As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated 9.22.15.

APPR: §3012-d

As Adopted by Emergency Action

June, 2015

Slides updated 9.22.15

Emergency Action

The Board of Regents took emergency action on June 15, 2015.

A few small changes were made in September after public comment period.

These slides are not official. They are meant to provide local guidance.

The MatrixScores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

The MatrixScores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

Student Performance Half

State-provided growth scores when at least 50% of teacher’s students are covered, or

SLOs that are consistent with the state’s goal setting process. These will be based on one year’s worth of growth on an approved assessment, or

School-wide, team, or linked results.

Student Performance Half

SLO process:• Must use a state-approved student

assessment.• Consistent across district.• Will have the same parts.• Develop a back-up SLO for all teachers

whose courses end in a State created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model.

Student Performance Half

An additional/optional growth measure can be locally negotiated, consistent across district:• A teacher-specific score based on a particular

level of the state test,• School-wide growth score linked to state-

provided school score,• School-wide, group, or team growth score that is

locally computed, or• A growth score based on a state designed

approved assessment (SLO/LAT).

Assessment Approval

• [Revised] RFQ is up• Assessment itself not submitted• Description of growthiness* is (ability to

show one year’s worth of growth) for SLO• Approved assessments are available for

use for any LEA

Assessment Approval

There will be two lists:

1. Approved List of Assessments to be used with SLOs

2. Approved List of Supplemental Assessments to be used with Growth Models

SLO Target Setting

• Group• Banded• Individual

Student Performance Half

All SLOs will usea prescribedconversion(it is no longernegotiable):

Ove

rlap

due

to c

onfid

ence

inte

rval

s

Student Performance HalfThis chart describes the weighting parameters:

Permissible Statewide Range

Minimum MaximumMandatory subcomponent 50% 100%

Optional subcomponent 0% 50%

Back-Up SLO Possibility

“Effective”

student scale scoreadjusted student

growth score307 52307 67307 17264 42295 76325 66282 21304 40339 89295 44295 77232 38

average growth score 52

Back-Up SLO Possibilitystudent scale

scoreadj similar

student score

did stduent meet or exceed similar

stduents?307 306.0586821 yes307 298.3377639 yes307 325.6250233 no264 268.4123942 no295 280.533324 yes325 316.6942874 yes282 297.9537918 no304 308.8202719 no339 313.8460479 yes295 297.9731541 no295 279.74011 yes232 239.7748649 no332 325.693696 yes291 283.9688991 yes282 281.4978745 yes347 295.4860854 yes313 296.4248209 yes288 291.5183343 no316 299.3258117 yes295 290.6590687 yes

% meeting target 65% 13/20 points, or “Developing”

The MatrixScores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

The Observation Portion

At least one observation has to be completed by the principal or other trained administrator.

At least one observation has to be completed by an impartial, independent trained evaluator. This observer cannot be assigned to the same school building as the teacher.*

The Observation PortionAn independent trained evaluator may be employed within the district, but may not be assigned to the same school building, as defined by BEDS code, as the teacher being evaluated. Thus, for teachers, the two required observations must be two different individuals because a principal or other trained administrator must be located in the same building as the teacher being evaluated, and the independent evaluator must be in a different building (i.e., have a different BEDS code).

If a staff member is reported to NYSED with a different virtual location code than the school or location BEDS code associated with the educator being evaluated, they could be the independent trained evaluator.

The Observation Portion

If using peer observers:• The district chooses the peer evaluator• The peer evaluator must be trained• The peer evaluator must have been rated

as H or E in the previous year

The Observation PortionScores from observers will be scaled within these parameters:

Permissible Statewide Range

Minimum Maximum

Principal or trained administrator 80% 90%

Independent Observer 10% 20%

Peer Observation O% 10%

The Observation Portion

The frequency and duration of observations will be determined locally.

An approved rubric must be used.

The Observation Portion

Each observer would assign 1-4 rubric score.

Scores get combined based or weighting (following slide defines the ranges).

Combined score is converted to H-E-D-I based on locally agreed-upon chart.

The Observation Portion

Each observer would assign 1-4 rubric score.

Scores get combined based or weighting (following slide defines the ranges).

Combined score is converted to H-E-D-I based locally agreed upon chart.

The Observation Process

These are prohibited from being used in an evaluation:• Lesson plans or other artifacts of practice• Parent or student feedback• Goal setting• Unapproved assessments

Some things such as lesson plans may be observable during a pre or post; these may be considered.

Scoring ExampleElement 3.2: Teacher communicates clearly and accurately with students to maximize their understanding and learning. NYSED Indicators: Students understand directions and procedures. Teachers use a variety of questioning techniques to advance student learning and reflection. Students’ comments and questions are acknowledged and utilized to advance learning. Students understand lesson content through teachers’ use of oral, written and graphic methods. Adjust communication in response to student needs.

Indicators Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective A. Provides directions and

procedures

Teacher directions and procedures are confusing to students. Teacher does not adjust explanation to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clarified after initial student confusion. Teacher attempts to adjust explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear to students. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear, complete, and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet the needs of individual students.

B. Uses questioning techniques

Teacher’s questions are largely closed in nature. Questions do not invite a thoughtful response or further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are a combination of open and closed questions. Some questions invite a thoughtful response and/or further discussion.

Most of teacher’s questions are open in nature and engage students in deeper thinking and further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are open in nature and challenge students to think and demonstrate reasoning. Students formulate many questions to advance their understanding.

C. Responds to students

Teacher ignores students’ questions/comments and/or provides a response that shuts down student learning.

Teacher responds to some students’ questions/comments. Response gives students the answer rather than challenge student thinking.

Teacher responds to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge student thinking.

Teacher and students respond to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge all students’ thinking.

D. Communicates content

Teacher’s spoken language is inaudible, and/or written language is illegible. Spoken or written language contains errors. Graphic methods are not used or used ineffectively.

Teacher’s spoken language is audible, and written language is legible. Both are used correctly. Graphic methods are used occasionally.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is clear and correct. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is correct and expressive. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding. Students offer their own graphic representation of the content.

Scoring ExampleElement 3.2: Teacher communicates clearly and accurately with students to maximize their understanding and learning. NYSED Indicators: Students understand directions and procedures. Teachers use a variety of questioning techniques to advance student learning and reflection. Students’ comments and questions are acknowledged and utilized to advance learning. Students understand lesson content through teachers’ use of oral, written and graphic methods. Adjust communication in response to student needs.

Indicators Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective A. Provides directions and

procedures

Teacher directions and procedures are confusing to students. Teacher does not adjust explanation to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clarified after initial student confusion. Teacher attempts to adjust explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear to students. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear, complete, and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet the needs of individual students.

B. Uses questioning techniques

Teacher’s questions are largely closed in nature. Questions do not invite a thoughtful response or further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are a combination of open and closed questions. Some questions invite a thoughtful response and/or further discussion.

Most of teacher’s questions are open in nature and engage students in deeper thinking and further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are open in nature and challenge students to think and demonstrate reasoning. Students formulate many questions to advance their understanding.

C. Responds to students

Teacher ignores students’ questions/comments and/or provides a response that shuts down student learning.

Teacher responds to some students’ questions/comments. Response gives students the answer rather than challenge student thinking.

Teacher responds to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge student thinking.

Teacher and students respond to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge all students’ thinking.

D. Communicates content

Teacher’s spoken language is inaudible, and/or written language is illegible. Spoken or written language contains errors. Graphic methods are not used or used ineffectively.

Teacher’s spoken language is audible, and written language is legible. Both are used correctly. Graphic methods are used occasionally.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is clear and correct. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is correct and expressive. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding. Students offer their own graphic representation of the content.

Scoring ExampleElement 3.2: Teacher communicates clearly and accurately with students to maximize their understanding and learning. NYSED Indicators: Students understand directions and procedures. Teachers use a variety of questioning techniques to advance student learning and reflection. Students’ comments and questions are acknowledged and utilized to advance learning. Students understand lesson content through teachers’ use of oral, written and graphic methods. Adjust communication in response to student needs.

Indicators Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective A. Provides directions and

procedures

Teacher directions and procedures are confusing to students. Teacher does not adjust explanation to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clarified after initial student confusion. Teacher attempts to adjust explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear to students. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet student needs.

Teacher directions and procedures are clear, complete, and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. Teacher adjusts explanations to meet the needs of individual students.

B. Uses questioning techniques

Teacher’s questions are largely closed in nature. Questions do not invite a thoughtful response or further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are a combination of open and closed questions. Some questions invite a thoughtful response and/or further discussion.

Most of teacher’s questions are open in nature and engage students in deeper thinking and further discussion.

Teacher’s questions are open in nature and challenge students to think and demonstrate reasoning. Students formulate many questions to advance their understanding.

C. Responds to students

Teacher ignores students’ questions/comments and/or provides a response that shuts down student learning.

Teacher responds to some students’ questions/comments. Response gives students the answer rather than challenge student thinking.

Teacher responds to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge student thinking.

Teacher and students respond to students’ questions/comments. Responses challenge all students’ thinking.

D. Communicates content

Teacher’s spoken language is inaudible, and/or written language is illegible. Spoken or written language contains errors. Graphic methods are not used or used ineffectively.

Teacher’s spoken language is audible, and written language is legible. Both are used correctly. Graphic methods are used occasionally.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is clear and correct. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding.

Teacher’s spoken and written language is correct and expressive. Graphic methods are used regularly to enhance content understanding. Students offer their own graphic representation of the content.

2

3

3 3

Scoring Example

• Translate the rubric scores to an overall number– Average– Weight– Observiness*

• Then go to negotiated scale to determine H-E-D-I

H-E-D-I DefinitionsThe actual cut scores are determined locally within these parameters.

Permissible Statewide Range

Minimum Maximum

Highly Effective 3.5 to 3.75 4.0

Effective 2.5 to 2.75 3.49 to 3.74

Developing 1.5 to 1.75 2.49 to 2.74

Ineffective 0 1.49 to 1.74

Training

Evaluators and Lead Evaluator training components:

1. NYS Teaching Standards

2. Evidence-based observation techniques

3. Application and use of student growth percentile method

4. Application of approved rubrics

5. Application of assessment tools the district employs

6. Application of any locally select measures of student growth

7. Use of the statewide reporting system

8. Scoring methodology used by the state and the district

9. Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLs and SWDs

Training

Independent Observer training components:

1. NYS Teaching Standards

2. Evidence-based observation techniques

3. Application of approved rubrics

Training

Training certification:• APPR plan will document duration and

nature of the training• APPR plan will attest to periodic

recertification of evaluators

Training

Year One Evaluator Training (Lead Evaluator or evaluator):

– August 24th full day– August 25th full day– September 28th am– November 2nd am– November 23rd am– December 14th am

Training

Ongoing Evaluator Training(Lead Evaluator or evaluator):

– November 12th and 13th 1/2 day repeated 4x– February 1st and 2nd 1/2 day repeated 4x– March 21st & 22nd 1/2 day repeated 4x

Training

Principal Training (for supervisors of principals):

– October 14th pm FOR NEW EVALUATORS– December 9th pm– January 13th pm– February 10th pm– March 9th pm– April 13th pm

Holding all of these dates for now. They might be a combination of Principal Evaluator Training and/or

§3012-d/APPR planning sessions.

Student Performance Half

Most principals will receive a growth score from the state. These principals must have a back-up SLO in case a score doesn’t come.

Other principals will use an SLO.

An optional growth measure can be chosen locally (like the teachers).

Improvement Plans

The content of improvement plans will be determined by superintendent rather than through bargaining or negotiations.• Required for ineffective or developing• In place by October 1st

• Include: areas in need of improvement, timeline, assessment of improvement

Principal Evaluation

One observation shall be conducted by the principal's supervisor.

A second observation shall be conducted by one or more impartial independent evaluators. This observer may be employed by the district but not assigned to the principal’s building (see next slide).

Principal Evaluation

A principal’s supervisor (i.e., the Superintendent) is a district employee and therefore assigned to a different BEDS code as the principal being evaluated—therefore it is possible for the same administrator to serve as both the supervisor and impartial evaluator for the purpose of school visits.

The Observation PortionScores from observers will be scaled within these parameters:

Permissible Statewide Range

Minimum Maximum

Supervisor 80% 90%

Independent Observer 10% 20%

Peer Observation O% 10%

Corrective Action

The law requires an examination of APPR and score distributions. SED will have the option of imposing a Corrective Action Plan if there are significant discrepancies.

Previously, Corrective Action could not impinge on anything that had been bargained.

Corrective Action can now be asserted even over things that were bargained.

Plan Approval

The Review Room has been revised:• More drop-downs• More prescription• It is taking less time and fewer iterations to

get to approval

Plan Approval

Lots of Superintendent Attestations:• Back-up SLOs are in place• All targets are 1 year’s growth• All targets are reviewed and approved• A process to monitor SLOs is in place

Plan Approval

Lots of Superintendent Attestations (cont.):• All observable components evaluated at least

once per year• Component weighting is followed• Independent evaluators are from a different

BEDS code (for teachers eval)• All evaluators are trained• At least one observation is unannounced• Artifacts are not used to determine a score

Plan Approval

Lots of Superintendent Attestations (cont.):• Various reporting promises• Various regulatory promises

Plan Approval

Four plans have been approved so far:• APW• Homer• Newfield• South Glens Falls• Some others are in process

Hardship Waivers

If documented good faith (reason, negotiating, and training) efforts are not fruitful, a waiver will be granted. Districts that receive the waiver would be exempt from the November 15th deadline.

District would then target March 1st for a new plan approval. If not going to get a new plan approved by March 1st, the implementation of which wouldn’t be required until 2016-2017.

Hardship Waivers

The deadline to submit a waiver is November 1st (but do it earlier).

There is no union sign-off required for the waiver application.

Additional waivers are available to get you to July or August if necessary.

Hardship Prerequisites

• August 28th: 2014-15 APPR Implementation Certification

• October 16th: Submission date for data for Principals and Teacher

• October 23rd: Staff evaluation verification report; same process as in 2014-2015

Hardship Waivers

Hardship Waivers

Wait or Go?Reasons to Go Reasons to Wait

• General dissatisfaction with§3012-c scheme

• SLO process in §3012-c is cumbersome and time consuming (lots of unnecessary pretests)

• Artifact portion of §3012-c is taxing and its elimination would ease burden on teachers and lead evaluators

• Worried about implications of switching over in the middle of the year

• Present system is just not good

• Waiting for assessment approval• In the midst of an assessment

audit (such as from last year’s regional project) and waiting for that audit to be completed

• Worried about implications of switching over in the middle of the year

• Relationships aren’t quite ready• Why hurry from one imperfect

system to another• Suspect that the rules could

change [again]