Thursday, May 24, 2018

We won in court today to keep PS 25 open -- probably for at least another year!

See also my open letter to Chancellor Carranza in today's Washington Post Answer Sheet , urging him to revoke the decision of the previous Chancellor to close PS 25, and an article in the CSA News.

Today in court, we won our temporary restraining order to keep PS 25 open! 

Judge Katherine Levine of the Kings County Supreme Court issued a decision from the bench that unless she has an epiphany in the next two weeks, the school will remain open next year and she will decide the complex legal merits of the case more carefully over the next few months.

She seemed impressed with our research showing how all the other 33 schools DOE offered these students to apply to 1- all had far lower positive impact ratings 2- many of them were miles away, 19 of the schools in Staten Island alone 3- 25 were overcrowded, and 4- none had class sizes as small as PS 25.  And the DOE has not offered to provide busing for the students.

In short, she was impressed that in most every other proposal to close schools, the DOE had promised higher performing schools that students could apply to, but they didn’t in this case, because according to DOE's own estimation, there are only three other public elementary schools as good as PS 25 in the entire city and they are full.  

In fact, the City itself admitted in their response papers to the lawsuit that according to the school performance dashboard, PS 25 is the "second best public elementary school in Brooklyn and the fourth best in the City, and that PS 25 outperforms charter school other than Success Academy Bronx 2 in its positive impact on student achievement and attendance."

The Judge was also interested in the zoning issue, and that the CEC hadn’t voted to approve the closing of a zoned school.  The City argued instead that they hadn't changed any zoning lines, but that they had just eliminated the zoned school, which is absurd.  As the  PS 25 plaintiffs' memo of law points out, argued by Laura Barbieri, the pro bono attorney from Advocates for Justice who argued the case:

“Entirely eliminating a zoned school and without replacing it with another zoned school, leaving the families in this neighborhood without any zoned school that their children have the right to attend, as occurred in this instance, is the most radical change in zoning lines that can be conceived.”

The Judge was concerned that there was little case law on this subject, but Laura explained the precedent of the Grinage case, in which in 2009, the NYCLU sued the DOE to block the proposal to close three zoned schools without a vote of the CECs.  Chancellor Klein, not a risk averse attorney himself, promptly withdrew these proposals just two weeks after the lawsuit was filed.  Yet incredibly, today in court, the City's attorney claimed that nine years later, Grinage was "still pending."

The Judge asked if the CEC hadn’t voted to approve this, what public input was there?  The DOE explained there were public meetings, etc. where parents expressed their concerns.  The Judge said but you don’t have to listen them, right? Is that the DOE’s  position?  

Finally, she asked the attorneys as regards the temporary restraining order: what’s the balance of harm?  What the worst that happens if I leave the TRO in place?  The PS 25 students have the benefit of an excellent school for another year?  

The City attorney tried to argue this would hold up assignments for all other 3000 kids at closing schools, but as the Judge responded, that was a "ridiculous" argument.  All those transfers and assignments can go through, this will only affect the students at PS 25. (Actually there aren’t 3000 kids in closing schools –  instead there are about 2000 kids in all and 661 in elementary schools, but none of them will be affected but the students at PS 25, whose parents want them to stay).

We were all whooping it up inside the courtroom when the Judge issued her decision from the bench, including PTA Vice President Crystal Williams, one of the plaintiffs.  Afterward, we all hugged and expressed huge relief. Above is a photo after the  hearings of PS 25 parents, supporters and our attorney Laura Barbieri, in front of the Kings County court house.  I just heard from Darcy Griffin, the PTA president, that the parents at PS 25 were all thrilled when they picked up their kids and heard the news.

Let's hope that the Chancellor withdraws the proposal to close this terrific school, as I urged him to do in today's Washington Post; which not only would serve the case of justice, preserve this excellent school, save the parents, teachers, and students at PS 25 much anxiety, and city taxpayer money.

Chancellor Carranza:  On Tuesday in hearings before the New York City Council, you spoke eloquently about how the city should be celebrating our successful public schools, rather than allowing others to denigrate them. In particular, you noted that you had seen some great teaching in Bed-Stuy schools. If you are serious about this, you should rescind the decision to close this school and instead celebrate its accomplishments.] 

The negative impact on PS 25 families would be severe if this closure is allowed to go forward, especially for the large number of homeless students, because the school is a sanctuary of stability in their lives. As Mark Cannizaro, the president of the CSA, the New York City principals’ union, has said, “the students, families and educators of PS 25 deserve better.”  Instead of closing this exceptional school, we urge you to honor PS 25’s achievements, emulate and expand it — and enable more NYC schools and students to have the same chance to succeed.

Congrats to the parents, students and teachers at this amazing school, to Laura Barbieri, our wonderful pro bono attorney, and my research assistant, Sebastian Spitz, who did much of the data and factual analysis for the case. Here are some of the legal briefs filed in the case, opposing the PS 25 closure:  
Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Injunction to Stop the Closure of PS 25 
The memo of law explains the legal basis for why the DOE must keep PS 25 Eubie Blake open until the court is able to make a final decision on the legal merits, including the irreparable harm to its students if the school closes this year and they have to transfer to lesser schools.

Parents' Legal Petition Against the Closure of PS 25 This verified petition explains the background of the case, including PS 25's high quality, and the legal argument for why the DOE does not have the right to close the school.

Affidavit of Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters My affidavit explaining the research showing the importance of class size, and how PS 25's small class sizes are a critical reason for the school's success.

Appendix to Leonie Haimson's Affidavit: Summary of Class Size Reduction Research on the proven benefits, in the short term and long term, of small class sizes, especially disadvantaged children who make up the overwhelming majority of PS 25 student population.

Affidavit of Crystal Williams  Crystal Williams, parent of two students at PS 25 and the Vice President of the PS PTA, explains how PS 25 has helped her children and why she and other parents oppose its closure.

Order to Show Cause and Request for Temporary Restraining Order to Stop the Closure of PS 25 This document requests that the court prevent the DOE from taking any further steps to close PS 25 until the court decides on its legality. 

Here are the response documents filed by the City:

Verified Answer of DOE in PS 25 Case  The DOE explains why they want to close PS 25 – though they admit on p. 3 that according to their school performance dashboard,  it is the 2nd best public elementary school in Brooklyn and the fourth best n the city and outperforms all other charter schools than Success Academy Bronx 2 in its positive impact on student achievement and attendance.

Analysis of Public Comments on the Closure of PS 25 This document summarizes the various public hearings, etc. held about the school's proposed closure, revealing widespread public opposition to the plan. 

DOE's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Temporary Injunction and Show Cause
The Department of Education's argument explaining why they should have the right to close PS 25 before the court makes a final decision on the merits of the case. 


Tuesday, May 22, 2018

After waiting two years for DOE to respond to my FOILs, I filed an appeal

More than two years have passed without a substantive response to three Freedom of Information Law requests to the NYC Department of Education, so yesterday I filed an appeal with General Counsel Howard Friedman, pointing out these are "constructive denials" and thus violate the state FOIL law

The subjects of my requests are quite clear and the DOE should have easy access to this information.  It should have taken no more than a week at most to deliver to me data on their spending on technology, their spending on charter school leases and renovations, and to provide privacy agreements between DOE and third party organizations with whom they share personal student data.

Yet in no case have they produced any of this information, but have sent me the same boilerplate letters every four weeks or so, saying that "due to the volume and complexity of requests we receive and process, and to determine whether any records or portions thereof will be subject to redactions permitted under Public Officers Law §87(2), additional time is required to respond substantively to your request.”

In all three cases, three to six months have passed since I've heard anything at all from DOE about my requests, though all three are still listed as "Open" on the Open Records dashboard, here, here and here.

The NY Post sued the DOE in 2016 over its continual delays in responding to its FOILs, which they identified as "constructive denials."  Here is their legal petition  and here the memo of law.

The Post settled the lawsuit  in April 2018, when the DOE "agreed to reform what The Post called a 'pattern and practice' of endless delays and stonewalling" and to revise their "rules to halt the indefinite postponements — and stick to reasonable deadlines. New guidelines were approved in November."  I was quoted in the article as remaining skeptical.

The DOE revised the Chancellor's regulations on FOILs last December,  though the DOE FOIL page still posts the previous Chancellors regs from 2009, so you can see how seriously they take these new rules.   (The head of their FOIL office, Joseph Barandello, is also the DOE chief privacy officer who also keeps busy justifying DOE's violation of FERPA, including making student personal information to charter schools for recruiting purposes without parental consent.)

According to the new regs, the DOE was supposed to be more specific about its reasons for delaying responses, and to provide a more certain date when the request would be fulfilled.  As I write below, the only difference I saw was longer boilerplate  prose describing in more verbose terms exactly what they had earlier claimed, a longer gap between letters, and then no letters at all.

Analyses by Village Voice and Chalkbeat have found that the DOE is the worst record in responding to FOILs of any city agency.  The Mayor's overall record on this is particularly deplorable, since as Public Advocate he made the city's poor performance in responding to FOILs one of his signature issues and promised during his campaign to improve the process.

In response to a KidsPAC survey, he pledged the following: "I have a record of transparency and will ensure that under my administration, the DOE will be in full compliance with FOIL. As Public Advocate, I monitored and reported on the city’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)."

Yet if anything, the DOE's performance on FOILs is worse now than it was under Bloomberg.

According to the Chancellor's regs, the DOE General Counsel is supposed to "issue a written decision on the appeal within ten (10) business days following receipt of the appeal and fully explain in writing the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought."  I'll let you know if and when he does respond, and let you know what he says.

If he doesn't provide the information I've requested I will take it to court.  It is now easier to obtain legal representation as a new state law on FOILs  approved in December makes "attorney’s fees awards compulsory where a government agency had 'no reasonable basis' for denying access to a request."

Live tweeting Chancellor Carranza's testimony before the City Council today : how did he do?

The City Council Finance and Education Committees held a joint budget hearing today on the city's education budget.   The Council budget summary is here, which among other things, shows that next year the city is projected to spend $2.1B per year on charter schools, nearly 10% of the entire DOE budget.

It was the first Council hearing at which Chancellor Carranza testified.  Though I was disappointed that more of the questions weren't focused on the big picture of class size (how can you have equity or excellence without addressing this issue?), in response to a question from CM Treyger, Chancellor Carranza did say that he understood the importance of class size and school overcrowding in being able to deliver a quality education.  He recounted that as a teacher,  he knew he could do so much better for his students when he had a class of 20 to 25 instead of 45, which he had one year.

He made no promises to fully address either class size or overcrowding, however, and implied that these problems would have to wait for the state to increase its funding to the city -- which I think is a cop-out.  When de Blasio wanted to expand preK, he aggressively argued for a tax increase, which then Cuomo countered by offering him the funds instead.  Since his election the Mayor has never expressed the same interest in lowering class size, or indeed in any program to improve education for K12 students, either funded through a city tax surcharge or by aggressively advocating for it at the state level.  Councilmember Mark Gjonaj noted the disparity in the focus of the DOE in expanding preK vs addressing overcrowding for K12 students, in particular, in making enough space to eliminate trailers.

In response to a question from CM Barron,  Carranza forthrightly said he would do what he could to improve the admissions system at the specialized high schools, and to make them based upon multiple measures whether than a single standardized test.  He implied he knew that the city had that authority for at least some of the schools (actually this is true of four out of the seven specialized schools ). 

He ended by saying DOE should be celebrating its successful schools rather than allowing them to be denigrated, by corporate CEOs etc., and had seen some terrific teaching at Bed Stuy public schools, for example.

If so, as I tweeted below, they should be celebrating PS 25 in Bed Stuy -- which according to the DOE's own metrics, outperforms all but one charter school in the entire city, and all but three out of 633 public elementary schools,  rather than shutting it down.

In short, Carranza seems to be the smartest, most progressive and articulate Chancellor  in my nearly twenty years as a public school parent and advocate; as well as the most politically adept. Here are my tweets about today's hearings:

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Sexual harassment and the complicit culture of corruption at DOE

Abusive principals who kept their jobs (credit NY Post)
More terrific reporting by Sue Edelman of the NY Post, to follow up on her earlier exposes,  on the dysfunction that allows predatory principals to repeatedly harass teachers and yet keep their positions and six figure salaries, because DOE has dragged their feet so long they can no longer be fired.

Instead, DOE chronically ignores teachers' claims and instead informs the principals of their accusations, who then retaliate by firing them or making their lives miserable.  In one horrible case that Sue describes, the principal of PS 15 in Queens Antonio K’tori was protected by District 29 Superintendent Lenon Murray, who himself was subsequently accused of sexual harassment.  Earlier, several young girls were molested by a teacher at PS 15, who is now in jail.  The girls won a $16 million jury award against the city, with the parents blaming DOE and the K'tori for “negligent supervision.”

Yet even now, after teacher Shaunte Pennington filed a civil lawsuit against K'tori in court, who fired her after she reported harassment starting in 2012, the DOE has delayed doing anything for so long about her complaints that the three year statute of limitations has lapsed and he can't be dismissed.

“It’s a system that gives predators a platform and access to victims,” Penniston told The Post. “Nothing is done, and there are protections for perpetrators.”

In case after case, even when administrators are removed from their schools, the DOE is forced to pay them their full salaries until they choose to retire.  As I'm quoted in the article, "It’s a terrible burden on the teachers who are complaining, and a terrible burden on taxpayers, because we have to pay large amounts to settle these cases — and then the salaries of the principals in perpetuity."

I've written frequently about the well-known dysfunction at the OSI, the DOE's internal investigative office, as well as the problems at the Special Investigator's office (now under the authority of Commissioner of Investigation Mark Peters).  Both offices have records of refusing to aggressively pursue the valid accusations of whistleblowers, who are then forced to go to the media or to court to get their reports of corruption taken seriously.

The DOE's malign neglect is likely the reason there are so few sexual harassment claims compared to other city agencies, only 570 over four years, considering there are roughly 135,000 full-time workers, mostly women; and an even tinier number -- only seven-- of substantiated complaints.  Teachers are clearly afraid to complain for good reason, knowing that if they do, their jobs may be at risk and DOE and/or the SCI will whitewash their tormentors. Yet when asked why there were so few substantiated reports of harassment at DOE, de Blasio blamed a "culture of complaint" at the Department;

There has been a history, it's pretty well-known inside the education world, of some people bringing complaints of one type or another for reasons that may not have to do with the specific issue — and this is not just about sexual harassment it's about a whole host of potential infractions,

Later, the Mayor was forced to take this statement back, especially after a critical editorial in the NY Times.  But he still hasn't managed to confront how an ingrained culture of corruption has been allowed to fester and grow for many years at DOE.

On the other hand, Chancellor Carranza has said that this is a "Before Richard'” problem and pledged to take the allegations of harassment "extremely seriously." Let's hope he does.  In my experience, I haven't yet noted a single Chancellor who has.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Would the new teacher evaluation bill fix the dysfunctional test-based system that currently exists? The answer is no.

UPDATE: James Eterno, NYC teacher has posted a petition, urging the Governor and the legislature to  repeal the state law which ties teacher evaluation to test scores.  This is unlike the current bill, which continues to tie evaluation to alternative assessments or the state exams, unreliable, unfair and statistically invalid ways of rating teachers.  Instead, NY schools would return to locally determined teacher evaluation methods that existed before Race to Top, Arne Duncan and Bill Gates managed to dupe the state and the teachers union into adopting the current dysfunctional system.
A new bill, passed by the NYS Assembly and being considered by the NY Senate as S08301, would change the teacher evaluation system in the state for (at least) the fourth time since 2010.  Despite the claims of NYSUT, the state teacher union, a careful reading of the bill does not indicate that it would de-link teacher evaluations from student test scores.  

Instead, teacher evaluations would continue to be partially determined by student “growth scores,” which in turn would be based on “alternate assessments” as approved by the NYS Education Department or where desired locally, still based on the state exams.  Thus, the concerns expressed by the NY State School Boards  Association, the New York Council of School Superintendents and other education groups, that this bill, if passed, could mean even more testing for students, appears warranted, since the state exams will continue to be given anyway, as mandated by federal law. 

More discussion of the teacher evaluation issue, which NY State can’t seem to get right, is in an column written by Gary Stern of LoHud News,  in which he calls the system “a ghastly mistake that won't die.” Diane Ravitch argues that the currently teacher evaluation law, called APPR, should just be repealed, and the decision how to evaluate teachers should go back to the districts, as it was before the promise of Race to the Top funds lured the state to create a new system based in part on student test scores.  My view? If the law is not to be simply repealed, there should be hearings, public input and careful consideration as to what should replace this complex and unreliable mess of a system, rather than the current bill.

The below detailed analysis was written by Deborah Abramson-Brooks of the Port Washington Advocates for Public Education and NY State Allies for Public Education.
Can we PLEASE settle this once and for all?

The proposed legislation -- recently passed in the NYS Assembly with a "same as" bill now sitting in the NYS Senate -- is all about amending the current teacher evaluation law, NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d.  The proposed legislation affects only *some* of section 3012-d; those portions of 3012-d that are not addressed in the proposed legislation remain intact. Accordingly, it is IMPERATIVE that the proposed legislation be read in conjunction with existing NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d. If you like to use a ruler and red pen, feel free to put the documents side-by-side and start red-lining, or adding!

Myth #1: tests will be decoupled from teacher evaluations. FALSE.
I have seen/heard waaaaay too many comments suggesting that the proposed legislation permanently decouples testing from teacher evaluations.  Sorry, no. 

Teacher (and principal) evaluations remain segmented into two categories: student performance and classroom observations. According to the proposed legislation, student performance will continue to be based on some type of assessment, whether it's a state exam, or some "alternative assessment" that SED will approve. The difference is that the NY State Education Department will no longer be able to mandate that a district MUST use the STATE test scores for teacher evaluations; rather, this is subject to local collective bargaining discretion.

The following is from a NYS Assembly press release:

"THE LEGISLATION WOULD REMOVE THE MANDATE that state created or administered assessments be used to evaluate a teacher's or principal's performance. The Commissioner of Education would be required to promulgate regulations providing ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR DISTRICTS THAT CHOOSE NOT TO USE THE STATE ASSESSMENTS. The selection and use of assessments would be subject to collective bargaining. The bill would also eliminate the use of the state-provided growth model in a teacher or principal's evaluation. ALL TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) consistent with a goal-setting process determined or developed by the Commissioner.

The legislation would also ELIMINATE THE USE OF CERTAIN RULES TO DETERMINE A TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL'S OVERALL RATING, and make permanent provisions that prohibit grades three through eight ELA or math state assessments scores from being included on a student's permanent record."  (my emphasis added)

TRANSLATION: 1) SED is precluded from mandating that districts use the grades 3-8 state exams and/or Regents exams to evaluate teachers; BUT NOW, districts can *choose* to use the state exams to evaluate a teacher/principal, or some alternative assessment approved by SED, via local collective bargaining.

Myth #2: no more growth models!  FALSE.
As mentioned above, *some* type of test/assessment must still be tied to the teacher evaluation.  Some districts may choose to use the state exams in grades 3-8.

Some districts may choose to use Regents exams for high school teachers.  (It remains to be seen if SED will allow districts to use Regents exams for all teachers, or only those whose classes culminate in a Regents Exam.) 

Other districts may decide to use one of the SED-approved alternative assessments, which come with their own growth models, i.e., NWEA MAP, and which are no more reliable for this purpose than the state exams.  Whichever assessment is used, some type of growth model will likely be required by SED, or else how would a district determine student growth, a requirement that remains mandated in the state law?  See NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d(2)(c): “Student growth’ shall mean the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time;” and NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d(4)(a) which also discusses student growth. 

Whichever assessment is used, expert statisticians have been sounding the alarm bells that *any* test-based growth model – whether VAM (Value-Added Model) or the SGP (Student Growth Percentile), or some other model -- used for high-stakes considerations should immediately be viewed with great suspicion.  Many experts, including Diane Ravitch, call these models “junk science.”  The AmericanStatistical Association has come out against this method of evaluating teachers, and there is an entire website called VAMboozled, written by expert statistician and Professor Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, who explains in detail why growth models based on student test scores are an unreliable and unfair way to evaluate teachers.

Finally, in the lawsuit filed by Great Neck teacher Sheri Lederman, Justice Roger D. McDonough of the New York State Supreme Court found that the portion of the NYS teacher evaluation statute that linked student growth scores to the teacher’s evaluation was irrational and produced results that were “arbitrary and capricious,” and ruled that the teacher scores and ratings that flowed from them were illegal. At that point, however, the Legislature had already voted on a moratorium against using state test scores in teacher evaluation until the school year 2019-20. 

The moratorium is coming to its end; thus this bill.

Now let's read the entirety of the current APPR law, NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d (a/k/a part of The Education Transformation Act of 2015), alongside the Legislature's red-lined/green additions version to THAT LAW, and see what else changes/stays/gets added.  Here is NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d:

Subdivision 1 of 3012-d remains intact. That section provides: "Such ANNUAL EVALUATIONS SHALL BE A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS including but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and supplemental compensation. Such evaluations SHALL ALSO BE a significant factor IN TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT including but not limited to coaching, induction support, and differentiated professional development." Translation: high-stakes employment decisions remain.

Subdivision 2, Definitions, remains intact.

Subdivision 3, Ratings, as in H-E-D-I (meaning Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective) designations, remain intact.

Subdivision 4, Categories; continue to define APPR by student performance along with classroom observations. Translation: tests continue to be linked to APPR.

What changes: *For the first student performance subcomponent: 1) "a teacher shall have a student learning objective (SLO) consistent with a goal-setting process determined or developed by the commissioner, that RESULTS IN A STUDENT GROWTH SCORE;" 2) the law continues to say: "for any teacher whose course ends in a state-created or administered assessment, such assessment MAY be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO" -- meaning the state tests can still be used as the underlying assessment for the SLO; but 3) the mandate to use a growth score based on the state exams is eliminated.

What else changes: *For the optional second student performance subcomponent: a district may locally select a second measure and be either: (A) BASED ON A STATE-CREATED OR ADMINISTERED TEST (again, meaning the state exams); or (B) based on a state-designed supplemental assessment (again meaning the state exams).  The state-provided growth model mandate is eliminated.

This language in 3012-d(4) remains intact: "The commissioner shall determine the weights and scoring ranges for the subcomponent or subcomponents of the student performance category that shall result in a combined category rating. The commissioner shall also set parameters for appropriate targets for student growth for both subcomponents, and the department must affirmatively approve and shall have the authority to disapprove or require modifications of district plans that do not set appropriate growth targets, including after initial approval. The commissioner shall set such weights and parameters consistent with the terms contained herein."  This gives a whole lot of power to Commissioner Elia, who has in the past put great reliance on unreliable standardized exams.

In addition, the entire provision regarding classroom observations remains intact.

Subdivision 5, Rating Determination. 1) The draft legislation completely removes what must happen to a teacher or principal who is rated using two subcomponents in the student performance category and receives a rating of ineffective for both. 2) BUT... it otherwise leaves the HEDI matrix intact, which in essence means student growth scores and teacher observation are weighted 50/50, and sometimes the student growth portion is given more weight.

Subdivision 6, Prohibited Elements, entire section left intact.  So, for anyone claiming that student portfolios could be used instead of standardized exams, check out subsection (a):

“The following elements shall no longer be eligible to be used in any evaluation subcomponent pursuant to this section: a. evidence of student development and performance derived from lesson plans, other artifacts of teacher practice, and student portfolios, except for student portfolios measured by a state-approved rubric where permitted by the department.” 

And for anyone saying that unit tests (meaning designed by the classroom teacher) could be used to measure student performance, check out subsection (d) that rules out the use of: “any district or regionally-developed assessment that has not been approved by the department.”

Subdivision 7 continues to ensure that the process by which weights and scoring ranges are assigned to subcomponents and categories is transparent and available to those being rated before the beginning of each school year. The draft legislation completely removes what must happen to a teacher or principal who is rated using two subcomponents in the student performance category and receives a rating of ineffective for both.

Subdivision 8 says a student may not be instructed, for two consecutive school years, by any two teachers in the same district, each of whom received a rating of ineffective under an evaluation conducted pursuant to this section in the school year immediately prior to the school year in which the student is placed in the teacher's classroom.... remains intact.

Subdivision 9 regarding the right to terminate a probationary (non-tenured) teacher or principal remains intact.

Subdivision 10 regarding the local collective bargaining representative negotiating with the district remains largely intact.

Subdivisions 11 and 12 remain intact.

Subdivisions 13 and 14, looping 3012-d to 3012-c (which outlines the subcomponent scores that align to H-E-D-and I) remains intact. NYS Ed. Law section 3012-c here:

Subdivision 15 remains intact.

The draft legislation adds a new subdivision 16, to provide that 1) the grades 3-8 state tests "shall not be required to be utilized in any manner to determine a teacher or principal evaluation required by this section;" 2) SED (Commissioner Elia) is required to promulgate rules and regs providing alternative assessments that may be used; 3) the selection and use of an assessment is subject to collective bargaining law; 4) any unexpired collective bargaining agreement in effect on the date this proposed legislation takes effect (if ever) stands until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement, and a successor collective bargaining agreement must comply with applicable law and timelines, etc.

Translation: all new collective bargaining agreements must comply with the amended APPR law (if it passes) or, conversely, whatever assessments are used in the district’s teacher evaluation system must be negotiated with the union.

And finally, the draft bill discusses the grades 3-8 test scores vis-a-vis a student's permanent record. (FWIW, this issue is addressed in NYS Ed. Law section 305(45) – not NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d.)

NYS Ed. Law section 305(45) provides: "no school district or board of cooperative educational services may place or include on a student's official transcript or maintain in a student's permanent record any individual student score on a state administered standardized English language arts or mathematics assessment for grades three through eight, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to interfere with required state or federal reporting or to excuse a school district from maintaining or transferring records of such test scores separately from a student's permanent record, including for purposes of required state or federal reporting." 

 The most recent expiration date for that provision was December 2018; the recent  budget bill amended that expiration date to December 2019, via Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2018.  The draft legislation seeks to eliminate the expiration date altogether.  NYS Ed. Law section 305 here:

Happy red-lining!