As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated

Emergency Action The Board of Regents took emergency action on June 15, 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 Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

The Matrix Scores 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 use a prescribed conversion (it is no longer negotiable): Overlap due to confidence intervals

Student Performance Half This chart describes the weighting parameters: Permissible Statewide Range MinimumMaximum Mandatory subcomponent 50%100% Optional subcomponent 0%50%

Back-Up SLO Possibility “Effective”

Back-Up SLO Possibility 13/20 points, or “Developing”

The Matrix Scores 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 Portion An 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 Portion Scores from observers will be scaled within these parameters: Permissible Statewide Range MinimumMaximum 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 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 Definitions The actual cut scores are determined locally within these parameters. Permissible Statewide Range MinimumMaximum Highly Effective 3.5 to Effective 2.5 to to 3.74 Developing 1.5 to to 2.74 Ineffective 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 24 th full day –August 25 th full day –September 28 th am –November 2 nd am –November 23 rd am –December 14 th am

Training Ongoing Evaluator Training (Lead Evaluator or evaluator): –November 12 th and 13 th 1/2 day repeated 4x –February 1 st and 2 nd 1/2 day repeated 4x –March 21 st & 22 nd 1/2 day repeated 4x

Training Principal Training (for supervisors of principals): –October 14 th pm FOR NEW EVALUATORS –December 9 th pm –January 13 th pm –February 10 th pm –March 9 th pm –April 13 th 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 1 st 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 Portion Scores from observers will be scaled within these parameters: Permissible Statewide Range MinimumMaximum 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 15 th deadline. District would then target March 1 st for a new plan approval. If not going to get a new plan approved by March 1 st, the implementation of which wouldn’t be required until

Hardship Waivers The deadline to submit a waiver is November 1 st (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 28 th : APPR Implementation Certification October 16 th : Submission date for data for Principals and Teacher October 23 rd : Staff evaluation verification report; same process as in

Hardship Waivers

Wait or Go? Reasons to GoReasons 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]