Presentation on theme: "REGENTS TASK FORCE on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness In this presentation: Chapter 103 Regents Task Force NYSCOSS Task Force Advise on Chapter 103."— Presentation transcript:
REGENTS TASK FORCE on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness In this presentation: Chapter 103 Regents Task Force NYSCOSS Task Force Advise on Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 & Overview of NYSCOSS Participation, Review, and Communications
Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c I.Comprehensive system with multiple measures of effectiveness which would result in a single composite score 40% Student Achievement →20% growth on State assessments →20% student achievement on local measures 60% non-growth measures locally developed and negotiated consistent with standards proscribed by the Commissioner II.Differentiated rating categories: Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective
Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c (continued) III.Timely and constructive feedback on all criteria. IV.Improvement plans for teachers/principals rated as ineffective or developing. Locally negotiated Consistent with Commissioner’s Regulations V. Evaluator training in accordance with regulation for each individual conducting teacher and principal evaluations.
VI. A process for appeals for teachers and principals to challenge Substance Adherence to standards and methodologies Adherence to Commissioner’s Regulations Compliance with locally negotiated procedures VII.A significant factor to be negotiated for professional development, compensation and promotion Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c (continued)
Phase-In of New Comprehensive Evaluation System 2011-2012: Only for teachers in the common branch subjects of ELA and math in grades 4-8 and for principals in buildings in which these teachers are employed. Score to be based on: 20% on student growth on state assessments or comparable measures of student growth + 20% on other locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) + 60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals
Applicability to All Classroom Teachers and Building Principals 2012-13: Applicable to all classroom teachers and building principals If Board of Regents has not adopted a value-added growth model for the 2012 2013 school year, all teachers and principals become subject to requirements applicable to teachers and principals in 2011-2012, with their score to be based on: 20% on student growth on state assessments or comparable measures of student growth + 20% on other locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) + 60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals
Applicability to All Classroom Teachers and Building Principals (Continued) Commencing the first school year for which Regents adopts a value-added growth model (may be 2012-2013), the percentage of evaluation to be based on state assessment measures of student growth increases from 20% to 25%. 25% on student growth on state assessments or comparable measures of student growth + 15% on other locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) + 60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals
APPRs must differentiate teacher and principal following effectiveness using the following quality rating categories: Highly effective Effective Developing Ineffective Commissioner’s regulations to prescribe the minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each category. APPRs to result in single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness. Four Rating Categories to be used in APPR Process
REGENTS TASK FORCE The Regents Advisory Task Force The Who, What and How of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness
WHO is “The Regents Advisory Task Force On Teacher and Principal Effectiveness?” Negotiations prior to law: Who was at the table? Chaired by Vice Chancellor Cofield and Regent Young Facilitated by SED Staff and Fellows Participants include unaffiliated teachers and principals, NYSUT, UFT, SAANYS, university representatives, NYSSBA, NYSCOSS and others Observers
Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Timeline July 2010New collective bargaining agreements must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 _______________________________________________________________ July 2011New performance evaluation system for teachers with 4-8 grade ELA and/or math assignments along with their respective principals _______________________________________________________________ 2011-2012 Training Evaluators _______________________________________________________________ July 2012New performance evaluation system goes into effect for the remaining teachers and principals
Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness (continued) Timeline 2012-2013 Training Evaluators ___________________________________________________________ 2012-2013 Implementation of Teacher and Principal Improvement Plans and thereafter Implementation of a value-added growth model (if available) to be used within the teacher and principal performance evaluation system ___________________________________________________________ Sept. 2012Refinement of performance measures for teacher and and thereafter principal effectiveness
Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness September 2010 Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Committee on Locally Selected Assessments Committee on Non-Tested Subjects Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Teachers Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Principals Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations Recommendations to the Commissioner Commissioner Reports to the December Board of Regents (Continued)
Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness January 2011 Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Committee on Student Growth/ Composite Scores Teachers/Principals Input from the Center for Assessment Committee on Non-Tested Subjects Committee on Professional Development Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations Recommendations to the Commissioner Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 103 May/June 2011 (Continued)
Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness To Be Revised Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness *NEW* Committee on Student Growth/ Composite Scores Teachers/Principals FEBRUARY Input from the Center for Assessment No recent updates Committees on Non-Tested Subjects, 60% Teacher and Principal, & 20% locally selected CONTINUE Committee on Professional Development HAS NOT BEGUN Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 10 May/June 2011 (Continued)
Key Points That Require Critical Attention Who is “a teacher”? What about multiple teachers in a classroom? The evaluation “rating system” or “scoring bands” and how they will be applied to a teacher, within a category of evaluation, and across the state The Appeals Process: Who may appeal? To Whom? How far? How often? What is negotiated? What is in regulations? Teacher/Principal In Need of Improvement and Improvement Plans The implementation timeline and degree of “high stakes” annually Practical application, capacity for implementation, and manageability of the entire process in a school, district, and state to do this work right and well
WHAT is the Meeting Format? Monthly Meetings General sessions - Presentations and Q&A Sub-committees - First stage: Four Sub-committees started with long lists of questions, readings, and discussion; Still defining terms, discussing standards, and debating procedures for proposed regulations.
WHAT Has Been Covered in the First Six General Sessions? September…. Overview of process October……….National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment November……Value-Added Analysis Presentation December……Presentation of “Who is the teacher of record?” and brainstorming of variables to control in value-added analyses January……….Presentation from each subcommittee February……..Group synthesis and discussion with Commissioner
WHAT is the Work of the Committees ? Committee members participate in: Sub-committee meetings Website “discussion,” commentary, and document sharing Conference calls between Albany meetings “Strawman”/Draft Documents for Review SED surveys (PLEASE RESPOND with key issue talking points) Fellows and SED staff are working “behind the scenes”
20% Tested Subjects 4-8 Math/ELA for Teachers and Principals KEY ISSUES: Who is the teacher of record? CONCERNS: No Committee No RFP No formal feedback and connection with National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment (http://www.nciea.org)http://www.nciea.org POTENTIAL OPTIONS: “This train has left the track…”
Committee on 20% Non-Tested Subjects Twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on state assessments as prescribed by the Commissioner or a comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not available. KEY ISSUES: 80% of all teachers in NYS are in this category → Teachers with one state assessment → Teachers with no state assessments Who is “the teacher of record?” What about teachers who provide pupil support services?
Committee on 20% Non-Tested Subjects (Continued) CONCERNS: Criteria for developing regulations - →There must be comparability at state, district and school levels →There must be rigor and validity →There must be feasibility in administration, cost and time →There must be data produced that positively impacts instruction POTENTIAL OPTIONS: Use existing state assessments Use existing standardized assessments (e.g., MAP/ACT/Terra Nova) Develop new State assessments Allow for local assessments that meet criteria as stipulated by Commissioner Allow for locally developed growth goals defined by groups of teachers that meet criteria as stipulated by the Commissioner
Committee on Locally Selected Assessments “Twenty percent 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 are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated, pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the Civil Service law.”
Committee on Locally Selected Assessments (continued) KEY ISSUES: Interpreting the law and legal implications Challenging conversations with respect to genuine high expectations for quality, rigor, and comparability across classrooms What is Bargained vs. What is in Regulations? Procedures or Content? Regulations could end up with a menu of options from state, other sources, and/or locally developed CONCERNS: When good local authentic assessments become high stakes (for teachers) assessments
POTENTIAL OPTIONS: Off-the-shelf assessment (NWEA MAP, Scantron Performance Series, CTB Acuity, ACT Explore / College Board ReadiStep) Locally developed “authentic” assessment Must be aligned with NYS and Common Core Standards All would need to pass muster of rigor as defined by rubric, validity, reliability, and comparability across classrooms Committee on Locally Selected Assessments (continued)
Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Teachers The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner through negotiations. KEY ISSUES: Clarity of Standards (BoR has adopted the NY Teaching Standards) Flexibility with rubrics Flexibility on weighting elements Define scoring bands CONCERNS: Clearly defined expectations with performance descriptors for each performance level Rubrics must include details for training and implementation POTENTIAL OPTIONS: Multiple measures of teacher practice No single rubric but develop criteria for rubric selections
Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Principals “The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness scores shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner through negotiations.” KEY ISSUES: Reference to Wallace Committee work Use of ISSLC or similar standards Based on multiple measures and contain multiple sources of feedback CONCERNS: Focus on measureable outcomes Flexibility in scoring bands Flexibility for experience in years as a leader POSSIBLE OPTIONS: Focus on leadership and management Focus on managing school operations Focus on supervising and developing teachers Focus on progress against school wide goals Focus on progress against individual professional development goals
Reminders Still more questions than answers Varying legal opinions on a number of points Caution: No decisions yet Final Recommendations: The Commissioner
Keeping An Eye on the Process NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Keeping An Eye on the Process NYSCOSS Executive Committee *** NYSCOSS Staff *** House of Delegates *** Advisory Task Force Representatives *** Regents Task Force Members *** ALL MEMBERS!
NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Dr. Jon Hunter Dr. Howard S. Smith Dr. Jere Hochma Fairport Williamsville Bedford Regents Advisory NYSCOSS Task Force Chair Regents Advisory Dr. Christopher Clouet, White Plains City SD Dr. Harriet Copel, Shoreham-Wading River CSD Ms. Jeanne Dangle, Baldwinsville CSD Mrs. Kathleen Davis, Holland Patent CSD Mrs. Maureen Donahue, Friendship CSD Mr. Michael Ford, Phelps-Clifton Springs CSD Mr. Chad Groff, Jasper-Troupsburg CSD Dr. Margaret Keller-Cogan, Clarkstown CSD Dr. Lorna Lewis, East Williston UFSD Mrs. Maria Rice, New Paltz CSD Mr. Joseph Stoner, Maine-Endwell CSD Dr. Colleen Taggerty, Olean City SD
Work of the NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Originally, critical issues were: Timelines Appeals Process Value-added student growth measures to assess teacher and principal performance Determining what should be in regulation to ensure the “vision” Determining which certificated professional owns student growth results (by any measure) for students with multiple certificated professionals The feedback process to ensure the “vision” Determining how to isolate variables to measure the impact on teaching and student learning of the APPR statute and regulations, including the plan to gather feedback from the field
Work of the NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness (Continued) Public presentations and information gathering Three Position Papers Developed to Date: Paper #1: Appeals Process Paper #2: Locally Selected Assessments Paper #3: Regulation and Implementation Considerations
What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field We must help SED understand: Change – Superintendents are the gatekeepers of what matters and what is attended to annually Manageability - The practical aspects of implementing quality evaluations Practicality - The dynamics and realities of collective bargaining The Value of Regulations –“You can’t collectively bargain a vision” Quality and Timing – We can do this fast or we can do this right The Reality of Arbitration - We can only influence Commissioner’s “guidance” on this as appeals are to be bargained; however, the stronger the “guidance”, the better the chance for compliance and/or support if challenged
What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field (Continued) Additional Important Points: New “Higher Stakes” evaluations must be done well and fairly Will there be “scoring bands” in each category of evaluation? How will the Commissioner determine the point system and “cut points” on four levels of evaluation? Will the “high stakes-ness” be phased in as the system gets put in place over the first few years The “key role” of the Superintendent: Do they “get” what it means to be in our chairs?
What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field (Continued) Additional Important Points: We are the keepers of a district’s capacity to develop and implement direction and then accomplish goals and initiatives We anticipate the magnitude and implications of change on the system We know the day to day reality to implement quality evaluation We understand the need for quality, ongoing professional development and training How will we know the “new work” improves student learning, student performance, and professional practice?
Next Steps - NYSCOSS Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Continue to communicate with “The 700+” Continue to consider feedback and modify and adjust “critical issues” as necessary Develop proposed regulations, where appropriate Anticipate implementation procedures Keep Boards of Education informed
Next Steps - NYSCOSS Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness (continued) Position Paper #4
What Can YOU Do? Respond to all SED surveys Incorporate key “Talking Points” in all communications with SED officials, on surveys, and other opportunities Refer to “Position Papers” for content To keep high expectations and credibility: →This must be done right and well or it becomes a technical, checklist task →Appeals must end with the Superintendent →Bargaining only for processes, not content, of evaluations →This must be manageable and “do-able” →“You (SED) need us!” Superintendents set the tone and value of any new district endeavor
Experienced Superintendents Know... … that teacher and principal evaluation is often times about student and parent perceptions…