1. Education Law §3020-a Update, TEACH and Related Teacher Discipline Issues Deborah Glasbrener Marriott MASLA High Peaks Resort Lake Placid July 22, 2014

2.  Teacher Tenure Changes  TEACH  Teacher Discipline  Part 83 Top 10  Selected Education Law and SAPA Provisions Agenda

3.  Tenured educators have the right to retain their positions and may only be terminated if there is “just cause” pursuant to Education Law §3020. The rules specifying the process for terminating a tenured educator are set forth in Education Law §3020-a. This process was significantly modified effective April 1, 2012, by Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2012.* * Education Law §3020(3) permits the NYCDOE to modify the provisions of Education Law §3020-a through the collective bargaining process. As a result many of the timeframes set forth in the statute do not apply to NYCDOE. Teacher Tenure Hearings

4. Overview of 3020-a Process  Charges  Voted on by school board at a regular board meeting  Served upon the employee  Filed with SED  Hearing Request/Waiver  Employee has 10 days to request hearing  If no hearing requested, deemed a waiver  School board must meet within 15 days to determine the case  Hearing Officer Selection  AAA creates list  Parties must select within 15 days  Hearings  Pre-hearing conference within 10-15 days  Must be concluded within 60 days of pre-hearing conference  Decision  Issued in 30 days  Implemented by school board within 15 days  Appeal  Within 10 days CPLR Art. 75 Review No Change in 2012

5. Serve Charges 1 st Day 1 st Day Serve Charges Request Hearing 10 Days 10 Days Request Hearing Select Arbitrator 45 Days 109 Days Select Arbitrator Pre-Hearing Conference 65 Days 279 Days Pre-Hearing Conference Final Hearing Date 125 Days 529 Days Final Hearing Date Issue Decision 155 Days 653 Days Issue Decision StatuteReality Reality = Current Statewide Average (2011) Days Elapsed §3020-aTimelines a/k/a Fuzzy Math

6.  April 1, 2012  Two goals  Reduce Length of Time for Cases  Reduce Costs 3020-a Reform Legislation

7. Reduce Time Significant Changes  Hearing Officer Selection: 15 th day (from list creation)  Evidence: 125 th day (from Board vote)  Decision: 30 days (from last hearing date)

8.  Parties must choose the hearing officer within 15 days from the date the list is created - Education Law §3020-a(3)(b)(ii).  TEACH facilitates this by making the list instantly available.  Each party must make the same selection within 15 days.  If selections do not match by the 15 th day, the Commissioner chooses - Ed.Law §3020-a(3)(b)(iii).  Commissioner choice is driven by cost.  First Criteria: least expensive Hearing Officer  Second Criteria: if two Hearing Officers share the same rate, then the choice is the one that is geographically closest 15 Day Rule Hearing Officer Selection

9.  A significant change is the prohibition on the introduction of evidence more than 125 days after the filing of charges unless there are extraordinary circumstances beyond control of the parties set forth in Education Law §3020-a(3)(c)(vii).  Still no litigation on this issue yet  What is “evidence?” 125 Day Rule Prohibition on Evidence

10.  The Hearing Officer must issue a decision within 30 days of the last day of the hearing  Failure to comply with the timelines may be grounds for removal from the list of hearing officers - Ed. Law §3020-a(3)(c)(i)(B)  The 30 day time period is not extended for the submission of post hearing briefs  Reminder: post hearing briefs are not evidence and are therefore unaffected by 125 day rule 30 Day Rule Issuance of Decision

11.  Establish maximum rates of compensation for arbitrators (Ed.Law §3020-a(3)(b)(i)(B))  Commissioner set maximum rates in a field memo  Issued billing guidelines for travel and other expenses  Utilize new recording methodology and no longer has to produce a transcript (Ed.Law §3020-a(3)(c)(i)(D))  Pay new claims first (Ed.Law §3020-a(3)(b)(i)(A) Reduce Costs Significant Changes

12.  Assist in managing new requirements  Business process reconfigured  Eliminate delays caused by manual process  Design paperless system  Keep track of tight timelines  Accommodate need for reports on success of changes Goal of TEACH Modifications

13.  Multiple users  Automated emails to trigger the next step in the process  All parties can upload relevant documents (charges, transcripts, decisions)  Greatly reduces manual SED processes  Eliminates paper files  Online voucher creation  Online voucher auditing  Future – can accommodate transcript changes How Do TEACH Changes Help?

14. Tenure Cases Statewide Summary Statewide Summary (Based on FY Commenced) *As of April 30, 2014 2012-20132013-2014 Total Cases572525 Total Closed Cases525274 Total Open Cases48251 Days For Decision (NYC)288190 Days for Decision (ROS)186177 Days for Settlement (NYC)143103 Days for Settlement (ROS)10194

15. Case Outcomes (Based on FY Case Commenced) (As of April 30, 2014) Case Outcomes 2012-2013 NYCROS Decision9621 Settled25576 Withdrn/Consol2644 Pending3612 Waived Hearing34 Total Outcomes416157 Case Outcomes 2013-2014 NYCROS Decision3316 Settled12281 Withdrn/Consol511 Pending19950 Waived Hearing02 Total Outcomes359160

16. Average Days to Decision By Type ROS 2012-2013 Decisions # Days Termination7186 Suspension7187 Fine2201 Other1215 Susp & Fine1175 Not Guilty3152 21186 ROS 2013-2014 Decisions #Days Termination9159 Suspension3146 Fine1226 Other2204 Susp & Fine1149 Not Guilty0 0 16177

17. Average Days to Other Outcomes ROS 2012-2013 #Days Settled76101 Withdrn/Consol44113 Waived Hearing4 Pending12 Total Other136 ROS 2013-2014 #Days Settled8194 Withdrn/Consol1186 Waived Hearing2 Pending51 Total Other145

18.  Teachers and applicants for certification must possess “good moral character” (8 NYCRR §83.1)  The Commissioner investigates allegations that raise a “reasonable question as to an individual’s moral character” (8 NYCRR §83.2) Educator Discipline (8 NYCRR Part 83)

19.  Chief School Administrators (Mandatory Reporting Requirement)  General Public/Victims  Teacher Certification Applications  Fingerprinting  Law Enforcement (As of 2008, DA’s have a Mandatory Reporting Requirement)  NASDTEC Educator Clearinghouse  Child Abuse in Educational Setting (Education Law Article 23-B (§1125-1133))  **NEW***Mandatory reporting of test security violations (8 NYCRR 102.4, eff. 5/14/2014) Sources of Complaints NEW

20.  Who must report?  Chief school administrators (8 NYCRR § 83.1(a))  What must be reported?  Any information that a certified individual:  has been convicted of a crime or  has committed an act which raises a reasonable question as to the individual’s moral character (8 NYCRR § 83.1(a)) Mandatory Reporting Requirement

21. Substantial Question of Moral Character  Inappropriate conduct with students  Conviction of serious crimes  Misappropriation of school funds (field trip money, club money, etc.)  Viewing pornography on school computers  Intimidation, bullying, verbal abuse and assault  Substance abuse issues (nexus to school)  Falsification of teaching credentials  Test fraud on statewide exams

22. INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT With STUDENTS Teachers – Roles models, position of trust, imbalance of power  Developing “special” relationships, giving student extra privileges  Sharing personal information and giving advice on non-school related issues (marriage, boyfriends, sex, mental health, suicide, etc.)  Engaging in private communications on non-school related issues (via text, cell phone, social media, greeting cards, letters, emails, IM’s)  Giving and receiving gifts  Contact off school grounds for non-school related events (movies, dinner, shopping)  Transporting students in a private vehicle (clandestine v. open and notorious)  Treating student as a “peer” rather than maintaining student-teacher boundaries  Developing relationship with parents to enable greater access to student  Secrecy of relationship (encouraging lies)  Failure to refer student to resources within school for serious issues

23. Top Ten (a/k/a 18) Part 83’s  Grooming (Mudge, Murray)  Failure to Report (Murray)  Computer Fraud (D’Amato)  Sex with Teen (Drexler)  Lewdness (Wiggs)  Adult Sex (Hafer, Redman, ECR)  Pornography (Stephney, Henery)  HO Bias (Moro)  Off Duty Conduct (Klinger, Shannahan)  Testing (Musto, Jeudy)  Lie on Application (Miller)  Partners in Crime (Burlison)

24. 20102011201220132014 Surrender79101657317 Revoke4145355518 Deny192010195 Suspend929193 Discipline Adverse Outcome

25. Education Law §215  § 215. Visitation and reports. The regents, or the commissioner of education, or their representatives, may visit, examine into and inspect, any institution in the university and any school or institution under the educational supervision of the state, and may require, as often as desired, duly verified reports therefrom giving such information and in such form as the regents or the commissioner of education shall prescribe. For refusal or continued neglect on the part of any institution in the university to make any report required, or for violation of any law or any rule of the university, the regents may suspend the charter or any of the rights and privileges of such institution.

26.  SAPA §401(2) provides: when a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency, and, in case the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court, provided that this subdivision shall not affect any valid agency action then in effect summarily suspending such license. Selected SAPA Provisions – Stay of Expiration of License

27. ~Questions~