STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY

ADAM URBANSKI, as President, ROCHESTER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; and
THOMAS ALAIMO, RICK AMICO, DENISE ANDERSON, JILL ANGLE,
WINDSOR ASAMOAH-WADE, F ARAI ASHTON, BANKE A WOPETU-
MCCULLOUGH, RENE AYERS, PETER BAILLARGEON, DORIS BAILEY-
GORDON, TRACEY BARNWELL, RYAN BARRY, LAURA BARSTOW, AMY
BATEMAN, ROBERT BEAUCHAMP, NATASHA BELL, CHRISTOPHER
BIANCHI, LISA BUCK, MARY BLYTHE, MARY CATHERINE BOSNER, A},'N
BOUNDS,JOSIEBRADLEY, WILLV\MBRALEY,PAULBRANDWEIN,BRIDGET
BRONSON, JOHN BRUMAGHIM, KENISHA CAMPBELL, MICHELE
CARBALLADA, ROXAl\TNE CAREY, PENNY CARLSON, KARL CARPENTER,
DA VID CERVINI, PATRICK CHIERI CHELLA, HILL CHUKWU, JOANN
COLLER, BENJAMIN CONA WAY, NANCY COONS, CARLA COTRONEO,
KATHRYN COLYE, EMILY CROWLEY, EILEEN DALY, DIANA DANIEL
ANTONIA DELGADO, ROBBIN DeHOLLANDER, DANA DELONG,
CHANTAL CELORM-FERRARA, JOAN DEMARLE-OBERLIN, GARY
DERMODY, CHAD DEWITZ, ENRIQUE DIAZ, CHAD DOW, DANIEL
DUNNE, LIANNE DUPREE, EDWARD DYMINSKI, JOANNE ECCLES,
LOUIS ENGLERT, AUSTRIALIA ESTRELLA-BRAZIL, CLEVELAND
EVANS, SAMUEL EYGABORD, ROBERT FAULKNOR, AlDEN FICI,
PATRICK FINK, TODD FLEMMING, MARY GAGNIER, CAROLINE GAL V ANO,
ANDREW GARDNER, BIAGIO GIARDINA, DAVID GIBBARDO, JEANETTE
GILBERT, KAREN GRANN, DONNA GRAYSON, MARIANNE GRECO, ANA
GUEVERA, SANDHY A GUPTA, BETH HALL, SHELL Y HASSELL, MARGARET
HASTINGS, MARY HAYES, TIMOTHY HENSEL, MARY ANN HOLCOMB,
JOSEPHHORTON,AMIJARIWALA,DARLEKEJOHANSON,CHLOEJOHKSON,
JEROME JOHNSON, NICOLE JOHNSON, PAUL JONASEE, PATRICIA KEENE,
WILLIAMKRYSTAN,LORILALOGGIA,AARONLANE,GEORGELANGFORD,
WENDY LAWTHER,SCOTT LAZAREK, STEVEN LEONE, AMY LEWIS, KELL Y
LIBERA TORE, ALICE LOMBARDO, MARIA LOPEZ, VIRGINIA LUDWIG,
ED\VThi LUMA, DEBORAH MACPHERSON, MARASILES MARX, ERIN MASON,
PAMELA MCMINDES, SARAH MEADE, MICHAEL MEISE, CARNEA THEA
MELSON, DEBORAH MERRITT, DONNA MINEO, MICHAEL MOLLERING,
ROSS MORELLI, MARK MORRISON, CHARLES MORROW, JAMES MUCHARD,
LAIQA ML'NA WAR, THOMAS MUELLER, TIMOTHY MULTER, LAIQA
MUNA WAR, KEVIN MURPHY, JODY NAGLE, AMIE NANNINI, MELISSA
NEIL-ADAMS, GERALD NOETH, JOHN OLIVERI, EILEEN PARK, SANYA
PELRAH, A'!'.'NETTE PENNELLA-MARTINEZ, HOLLI PHILLIPS, MARYANN
REED,MARYREILLY,SALLYRILEY,FRANKRINERE, LAURA RODRIGUEZ-
ACOSTS, ELIZABETH ROEMER, JENNIFER ROTHFUSS, KAREN SAMIS,
MAR YJO SAND Y, FABIAN SERVENTI, MATTIERE SHAW-ELLIOTT, CYNTHIA
SHEAR, CECILLE SHORTER, CRYSTAL,SHORTER, MICHAEL SICIENSKI,
SUMMONS/
NOTICEOF
PETITION
Index No.:
Date Filed:
WARREN SINCLAIR, COREY SKI1\J'NER, OLIVIA SMITH, ALEXIS SOTO,
THERESASURACE,GARFIELDTAYLOR,KARENSTEELE-AVERY,BROOKE
THOMAS,NEGUSSIETSADKAN,ALYSONULRICH,MAUREENVANBUREN,
JUDY VIA-WOLFF, JENNIFER WARRICK, DIANE WATKINS, CATHERINE
WELLS, MICHELLE WHELEN, ALANNA WILCOXX, GREGORY WILKES,
MARK WILLIAMS,GUILLAUMEYOBOUE,JULIANN" ZELAZNY,onbehalfof
themselvesandasrepresentativesofaclassofall otherpersonssimilarlysituated,
Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
-against-
JOHNB. KING,JR,as CommissioneroftheNewYork
StateEducationDepartment;BOARDOF REGENTS OF
TIIEUNIVERSITYOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK;
and NEWYORKSTATEEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT,
Defendants/Respondents,
and
ROCHESTERCITY SCHOOLDISTRICT,BOARDOFEDUCATION
OF THEROCHESTERCITYSCHOOLDISTRICT,andDR. BOLGEN
VARGAS,inHisCapacityas Superintendentof the
RochesterCity School District,
NecessaryPruiy Defendants/Respondents.
TOTHEDEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that you are hereby summoned and required to serve upon
plaintiffs/petitioners'attorneyananswertothecomplaintinthisactionwithintwentydaysafterthe
service ofthis summons, exclusive ofthe day ofservice, or within thirty days after service is
completeif thissummonsis notpersonallydeliveredtoyouwithintheStateof NewYork. Incase
of yourfailure to answer,judgmentwillbetakenagainstyouby defaultforthe reliefdemandedin
thecomplaint;and
PLEASETAKEFURTHERNOTICE,thatAlbanyCountyisdesignatedasthevenueofthis
2
action/proceeding as it is the COlmty inwhich State defendants/respondents have theirprincipal
placeofbusiness,andinwhichtheStatedefendants/respondentsengagedintheactsgivingriseto
thiscomplaint.
PLEASETAKEFURTHERNOTICE,thatupontheannexedpetitionverifiedonMarch4,
2014andupontheexhibitsannexedthereto,andtheAffidavitof AaronPallassworntoonFebruary
28,2014,andtheexhibitattachedthereto,theundersignedwillmovethisCourton the18thdayof
April,2014attheAlbanyCountyCourthouse,Albany,NewYorkat9:30a.m.onthatdateorassoon
thereafteras counsel can beheard, for anorderandjudgmentpursuantto CPLRArticle 78: (A)
ordering that plaintiffs/petitioners be permitted to maintain this hybrid action and Article 78
proceeding as a class; (B) declaring that the State defendantslrespondents by their actions have
violatedEducationLaw3012-candhaveactedinanarbitrary,capriciousandunlawfulmanner;(C)
declaringthatthefinalAPPRratingsofplaintiffsforthe2012-2013schoolyearareinvalid,voidand
withoutlegaleffect;(D)permanentlyenjoiningthedefendants/respondentsfromtakinganyadverse
employmentaction againstplaintiffs basedontheirfinal ratingsforthe2012-13 school year; (E)
orderingthatanynecessarydisclosurebehadpursuanttoCPLR408;(F)orderingthetrialof any
triable issues offact raised in the Article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804(h); and (F)
orderingsuchother,furtheranddifferentreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper,togetherwith
reasonablecosts.
PLEASETAKEFURTHERNOTICEthatdefendants/respondents'papersinoppositionto
theArticle78 petitionmustbeservedno laterthanfive (5)daysbeforethereturndatehereof,and
3
PLEASETAKEFURTHERNOTICEthatAlbanyCountyisdesignatedasthevenueofthis
proceeding pursuant to CPLR 506(b), as Albany County is the principal office ofthe State
defendants/respondents.
DATED: March4,2014
Latham,NewYork Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD CASAGRANDE,ESQ.
Attorney forPlaintiffs/Petitioners
800Troy-SchenectadyRoad
Latham,NewYork 12110-2455
Telephone: (518)213-6000
:> ~ _ ~ },).>c
1

" '----,,-__
By:
_
.U V
TO: JOHNB. KING, JR.,asCommissioner
oftheNewYorkStateEducationDepartment
EducationBuilding
89WashingtonAvenue
Albany,NY12234
BOARDOFREGENTSOFTHE
UNIVERSITYOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK
EducationBuilding
89WashingtonAvenue,Room 110
Albany,NY12234
NEWYORKSTATEEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT
EducationBuilding
89WashingtonAvenue
Albany,NY12234
HON. ERICT. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General
JusticeBuilding
EmpireStatePlaza
Albany,NY12224
4
112504
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY
ADAM URBANSKI, as President, ROCHESTER TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; and
THOMAS ALAIMO, RICK AMICO, DENISE ANDERSON, JILL ANGLE,
WINDSOR ASAMOAH-WADE, FARAI ASHTON, BANKE AWOPETU-
:\.1CCULLOUGH, RENE AYERS, PETER BAILLARGEON, DORIS BAILEY-
GORDON, TRACEY BARJ."\JWELL, RYAN BARRY,LAURA BARSTOW, AMY
BATEMAN, ROBERT BEAUCHAMP,NATASHA BELL, CHRISTOPHER
BIANCHI, LISA BUCK, MARY BLYTHE, MARY CATHERINE BOSNER, ANN
BOlJ'NDS, JOSIE BRADLEY, WILLIAM BRALEY, PAUL BRANDWEIN, BRIDGET
BRONSON, JOHN BRUMAGHIM, KENISHA CAMPBELL, MICHELE
CARBALLADA, ROXANNE CAREY, PEN'NY CARLSON, KARL CARPENTER,
DAVID CERVINI, PATRICK CHIERI CHELLA, HILL CHUKWU, JOANN
COLLER, BENJAMIN CONA WAY, NANCY COONS, CARLA COTRONEO,
KATHRYN COL YE, EMILY CROWLEY, EILEEN DALY, DIANA DANIEL VERIFIED
ANTONIA DELGADO, ROBBIN DeHOLLANDER, DANA DELONG, COMPLAINT/
CHANTAL CELORJ.\1-FERRARA, JOAN DEMARLE-OBERLIN, GARY PETITION
DERc\10DY, CHAD DEWITZ, ENRIQUE DIAZ, CHAD DOW, DANIEL Index No.:
DUNNE, LIANNE DUPREE, EDWARD DYMINSKI, JOANNE ECCLES,
LOUIS ENGLERT, AUSTRIALIA ESTRELLA-BRAZIL, CLEVELAND
EVANS, SAMUEL EYGABORD, ROBERT FAULKNOR, AlDEN FICI, Date Filed:
PATRICK FINK, TODD FLEMMING, MARY GAGNIER, CAROLINE GALVANO,
ANDREW GARDNER, BIAGIO GIARDINA, DA VrD GIBBARDO, JEANETTE
GILBERT, KAREN GRANN, DONNA GRAYSON, MARIANNE GRECO, ANA
GUEVERA, SANDHY A GUPTA, BETH HALL, SHELL Y HASSELL, MARGARET
HASTINGS, MARY HAYES, TIMOTHY HENSEL, MARY ANl\J HOLCOMB,
JOSEPH HORTON, MlI JARIW ALA, DARLENE JOHANSON, CHLOE JOI-INSON,
JEROME JOHNSON, NICOLE JOHNSON, PAUL JONASEE, PATRICIA KEENE,
WILLIAMKRYSTAN,LORILALOGGIA,AARONLANE,GEORGELANGFORD,
WENDY LA WTHER,SCOTT LAZAREK, STEVEN LEONE, AMY LEWIS, KELL Y
LIBERATORE, ALICE LOMBARDO, MARIA LOPEZ, VIRGINIA LUDWIG,
EDWIN LUMA, DEBORAH MACPHERSON, MARASILES MARX, ERIN MASON,
PAMELA MCMINDES, SARAH MEADE, MICHAEL MEISE, CARNEATHEA
MELSON, DEBORAH MERRITT, DO"N'NA MINEO, MICHAEL MOLLERING,
ROSS MORELLI, MARK MORRISON, CHARLES MORROW, JAMES MUCHARD,
LAIQA MUNA WAR, THOMAS MUELLER, TIMOTHY MULTER, LAIQA
MUNA WAR, KEVIN MURPHY, JODY NAGLE, AMIE NANNINI, MELISSA
NEIL-ADAMS, GERALD NOETH, JOHN OLIVERI, EILEEN PARK, SANY A
PELRAH, ANNETTE PENNELLA-MARTINEZ, HOLLI PHILLIPS, MARY ANN
REED,MARYREILLY,SALLYRILEY,FRANKRINERE,LAURARODRIGUEZ-
ACOSTS, ELIZABETH ROEMER, JENNIFER ROTHFUSS, KAREN SAMIS,
MARYJOSANDY,FABIANSERVENTI,MATTIERESHAW-ELLIOTT, CYNTHIA
SHEAR, CECILLE SHORTER, CRYSTAL,SHORTER, MICHAEL SICIENSKI,
WARREN SINCLAIR, COREY SKI"N'NER, OLIVIA SMITH, ALEXIS SOTO,
THERESASURACE,GARFIELDTAYLOR,KARENSTEELE-AVERY,BROOKE
THOMAS,NEGUSSIETSADKAN,ALYSONULRICH,MAUREENVANBUREN,
JUDY VIA-WOLFF, JENNIFER WARRICK, DIANE WATKINS, CATHERINE
WELLS, MICHELLE WHELEN, ALANNA WILCOXX, GREGORY WILKES,
MARKWILLIAMS,GUILLAUMEYOBOUE, JULIANNZELAZNY,onbehalfof
themselvesand asrepresentativesofaclassofall otherpersonssimilarlysituated,
Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
-against-
JOI-IN B. KING, JR.,as Commissionerofthe NewYork
StateEducationDepartment;BOARDOFREGENTS OF
THEUNIVERSITYOF THESTATEOFNEWYORK;
and NEWYORKSTATEEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT,
Defendants/Respondents,
and
ROCHESTERCITYSCHOOLDISTRlCT,BOARDOFEDUCATION
OF THEROCHESTERCITYSCHOOLDISTRICT, and DR. BOLGEN
VARGAS,inHis Capacityas Superintendentofthe
RochesterCity SchoolDistrict,
Necessary PartyDefendants/Respondents.
Plaintiffs/petitioners,ADAMURBANSKI,et al., bytheirattorney,Richard Casagrande,
Esq. (JamesD. Bilik,Matthew Bergeronand Christina M. French,Esqs., ofcounsel),fortheir
complaint/petition, respectfully allegeas follows:
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs/petitionersbringthishybridactionfordeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefand
Article78 proceedingtochallengeandobtainredressfortheStatedefendants/respondents'failure
intheirdutiesconferred byEducationLaw3012-cto adequatelyaccountandcorrectforstudent
povertyandlowdistrictwealthinimplementingtheannualprofessionalperformancereview(APPR)
2
and teacher evaluation system for the 2012-13 school year, resulting in plaintiffs/petitioners'
receiving overall performance ratings of less than effective, thereby violating Section 3012-c and
plaintiffs/petitioners' constitutional rights to Equal Protection under the United States and New
York State Constitutions, and also acting in an arbitrary and unlawful maimer. The State
defendants/respondents' inadequate and arbitrary actions with regard to accounting and correcting
for student poverty and low district wealth constituted improper rule making in violation of the New
York State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the Executive Law, and the New York State
Constitution. Because ofthe above, plaintiffs/petitioners' 2012-13 APPR scores are invalid and void.
JURISDICTION
2. This Court has jurisdiction to grant plaintiffs/petitioners a declaratory judgment under
3001 and 3017 of the CPLR, injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR Article 63, and an order and
judgment under Article 78 of the CPLR.
3. There has been no prior application for the relief requested in this complaint/petition.
4. Plaintiffs/petitioners have exhausted any administrative remedies that may be
applicable prior to commencing this action/proceeding, namely the local appeals process in place in
the Rochester City School District, which concluded on or about November 4,2013.
VENUE
5. Pursuant to CPLR Sections 504 and 506, the venue of this action and Article 78
proceeding is Albany County, the county where the State defendants/respondents have their principal
place of business, and where the material events occurred.
PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS
6. The plaintiff/petitioner ("plaintiff') Rochester Teachers Association (RTA) is an
3
unincorporated association, and a labor organization for purposes ofCiviI Service Law 200 et seq.
(the Taylor Law). The RTA represents a bargaining unit including all teachers employed by the
Rochester School District. The District and the RTA are parties to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement covering the period July 1,2010 through June 30,2013. Said agreement remains in full
effect pursuant to Section 209-a(l)(e) of the Taylor Law.
7. Plaintiff Adam Urbanski is the President of the R T A.
8. Under Education Law 3012-c and the Taylor Law, the RTA has the right and duty
to negotiate with the Rochester City School District concerning certain teacher evaluation and APPR
matters.
9. The plaintiffs other than the RTA are classroom teachers employed by the Rochester
City School District, who were subject to the APPR under Education Law 30l2-c and Regents'
regulations, and received final ratings ofless than Effective (i.e., either Ineffective or Developing)
for the 2012-2013 school year.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTA TrVE
10. As shown above, this actionispecial proceeding is instituted, in part, by the RTA, by
its President Adam Urbanski, on behalf ofemployees of the Rochester City School District who are
members of the RTA and who have been harmed by defendants' actions.
11. The interests advanced herein are germane to the purpose of the RT A because it is
the exclusive bargaining representative for a collective bargaining unit including the plaintiffs.
The RTA is an appropriate representative of its members' interests because a
principal purpose ofthe RTA is that of ensuring the improvement ofpublic education in New York,
which is inextricably tied to protecting the employment rights of its members.
4
13. Approximately580teacherswho are RTAmemberswereaggrievedbytheactions
ofthedefendants setforthinthiscomplaint/petition.
14. Oneormoremembersofthe RTAhave standingto sue.
15. The paliicipation ofevery individual member ofthe RTA affected by the State
defendantslrespondents' unlawful actions,asdetailedherein,isnotrequiredtoassertthisclaimor
to afford theRTA oritsmemberscompleterelief.
16. Assuch,theRTAhasassociationalstandingtoprotecttheinterestsofitsmembers.
CLASSACTION
17. Plaintiffs commence this hybrid declaratory/injunctive action and Article 78
proceedingas aclass.
18. ThedescriptionoftheclassisallclassroomteachersemployedbytheRochesterCity
SchoolDistrictwhoweresubjecttothe2012-2013APPRandwhoreceivedafinalAPPRratingof
lessthaneffective(i.e., DevelopingorIneffective)for the 2012-13 schoolyear.
19. Theclassis so numerousthatjoinderofallmembersis impracticable.
20. Therearequestionsoflawandfactcommontotheclasswhichpredominateoverany
questionsaffectingonlyindividualmembers.
21. Theclaimsoftherepresentativepartiesaretypical oftheclaimsofthe class.
22. Therepresentativepartieswillfairlyandadequatelyprotecttheinterestsof theclass.
23. Aclassactionissuperiortootheravailablemethodsforfairandefficientadjudication
ofthecontroversy.
24. Upon information and belief, the members of the class are not interested in
individuallycontrollingthe prosecutionofseparate actionsorproceedings, as all members ofthe
5
classwill beaffectedequally by theoutcomeofthelitigation.
25. It would be impracticable and inefficientto prosecute separate actions, given the
predominatecommonquestionsoflawandfact.
26. There is no other litigation commenced by members ofthe class concerning the
controversyallegedherein.
27. It is desirable that the litigation be concentrated in this forum where the State
defendants/respondentsarelocated.
28. Therearenodifficultieslikelytobeencounteredinthemanagementofaclassaction.
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
29. Defendants/respondent ("defendant") Jolm B. King, Jr. is the Commissioner of
Education ofthe State ofNew York, and exercises those powers and duties authorized by the
Legislaturepursuantto EducationLawArticle7.
30. Defendant New York State Education Department is a depaliment of state
governmentestablishedunderEducationLaw101. Ithassuchpowersanddutiesasaresetforth
inthe EducationLaw, including thedutyto generallymanageandsuperviseNew York'spublic
schools.
31. Defendant Board ofRegents ofthe University ofthe State ofNew York was
establishedbytheLegislatureasthegoverningbodyoftheUniversityof theStateofNewYorkand
exercisesthosepowersanddutiesauthorizedbytheLegislaturepursuant10EducationLawArticle
5.
32. DefendantRochester City School Districtis a necessarypartyand is a cityschool
districtandmunicipalcorporationlocatedintheCityof Rochester,CountyofMonroe,StateofNew
Yorkand is organizedandexistingunderArticle37oftheEducationLaw.
6
33. DefendantBoardofEducationoftheRochesterCitySchoolDistrictisanecessary
partyandisabodycorporate,responsibleunderArticle37oftheEducationLawforthemanagement
andcontrolof theaffairsof theDistrict,andhasitsprimaryplaceof businesslocatedintheCityof
Rochester, CountyofMonroe,StateofNewYork.
34. Defendant Bolgen Vargas is a necessary party and is the Superintendent ofthe
Rochester City School District and, as such, is the chiefexecutive officer ofthe school district
pursuantto Article 37 ofthe EducationLawandhas aprincipal placeofbusiness inthe Cityof
Rochester,Countyof Monroe,StateofNewYork. Thenecessarypartydefendants/respondentsare
referredto collectively asthe"District."
NOTICEOF CLAIM
35. Uponinformationandbelief,thereisno requirementthatnoticesof claimbeserved
uponthenecessaryparty-defendantboardofeducationinordertomaintainthisaction/proceeding.
36. Nevertheless, on February 4, 2014, plaintiffs Adam Urbanski; Rick Amico; Jill
Angle; LauraBarstow; Amy Bateman; NatashaBell; Lisa Buck; EileenDaly; Andrew Gardner;
DavidGibbardo;WendyLmvther;AliceLombardo;VirginiaLudwig;MichaelMoellering;Thomas
Mueller;TimothyMulter;LaiqaMunawar;MaryReilley;SallyRiley;ElizabethRoemer;Mattiere
Shaw-Elliott; andJudy Via-Wolff; ontheirownbehalfandonbehalfofthose similarlysituated,
presentedthedefendantboardof educationwithverifiednoticesofclaimthatreferencedplaintiffs'
claims against the State defendants and stated that the Board ofEducation is named only as a
necessarypartyandonlyin ordertoaffordtheplaintiffscompleterelieforasanentitythatmightbe
inequitablyaffectedby ajudgmentinthisaction/proceedingpursuanttoCPLR1001.
37. Asofthereturndateof theArticle78petition,thirtydayswillhaveelapsedsincethe
7
plaintiffsreferencedinparagraph36presentednoticesof claimtotheDistrict,andplaintiffs'claims
willnot havenotbeenadjusted.
FACTS
A EducationLaw3012-candtheRochesterAPPRPlan
38. Education Law 3012-c, entitled "Annual Professional Performance Review of
ClassroomTeachersandBuildingPrincipals,"wasenactedbytheLegislaturebyChapter103ofthe
Lawsof2010, and becameeffectiveonJuly 1,2010. It wasamended in2012(Lawsof2012,ch.
21,57,and68).
39. Section3012-c establishedfor the first time in NewYork State, a comprehensive
framework for the performance evaluation of "all classroom teachers and building principals"
employedby allpublicschooldistrictsinthe State.
40. Section 3012-c provides for a rating system using a "single composite teacher
effectivenessscore"andfinalratingof"highlyeffective,""effective,""developing,"or"ineffective"
(commonlyknownas aHEDIrating). (EducationLaw3012-c(2)(a.
41. Implementationsofthe APPRlawtookplaceinasmallnumberofschools in the
2011-2012schoolyear. Inconnectionwiththe2012-13schoolyear,implementationof APPRand
theissuanceoffinalcompositescoresand HEDIratingstookplaceinalldistrictsexceptNewYork
City.
42. TheprimarypurposesoftheAPPRlawincludedenhancementofstudentlearningand
teachereffectivenessthroughregularevaluationofclassroomteachers,identificationofanyteaching
deficiencies,andprofessionaldevelopmentand othermeasuresto remediatesuchdeficiencies.
43. The defendant State Education Department (SED), in describing the new APPR,
8
stated that its purpose was to "implement a statewide comprehensive evaluation system for school
districts and BOCES. The evaluation system is designed to measure teacher and principal
effectiveness based on performance, including measures ofstudent achievement." SED, Legislation
in Support of Race to the Top, available at http://usny.nysed.gov/rtttlapplicationilegislation.htmi
(last updated October 7, 2010). A copy is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A".
44. That APPR was to be not only comprehensive but also fair and equitable to all
teachers, was expressed by the defendant Board of Regents in a May 16,2011 press release:
The New York State Board ofRegents today adopted regulations that
will implement a statewide teacher and principal performance
evaluation system that includes multiple measures of educator
effectiveness. The regulations, which will take effect during the 20 11-
2012 school year, are required by legislation enacted last year. The
new law establishes a comprehensive evaluation system for all
classroom teachers and building principals in New York.
Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch said, "With the help of our
partners in the field, we have taken a critical step today in developing
a fair and equitable system for evaluating the performance of New
York's teachers and principals - a system that will enhance the
quality of education across the State."
http://wv.'W. oms .nysed. gov Ipress/Eval uating T eacherPrinci palEffect
iveness.BORAdoptRules.htm [emphasis supplied]. (A copy is
annexed hereto as a "B").
45. The importance ofan educator's APPR rating to his or her career is explicitly outlined
in the statute:
[AJnnual professional performance reviews shall be a significant
factor for employment decisions including but not limited to,
promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination, and
supplemental compensation, which decisions are to be made in
accordance with locally developed procedures negotiated pursuant to
the requirements of article fourteen of the civil service law where
applicable. .. Such performance reviews shall also be a significant
factor in teacher and principal development, including but not limited
9
to, coaching, induction support and differentiated professional
development,whicharetobelocallyestablishedinaccordancewith
proceduresnegotiatedpursuanttotherequirementsofarticlefourteen
ofthecivilservicelaw. EducationLaw3012-c(1).
46. UnderEducationLaw3012-c( 4),plaintiffs,whowereallratedeither"Developing"
or "Ineffective" in 2012-13, must, during the 2013-14 school year, be placed on a teacher
improvementplan. Thisplanmustinclude"...identificationofneededareas ofimprovement,a
timelineforachievingimprovement,themannerinwhichimprovementwillbeassessedand,where
appropriate,differentiatedactivitiesto supportateacher's...improvementinthoseareas."
47. PursuanttoEducationLaw3020and3020-a,whichwerealsoamendedbyChapter
103,anyteacherwhoisrated"ineffective"duringtwoconsecutiveschoolyearsisdeemedto have
exhibited a "pattern ofineffective teaching" and may be the subject ofexpedited charges of
incompetenceunderEducationLaw3020-a. EducationLaw3012-c(6);3020-a(3) (i-a)(A).
48. EducationLaw3020-a(3) statesinrelevantpart:
(i-a) (A) Where charges ofincompetence are broughtbased solely
uponapatternofineffectiveteachingorperformanceof aclassroom
teacherorprincipal,asdefinedinsectionthreethousandtwelve-cof
thisarticle...thehearingshallbeconductedbeforeandbyasingle
hearingofficerinanexpeditedhearing....(B) ... Notwithstanding
any otherprovision oflaw to the contrary, a patternofineffective
teachingorperformanceasdefinedinsectionthreethousandtwelve-c
of this article shall constitute very significant evidence of
incompetenceforpurposesofthissection.
49. As noted, the compositeeffectivenessscore is basedon multiplemeasures. Inthe
2012-13 schoolyear, 40%ofthiseffectivenessscorewasbasedonstudentachievementmeasures
asfollows: (a)twentypercent(20%)"shallbebaseduponstudentgrowthdataonstateassessments
asprescribedbythecommissioner,oracomparablemeasuresof studentgrowthif suchgrowthdata
10
is not available"; and (b) twenty percent (20%) "shall be based on other locally selected measures
of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in
accordance with the regulations of the commissioner and as are developed locally in a manner
consistent with procedures negotiated pursuant to the requirements of miicle fourteen of the civil
service law" (Education Law 3012-c(2)(f)(1.
50. Under Education Law 3012-c(2)(h), the remaining sixty percent (60%) of the
composite effectiveness score "shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed
in the regulations of the commissioner, through negotiations conducted pursuant to article fourteen
of the civil service law."
51. The RTA and the District negotiated an APPR Implementation Agreement dated
June 28, 2012 governing the portions of the APPR process for the 2012-2013 school year that are
subject to bargaining. A copy is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C."
52. Thereafter, the District and the RTA submitted an APPR plan for the 20]2-2013
school year to the defendant commissioner ofeducation for approvaL That APPR plan was executed
by the pmiies on August 27,201 and approved by the commissioner on or about August 30,2012.
A copy is annexed hereto as Exhibit "D".
B. The Subcomponents Based on Student Achievement
53. In the 20 13 school year, the first 20% subcomponent for teachers of 4th-8th grade
Math and/or ELA was determined by SED, using student performance on state standardized Math
and/or ELA assessments.
54. The measurement method SED prescribed for classroom teachers other than 4-8th
grade Math and ELA teachers ("other comparable measures") were "state-determined goal setting
11
processes." 8 NYCRR 30-2.5(b)(I)(iii)-(iv). SED issued the following guidancefor howthese
"othercomparablemeasures"mustbe determined:
GROWTH IN SUBJECTS WITHOUT STATE-PROVIDED
GROWTHMEASLiRES(20%):
[Student Learning Objectives] SLOs will be used for teachers of
subjectswherethereisnoState-providedmeasureof studentgrovv1h.
The Regulations callthis the State-determined groVv1h goal-setting
process. Each SLO will be built around one of the following
assessmentoptionsas theevidenceofstudentlearning:
(1) ListofState-approved3rdparty,State,orRegents-equivalent
assessments;
(2) District or BOCES-developed assessments, providedthe
DistrictorBOCESverifiescomparabilityandrigor;
(3) SchoolorBOCES-wide,group,orteamresultsbasedonState
assessments.
Guidance on the New York State District-Wide Growth Goal-Setting
Process for Teachers: Student Learning Objectives (available at
http://www.engageny.org/ sites/ default/fileslresource/ attaclunents/ slo-
guidance.pdf. Pg. 8. (This guidance was in effect during 201 13
schoolyear).
55. Theprocessforassigningpointstoeducatorsforthestategrowthorothercomparable
measures(SLO)subcomponentisentirelyStatedetermined. (EducationLaw3012-c(2)0)(1)(i)).
56. Thescoringrangesdeterminingthe20%ofateacher'sAPPRthatiscomprisedofthe
growthdataonstateassessmentsandothercomparablemeasuresarethefollowing:
A classroomteacherandbuildingprincipalshall receive:
A. ahighlyeffectiveratinginthissubcomponentiftheteacher'sorprincipal'sresultsare
well-abovethestateaveragefor similar students andtheyachieveasubcomponent
scoreof18-20;
12
B. aneffectiveratinginthissubcomponentiftheteacher'sorprincipal'sresultsmeetthe
stateaverage/orsimilar students and theyachieveasubcomponentscoreof 9-17;
or,
C. a developingrating inthis subcomponent iftheteacher's orprincipal's results are
belowthestateaverage/orsimilar students andtheyachieveasubcomponentscore
of3-8;or,
D. an ineffectiverating inthis subcomponent, ifthe teacherorprincipal'sresults are
well-belowthestateaverage/orsimilar students andtheyachieveasubcomponent
scoreof0-2. (EducationLaw3012-c(2)(a)(3)(A-D)(emphasisadded)).
57. Thescoringbandsforthelocallyselectedmeasuresofstudentachievement,orsecond
20%subcomponent, werethesameasforthefirst20%subcomponent(Section3012-c(2)(a)(5)(A-
D)).
58. Upon informationand belief, 98% ofall Rochesterteachers subjectto the APPR
received "effective" ratings in the 60% "other measures" sUbcomponent not tied to student
achievementsubcomponents.
C. StudentPoverty. TheAchievementGap, and Plaintiffs' APPR
ScoresasComparedwithTeachersfrom ~ o r e AffluentAreas
59. IncomparingtheAPPRscoresinRochesterto thestatewideaverageofallteachers
andtotheratings in otherschooldistrictsintheRochesterarea,plaintiffs were limitedbylackof
accessto relevantinformation.
60. Specifically,SEDis requiredby Section3012-c(10)(a)todisclosefinal ratingsand
compositescoresbyschooldistrict, by"region,districtwealth,districtneedcategory,...student
need(e.g.,povertylevel),anddistrictspending..,"butthatdatahasnotyetbeenreleased,although
SEDhasreleased thestatewide breakdownofHEDIratingsforteacherssubjectto theAPPR(see
~ below).
13
61. Intheabsenceof officialSEDdata,NewYorkStateUnitedTeachers(NYSUT),the
statewidelabororganizationswithwhichRTAisaffiliated,gathereddataintheFallof2013from
theRTAandotherNYSUTaffiliatedlocalunionswiththeassistanceofNYSUTregionaloffices.
While NYSUT was not able to gather complete information, it is likely that the percentage
distribution ofteachersamongtheHEDIcategoriesreflected inNYSUT'sdataapproximatesthe
officialdatainSED'spossession.
62. The "achievementgap," i.e., the fact that students inhighpoveliyschool districts
performlesswell onstateteststhanstudentsinwealthierdistricts, is evidentinRochester.
63. TheGrades3-8 standardizedassessmentresultsreleasedbySEDpertainingto the
20I 13 tests revealedthat"[i]nRochester,5.4%of studentsmetorexceededtheELAproilciency
standard [level 3 or4] [and] 5%met orexceededthe mathproilciencystandard [level 3or4] as
comparedto 31.1%ofstudentsacrosstheStatewhometorexceededtheELAproficiencyStandard
and 31% who met or exceeded the math proficiency standard." New York State Education
DepartmentPressRelease(August7,2013)availableathttp://v.f\vw.oms.nysed.gov/press/grades-3-8-
assessment-results-2013.html. (AcopyisannexedheretoasExhibit"E").
64. In a recent report released by the Association ofSmall City School Districts,
RochesterCitySchoolDistrictislistedamongthe 50 mostunderfundedschoolsinthestate. The
reportalso statedthattheDistrictis receiving$5,200 lessperstudentthanitwouldhavereceived
underthe2007-08 budgetagreement. Acopyofpertinentpartsofthereportis attachedheretoas
Exhibit"F".
65. ThetotalnumberofRTAunitmembersratedlessthaneffective(i.e.,Developingor
Ineffective) was severelydisproportionateto the Stateaverage. Only5.4% ofteachersstatewide
14
wereratedlessthaneffectivebasedondatareleasedbySED. Instarkcontrast,approximately33,7%
ofteachersintheRochesterCity SchoolDistrictwererated lessthaneffective.
66. Thedisproportionwas evenstarkerwhencomparingRochesterto thesurrounding
MonroeCountyandagroupofnearbynon-MonroeCountydistricts.I Only2.9%ofteachersinthese
nearbydistrictswere rated lessthaneffective(comparedto one-thirdinRochester) basedondata
gatheredby NYSUT.
67. CombinedWealthRatio(CWR)isameasureofrelativewealth,indexingeachdistrict
againstthestatewideaverageonacombinationoftwofactors,propertywealthperpupilandincome
wealthperpupil. (SEDFisealAnalysisandResearchUnit,Examining Individual School Districts
District Wealth, available athttp://www.oms.nysed.gov/fam/Profiles/18thiwealtindicators.htm).
The overall rating results for Rochester as compared to nearby districts are consistent with
percentagesacrosstheStateshowingthatlargeandmediumsizedcityandotherschooldistrictswith
highlevelsofstudentpoverty(eligibleforfreeorreducedpricelunch- "FRPL")andlowCWRhave
asignificantlyhigherpercentageof teachers receivingHEDIratingsofIneffectiveorDeveloping.
Rochester'sCWRis 0.30,whiletheCWRofthenearbydistricts is 0.76onaverage. Rochester's
FRPLrateis 88%;thatofnearbydistrictsis27%.
68. The statewide correlation between poverty/low wealth, and low APPR scores is
ref1ected inthe following tables:
2
1The nearbyschool districtsbeingcomparedwithRochesterin thiscomplaintarethe following:
BrightonCSD,Gates-ChiliCSD,GreeceCSD, EastIrondequoitCSD, WestIrondequoitCSD, Honeoye
FallsCSD,SpencerportCSD, HiltonCSD, Penfield CSD,FairportCSD,EastRochesterCSD, Pittsford
CSD, Churchville-ChiliCSD, Rush-HenriettaCSD,BrockportCSD, WebsterCSD,Wheatland-Chili
CSD, VictorCSD,HolleyCSD,NewarkCSD, MarionCSD,CanandaiguaCitySD, WayneCSD,
WilliamsonCSD.
2Table 1is derived from datagatheredby1\TYSUT. "1&D"in allthreetablesdenotestheteachers
rated inefIectiveordeveloping. Thedata in Tables2and3is derivedfrom SEDexceptforthenumbers
15
#1
Irype of District of districts in
sample
of teachers .f: ofI&D Yo of
&D
I_ARGE CITIES 4 8669 1675 19%
MEDIUM CITIES
()
3594 415 12%
SMALL CITIES 38 10635 942 9%
LARGE CENTRAL DISTRlCTS AND
VILLAGE DISTRlCTS
117 43658 708 2%
MEDIUM CENTRAL DISTRICTS
20963 )59 3%
SMALL CENTRAL DISTRICTS 147 8155 390


Irable #2
YoFRPL Ii districts
n sample
Ii teachers WI&D YoI&D
P-19 129 :35494 1%
131 22823 p73 B%
40-59 155 20126 1062
(50-79 11207 1325 12%
SO+ 14 0024 1521
otal
fable #3
CWR # districts in
:sample
# teachers #I&D YoI&D
0-.499 77 16414 2022 12%
5-.999 227 43049 2303 5%
1-1.499 78 20443 331 2%
1.5-2.499 49 9297 116 1%
25 4795 44 1%
456
and percentages of teachers rated Ineffective or Developing ("I&D") listed in those tables.
16
69. Thedisparitybetween APPRscoresofRochesterteachersincludingtheplaintiffs,
andthestatewideaverageforallteachers,isalsodirectlyalignedwiththedistrictwealthgap,student
wealthgapand thestudentachievementgapbetweenRochesterandnearbyschooldistricts,as seen
inthefollowing:
RochesterCSD NearbyDistricts
i FRPLAverage 88% 27.23%
CombinedWealthRatio 0.30 0.76
% ofTeachersRated Lessthan
Effective201 13
3
33.7% 2.9%
2010-11 ELA%atlevel 1&2 75.6% 34%
2010-11 Math%at level 1&2 70.6% 25.5%
2011 12 ELA%atlevel 1&2 79.3% 32.8%
2011 12 Math%atlevel 1&2 72.7% 25.5%
2012-13 ELA%atlevel 1&2 94.6% 59.8%
2012-13 Math% atlevel 1&2 95.1% 61.2%
70. This close negative correlation between student poverty/lowdistrict wealth, and
lowerteacherAPPRscoresdemonstratesthatRochesterCity SchoolDistrictteachersareunfairly
disadvantaged byfactors, likepoverty,thatarebeyondtheircontrol,as comparedwithteachersin
moreaffluentdistricts.
D. StateDefendants' ActionsPurportingto Accountfor
PovertyandRelatedFactorsWere WoefullyFlawed
(i). j\1ath and ELA Teachers (4
111
through SI1 grade)
71. Teachersreceivepointsforthefirst20%student-achievementsubcomponentinone
3Percentagesofteachersrated lessthaneffectivearebasedonNYSUTdata. Allotherdata in
thischartcomefrom SEDinformation.
17
oftwo ways. First,allteachersincludingasub-groupoftheplaintiffs, whoteachgrades4-8ELA
orMathreceive a growthscorecalculated byaveraging individual "StudentGrowthPercentiles"
derivedfrom studentperformanceonstandardizedstateassessments.
72. The growth model developed for defendants by American Institute for Research
(AIR)examinesupto threeyearsofpriorstudenttestscores. As appliedto individualteachers, it
purportsto isolateandmeasuretheeffectofasingleteacheronastudent'sacademicgrowthover
theschoolyear. Further,themodelpurportstocontrolfortheinfluenceofclassroomand/orstudent
characteristicsoutsidethe teacher's control so thata percentageofgrowthcan be attributedto a
particularteacheroveraspecifiedperiodoftime. Therearemanyotherentitiesthatprovidegrowth
modelanalyses, usingdifferentmethodologies.
73. AreportissuedbyAIRin2010recognizesthatas the percentageofstudentswith
disabilitiesandstudentsofpovertyinaclassorschoolincreases,theaverageteachergrowthscore
decreases. See AIR, 2010-11 Beta Growth Model for Educator Evaluation Technical Report
(prepared for the New York State Education Department) available at
usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/nysed-2011-beta-grovvth-tech-report.pdf. Pp.23-24,35.(Acopyisannexed
heretoas Exhibit"G").
74. In2011,SEDstatedtheneedto"ensurethateducatorresultsareevenlesslikelythan
beforeto berelatedtocharacteristicsofclassroomsandschools." Accordingly,thecharacteristics
usedto define "similarstudents"were refined for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school yearsto
includemoreinformationthanwasusedfortheStudentGrowthPercentilesprovidedin2011-2012.
(Explaining Student Grovvth Scores to Teachers and Principals (Key Discussion POints) available
at http://www. engageny. -asked-questions-about -state-provided-student-
18
growth-scores-2012-13. A copy is annexedheretoasExhibit"H."
The mostrecent Technical Report by AIRacknowledged thatpovertyis a factor
"outsideofan educator'scontrol" which, along with SWDandELLstatus, "mayimpactstudent
learninggains." 2012-2013 Growth Model for Educator Evaluation Technical Report availableat
vv'Ww.engageny.org/ .. .I201 13-technical-report-for-gro\vth-measures.pdf.A copyofthe 2012-13
TechnicalRepOliis annexedhereto as Exhibit"1".
76. ThegrowthmodelprocessisdefinedbytheStateasfollows:
[A] StudentOrO\vthPercentile(SOP)scorewillbecalculatedbased
onhisorherELAandMathStateAssessmentresultsinthecurrent
yearcomparedtothecurrentyearresultsofsimilar students ('iludents
with similar past test scores and other student characteristics). The
studentgro\\<thmeasuresresultfroma statisticalmodelthatassigns
a percentile ranking, also known as a Student Oro\\<1h Percentile
(SOP) to each student by comparing his/her performance on this
year'stesttothatof similarstudents. Asasimplifiedexampleof the
calculation,considerastudentHenry,whoearnedascoreof 300this
yearonthe 5
th
gradeELA test ofthe CommonCore who earned a
scoreof690 onlastyear's4th gradeELAtest. Thestudentwill be
comparedonlytostudentsstatewidewhoscoreda690likehedidon
lastyear'stest. Andofthosestudent, illustratively,Henry'sresult
thisyearisbetterthan45%of these"similar"studentssoheearnsan
SOP of45. Explaining Student Growth Scores to Teachers and
Principals (Key Discussion Points) available at
http://v..'Ww.engageny.org/1'esource/frequently-asked-questions-abo
ut-state-p1'ovided-student-gro\\;1h-scores-2012-13. (Exhibit "H")
(emphasisadded).
77. Oncecalculated, StudentO1'o\\<1h Percentiles(SOPs)areconvertedintoateacher's
MeanOrowthPercentile(MOP)usingtheweightedaverageoftheSOPsofthestudentsassigned
to ateacher. A final scoreisassignedtoeachteacherinthisSUbcomponentbyrankingtheMOPon
thesamescaleusedforallotherteachersacrossthestate. NYS Teacher Growth Scores: From 1v1GP
19
to HEDI Ratings and Scores 2012-13 (August 2013) available at
www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/2012-13.(Acopyisattachedheretoas
Exhibit''j'').
78. ThedefendantBoardofRegentshasdefineda"teacherorprincipalgrowthpercentile
score"as:
[A] measure ofcentral tendency ofthe student growth percentile
[SGP]scoresforateacher'sorprincipal'sstudentsafteroneormore
ofthefollowingstudentcharacteristicsaretakenintoconsideration:
poverty,studentswithdisabilitiesandEnglishlanguagelearners. (8
N.y.C.R.R.30-2.2(1'.
79. Then, by emergencyand subsequentlypermanentrulemakingin Julyand October
2013,SEDamendedthisregulationbyadding: "Additionalfactorsrelatedtopoverty,studentswith
disabilitiesandEnglishlanguagelearnersmaybeaddedbytheCommissioner,subjecttoapproval
by theBoardofRegents." (8 N.y.C.R.R.30-2.2 [r]).
80. SED'sGuidance on New York State's Annual Professional Perfonnance Review For
Teachers andPrincipals to Implenlent Education Law 30 12-c and the Commissioner's Regulations
states:
Before determining teacher orprincipal growth scores and ratings
basedon [Student Growth Percentiles] the results will be adjusted
based on the following characteristics: prior academic history,
disability status, poverty status and status as an English Language
Learner.Pg.34 (D!) available at
www.engageny.org/sites/default/fileslresource/...lappr-field-guidan
ce.pdf. (Relevantpartsareattachedheretoas Exhibit"K").
81. The following is thelist ofvariables usedto calculateStudentGroVvih Percentiles
(SGPs)and teachers'MeanGrowthPercentiles(MGPs)inthe2012-2013 schoolyear:
20
Grades4-8 ELA/Math
Academic History Upto threeyearsofstudentStateexamscores, same
subject
Prioryeartestscore,differentsubject
Retainedin grade
Averagepriorachievementandrangearoundaverageprior
scoreinstudent'sclass/course(samesubject)
StudentwithDisability(SWD) SWD(yes/no)
SWDspendsless than40percentoftimein general
educationsettingfor theentireday
PercentageofSWDsinstudent'sclass/course
EnglishLanguageLeaner(ELL) ELL(yes/no)
NewYorkStateEnglishas aSecondLanguage
AchievementTestscores
PercentageofELLsinstudent'sclass/course
EconomicDisadvantage
(Poverty)
Poverty(yes/no)
Percentageofstudentsinpovertyinstudent'sclass/course
(NewYorkStateEducationDepartment,A Teacher's Guide to Interpreting State-Provided Growth
Scores for rades 4-8 in 2012-13 and 2013-14 available at
http://www. engageny.org/resource/teacher-s-guide-to-interpreting-state-provided-growth-scores-
201 13-grades-4-8. P.4. (AttachedheretoasExhibit"L").
82. On or about December20,2013, SED releasedthe2012-2013 Growth Model/or
Educator Evaluation Technical Report (Exhibit"I") whichwascompiledbyAIRforSED. Inthat
report,itis explainedthat:
Theresultsof growthmodelsareusedtomeasuretheeffectsof educatorson
student learning gains, taking into account a student'sprior achievement;
however, somefactors outsideofaneducator'scontrolmayimpactstudent
learning gains. For example, different learning trajectories are often
statistically related to students living in poverty, beyond what would be
expected based only on the student's prior achievement. (Available at
www.engageny.org/...12012-13-technical-report-for-growth-measures.pdf.
Pg.9.) (Exhibit"I").
21
83. In explaining further howpoverty would be accounted for, the Report
states:
Economicdisadvantage(poverty). Ayes/novariableforeachstudent
to indicate whether the student is identified as economically
disadvantaged based on eligibility for a variety ofState economic
assistance programs. This flag is set to yes for students whose
families participate in economic assistance programs, such as the
free- or reduced- price lunch programs, Social SecurityInsurance,
foodstamps,fostercare,refugeeassistance,earnedincometaxcredit,
the Home Energy Assistance Program, Safety Net Assistance, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, based on district-provided information. This variable is
deriveddirectlyfromthetestscorefile,representingdatathatdistricts
report to the State. 2012-2013 Growth J10del for Educator
Evaluation Technical Report. Pp. 13-14. (Attachedinrelevantpart
as [sameas above]).Exhibit"I",pp. 13-14.
84. Intheprocessfor calculatinggrowthscoresandmeangrowthpercentilesthataffect
teachers' gro'wth scores, districts are responsible for providing to SED for AIR's use, student
demographicsas wellas informationto linkteacherstoparticularstudents. AIRthenmergesdata
andperformsastatisticalanalysisusingthe data. TeclmicalReportat 14(Exhibit"I").
85. Uponinformationandbelief,SEDdoesnot independentlyverifytheaccuracyofthe
datareportingdone by the districts. Upon informationand belief, there is bound to be variation
among school districts' abilitybothto ascertain that a student'sfamily participates in one ofthe
listed economic assistance programs, and to transmit that information to the State Education
Department.
86. Moreover,thestigmaassociatedwithpovertymakesitlikelythatparentswillunder-
report participation in public assistance, and high-needs districts like Rochester may lack the
resourcesto adequatelyobtain,process and transmitto SEDthedatanecessaryto demonstratethe
22
extent of economic disadvantage in the district. Upon information and belief, such under-reporting
would reduce the extent to which students are being accurately compared to other similar students,
jeopardizing the accuracy of the grov,rth model for teachers, such as plaintiffs, teaching in districts
with high concentrations of students who are economically disadvantaged.
87. SED's grm"rth model is also deficient with regard to taking poverty into account,
because, on information and belief, it does not accurately measure the academic growth ofa student
who is performing well below grade-level. Many students coming from backgrounds of economic
disadvantage perform below their nominal grade ofschool. This is true in the Rochester City School
District, where approximately 88% of students are impoverished enough to be eligible for free or
reduced price lunch,4 and 46.9% of children reside in households below the federal poverty line.
5
As already noted, only 5.4% of District students met or exceeded the English Language Arts
"proficiency standard" and only 5% met or exceeded the Math "proficiency standard," in the 20 12-13
assessments.
6
88. The proficiency standards in place for the fourth- through eighth-grade English
Language Arts and Math tests are determined by reference to grade-level. Specifically, students are
classified into one of four levels based on their performance: "excel[ling] in standards for their
grade" (Level 4 ), "proficient in standards for their grade" (Level 3), "below proficient in standards
for their grade" (Level 2), or "well below proficient in standards for their grade" (Levell).
4 New York State Office of Information and Reporting Services, The New York State Report Card
(Rochester City school District 2011-2012), p. 3 available at
https://reportcards.nvsed.gov/schooIs. php?district=8000000 50065 &year=20 12.
5 American Community Survey, 2008-2012 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Department of Commerce
6 www.oms.nysed.gov/press/grades-3-8-assessment-results-2013.htm1.
89. Uponinformationandbelief, ifstudentsarewell belowgrade-level,theymaynotbe
learningthematerialthatwillbeassessedonthetesttheytake;infact,theymaybelearningmaterial
thatappearedonanearliergrade-levelassessment.
90. Uponinformationandbelief,assessingtheirperformancewithatestthatisdesigned
to measureperformancewell abovetheirgrade-levelcannotbesaidtoaccuratelymeasuregrowth
orlackof grOv.1h. Theymayhaveindeedgrown,fromperhapstwoyearsbehindgrade-leveltoone
yearbehindgrade-level,butsuchgrov.1h islikelyto bemeasuredimpreciselyintheirscoreonthe
testtheyaregiven. Uponinformationandbelief,theresultwouldbeagrowthscoreinnameonly
thatdoesnotmeasuregrowthaccurately,andthereforeshouldnotbeusedtoevaluatethestudent's
progressortheteacher'sperformanceinasystemsupposedlybasedonstudentgrov.1h.
91. Uponinformationandbelief,thisproblemwaslikelyexacerbatedbytheintroduction
oftheCommonCoreLearningStandards.Becausethe2013stateassessmentswerealignedwiththe
CommonCorestandards,andmoststudentsacrossthestatehadnotmasteredthestandardsintheir
grade,studentproficiencyacrossthestateonthesenewassessmentswasfarlowerthaninprevious
years(Exhibit"I",TechnicalRep0l1at6).
92. Uponinformationandbelief, inthis way, the grov.1h model applies differentlyto
teachers, likeplaintiffs, whoteachinhigh-needsclassrooms, where asignificantlyhighernumber
ofstudentsareperformingbelowgradelevel atthebeginningandendofthe year, ascomparedto
teachersinmoreaffluentdistricts.
93. Uponinformationandbelief, SED'sgrowthmodelisalsodeficientinthatit doesnot
account for the fact that there is a range ofseverity within the general category ofeconomic
disadvantage. TheTechnicalReportdescribes(at 14)economicdisadvantageas beingreflectedin
24
participationofthestudent'sfamilyin"economicassistance"programs,includingnotonlythefree-
orreduced-pricelunchprogram,butalsoinanumberofotherprogramsindicatingfinancialdistress
(eligibility for Social SecurityInsurance, food stamps, refugee assistance, the earnedincome tax
credit,theHome EnergyAssistanceProgram,SafetyNetAssistance,orTemporaryAssistancefor
Needy Families). Also listed is familyparticipationinfoster care and refugeeassistance, which
could involvestressorsofanon-financialnature.
94. AccordingtotheTechnicalReport(Exhibit"I"),ifastudent'sfamilyparticipates
inanyoneoftheseprograms,theformulathatis usedto determinetheStudentGrowthPercentile
will"flag"thatfact. Thepurposeofincorporatingthe"flag"into the grovvthmodel is to gaugea
student'sperformanceonthetestagainstothersimilarstudents- thatis, otherstudents whohave
beenflaggedas economicallydisadvantaged.
95. However,uponinformationandbelief,thissingle"flag"doesnottakeintoaccount
thelikelihoodthatstudentswhosefamiliesparticipateinmUltipleprogran1smayhavemuchgreater
economicdisadvantagesthanthosewhosefamiliesparticipate injustoneneed-basedprogram.If
one economic or social stressor affecting a student'sperformance, but outside ofthe teacher's
control,isaccountedfor- anditproperlyshouldbe thenthepresenceofmUltiplestressorsshould
alsobeaccountedforinordertoensurethatastudent'sperformanceisactuallybeingjudgedagainst
thatofothersimilarstudents.
96. Uponinformationandbelief,thefailuretotakeaccountoftheseverityof economic
disadvantagewouldonlyaffectteachers,likeplaintiffs,whoteachinhigh-needsclassroomswhere
there are manymorestudentswho are severelydisadvantagedeconomically,andwhose families
participateinmUltipleneed-basedprograms,comparedtoteachers inmoreaffluentdistricts.
25
97. Uponinformationandbelief,anotherdeficiencyinthegrowthmodel isthatthelist
ofindicatorsof economicdisadvantageinthegrowthmodel omitsotherfamilycharacteristicsthat
arealsolikelytodrivelowstudentperformance,suchashomelessnessandchildabuse,and,when
presentinanimpoverishedcommunity,factorssuchasincarcerationofaparent,divorceandhealth
problemsthatare seriousbutnotseriousenoughtoresultineligibilityforS.S.I.
98. Forall these reasons, it is clearthattheplaintiffs who weresubjectto the grovvth
modelin2012-13 were notevaluatedinthecontextofstudents"similar"to those intheirclasses,
inviolationoftheAPPRlaw,andthatdefendantsbreachedtheirobligationtoaccountforfactors
outsideteachers' controlinevaluatingthem.
99. FUl1her, the lowREDIratings ofthese plaintiffs in relationto state averages and
averagesin nearbydistrictsshowthat SED'spurpo11edeff0l1sto accountfor studentpovertyand
otherfactors bcyondateacher'scontrol wereinsufficient,arbitraryandcapricious.
100. Inaddition,uponinformationandbelief,themethodsinthegrowthmodelfortaking
povertyfactors intoaccountwerenever subjectedto notice, comment,andotherrequirements of
Article2ofSAPA,theExecutiveLaw,andtheNewYorkStateConstitution.
101. Uponinformationandbelief,otherthanadoptingtheregulationstatingthatstudent
gro\vthpercentileswouldtakestudentpovertyintoconsideration(8NYCRR30-2.2(r)),theBoard
of Regents has not promulgated nor approved any particular method by which economic
disadvantageis10be"takenintoconsideration,"norhasitapprovedany"additionalfactors"adopted
bythecommissioneras referencedinits APPRlUle making;rather,AIRandSEDmerclycreated
newlUles.
26
102. ThemethodsintheAIRTechnicalReportfortakingpoverty(economicdisadvantage)
into account in calculating teachers' growth scores constitute a rule as defined in the State
AdministrativeProcedureAct(SAPA).
ii. Plainti(jS Subjectto "Other Comparable
lvfeasures "(Student Learning Objectives)
1 03. AllplaintiffsexceptthosewhoteachELAandMath4-8receivedascoreforthefirst
20%calculatedaccordingto "SLOs".
1 04. PursuanttotheAPPRlaw,SLOsweredeterminedbytheDistrict. However,thiswas
done withinthestrictparameterssetoutby SEDintheAPPRtemplate (theformusedfor online
filing withSEDorAPPRplans),andinSEDguidance.
105. Indetermining the SLOs for individual students in teachers' classrooms, districts
couldnottakeintoaccountstudentpovertyexceptinthislimitedway: "[t]heonlyadjustmentsthat
adistrictorBOCEScanconsiderforStudentLearningObjectivesforgrowtharethosealsousedin
State-providedgrowthmeasures,whichincludestudentswithdisabilities,Englishlanguagelearners,
students in poverty, andprioracademichistory(seeQuestionDl)." Guidance(Exhibit"K" at45,
D22,emphasisadded).
106. The only means identified by SED for school districts to make adjustments in
teachers' SLOscoresforstudentpovertywastheoptionto"assignadditionalpointstoateacheror
principal's performance in the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent."
However, SED placed a two (2) point limit on the number ofpoints that could be assigned.
According to SED, the reason for this limitation was that "anyadditional points would make it
impossibleto receivearatingof'ineffective'," Guidance,Exhibit"K", p. 76 ("E6" and"E7").
27
107. SED's limitations on consideration of student poveliy factors in SLOs did not ensure
that teachers would be evaluated in the context of students "similar" to those in their classes.
108. SED's refusal to allow any accounting for student poverty and related factors beyond
possible addition of a maximum of two points was also arbitrary and capricious, in that the stated
rationale, that the limitation was necessary so that it would be possible for a teacher to receive a
rating of ineffective on the "other comparable measures" subcomponent, was baseless.
109. Specifically, SED's reference to the possibility of receiving a rating of ineffective,
presumably derives from Section 30 12-c(2)G)(i), which provides that APPR plans must be fashioned
so "that it is possible for a teacher ... to obtain each point in the applicable scoring ranges, including
zero." That section of the APPR law cannot serve as a rationale for SED's directives in the
guidance, since the guidance does allow for points for poverty to be added, which would presumably
make it not "possible" to receive a zero.
110. Moreover, SED should have but did not require school districts to make allowances
for student poverty-related factors in the development of SLOs.
111. SED's invalid rationale, and failure to require a meaningful accounting for student
poverty and related factors in the SLO process, violated its duty to ensure that the process is fair and
equitable.
11 In addition, the way SED acted to account for student poverty in the SLOs (e.g., the
two point limit) was invalid because it was in effect a rule that was imposed without Board of
Regents action, i.e., without notice, comment or other requirement ofSAP A Article 2, the Executive
Law, and the New York State Constitution.
113. For all these reasons, it is clear that plaintiffs subject to SLOs in 2012-13 were not
28
evaluated in the context of students "similar" to those in their classes, in violation ofthe APPR law,
and that defendants breached their obligation to account for factors outside teachers' control, in
evaluating them.
114. Further, the low BEDI ratings of these plaintiffs in relation to state averages and
averages in nearby districts show that SED's purported efforts to account for student poverty and
other factors beyond a teacher's control were insufficient, arbitrary and capricious.
AS AND FORAFIRSTCAUSEOFACTION
AGAINSTTHESTATEDEFENDANTS
115. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1 II
through "114" as if fully set forth herein.
116. A central purpose of the enactment of Education Law 3012-c was to create a
Statewide teacher evaluation system that would be both comprehensive and fair.
117. In the APPR law, the Legislature conferred upon the defendants specific
responsibility for implementing particular parts of the law. This included Education Law 3012-c
(2)(j)(i), in which the defendant Commissioner was charged with the responsibility of formulating
the process by which points are assigned and scoring ranges are set, for the first 20% subcomponent
ofthe APPR (for plaintiffs who were teachers ofELA and/or Math in grades 4-8, that subcomponent
score was based on the grovv1h score generated from standardized state assessments, and for all other
plaintiffs, from Student Learning Objectives, or SLOs).
118. Defendants were also required by the APPR law to ensure that the first 20%
subcomponent for teachers subject to both the standardized assessments and SLOs, be based on a
comparison of a given teacher's students and other "similar students." (Section 3012-c(2)(a)(3)(A-
D)).
29
119. All actions taken by the defendants in implementing the APPR law, including
enactmentof regulationsandissuanceofguidanceforschooldistrictsto follow,weresubjecttothe
centralpurpose ofthelaw, ofcreatingateacherevaluationsystemthatis bothcomprehensiveand
fair.
120. The defendants have violated Section 3012-c and have acted in an arbitrary,
capriciousandotherwiseunlawfulmanner, inthatthey havefor the201 13 schoolyear:
a. Developedandimplementeda"grovvthmodel"withtheircontractorAIRthatfails
to fairly andreason,ablytakeinto accountthefactors relatingto povertywhichare
outside ofa teacher's control, including use ofproficiency testing that does not
measure growthfor students who are achieving well belowgradelevel, failing to
differentiatebetweenstudentswhohaveonlyonepoverty-relatedcharacteristicand
those withmultiple suchcharacteristics whendeterminingthe group of "similar"
studentswithwhomplaintiffs'studentsarebeingcomparedinorderto generatethe
teacher'sgrmvthscore,andinbasingthedeterminationofwhoare"similar"students
upondatathatisprovidedbyschooldistrictsandwhichthereforecannotbedeemed
uniformlycompleteoraccurate,
b, Placed arbitraryrestrictions onthe adjustments for studentpoverty-related factors
that were pem1itted to be made by school districts in the "other comparable
measures"(SLO) subcomponent,and failedto requireschool districts to makeany
such adjustment whatsoever, thereby failing to ensure that SLOs be based on a
comparisonwith"similarstudents."
c. Failedtoaccountfortheeffectsoflowschooldistrictwealthonplaintiffs'scoresfor
the "stateassessments orothercomparablemeasures"subcomponent.
121. Bytheirarbitrary,capriciousand unlawful actions as aforesaid, defendants have
causedplaintiffstoreceivecompositescoresandHEDI ratingsthatare invalidandarelowerthan
they would have been had defendants complied with law including EducationLaw 30I2-c, in
accountingforstudent-povertyrelatedfactors andlowdistrictwealth.
ASANDFORASECONDCAUSEOFACTION
AGAINSTTHESTATEDEFENDANTS
122. Plaintiffsrepeatand reallege eachandeveryallegation setforth inparagraphs"1"
30
through"121" asiffully setforthherein.
123. Studentpovertyisafactorbeyondtheteacher'scontrol, thatisassociatedwithlow
studenttestscores,whichcanthenunfairlyandadverselyaffecttheteacher'ssubcomponentscores
inthe20%basedonstateassessmentsorcomparablemeasures.
124. Defendantsintentionallyundertookto includeadjustmentsintheAPPRprocessto
neutralizetheunfaireffectsofstudentpovertyonteacherAPPRscores.
125. As described in paragraph ]21 (a-c) above, the actions ofdefendants andtheir
contractorAIRin developing andimplementingthese adjustments were arbitrary,capricious and
ineffectual,andboreno rationalrelationshiptothegoalof neutralizingtheunfaireffectsof student
povertyonteacherAPPRscores.
126. Bytheiractionsasaforesaid,defendantshavecausedplaintiffstoreceivecomposite
scoresandHEDIratingsthatareinvalidandare lowerthantheywouldhavebeenhaddefendants
compliedwith lawincluding EducationLaw 301 in accounting for student-povertyrelated
factors.
ASAND FORATHIRDCAUSEOF ACTION
AGAINSTTHESTATEDEFENDANTS
127. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegeeachand everyallegationsetf011h inparagraphs'']''
through"126" as iffullysetforthherein.
128. Defendants SED and BoardofRegents are subjectto the provisions ofArticle
Section8oftheNewYorkStateConstitution,theStateAdministrativeProcedureAct("SAPA"),
and 102of theExecutiveLaw.
129. According to the State Constitution, "[n]o rule or regulation made by anv state
department,board,bureau,officer,authorityorcommission,exceptasrelatestotheorganizationor
internalmanagementofastatedepartment,board,bureau,officer,authorityorcommissionshallbe
31
effectiveuntilfiledintheofficeof thedepartmentofstate." N.Y.Con.Art.4, 8(emphasisadded).
130. SAPArequires thatall rules be promulgatedonlyaftertheprocedures setforth in
Article2thereof.
13l. According to the Executive Law, "[nlo code. rule or regulation shall become
effective untilitisfiled withthesecretaryofstate." ExecutiveLaw 1 02 (emphasisadded).
132. The methodologythatdefendants SED and Board ofRegentsused to account for
povertyindetermining studentgrowthisarule.
133. ThismethodologywasnotfiledwiththeDepartmentofState,norwasitsubjected
to theproceduresofSAPAArticle 2.
134. Through the foregoing conduct, defendants SED and Board ofRegents are in
violationofthe StateConstitution,SAPA, andthe ExecutiveLaw.
AS ANDFORAFOURTHCAUSEOFACTION
AGAINSTTHESTATEDEFENDANTS
135. Plaintiffsrepeatandreallegeeachandeveryallegationsetforth inparagraphs "1"
through"134"asiffully setforthherein.
136. TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,andArticle 1, 11 oftheNew
YarkStateConstitutionentitleplaintiffsto equalprotectionunderthe law.
1 Defendants'actionswithregardtotheAPPRlawasdescribedintheFirstandSecond
CausesofAction, withoutrational orcompellingbasis, arbitrarilyandunequallyclassifyteachers
workingindistrictswithhighpovertywithrespecttoteachersinotherdistrictswithouthighlevels
ofpoverty.
138. Defendants' actions with regard to the APPR law as aforesaid, single out and
disadvantageplaintiffsasteachersworkingindistrictswithhighpovertybydiminishingplaintiffs'
32
overall(composite)APPRscoresandtheirHEDIratingsbecauseoftheirstudents'levelofpoverty,
whereasneithertheseprovisionsof theAPPRlawnordefendants'implementationoftheAPPRlaw
treatteacherswhoworkinschooldistrictswithouthighlevelsof povertyinsuchmanner.
139. Defendants'actionswithregardtotheAPPRlawasaforesaid,violateplaintiffs'right
toequalprotectionunderthelaw, inviolationof theU.S. andNewYorkStateConstitutions.
WHEREFORE,plaintiffsrespectfullyrequestthatthis Couli:
a. Order that plaintiffs be permitted to maintain this hybrid action and Article 78
proceedingasaclass;
b. DeclarethatthestatedefendantsbytheiractionshaveviolatedEducationLaw301
c, have violated the rights ofplaintiffs underthe Equal protection guarantees oftheFourteenth
AmendmentoftheU.S.ConstitutionandArticleI,II oftheNewYorkStateConstitutionandhave
actedinanarbitrary, capriciousandunlawfulmaImer;
c, Declare that the final APPRratings ofplaintiffs for the 2012-13 school yearare
invalid,voidandwithoutlegaleffect;
d. Directthedefendants to annulthefinal APPRratingsofplaintiffsfor the2012-13
schoolyear;
e. Permanently enjoin the defendants from taking any adverse employment action
againstplaintiffs basedontheirfinal ratingsforthe201 13 schoolyear;
f. Orderthatany necessarydisclosurebehadpursuantto CPLR408;
g. OrderthetrialofanytriableissuesoffactraisedintheArticle78proceedingpursuant
toCPLR7804(h);and
33
h. Ordersuchother,furtheranddifferentreliefas theCourtmaydeemjustandproper,
togetherwithreasonablecosts,andattorneysfees pursuantto 42USC 1988.
DATED: March4,2014
Latham,NewYork Respectfully submitted,
RICHARDE. CASAGRANDE,ESQ.
AttorneyforPlaintiffs/Petitioners
800Troy-SchenectadyRoad
Latham,NewYork 12110-2455
Telephone: (518) 213-6000
--}
By:
//' "l
~ .. c c .
D. BILIK,ESQ.
OfCounsel
34
STATEOFNEWYORK
SUPREMECOURT COUNTYOFALBANY
ADAMURBANSKI,as President,ROCHESTERTEACHERS
ASSOCIATION;et at. onbehalfofthemselvesandasrepresentatives
ofaclassofall otherpersonssimilarlysituated,
Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
ATTORcl\JEY'S
-against- VERIFICATION
JOHNB. KING, JR.,as Commissionerofthe NewYork
State EducationDepartment;BOARDOFREGENTS OF
THEUNIVERSITYOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK;
and NEWYORKSTATEEDUCATIONDEPARTMENT,
Defendants/Respondents,
and
ROCHESTERCITYSCHOOLDISTRICT,BOARDOF EDUCATION
OFTHEROCHESTERCITYSCHOOLDISTRICT,and DR. BOLGEN
VARGAS,INHIS CAPACITYas Superintendentofthe
RochesterCitySchoolDistrict,
NecessaryP31iy Defendants/Respondents.
STATEOFNEWYORK )
)ss.:
COUNTYOFALBANY )
JAMESD. BILIK,beingduly sworn, deposesandsaysthatheis ofCounselto Richard
Casagrande,Esq.,attorneyforthePlaintiffs/Petitionersin theaboveproceeding,thatdeponenthas
read the toregoing Complaint/Petition and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to
deponent'sownknowledge,exceptastothemattersthereinstatedtobeallegedoninformationand
beliefandastothosematters,deponentbelievestobetrue. Thebasisofdeponent'sknowledgeas
to mattersallegeduponinformationandbeliefisconversationswithPlaintiffs/Petitionersandreview
ofdocumentsand correspondencesuppliedby Plaintiffs/Petitionersandtheirrepresentatives.
35
ThereasonthisVerificationismadebydeponentandnotbyPlaintiffs/Petitionersisthatthe
Plaintiffs/petitionersarenotlocatedwithintheCountyofAlbany,thecountyinwhichdeponenthas
hisoffice.
JAMESD. BILIK
Swornto mebeforethis
day ofMarch,2014
GINAROBINSON
NotaryPublic, State ofNewYork
No.01R06138977
Qualified in Schenectady o u n t ~ _
Commission Expires 12/.:.:-;\ 1. I
--,-
ll2493
36