Monroe 1 BOCES Assistant Superintendents of Instruction (ASI) What’s Ahead for 2016? (APPR, Common Core, ESSA, SED, Board of Regents’ Priorities, etc.)

Monroe 1 BOCES Assistant Superintendents of

Instruction (ASI)What’s Ahead for 2016?

(APPR, Common Core, ESSA, SED, Board of Regents’ Priorities, etc.)

Howard J. Goldsmith, Esq.(518) 701-2736

[email protected]

Country Club of RochesterJanuary 22, 2016

mailto:[email protected]

Howard J. Goldsmith, Esq.(518) 701-2736© Harris Beach PLLC 2016

Agenda

Update on where we have been NCLB, RTTT and ESSA Common Core Task Force Final Report Regulatory Amendments Future Focus of the Board of Regents Recommendations of Suggested Strategies Open Discussion

2


Update on where we were

The sequence of events illustrates poor planning, rushed implementation, flawed outreach, and the development of public policy driven by funding opportunities. March 2010: NYS is not named as a winner in the first round of RTTT awards. Teacher and principal evaluation and the cap on the number of charter schools are the barriers to approval. May 11, 2010: Press conference at SED with Commissioner Steiner, NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi, and UFT President Michael Mulgrew announcing agreement on an APPR process that will incorporate standardized test scores.May 28, 2010: The Legislature passes laws in support of NYS’s RTTT application. The new APPR practices are Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 and amend Section 3012-c of the Education Law.June 1, 2010: New York submits its 2nd Round RTTT application by the deadline and includes revised evaluation and charter school legislation.August 24, 2010: NYS selected as a winner in Round 2 of the RTTT competition. SED and the Regents immediately form a diverse Task Force to draft recommended regulations.April 4, 2011: SED releases 113 page report from the 67 member Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness.

3


Update on where we were (cont.)

April 15, 2011: Regents release draft regulations for new APPR requirements, Subpart 30-2. Following a 30 day public comment period, the Regents are scheduled to vote on the draft Regulations on Monday, May 16, 2011.

May 13, 2011: Governor Cuomo releases a letter to Chancellor Tisch requesting four changes to the new draft regulations. These changes included: 1) Delete section prohibiting the state test from being used as locally selected measure; 2) Impose additional weight (40 of 60 points) on classroom observation; 3) Adjust the scoring ranges/bands to require a positive overall score only when the teacher scores effective on the 40% objective portion; and, 4) Accelerate the timetable for implementing the evaluation system. Chancellor Tisch immediately announces that the regulations will be changed to accept the Governor’s recommendations.

May 16, 2011: The Board of Regents votes 14 to 3 to adopt an amended version of the April APPR regulations, new subpart 30-2 of the Commissioner’s Regulations to implement Education Law §3012-C.

June 28, 2011: NYSUT files an Article 78 action against the Board of Regents challenging just six specific areas of the regulations and not the entire new APPR process.

4



August 24, 2011: Judge Michael Lynch, Supreme Court County of Albany, issues a decision in which NYSUT prevails on almost all areas challenged. SED announces that it plans to appeal Judge Lynch’s decision.

September 13, 2011: Regents approve emergency regulations including the provisions found invalid to preserve SED’s right to appeal. SED issues revised guidance on APPR implementation. SED states that while the appeal is pending it will not enforce the regulatory provisions that were overturned.

October 27, 2011: SED Counsel advises that a decision is likely in April or May 2012.

January 10, 2012: USDE Secretary of Education Arne Duncan releases a report on New York’s progress in fulfilling its requirements for RTTT education reform and its $696 million in federal funding. He says New York has “hit a roadblock” in regard to a planned database to track student records and in adopting an APPR system using student achievement. “New York has a chance to be a national leader, or a laggard, and we are only interested in supporting real courage and bold leadership.”

5



January 17, 2012: Governor Cuomo announces in his State of the State address and in his budget message that New York’s 2010 legislation for APPR is “a total failure.” He gives NYSUT and SED a deadline of one month, February 17, 2012, to come to a deal on APPR and settle the lawsuit or he will impose an APPR plan. He also states that he will require districts to have a plan in place by January 17, 2013 or they will lose their education funding increase for FY 2012-2013.

January 20, 2012: Commissioner King and NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi announce that negotiations have been ongoing since October and are now making significant progress towards a settlement.

6



February 16, 2012: Governor Cuomo holds a news conference with Commissioner King, NYSUT President Iannuzzi and UFT President Mulgrew to announce that a settlement on APPR has been reached. The compromise to the lawsuit is to be included in the Governor’s Article VII Budget Bill. The 5 page 2010 law is now 27 pages in the Governor’s budget bill and includes many former regulatory provisions.

March 14, 2012: The budget bill is drafted as a legislative bill (S.6732/A.9554) and passes in the middle of the night as part of an agreement on multiple initiatives including redistricting, public pensions, a DNA database, etc. The bill is delivered to Governor Cuomo the next day. All districts must have approved APPR plan by January 17, 2013 in order to receive increase in state aid.

March 20, 2012: The Board of Regents adopts emergency regulations (Subpart 30-2) effective April 4, 2012.

7



Article VII Budget Bill, 2012-2013: Revamps the tenured teacher discipline process of § 3020-a effective April 1, 2012. Budget bill also requires school districts to have APPR plans in place by January 17, 2013 to receive increased state aid.

June 18, 2012: Chapter 102 of the Laws of 2012 amends and revises Chapter 482 of the Laws of 2010, DASA1 and DASA2.

June 25, 2012: Chapter 68 of the Laws of 2012 amends § 3012-c regarding disclosure of APPR scores and ratings.

April 1, 2013: Education Law § 3012-c amended to allow for APPR plans to be in place from year to year and calls for state-imposed plan if one is not in place by May 29, 2013.

8



April 1, 2014: The Common Core Reform Act, Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, passes as part of the 2014-2015 State budget. It includes the following (Subparts A-L) revisions:

A. Prohibits standardized “bubble” tests to students in PK-2nd grade.

B. Prohibits grades 3-8 test scores from being placed on transcripts until December 31, 2018.

C. Tests cannot be used as sole measure to determine student promotion or placement.

D. SWD to be tested on instructional level and ELL to be tested on their respective English language development.

9



E. Sets time devoted to state tests at 1% of the annual instructional time and 2% for test preparation.

F. Requires the Commissioner of Education to issue a “Testing Transparency Report” by July 1, 2014 for each District.

G. Requires the Commissioner to expedite the review of APPR plans that eliminate student assessments. The Commissioner is also directed to reduce the amount of time spent on field testing.

10



H. SED is to provide “significantly” more sample questions for grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics assessments. The Commissioner is also to ensure teachers promptly receive information on test results to encourage instructional feedback and improvement.

I. Outreach by the Commissioner with non-profit organizations, libraries and other partners to promote better understanding of the Common Core and the Reform Agenda to parents and families.

11



J. Development of Common Core training programs for teachers and principals. Possible collaboration with SUNY, CUNY and independent colleges to provide enhanced professional development. Highlight regional examples of best practices.

K. Basically prohibits the Regents from contracting with a private third-party vendor to establish statewide student data trials.

L. Requires the Commissioner to appoint a Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) for the implementation of sound information practices for privacy and security of student, teacher and principal data.

12



June 18, 2014: Requires districts to generate a second or supplemental CES for teachers who are rated I or D under the initial scoring structure for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. The Governor promotes the bill but vetoes it in December 2014.

September 2014: Regents adopts multiple pathways towards student graduation. Picks up from initiatives focused on postsecondary and career pathway options started in 2009 and earlier (January 2016 item further expands pathway options).

13



April 1, 2015: Education Transformation Act of 2015 appears to go against the national trend by placing a larger focus on testing. It includes the following (Subparts A-H) revisions:

A. New York State masters-in education teacher incentive scholarship program.

B. Raising the admission requirements for graduate level teacher and educational leader programs.

C. Regular registration of certificate holders and completion of continuing teacher and leader education.

D. New probationary periods for teachers and principals.E. Annual teacher and principal evaluations.F. Testing reduction report.G. Streamlined removal procedures for teachers rated ineffective.H. Takeover and restructuring failing schools.

14


The New APPR – Education Law § 3012-d and Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations

Two components – student performance and classroom evaluation Law appears very prescriptive as local collective bargaining is

limited to adding a second student growth score (based on state-approved supplemental assessment) and permitting input from a “peer teacher” as part of the classroom observation component in addition to observations by administrators and an independent trained evaluator.

The provisions of §3012-d establish a direct nexus between eligibility for receipt of the additional State Aid for the 2015-16 school year and the successful negotiation (and SED approval) of a new APPR Plan. The deadline for the Commissioner’s approval of the 2015-16 APPR Plan is November 15, 2015.

15


The New APPR – Education Law § 3012-d and Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations (cont.)

BOR holds Learning Summit in Albany on May 7, 2015. New Regents members and some long-term members push

back on loss of policy direction

“As a board we have to exercise some leadership around what is the direction of education policy in the state, rather than have that direction dictated to us. . . .”

- Regent Member Lester W. Young, Jr.

“Beyond the law, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to do, as a board, what is right for children and we should do what is right for teachers.”

- Regent Member Betty A. Rosa

16


The New APPR – Education Law § 3012-d and Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations (cont.)

June 2015: Between the opt-out movement, the Governor’s low polling numbers in education, division in leadership from the Board of Regents, and national trends minimizing testing in APPR contrary to New York’s 2015 Education Transformation Act, the Regents adopt New Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations to implement Education Law 3012-d. The Board and SED find a few strategies to minimize the effects of § 3012-d.

17


Subpart 30-3 of the Commissioner’s Regulations Hardship waivers provided for despite absence in statute. State aid not

in jeopardy unless a new plan is not approved by September 1, 2016.

Student performance is allowed to be split between a local state approved test and a state growth score. Instead of a 50/50 split, it is possible for an APPR plan to have a 25/25/50 split for multiple factors of measurement.

Waiver provided for independent evaluators in rural areas.

Observation conducted by the principal or other trained administrator shall be weighted at a minimum of 80%.

Teachers allowed to challenge state-provided growth scores.

18


Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Provides justification necessary for the Common Core Task Force to release its Final Report.

Responds to the Opt-Out Movement.

Allows Governor to hint at his shift in policy from just one year ago.

Allows Tisch and Bottor to exit gracefully.

Allows Commissioner Elia to define her own agenda confirming her declaration to shorten the length of tests. New test vendor announced.

19


Elements of ESSA

Moves away from negativity of NCLB and RTTT. Provides states and districts with more flexibility over testing

and accountability. Encourages the possible use of portfolio-type assessments. Allows states to set targets for total time spent on testing

(already done in NYS). Eliminates the student Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

requirement. Prevents the federal government from requiring states to

evaluate teachers using student scores from state tests.

20


Elements of ESSA (cont.)

Still use 3-8 tests to rate schools and for use by states for accountability and student information.

States must take action to improve schools in the bottom five percent of all schools in the state and in high schools that graduate less than two-thirds of students.

No punishment/sanctions if goals not met. Focus remains on addressing the need to close the achievement gap. Maintains reporting requirement for the achievement scores of students

by race, economic status, disability and English language learners (ELL).

Funds to enhance preschool offerings to low-income students.

21


New York Common Core Task Force Final Report 21 specific recommendations in four major categories.

Establish New High Quality New York Standards Develop Better Curriculum Guidance and Resources Significantly Reduce Testing Time and Preparation and Ensure Tests Fit Curriculum

and Standards Ensure a Successful Transition to a New System

The report admits frankly that: “While the goals may have been noble, the implementation of the Common Core Standards and the rollout of associated curricula and tests in New York were rushed and improperly implemented. The result has been disruption and unneeded anxiety in our schools and for students, parents, and educators.”

A significant change from similar advisory panels and multiple previous task force groups. No more repairs or adjustments, but a complete overhaul.

Immediately endorsed even though the report is not statute or regulation.

22


New York Common Core Task Force Final Report (cont.)

The most important recommendation is the final recommendation. While these recommendations will have both short- and long-term impact

on students, teachers and administrators, the final recommendation of the task force will certainly have a positive, immediate and welcome influence over local education communities throughout the state.

Recommendation 21 sets forth: “Until the new system is fully phased in, the results from assessments aligned to the current Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students.”

This recommendation (along with the Governor’s support) allows the BOR to promulgate implementing regulations without statutory provisions.

23


Sections 30-2.14 and 30-3.17 of the Commissioner’s Regulations Requires districts to create APPR “transition scores.” These scores and ratings will not be linked to state test

performance. Transitional scores (TS) will be used to make employment

decisions. Regular APPR scores and ratings are still generated and

reported, but have no consequence. No consequences for teachers and principals related to the 3-

8 ELA and mathematics state assessments and no growth score on Regents exams until the start of the 2019-2020 school year.

24


Sections 30-2.14 and 30-3.17 of the Commissioner’s Regulations (cont.)

Upon parent request, both original APPR CES and TS and ratings must be provided with an explanation.

TS will be determined based upon the remaining subcomponents of the APPR that are not based on the grade 3-8 ELA or mathematics state assessments and/or a state-provided growth score on Regents examinations.

Regular APPR scores and ratings are advisory only during this transition period (i.e., 2019-2020).

Do these regulations violate statutory requirements? How can the BOR promulgate regulations without corresponding

enabling statutes?

25


What’s Ahead for 2016

Everything old is new again! BOR focus on review of standards and promotes buy-in and

team building. Curriculum guidance and new state tests with possible CBT or CAT models.

New Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor set a much lower profile and tone in education policy development.

Focus is back on the highest need schools and districts. SED cannot be all things to all districts. Re-focus on priorities

serving the highest need schools and closing the achievement gap.

New SED Motto - If it is not broke, don’t fix it.

26


What’s Ahead for 2016 (cont.)

Create enhanced flexibility for districts. More opportunities to experiment and move beyond existing mandates.

Develop and expand more graduation pathways for all students.

Focus on the notion of “winning compliance” to support initiatives.

Over time, 3012-c and 3012-d will be amended prior to 2019-2020.

Recommended next steps and strategies for districts and BOCES.

27


Thank You!

Howard J. Goldsmith, Esq.677 Broadway, Suite 1101Albany, New York 12207

(518) [email protected]

www.harrisbeach.comwww.nymuniblog.com

28

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.harrisbeach.com/

http://www.nymuniblog.com/

Monroe 1 BOCES Assistant Superintendents of Instruction (ASI) What’s Ahead for 2016? (APPR, Common Core, ESSA, SED, Board of Regents’ Priorities, etc.)

Documents