The APPR Process And BOCES. Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
... and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D. NAfME Symposium on Assessment June 24-25, 2012.
Advertisements

Annual Professional Performance Reviews - An Overview -
Teacher Evaluation & APPR THE RUBRICS! A RTTT Conversation With the BTBOCES RTTT Team and local administrators July 20, 2011.
New York State’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation System VOLUME I: NYSED APPR PLAN SUBMISSION “TIPS”
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation Module 1: Introduction to Student Growth Measures and SLOs.
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.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation
LCSD APPR Introduction: NYS Teaching Standards and the Framework for Teaching Rubric Welcome! Please be seated in the color-coded area (marked off by colored.
SLO Process A process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards.
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.
Student Learning Objectives NYS District-Wide Growth Goal Setting Process December 1, 2011 EVOLVING.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Student Learning Objectives It’s Been a SLO Summer.
Meeting of the Staff and Curriculum Development Network December 2, 2010 Implementing Race to the Top Delivering the Regents Reform Agenda with Measured.
Aligning Priorities, Goals and Initiatives for School and Student Success Presenters: Dr. Regina Cohn Dr. Robert Greenberg January 2013.
March 28, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Innovation Fund Project Improving Teacher Effectiveness Through Standards and a Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation System 1.
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.
Physical Education SLOs: A Clarification of the State Education Department’s 8 Component SLO Template: Grades K-5 Presented By: Laura Shaw – Dows Lane.
As Adopted by Emergency Action June, 2015 Slides updated
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
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.
Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR). What are the components of APPR? Teacher Evaluation –60 points (observation*/goal setting) –20 points (State.
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.
NY’s APPR Plans and Review Process.
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES Condensed from ODE Teacher Training.
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.
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
Western Suffolk BOCES Boot Camp Emma Klimek Eastern Suffolk BOCES 2012.
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.
FEH BOCES Student Learning Objectives 3012-c.
New York State District-wide Growth Goal Setting Process: Student Learning Objectives Webinar 2: January 2012.
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.
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.
Changes in Professional licensure Teacher evaluation system Training at Coastal Carolina University.
Creating a Student Learning Objective (SLO). Training Objectives Understand how Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) fit into the APPR System Understand.
Value Added Model and Evaluations: Keeping It Simple Polk County Schools – November 2015.
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?
Forum on Evaluating Educator Effectiveness: Critical Considerations for Including Students with Disabilities Lynn Holdheide Vanderbilt University, National.
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
Best Practices in CMSD SLO Development A professional learning module for SLO developers and reviewers Copyright © 2015 American Institutes for Research.
APPR Annual Professional Performance Review Legislation: 3012-d Board of Education Work Session November 9, 2015.
Overview of Network Team Plan.  Deliverable Metrics are being finalized  Assessment of Network Team Deliverables ◦ Principals ◦ Teachers ◦ District.
1 New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation June 2012 PRESENTATION as of 6/14/12.
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.
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Introduction to Teacher Evaluation
Lead Evaluator for Principals Part I, Series 1
APPR Overview 3012c Draft Revision March 2012
Valley Central School District
Implementing Race to the Top
Roadmap November 2011 Revised March 2012
Presentation transcript:

The APPR Process And BOCES

Sections 3012-c and 3020 of Education Law (as amended)  Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) based on:  Student growth on state assessments/comparable measures (20 percent)  Multiple locally-determined measures of student achievement (20 percent)  State teaching standards/multiple measures (60 percent)  4 rating categories of teacher effectiveness (HEDI)  Highly Effective  Effective  Developing  Ineffective  Teacher Improvement Plans (TIPs) for “Developing” and “Ineffective” teachers  Training for evaluators  Appeals process for evaluations  Expedited discipline process when teacher receives two consecutive annual “Ineffective” ratings 2

The following areas of the APPR must be collectively bargained:  Collection and reporting of data  20 percent locally-selected measures  60 percent teaching practice Rubric Observation Evidence collection Subcomponent scoring method  Teacher Improvement Plans (TIPs)  Appeals process 3

 No Race to the Top funds are directly provided to BOCES to support implementation  Programs located in various settings (campus/component school districts/others) and “Teacher of Record” determinations  Procedures for evaluating teachers in offsite locations  Students enrolled in many component districts  Support services of component school districts not consistently available 4

 Teacher(s) of Record – Teacher assigned responsibility for student learning in a subject/course  Teacher of a course in a BOCES administered program (CTE/Special Education) will be the teacher of record for the course and students enrolled in it.  There is no minimum amount of time a teacher must spend with a student to be considered a teacher of record.  Enrollment Linkage – amount of time (prior to administration of assessment) that teacher is assigned to the class and a student is enrolled in the class.  Attendance Linkage – amount of time that the teacher is assigned to the class, the student is enrolled in the class, and the student attends the class. 5

 To be provided for each teacher by SED - Only component of APPR that is not locally negotiated!  At this point, there is a conceptual plan only  Based on individual student growth scores SED will produce a teacher student percentile growth score for each teacher  State tests to be used, where applicable  For non-tested subjects, growth will be measured by Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) - “district-wide student growth goal- setting process”  The same measure of student growth must be used for all teachers in a course or grade level  A growth model will be adopted first, then a Value-Added Model (VAM) by , if available 6

 State assessment in ELA or mathematics  May include consideration of poverty, ELLs and SWDs status (as per SED)  For non-tested subjects, BOCES must establish Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)  SLOs are academic goals for what a student will learn over a given time period  Teacher effectiveness scores will be based on student attainment of goals  Encouraged to work collaboratively with teachers on development 7

 Measures may include one or more of the following:  State assessment (4 options) Must be different from growth component  Commercially-developed student assessments approved by SED [  District, regional or BOCES-developed assessment  School-wide, group or team metric (not recommended)  District-wide student growth goal-setting process (ie: SLO) to be used with approved student assessment or district/teacher- developed assessments Must be different from growth component 8

 Use multiple measures of student achievement to provide additional evidence of student learning beyond the results of standardized tests.  Review current practices in your BOCES/Classroom  Considerations for student attendance, ELLs, SWDs?  In the CTE Program Approval process, each local program identifies an assessment aligned with the program (e.g. NOCTI). 9

 Measures must be aligned with the NYS Teaching Standards  BOCES selects an approved Rubric or apply for a variance  Process for observation  Teaching standards not addressed through observation must be assessed annually (but not all elements or performance indicators) Other measures to obtain evidence of:  student development and performance  the teacher’s relationships with others  teacher professional growth goals 10

 APPR Plan must show how subcomponent scores will be converted to a composite score  Growth subcomponent worth 20 points (set by SED)  Locally-selected measures subcomponent worth 20 points (locally negotiated)  Teaching practice subcomponent worth 60 points (locally negotiated) 11

 points reflect a “Highly Effective” score  points reflect an “Effective” score  reflect a “Developing” score  0-64 points reflect an “Ineffective” score 12

 points if results are well above state average  “Highly Effective”  9-17 points if results meet state average  “Effective”  3-8 points if results are below the state average  “Developing”  0-2 points if results are well below the state average  “Ineffective” 13

 points if results are well above district- adopted expectations  “Highly Effective”  9-17 points if results meet district expectations  “Effective”  3-8 points if results below district expectations  “Developing”  0-2 points if results well below district expectations  “Ineffective” 14

 Scoring ranges set locally  “Highly Effective” if performance and results exceed NYS Teaching Standards  “Effective” if performance and results meet NYS Teaching Standards  “Developing” if performance and results need improvement to meet NYS Teaching Standards  “Ineffective” if performance and results do not meet NYS Teaching Standards 15

 District responsible to ensure evaluators have appropriate training  Plan must describe:  Duration and nature of training  Process for certification/Re-certification of lead evaluator  Process for ensuring inter-rater reliability 16

 “Developing” or “Ineffective” rating must result in a TIP  As soon as practicable  No later than ten days after required to report prior to the opening of classes for the school year  TIP developed locally as bargained and must, at a minimum, include:  Identification of needed areas of improvement  Timeline for achieving improvement  Manner to assess improvement  Differentiated activities to support improvement, where appropriate 17

 Plan must include information on the process for appealing an annual evaluation  Process for appeals is collectively bargained  Provides for timely and expeditious resolution  Appeals may challenge:  Substance of the evaluation  Adherence to standards and methodologies required in the review  Adherence to regulations and compliance with locally- negotiated procedures including issuance and implementation of TIP 18