5. The Impact of the New Teacher Evaluation System on § 3020-a

At first glance, thus, the decisions might seem inconsequential because there are so few of them. Yet while the number of decisions represents only a tiny fraction of New York City’s teachers, they reveal the critical role of § 3020-a in defining in-practice minimum requirements for teachers’ performance. As shown in this report, § 3020-a decisions contain often-shocking examples of teachers being returned to the classroom despite abysmal performance and egregious misconduct, vividly illustrating what’s at stake for children, schools, and the profession of teaching. At the same time, the decisions reveal the established “floor” of competence of the teacher workforce: that is, the minimal level of performance necessary to remain employed as a classroom teacher in New York.

And, perhaps most importantly, the content of these decisions raises a question crucial to the governance of our public schools: Are the standards used in § 3020-a in the best interests of children and the public?

5. THE IMPACT OF THE NEW TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM ON §3020-A

In 2010, the New York State Legislature passed Education Law § 3012-c, establishing a new teacher evaluation system in the state’s public schools, and regulations implementing the law were added to New York Codes, Rules & Regulations in May 2011. 8 The new system— known as the Annual Professional Performance Review, or APPR—has been widely covered in the press, characterized as “a rigorous teacher evaluation system” and a “sweeping overhaul of the way teachers are evaluated in New York…that set[s] in place consequences for teachers rated ineffective for two years in a row.” 9 10 But these reports reflect a prevalent misunderstanding of the APPR. The new law sets no consequences for ineffective teachers, and § 3020-a proceedings remain the only legal means for holding a tenured teacher accountable for inadequate performance.

dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of administrators’ time. Because of this, only the very worst teachers are charged under § 3020-a, when the school district believes that dismissal is clearly warranted. Yet, as shown in the cases discussed in this report, the Hearing Officer often decides to return these teachers to the classroom. Thus, although it is possible that the reason more cases aren’t filed is because virtually 100% of New York City’s teachers are performing adequately, it seems more likely that schools avoid filing charges against teachers because § 3020-a is such a highly inefficient and ineffective process. The extreme nature of the cases described below provides additional support for the latter explanation. 8 8 NYCRR § 30-2 9 The New York Times, May 11, 2010 10 Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2010

As state law still stipulates, no tenured teacher “shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except…in accordance with the procedures specified in section three thousand twenty-a of this article.” The United Federation of Teachers website further explains that, “State education law (section §3020-a) provides for the disciplining or termination of a tenured teacher for specific charges, such as incompetence, insubordination, corporal punishment, sexual misconduct, etc.,” assuring teachers that the new evaluation system “safeguards the due process rights [of teachers]” and does not make it easier for schools to “fire teachers deemed ineffective.”

11

In fact, the new evaluation law does nothing more than link a teacher’s annual APPR evaluation ratings with a potential charge of incompetence. As illustrated in the below diagram, the new law specifies simply that a school district may bring a § 3020-a charge of incompetence against a teacher who has received the lowest of the four possible ratings (an “Ineffective”) for two consecutive years, as evidence of “a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance.” The law further requires that the school district provide evidence of significant efforts to rehabilitate the teacher prior to bringing those charges

After a charge of incompetence has been brought on these grounds, the Hearing Officer holds a series of § 3020-a hearings on the case. Through these hearings, he first judges whether or not the teacher has a pattern of ineffective teaching as alleged by the school district and

Two consecutive annual “ineffective” ratings

“A pattern of ineffective teaching” 1) “ ery significant” evidence of incompetence 2) rounds for bringing a § 3020-a charge of incompetence, based on an allegation of “a pattern of ineffective teaching” along with evidence of significant school efforts to rehabilitate the teacher

Relationship between the APPR and § 3020-a Disciplinary Procedures

closely examines the school’s efforts to rehabilitate the teacher during the period of ineffective performance. Subsequently, as a separate matter, he decides whether the teacher is “guilty of incompetence.” If he finds the teacher guilty, he then, as a third step, decides the consequence to be allocated. A teacher who is found guilty of incompetence may or may not be dismissed, as the

11 http://www.uft.org/q-issues/qa-teacher-evaluation-and-improvement-plan