Valley Central School District

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators
Advertisements

On-the-job Evaluation of Principals Jacquelyn O. Wilson, Ed.D. Delaware SAELP Director Wallace Foundation National Conference October 25-28, 2006.
BRISTOL WARREN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Implementation of RI Educator Evaluation System
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR NOTE: All that is left for implementation.
OCM BOCES APPR Regulations As of % Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures APPR.
 Reading School Committee January 23,
Ramapo Teachers’ Association APPR Contractual Changes.
Annual Professional performance review (APPR overview) Wappingers CSD.
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as approved by the Board of Regents, May 2011 NOTE: Reflects guidance through September 13, 2011 UPDATED.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
1 New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated
LCSD APPR: Overview Review and Focus on the 60 points December 3, 2012.
August 24, 2015 Albany, New York Independent and Peer Evaluation: Making the Work Matter.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
The APPR Process And BOCES. Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student.
The New Massachusetts Principal Evaluation
As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated
APPR:§3012-d A Preview of the changes from :§3012-c Overview.
Teacher and Principal Evaluations and Discipline Under Chapter 103.
General Unit Meeting June 1 st NYSUT Local Presidents Conference 1.
Student Learning Objectives SLOs April 3, NY State’s Regulations governing teacher evaluation call for a “State-determined District-wide growth.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm June, 2012.
APPR: Ready or Not Joan Townley & Andy Greene October 20 and 21, 2011.
Race to the Top (RTTT) and the New York State Regents Reform Agenda Dr. Timothy T. Eagen Assistant Superintendent for Instruction & Curriculum South Huntington.
Technical Support Webinar May 8, 2012 Presented by: Broome-Tioga BOCES RTTT Network Team.
January 2016 Slides updated Emergency Action At their December 2015 meeting, the Board of Regents [again] took emergency action Introduced APPR.
Ongoing Training Day 1. Welcome Back! [re]Orientation Lead Evaluator Training Agenda Review.
May Education in the Budget Evaluation; Tenure; Tenured teacher disciplinary hearings; Teacher preparation and certification; and Intervention in.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
2011 – 2012 School Year. * Walk-Throughs * Observation(s) * Pre-/Post-Evaluation Form * Year-End Evaluation * Summative Score Report.
APPR Annual Professional Performance Review Legislation: 3012-d Board of Education Work Session November 9, 2015.
What Does it Mean to Observe Only Observable Elements? Defining Observation for Your District for
APPR Updates Office of Teacher/Principal Quality and Professional Development.
APPR Updates Office of Teacher/Principal Quality and Professional Development.
TEACHNJ Proposed Regulations. TEACHNJ Regulations Proposal  Two Terms that are very important to know: SGO – Student Growth Objective (Created in District)
1 Overview of Teacher Evaluation 60% Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance At least 31 points based on “at least 2” observations At least one observation.
APPR 2.0 (based on CR 3012-d) NSCSD Goals The NSCSD District Goals Can be evidenced in planning, classroom instruction, assessment and teacher’s.
Evaluation of Teachers & Principals (APPR)
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: June 2012.
Teacher Evaluation Timeline
Evaluations (TPGES) All Certified staff are held accountable to job specific domains and standards. SB 1 Changes The Process Starts with the PGP. Bourbon.
Rockingham County Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process
Woodland Park School District Educator Effectiveness 101
Teacher Evaluation System
APPR Update School Year.
Woodland Park School District Educator Effectiveness
Overview This presentation provides information on how districts compile evaluation ratings for principals, assistant principals (APs), and vice principals.
Ongoing Lead Evaluator
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
APPR Overview 3012c Draft Revision March 2012
Understanding How Evaluations are Calculated
Sachem Central School District Teacher Evaluation Training 2012
APPR Update School Year.
New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012.
Overview of Implementation and Local Decisions
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR OVERVIEW
NEWARK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPR/EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Updates for Middle Level Liaisons Alexander Trikalinos, Office of Educator Quality and Professional Development.
Central Square School District and CSTA
Colorado Department of Education
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
GCSD Revised APPR Forms
Annual Professional Performance Review APPR
Presentation transcript:

Valley Central School District 3012-d APPR Changes Valley Central School District

What is Different? Teacher Evaluation Process Principal Evaluation Process Plan Submission Disciplinary Charges Hardship Waiver Note that emergency adoption of these changes occurred at the June BoR meeting, but changes can be made in September following the public comment period. “The regulations can continue to be adjusted over time as additional best practices emerge.

Teacher Evaluation Process Rubric Artifacts Multiple observations by Principals, other administrator and/or peer observer Scoring

Subcomponent Weights Principal/Supervisor observation must be at least 80% Independent observation must be at least 10% Optional peer observation shall be established within those constraints

HEDI Ratings for Observation Each observation would be completed using a 1-4 rubric, producing an overall score between 1- 4 Observations would be combined using a weighted averaged producing an overall Observation category score between 1-4 Observation category score would be converted into a HEDI rating between 1- 4 Score entered into the Evaluation Matrix Statewide minimum would be two observations (one principal/supervisor; one independent) with the frequency and duration determined locally Short walk-throughs are permissible Observations may exceed minimum standards and any additional observations may be included locally in the overall observation score, as determined locally At least one observation must be unannounced

Range of Recommended Observation Scores (actual cut scores within the permissible ranges shall be determined locally) Min Max H 3.5 to 3.75 4.0 E 2.5 to 2.75 3.49 to 3.74 D 1.5 to 1.75 2.49 to 2.74 I 1.0 1.49 to 1.74

Evaluation Matrix Observation Student Performance H E D I D* Highly Effective (H) Effective (E) Developing (D) Ineffective (I) H E D I D* * If you negotiate to use a second state approved supplemental assessment, and the teacher/principal scores ineffective, they must receive an ineffective as the overall rating.

Student Performance – 50% Student Growth on State Assessments State-Designed Supplemental Assessments If a teacher is rated ineffective on the Student Performance Category, and a State-designed supplemental assessment was included as an optional subcomponent of the Student Performance category, the teacher can be rated no higher than ineffective overall Local Assessments have been Eliminated SLOs may include group measures, including school-wide measures. Linked group measures are encouraged Superintendents, or their designees, continue to have sole discretion to use pedagogical judgment and determine SLO targets

Weighting for Student Performance Required Growth Subcomponent only (state-provided growth scores or SLOs) – 100% Required Growth Subcomponent (at least 50%) + Optional Student Growth subcomponent (no more than 50%)

Scoring Ranges for Student Performance Each performance measure would result in a growth score between 0 and 20 Multiple measures would be combined using a weighted average, producing an overall score between 0 and 20 This overall student performance score would be converted into a HEDI rating and entered into the Evaluation Matrix

Addressing Anomalous Results State Education Department could take or require corrective action to address a pattern of anomalous results The Board of Regents could request legislative changes that provide for independent validators to resolve anomalous results

Ineffective Teachers Students cannot be placed with ineffective teachers for 2 years in a row Teachers who receive two ineffective ratings in a row, may be brought up on charges of incompetence. There is an expedited 90-day timeline. A teacher has to provide clear and convincing evidence that they are effective to win. Teachers who receive three ineffective ratings in a row must be brought up on charges of incompetence. The teacher may only argue fraud, including mistaken identity as a defense. There is an expedited 30 day timeline.

Principal Evaluation Professional goal setting is prohibited as an element of principal evaluations – but organizational goal setting should be used to the extent that it is evidence of an observable component of the practice rubric Observation category is addressed through school visits Local Assessment have been Eliminated

Hardship Waiver Short-term hardship (four months) from the November 15 deadline should be accompanied by good faith attempts to collectively bargain and train for the new system APPR plans approved after March 1, 2016 will apply to the 2016-17 school year Final deadline for plan approval is September 1, 2016