• Required Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement to use the State Growth Model for teachers of grades 4-8, building principals covering those grade levels, and high school principals (all of grades 9-12).

[] All educators would instead have a Student Learning Objective (SLO).

o Eliminates the requirement that State-created or administered assessments be used as the evidence for SLOs where they exist.

o The selection and use of the assessment(s) for an educator’s SLO is now subject to collective bargaining, rather than district determined.

• Optional Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement that optional student performance measures be based either on a second State-provided growth score or a growth score based on a supplemental assessment that uses a State-provided or approved statistical growth model.

[] Instead, the Department will define optional measures of student performance based on State-created, administered, or approved assessments that districts may then collectively bargain to use.

o Where a school district collectively bargains to use optional student performance measures, the statutory amendments also eliminate the existing requirement that an educator receive a rating of Ineffective on their overall evaluation if their Student Performance Category rating is Ineffective.

The changes made to Education Law § 3012-d became effective on April 1, 2019 and the proposed amendment implements those requirements.

The proposed amendment was presented to the Full Board for adoption as an emergency action at the October 2019 meeting of the Board of Regents, effective October 8, 2019. Following the required 60-day comment period provided for in the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Sections 202(1) and (5), the Department has revised the proposed amendment in response to public comment. Because the Board of Regents meets at scheduled intervals, the earliest the revised proposed amendment could be presented for regular (non-emergency) adoption, after publication in the State Register and expiration of the 45-day public comment period, is the May 2020 Regents meeting. However, because Section 52-m of Part YYY of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019 became effective on April 1, 2019, emergency action is necessary now for the preservation of the general welfare in order to conform Subpart 30 of the Rules of the Board of Regents with the amendments made to Education Law § 3012-d, as amended by Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019.

The 2019-2020 Enacted Budget makes several changes to Education Law § 3012-d, which governs annual teacher and principal evaluations. The key changes include:

• Required Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement to use the State Growth Model for teachers of grades 4-8, building principals covering those grade levels, and high school principals (all of grades 9-12).

[] All teachers would instead have a Student Learning Objective (SLO);

[] Building principals may have SLOs or as an alternative to SLOs, building principals may be evaluated based on an input model process using evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the Leadership Standards.

o Eliminates the requirement that State-created or administered assessments be used as the evidence for SLOs where they exist.

o The selection and use of the assessment(s) for an educator’s SLO is now subject to collective bargaining, rather than district determined.

• Optional Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement that optional student performance measures be based either on a second State-provided growth score or a growth score based on a supplemental assessment that uses a State-provided or approved statistical growth model.

[] Instead, the Department will define optional measures of student performance based on State-created, administered, or approved assessments that districts may then collectively bargain to use.

o Where a school district collectively bargains to use optional student performance measures, the statutory amendments also eliminate the existing requirement that an educator receive a rating of Ineffective on their overall evaluation if their Student Performance Category rating is Ineffective.

Although the Enacted Budget makes significant changes to the Student Performance Category of the evaluation system, it does not substantively change any other aspects of the current system, including:

• Requirements for teacher observations and principal school visits, including the requirement that at least one be conducted by an independent evaluator.

• Requirements for calculating overall ratings using the statutory matrix.

• Requirements for teacher and principal improvement plans for educators who receive an overall rating of Developing or Ineffective in the prior school year.

• Requirements for summative evaluation ratings to be a “significant factor” in all employment-related decisions.

The proposed rule conforms the regulations to the provisions of the 2019 legislation by making the following substantive changes to Subparts 30-2 and 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.

The existing Subpart 30-2, relating to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law § 3012-c, is repealed.

The existing Subpart 30-3 is renumbered to Subpart 30-2. The title of this new Subpart 30-2 and sections 30-2.1, 30-2.3, and 30-2.17 are amended to clarify that Subpart 30-2 only applies to APPRs conducted prior to the 2019-20 school year or those conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on or before April 12, 2019 which remains in effect on or after April 12, 2019 until a subsequent agreement is reached; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement.

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

Where practicable, existing requirements for teacher and principal evaluations are carried over in their entirety. Below is a description of the areas where substantive changes from existing requirements have been made to implement the provisions of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019.

Section 30-3.1 clarifies that the new evaluation system only applies to CBAs entered into after April 12, 2019. It further clarifies that nothing in the new Subpart shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any CBA in effect on and after April 12, 2019 during the term of such agreement and until entry into a successor CBA; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement. As required by the Education Law, it further clarifies that APPRs shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and teacher and principal development, consistent with the requirements of the law. It also clarifies the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason.

Section 30-3.4 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of classroom teachers under the amended law. The law requires teachers to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the teacher observation category.

Section 30-3.5 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of building principals under the amended law. The law requires the Commissioner to establish a principal evaluation system that is aligned to the teacher evaluation system set forth in Education Law § 3012-d. To implement the law, the proposed amendment requires building principals to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

Section 30-3.16 describes a process which permits a district or BOCES to apply for a variance from one or more of the provisions of this Subpart to meet specific needs and circumstances of the district or BOCES so long as such plan remains consistent with the requirements of Education Law § 3012-d.

Section 30-3.17 provides for the severability of each section of this Subpart.

Since publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Emergency Adoption in the State Register on October 23, 2019, substantial revisions were made to the proposed rule. The Department revised the proposed amendment as follows:

• For the required subcomponent of the student performance category for building principals, as an alternative to student learning objectives (SLO), building principals may be evaluated based on an input model process using evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the Leadership Standards. This option is now also available for the optional subcomponent of the student performance category;

• For the principal school visit category, the proposed amendment has been revised to clarify that multiple sources of evidence of professional performance may be collected and incorporated into the school visit protocol to better reflect school leadership practice and support actionable feedback to building principals; and

• Section 30-3.16 of the proposed amendment has been revised to clarify that a district seeking a variance may, subject to collective bargaining to the extent required under article 14 of the Civil Service Law, carry forward the most recently approved version of the district’s APPR plan in lieu of submitting a new APPR plan to the Department for purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 30-3.16(c)(7) and 30-3.16(e)(3).

1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

Education Law 101 (not subdivided) charges the Department with the general management and supervision of all public schools and all of the educational work of the state.

Education Law 207 (not subdivided) grants general rule-making authority to the Regents to carry into effect State educational laws and policies.

Education Law 215 authorizes the Regents to visit and inspect any educational institution under its supervision in the state and to require reporting from such institutions.

Education Law 305(1) authorizes the Commissioner to enforce laws relating to the State educational system and execute Regents educational policies. Section 305(2) provides the Commissioner with general supervision over schools and authority to advise and guide school district officers in their duties and the general management of their schools.

Education Law 3012-d provides for the development and implementation of annual professional performance reviews of teachers and principals.

Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019 amends provisions of Education Law 3012-d relating to the development and implementation of periodic professional performance reviews of teachers and principals.

2. LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES:

The proposed amendments to the requirements for Annual Professional Performance Review plans are consistent with the above statutory authority and are necessary to conform the Commissioner’s Regulations to Part YYY of Chapter 59 of the laws of 2019. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to improve the quality of teaching and learning by ensuring that teachers and school leaders receive annual evaluations consistent with the State’s Teaching and Leadership Standards leading to opportunities for professional growth and to meet the learning needs of their students.

3. NEEDS AND BENEFITS:

The 2019-2020 Enacted Budget makes several changes to Education Law § 3012-d, which governs annual teacher and principal evaluations. The key changes include:

• Required Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement to use the State Growth Model for teachers of grades 4-8, building principals covering those grade levels, and high school principals (all of grades 9-12).

[] All teachers would instead have a SLO;

[] Building principals may have SLOs or as an alternative to SLOs, building principals may be evaluated based on an input model process using evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the Leadership Standards.

o Eliminates the requirement that State-created or administered assessments be used as the evidence for SLOs where they exist.

o The selection and use of the assessment(s) for an educator’s SLO is now subject to collective bargaining, rather than district determined.

• Optional Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement that optional student performance measures be based either on a second State-provided growth score or a growth score based on a supplemental assessment that uses a State-provided or approved statistical growth model.

[] Instead, the Department will define optional measures of student performance based on State-created, administered, or approved assessments that districts may then collectively bargain to use.

o Where a school district collectively bargains to use optional student performance measures, the statutory amendments also eliminate the existing requirement that an educator receive a rating of Ineffective on their overall evaluation if their Student Performance Category rating is Ineffective.

Although the Enacted Budget makes significant changes to the Student Performance Category of the evaluation system, it does not substantively change any other aspects of the current system, including:

• Requirements for teacher observations and principal school visits, including the requirement that at least one be conducted by an independent evaluator.

• Requirements for calculating overall ratings using the statutory matrix.

• Requirements for teacher and principal improvement plans for educators who receive an overall rating of Developing or Ineffective in the prior school year.

• Requirements for summative evaluation ratings to be a “significant factor” in all employment-related decisions.

The proposed rule conforms the regulations to the provisions of the 2019 legislation by making the following substantive changes to Subparts 30-2 and 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.

The existing Subpart 30-2, relating to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law § 3012-c, is repealed.

The existing Subpart 30-3 is renumbered to Subpart 30-2. The title of this new Subpart 30-2 and sections 30-2.1, 30-2.3, and 30-2.17 are amended to clarify that Subpart 30-2 only applies to APPRs conducted prior to the 2019-20 school year or those conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on or before April 12, 2019 which remains in effect on or after April 12, 2019 until a subsequent agreement is reached; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement.

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

Where practicable, existing requirements for teacher and principal evaluations are carried over in their entirety. Below is a description of the areas where substantive changes from existing requirements have been made to implement the provisions of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019.

Section 30-3.1 clarifies that the new evaluation system only applies to CBAs entered into after April 12, 2019. It further clarifies that nothing in the new Subpart shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any CBA in effect on and after April 12, 2019 during the term of such agreement and until entry into a successor CBA; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement. As required by the Education Law, it further clarifies that APPRs shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and teacher and principal development, consistent with the requirements of the law. It also clarifies the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason.

Section 30-3.4 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of classroom teachers under the amended law. The law requires teachers to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the teacher observation category.

Section 30-3.5 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of building principals under the amended law. The law requires the Commissioner to establish a principal evaluation system that is aligned to the teacher evaluation system set forth in Education Law § 3012-d. To implement the law, the proposed amendment requires building principals to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

Section 30-3.16 describes a process which permits a district or BOCES to apply for a variance from one or more of the provisions of this Subpart to meet specific needs and circumstances of the district or BOCES so long as such plan remains consistent with the requirements of Education Law § 3012-d.

Section 30-3.17 provides for the severability of each section of this Subpart.

4. COSTS:

a. Costs to State government: The amendments do not impose any costs on State government, including the State Education Department.

b. Costs to local government: The amendments do not impose any costs on local government.

c. Costs to private regulated parties: The amendments do not impose any costs on private regulated parties.

d. Costs to regulating agency for implementation and continued administration: The amendments do not impose any costs on the regulating agency for implementation and continued administration.

5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES:

The proposed amendment does not impose any additional program, service, duty or responsibility upon any local government.

6. PAPERWORK:

The proposed amendment does not impose any additional paperwork requirements.

7. DUPLICATION:

The proposed amendment does not duplicate existing State or Federal requirements.

8. ALTERNATIVES:

Because the State believes that Annual Professional Performance Review plans are required across the State, no alternatives were considered.

9. FEDERAL STANDARDS:

There are no applicable Federal standards.

10. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:

A Notice of Emergency Adoption and Revised Rule Making will be published in the State Register on February 26, 2020. The proposed amendment will become effective as an emergency rule on February 11, 2020. It is anticipated that the revised proposed amendment will be presented for permanent adoption at the May 2020 Regents meeting, after publication of the revised proposed amendment in the State Register and expiration of the 45-day public comment period required under the State Administrative Procedure Act for revised rulemaking. If adopted at the May 2020 meeting, the revised proposed rule will become effective on May 20, 2020. Because the emergency regulation will expire before the May 2020 Regents meeting, it is anticipated that an additional emergency action will be presented for adoption at the April Regents meeting.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to conform the Department’s regulations to statutory amendments to Education Law 3012-d pursuant to Part YYY of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019. The purpose of the regulations is to improve the quality of teaching and learning by ensuring that teachers and school leaders receive annual evaluations consistent with the State’s Teaching and Leadership Standards leading to opportunities for professional growth and to meet the learning needs of their students.

The 2019-2020 Enacted Budget makes several changes to Education Law § 3012-d, which governs annual teacher and principal evaluations. The key changes include:

• Required Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement to use the State Growth Model for teachers of grades 4-8, building principals covering those grade levels, and high school principals (all of grades 9-12).

[] All teachers would instead have a Student Learning Objective (SLO);

[] Building principals may have SLOs or as an alternative to SLOs, building principals may be evaluated based on an input model process using evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the Leadership Standards.

o Eliminates the requirement that State-created or administered assessments be used as the evidence for SLOs where they exist.

o The selection and use of the assessment(s) for an educator’s SLO is now subject to collective bargaining, rather than district determined.

• Optional Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement that optional student performance measures be based either on a second State-provided growth score or a growth score based on a supplemental assessment that uses a State-provided or approved statistical growth model.

[] Instead, the Department will define optional measures of student performance based on State-created, administered, or approved assessments that districts may then collectively bargain to use.

o Where a school district collectively bargains to use optional student performance measures, the statutory amendments also eliminate the existing requirement that an educator receive a rating of Ineffective on their overall evaluation if their Student Performance Category rating is Ineffective.

Although the Enacted Budget makes significant changes to the Student Performance Category of the evaluation system, it does not substantively change any other aspects of the current system, including:

• Requirements for teacher observations and principal school visits, including the requirement that at least one be conducted by an independent evaluator.

• Requirements for calculating overall ratings using the statutory matrix.

• Requirements for teacher and principal improvement plans for educators who receive an overall rating of Developing or Ineffective in the prior school year.

• Requirements for summative evaluation ratings to be a “significant factor” in all employment-related decisions.

The proposed rule conforms the regulations to the provisions of the 2019 legislation by making the following substantive changes to Subparts 30-2 and 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.

The existing Subpart 30-2, relating to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law § 3012-c, is repealed.

The existing Subpart 30-3 is renumbered to Subpart 30-2. The title of this new Subpart 30-2 and sections 30-2.1, 30-2.3, and 30-2.17 are amended to clarify that Subpart 30-2 only applies to APPRs conducted prior to the 2019-20 school year or those conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on or before April 12, 2019 which remains in effect on or after April 12, 2019 until a subsequent agreement is reached; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement.

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

Where practicable, existing requirements for teacher and principal evaluations are carried over in their entirety. Below is a description of the areas where substantive changes from existing requirements have been made to implement the provisions of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019.

Section 30-3.1 clarifies that the new evaluation system only applies to CBAs entered into after April 12, 2019. It further clarifies that nothing in the new Subpart shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any CBA in effect on and after April 12, 2019 during the term of such agreement and until entry into a successor CBA; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement. As required by the Education Law, it further clarifies that APPRs shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and teacher and principal development, consistent with the requirements of the law. It also clarifies the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason.

Section 30-3.4 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of classroom teachers under the amended law. The law requires teachers to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the teacher observation category.

Section 30-3.5 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of building principals under the amended law. The law requires the Commissioner to establish a principal evaluation system that is aligned to the teacher evaluation system set forth in Education Law § 3012-d. To implement the law, the proposed amendment requires building principals to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

Section 30-3.16 describes a process which permits a district or BOCES to apply for a variance from one or more of the provisions of this Subpart to meet specific needs and circumstances of the district or BOCES so long as such plan remains consistent with the requirements of Education Law § 3012-d.

Section 30-3.17 provides for the severability of each section of this Subpart.

The amendment does not impose any new recordkeeping or other compliance requirements and will not have an adverse economic impact on small businesses or local governments. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendment that it does not affect small businesses or local governments, no further steps were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis for small businesses and local governments is not required and one has not been prepared.

1. TYPES AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF RURAL AREAS:

This proposed amendments apply to all school districts and BOCES in New York State, including those located in the 44 rural counties with fewer than 200,000 inhabitants and the 71 towns and urban counties with a population density of 150 square miles or less.

2. REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:

The proposed amendments are necessary to conform the Department’s regulations to statutory amendments to Education Law 3012-d pursuant to Part YYY of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019. The purpose of the regulations is to improve the quality of teaching and learning by ensuring that teachers and school leaders receive annual evaluations consistent with the State’s Teaching and Leadership Standards leading to opportunities for professional growth and to meet the learning needs of their students.

The 2019-2020 Enacted Budget makes several changes to Education Law § 3012-d, which governs annual teacher and principal evaluations. The key changes include:

• Required Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement to use the State Growth Model for teachers of grades 4-8, building principals covering those grade levels, and high school principals (all of grades 9-12).

[] All teachers would instead have a Student Learning Objective (SLO);

[] Building principals may have SLOs or as an alternative to SLOs, building principals may be evaluated based on an input model process using evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the Leadership Standards.

o Eliminates the requirement that State-created or administered assessments be used as the evidence for SLOs where they exist.

o The selection and use of the assessment(s) for an educator’s SLO is now subject to collective bargaining, rather than district determined.

• Optional Student Performance Measures

o Eliminates the requirement that optional student performance measures be based either on a second State-provided growth score or a growth score based on a supplemental assessment that uses a State-provided or approved statistical growth model.

[] Instead, the Department will define optional measures of student performance based on State-created, administered, or approved assessments that districts may then collectively bargain to use.

o Where a school district collectively bargains to use optional student performance measures, the statutory amendments also eliminate the existing requirement that an educator receive a rating of Ineffective on their overall evaluation if their Student Performance Category rating is Ineffective.

Although the Enacted Budget makes significant changes to the Student Performance Category of the evaluation system, it does not substantively change any other aspects of the current system, including:

• Requirements for teacher observations and principal school visits, including the requirement that at least one be conducted by an independent evaluator.

• Requirements for calculating overall ratings using the statutory matrix.

• Requirements for teacher and principal improvement plans for educators who receive an overall rating of Developing or Ineffective in the prior school year.

• Requirements for summative evaluation ratings to be a “significant factor” in all employment-related decisions.

The proposed rule conforms the regulations to the provisions of the 2019 legislation by making the following substantive changes to Subparts 30-2 and 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.

The existing Subpart 30-2, relating to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law § 3012-c, is repealed.

The existing Subpart 30-3 is renumbered to Subpart 30-2. The title of this new Subpart 30-2 and sections 30-2.1, 30-2.3, and 30-2.17 are amended to clarify that Subpart 30-2 only applies to APPRs conducted prior to the 2019-20 school year or those conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into on or before April 12, 2019 which remains in effect on or after April 12, 2019 until a subsequent agreement is reached; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement.

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

Where practicable, existing requirements for teacher and principal evaluations are carried over in their entirety. Below is a description of the areas where substantive changes from existing requirements have been made to implement the provisions of Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2019.

Section 30-3.1 clarifies that the new evaluation system only applies to CBAs entered into after April 12, 2019. It further clarifies that nothing in the new Subpart shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any CBA in effect on and after April 12, 2019 during the term of such agreement and until entry into a successor CBA; provided further, however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to Subpart 30-2 instead of the grades three through eight English language arts and mathematics state assessments and/or any state growth model until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement. As required by the Education Law, it further clarifies that APPRs shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and teacher and principal development, consistent with the requirements of the law. It also clarifies the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for any statutorily and constitutionally permissible reason.

Section 30-3.4 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of classroom teachers under the amended law. The law requires teachers to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the teacher observation category.

Section 30-3.5 describes the standards and criteria for conducting APPRs of building principals under the amended law. The law requires the Commissioner to establish a principal evaluation system that is aligned to the teacher evaluation system set forth in Education Law § 3012-d. To implement the law, the proposed amendment requires building principals to be evaluated based on two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

Section 30-3.16 describes a process which permits a district or BOCES to apply for a variance from one or more of the provisions of this Subpart to meet specific needs and circumstances of the district or BOCES so long as such plan remains consistent with the requirements of Education Law § 3012-d.

Section 30-3.17 provides for the severability of each section of this Subpart.

3. COSTS:

The proposed amendment does not impose any additional costs on school districts and BOCES.

4. MINIMIZING ADVERSE IMPACT:

The Department is required by Education Law 3012-d to develop uniform standards for Annual Professional Performance Review plans across the State. Therefore, no alternatives were considered for those located in rural areas of the State.

5. RURAL AREA PARTICIPATION:

Copies of the proposed amendments have been provided to the School Administrator Association of New York State and New York State United Teachers whose membership include educators and administrators who live or work in rural areas.

Since the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Emergency Adoption was published in the State Register on October 23, 2019, substantial revisions were made to the proposed regulation as set forth in the Revised Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

These substantial revisions do not require any changes to the previously published Statement in Lieu of Job Impact Statement.

Following publication of the Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making on October 23, 2019, the Department received the following comments on the proposed amendment:

1. COMMENT: A commenter opined that the evaluation of building level administrators should look very different from teacher evaluations since their roles, tasks and focuses are different. The commenter stated that Education Law § 3012-d supports a more flexible process than has been reflected in the proposed regulation citing section 3012-d(14) which states that “[t]he commissioner shall adopt regulations to align the principal evaluation system as set forth in section three thousand twelve-c of this article with the new teacher evaluation system set forth herein” (emphasis added). Specifically, the commenter recommends that:

• Evaluations of building principals be comprised of a student performance and a professional evaluation component, but in the broadest terms possible. Section 30-3.5(b)(1)(i) of the proposed regulation states that a principal must have an SLO which consists of specific learning content, interval of instruction time, evidence of meeting academic instructional goals, and baseline and targets for assessments. The commenter states that the proposed wording is more pertinent to teachers and not appropriate for a principal evaluation since principals do not provide instruction as their primary responsibility. The commenter states that the measures of student performance for building level principals should be flexible and allow for multiple types and measures of student performance and that there should be no SLO requirement for principals.

• Section 30-3.5(c) of the proposed regulation that requires a principal school visit be revised to allow a process more aligned to how superintendents can more effectively evaluate building principals. The commenter states that the professional evaluation component should be collectively bargained to meet local needs and that such professional evaluations could include observations of principals in a wide range of settings and methods. They further note that there should be no Independent Evaluator, or related scoring, required for principals, and there should be one or more supervisor visits as negotiated. The commenter writes that the professional evaluation component should allow for a district of building goal setting process that demonstrates how principals meet building level priorities consistent with their scope of responsibility. They note that although Education Law § 3012-d(6) prohibits the use of “professional goal setting as evidence of effectiveness”, the definition of professional goal setting has not been set forth, and should not be confused with a goal-setting process that is related to district or building initiatives.

RESPONSE: The Department has amended the proposed regulations to address the commenter’s concerns except for the request to eliminate the requirement for an independent evaluator as the Department’s regulations already include a process for a district to request a waiver from this requirement on an annual basis if compliance with the statutory requirement would represent a hardship for the district.

2. A commenter wrote that they object to the process in the proposed regulations relating to the newly proposed variances. Specifically, the commenter discusses section 30-3.16(c)(7) of the proposed regulation which requires districts to submit an approval plan that complies with all of the proposed regulations and then submit another plan that responds to the request for a variance from the regulations. They state that this requires the district to develop two plans (and as many as four if variances are sought for both teacher and principals) which is an extremely burdensome requirement. They also note that it would result in two (or four) sets of collective bargaining negotiations, which would be a “built-in disincentive” to the pursuit of variances.

RESPONSE: The Department has revised the proposed amendment to address the commenter’s concerns.

3. COMMENT: A commenter recommends that the approval process for teacher and principal evaluations be separate since the teacher and principal evaluations are each collectively bargained separately and not necessarily conducted simultaneously.

RESPONSE: The Department has considered this comment, however, there are both logistic and practical reasons for requiring a single evaluation plan. First, in order to streamline the approval process by the Department and the administrative burden on districts, both the teacher and principal evaluations should be submitted together. Second, a number of decisions that are made in the course of collective bargaining with each bargaining unit could impact the obligations of the corresponding bargaining unit and/or have adverse impacts on students if not considered together. For example, the decision made regarding the frequency and duration of observations for each teacher has a direct impact on the training and workload of the principals in a school district. Additionally, students could be required to sit for multiple assessments in the same grade and subject if teachers and principals bargained different assessments to be included in their evaluations. Therefore, no change is necessary.