Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of Litigation. To the extent that language in these training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls. © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Student Learning Objectives Mr. Fred Cohen Dr. Valerie C. D’Aguanno Dr. Robert Greenberg Mrs. Laverne Mitchell

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Our Trip to Albany ~ Your Trip to BOCES 2

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SED’s April Training Objectives Understand how teacher evaluation promotes teacher growth and development Understand the expectations for evidence, interpretation of evidence, and scoring of teacher practice Use a quality rating system to improve and ensure the rigor and comparability of SLOs Address implementation issues related to SLOs Understand the nuances of the indicators/elements of the frameworks for refining evidence collection, alignment and scoring Understand how teachers of ELLs and SWD are observed using the rubrics Collaborate with colleagues 3

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions TLE Training Status Required Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators (30.2-9) Elements Teaching Standards Evidence Based Observ’n Student Growth & Value Added Use of state approved rubrics Assess. Tools State & Local measures achieve. State Instruct Report’g System Scoring Method. Evaluate ELLs & SWDs Content# IRR Module 1XXXX Module 2XXX Module 3XXX Module 4XXXXX Module 5X Module 6XXXX 4

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions TLE Training Status Required Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators (30.2-9) Elements Teaching Standards Evidence Based Observ’n Student Growth & Value Added Use of state approved rubrics Assess. Tools State & Local measures achieve. State Instruct Report’g System Scoring Method. Evaluate ELLs & SWDs Content# IRR Module 1XXXX Module 2XXX Module 3XXX Module 4XXXXX Module 5X Module 6XXXX Module 7XX 5

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Today’s Agenda Look at evaluating teachers of ELLs and SWDs Introduction to SLO rubric/checklist Implementation timeline considerations Statewide Instructional Reporting System 6

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9 Report on “Teacher Evaluation in Effective Schools and Classrooms for ALL Learners” written by a committee convened by AFT Committee of experts outlined four conditions necessary for all students, including students with disabilities and ELLs, to be successful 1.All Learners and Equal Access 2.Individual Strengths and Challenges and Supporting Diversity 3.Reflective, Responsive, and Differentiated Teaching Strategies 4.Culture, Community, and Collaboration (Ell Experts: Diane August, Ph.D., Delia Pompa, Diane Staehr Fenner, Ph.D., Giselle Lundy-Ponce; Students with disabilities experts: Peter Kozik and Spencer Salend) NYSUT rubrics and modified ASCD rubrics were analyzed for alignment to the four conditions – strong alignment was determined Document is being written that will detail the four conditions and include recommendations for teacher evaluation systems 7

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9 Part I: Article discussion “Moving beyond standardized test scores in evaluating special education teachers” Read the article selections: Highlight areas of interest as you read Discuss the following questions as a small group 1) How do the articles address the role of all students in teaching and learning? 2) What are the implications for how teachers plan and deliver instruction? 3) What are the implications for teacher observation? 8

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9 Part II In your groups, review one standard (NYSUT – 3, 4, 5) or domain (ASCD – 2, 3) in your selected rubric. Which particular elements [ASCD] or indicators [NYSUT] are critical for an observer to focus on in order to assess the teacher’s skill at meeting the needs of all learners including: English Language Learners Students with Disabilities Students who perform significantly below grade level 9

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SLO..LY We turn…. 10

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SLO Template All SLOs MUST include the following basic components: Population These are the students assigned to the course section(s) in this SLO - all students who are assigned to the course section(s) must be included in the SLO. (Full class rosters of all students must be provided for all included course sections.) Learning Content What is being taught over the instructional period covered? standards? Will this goal apply to all standards applicable to a course or just to specific priority standards? Interval of Instructional Time What is the instructional period covered (if not a year, rationale for semester/quarter/etc)? Evidence What specific assessment(s) will be used to measure this goal? The assessment must align to the learning content of the course. Baseline What is the starting level of students’ knowledge of the learning content at the beginning of the instructional period? 11

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SLO Template – Pg. 2 Target(s) What is the expected outcome (target) of students’ level of knowledge of the learning content at the end of the instructional period? HEDI How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)? HIGHLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVEDEVELOPINGINEFFECTIVE Rationale Describe the reasoning behind the choices regarding learning content, evidence, and target and how they will be used together to prepare students for future growth and development in subsequent grades/courses, as well as college and career readiness. 12

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SLO – Grade 2Sample -SLO – Grade 2 ELA -RosterRoster -Baseline dataBaseline data 13

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions SLO – Global History II Sample -SLO – Global History II -RosterRoster -Baseline dataBaseline data 14

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Introduction to the Rubric 15

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Introduction to the Rubric 16

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Introduction to the Rubric 17

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Rating the HEDI Criteria – Quality Rating 3 Meets all of the following: Meets Quality Rating 2 criteria. Requires 80% or more of students, including special populations, to meet their individual goals to earn 9 points (minimum rating in the “effective” category). 18

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Selecting a model: HEDI Scale Who is HEDI and why is she bothering me now???? HEDI Scoring How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective) HIGHLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVEDEVELOPINGINEFFECTIVE

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document) No decision is more crucial than defining the target. A teacher’s overall evaluation is based on how this task is accomplished.

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Science Teacher Example

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Science Teacher Example Where did this evaluator’s score come from? Who was consulted? On what logic, formula, or experience was it based?

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Middle School Physical Education Example

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: 7 th Grade Social Studies SLO SubjectBaseline TARGET (As Approved by Evaluator Actual Results Evaluator SLO Score 7R Social Studies classes with 23 & 27 students A district created pre-test. 75% of students will score at least a 65% on the post-test 83% of the students ISP (including special populations) scored at least 65% If this were the SLO, what HEDI score would you assign? What is your rationale? What problems might you anticipate if you chose 9? Or 17? When a target is chosen, the HEDI scale must be a prime consideration. Now imagine the task of creating one, two, or three SLO’s for 80% of the teachers in your district!

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Example: 7 Honors Social Studies SLO SubjectBaseline TARGET (As Approved by Evaluator Actual Results Evaluator SLO Score 7H Social Studies with 18 & 22 students A district created pre-test. 85% of students will score at least a 85% on the post 92% of the students ISP (including special populations) scored at least 85%

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale Now, suppose you have to create a target for “x” number of SLO’s, for each teacher you must calculate the 20% Local, the 60% of teacher evaluation aligned to NYS teaching standards, you must put it all together to calculate each teacher’s overall composite score, have a way to report it all to SED ? How? Who? When? Oh No!

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale Each department/teacher has his or her own language within the target that must be translated into a HEDI score. Having a translation tool would become your Rosetta Stone. The BOCES Translation Scale is for use when the SLO model selected uses percent of students as the descriptor for the target as you have seen in the examples today. Once you accept the suggested template, setting the target percent becomes your focus.

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Suggested Scale Translating Targets to the HEDI Scale

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center *Please see caveat © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions Suggested Implementation Calendar 34

Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of Litigation. To the extent that language in these training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls. © 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center Thank you for your participation!