1. APPR Annual Professional Performance Review Legislation: 3012-d Board of Education Work Session November 9, 2015

2. Current APPR 3012-c Evaluation Format Evaluation of Teachers and Principals Growth Assessment Grades 4-8: State Provided Growth Scores (SPGS) All Other: SLOs based upon Regents, ELA/Math Assessments, other state or local assessments 20 Points Local Assessment AIMS Web, NYS ELA/Math Assessments, Regents, locally developed group metrics (class, grade, school) 20 Points Other Measures Based upon Observations and Evaluation using the Danielson Rubric 60 Points Total Composite Score 0-100 = HEDI Rating Ratings: (91-100)Highly Effective; (75-90)Effective; (65-74)Developing; (0-64) Ineffective

3. New APPR 3012-d Evaluation Format Evaluation of Teachers and Principals Based on two criteria only: 1)Student performance rating based upon a State-Provided Growth Score (SPGS) or Student Learning Objective (SLO) 2)Classroom Observations

4. New Education Law 3012-d: Evaluation of Teachers and Principals Statutory mandate for revised Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) plan, effective July 1, 2015 Attached to the Governor’s budget effective April 1, 2015; attached to State Aid Board of Regents reviewed and approved changes at June 15, 2015 meeting Approved changes impact all current APPR plans Districts required to negotiate, submit, and secure state approval for a 3012-d compliant APPR plan by November 15, 2015, or apply for a hardship waiver

5. Hardship Waiver District must have a 3012-d APPR plan or a hardship waiver in place by November 15, 2015 to be eligible for NYS School Aid increases Current APPR Plan, based on 3012-c, remains in place during hardship period To be eligible for a hardship waiver, districts must: – Demonstrate “good faith” efforts to meet and negotiate a new plan – Provide evidence of meeting dates, times, participants, progress towards agreement – Provide evidence of training of all relevant staff on the new elements of the law for teachers and administrators

6. Hardship Waivers Garden City approved! Hardship waiver extends November deadline to March 15, 2016. If a 3012-d plan is approved by March 15, 2016, the district will operate under 3012-d for the 2015-2016 school year. If the district does not have an approved 3012-d plan by March 15, 2016, the district needs to apply for a second hardship waiver. If the second hardship waiver is approved, the district will operate under 3012-c for 2015-2016 school year. Window for application for Hardship Waiver #2 is February 1, 2016-March 1, 2016

7. 3012-d Teacher Evaluation Criteria Student Performance and Classroom Observations HEDI Score for Each Criteria (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective) No longer numeric

8. Student Performance State Provided Growth Score (SPGS): A growth score based on student performance on state assessments from one year to the next. A student growth percentile (SGP) is identified by comparing a student’s score on the state assessment to the scores of other students in the state with similar academic history and characteristics (SES, ELL, SWD). A SPGS is the mean of all of the SGP’s of the students assigned to a teacher. And/or Student Learning Objective (SLO): A specific and measurable academic goal for a teacher’s students that is set at the start of a course. It represents the most important learning for the year, is aligned to the standards, and uses academic history as part of the goal setting. Teacher scores are based upon the degree to which the student learning goal was attained. Four possible ratings: H, E, D, I

9. Percent of Students Meeting Target Score/RatingPercent of Students Meeting Target Score/Rating 0-4%0: Ineffective49-54%11: Ineffective 5-8%1: Ineffective55-59%12: Ineffective 9-12%2: Ineffective60-66%13: Developing 13-16%3: Ineffective67-74%14: Developing 17-20%4: Ineffective75-79%15: Effective 21-24%5: Ineffective80-84%16: Effective 25-28%6: Ineffective85-89%17: Effective 29-33%7: Ineffective90-92%18: H. Effective 34-38%8: Ineffective93-96%19: H. Effective 39-43%9: Ineffective97-100%20: H. Effective 44-48%10: Ineffective Student Performance Category Scores and Ratings

10. Student Performance Rating Options Option 1 Use the SPGS or SLO score only This score equals 100% of the teacher’s student performance score to be entered into the HEDI matrix. Option 2 Use the SPGS or SLO score (≥50%)…..and Use a state approved supplemental assessment or an additional state provided growth score (≤50%) The sum of the two weighted scores equals 100 % of the teacher’s student performance score to be entered into the HEDI matrix

11. Optional Second Student Performance Measure Must measure growth – not achievement Can count for up to 50% of total Student Performance rating Must be state approved Must be negotiated Examples: School-wide results based on SPGS of students who take 4- 8 ELA/math assessment or other state assessments (State- provided) Growth on a locally-selected state-approved supplemental assessment (i.e., AIMS Web) using a state provided growth model

12. Observations Must be conducted using state approved rubric (Danielson) Minimum of two observations; one unannounced One observation must be conducted by trained district administrator (≥80%) Additional observation must be conducted by an “Impartial, independent trained evaluator” (10%-20%) - May be district administrator not assigned to the same building All observations must be scored

13. Observation Scoring Each observation type is scored using a 1-4 rubric scale (No longer a year-end evaluation) Observations combined using a weighted average (80%/20%) to produce an overall observation category score used to determine the Observation Rating Under 3012-d, every observation must have a score. No longer parts to a whole. Example: Observation #1 (Score of 3.0 x 80%) = 2.4 Observation #2 (Score of 1.5 x 20%) =.3 2.7

14. MinimumMaximum Highly Effective (H) 3.54 Effective (E) 2.53.49 Developing (D) 1.52.49 Ineffective (I) 11.49 Observation Scoring

15. Student Performance and Observation Scoring Example A: 70% of students reached target (14) = Developing Observation #1 (Score of 3.0 x 80%) = 2.4 Observation #2 (Score of 1.5 x 20%) =.3 2.7 = Effective Effective Overall Example B: 58% of students reached target (12) = Ineffective Observation #1 (Score of 2.0 x 80%) = 1.6 Observation #2 (Score of 3.5 x 20%) =.7 2.3 = Developing Ineffective Overall

16. Observation Student Performance HEDI H HHED E HEED D EEDI I D* II Evaluation Matrix * 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.

17. Other Requirements of 3012-d Four-year Tenure: Must be rated Effective or Highly Effective 3 of the 4 years during the probationary term or be deemed ineligible for tenure. Cannot be rated Ineffective in final year of probation.

18. Other Requirements of 3012-d If rated Ineffective two consecutive times, the teacher or principal may be subject to an expedited disciplinary hearing. If a teacher or principal is rated Ineffective three consecutive times, he/she will be subject to an expedited disciplinary hearing under Education law Law §3020-b. A student may not be instructed in two consecutive years by teachers who received APPR ratings of Ineffective.

19. Pressing Issues for Observations How weight will each observations have? (80/20, 90/10)? When we conduct more than two observations, how much will each weigh? How do we determine how much weight each domain will have and how much weight each component in each domain will have? How will we weigh all components of the rubric based solely on observations? How will we convert our weight into a 1-4 scale? What will the observation cycle for probationary teachers be? Tenured teachers? Who will be the “Impartial, independent, trained evaluator” How will we manage the change in practice in March from 3012-c to 3012-d after observations have already been conducted without a score? How will we include Domain IV in the Danielson Rubric? Who will do the “80%” observation? How will the workload be divided?

20. Pressing Issues for Student Performance Should the district adopt the use of a second student performance instrument? Which instrument? Is the use of the second instrument harmful or helpful? How many teachers will not get a student performance score as a result of the opt-out movement? We must now have a “back-up SLO”. What will it be and is it fair across all grades and buildings? All SLO instruments must go through RFQ (Request for Qualification) with SED. We have over 150 instruments! How can we accomplish this?

21. Garden City APPR APPR Committee Audrey Bellovin Susan Shea Scott McAuley Linda Norton Stuart Dods Kevin Pollitt Patricia Roberts Susan Walsh Dr. Peter Osroff Carlo Rebolini Kathleen Cocoman Nanine McLaughlin Bernadette Arnone Stacey Young Gina Fornasar Dr. Ted Cannone Dr. Maureen Appiarius Subcommittees SLOs/Back-up SLOs/ RFQs Weighting of Observations/Probationary Teachers/Tenured Teachers Walk-Throughs/Principal Observations/ Coordinator Observations Domains I and IV/The role of the current year-end evaluation