APPR: Ready or Not Joan Townley & Andy Greene October 20 and 21, 2011

A brief summary Airplane in the sky

3 “Gates” - Effective Teacher Evaluation  FAIRNESS  VALIDITY  RELIABILITY

OBSERVATION VS. EVALUATION

A little history….  2000: 8 NYCRR Section (o) Established the requirement for the annual professional performance review of teachers based on the following criteria: Content knowledge Preparation of instruction Instructional delivery Classroom management Knowledge of student development Student assessment Collaboration Reflective and responsive practice

A little history - continued It also called for districts to adopt an annual or multi-year professional performance review plan

And then came Race to the Top  Focused on four reform areas Enhancing standards and assessments Improving data systems to support instruction Recruiting, developing, rewarding and retaining effective teachers and principals Turning around the lowest-achieving schools

Race to the Top  January 2010: Round One – New York did not score high enough  In preparation for Round Two the Regents passed emergency measures to 100.2(o) in April 2010  Added student growth as criteria for teacher evaluation under  Required four rating categories: “HEDI” (highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective)

Education Law 3012-c (May 2010)  Calls for performance reviews of classroom teachers and building principals Student performance data must be included in these evaluations Evaluations must be based on multiple measures, including student achievement

Education Law 3012-c - continued  Composite effectiveness score (range: 1 – 100)  Four rating categories – HEDI  Requires evaluator training  New requirements for improvement plans  Requires districts to establish an appeals process  2 ineffective ratings = a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance – subject to expedited disciplinary proceedings

Levels of Performance – “HEDI” – Who is she?  Highly Effective – Classroom functions as a community of learners with student assumption of responsibility for learning

Levels of Performance  Effective – teaching shows evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession students are engaged in learning This is successful, accomplished, professional and effective teaching.

Levels of Performance  Developing – Teaching shows evidence of knowledge and skills related to teaching – but inconsistent performance

Levels of Performance  Ineffective – Teaching shows evidence of not understanding the concepts underlying the component May represent practice that is harmful Requires intervention

Effectiveness Score  Evaluations must result in a single, composite score that incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in the regulations of the Commissioner

Effectiveness Score  20% - student growth data on state assessments  20% - other “locally selected measures of student achievement” determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms  60% - other “locally developed measures” through collective bargaining and consistent with standards Including multiple classroom observation by trained evaluators – could be peer reviewers or video-taped lessons Might include evidence binders, a review of student work, self-reflection, individual professional growth plan, or surveys of parents and/or students

WHO?  2 Phases: Phase 1: on or after July 1, 2011  Teachers of Common Branch subjects  Teachers of ELA (Grades 4 – 8)  Teachers of Math (Grades 4 – 8)  Principals of the above teachers Phase 2: for ALL classroom teachers’ and principals’ evaluations done on or after July 1, 2012

“Safe Harbor”  Applies if there is a conflicting provision in a collective bargaining agreement that was in effect 7/1/2010 If so, the agreement controls until a successor agreement is in place Contracts negotiated after 7/1/2010 must be consistent with 3012-c

NYSUT Lawsuit  June 2011: NYSUT filed lawsuit challenging certain provisions  August 2011: Albany County Supreme Court Justice ruled that part of the regulations are invalid  SED has appealed

Evaluator Training  Each individual responsible for conducting teacher & principal evaluations must receive appropriate training  Only “lead evaluators” must be certified-must be trained and calibrated  All evaluators must be appropriately trained

9 Elements for Evaluator Training  New York State Teaching Standards & related elements  Evidence-based observation techniques  Use of Student growth percentile model and value added growth model  Application & use of State-approved rubrics  Application & use of any assessment tools  Application & use of any locally selected measures of student achievement  Use of the Statewide Instructional Reporting System (SIRS)  Scoring Methodology for evaluation –including sub- components  Specific considerations for teachers of ELL and SWD

Rubrics  Used to assess 60% “other measures”  List of approved rubrics for teacher and principal evaluations  Variance process for use of existing and/or new, innovative rubrics

NYS Teaching Standards: 1.Knowledge of students & student learning 2.Knowledge of content and instructional planning 3.Instructional practice 4.Learning environment 5.Assessment for student learning 6.Professional responsibilities and collaboration 7.Professional growth

PRIORITIES – NYS TEACHING STANDARDS  Cognitive Engagement – intellectual involvement with content is required  Constructivist Learning – students making meaning & connections – related to outside world & personal future  21 st Century Skills – collaboration, communication, critical thinking/problem solving,creativity

How do you evaluate the Standards????  The rubrics – which ever one that is selected – are to be used to evaluate the degree to which teachers are meeting the standards

Standard 3: Instructional Practice  What would make a teacher “highly effective” in this area? What would it like? What would you hear in the classroom? What would the students be doing or saying?

Common Language  The use of a common language across a district ensures that everyone understands expectations  All evaluators will be using the same template for all teachers  Approved rubrics are aligned to NYS standards

 Resources Resources