1. OCM BOCES Annual Professional Performance Review 2012-2013

2. Committee Work Goal – Design an evaluation system that improves instructional practice and student learning. Committee met 7 full days from October-May Committee Membership 8 OCMBFT Members 8 Administrators All Departments Represented

3. 20% Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures 20 + 20 + 60 =100

4. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Evidence collected throughout the school year Teacher submits evidence Administrator collects evidence from observation At least three 5-15 minutes- long mini-observation for all teachers (written feedback within 2 days) Also one extended observation (including pre and post-conference) for probationary teachers

5. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Collected evidence gets sorted according to the 7 NYS Teaching Standards At end of the year, collected evidence is compared to the NYSUT Professional Practice Rubric Committee chose NYSUT Rubric instead of Danielson Rubric because of strong alignment to NYS Teaching Standards.

6. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Levels on the rubric get converted to points: Highly Effective = 4.0 pts Effective = 3.3 pts Developing = 2.8 pts Ineffective = 0 pts IDEH 1.1a Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1b Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1c Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1d Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj

7. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Levels on the rubric get converted to points: Highly Effective = 4.0 pts Effective = 3.3 pts Developing = 2.8 pts Ineffective = 0 pts IDEH 1.1a Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1b Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1c Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1d Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj

8. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Levels on the rubric get converted to points: Highly Effective = 4.0 pts Effective = 3.3 pts Developing = 2.8 pts Ineffective = 0 pts IDEH 1.1a Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1b Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1c Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 1.1d Hdjkfh jewklqfj fkwfj jgklrgj rjgk gh rlkgh klgh kjtr fjlafja itugj 4.0 pts 3.3 pts 2.8 pts

9. 60 Points for Multiple Measures Scores on indicators for each Indicator within a Teaching Standard get averaged into an overall score for each Teaching Standard Scores for the 7 Teaching Standards get averaged for the overall rubric score Overall rubric score gets translated to 60 points

10. 20 Points for Student Growth State provides these points for 4- 8 ELA and math teachers Everyone else must make a Student Learning Objective to figure these points out for ourselves

11. 20 Points for Student Growth Student Learning Objective is a process the state has prescribed Set goals for the most important learning Based on where your kids are starting the year Common teachers will collaborate on measures No one will have 10 SLOs Varied and vast Additional training

12. INGREDIENTS

14. 20 Points for Local Achievement A lot like the SLOs Same basic process and format Can’t be exactly the same as the SLO used for State Growth 20% Like SLOs, committee structure will select assessments.

15. 20% Student Growth 20% Student Achievement 60% Multiple Measures 20 + 20 + 60 =100

16. Annual Summative Evaluation 20 + 20 + 60 = Annual Summative Score for each teacher HEDI (91-100, 75-90, 65-74, 0-64) Final score by the end of the year (unless waiting for state’s 20%) Appeals process If “developing” or “ ineffective,” will have improvement plan for following year

17. A Year at a Glance Beginning of the year meeting between teacher and Lead Evaluator Set Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Baseline information about students and plans for the year Mini-observations (and possible extended observation) End of the year meeting between teacher and Lead Evaluator Review SLOs Compare evidence to rubric Summative evaluation

18. A Work in Progress APPR Committee will meet mid-year to discuss how the process is working. At the end of the year the APPR Committee will re-convene to make changes if appropriate.

19. Questions?