGAINING. f. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph c of this subdivision [in any school year prior to the first school year for which the board of regents has approved use of a value-added growth model, but not earlier than] FOR the two thousand twelve--two thousand thirteen school year AND THEREAFT- ER FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAS NOT APPROVED A VALUE-ADDED MODEL AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness shall be based on student achievement measures as follows: (i) twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii) twenty percent shall be based on other locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law. (2) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF CLASS- ROOM TEACHERS: (I) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAM- INATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINATIONS AS DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS, AND SAT II, USING A MEASURE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GROWTH SCORE PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR STUDENT GROWTH ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS OR EXAMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT THAT IS EITHER: (A) THE CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS WHO ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AS DETERMINED LOCALLY, ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS COMPARED TO THOSE STUDENTS' LEVEL OF PERFORM- ANCE ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR SUCH AS A THREE PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STUDENTS EARNING THE PROFICIENT LEVEL (THREE) OR BETTER PERFORMANCE LEVEL ON THE SEVENTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT COMPARED TO THOSE SAME STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON THE SIXTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT, OR AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING THE ADVANCED PERFORMANCE LEVEL (FOUR) ON THE FOURTH GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS COMPARED TO THOSE STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON THE THIRD GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS; OR (B) A TEACHER SPECIFIC GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE PERCENT OF THE TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING A DEPARTMENT DETERMINED LEVEL OF GROWTH. THE METHODOLOGY TO TRANSLATE SUCH GROWTH INTO THE STATE-ESTABLISHED SUBCOMPONENT SCORING RANGES SHALL BE DETERMINED LOCAL- LY; OR (C) A TEACHER-SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A MEASURE OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON THE STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINATIONS OTHER THAN THE MEASURE DESCRIBED IN ITEM (A) OR (B) OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH;
(II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A STUDENT ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSU- ANT TO A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGU- LATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (III) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS; (IV) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF EITHER STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT BASED ON EITHER: (A) A STATE-PROVIDED STUDENT GROWTH SCORE COVERING ALL STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL THAT TOOK THE STATE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH- EMATICS IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH EIGHT; (B) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS OR A DEPARTMENT APPROVED STUDENT ASSESSMENT OR BASED ON A STATE ASSESSMENT; OR (V) WHERE APPLICABLE, FOR TEACHERS IN ANY GRADE OR SUBJECT WHERE THERE IS NO GROWTH OR VALUE-ADDED GROWTH MODEL APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS AT THAT GRADE LEVEL OR IN THAT SUBJECT, A STRUCTURED DISTRICT-WIDE STUDENT GROWTH GOAL-SETTING PROCESS TO BE USED WITH ANY STATE ASSESSMENT OR AN APPROVED STUDENT ASSESSMENT OR A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS. (3) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF PRINCI- PALS, PROVIDED THAT EACH MEASURE IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS AND THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE SHALL BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT USED FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT: (I) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT SUCH AS PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL WHOSE PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS ARE PROFICIENT OR ADVANCED, AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE OR OTHER ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT FOR STUDENTS IN EACH OF THE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (III) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT; (IV) STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON ANY OR ALL OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES APPROVED FOR USE IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS; (V) FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES, FOUR, FIVE AND/OR SIX-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND/OR DROPOUT RATES; (VI) PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO EARN A REGENTS DIPLOMA WITH ADVANCED DESIGNATION AND/OR HONORS AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMIS- SIONER, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES; (VII) PERCENTAGE OF A COHORT OF STUDENTS THAT ACHIEVE SPECIFIED SCORES ON REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINA- TIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS AND SAT II, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES SUCH AS THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO THOUSAND NINE COHORT THAT SCORED AT LEAST A THREE ON AN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATION SINCE ENTRY INTO THE NINTH GRADE; AND/OR
(VIII) STUDENTS' PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION IN THE SCHOOL USING STRONG PREDICTIVE INDICATORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NINTH AND/OR TENTH GRADE CREDIT ACCUMULATION AND/OR THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT PASS NINTH AND/OR TENTH GRADE SUBJECTS MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH GRADU- ATION AND/OR STUDENTS' PROGRESS IN PASSING THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED REGENTS EXAMINATIONS FOR GRADUATION, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES. (IX) FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES THAT CHOOSE TO USE MORE THAN ONE SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS- URES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH FOR PRINCIPALS IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR GRADE CONFIGURATION OR PROGRAM SUCH AS ONE SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS- URES IS USED TO EVALUATE PRINCIPALS IN SOME K-5 SCHOOLS AND ANOTHER SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES IS USED TO EVALUATE PRINCIPALS IN THE OTHER K-5 SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT, THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DISTRICT SUPERINTEN- DENT SHALL, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PLAN, CERTIFY THAT THE SETS OF MEASURES ARE COMPARABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TESTING STANDARDS AS DEFINED IN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER. (X) FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, THE TYPES OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH SPECIFIED IN SUBPARA- GRAPH THREE OF PARAGRAPH G OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE USED. IN ADDITION, A STRUCTURED DISTRICT-WIDE STUDENT GROWTH GOAL-SETTING PROCESS TO BE USED WITH ANY STATE ASSESSMENT OR AN APPROVED STUDENT ASSESSMENT OR A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OF BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS MAY BE A LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURE. (4) THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE OR MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS TWO AND THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL BE DETER- MINED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. g. (1) For annual professional performance reviews conducted in accordance with paragraph c of this subdivision [in] FOR the [first school year for which the board of regents has approved use of a value- added growth model] TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR and thereafter FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN SUBJECTS AND GRADES IN WHICH THERE IS A VALUE-ADDED GROWTH MODEL APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS AND FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS OR PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THERE IS AN APPROVED PRINCIPAL VALUE-ADDED MODEL, forty percent of the composite score of effectiveness shall be based on student achieve- ment measures as follows: (i) twenty-five percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not available; and (ii) fifteen percent shall be based on other locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner and as are locally developed in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the require- ments of article fourteen of the civil service law. The department shall develop the value-added growth model and shall consult with the advisory committee established pursuant to subdivision seven of this section prior to recommending that the board of regents approve its use in eval- uations. (2) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF CLASS- ROOM TEACHERS: (I) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH ON STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAM- INATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINATIONS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS AND SAT II, USING A MEASURE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GROWTH SCORE PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR STUDENT GROWTH ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS OR EXAMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT THAT IS EITHER: (A) THE CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS WHO ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AS DETERMINED LOCALLY, ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS COMPARED TO THOSE STUDENTS' LEVEL OF PERFORM- ANCE ON SUCH ASSESSMENTS/EXAMINATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR SUCH AS A THREE PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STUDENTS EARNING THE PROFICIENT LEVEL (THREE) OR BETTER PERFORMANCE LEVEL ON THE SEVENTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT COMPARED TO THOSE SAME STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON THE SIXTH GRADE MATH STATE ASSESSMENT, OR AN INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING THE ADVANCED PERFORMANCE LEVEL (FOUR) ON THE FOURTH GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS COMPARED TO THOSE STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON THE THIRD GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH STATE ASSESSMENTS; OR (B) A TEACHER SPECIFIC GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED BY THE STATE BASED ON THE PERCENT OF THE TEACHER'S STUDENTS EARNING A STATE DETERMINED LEVEL OF GROWTH. THE METHODOLOGY TO TRANSLATE SUCH GROWTH INTO THE STATE-ESTABL- ISHED SUBCOMPONENT SCORING RANGES SHALL BE DETERMINED LOCALLY; OR (C) A TEACHER-SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH SCORE COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A MEASURE OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON THE STATE ASSESSMENTS, REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINATIONS OTHER THAN THE MEASURE DESCRIBED IN ITEM (A) OR (B) OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH; (II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A STUDENT ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSU- ANT TO A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGU- LATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (III) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOCES-DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS; (IV) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF EITHER STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT BASED ON EITHER: (A) A STATE-PROVIDED STUDENT GROWTH SCORE COVERING ALL STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL THAT TOOK THE STATE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS OR MATH- EMATICS IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH EIGHT; OR (B) A SCHOOL-WIDE MEASURE OF STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTED IN A MANNER DETERMINED LOCALLY BASED ON A DISTRICT, REGIONAL OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DEVELOPED ASSESSMENT THAT IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS OR A DEPARTMENT APPROVED STUDENT ASSESSMENT OR BASED ON A STATE ASSESSMENT. (3) ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OR GROWTH MAY BE USED FOR THE EVALUATION OF PRINCI- PALS, PROVIDED THAT EACH MEASURE IS RIGOROUS AND COMPARABLE ACROSS CLASSROOMS AND THAT ANY SUCH MEASURE SHALL BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT USED FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPONENT: (I) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT SUCH AS PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL WHOSE PERFORMANCE LEVELS ON STATE ASSESSMENTS ARE PROFICIENT OR ADVANCED, AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (II) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE OR OTHER ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT FOR
STUDENTS IN EACH OF THE PERFORMANCE LEVELS DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER; (III) STUDENT GROWTH OR ACHIEVEMENT ON STATE ASSESSMENTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND/OR MATHEMATICS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN GRADES FOUR TO EIGHT; (IV) STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON ANY OR ALL OF THE DISTRICT-WIDE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES APPROVED FOR USE IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS; (V) FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES, FOUR, FIVE AND/OR SIX-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AND/OR DROPOUT RATES; (VI) PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO EARN A REGENTS DIPLOMA WITH ADVANCED DESIGNATION AND/OR HONORS AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMIS- SIONER, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES; (VII) PERCENTAGE OF A COHORT OF STUDENTS THAT ACHIEVE SPECIFIED SCORES ON REGENTS EXAMINATIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE EXAMINA- TIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATIONS, INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE EXAMINATIONS AND SAT II, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES SUCH AS THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS IN THE TWO THOUSAND NINE COHORT THAT SCORED AT LEAST A THREE ON AN ADVANCED PLACEMENT EXAMINATION SINCE ENTRY INTO THE NINTH GRADE; AND/OR (VIII) STUDENTS' PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION IN THE SCHOOL USING STRONG PREDICTIVE INDICATORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NINTH AND/OR TENTH GRADE CREDIT ACCUMULATION AND/OR THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT PASS NINTH AND/OR TENTH GRADE SUBJECTS MOST COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH GRADU- ATION AND/OR STUDENTS' PROGRESS IN PASSING THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED REGENTS EXAMINATIONS FOR GRADUATION, FOR PRINCIPALS EMPLOYED IN A SCHOOL WITH HIGH SCHOOL GRADES. (IX) FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES THAT CHOOSE TO USE MORE THAN ONE SET OF LOCALLY SELECTED MEAS- URES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH FOR PRINCIPALS IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR GRADE CONFIGURATION OR PROGRAM, THE SUPERINTENDENT OR DISTRICT SUPER- INTENDENT SHALL, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PLAN, CERTIFY THAT THE SETS OF MEASURES ARE COMPARABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TESTING STANDARDS AS DEFINED IN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER. (4) THE SELECTION OF THE LOCAL MEASURE OR MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS TWO AND THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH TO BE USED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL BE DETER- MINED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. (5) The department shall develop the value-added growth model and shall consult with the advisory committee established pursuant to subdi- vision seven of this section prior to recommending that the board of regents approve its use in evaluations. S 5. Paragraph h of subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows: h. The remaining SIXTY percent of the evaluations, ratings and effec- tiveness scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the stand- ards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner, through negoti- ations conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. (1) A MAJORITY OF THE SIXTY POINTS FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS SHALL BE BASED ON MULTIPLE CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS CONDUCTED BY A PRINCIPAL OR OTHER TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED IN-PERSON OR BY VIDEO. FOR EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIR- TEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, AT LEAST ONE SUCH OBSERVATION SHALL BE AN UNANNOUNCED VISIT.
(2) FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THESE SIXTY POINTS FOR EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR, THE COMMISSIONER'S REGULATION SHALL PRESCRIBE THE OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS THAT MAY BE USED. (3) FOR EVALUATIONS OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE REMAINING PORTION OF THESE SIXTY POINTS SHALL BE BASED ON ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: (I) ONE OR MORE CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS BY INDEPENDENT TRAINED EVALU- ATORS SELECTED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCA- TIONAL SERVICES WHO ARE TEACHERS OR FORMER TEACHERS WITH A DEMONSTRATED RECORD OF EFFECTIVENESS AND HAVE NO PRIOR AFFILIATION WITH THE SCHOOL IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION AND NO OTHER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TEACHERS BEING EVALUATED THAT WOULD AFFECT THEIR IMPARTIALITY; (II) CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS BY TRAINED IN-SCHOOL PEER TEACHERS; AND/OR (III) USE OF A STATE-APPROVED INSTRUMENT FOR PARENT OR STUDENT FEED- BACK; AND/OR (IV) EVIDENCE OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE THROUGH LESSON PLANS, STUDENT PORTFOLIOS AND OTHER ARTIFACTS OF TEACHER PRACTICES THROUGH A STRUCTURED REVIEW PROCESS. (4) A MAJORITY OF THESE SIXTY POINTS FOR BUILDING PRINCIPALS SHALL BE BASED ON A BROAD ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL'S LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BASED ON THE PRINCIPAL PRACTICE RUBRIC BY THE BUILDING PRINCI- PAL'S SUPERVISOR, A TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR OR A TRAINED INDEPENDENT EVAL- UATOR, WITH ONE OR MORE VISITS CONDUCTED BY THE SUPERVISOR, AND, FOR EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THAT SUCH ASSESSMENT MUST INCORPORATE MULTIPLE SCHOOL VISITS BY A SUPERVISOR, A TRAINED ADMINISTRATOR OR OTHER TRAINED EVALUATOR, WITH AT LEAST ONE VISIT CONDUCTED BY THE SUPERVISOR AND AT LEAST ONE UNANNOUNCED VISIT. FOR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THESE SIXTY POINTS FOR EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN--TWO THOUSAND TWELVE SCHOOL YEAR, SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL ALSO PRESCRIBE THE OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE OF PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS THAT MAY BE USED CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER. (5) FOR EVALUATIONS OF BUILDING PRINCIPALS FOR THE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE--TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN SCHOOL YEAR AND THEREAFTER, THE REMAINING PORTION OF THESE SIXTY POINTS SHALL INCLUDE, IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF SUBPARAGRAPH THREE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, AT LEAST TWO OTHER SOURC- ES OF EVIDENCE FROM THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND/OR FAMILIES USING STATE-APPROVED INSTRUMENTS; SCHOOL VISITS BY OTHER TRAINED EVALUATORS; AND/OR REVIEW OF SCHOOL DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, AND/OR STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES. ANY SUCH REMAINING POINTS SHALL BE ASSIGNED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF ONE OR MORE AMBITIOUS AND MEASURABLE GOALS SET COLLABORATIVELY WITH PRINCIPALS AND THEIR SUPERINTENDENTS OR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS AS FOLLOWS: (I) AT LEAST ONE GOAL MUST ADDRESS THE PRINCIPAL'S CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPROVED RETENTION OF HIGH PERFORMING TEACHERS, THE CORRE- LATION BETWEEN STUDENT GROWTH SCORES OF TEACHERS GRANTED TENURE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE DENIED TENURE; OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROFICIENCY RATING OF THE PRINCIPAL ON SPECIFIC TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS STANDARDS IN THE PRINCIPAL PRACTICE RUBRIC. (II) ANY OTHER GOALS SHALL ADDRESS QUANTIFIABLE AND VERIFIABLE IMPROVEMENTS IN ACADEMIC RESULTS OR THE SCHOOL'S LEARNING ENVIRONMENTAL SUCH AS STUDENT OR TEACHER ATTENDANCE.
(6) THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL ESTABLISH SPECIFIC MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SCORING RANGES FOR EACH PERFORM- ANCE LEVEL WITHIN THIS SUBCOMPONENT BEFORE THE START OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR AND SHALL ASSIGN POINTS TO A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL FOR THIS SUBCOMPONENT BASED ON THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION- ER, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND SUBJECT TO, THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARA- GRAPH J OF THIS SUBDIVISION. S 6. Subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law is amended by adding a new paragraph j to read as follows: J. (1) THE PROCESS BY WHICH POINTS ARE ASSIGNED IN SUBCOMPONENTS AND THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE SUBCOMPONENTS MUST BE TRANSPARENT AND AVAIL- ABLE TO THOSE BEING RATED BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF EACH SCHOOL YEAR. THE PROCESS BY WHICH POINTS ARE ASSIGNED IN THE RESPECTIVE SUBCOMPONENTS ARE TO BE DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: (I) FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOMPO- NENT, THAT PROCESS SHALL BE FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS. (II) FOR THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPONENT, THAT PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY THROUGH NEGOTI- ATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. (III) FOR THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT, THAT PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY THROUGH NEGOTI- ATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICES LAW. (2) SUCH PROCESS MUST ENSURE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL TO OBTAIN EACH POINT IN THE APPLICABLE SCORING RANGES, INCLUD- ING ZERO, FOR THE STATE ASSESSMENT OR OTHER COMPARABLE MEASURES SUBCOM- PONENT, THE LOCALLY SELECTED MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMPO- NENT AND THE OVERALL RATING CATEGORIES. THE PROCESS MUST ALSO ENSURE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL TO OBTAIN EACH POINT IN THE SCORING RANGES PRESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT. (3) THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OR CHANCELLOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE (WHERE ONE EXISTS) SHALL CERTIFY IN ITS PLAN THAT THE PROCESS WILL USE THE NARRATIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE STANDARDS FOR THE SCORING RANGES PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER TO EFFECTIVELY DIFFERENTIATE A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL'S PERFORMANCE IN EACH OF THE SUBCOMPONENTS AND IN THEIR OVERALL RATINGS TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION. (4) THE SCORING RANGES FOR THE OTHER MEASURES OF TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS SUBCOMPONENT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY THROUGH NEGOTI- ATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. S 7. Subdivision 2 of section 3012-c of the education law is amended by adding a new paragraph k to read as follows: K. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, RULE OR REGULATION TO THE CONTRARY, BY JULY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE, THE GOVERNING BODY OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SHALL ADOPT A PLAN, ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, FOR THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ALL OF ITS CLASSROOM TEACHERS AND BUILDING PRINCIPALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND SHALL SUBMIT SUCH PLAN TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR APPROVAL. THE PLAN MAY BE AN ANNUAL OR MULTI-YEAR PLAN, FOR THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ALL OF ITS CLASSROOM TEACHERS AND BUILDING PRINCIPALS. THE COMMISSIONER SHALL APPROVE OR REJECT THE PLAN BY SEPTEMBER FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE, OR AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE THEREAFTER. THE COMMISSIONER MAY REJECT A PLAN
THAT DOES NOT RIGOROUSLY ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER. SHOULD ANY PLAN BE REJECTED, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL DESCRIBE EACH DEFICIENCY IN THE SUBMITTED PLAN AND DIRECT THAT EACH SUCH DEFICIENCY BE RESOLVED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAIN- ING TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. IF ANY MATERIAL CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES MUST SUBMIT THE MATERIAL CHANGES, ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR APPROVAL. TO THE EXTENT THAT BY JULY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE, OR BY JULY FIRST OF ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IF ALL THE TERMS OF THE PLAN HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED AS A RESULT OF UNRESOLVED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGO- TIATIONS, THE ENTIRE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER UPON RESOLUTION OF ALL OF ITS TERMS, CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. S 8. Subdivision 4 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows: 4. Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary, upon rating a teacher or a principal as developing or ineffective through an annual professional performance review conducted pursuant to subdivision two of this section, the school district or board of cooper- ative educational services shall formulate and commence implementation of a teacher or principal improvement plan for such teacher or principal as soon as practicable but in no case later than ten SCHOOL days after [the date on which teachers are required to report prior to] the opening of classes for the school year. Such improvement plan shall be consist- ent with the regulations of the commissioner and developed locally through negotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. Such improvement plan shall include, but need not be limit- ed to, identification of needed areas of improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which improvement will be assessed, and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support a teacher's or principal's improvement in those areas. S 9. Subdivision 5 of section 3012-c of the education law, as added by chapter 103 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows: 5. A. An appeals procedure shall be locally established in each school district and in each board of cooperative educational services by which the evaluated teacher or principal may only challenge the substance of the annual professional performance review, the school district's or board of cooperative educational services' adherence to the standards and methodologies required for such reviews, pursuant to this section, the adherence to the regulations of the commissioner and compliance with any applicable locally negotiated procedures, as well as the school district's or board of cooperative educational services' issuance and/or implementation of the terms of the teacher or principal improvement plan, as required under this section. APPEAL PROCEDURES SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE TIMELY AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION OF ANY APPEAL UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION. The specifics of the appeal procedure shall be locally established through negotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. An evaluation which is the subject of an appeal shall not be sought to be offered in evidence or placed in evidence in any proceeding conducted pursuant to either section three thousand twenty-a of this article or any locally negotiated alternate disciplinary procedure, until the appeal process is concluded. B. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ALTER OR DIMINISH THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO GRANT OR DENY TENURE TO OR TERMINATE
PROBATIONARY TEACHERS OR PROBATIONARY BUILDING PRINCIPALS DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION FOR STATUTORILY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE REASONS OTHER THAN THE TEACHER'S OR PRINCI- PAL'S PERFORMANCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL. C. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL TO TRIGGER THE APPEAL PROCESS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THEIR COMPOSITE EFFECTIVENESS SCORE AND RATING FROM THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES. S 10. Section 3012-c of the education law is amended by adding a new subdivision 9 to read as follows: 9. A. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ANNUALLY MONITOR AND ANALYZE TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION RESULTS AND DATA TO IDENTI- FY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND/OR SCHOOLS WHERE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT A MORE RIGOROUS EVALUATION SYSTEM IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES. THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BOARDS OF COOP- ERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND/OR SCHOOLS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER. B. A SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES ENUMER- ATED IN PARAGRAPH A OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE HIGHLIGHTED IN PUBLIC REPORTS AND/OR THE COMMISSIONER MAY ORDER A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, WHICH MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE DISTRICT OR BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ARRANGE FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING AND/OR UTILIZE INDEPENDENT TRAINED EVALUATORS TO REVIEW THE EFFICACY OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM, PROVIDED THAT THE PLAN SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH LAW AND NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. S 11 Section 3012-c of the education law is amended by adding a new subdivision 5-a to read as follows: 5-A. IN THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NOTWITH- STANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY TO CLASSROOM TEACHERS: A. A TEACHER WHO DID NOT RECEIVE AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THE PRIOR SCHOOL YEAR IS IN "YEAR ONE STATUS". B. A TEACHER WHO RECEIVED AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN THE PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR IS IN "YEAR TWO STATUS", UNTIL AND UNLESS THAT RATING IS EITHER CHANGED BY THE PRINCIPAL OR REVERSED ON APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION, OR UNTIL AND UNLESS THE TEACHER REVERTS TO YEAR ONE STATUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVI- SION. C. A TEACHER WHO IS RATED INEFFECTIVE FOR A SCHOOL YEAR IN WHICH THE TEACHER HAS YEAR ONE STATUS SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT RATING TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHO SHALL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION, UNLESS AN APPEAL IS INITIATED TO A THREE-MEMBER PANEL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THE UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (UFT) MAY APPEAL TO A THREE-MEMBER PANEL THE INEFFECTIVE RATINGS OF UP TO THIRTEEN PERCENT OF TEACHERS WHO RECEIVED SUCH INEFFECTIVE RATINGS FOR A SCHOOL YEAR. ANY SUCH APPEAL MAY ONLY BE MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE INEFFECTIVE RATING WAS GIVEN DUE TO HARASSMENT OR REASONS NOT RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE. THESE APPEALS SHALL BE KNOWN AS A "PANEL APPEALS". THE THREE-MEMBER PANEL SHALL CONSIST OF A PERSON SELECTED BY THE UFT, A PERSON SELECTED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AN INDEPENDENT PERSON, NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE UFT OR THE DISTRICT AND SELECTED BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, WHO SHALL BE THE CHAIR
OF THE PANEL AND CONDUCT THE APPEAL HEARING. IF THE PANEL SUSTAINS THE APPEAL, THE PRINCIPAL MUST SUBMIT TO THE PANEL A DIFFERENT RATING, WHICH MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PANEL. ANY INEFFECTIVE RATING THAT IS APPEALED TO THE PANEL MAY NOT BE APPEALED TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. D. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL NOTIFY THE UFT OF ALL INEFFECTIVE RATINGS. EACH SCHOOL YEAR, IF THE UFT IS NOTIFIED OF AN INEFFECTIVE RATING PRIOR TO OCTOBER FIRST, A PANEL APPEAL OF THAT RATING MUST BE INITIATED BY THE UFT BY NOVEMBER FIRST, PROVIDED THAT MORE THAN THIRTEEN PERCENT OF THESE RATINGS MAY BE APPEALED TO THE PANEL. THE UFT AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL NEGOTIATE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, A PROCEDURE FOR ENSURING THAT EACH SCHOOL YEAR, NOT MORE THAN THIRTEEN PERCENT OF THE RATINGS RECEIVED BY THE UFT AFTER OCTOBER FIRST ARE APPEALED TO THE PANEL. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ISSUE RATINGS AND NOTIFY THE UFT OF INEFFECTIVE RATINGS BY OCTOBER FIRST. ANY RATING NOT APPEALED TO THE PANEL MAY BE APPEALED BY THE INDIVIDUAL TEACHER TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. APPEALS MADE TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN SCHOOL DAYS AFTER THE UFT WOULD OTHER- WISE BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF A PANEL APPEAL. E. FOR ALL TEACHERS IN YEAR TWO STATUS, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE INEFFEC- TIVE RATING THEY RECEIVED IN THE PRIOR YEAR IS CHANGED BY A PRINCIPAL OR OTHERWISE CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION, AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL BE APPOINTED TO EVALUATE THE TEACHER ON EACH COMPONENT OF THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN WHICH THE SCORING OF THE COMPONENT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRINCIPAL. THESE COMPONENTS SHALL NOT NECESSARILY BE LIMITED TO TEACHER PERFORM- ANCE, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COMPONENTS IN WHICH THE SCORING OF THE COMPONENT IS OUTSIDE THE DISCRETION OF THE PRINCIPAL, EVEN IF THE PRIN- CIPAL HAS DISCRETION IN A RELATED GOAL-SETTING PROCESS PRIOR TO SCORING. THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL PERFORM THREE OBSERVATIONS DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OBSERVATIONS SHALL BE NEGOTIATED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE FOURTEEN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. F. THE UFT AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL JOINTLY SELECT AN ORGAN- IZATION OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT EMPLOY CERTIFIED EDUCATORS, INCLUDING TEACHERS, TO PERFORM THE WORK AS INDEPENDENT VALIDATORS. INDEPENDENT VALIDATORS SHALL NOT BE EMPLOYED SIMULTANEOUSLY BY THE BOARD OF EDUCA- TION OR SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. SHOULD EITHER THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE UFT NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT THAT AFTER A GOOD FAITH EFFORT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE UFT ARE UNABLE TO JOINTLY SELECT ORGANIZATIONS, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL NAME ORGANIZATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL SET FORTH A REQUIRED NUMBER OF VALIDATORS, AND THE COMMISSIONER SHALL NAME ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN PROVIDE AT LEAST THIS NUMBER OF VALIDATORS WHOM THE COMMISSIONER DEEMS QUALIFIED. THE COMMIS- SIONER SHALL NAME ORGANIZATIONS BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THIS SUBDIVISION THAT APPLY TO THE MUTUAL SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE UFT AND SHALL ALSO CONSIDER POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. G. IN AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR DOES NOT COMPLETE THE REVIEW PROCESS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE TEACHER SHALL REMAIN IN YEAR TWO STATUS THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR. SHOULD THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR NOT COMPLETE THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR A SECOND CONSECUTIVE SCHOOL YEAR AND FOR ANY REASON IN THE SECOND YEAR FOR OTHER THAN A LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR CHRONIC ABSENCE ON THE
PART OF THE TEACHER, THE TEACHER SHALL RETURN TO YEAR ONE STATUS THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR. H. AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED WITH THE PRINCIPAL WHEN AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR'S SCORING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCORING OF COMPONENTS NOT REVIEWED BY THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBDIVISION, WOULD RESULT IN A RATING IN THE SAME CATEGORY ON THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW THAN WOULD RESULT FROM THE PRINCIPAL'S RATING. I. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE DISAGREED WITH THE PRINCIPAL WHEN AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR'S SCORING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCORING OF COMPONENTS NOT REVIEWED BY THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBDIVI- SION, WOULD RESULT IN A RATING IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY ON THE ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW THAN WOULD RESULT FROM THE PRINCIPAL'S RATING. J. IF A TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE RATING FOR A SCHOOL YEAR IN WHICH THE TEACHER IS IN YEAR TWO STATUS AND THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR AGREES, THE DISTRICT MAY BRING A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS THREE THOUSAND TWENTY AND THREE THOUSAND TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE BASED ON A PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE. IN SUCH PROCEEDING, THE CHARGES SHALL ALLEGE THAT THE EMPLOYING BOARD HAS DEVELOPED AND SUBSTAN- TIALLY IMPLEMENTED A TEACHER IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDI- VISION FOUR OF THIS SECTION FOR THE EMPLOYEE FOLLOWING THE EVALUATION MADE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS IN YEAR ONE STATUS AND WAS RATED INEFFECTIVE. THE PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE SHALL GIVE RISE TO A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF INCOMPETENCE AND IF THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED, THE FINDING, ABSENT EXTRAOR- DINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL BE JUST CAUSE FOR REMOVAL. IN THESE HEAR- INGS, THE TEACHER SHALL HAVE UP TO THREE DAYS TO PRESENT HIS OR HER CASE FOR EVERY ONE DAY USED BY THE DISTRICT TO PRESENT ITS CASE. THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL RENDER A WRITTEN DECISION WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE LAST DAY OF THE HEARING. K. IF THE TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE RATING BY THE PRINCIPAL IN A SCHOOL YEAR IN WHICH THEY ARE IN YEAR TWO STATUS AND THE INDEPENDENT VALIDATOR DISAGREES, THE INEFFECTIVE RATING REMAINS BUT THE DISTRICT MAY NOT BRING PROCEEDING BASED ON A PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE, AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FROM CHARGING A TEACHER BASED ON INCOMPETENCE AND ENTERING THE PRINCIPAL'S EVALUATIONS INTO EVIDENCE. L. IF UPON THE COMPLETION OF A HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS THREE THOUSAND TWENTY AND THREE THOUSAND TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE, BASED EITHER ON A PATTERN OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHING OR PERFORMANCE OR CHARGES OF INCOMPETENCE IN WHICH YEAR ONE OR YEAR TWO EVALUATIONS WERE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE, AND A HEARING OFFICER FINDS THE TEACHER INCOMPETENT, BUT DECIDES NOT TO TERMINATE, THE TEACHER REMAINS IN YEAR TWO STATUS FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR IN PROGRESS OR THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR IF THE FINDING IS MADE IN BETWEEN SCHOOL YEARS. IF UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING, THE HEARING OFFICER EXONERATES THE TEACHER OF CHARGES OF INCOMPETENCE THE TEACHER SHALL REVERT TO YEAR ONE STATUS IF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR IF THE FINDING IS MADE IN BETWEEN SCHOOL YEARS. M. IF THE TEACHER RECEIVES AN INEFFECTIVE RATING IN YEAR TWO BY THE PRINCIPAL AND THE VALIDATOR AGREES, AND THE DISTRICT DOES NOT BRING AN EXPEDITED PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS THREE THOUSAND TWENTY AND THREE THOUSAND TWENTY-A OF THIS ARTICLE, THE TEACHER MAY APPEAL THE YEAR
TWO INEFFECTIVE RATING TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHO SHALL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION. IF THE RATING IS UPHELD, THE TEACHER SHALL REMAIN IN YEAR TWO STATUS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SCHOOL YEAR, BUT IF FOLLOWING THAT YEAR THE TEACHER IS NOT CHARGED, THE TEACHER REVERTS TO YEAR ONE STATUS FOR THE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR. N. A PROCESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN THIS SUBDIVISION AFTER TWO YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT A FAILURE OR DELAY IN ESTABLISHING THAT PROCESS SHALL NOT INVALIDATE ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION. O. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE UFT MAY ALTER ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVI- SION THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. S 12. This act shall take effect immediately; provided that: (a) The appeals process will go into effect on January 16, 2013, unless the city school district of the city of New York enters into a collectively bargained teacher evaluation and appeals plan in conformity with section 3012-c of the education law and with the approval of the commissioner of education. (b) The chancellor of the District shall notify the legislative bill drafting commission upon the occurrence of the events provided for in subdivision (a) of this section in order that the commission may main- tain an accurate and timely effective data base of the official text of the laws of the state of New York in furtherance of effectuating the provisions of section 44 of the legislative law and section 70-b of the public officers law.