education law §3020-a update, teach and related teacher discipline issues deborah glasbrener...
TRANSCRIPT
Education Law §3020-a Update, TEACH and Related
Teacher Discipline IssuesDeborah Glasbrener Marriott
MASLAHigh Peaks Resort
Lake PlacidJuly 22, 2014
Teacher Tenure Changes TEACH Teacher Discipline Part 83 Top 10 Selected Education Law and SAPA Provisions
Agenda
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
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 Changein 2012
Serve Charges1st Day
1st Day Serve
Charges
Request Hearing10 Days
10 Days Request Hearing
Select Arbitrator45 Days
109 DaysSelect
Arbitrator
Pre-Hearing Conference65 Days
279 Days Pre-Hearing Conference
Final Hearing Date
125 Days
529 DaysFinal Hearing
Date
Issue Decision155 Days
653 Days Issue
Decision
Statute Reality
Reality = Current Statewide Average (2011)
Days Elapsed
§3020-aTimelines a/k/a Fuzzy Math§3020-aTimelines a/k/a Fuzzy Math
Reduce TimeSignificant Changes
Hearing Officer Selection: 15th day (from list creation) Evidence: 125th day (from Board vote) Decision: 30 days (from last hearing date)
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 15th 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
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 RuleProhibition on Evidence
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 RuleIssuance of Decision
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 CostsSignificant Changes
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
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?
Tenure Cases Statewide Summary
Statewide Summary (Based on FY Commenced) *As of April 30, 2014
2012-2013 2013-2014
Total Cases 572 525
Total Closed Cases 525 274
Total Open Cases 48 251
Days For Decision (NYC) 288 190
Days for Decision (ROS) 186 177
Days for Settlement (NYC) 143 103
Days for Settlement (ROS) 101 94
Case Outcomes(Based on FY Case Commenced)
(As of April 30, 2014)
Case Outcomes 2012-2013
NYC ROS
Decision 96 21
Settled 255 76
Withdrn/Consol 26 44
Pending 36 12
Waived Hearing 3 4
Total Outcomes 416 157
Case Outcomes 2013-2014
NYC ROS
Decision 33 16
Settled 122 81
Withdrn/Consol 5 11
Pending 199 50
Waived Hearing 0 2
Total Outcomes 359 160
Average Days to Decision By Type
ROS 2012-2013 Decisions
# Days
Termination 7 186
Suspension 7 187
Fine 2 201
Other 1 215
Susp & Fine 1 175
Not Guilty 3 152
21 186
ROS 2013-2014 Decisions
# Days
Termination 9 159
Suspension 3 146
Fine 1 226
Other 2 204
Susp & Fine 1 149
Not Guilty 0 0
16 177
Average Days to Other Outcomes
ROS 2012-2013
# Days
Settled 76 101
Withdrn/Consol 44 113
Waived Hearing 4
Pending 12
Total Other 136
ROS 2013-2014
# Days
Settled 81 94
Withdrn/Consol 11 86
Waived Hearing 2
Pending 51
Total Other 145
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)
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
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
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
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
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)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Surrender 79 101 65 73 17
Revoke 41 45 35 55 18
Deny 19 20 10 19 5
Suspend 9 2 9 19 3
Discipline Adverse Outcome
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.
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