Education Law §3020-a
Update, TEACH and Related
Teacher Discipline Issues
Deborah Glasbrener Marriott
MASLA
High Peaks Resort
Lake Placid
July 22, 2014
Agenda





Teacher Tenure Changes
TEACH
Teacher Discipline
Part 83 Top 10
Selected Education Law and SAPA Provisions
Teacher Tenure Hearings
 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.
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
§3020-aTimelines a/k/a Fuzzy Math
Request
Hearing
10 Days
Serve
Charges
1st Day
Days Elapsed
1st Day
Serve
Charges
Pre-Hearing
Conference
65 Days
Select
Arbitrator
45 Days
Final Hearing
Date
125 Days
Statute
10 Days
Request
Hearing
109 Days
Select
Arbitrator
Issue Decision
155 Days
Reality
279 Days
Pre-Hearing
Conference
529 Days
Final Hearing
Date
Reality = Current Statewide Average (2011)
653 Days
Issue
Decision
3020-a Reform Legislation
 April 1, 2012
 Two goals
 Reduce Length of Time for Cases
 Reduce Costs
Reduce Time
Significant Changes
 Hearing Officer Selection: 15th day (from list creation)
 Evidence: 125th day (from Board vote)
 Decision: 30 days (from last hearing date)
15 Day Rule
Hearing Officer Selection
 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
125 Day Rule
Prohibition on Evidence
 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?”
30 Day Rule
Issuance of Decision
 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
Reduce Costs
Significant Changes
 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)
Goal of TEACH Modifications






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
How Do TEACH
Changes Help?
 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
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
Case Outcomes 2013-2014
NYC
ROS
Decision
33
16
76
Settled
122
81
26
44
Withdrn/Consol
5
11
36
12
Pending
199
50
Waived Hearing
3
4
Waived Hearing
0
2
Total Outcomes
416
157
Total Outcomes
359
160
NYC
ROS
Decision
96
21
Settled
255
Withdrn/Consol
Pending
Average Days to Decision By Type
ROS 2012-2013 Decisions
ROS 2013-2014 Decisions
#
Days
#
Days
Termination
7
186
Termination
9
159
Suspension
7
187
Suspension
3
146
Fine
2
201
Fine
1
226
Other
1
215
Other
2
204
Susp & Fine
1
175
Susp & Fine
1
149
Not Guilty
3
152
Not Guilty
0
0
21
186
16
177
Average Days to Other Outcomes
ROS 2012-2013
ROS 2013-2014
#
Days
Settled
76
101
Withdrn/Consol
44
113
Waived Hearing
4
Pending
Total Other
12
136
#
Days
Settled
81
94
Withdrn/Consol
11
86
Waived Hearing
2
Pending
Total Other
51
145
Educator Discipline
(8 NYCRR Part 83)
 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)
Sources of Complaints
 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)
NEW
Mandatory Reporting Requirement
 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))
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)
Discipline Adverse Outcome
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Surrender
79
101
65
73
17
Revoke
41
45
35
55
18
Deny
19
20
10
19
5
9
2
9
19
3
Suspend
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.
Selected SAPA Provisions –
Stay of Expiration of License
 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.
~Questions~