Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird"— Presentation transcript:

1 David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird
PRESENTATION to the Elmira Teacher Association (ETA) - Annual Professional Performance Review - The New Evaluation System for Teachers David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird Members of the ESCD ETA APPR Committee

2 The New Evaluation System APPR
Education Law §3012-c requires a new performance evaluation system for classroom teachers. (Annual Professional Performance Review - APPR) Commissioner’s Regulations and Regents Rules support and interpret the law. The evaluation system is designed to measure effectiveness using: 1. Student achievement data (State and Local) 2. NYS approved performance rubrics 3. Evidence in meeting NYS standards

3 Definition of a Classroom Teacher
The current definition of a teacher in the classroom teaching service is defined in section of the Commissioner’s Regulations. From Regulation... (12) Classroom teaching service means teaching service in the public schools of New York State, which requires certification pursuant to this Part.

4 Classroom Teacher Exclusions
* School psychologists, School Counselors, and School Social workers who are pupil personnel service providers * A classroom teacher performing instructional support services for more than 40% of his/her time (ex. CSE chair, IST) * Supplemental school personnel (ex. Teaching Assistants) * Pre-K Teachers * Library Media Specialists * Certified Speech Pathologists

5 Defined Purpose for APPR Evaluation System
The purpose of the comprehensive evaluation system is two-fold: 1. to measure teacher effectiveness based on multiple measures, including student achievement. 2. to ensure that there is an effective teacher in every classroom. NYS goal in implementing new evaluation process: Foster a culture of continuous professional growth for educators to grow and improve their instructional practice, resulting in increased student achievement, and college and career readiness.

6 NYS’s new evaluation system follows these design principles:
Key Principles of APPR NYS’s new evaluation system follows these design principles: 1. Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) evaluations for all classroom teachers. 2. Clear, rigorous expectations for instructional excellence. 3. Prioritizing student learning. 4. Multiple measures of performance. 5. Scores comprised of 4 performance levels to rate teacher effectiveness. 6. Regular constructive feedback and ongoing professional development.

7 Determination of HEDI and Composite Scores
All teachers must be evaluated on an annual basis. Three criteria will be used to determine HEDI and Annual Composite Scores: * State score based on student achievement * Local score based on student achievement * Other measures of effectiveness comprised of announced and unannounced observations.

8 New Rating System as Part of APPR
Teacher effectiveness is determined using three distinct criteria each resulting in a score based on four performance levels: * Highly Effective * Effective * Developing * Ineffective (HEDI is the acronym)

9 Determining Student Growth
. 20% Student Growth on State Assessment or Comparable Measure Using SLO 20% Local Measures SLOs one option for measuring student achievement 60% Teaching Standards using Rubric 100% Composite Score


11 Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
SLOs are carefully planned academic goals for what a student will learn over a given time period. They represent the most important learning for the year (or semester or quarter where applicable). SLOs directly link a teacher’s classroom instruction to specific measures of student achievement or growth in the relative content area. The process leads to objectives that can be reliably measured for student growth.

12 Local Score Based on Student Achievement (20% of Composite Score)
Scoring of SLOs and Local Measure Point assignment – based on percentage of students meeting growth goals Rating.... % of students meeting goal ... HEDI Score Highly Effective (H) % points Effective (E) % points Developing (D) % points Ineffective (I) % points

13 Other Measures of Effectiveness (60% of Composite Score)
Of the 100 points possible for a teacher's Composite Score, 60 of those points are generated through: •Rubrics approved by NYS •Sources of evidence: observations, visits, portfolios, etc. Tenured teachers must have two observations - one announced and one unannounced. The Peer-Partnering and Self-Directed Options are no longer available. Non-tenured teachers will have three observations, two announced and one unannounced.

14 The Teacher Rubric (60% of Composite Score)
Charlotte Danielson’s The Framework for Teaching – 2011 revised *SED approved rubric which is aligned with NYS Teaching Standards as well as Common Core Learning Standards. *Four domains with 22 measurable components with four measures of effectiveness in each component – Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective (HEDI) *Differentiated for tenured and non-tenured teachers with a Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) process.

15 The Teacher Rubric Danielson’s Framework for Teaching 2011R
Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation Domain 2 - Classroom Environment Domain 3 - Instruction Domain 4 - Professional Responsibilities ▪Definition of component ▪Descriptors of what this component measures ▪Descriptors of critical attributes that define each HEDI level ▪Examples of what an observer would see at each HEDI level

16 The Teacher Rubric (60% of Composite Score)
Tenured Teachers = score based on two observations. (one announced/one unannounced) Non-Tenured Teachers = score based on three observations. (two announced/one unannounced) Danielson Framework for Teaching 2011 R HEDI Score Ineffective 0-49 Developing 50-56 Effective 57-58 Highly Effective 59-60

17 The composite score is on a
Education Law §3012-c(2)(a) requires annual professional performance reviews (APPRs) to result in a single composite teacher effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness. The composite score is on a 100 point basis.

18 Breakdown of Composite Scores is set by NYSED and cannot be modified.
The Composite Score 100 points maximum possible: 20 points come from State Growth HEDI Score 20 points come from Local Growth HEDI Score 60 points come from Teacher Evaluation using Danielson Framework for Teaching 2011R HEDI Score Breakdown of Composite Scores is set by NYSED and cannot be modified.

19 The Composite Score . 0-2 0-49 3-8 50-56 9-17 57-58 18-20 59-60
20% State Measure of Student Growth 20% Local Measure of Student Growth Danielson Framework for Teaching 2011 R Ineffective 0-2 0-49 Developing 3-8 50-56 Effective 9-17 57-58 Highly Effective 18-20 59-60 Total Composite Score Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective 0-64 65-74 75-90 91-100

20 Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP)
A teacher who receives an annual rating of “developing” or “ineffective” must have a teacher improvement plan (TIP). A TIP must be implemented no later than 10 days after the date on which teachers are required to report prior to the opening of classes for the school year. The format and process for plans are set in the plan. Outcome can be improvement or possible employment action at the conclusion of the 2nd year.

21 Appeals Process Teacher may appeal their annual rating...
•Procedural or Substantive basis •Specified process and format •Strict timeline

22 Next Steps •Submission of plan to NYSED Review Room.
•Approval of plan by ECSD School Board. •Submission of plan to NYSED Review Room. •Training for administrators and teachers. •Assessment development where needed. •Implementation of system.

23 APPR Committee Members
David Guyette, Secondary teacher Phil Stoner, Elementary teacher Laura Six, Elementary teacher Laurie Lamb, Elementary teacher assistant Constance Swarthout, Secondary teacher Rose Drake, Special Education teacher Wendi Walton, Reading teacher Christian Fagan, Elementary teacher Nancy Beebe, Secondary teacher Paige Kinnaird, Secondary teacher

24 Thank you for your time and consideration.
Our team has worked hundreds of hours to provide a plan for your approval which complies with all current NYSED regulations, ensures that teachers are provided with the supports necessary for them to improve their professional practice and the significant increase in student academic performance across the district.

Download ppt "David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google