A NY Post editorial, commenting on the just-passed “safety net” that matches the impact of state tests on students to the impact on teachers by granting a two-year moratorium for both, sarcastically writes,
Great news for bad teachers. For kids, not so much. If you worry more about anxiety than achievement, you’ll never fire bad teachers.
Last year, only 1 percent of teachers outside Gotham were rated “ineffective” — even though 69 percent of third- through eighth-graders flunked their math and reading tests.
Doesn’t that suggest that maybe we don’t have enough teacher anxiety?
More than a year ago AFT President Randi Weingarten, at an Association for a Better New York (ABNY) breakfast called for a two year moratorium on the impact of the Common Core State Standards (Watch speech here). The audience was filled with the education and political glitterati, her speech was well-received; however, the Commissioner plowed ahead. The result was a disaster! A nascent parent unrest became a movement and the movement raced across the nation.
I’m curious how the Post will react when the State releases the current round of test scores – I am wagering that the scores will be significantly better. Will the Post praise teachers for suddenly becoming better teachers or will they trash the test and the Commissioner for jacking up the scores.
Test scores are zip code based while the new teacher evaluation system compares teachers to colleagues around the state teaching “similar” students. It is my understanding that the 1% “ineffective” were not concentrated in high poverty districts.
The state sets cut scores, on the first round of the new Common Core-based tests: the state set the cut score at a level that resulted in 69% of kids scoring “below proficient.” During the lengthy discussions that proceeded the cut score decision a few members of the Regents (namely, Cashin, Rosa, Phillips) asked that cut scores be set at the same level as the previous year and slowly be increased to acknowledge the “newness” of the test and the phase-in period for teachers to get up to speed on the new standards, unfortunately, to no avail.
60% of teacher assessment scores are based on principal observations using a state-approved rubric, 20% on a “locally negotiated” instrument and 20%, the controversial 20%, on growth in student test scores (about 70% of students do not take state tested subjects and use a Measure of Student Learning – usually a district-approved test at the end of the school year). At the end of the 2013 school year 51% of teachers scored “highly effective,” 40% “effective,” 8% “developing” and 1% “ineffective.”
This should not be surprising: teachers are trained at state-approved teacher training institutions, they are selected by schools frequently after teaching a demonstration lesson, they serve a three-year probationary period during which about 30% of teachers leave voluntarily within three years. Candidates and new teachers are screened numerous times before they achieve tenure, and, in New York City about a third has tenure extended for a year.
After achieving tenure teachers can still be dismissed pursuant to provisions of state law. There is enormous confusion regarding how the law provides for disciplining and firing teachers.
Section 3020a of Education Law, amended in 2012, sets forth the procedures for hearings against tenured teachers
Where charges of incompetence are brought based solely upon a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance of a classroom teacher or principal, the hearing shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer in an expedited hearing, and shall be completed within sixty days after the pre-hearing conference.
Such charges shall allege that the employing board has developed and substantially implemented a teacher or principal improvement plan in accordance with subdivision four of section three thousand twelve-c of this article for the employee following the first evaluation in which the employee was rated ineffective, and the immediately preceding evaluation if the employee was rated developing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance as defined in section three thousand twelve-c of this article shall constitute very significant evidence of incompetence for purposes of this section. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the defenses which the employee may place before the hearing officer in challenging the allegation of a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance.
The hearing officer shall render a written decision within thirty days of the last day of the final hearing, or in the case of an expedited hearing within ten days of such expedited hearing
The written decision shall include the hearing officer’s findings of fact on each charge, his or her conclusions with regard to each charge based on said findings and shall state what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken by the employing board. At the request of the employee, in determining what, if any, penalty or other action shall be imposed, the hearing officer shall consider the extent to which the employing board made efforts towards correcting the behavior of the employee which resulted in charges being brought under this section through means including but not limited to: remediation, peer intervention or an employee assistance plan. In those cases where a penalty is imposed, such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal. In addition to or in lieu of the aforementioned penalties, the hearing officer, where he or she deems appropriate, may impose upon the employee remedial action including but not limited to leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment or that the employee engage in any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.
Summary of the timelines can be found here.
The SED Guidance document is here – see pages 25-27 for procedures to dismiss a probationary teacher
The lengthy and dense statute, Section 3012-c is here.
Most teacher discipline involves “constitutionally and statutory permissible reasons other than classroom performance without regard to APPR,” meaning a “bad act,” which the law goes on to define as “permissible reasons include, but are not limited to, misconduct, insubordination, time and attendance issues, or, conduct inappropriate for a teaching professional.” The cases include convictions or guilty pleas for crimes involving drugs, violence or sexual misconduct, for certain felonies the teacher is discharged without a hearing. In recent years posting on social media deemed inappropriate or inappropriate texts can constitute chargeable offenses.
If there are teachers with successive “ineffective” overall scores (60 + 20 + 20) on the APPR a school district may proffer charges pursuant to the provisions of Section 3012-c as described above.
We will find out in the fall after the second year scores are released, the scores are impacted by the modification just approved by the legislature.
In my view the tenure laws in New York State will survive any constitutional challenge – the Vergara Decision (Read full decision here) in California will not have legs in New York State.
And, I anxiously await the Post praising teachers for the leap in scores on the state tests – I won’t hold my breath!!