The impact of the teacher evaluation proposal agreed upon by NYSUT and the State Education Department:
• Current contract language remains in place until a contract ends.
• Local collective bargaining is embedded throughout.
• Due process is not diminished and, in some places, enhanced.
• Where it doesn't exist, an evaluation appeal process must be collectively bargained.
• Standardized tests cannot be the sole or predominant factor in a teacher's evaluation.
• In the proposed 100% system, standardized tests are assigned 20% with an additional 20% for multiple measures negotiated locally for a total of 40% for the individual assessment of student performance for every teacher (25% of 40% for standardized tests if a value-added model is created) with the remaining 60% locally negotiated around current APPR criteria.
• Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) process must be collectively bargained.
• Targeted professional development and teacher improvement plans (ready for implementation and supported) are required within 10 days of first reporting to school after a "developing" or "ineffective" rating.
• An advisory committee that will include NYSUT and practitioners will have 18 months to make recommendations around defining growth, multiple measures, the role of environmental factors, etc.
• After two ineffective ratings a district could (not must) bring a single 3020a charge of "a pattern of ineffective teaching" through an expedited 60-day hearing process before a single hearing officer. Note: The current 3020a law permits incompetency charges after one ineffective rating with a 60-day hearing process.
• To access the "expedited" process, the district is limited to presenting evidence related to the ineffective evaluations and must prove a TIP was developed, issued timely and substantially implemented.
• The teacher's case has no limitation on defense.
• Subjectivity and test scores have been reined in with a more objective and controlled proposal and due process is protected.