NYC DOE regulation prohibiting use of school property for religious worship services upheld.

The NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

presents

School Law: A Year in Review –

A review of this Past Year’s Court and

Administrative Decisions Affecting Public Education

The Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. The Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. Of Educ. of the City of N.Y. Of Educ. of the City of N.Y.

750 F.3d -184 (2d Cir., Apr. 03, 2014)

• NYC DOE regulation prohibiting use NYC DOE regulation prohibiting use of school property for religious of school property for religious worship services upheld.worship services upheld.– Not a violation of Free Exercise clauseNot a violation of Free Exercise clause

•Gov’t not required to fund the free Gov’t not required to fund the free exercise of religionexercise of religion

– Regulation not motivated by hostility Regulation not motivated by hostility towards or excessive entanglement towards or excessive entanglement with religionwith religion 2

Town of Greece, NY v Galloway Town of Greece, NY v Galloway 134 S.Ct. 1811 (May 15, 2014) - -

• The United States Supreme Court upheld the right on the part of the Town of Greece New York to begin their meetings with a prayer despite the fact that, historically, the prayers were almost always associated with one religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cautioned against having courts limit the content of prayers to include only religious words acceptable to a majority because “government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech.”

• The majority opinion acknowledged the growing pluralistic nature of today’s society. “But that circumstance is best addressed by including representatives of many creeds rather than proscribing the content of prayers” so wrote the Court’s majority.3

Shenendehowa CSD v. Shenendehowa CSD v. CSEACSEA

20 N.Y.3d 1026 (Feb. 12, 2013)

• Bus driver terminated by district after positive Bus driver terminated by district after positive drug testdrug test– CBA had disciplinary penalties & proceduresCBA had disciplinary penalties & procedures

• Arbitrator ruled inconsistent with CBA; Arbitrator ruled inconsistent with CBA; reinstated reinstated – Required to consider progressive disciplineRequired to consider progressive discipline

• Court of Appeals No grounds for overturning Court of Appeals No grounds for overturning arbitration awardarbitration award– Not irrational and did not exceed authorityNot irrational and did not exceed authority– Agreed that CBA did not require terminationAgreed that CBA did not require termination– Reinstatement with conditions did not violate public Reinstatement with conditions did not violate public

policypolicy 4

Stergiou v. NYC Dep’t of Stergiou v. NYC Dep’t of EducationEducation

106 A.D.3d 511 106 A.D.3d 511 (2nd Dep’t May 14, 2013)

• Although a state appeals court disagreed that Although a state appeals court disagreed that teachers who face disciplinary charges are teachers who face disciplinary charges are absolutely absolutely entitled to view the testimony of entitled to view the testimony of complaining witnesses, in this case, the court complaining witnesses, in this case, the court sent the case back for the hearing officer to sent the case back for the hearing officer to take testimony from the student witness in take testimony from the student witness in the presence of the teacher because nothing the presence of the teacher because nothing in the record indicated the existence of a in the record indicated the existence of a “compelling competing interest” on the part “compelling competing interest” on the part of the student which might have warranted of the student which might have warranted the teacher’s exclusion during his testimony. the teacher’s exclusion during his testimony. 5

Watertown City School Watertown City School District v. AnonymousDistrict v. Anonymous

2014 WL 4783677 (42014 WL 4783677 (4thth Dep’t Sept. 26, 2014) Dep’t Sept. 26, 2014)

• A tenured teacher facing disciplinary charges may not access extensive student records in order to prepare a defense in the absence of the teacher articulating a factual basis establishing the relevance of the documents to the investigation to show the material bears “a reasonable relation” to that investigation. In this case, the charges of misconduct involve activities outside the classroom and the teacher only made general statements that the records were “highly relevant” to the defense. 6

Gervais and Parobek v. Bd. of Educ. of East Aurora UFSD

2014 WL 4783538 (4th Dep’t. Sept. 26, 2014)• Petitioners appealed after their positions Petitioners appealed after their positions

were reduced from full time to .4 and .2 FTE were reduced from full time to .4 and .2 FTE and they declined part-time positions district and they declined part-time positions district did not place them on PEL. did not place them on PEL.

• 44thth Dep’t – Petitioners entitled to placement Dep’t – Petitioners entitled to placement on PELon PEL– Reduction of positions equivalent to abolishing Reduction of positions equivalent to abolishing

full time position and creating part-time positionsfull time position and creating part-time positions– Rejection of part-time positions did not extinguish Rejection of part-time positions did not extinguish

petitioners’ right to placement on PELpetitioners’ right to placement on PEL

Matter of Brito v. Walcott Matter of Brito v. Walcott 115

A.D.3d 544, (1st Dep’t Mar. 20, 2014) and Mauro Mauro v. Walcott v. Walcott 115 A.D.3d 547 (1st Dep’t March 20, 2014).• Two tenured teachers found in school Two tenured teachers found in school

during evening in state of undress and during evening in state of undress and compromising circumstances appealed compromising circumstances appealed their terminations.their terminations.

• 11stst Dep’t remanded both cases for Dep’t remanded both cases for determination of lesser penaltydetermination of lesser penalty– Not at school in official capacityNot at school in official capacity– No prior disciplineNo prior discipline– No student witnesses, action between consenting adultsNo student witnesses, action between consenting adults– Negative publicity alone does not warrant terminationNegative publicity alone does not warrant termination

Appeal of Donnellan 54 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,657 (Aug. 19, 2014

• When two teachers have equal seniority When two teachers have equal seniority the teacher whose appointment the teacher whose appointment occurred first has greater seniority.occurred first has greater seniority.– The appointment date to a The appointment date to a long term long term

substitute substitute position signifies the position signifies the commencement of a formal relationship commencement of a formal relationship between the employee and the district and between the employee and the district and teacher whose appointment to long term teacher whose appointment to long term substitute position occurred first has substitute position occurred first has greater seniority. greater seniority.

Kolbe v. TibbetsKolbe v. Tibbets 22 N.Y. 3d (Dec. 12, 2013) 22 N.Y. 3d (Dec. 12, 2013)

• A school district was precluded A school district was precluded from changing retiree health from changing retiree health benefits by a CBA provision which benefits by a CBA provision which stated that retiree’s health stated that retiree’s health coverage shall be the coverage in coverage shall be the coverage in effect for the unit at the time the effect for the unit at the time the employee retires, even though the employee retires, even though the changes corresponded to changes changes corresponded to changes made for active employees.made for active employees.

J.G.S. and S.L.S. v. Bellmore-Merrick CHSD

slip opinion (Nassau Cnty. May 14, 2014)

• A state supreme court ruled that DASA A state supreme court ruled that DASA imposes on school districts a duty to imposes on school districts a duty to regulate harassment, cyber bullying regulate harassment, cyber bullying and bullying conduct by its students and bullying conduct by its students even when the victim of such behavior even when the victim of such behavior is a non-public school student. In this is a non-public school student. In this case, the bullied student had formerly case, the bullied student had formerly been a student in the district and had been a student in the district and had been the target of bullying.been the target of bullying.

Williams v. Weatherstone and Jordan-Williams v. Weatherstone and Jordan-Elbridge CSDElbridge CSD

23 N.Y. 3d 384 (May 13, 2014)

• New York State’s highest Court ruled New York State’s highest Court ruled a school district was not liable for a school district was not liable for injuries suffered by a special injuries suffered by a special education student, who was struck by education student, who was struck by a passing vehicle when she decided to a passing vehicle when she decided to cross the road while her school bus cross the road while her school bus turned around to pick her up.turned around to pick her up.– IEP called for transportation but did not IEP called for transportation but did not

specify any special busing requirements specify any special busing requirements and only furnished regular transportation.and only furnished regular transportation.

12

Appeal of ToureAppeal of Toure54 Ed Dept. Rep, Dec. No. 16,600 (aAgust 28, 2014)54 Ed Dept. Rep, Dec. No. 16,600 (aAgust 28, 2014)

• Commissioner overturned election with respect to a Commissioner overturned election with respect to a partial term to fill a vacancypartial term to fill a vacancy

• Improper handling of absentee ballots created Improper handling of absentee ballots created “severe risk of fraud that vitiated fundamental “severe risk of fraud that vitiated fundamental fairness of the election.” fairness of the election.” – 301 absentee ballots issued 1 business day prior to 301 absentee ballots issued 1 business day prior to

electionelection– District clerk failed to maintain list of voters issued District clerk failed to maintain list of voters issued

absentee ballots as required by lawabsentee ballots as required by law– District unable to determine how many absentee District unable to determine how many absentee

ballot applications received, how many ballots ballot applications received, how many ballots issued, whether ballots validly issued, or whether issued, whether ballots validly issued, or whether ballots validly castballots validly cast

Appeal of K.LAppeal of K.L. . 53 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,627 (June 30, 2014)53 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,627 (June 30, 2014)

• Non public school student requested Non public school student requested homebound instruction (due to illness homebound instruction (due to illness could only attend school for 2 hours each could only attend school for 2 hours each day).day).– Not entitled to homebound instruction while Not entitled to homebound instruction while

still attending classes at non public schoolstill attending classes at non public school– School district not required to replicate non School district not required to replicate non

public school curriculum but consider relevant public school curriculum but consider relevant factors in designing instructionfactors in designing instruction

– Criticized school district for failure to take Criticized school district for failure to take action to enforce compulsory attendance lawaction to enforce compulsory attendance law

T.M. v. Cornwall Central School T.M. v. Cornwall Central School DistrictDistrict

752 F.3 145 (2d Cir. April 2, 2014) 752 F.3 145 (2d Cir. April 2, 2014)

Least Restrictive EnvironmentLeast Restrictive Environment A federal appeals court with jurisdiction over all A federal appeals court with jurisdiction over all districts in New York State ruled that children districts in New York State ruled that children with disabilities who receive extended year with disabilities who receive extended year services may be entitled to receive such services services may be entitled to receive such services in mainstreamed settings if their individual in mainstreamed settings if their individual circumstances dictate the provision of such circumstances dictate the provision of such services notwithstanding whether their school services notwithstanding whether their school districts themselves offer educational districts themselves offer educational programming to non-disabled students during the programming to non-disabled students during the summer months. summer months.

15

C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free School C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free School DistrictDistrict

744 F.3d 826, (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2014

Least Restrictive Least Restrictive Environment/EligibilityEnvironment/Eligibility

A federal appeals court with jurisdiction over all A federal appeals court with jurisdiction over all school districts in New York State reversed a school districts in New York State reversed a decision by the SRO which had denied tuition decision by the SRO which had denied tuition reimbursement to parents of a student with a reimbursement to parents of a student with a disability on the basis that they failed to meet their disability on the basis that they failed to meet their burden to prove that the private school placement burden to prove that the private school placement was appropriate. Despite the district’s argument was appropriate. Despite the district’s argument that the parent’s placement was not the least that the parent’s placement was not the least restrictive, the Court found that it is not restrictive, the Court found that it is not appropriate to compare the restrictiveness of a appropriate to compare the restrictiveness of a parental private placement with that of a public parental private placement with that of a public school setting when a school district itself has school setting when a school district itself has failed to make FAPE available. failed to make FAPE available.

16

Appeal of E.M.F. 53 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,538 (Aug. 28,

2013)

• Petitioner appealed district’s decision her daughter was not homeless– Claimed sharing housing of others due to

economic hardship• Reduction in salary & paying for son’s college tuition

• Reasons for moving based on personal choices not type of economic hardship statute intends – No evidence home is temporary shelter or

inadequate; no time limit on current living situation

17

B.H. ex rel Hawk v. Easton Area SD

2013 WL 3970093 (3rd Cir. Aug. 5, 2013)

• Ban of I ♥ Boobies! bracelets violated First Amendment

• 3rd Circuit set out 3 part analysis for lewd speech– Plainly lewd speech may be categorically restricted– Speech not plainly lewd but may be interpreted as

lewd may be categorically restricted provided cannot plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues

– Speech that is not plainly lewd and can be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues may not be categorically restricted

18

Lane v. Franks134 S. Ct. 2369 (June 19, 2014)

• U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the sworn testimony of a public employee sworn testimony of a public employee in judicial proceedings constitutes in judicial proceedings constitutes protected speech, even if it concerns protected speech, even if it concerns information learned in the course of information learned in the course of employment. employment. – Adverse actions by employer against such Adverse actions by employer against such

an employee can form basis for retaliatory an employee can form basis for retaliatory claim alleging violation of free speech claim alleging violation of free speech rights.rights.

Santer v. East Meadow UFSD2013 WL 3970093 (3rd Cir. Aug. 5, 2013)

• New York State’s highest court ruled that the First Amendment rights of two teachers were not violated when a school district disciplined them for participating in a union picketing demonstration that created a health and safety hazard for students. The picketing activity in this case consisted of the teachers parking their cars along both sides of the street in front of the school during the time when parents were dropping their children at school necessitating that children be dropped off in the middle of the street. The teachers had previously acknowledged that such activity could be dangerous.

20

Appeal of R.M.Appeal of R.M. 54 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,643 (Aug. 7, 2014)

• Family’s in district residence condemned Family’s in district residence condemned due to bed bug infestationdue to bed bug infestation

• July 2013- sharing housing July 2013- sharing housing with family with family members outside the districtmembers outside the district– Lacked potable running water, appropriate Lacked potable running water, appropriate

insulation, areas of house did not have insulation, areas of house did not have electricity or gas, overcrowdedelectricity or gas, overcrowded

– Commissioner ruled patently inadequate Commissioner ruled patently inadequate residence such as this does not become a residence such as this does not become a fixed, regular and adequate night-time fixed, regular and adequate night-time residence merely because of its duration.residence merely because of its duration.

Appeal of A.V. and S.A.-V. 53 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,528 (Aug. 28, 2013)

• Petitioners’ son victim of bullying• Ultimately assigned aide to walk with

student in halls but student continually evaded monitor in violation of principal’s directives

• Short term suspensions upheld- student being victim of bullying does not negate responsibility to follow staff directives and instructions

22

Bradford v. Norwich City School Bradford v. Norwich City School District District 3:12-CV-1888 (GTS/DEP), NYLJ 1202671305912, at *1 (NDNY, Decided September 22, 2014).

On September 22, 2014, the United States District On September 22, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, in the Court for the Northern District of New York, in the case entitled, case entitled, Bradford v. Norwich City School District Bradford v. Norwich City School District ruled in favor of the school district for its actions of ruled in favor of the school district for its actions of disciplining a student for off campus text messages disciplining a student for off campus text messages which he had been sent to another student and which which he had been sent to another student and which threatened to harm a third student. Despite the threatened to harm a third student. Despite the parents’ claims that their child had a First Amendment parents’ claims that their child had a First Amendment right to correspond in such a manner, the court found right to correspond in such a manner, the court found (1) there was a foreseeable risk that the speech would (1) there was a foreseeable risk that the speech would come to the attention of school officials, and (2) there come to the attention of school officials, and (2) there was a foreseeable risk that it would materially and was a foreseeable risk that it would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.school.

• •

Appeal of D.F. Appeal of D.F. 53 Ed Dept Rep.Dec. No. 16,624 (June 30, 2014)53 Ed Dept Rep.Dec. No. 16,624 (June 30, 2014)

• Commissioner upheld determination to give Commissioner upheld determination to give a student a grade of 0 on a midterm exam a student a grade of 0 on a midterm exam because student knowingly brought because student knowingly brought prohibited cell phone into examination prohibited cell phone into examination roomroom– Decisions regarding student grading rest with Decisions regarding student grading rest with

the school boardthe school board• Numerous notices given to parents and students Numerous notices given to parents and students

regarding banned devicesregarding banned devices• In meetings with parents and administrators student In meetings with parents and administrators student

admitted had cell phone and knew he should notadmitted had cell phone and knew he should not

Appeal of C.M.52 Ed Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,439 (Dec. 24, 2012)

• Student T.M. was suspended for

3 days for participating in “Kick a Jew Day” – Student witness agreed to speak to

principal only in confidence for fear of retaliation

• Principal then served as complaining witness at the informal conference– Issue principal did not directly observe

alleged behavior 25

Appeal of C.M., cont.

• Commissioner expunged the suspension because student’s right under statute to question complaining witnesses was violated– Acknowledged district’s concern to honor

confidentiality request– District must work to create environment

where students feel safe to work with district officials to address intolerance and discrimination

– BUT school district appealed…

26

Application of Vestal CSDslip opinion J. McGrath (Albany Cnty. Sept. 25, 2013)

• District argued commissioner failed to consider prior decision D.F. v. Bd. of Syosset CSD– District reasonably considered student to be

potentially violent = legitimate basis for not disclosing names of complaining students so as to protect them from potential retaliation

– Student still provided adequate due process

• Court remanded case to the commissioner to consider whether district’s interest in protecting students outweighs accused student’s right of cross examination

27

Appeal of C.M. II 53 Ed. Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,583 (January 3, 2014)

• As directed by the court, the commissioner reconsidered the case in light of the decision in D.F. v. Board of Education of Syosset Central School District. In Syosset, a student suspended for writing stories where named students were murdered and sexually assaulted, argued his suspension hearing was inadequate because his attorney was not permitted to interview the complaining students. A federal district court found that the district reasonably considered the student to be potentially violent and such conclusion provided a legitimate basis for not disclosing the names of the complaining students so as to protect them from potential retaliation.

28

Appeal of C.M. II 53 Ed. Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,583 (January 3, 2014)

• The Commissioner determined that the School principal reasonably believed School principal reasonably believed protecting identity of complaining protecting identity of complaining students at a disciplinary meeting with students at a disciplinary meeting with parents of a student accused in parents of a student accused in participating in bullying incident was participating in bullying incident was necessary.necessary.– District’s interest in protecting the District’s interest in protecting the

victim outweighed the parents’ victim outweighed the parents’ interest in questioning witnessesinterest in questioning witnesses

29

Appeal of C.B. 54 Ed. Dept Rep, Dec. No. 16,666 (September 5, 2014)

• The Commissioner was asked, among other things, to declare that children who are being bullied are not required to provide testimony or participate in the DASA investigations into the alleged bullying. In dismissing this appeal on procedural grounds, this case raises an interesting predicament for districts investigating harassment and bullying complaints in accordance with DASA. An accuser’s unwillingness to participate in an investigation may make it difficult for districts to substantiate claims and contradict the testimony of those accused of bullying, who are unlikely to readily admit their participation.

• •

30

Cold Spring Harbor Cold Spring Harbor Teachers Ass’nTeachers Ass’n

46 PERB ¶ 4504 (Jan. 9, 2013)

• A PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled aA PERB administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled a

a school district committed an improper practice a school district committed an improper practice under the Taylor Law when it unilaterally under the Taylor Law when it unilaterally stopped providing food cart service (offering stopped providing food cart service (offering sandwiches, soups, salads, beverages, yogurt, sandwiches, soups, salads, beverages, yogurt, chips, cookies, muffins and other snacks) in the chips, cookies, muffins and other snacks) in the faculty lounge at its secondary school grades 7-faculty lounge at its secondary school grades 7-12. According to the ALJ, the pre-order service 12. According to the ALJ, the pre-order service repudiated a prior enforceable verbal agreement repudiated a prior enforceable verbal agreement between the district and the teachers’ union between the district and the teachers’ union regarding continuation of the food card service, regarding continuation of the food card service, and the district shoed no legal basis for its and the district shoed no legal basis for its unilateral action. unilateral action.

31

Zeno v. Pine Plains CSDZeno v. Pine Plains CSD702 F.3d 655 (2012)

• $1 million award against district- racial $1 million award against district- racial harassment in violation of Title VIharassment in violation of Title VI

• Harassed for prolonged period- accepted IEP Harassed for prolonged period- accepted IEP diploma rather than continue education diploma rather than continue education amidst harassmentamidst harassment

• Adequate response must be Adequate response must be “reasonably “reasonably calculated” calculated” to end the harassment. District to end the harassment. District response inadequate:response inadequate:– Suspension failed to prevent others from Suspension failed to prevent others from

same behaviorsame behavior– 21 mos. before offered racial sensitivity 21 mos. before offered racial sensitivity

program (attendance was not mandatory) program (attendance was not mandatory) – Did not accept offer of assistance from Did not accept offer of assistance from

NAACP or HRC NAACP or HRC 32

Vergara v. State of California et. al. (June

10, 2014). • Citing to the United States Supreme Court’s

historic Brown v. Board of Education decision which declared racially segregated schools to be unconstitutional, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles upheld a challenge by nine California public school students to the constitutionality of five statutes in the State of California affecting the tenure and seniority rights of teachers. In this case, the Court found that the contested statutes violate the students’ fundamental rights to equality of education by adversely affecting the quality of education they are constitutionally entitled to receive by the state. 33

Harris v. Quinn, U.S. Supreme Court 134 S. Ct. 2619 (June 30, 2014)• In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that

the First Amendment prohibits the collection of agency shop fees in the particular case of home health-care aides, or “personal assistants (PAs)”. who, under Illinois law an employer-employee relationship is secured between the person receiving the care and the person providing it—not the state. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the employees in this case should never have been required to pay mandatory union fees required of other workers.

NYSUT v. State of New York 2014 WL 4809779 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cnty.

September 23, 2014)

• The Albany County Supreme Court dismissed NYSUT’s lawsuit determining that NYSUT had failed to demonstrate that that New York State’s Property Tax Cap legislation was unconstitutional. Property tax cap is not Property tax cap is not unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the law unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the law does not deprive a district of exercising local does not deprive a district of exercising local control because the budget vote itself denotes control because the budget vote itself denotes local control and that the State provided rational local control and that the State provided rational basis for adopting legislation, namely, curtailing basis for adopting legislation, namely, curtailing growth of taxes to retain jobs and businesses in growth of taxes to retain jobs and businesses in New York. (cont’d)New York. (cont’d)

NYSUT v. State of New York

2014 WL 4809779 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cnty. September 23, • Nevertheless, the Court permitted

NYSUT to amend its complaint to include the recently enacted “tax freeze” legislation which provides a tax credit to property taxpayers in school districts that afopt budgets that do not exceed the cap.


presents

Selected Recent Laws and Selected Recent Laws and RegulationsRegulations

Affecting School DistrictsAffecting School Districts

I. The Common Core I. The Common Core Implementation Reform Act- Implementation Reform Act-

Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014of 2014• Annual Professional Performance Annual Professional Performance

Review (APPR) Plans (p.1)Review (APPR) Plans (p.1)• Data Dashboard Systems (p.1)Data Dashboard Systems (p.1)• Parental Assistance (p.2)Parental Assistance (p.2)• Professional Development (p.2)Professional Development (p.2)• Students Assessments (p.3)Students Assessments (p.3)

– Students with Disabilities and ELL Students with Disabilities and ELL Assessments (p.3)Assessments (p.3)

– K-2 Standardized Students Tests (p.3)K-2 Standardized Students Tests (p.3)– Testing Time Limitations (p.3)Testing Time Limitations (p.3)

The Common Core The Common Core Implementation Reform Act- Implementation Reform Act-

Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014of 2014• Students AssessmentsStudents Assessments

– Testing Transparency Report (p.4)Testing Transparency Report (p.4)– Test Questions (p.4)Test Questions (p.4)

• Student Promotion and Placement (p.5)Student Promotion and Placement (p.5)• Student Records (P.5)Student Records (P.5)• Chief Privacy Officer (P.6)Chief Privacy Officer (P.6)• Parental Bill of Rights for Data Privacy Parental Bill of Rights for Data Privacy

and Security (P.6)and Security (P.6)• Data Collection Transparency and Data Collection Transparency and

Restrictions (P.7)Restrictions (P.7)

The Common Core The Common Core Implementation Reform Act- Implementation Reform Act-

Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws Chapter 56 Part AA of the Laws of 2014of 2014• Breach of Security and Unauthorized Breach of Security and Unauthorized

Release of Personally Identifiable Release of Personally Identifiable Information (P.8)Information (P.8)

II. Other New State Statutory II. Other New State Statutory ChangesChanges

• BOCES (P.9)BOCES (P.9)• Charter Schools (P.9-10)Charter Schools (P.9-10)• Conditional Appointments (P.10)Conditional Appointments (P.10)• Contracts for Excellence (P.10)Contracts for Excellence (P.10)• Gap Elimination Adjustment (P.10)Gap Elimination Adjustment (P.10)• Health Education (P.10)Health Education (P.10)• No Child Left Behind (P.10)No Child Left Behind (P.10)• Pre-Kindergarten Programs(P.11)Pre-Kindergarten Programs(P.11)• Purchasing (P.11)Purchasing (P.11)


• Real Property Tax Freeze Credit (P.11)Real Property Tax Freeze Credit (P.11)• Reserve Funds (P.11)Reserve Funds (P.11)• School Census (P.11)School Census (P.11)• School District Reorganization (P.11)School District Reorganization (P.11)• Smart Schools Bond Act of 2014 Smart Schools Bond Act of 2014

(P.12)(P.12)• Smart Schools Implementation Act of Smart Schools Implementation Act of

2014 (P.12)2014 (P.12)• Special Education (P.13)Special Education (P.13)


• Teachers (P.13)Teachers (P.13)• Technology Services (P.14)Technology Services (P.14)• Transportation (P.14)Transportation (P.14)

Bills Waiting Delivery Bills Waiting Delivery to the Governor to the Governor

• Annual Professional Performance Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)Review (APPR) (p. 14)(p. 14)

A10168 would establish temporary A10168 would establish temporary provisions for the recalculation of the provisions for the recalculation of the APPR score of a classroom teacher and APPR score of a classroom teacher and building principal who receives an overall building principal who receives an overall composite rating of ineffective or composite rating of ineffective or developing for the 2013-14 and/or 2014-developing for the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years.15 school years.


• BOCES BOCES (p. 15)(p. 15)

A9570-B would amend the Education Law A9570-B would amend the Education Law to authorize B OCES through June 30, to authorize B OCES through June 30, 2019 to enter into leases with nonpublic 2019 to enter into leases with nonpublic entities for up to a maximum period of entities for up to a maximum period of twenty years. twenty years.

Charter Schools Charter Schools (p. 16)(p. 16)

A10069 would amend the law relating to A10069 would amend the law relating to the dissolution of charter schools the dissolution of charter schools effective immediately.effective immediately.


• CIVIL SERVICE-COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE-COMPETITIVE CLASS DISCIPLINE CLASS DISCIPLINE (p. 16)(p. 16)

S 7801 would overrule prior judicial S 7801 would overrule prior judicial decisions and clarify that all members of decisions and clarify that all members of the competitive class in the civil service the competitive class in the civil service are entitled to collectively bargain are entitled to collectively bargain allall matters pertaining to discipline.matters pertaining to discipline.


• COMPETITIVE BIDDING COMPETITIVE BIDDING (p. 17)(p. 17)

A8661-A would help school districts expand A8661-A would help school districts expand the number of bidders on contracts requiring the number of bidders on contracts requiring competitive bidding.competitive bidding.

• CPR and AED INSTRUCTION CPR and AED INSTRUCTION (p. 17)(p. 17)

S7096 would require the commissioner of S7096 would require the commissioner of education to make recommendations to the education to make recommendations to the Board of Regents on the adoption of Board of Regents on the adoption of instruction in CPR and SEDs in high school.instruction in CPR and SEDs in high school.


• EPINEPHRINE AUTO-EPINEPHRINE AUTO-INJECTORSINJECTORS(p. 18)(p. 18)

S7262-A would authorize schools districts S7262-A would authorize schools districts and BOCES et al to provide and maintain and BOCES et al to provide and maintain on-site in ach instructional school on-site in ach instructional school facility , epinephrine auto-injectors for facility , epinephrine auto-injectors for use during emergencies to any student or use during emergencies to any student or staff having anaphylactic symptoms staff having anaphylactic symptoms whether or not there is a previous history whether or not there is a previous history of severe allergic reaction.of severe allergic reaction.


• FINGERPRING FINGERPRING (p. 18)(p. 18)

A9749 would authorize the DMV to forward A9749 would authorize the DMV to forward to the commissioner of education, for purpose to the commissioner of education, for purpose of conducting a criminal history record check, of conducting a criminal history record check, the criminal history record and fingerprints the criminal history record and fingerprints of a prospective employee cleared for of a prospective employee cleared for employment by the commissioner of motor employment by the commissioner of motor vehicles, upon the request of the prospective vehicles, upon the request of the prospective employee and DCJS to provide subsequent employee and DCJS to provide subsequent criminal history notifications directly to the criminal history notifications directly to the commissioner of education.commissioner of education.


• INHALERS INHALERS (p. 19)(p. 19)

A9334 would provide that not only students with A9334 would provide that not only students with asthma, but also those with another respiratory asthma, but also those with another respiratory disease that requires rescue inhaler treatment disease that requires rescue inhaler treatment be allowed to carry and use a prescribed inhaler, be allowed to carry and use a prescribed inhaler, and self administered rescue medications.and self administered rescue medications.

• LEVER MACHINES LEVER MACHINES (p. 19)(p. 19)

S7371-A would extend through 12/31/15 S7371-A would extend through 12/31/15 authorization for continued use of lever voting authorization for continued use of lever voting machines in school district elections and budget machines in school district elections and budget votes.votes.


• MILITARY CHILDREN MILITARY CHILDREN (pp. 19-20)(pp. 19-20)• S7371 would establish the Interstate Compact S7371 would establish the Interstate Compact

on Educational Opportunity for Military Children on Educational Opportunity for Military Children to remove barriers to the educational success of to remove barriers to the educational success of children of military families that are posed by children of military families that are posed by frequent moves and deployment of their parents. frequent moves and deployment of their parents.

• ONLINE LEARNING ONLINE LEARNING (p. 20)(p. 20)• S5509-c would direct the commissioner of S5509-c would direct the commissioner of

education to establish on online learning education to establish on online learning advisory committee on establishing a statewide advisory committee on establishing a statewide online and blended learning network.online and blended learning network.


• RETIREMENT RETIREMENT (p. 20)(p. 20)• S7839 would allow S7839 would allow allall honorably honorably

discharged veterans to purchase up to discharged veterans to purchase up to three years of credit for their military three years of credit for their military service when applying for a public service when applying for a public retirement system, instead of limiting the retirement system, instead of limiting the availability of such credit only to veterans availability of such credit only to veterans who served during specified periods of who served during specified periods of conflict.conflict.


• SCHOOL CLOSINGS SCHOOL CLOSINGS (p. 21)(p. 21)• A7756 would authorize school boards to A7756 would authorize school boards to

close one or all of its schools on a close one or all of its schools on a particular day of religious or cultural particular day of religious or cultural observance, based on a determination observance, based on a determination that keeping the school(s) open would that keeping the school(s) open would result in a waste of educational resources result in a waste of educational resources because a considerable proportion of the because a considerable proportion of the student population is unlikely to attend student population is unlikely to attend school on that day.school on that day.


• SPECIAL ACT SCHOOL DISTRICTSSPECIAL ACT SCHOOL DISTRICTS(p. (p. 21)21)

• A6715-B would establish procedures that would A6715-B would establish procedures that would apply when the school board of a special act apply when the school board of a special act school district seeks to close the district.school district seeks to close the district.

• SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION (p. 22)(p. 22)• A4054-A would require that a school notify A4054-A would require that a school notify

parents, upon a child’s enrollment or attendance parents, upon a child’s enrollment or attendance in the school of their rights regarding referral in the school of their rights regarding referral and evaluation of their child for purposes of and evaluation of their child for purposes of special education services or programs.special education services or programs.


• STUDENT ALLERGIESSTUDENT ALLERGIES( p. 22)( p. 22)

A9334B would add five new sections to the A9334B would add five new sections to the Education Law to address the needs and Education Law to address the needs and treatment in school by school personnel of treatment in school by school personnel of students with allergies and diabetes.students with allergies and diabetes.

• TAX CERTIORARI TAX CERTIORARI ( p. 22)( p. 22)

S2003 would authorize school districts that levy S2003 would authorize school districts that levy taxes on behalf of school district public to charge taxes on behalf of school district public to charge back to such public library the portion of any court back to such public library the portion of any court ordered tax certiorari refund attributable to ordered tax certiorari refund attributable to library purposes.library purposes.


• TAX EXEMPTIONSTAX EXEMPTIONS( p. 22)( p. 22)

A8009 would clarify that the standards of A8009 would clarify that the standards of construction necessary for a green building to construction necessary for a green building to qualify for a tax exemption include not only qualify for a tax exemption include not only the LEED standards, but also the green the LEED standards, but also the green building initiative’s green gloves rating building initiative’s green gloves rating system, the national green building standards system, the national green building standards as approved by the American National as approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), or substantially Standards Institute (ANSI), or substantially equivalent standards for certification as equivalent standards for certification as determined locally.determined locally.

New Regulations New Regulations • Annual Professional Performance ReviewsAnnual Professional Performance Reviews (p. (p.

23)23)

8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.3(a)(2) (consistent with Chapter 56 of 8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.3(a)(2) (consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014) provide for review and approval by the the Laws of 2014) provide for review and approval by the commissioner of education of material changes to an commissioner of education of material changes to an APPR plan that are solely related to the elimination of APPR plan that are solely related to the elimination of unnecessary student assessment. unnecessary student assessment.

8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.5(e) (consistent with Chapter 56 of the 8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.5(e) (consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014) prohibit the approval of APPR plans for use Laws of 2014) prohibit the approval of APPR plans for use in 2014-2015 school year or thereafter that permit the in 2014-2015 school year or thereafter that permit the administration of traditional standardized assessments for administration of traditional standardized assessments for students in K-2 that are not being used for diagnostic students in K-2 that are not being used for diagnostic purposes.purposes.

New Regulations New Regulations • Annual Professional Performance ReviewsAnnual Professional Performance Reviews

(p. 23)(p. 23)

8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.1 provides for a school district of 8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.1 provides for a school district of BOCES right to terminate a probationary teacher or BOCES right to terminate a probationary teacher or principal for reasons other than performance.principal for reasons other than performance.

Assessments-K-2 Testing Assessments-K-2 Testing (p. 24)(p. 24)

8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.2 (consistent with Chapter 56 of the 8 NYCRR §§ 30-2.2 (consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014) related to K-2 testing, removes all Laws of 2014) related to K-2 testing, removes all standardized assessments for students in grades K-2 standardized assessments for students in grades K-2 from the list of approved student assessments used for from the list of approved student assessments used for APPR purposes in the 2014-2015 school year and APPR purposes in the 2014-2015 school year and thereafter.thereafter.

New Regulations New Regulations • Assessments-Prekindergarten (Assessments-Prekindergarten (p. 25)p. 25)

8 NYCRR §§ 100.3(a), (b)(2), 151-1.2 and 151-1.3(b) 8 NYCRR §§ 100.3(a), (b)(2), 151-1.2 and 151-1.3(b) prohibit the use of traditional standardized tests not only prohibit the use of traditional standardized tests not only for students in K-2 but also pre-kindergarten programs.for students in K-2 but also pre-kindergarten programs.

Assessments-Testing Time Limitations (p. 25)Assessments-Testing Time Limitations (p. 25)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §8.4 Consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws §8.4 Consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, limits the amount of time devoted to required of 2014, limits the amount of time devoted to required State assessments administered by or on behalf of the State assessments administered by or on behalf of the State and developed by the State directly or by contract State and developed by the State directly or by contract for each grade, in the aggregate, to 1% of the minimum for each grade, in the aggregate, to 1% of the minimum required annual instructional hours for such grade.required annual instructional hours for such grade.

New Regulations New Regulations Assessments-Testing Time Limitations (p. 25)Assessments-Testing Time Limitations (p. 25)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §30-2.3(a)(4) Consistent with Chapter §30-2.3(a)(4) Consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, limits the amount of time 56 of the Laws of 2014, limits the amount of time devoted to traditional standardized assessments devoted to traditional standardized assessments and to test preparation under standardized and to test preparation under standardized testing conditions. testing conditions.

Assessments-Grade 8 Science Test (p. 26)Assessments-Grade 8 Science Test (p. 26)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §100.4(d)(4), (e)(4) and 8 NYCRR §100.4(d)(4), (e)(4) and 8 NYCRR §100.18(b)(14) provides clarification related to §100.18(b)(14) provides clarification related to certain matters to the administration of the grade certain matters to the administration of the grade 8 science intermediate assessment.8 science intermediate assessment.

New Regulations New Regulations Charter Schools (p. 27)Charter Schools (p. 27)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §276.11(b)(1) provides for an §276.11(b)(1) provides for an expedited appeal process to the commissioner of expedited appeal process to the commissioner of education in cases involving the location or co-education in cases involving the location or co-location of a charter school in a public school location of a charter school in a public school building.building.

English Language Learners (p. 27)English Language Learners (p. 27)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §154.2 replaced, as of February 1, §154.2 replaced, as of February 1, 2014, the Language Assessment Battery-Revised 2014, the Language Assessment Battery-Revised (LAB-R) previously used as a means for identifying (LAB-R) previously used as a means for identifying English language learners with the New York State English language learners with the New York State Identification Test for English language learners Identification Test for English language learners (NYSITELL).(NYSITELL).

New Regulations New Regulations High School Equivalency Diploma (p. 27)High School Equivalency Diploma (p. 27)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §100.7(a)(2) ease the transition from §100.7(a)(2) ease the transition from the old GED test to the new Test Assessing the old GED test to the new Test Assessing Secondary Completion (TASC).Secondary Completion (TASC).

School Accountability (p. 27)School Accountability (p. 27)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §100.18(i)(1), (2)(iv),(v) conform the §100.18(i)(1), (2)(iv),(v) conform the regulations to adjustments made regarding regulations to adjustments made regarding removal of priority school, focus school district removal of priority school, focus school district and focus school designations in connections with and focus school designations in connections with New York’s Elementary and Secondary Education New York’s Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Flexibility Wavier Renewal Request.(ESEA) Flexibility Wavier Renewal Request.

New Regulations New Regulations Special Education (p. 29)Special Education (p. 29)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §135.4(c)(7)(ii)(b)(1) eliminate the age §135.4(c)(7)(ii)(b)(1) eliminate the age and four year limitation restrictions that generally and four year limitation restrictions that generally apply to waivers for participation in senior high apply to waivers for participation in senior high school athletic competition, in order to allow students school athletic competition, in order to allow students with disabilities to participate in a senior high school with disabilities to participate in a senior high school non-contact athletic competition for an additional non-contact athletic competition for an additional season.season.

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §200.3(a)(2)(v) and §200.5(c)(2)(iv),(v) §200.3(a)(2)(v) and §200.5(c)(2)(iv),(v) excuse the attendance of the additional parent excuse the attendance of the additional parent member at meetings of the committee on preschool member at meetings of the committee on preschool special education (CPSE), unless the parents request special education (CPSE), unless the parents request his or her presence in writing at least 72 hours prior his or her presence in writing at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.to the meeting.

New Regulations New Regulations Student Promotion and Placement (p. 29)Student Promotion and Placement (p. 29)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §100.3(b)(2)(4) and 100.4(b)(2)(v),(e)§100.3(b)(2)(4) and 100.4(b)(2)(v),(e)(6) prohibit school districts from making student (6) prohibit school districts from making student promotion or placement decisions based solely or promotion or placement decisions based solely or primarily on the State’s Grades 3-8 English primarily on the State’s Grades 3-8 English language arts and math assessments. language arts and math assessments.

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §100.2(ll) consistent with Chapter 56 §100.2(ll) consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014, requires every district to of the Laws of 2014, requires every district to adopt a grade promotion and placement policy adopt a grade promotion and placement policy consistent with the regulations and provide consistent with the regulations and provide annual notice to parents of its promotion and annual notice to parents of its promotion and placement policy with an explanation of how the placement policy with an explanation of how the policy was adopted.policy was adopted.

New Regulations New Regulations Student Records (p. 30)Student Records (p. 30)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §104.3 consistent with Chapter 56 of the §104.3 consistent with Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014 prohibits school districts and BOCES Laws of 2014 prohibits school districts and BOCES from including a student’s individual score on State from including a student’s individual score on State administered standardized English Language Arts (ELA) administered standardized English Language Arts (ELA) and math assessments in grades 3-8 in the student’s and math assessments in grades 3-8 in the student’s official transcript and permanent record between official transcript and permanent record between 4/1/14-12/31/18.4/1/14-12/31/18.

Teacher Certification (p. 30)Teacher Certification (p. 30)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §§ 52.21(b)(1)(xv), 80-1.1(b)(42), 80-3.3(c)(3) §§ 52.21(b)(1)(xv), 80-1.1(b)(42), 80-3.3(c)(3) and 80-35 helps to address the existing and anticipated and 80-35 helps to address the existing and anticipated demand for teachers with specific technical and career demand for teachers with specific technical and career experience to obtain a transitional teaching certificate experience to obtain a transitional teaching certificate in their area of expertise.in their area of expertise.

New Regulations New Regulations Testing Misconduct (pp. 31-32)Testing Misconduct (pp. 31-32)

8 NYCRR 8 NYCRR §102.4 formalize some of the 2010 §102.4 formalize some of the 2010 recommendations submitted by Special recommendations submitted by Special Investigator Henry Greenberg for enhancing the Investigator Henry Greenberg for enhancing the security of State assessments. security of State assessments.


presents

School Law: A Year in Review –

NYC DOE regulation prohibiting use of school property for religious worship services upheld.

Documents

Transcript of NYC DOE regulation prohibiting use of school property for religious worship services upheld.