Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011

If there were no law, nor regulations, and you had the opportunity and some resources to improve teacher evaluation, what would you create?

The regulations The rubrics... Current district practices What do you need? Overview of the day...

Outcomes for this meeting... Describe the major components of Law (§3012-c) and Regulations (§100.2), particularly as it relates to teacher evaluation. Define the timelines Identify required components of APPR Describe the similarities and differences between rubrics that are on the state approved list. Identify any regional interests in a “common” rubric” Define what your district “needs”

On May 16, 2011, The Board of Regents voted to: Add Subpart 30-2, that sets the standards for implementation of Ed Law 3012-C (Effective May 20, 2011) Amend Section 100.2(o) and set new rules for evaluation of teachers and principals not covered in subpart 30-2 (Effective July 1, 2011) Major components of Law (§3012-c) and Regulations (§100.2)

Implementation Timeline : ▫ Teachers of ELA and Math grades 4 – 8 ▫ Principals of schools in which these teachers are employed SEEKING CLARITY: What is required of ALL teachers through the APPR process in ??? ▫ All classroom teachers and building principals

Which teachers are impacted? Who are included? Classroom teachers School librarians Career and technical teachers Who are excluded? Pupil personnel services (school psychologists, social workers) Instructional support services teachers (ISS) Supplemental school personnel (teacher aides, assistants), adult educators, continuing educators are not included.

100 point score Highly Effective Effective75-90 Developing65-74 Ineffective points (of 60) must be based on multiple classroom observations points (of 60) are based on other evidence of teacher effectiveness. 3.20% of score is based on student growth on state assessments SCORE WILL BE SENT TO SCHOOLS FROM SED BY JUNE 15, % of scores is based on student performance on locally selected measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms and that reflect local priorities, needs, and targets NEW: DISTRICTS MAY SELECT TO USE STATE TESTS AS THE LOCAL MEASURE

LEVEL Student Growth/State Assessment Student Achievement Local Measures Other 60 points Overall Composite Score Ineffective 0-2 Scoring ranges locally determined (40 of 60 based on multiple observation)* 0-64 Developing Effective Highly Effective Composite Scoring Ranges for School year NOTE: A teacher who scores in the ineffective range in both the student growth and locally selected measures of student achievement receives an overall rating of “INEFFECTIVE”. If the teacher is “INEFFECTIVE”, the school district or BOCES is required to develop and implement a teacher improvement plan. (TIP)

Student growth: A change in achievement of an individual student between two or more points of time (subpart 30-2) STUDENT GROWTH PERCENTILE MODEL: The student is assigned a SGP score ▫ Methodology is based on Colorado Growth Model ▫ Change in a student’s achievement on state assessment  Between two or more points in time  Compared to other students with similar past academic performance on the assessment.

Student Growth Percentile Model Continued... Adjustments to a student’s SGP to calculate a TSGPS (Teachers’ Student Growth Percentile Score) take into account a students:  Poverty  Disability status, and/or  ELL status The TSGPS represents the mean or median adjusted for those student characteristics for each of the teacher’s assigned students

Options for Local Measure of Student Achievement (TEACHER) (Subpart 30-2) Assessments from a state approved list of 3 rd party developed assessments (Reviewed annually) District, regional, or BOCES developed whose rigor and comparability is verified by the district or BOCES Districts must include in their APPR plan an assurance that their district developed assessment is rigorous and comparable across classrooms. State assessments Structured, district –wide goal setting process with any state and/or school/teacher created assessment agreed to by an evaluator and teacher

Questions for the district to answer... What are the approved local measures? Criteria: Common, rigorous, comparable In the APPR, schools must: describe the assessment development, security, and scoring processes utilized by the district, ensuring that assessments are not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessment they score. How will a “score” be defined? LEVEL Student Achievement Local Measures Ineffective0-2 Developing3-11 Effective12-17 Highly Effective18-20

Other Measures for Teacher (60 points) 40 POINTS OBSERVATION 20 points OTHER Multiple measures = 2 or more observations in person or by video by trained principals, other administrators, OR independent evaluators, OR in-school peers. Any of the teaching standards NOT addressed in classroom observation must be assessed at least once a year through one or more of the other activities COMBINATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: Structured review of students work Teacher artifacts using portfolio or evidence binder Feedback from students/parents, and/or other teachers using structured survey tool Teacher self-reflection and progress on professional growth goals (maximum 5 points. Teacher performance must be assessed using an SED approved teacher practice rubric

Questions for the district to answer... What rubric will be selected? What is the process of selection? What is measured via the observation? What other “evidences” are appropriate? How will a “score” be defined? ▫ Score ranges are locally determined

Who conducts evaluations of teachers? An evaluator is anyone who conducts a teacher evaluation Lead evaluator is the primary person responsible for conducting and completing the evaluation  Signs the summative APPR To the extent possible, should be the principal and/or his designee

Evaluator training: School boards must ▫ ensure that evaluators are appropriately trained ▫ Certify lead evaluators as a qualified evaluation TRAINING for the leader evaluator included: ▫ Training on the NYS teaching standards ▫ Evidence based observation techniques ▫ Application and use of:  Student growth model  State approved rubric  Any assessment tools that the school uses to evaluate teachers, including but not limited to structure portfolio reviews, surveys, PD goals, school improvement goals, etc  Scoring methods for local measure  Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLS and SWD

So...what about these rubrics??? List posted by SED on July 29, 2011 SED Teacher Rubrics leaders/practicerubrics/

SED’s APPROVED VENDORS: 1.Danielson's Framework for Teaching  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) 2.Danielson's Framework for Teaching  Teachscape 3.Marzano's Causal Teacher Evaluation Model  Learning Sciences International, LLC 4.NYSTCE Framework for the Observation of Effective Teaching  NCS Pearson, Inc. 5.NYSUT Teacher Practice Rubric  New York State United Teachers (NYSUT)

Comparing the rubrics What do we know about the rubrics? An activity to compare and contrast....

ISSUES related to the selection and use of the rubrics....

CONSIDERATIONS FOR “COMMON RUBRICS”

Compare your current APPR with the regulations? What will you need next?

APPR (The new law and existing regulations) We have been requested to put together a workshop/webinar about the requirements of APPR. Stay tuned.. We are working on this and will announce dates/times ASAP

If there were no law, nor regulations, and you had the opportunity and some resources to improve teacher evaluation, what would you create?

Thank you! We are doing our very best to provide you with current, accurate information. The target continues to move... It is always a pleasure to work with you! Your RTTT team!