Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as approved by the Board of Regents, May 2011 NOTE: Reflects guidance through September 13, 2011 UPDATED.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In August, the historic CORE district waiver was approved allowing these districts to pursue a new robust and holistic accountability model for schools.
Advertisements

Overview of the Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System KY Council of Administrators of Special Education Summer Conference July 9th, 2013.
... and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D. NAfME Symposium on Assessment June 24-25, 2012.
Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
TEACHER EVALUATION What it is going to look like….
New York State’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation System VOLUME I: NYSED APPR PLAN SUBMISSION “TIPS”
OCM BOCES Day 6 Principal Evaluator Training. 2 Nine Components.
David Guyette, Laura Six, Rose Drake and Paige Kinnaird
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.
Student Learning Objectives NYS District-Wide Growth Goal Setting Process December 1, 2011 EVOLVING.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research & Literature From Session 1 Homework Video Exercise Mid-Year Conferences.
Day 3. Agenda [always] Aligning RTTT Growth and Value-Added Update 21 st Century Readiness and APPR Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Successful Practices Network Annual Professional Performance Review and CTE Carol Ann Zygo, Field Team Associate of Central And Northern.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Evaluation Process for Teachers.
SSL/NYLA Educational Leadership Retreat New York State Teacher Evaluation …and the School Librarian John P. Brock Associate in School Library Services.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation 1.
As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated
Day 8. Agenda Aligning RTTT Growth and Value-Added Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement and reliability Growth-Producing Feedback.
LCSD APPR: Overview Review and Focus on the 60 points December 3, 2012.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
* Provide clarity in the purpose and function of the Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a part of the APPR system * Describe procedures for using.
Ongoing Training Day 4. Agenda Growth and Value-Added Update 21 st Century Readiness and APPR Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement and.
OCM BOCES Day 7 Lead Evaluator Training 1. 2 Day Seven Agenda.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review SLOs: Lessons Learned A Look at Some Evidence Planning School Visits Supporting Principals Closure.
Linking Students and Teachers SED collects data to connect students and teachers : Districts identify one or more full-time teachers with primary.
NY’s APPR Plans and Review Process.
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.
Evidence-Based Observations Training for Observers of Teachers Module 5 Dr. Marijo Pearson Dr. Mike Doughty Mr. John Schiess Spring 2012.
OCM BOCES SLOs Workshop. Race To The Top: Standards Data Professional Practice Culture APPR.
The Next Chapter of Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as described in the April 15th Draft Regulations.
NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS LEGAL PROVISIONS NEGOTIATION ISSUES “TO DO” LIST.
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND YOUR TEACHER EVALUATION NYSUT Education and Learning Trust NYSUT Field and Legal Services NYSUT Research and Educational.
APPR:§3012-d A Preview of the changes from :§3012-c Overview.
Teacher and Principal Evaluations and Discipline Under Chapter 103.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Principal Evaluation: Different? One Year Later Coaching Principals Collect evidence Support your local.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Research Review Taking Stock Collect evidence Principal Practices & the Rubric End-of-the-Year Looking.
2012 – 2013 School Year. OTES West Branch Local Schools.
Agenda Introductions Objectives and Agenda Review Messaging Research & Literature Article Read Planning Visits (and HW) Artifact Review Support your local.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12 July 2012 PRESENTATION as of 7/9/12.
Melrose High School 2014 MCAS Presentation October 6, 2014.
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.
Day 9. Agenda Research Update Evidence Collection SLO Summative Help Summative Evaluation Growth-Producing Feedback The Start of the Second.
OCM BOCES Day 2 Principal Evaluator Training 1. Back to the beginning: 2 Nine Components.
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.
Student Learning Objectives NYS District-Wide Growth Goal Setting Process December 1, 2011 EVOLVING.
May Education in the Budget Evaluation; Tenure; Tenured teacher disciplinary hearings; Teacher preparation and certification; and Intervention in.
Annual Professional Performance Review and YOU! Is the road to hell paved with good intentions?
Quality Review Updates for Presented by Mary Barton, SATIF CFN 204 Assistant Principals’ Conference September 2, 2011.
Presented by Mary Barton SATIF CFN 204 Principals’ Conference September 16, 2011.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
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.
APPR Update School Year.
District Performance Framework
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
APPR Overview 3012c Draft Revision March 2012
State Board of Education Progress Update
APPR Update School Year.
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
Presentation transcript:

Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) as approved by the Board of Regents, May 2011 NOTE: Reflects guidance through September 13, 2011 UPDATED

When Value-Added is implemented Has to be negotiated.

ELA/Math and Beyond Student Growth (eventually to include subgroups) 1 Teacher of record (for now)

Other Teachers and Beyond Sooner if possible As assessments become available – “core” subjects use state exam w/ goal setting Can’t use 3 rd party if not on approved list Must use from approved list if state test not ready NOTE

If No State Test(s)? This is “non-core” areas State approved 3rd party assessments Rigorous (verified?)District or BOCES-developed Agreed to in goal setting Can’t use 3 rd party test that is not on the list, unless you contract for custom Updates to list due in Jan/Feb

If NYSAA? Students not included in state growth or VA scores Locally, NYSAA can be taken into account Other local measures acceptable NOTE

Locally Selected Same across all classrooms State assessments can be used Choose from approved 3rd party assessments

Locally Selected Same across all classrooms State assessments can be used Choose from approved 3rd party assessments Student characteristics can be considered No, 20% can not be 40% NOTE

Locally Selected Same across all classrooms Rigorous (verified?)District or BOCES-developed Can be group measures Agreed to in goal setting

Required Multiple measures ≥ 2/3 based on observation (menu of approved tools) Principal or trained other All standards every year Limit overturned but is being appealed Change to rubric requires variance; forms and weighting do not require approval

Optional Structure review of teacher artifacts and/or portfolio Feedback from others using survey tools Goals and reflection (≤5pts) Limit overturned

Student Growth 20% Achievement 20% Other 60%Composite Ineffective0-2 Ranges determined locally 0-64 Developing Effective Highly Effective Has to be revised.

When Value-Added is implemented

Elem/Middle Result of student growth Added to as measures become available Other measures being used for teachers in the school

High School Result of student growth Added to as available Progress to graduation Other measures being used for teachers in the school

Elem/Middle District-wide achievement measures Achievement on state tests Growth or achievement for subgroups

High School Regents participation rates College ready rates Graduation rates Credit accumulation Dropout rates PSAT, SAT, AP, IB, etc.

Required Multiple measures ≥ 2/3 based on broad assessment of actions via supervisor visits Include at least two: Feedback from constituencies School visits from others Review of documents No approved tools list will be made; local decisions

Required Locally-selected measure of teacher effectiveness contribution, such as: High performer retention Granted v. denied tenure Teacher satisfaction w/ feedback Evaluation quality

Required All standards at least once per year

Optional Teacher and/or student attendance School goals Goals and reflection (≤5pts)

Student Growth 20% Achievement 20% Other 60%Composite Ineffective0-2 Ranges determined locally 0-64 Developing Effective Highly Effective SED interpreting that this also has to be revised.

Developing or ineffective (teachers and principals) Developed through negotiations – there is no language that says individual elements must be negotiated Within 10 days after report date for new school year Collec- tively, not indivi- dually

Challenge the “substance” of the review Challenge adherence to standards and methodologies Challenge adherence to regulations and negotiated procedures

In addition to 3012-c requirements, districts must post how all others are evaluated (old APPR) in 100.2(o). Do NOT have to use HEDI for all others. Just need to post old plan for all the others NOTE

Approved by BoE by September 1 st Posted to website by September 10 th Identify provisions that may change as a result of collective bargaining Approve and post amended plans

Process for data linkage and verification Process for data (subscores and scores)submission Assessment security measures Teachers and principals can not score their own assessments. Secure locations. Secure answer keys.

Local achievement measures and scoring methodology Teacher 60% rubric Principal 60% rubric

How APPR process will be used for PD for teachers and principals How principals and teachers will receive timely feedback

Improvement Plan process Evaluator training process Evaluator reliability over time (recertification) Appeals process

Improvement Plan process Evaluator training process Evaluator reliability over time (recertification) Appeals process

Ensured by governing body Described in APPR plan All evaluators must be trained Completed prior to completion of evaluation

All lead evaluators must be trained and certified: Evidence-based observation Growth and value-added models Rubric application Application of assessment tools Locally selected measures Statewide Instructional Reporting System Scoring methodologies SWD and ELL teacher consideration

Non-administrators and evaluations: Must be fully trained and collaborated before conducting any part of an evaluation

Phase-In Math and ELA Everyone else Everyone else sooner if possible Unless specifically addressed by a labor agreement signed prior to July 1, 2010 If more than 50% of students in other than ELA & Math, not included