CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES: PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 7d22f3-ODE4N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES:

Description:

New York State Association of Management Advocates for School Labor Affairs, Inc. (M.A.S.L.A.) 37TH Annual Summer Conference July 21, 2014 Lake Placid, NY – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:64
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 71
Provided by: jwo108
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES:


1
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES  An
Analysis of Selected Federal Legislative Issues
and Court Decisions Impacting Public Schools
New York State Association of Management
Advocates for School Labor Affairs, Inc.
(M.A.S.L.A.) 37TH Annual Summer Conference July
21, 2014 Lake Placid, NY
Presented by Jay Worona General Counsel New
York State School Boards Association
2
FEDERAL EDUCATION INTERVENTIONS THE RACE TO
THE TOP

3
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed
    into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation designed
    to stimulate the economy, support job creation,
    and invest in critical sectors, including
    education. ARRA provided 4.35 billion for the
    Race to the Top fund, of which approximately 4
    billion was used to fund comprehensive statewide
    reform grants under the Race to the Top Program.

4
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • Districts were encouraged (or requiredif they
    were Race to the Top award winners to develop
    teacher and principal evaluation systems which
    took into consideration the performance of the
    students of such educators as part of each
    educators own performance evaluation.
  • This has resulted in a multitude of serious
    collective bargaining/
  • negotiations issues

5
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • This new reform movement has not come about
    without its critics. For example, Linda
    Darling-Hammond of Stanford University has
    repeatedly expressed her view that research
    demonstrates that the system that rates teachers
    on student performance is fundamentally flawed
    and results in evaluations which contain huge
    margins of error.


6
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • The development of new teacher effectiveness
    policies across the United States over the past
    five years has been dramatic. For example
  • Annual evaluations.
  • In 2009, only 15 states required annual
    evaluations of all teachers, with some states
    permitting teachers to go five years or more
    between evaluations. In 2013, 27 states and DCPS
    now require annual evaluations for all teachers.

7
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • There is little doubt that the landscape is
    changing rapidly. In just the last year (between
    Fall 2012 and Fall 2013) about a third of all
    states adopted evaluation policies requiring
    teacher evaluations to include objective measures
    of student achievement as a significant or
    preponderant criterion.

8
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Linked to
Student Performance Data
  • Lets break this down. . . . . . .

9
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • The National Council on Teacher Quality reports
    As of September 2013, 35 states and the
    District of Columbia Public Schools now require
    that student achievement is a significant or the
    most significant factor in teacher evaluations.
    To date, only Alabama, California, Idaho, Iowa,
    Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
    Texas and Vermont have no formal policy requiring
    that teacher evaluations take some objective
    measures of student achievement into account in
    evaluating teacher effectiveness.

10
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Multiple measures.
  • Twenty-seven states and District of Columbia
    Public Schools (DCPS) require teacher ratings to
    be based on multiple measures of student growth
    and achievement and 44 states and DCPS require
    classroom observations to be incorporated into
    teacher evaluations.

11
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • System structure.
  • In 11 of those 27 states, the state provides an
    evaluation model that districts have the option
    to adopt wholesale rather than design their own.
  • State oversight.
  • In the 39 states where districts have design
    discretion, fewer than half (15) require state
    review and approval of these locally-developed
    systems.

12
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • System structure.
  • States have adopted a diverse set of approaches
    to balancing state and local interests in teacher
    evaluation design and implementation. Overall, 11
    states and the District of Columbia Public
    Schools mandate a statewide (or in the case of
    DCPS, a district-wide) teacher evaluation system
    10 states provide a statewide evaluation model
    from which districts can opt out, typically if
    they are approved to use a comparable system

13
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • System structure.
  • and 27 states provide criteria or guidelines that
    districts can adopt, which typically includes
    flexibility for districts to design their own
    evaluation systems consistent with state policy
    principles. In 11 of those 27 states, the state
    provides an evaluation model that districts have
    the option to adopt wholesale rather than design
    their own.

14
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Although many states are still in the early
    stages of rethinking and implementing new teacher
    evaluation policies, it is not too early for
    states to be building the policy framework for
    how they will use evaluation data in meaningful
    ways. The critical parts of such a framework
    address the question of how evaluation results
    will inform tenure decisions, improving
    instruction, consequences for repeated
    ineffective performance, compensation, better
    targeting professional development, improving
    teacher preparation and assigning effective
    teachers to work with the students who need them
    most. To what extent are states connecting the
    dots?

15
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Tenure and licensure advancement.
  • Teacher evaluations that truly measure
    effectiveness and identify classroom
    ineffectiveness ought to be used to determine
    teacher tenure, making it a significant milestone
    in a teachers career. As of fall 2013, only
    about half of the states with ambitious
    evaluation designs (18 and DCPS) require that
    tenure decisions must be informed by teacher
    evaluation ratings. And in only 8 of those 35
    states are teacher evaluations used to determine
    licensure advancement.

16
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Professional development.
  • About half of the states with ambitious
    evaluation systems (19 and DCPS) specifically
    require in state policy that teacher evaluation
    results be used to inform and shape professional
    development for all teachers.

17
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Ineffectiveness.
  • Most of the states with ambitious teacher
    evaluations (25 and DCPS) require that teachers
    with poor evaluations be placed on an improvement
    plan. And almost as many (22 and DCPS) ensure in
    state policy that persistent classroom
    ineffectiveness is grounds for a teacher to be
    dismissed.

18
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Teacher compensation.
  • In most other professions, performance matters
    and good performance is rightfully rewarded with
    promotions and salary increases. But not in
    teaching. Unfortunately, across the United
    States, there is little movement to base teacher
    salary on performance. While there are 10 states
    that are making some moves in the right direction
    by supporting some performance pay initiatives,
    just Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Utah
    and DCPS directly tie teacher compensation to
    teacher evaluation results.

19
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Layoffs.
  • Today, the overwhelming majority of school
    districts use seniority as the only determinant
    of teacher layoff decisions. Not even half (14
    and DCPS) of the states with ambitious evaluation
    policies require districts to use improved
    evaluations to make better staffing decisions
    when and if layoffs become necessary.

20
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Teacher preparation.
  • To date only a small handful of states (8)
    Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
    North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee have adopted
    policies connecting the performance of students
    to their teachers and the institutions where
    their teachers were trained.

21
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • Lessons and Recommendations
  • While a handful of states such as Delaware,
    Florida, Rhode Island and Tennessee are now at
    least a year or two into full-scale
    implementation of new teacher evaluations and
    already engaged in efforts to connect the dots
    between evaluation and related teacher policies,
    most states are just beginning or have yet to
    begin, with some timelines reaching as far out as
    2018-19. For the benefit of the vast majority of
    states still in the process of designing teacher
    evaluation systems, the paper offers states
    advice based on the experience of early
    trailblazers.

22
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 1. States need to connect the dots.
  • Overhauling evaluation systems is expensive and
    time-consuming work not using the results in
    meaningful ways is counterproductive and
    wasteful.
  • 2. Differentiating teacher performance isnt
    going to happen just because states and districts
    have a new evaluation rubric.
  • Some policymakers and reformers have naively
    assumed that because states and districts have
    adopted new evaluations that put a much stronger
    emphasis on student outcomes, evaluation results
    will inevitably look much different. But that
    assumption has proven incorrect.

23
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 4. There must be annual evaluations for everyone.
  • Teacher evaluation policy should reflect the
    purpose of helping all teachers improve, not just
    low-performers. And if teacher effectiveness
    evaluations aim to help all teachers get better
    including going from good to great then all
    teachers need feedback.
  • 5. Training is a huge undertaking.
  • The majority of states recognize that evaluator
    training is needed. But fewer are implementing
    practices that could help ensure the quality of
    the training evaluators receive. For example,
    there are just 13 states and DCPS that require a
    certification process for their evaluators and
    only three Indiana, New Mexico and New York,
    along with DCPS that require that evaluators
    are effective teachers.

24
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 6. States and districts should use multiple
    evaluators or observers where possible.
  • The Gates Foundation MET study found having
    multiple evaluators to be important for
    high-quality evaluations of teacher effectiveness
    but just 5 states require multiple evaluators or
    classroom observers.
  • 7. Surveys have emerged as an important source of
    data and feedback on teacher performance.
  • It is important for states and districts not to
    underestimate what it takes to design a
    high-quality instrument, and adopt validated
    instruments or get expert help writing, testing
    and implementing surveys

25
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 8. Good measures make good evaluations.
  • Strong evaluation measures and tools will make or
    break new teacher evaluation systems.
  • State of the States Connect the Dots October
    2013
  • www.nctq.org
  • 9. States must use caution with including
    schoolwide measures of growth in individual
    teacher evaluations.
  • While states may see a place for collective
    responsibility for school performance in teacher
    evaluations, it cannot be a substitute for
    individual measures of performance applied only
    to those teachers without direct classroom
    measures.

26
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 10. Nontested grades and subjects cannot be an
    afterthought.
  • In most states, a majority of teachers fall into
    this category but in the states with the most
    ambitious evaluation designs only 18 and DCPS
    explicitly address how to measure student growth
    and achievement in nontested grades and subjects.
  • 11. States must develop data systems with the
    capacity to provide evidence of teacher
    effectiveness.
  • To ensure that data provided through the state
    data system is actionable and reliable, states
    must have a clear definition of teacher of
    record and require its consistent use statewide.

27
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 12. Avoid the too-many-multiple-measures trap.
  • In the court of public opinion, there prevails a
    sense that high stakes decisions about teachers
    are being made in haste based on single
    standardized test scores. This report shows that
    perception is wrong. At the same time, states
    need to require and implement measures that
    demonstrate a relationship with student
    achievement not allow teacher evaluation to
    become a watered-down process.

28
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 13. Whats in a name?
  • When designing evaluations of effectiveness,
    precision of language around defining performance
    categories is a must.
  • 14. States must address the ongoing challenge of
    evaluating special education teachers.
  • Special education cannot be an afterthought in
    teacher evaluation and states must ensure that
    all measures growth measures, observation
    rubrics and surveys are fair to special
    education teachers.

29
From the State of the States 2013 Connect the
Dots Report
  • 15. Leadership is key.
  • Regardless of laws and regulations on the books,
    the strongest states are those providing solid
    state models for statewide or district adoption.
  • We are at the beginning of a new policy era. For
    the good of the profession and students alike,
    states must stay the course on teacher
    effectiveness policies. At the same time, states
    and districts must ensure that evaluation systems
    are flexible enough to take advantage of what we
    continue to learn about how best to assess
    teacher performance. We also must not forget, in
    all the complicated intricacies of designing
    evaluations of teacher effectiveness appraising
    performance is an activity that involves
    professional judgment. Teacher effectiveness
    policies are not about enslaving the profession
    in arbitrary ways to testing systems and
    quantifiable data sets that prohibit reasoned
    judgment rather, these policies are meant to
    improve the practice of every teacher in every
    classroom so that all students have the
    opportunity to reach their highest potential and
    achieve their greatest dreams.

30
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • In exchange for over 700 million dollars in Race
    to the top monies, New York developed an
    ambitious Race to the Top reform agenda that
    integrates into other statewide goals, such as
    the Regents Reform Agenda. As part of New York
    States Race to the Top application, the
    evaluations of teachers and principals had to be
    based, at least in part, upon the performance of
    the students of such educators.
  • However, the devil appeared to be in the detail.

31
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • In 2010, the New York State Legislature amended
    the New York Education Law which established a
    new evaluation system for teachers and principals
    which required, in part, that all teachers and
    principals receive evaluations measuring their
    performance, at least in part, on their students
    performance.  

32
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • The System was put into place BEFORE the State
    adopted the Common Core Learning Standards and
    BEFORE educators and students were able to get up
    to speed in the new standards upon which their
    assessments would be based.
  • Accordingly, parents and educators loudly
    proclaimed that the entire system was built upon
    a unsteady foundation---that assessing students
    and educators on such higher standards at this
    time was inherently unfair.

33
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • The new APPR statute went well beyond simply
    changing the law to require student performance
    as a criterion for teacher evaluation. The
    statute fundamentally changed negotiation
    requirements for teacher and principal
    evaluations. The statute incorporates a broad
    overall statutory duty to bargain evaluative
    procedure. All collective bargaining agreements
    (CBAs) for teachers and principals entered into
    after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with the
    requirements of the new law.

34
What Is Required?
  • Evaluations consistent with the new law and
    applicable regulations.
  • Evaluations that are a significant factor for
  • All Employment decisions.
  • Teacher and principal development.

35
Impact on Collective Bargaining
  • Collective bargaining agreements entered into
    after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with the
    requirements of the new law.
  • Conflicting provisions in contracts settled
    before July 1, 2010 remain in effect until
    successor is reached.
  • However, nothing prevents negotiations over
    evaluation procedures.

36
Regulations
  • Pursuant to the express statutory requirements,
    SED convened a Task Force to advise the Board of
    Regents how regulations should be developed and
    promulgated.

37
Intervention by Governor
  • Just two days before the Regulations were
    unveiled, Governor Cuomo wrote a letter to the
    State Education Department the Board of Regents
    (NYs State Board of Education) to strengthen the
    requirements in the Regulations to ensure that
    teachers and administrators who scored poorly on
    student achievement results would not receive an
    overall effective rating. Such changes were made
    and NYSUT sued.

38
NYSUTS LAWSUIT
  • On August 24, 2011, Albany County Supreme Court
    Justice Michael C. Lynch handed down a decision
    largely in agreement with the legal position
    which had been taken by the teachers union

39
THE LAWSUIT
  • On September 14, 2011, the State Education
    Department appealed and indicated that it would
    explore every avenue including pursuing new
    legislation.

40
Intervention By Governor
  • Governor Cuomo, in his Budget address gave SED
    and NYSUT 30 days to settle the lawsuit and put
    into place an APPR process that is consistent
    with the Governors outlined goals of ensuring
    that teachers and principals do not receive
    effective ratings if their students are not
    performing well.

41
On March 14th the Legislature adopted final
revisions to APPR as originally proposed by
Governor Cuomo in his Budget bill
42
Collective Bargaining
  • The agreed upon changes to section 3012-c impose
    collective bargaining requirements beyond those
    already included in the original law. The new
    requirements include, for example, an obligation
    to negotiate
  • The process by which points are assigned to the
    local measures of student achievement and the
    other measures of effectiveness subcomponents of
    the evaluation, pursuant to the requirements of
    the Taylor Law.

43
Collective Bargaining (contd)
  • The selection of the local measures to be used
    under the locally selected measures of student
    achievement subcomponent of teacher and principal
    evaluations.
  • Regarding the required locally developed
    procedures for the making of employment
    decisions, the changes provide that such
    procedures must be negotiated pursuant to the
    requirements of the Taylor Law where applicable.
  • .

44
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • What is the relationship of the statute to
    existing evaluation provisions in collective
    bargaining agreements?
  • Does it make a difference whether APPR related
    provisions are set forth in the collective
    bargaining agreement or via a separate document?
  • What happens if the parties cannot reach
    agreement on an APPR plan?
  • Are signatures and certifications required prior
    to the Commissioner of Education approving the
    plan?
  •  
  •  

45
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • If the parties cannot agree on a plan, can the
    district simply impose one?
  • What can a teacher/principal appeal an
    evaluation?
  • Does the filing of an appeal of a composite score
    prevent termination of a probationary employee
    even at the end of the probationary period when
    such time is at issue?
  • What should be included in the APPR Plan with
    respect to Data Management?

46
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • What would constitute a teacher of record?
  •  Which teachers would be considered classroom
    teachers for the purpose of coverage under the
    new law?
  • Would special education teachers who co-teach be
    subject to evaluation?
  • Would push-in and pull-out teachers and
    substitute teachers be covered? 
  • Who would be a building principal for purpose
    of the statute?

47
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • How is APPR relevant to a Superintendents
    evaluation?
  •  What is the authority of the APPR police?
  • Does the Plan that is submitted to the
    Commissioner constitute the Districts entire
    APPR plan for teachers and principals under
    3012-c?
  • What is the timeline for the 2012-2013 APPR plan
    approval process? (Note if a district did not
    have an approved plan by January 17, 2013, that
    district would not have been eligible of a
    state-aid increase)
  •  

48
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • How can changes be made to an APPR plan after
    it has been approved by the Commissioner? 
  • What if a district has not reached agreement with
    the union as to items which require collective
    bargaining?
  • What is the relationship between APPRs and the
    termination of probationary employees?
  • What about terminations before the end of a
    school year and the development of a composite
    score?
  •  

49
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • Assuming a composite score is issued at the end
    of year one that forms a sufficient basis for a
    decision to terminate a probationary employee,
    can the employee be terminated at that time even
    if an appeal has been filed?
  • Does an appeal automatically stay all
    terminations?
  • When does the right to appeal commence?
  •  Under what circumstances must a TIP or PIP be
    created?

50
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • What is the difference between a
    Teacher/Principal Growth Score and a Value Added
    Growth Score? What was available for 2011-2012
    evaluations and what will be available for
    2012-13?
  • What is the difference between a
    Teacher/Principal Growth Score and a Value Added
    Growth Score? What was available for 2011-2012
    evaluations and what will be available for
    2012-13?

51
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • When will the percentage of the composite score
    based on the Growth Subcomponent increase from 20
    to 25?
  • Is there a minimum number of students with growth
    scores required in order for SED to calculate a
    teacher/principal growth score?
  • What are Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)?
  • Is there any duty to bargain over SLOs?
  • How do you treat teachers who teach several
    courses?
  •  
  •  

52
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • Under what circumstances can State assessments be
    used for the Local Subcomponent?
  • How can State assessment data be used in a
    different way for the Local Subcomponent?
  • Can student portfolios be used as a local measure
    of achievement for the local subcomponent?
  • Are individual teacher-created assessments a
    permissible option for the local subcomponent?
  • Can a district use a 3rd party assessment that is
    not on the States approved list?
  •  
  •  

53
New York State Experience (Less Than Smooth
Sailing)
  • Immediate issues which needed to be answered
  • Must districts/BOCES disclose APPR data to the
    public?
  •  Must the Commissioner of Education disclose APPR
    data to the public?
  • Are INDIVIDUALS APPR results subject to release
    under FOIL?
  • Are districts/BOCES obligated to notify/disclose
    individual information to parents/guardians? 
  • How must the APPR data be provided to
    parents/legal guardians?

54
New York State Experience (ess It aint over
yet!!!
  • Assembly aims to delay Common Core teacher
    evaluations
  • 1 m ago By Yancey Roy
  • ALBANY Going against Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo,
    state Assembly Democrats are drafting a bill that
    would delay teacher evaluations conducted under
    the new Common Core curriculum for two years.
  •   The Democrats are expected to discuss the
    proposal behind closed doors Monday and perhaps
    vote on it later in the week, said a source who
    wished to remain anonymous.
  •  

55
The Common Core Implementation Reform Act-
Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014
  • Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)
    Plans
  • Data Dashboard Systems
  • Parental Assistance
  • Professional Development
  • Students Assessments
  • Students with Disabilities and ELL Assessments
  • K-2 Standardized Students Tests
  • Testing Time Limitations

56
The Common Core Implementation Reform Act-
Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014
  • Students Assessments
  • Testing Transparency Report
  • Test Questions
  • Student Promotion and Placement
  • Student Records
  • Chief Privacy Officer
  • Parental Bill of Rights for Data Privacy
  • and Security
  • Data Collection Transparency and Restrictions

57
The Common Core Implementation Reform Act-
Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014
  • Breach of Security and Unauthorized Release of
    Personally Identifiable Information

58
Bills Waiting Delivery to the Governor
  • Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) (p.
    14)
  • A10168 would establish temporary provisions for
    the recalculation of the APPR score of a
    classroom teacher and building principal who
    receives an overall composite rating of
    ineffective or developing for the 2013-14 and/or
    2014-15 school years. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state
    Assembly leaders have agreed on a bill to throw
    out Common Core-based scores on a teachers
    evaluation if the teacher is deemed ineffective
    or developing. The bill would remain in effect
    through the 2014-15 school year.

59
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan praises
Cuomos teacher-evaluation bill
  • 19 June 2014, 512 pm by Jon Campbell in
    Uncategorized - 2 Comments
  • U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on
    Thursday praised a New York bill that would hold
    teachers harmless for poor Common Core-based test
    scores through next school year, saying it
    maintains New Yorks commitment to be leaders in
    education reform.

60
New Regulations
  • Student Records
  • 8 NYCRR 104.3 consistent with Chapter 56 of
    the Laws of 2014 prohibits school districts and
    BOCES from including a students individual score
    on State administered standardized English
    Language Arts (ELA) and math assessments in
    grades 3-8 in the students official transcript
    and permanent record between 4/1/14-12/31/18.
  • Teacher Certification
  • 8 NYCRR 52.21(b)(1)(xv), 80-1.1(b)(42),
    80-3.3(c)(3) and 80-35 helps to address the
    existing and anticipated demand for teachers with
    specific technical and career experience to
    obtain a transitional teaching certificate in
    their area of expertise.

61
Future APPR Changes?
  • A proposed amendment to the Regents Rules
    (Section 30-2.1) was introduced during June 2014
    to define performance for purposes of
    termination decisions relating to probationary
    teachers.
  • The proposed rule would clarify that, where a
    district has not yet completed an APPR for the
    probationary teacher or principal, it may
    terminate for any statutorily or constitutionally
    permissible reason, which may include quality of
    instruction or service based on evidence other
    than the APPR rating. (NOTE This language was
    removed from the original June 20 Regents item as
    the Board voted on the revised June 24 item.)

62
But WaitThe Guidance Document was Just Amended
  • C13. May a school district/BOCES terminate a
    probationary teacher or principal during the
    middle of a school year or before the composite
    evaluation score becomes available?
  • Prior to completion of the APPR in the first year
    of the probationary term, a probationary teacher
    or principal may be summarily dismissed for any
    constitutionally and statutorily permissible
    reasons. Accordingly, where a board of education
    has not yet completed an APPR for a probationary
    teacher or principal, it may terminate the
    probationary teacher for any statutorily and
    constitutionally permissible reasons. Those
    reasons may include the quality of the
    instruction or services provided by the
    probationary teacher or principal based on
    evidence other than the composite APPR rating.

63
But WaitThe Guidance Document was Just Amended
  • C13. May a school district/BOCES terminate a
    probationary teacher or principal during the
    middle of a school year or before the composite
    evaluation score becomes available? (Contd)
  • Once it has completed an APPR, the board of
    education must consider the APPR rating as a
    significant factor to retain or terminate the
    employee, unless the employee is being terminated
    for statutorily and constitutionally permissible
    reasons other than the teachers or principals
    composite APPR rating, such as misconduct,
    insubordination, time and attendance issues and
    other performance issues and the like.

64
UFT Now Opposes Common Core Standards
  • By STEPHANIE SIMON 7/11/14 652 AM EDT
  • The American Federation of Teachers will open its
    annual convention Friday morning with a startling
    announcement After years of strongly backing the
    Common Core, the union now plans to give its
    members grants to critique the academic standards
    or to write replacement standards from scratch.
  • Its a sign that teachers are frustrated and fed
    up and theyre making their anger heard, loud
    and clear.

65
Unions Under Attack
  • From Alabama to Wyoming, state legislatures
    across the nation are either adopting or
    proposing legislation aimed at narrowing teacher
    tenure and seniority rights.

66
Vergara v. State of California et. al. (June 10,
2014).
  • Citing to the United States Supreme Courts
    historic Brown v. Board of Education decision
    which declared racially segregated schools to be
    unconstitutional, the Superior Court of the State
    of California for the County of Los Angeles
    upheld a challenge by nine California public
    school students to the constitutionality of five
    statutes in the State of California affecting the
    tenure and seniority rights of teachers. In this
    case, the Court found that the contested statutes
    violate the students fundamental rights to
    equality of education by adversely affecting the
    quality of education they are constitutionally
    entitled to receive by the state.

67
Vergara v. State of California et.
al. (June 10, 2014).
  • In mid-June of 2014, it was announced that a
    lawsuit similar in nature to the one brought in
    California would be brought in New York State by
    a nonprofit group known as the Partnership for
    Educational Justice led by former CNN anchor
    Campbell Brown. The fact that a multitude of
    students do not receive educational opportunities
    enabling them to be college and career ready is
    unquestionable. However, attributing uber due
    process rights on the part of teachers as THE
    reason why student constitutional rights are
    being violated is certain to be an uphill climb.

68
Mymoema Davids et. al. v. The State of
New York et. al. (Filed June 30, 2014-New York
State Supreme Court-County of Richmond)
  • On June 30, 2014, a lawsuit similar in nature to
    that of the Vergara case was filed by parents
    groups in the State Supreme Court, County of
    Richmond. In this lawsuit the parents assert
    that New York States tenure statute as well as
    provisions of law requiring that teachers be
    excessed in accordance with last-in-first-out
    requirements are unconstitutional in that they
    deny students their constitutional rights to a
    sound basic education.

69
Harris v. Quinn, U.S. Supreme Court June 30, 2014)
  • In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that
    the First Amendment prohibits the collection of
    agency shop fees in the particular case of home
    health-care aides, or personal assistants
    (PAs). who, under Illinois law an
    employer-employee relationship is secured between
    the person receiving the care and the person
    providing itnot the state. Accordingly, the
    Supreme Court ruled that the employees in this
    case should never have been required to pay
    mandatory union fees required of other workers.

70
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES in the UNITED STATES  An
Analysis of Selected Federal Legislative Issues
and Court Decisions Impacting Public Schools
New York State Association of Management
Advocates for School Labor Affairs, Inc.
(M.A.S.L.A.) 37TH Annual Summer Conference July
21, 2014 Lake Placid, NY
Presented by Jay Worona General Counsel New
York State School Boards Association
About PowerShow.com