• A shift in terminology from professional development to professional learning, which is consistent with the changes to the standards adopted by the PSPB. This shift is more than just a change in language. Professional organizations and educational researchers, including Learning Forward, the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), have adopted this change in language, which emphasizes the importance of educators taking an active role in their continuous development. Rather than being passive recipients of information, educators should be active partners in determining the content of their learning, how their learning occurs, and how they evaluate its effectiveness.

• Requires the professional learning plan to describe how professional learning related to educator practice and curriculum development are culturally responsive and reflect the needs of the community that the school district or BOCES serves.

• Clarifying the Department’s expectations regarding the use of data – both qualitative and quantitative – in determining appropriate professional learning and measuring its impact on educators and student learning, consistent with research on effective professional learning.

• Clarifying that professional learning plans must describe the professional learning opportunities that are available to teachers, teaching assistants, and school leaders, whereas the existing regulations do not consistently include references to educators other than teachers.

• Technical edits to remove references to dates, professional learning requirements for teachers, pupil personnel service providers and educational leaders, and certain structures in the New York City Department of Education that are no longer relevant.

Consistent with the shift in terminology from professional development to professional learning related to school district and BOCES professional learning plans, the amendments make conforming edits to other provisions of the Commissioner’s Regulations. Specifically, Sections 52.21, 57-2, 75.8, 80-1, 80-2, 80-3, 80-5, 80-6, 90.18, 100.2, 100.13, 100.15, 100.17, 100.19, 151-1, 154-2, and 200.2 of the Commissioner’s Regulations and 30-1, 30-2, and 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents are amended to change references to professional development to professional learning. Additionally, Section 80-3.6 of the Commissioner’s Regulations, which prescribed professional development requirements for teachers through the 2016-17 school year, is repealed since that school year has ended and the section is no longer applicable. Conforming edits were also made to other sections of Part 80 consistent with the repeal of Section 80-3.6.

Since publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on October 3, 2018, the following substantial revisions were made to the proposed rule:

Section 100.2(dd)(3)(i)(a)(8) was amended to remove the following sentence: The level of involvement of individuals selected to be part of the professional learning team shall be determined by the school district or BOCES.

Section 100.2(dd)(3)(i)(b) was amended to replace the words “well represented” with a “majority” of teachers on the professional learning team.

Sections 80-6.3(b)(4) and (5) are amended to increase the number of hours of CTLE that can claimed for serving as a mentor teacher from 25 to 30 hours for mentoring a first year teacher and from 15 to 25 hours for mentoring a student teacher. These sections were also amended to the remove the restriction from claiming CTLE hours for mentoring a student teacher in instances where the mentor teacher receives remuneration from the educator preparation program.

The above revisions to the proposed rule do not require any revisions to the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement.

Since publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on October 3, 2018, the proposed rule was revised as set forth in the Statement Concerning the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The above revisions to the proposed rule do not require any revisions to the previously published Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Since publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on October 3, 2018, the proposed rule was revised as set forth in the Statement Concerning the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The above revisions to the proposed rule do not require any revisions to the previously published Rural Area Flexibility Analysis.

Since publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the State Register on October 3, 2018, the proposed rule was revised as set forth in the Statement Concerning the Regulatory Impact Statement submitted herewith.

The revised proposed rule will not have a substantial impact on jobs and employment opportunities. Because it is evident from the nature of the revised proposed rule that it will not affect job and employment opportunities, no affirmative steps were needed to ascertain that fact and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement is not required and one has not been prepared.

Following publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the State Register on October 3, 2018 through December 2, 2018, the Department received the following comments on the proposed amendment:

1. COMMENT: The proposed changes emphasize the importance of providing educational leaders with professional learning opportunities and are consistent with nationally recognized research calling for educators’ active involvement in their continuous development. The changes also codify the recommendations of the Professional Learning Team.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: No changes necessary. The Department agrees with the commenter. The intention of the proposed amendments is, in part, to emphasize the importance of providing professional learning to educational leaders and to ensure that the Department’s requirements are in line with research and best practice.

2. COMMENT: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the limitations in the proposed amendments on the number of CTLE hours that can be claimed for serving as a mentor to a student teacher or a first-year teacher, noting that providing high quality mentoring opportunities is an important, time intensive activity that varies from one school district to another. Thus, a State level cap should not be applied.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: The Department agrees that mentoring of student teachers and new teachers are important activities. When done as part of a systems approach to support, mentoring and induction have been shown to improve retention and early career effectiveness of educators. In response to the concerns raised by commenters, the revised proposed amendments increase the number of CTLE hours that teachers can claim for serving as a mentor. While the Department recognizes that the number of CTLE hours that can be claimed for such activities is less than the number of hours many educators invest in mentoring their colleagues, Education Law requires that the Department ensure that the CTLE activities undertaken by teachers be sufficient to improve the teacher's pedagogical skills, targeted at improving student performance. Therefore, the cap within the proposed amendments is intended to ensure that there are sufficient minimum CTLE hours remaining for educators serving as mentors to participate in additional activities that will develop their practice in service of improving outcomes for students. The Department did not intend for this provision to be interpreted as an acceptable number of hours to devote to mentoring.

3. COMMENT: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed restriction on claiming CTLE hours for serving as a mentor to a student teacher in instances where remuneration is provided by the teacher preparation program, noting that such remuneration is typically nominal.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comments and has removed this provision from the revised proposed amendments.

4. COMMENT: Two commenters expressed concern regarding the requirements for the composition of professional learning teams in the City School District of the City of New York. Specifically, the commenters did not agree with the requirement that teachers be well represented on such teams and instead requested that such teams include a majority of teachers.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: The Department agrees with the comments. The revised regulations replace the requirements that teachers on professional learning teams in the City School District of New York City be “well represented” and instead requires that the teams be composed of a majority of teachers.

5. COMMENT: Two commenters requested that the selection of members to serve on professional learning teams in the City School District of the City of New York be done through collective bargaining.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments did not change the process for selecting the members serving on the professional learning teams in the City of New York.

6. COMMENT: The ceding of authority to school districts or BOCES to control the level of involvement of individuals selected to be part of the professional learning team undermines the ability of all members to contribute to the work of the team as equals.

DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: The Department has revised the regulation to remove the provision requiring that school districts and BOCES determine the level of involvement of professional learning team members.