Annual Professional Performance Review and YOU! Is the road to hell paved with good intentions?

 This presentation will engage Coaches in  Recognizing the links between Race to the Top funding and  Major revisions in New York’s School Reform efforts  By identifying ES BOCES Coaches’potential role(S) in its implementation  Especially with respect to the changes in  The Annual Professional Performance Review’s  Expectations,Regulations, Processes, Implementation and their  IMPLICATIONS

 Has been noteworthy over several years in its ability to  Deliver meaningful and sustainable support to schools, districts, and their teachers  By  Intervening  Supporting  Providing specialized expertise as appropriate  You need to know about

 Pose new challenges and offer  More opportunities to help  Teachers more nearly meet the needs of  All children  Your familiarity with the changes

 What value-added growth models will mean in evaluating teacher and principal performance  How all teachers will be evaluated  Coaches’ prospective role in developing Teacher Intervention Plans (TIPs)  The composite formula for evaluating teachers  The potential role Coaches may play in teachers’ appeal processes  The new CORE standards Will make you that much more effective!

Was NCLB

 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s emphasis on  Innovative competition for  Considerable Federal Governmental monies, all the more critical in tough  Economic times  New York’s original grant application was turned down  This forced NYSED to work with NYSUT to make several paradigm shifting changes

 Lift the cap on charter school applications  Raise the cut off scores (remember that? )  Link teacher evaluations to student performance

CONGRATULATIONS YOU’VE WON RTTT FUNDS!

 standards/pdfdocs/ccssi_math_standards.pdf standards/pdfdocs/ccssi_math_standards.pdf  standards/pdfdocs/ccssi_ela_standards.pdf standards/pdfdocs/ccssi_ela_standards.pdf  July 2010

 Criteria for evaluating teachers must include but not be limited to  Content knowledge  Preparation  Instructional delivery  Classroom management  Student development  Student assessment  Collaboration  Reflective and responsive practicespractices  AND A NEW CRITERION IS … Clearly Coaches’ Territory!

 “Student growth is a positive change in student achievement between at least two points in time, taking into consideration of the unique abilities or disabilities of each student including English Language Learners.” Coaches will need to be informed

 4 – Highly Effective  3 – Effective  2 – Developing  1 – Ineffective  Via a  60 %  20 %  20 % formula

 i.e. locally selected measures developed through collective bargaining concerning teacher evaluation systems.  An observation model such as Danielson’s Frameworks for Teaching is often cited but is not necessarily the appropriate measure. 

 Supervisors will need to be trained in a model prior to this system’s implementation!  Coaches will need to be informed!

 Based on locally selected measures of student achievement determined to be rigorous and comparable … Coaches will need to be informed.

 Based on student GROWTH data on state assessments ….  This is called the value-added growth model  A set of guidelines is expected for implementation in September 2014 Coaches will need to be informed.

 “Developing” or “Ineffective”  Must have a TIP or a PIP in place for subsequent evaluation processes

 “Evaluations “shall be a significant factor for: employment decisions including but not limited to  Promotion  Retention  Tenure determination  Termination  Compensation …”

 Requires that school districts  Identify needed areas of improvementneeded areas of improvement  Provide a timeline for achieving improvement  Identify the manner in which improvement will be assessed  Classroom observation  Videotape observation  Self review  Peer review  Portfolio review  Provide differentiated activities to support the improved area(s)

 Includes  Identification of multiple resources to help the teacher; e.g.  MENTORS Clearly an opportunity for Coaches to contribute.

 The new system “expedites” teacher removal processes (but not necessarily )  Also specifies an appeals process where teachers may challenge the evaluation process  To be negotiated locally  Substance of evaluation  Adherence to standards and methodologies for review  Adherence to Commissioner’s Regulations  Compliance with applicable locally negotiated procedures  Issuance and / or implementation of terms of a TIP or PIP

 Provisions must be made for among other issues  Student composition e.g.  Would a teacher in an Inclusion class be held to the same yardstick as an Advanced Placement teacher for student growth?  English Language Learners?  Socioeconomic factors?  ??? This will require sophisticated assessment techniques that take such variables into account and

 That teachers are better trained in using data to diagnose their instructional “prowess”  ES BOCES – Essential QuestionsEssential Questions  Coaches’ familiarity with helping teachers use qualitative, quantitative data sources is essential.

INSTRUCTIONALDATA ANALYISISTIP / PIPLEGAL CORE STANDARDS!FAMILIARITY WITH VALUE-ADDED APPROACHES AS THEY ARE DEVELOPED MENTORING!EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS SUPPORT AND INTERVENTION ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS UNDERSTANDING COMPOSITE SCORE PROCESS APPEALS PROCESS COLLABORATION WITH DISTRICT / SCHOOL LEADERS ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FAMILIARITY WITH EVALUATION / SUPERVISION MODELS PRESCRIPTIVE CURRICULUM DESIGN

 There are three kinds of people  Those who let it happen  Those who wonder what happened  and

 Who make it happen

Thank you! Richard Bernato Ed.D.

 Aronstein,L.; Klomp, J; Ristea, M. “What you Need to Know and Do about Implementing the New Regulations.”  Lewis, L.; Copel, H. “APPR Legislation: What Does This Mean for Us?  Sheehan, V. “Annual Professional Performance Reviews Under Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010.”  NYSUT Information Bulletin. “Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR).”