One Observation Every Three Years for Tenured Teachers?!
Mulgrew dropped a bombshell at last week's Delegate Assembly... but is it true?
The October UFT Delegate Assembly took place last Wednesday. In response to an unrelated question, Mulgrew dropped a bombshell, claiming that a law was passed in Albany that required only one observation every three years for tenured teachers.
He didn’t harp on it. He said it in passing, as if it were an afterthought. As such, I did not include it in the Delegate Assembly minutes because I figured there was no way, after years of countless observation complaints from educators, that such a tremendous announcement would be delivered in such blasé, nonchalant fashion. However, after conferring with other attendees, Mulgrew did in fact claim the number of observations for tenured teachers will be significantly lowered.
As it turns out, new regulations regarding evaluations for teachers were signed into law by Governor Hochul last year, with the Board of Regents giving their seal of approval eight months ago.
So, is Mulgrew’s claim true? Will tenured teachers only be required to have one observation every three years? Let’s take a deeper look at the seven most interesting details from the NYSUT Fact Sheet on the new APPR reform law...
1) “The regulations indicate that districts can negotiate new plans under these new regulations immediately but have an eight-year window, through the 2031-2032 school year, to transition to the new system” (p.1).
This is pretty self-explanatory. Districts have eight years to implement the 2024 APPR reform law, meaning we may not see any changes until after the 2031-2032 school year.
2) “Prior to this change in the law, school districts could not grant tenure if a teacher received an Ineffective rating in their final probationary year or did not receive sufficient Effective or Highly Effective ratings during their probationary period. This requirement is removed going forward for all school districts unless there is specific collective bargaining agreement language or appointment letter language addressing this requirement. As a result, school districts may now grant tenure irrespective of the APPR scores awarded to a probationary teacher” (p.1).
This sounds good. It gives teachers who receive an Ineffective or Developing rating more of a chance to be granted tenure. However, being a realist, how many principals are going to recommend tenure for teachers with I or D ratings? How many superintendents will approve? Again, this isn’t a bad thing, but just because it’s a law doesn’t necessarily mean it will help in this scenario. The option is still in the hands of the school districts.
3) “Previously teachers and substitutes could qualify for a shortened probationary period only if the teacher had proof of tenure and 3012-d APPR ratings in their final year(s) at the previous assignment. The required proof of APPR rating(s) are removed under Chapter 143, allowing previous tenure (one year) or prior substitute (up to two years) service to be the trigger for a shortened probationary period, unless there is local collective bargaining agreement language requiring APPR ratings” (pp.1-2).
Former full-time teachers and substitute teachers will no longer need to provide proof of APPR ratings in order to shorten their probationary periods. Sounds good to me, especially for substitute teachers, many of whom do not necessarily receive observations.
4) “Further, the education law previously had an expedited disciplinary process (Section 3020-b) if teachers received multiple Ineffective ratings in a row. These provisions have been eliminated with the enactment of Chapter 143, and these changes apply to both the existing 3012-d plans and all new 3012-e plans, unless there is local language that maintains this requirement” (p.2).
We need more clarification on this. Does this do away with the process entirely, or just the expedited disciplinary action specifically? Will some sort of other process replace this, or is it gone for good?
5) “New 3012-e APPR System
Section 3012-e plans, dubbed Standards-based Educator Evaluation and Professional Support (STEPS) by the State Education Department (SED), must be collectively bargained and no longer must include the previous requirement to use student performance as part of the plan. Instead, these plans will be developed locally and must include multiple measures that are aligned with each State Teaching Standard (Educational Leadership Standards for Principals). The NYS Teaching Standards include knowledge of students and student learning; knowledge of content and instructional planning; instructional practice; learning environment; assessment for student learning; professional responsibilities and collaboration and professional growth” (p.2)
It sounds like our MOSL is being put out to pasture, although the phrasing “no longer must include…” makes it sound as though it may remain an option. But let’s say it is gone. In its place, we must include several of the measures listed above. You can read more on them here. I don’t know about you, but there seems to be a lot of ambiguous wording in there. Here’s just a snippet from the link:
The wording sounds a little too Danielson-ish. The rest of the standards have similar nebulous rating requirements, all of which can be weaponized by vindictive and abusive administrators.
6) “Observations/Annual Evaluations
Based on the regulations districts with a STEPS plan must negotiate the number of observations with a minimum of two per year for probationary teachers and a minimum of two per cycle for tenured teachers. Evaluations can be differentiated, this allows for a circumstance where negotiations could result in a plan where tenured teachers would not receive an annual composite rating each year, even though some type of evaluation would be undertaken for every teacher each year. The regulations indicate that tenured teachers could be evaluated annually or on a multi-year cycle, where they are evaluated and scored on a subset of standards on an annual basis but would not receive an overall rating until the end of the cycle. Probationary teachers must be rated on each teaching standard and must have a composite rating annually” (pp.2-3).
This starts off with good news, as it looks like the minimum number of observations may be cut in half from four to two for untenured teachers. It also says that tenured teachers will receive a minimum of two observations per cycle (more on what ‘cycle’ means further down).
However, the part about differentiated evaluations leaves a lot of questions. First of all, what do differentiated evaluations look like? How are they determined? Who determines whether or not tenured teachers receive an annual composite rating each year?
Also, although teachers may not receive an annual rating every year, the fact sheet explicitly states that every teacher will receive some kind of evaluation each year. What will those look like? Will they count towards our overall rating, or will they be similar to learning walks?
Furthermore, there is a serious lack of clarity as to who or what determines whether a tenured teacher is “evaluated annually or on a multi-year cycle.” Will this be based on teachers’ previous ratings? Experience? Arbitrarily? Up to administrators’ discretion?
Lastly, just because (some?) tenured teachers won’t “receive an overall rating until the end of the cycle,” doesn’t mean that they will not be evaluated every year. It simply means they won’t receive their results until the end of the cycle (more on that… now).
7) “Tenured teachers could be evaluated in a multi-year cycle with a length determined by collective bargaining” (p.3).
Basically, a cycle can be two or more years, based on negotiations. When we’re told that tenured teachers will only receive a minimum of two observations per cycle or that they won’t receive their overall rating until the end of the cycle, it simply means a period of two or more years (length of time to be determined later). This does not mean that we will only receive one observation every three years, as proclaimed by Michael Mulgrew at the 10/15 Delegate Assembly… at least not according to the NYSUT Fact Sheet. We actually don’t know what any of this means for us.
There are a lot of moving parts. There are some clear answers (i.e. all teachers will be evaluated in some way every year), but there are even more questions. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what this could all mean, or how soon the new APPR regulations will come to New York City and other districts throughout the state. It may be premature, but it’s never too early to start asking questions.