1. APPR:§3012-d
A Preview of the changes from :§3012-c
Overview

2. Emergency Action
The Board of Regents took emergency action on June 15, A few small changes were made in September after public comment period. These slides are not from SED. They are meant to provide local guidance.

3. The Matrix
Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.
* If the state-provided score is ineffective and an additional growth component is included and also ineffective the teacher can be rated no higher than ineffective.

4. The Matrix
Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.
* If the state-provided score is ineffective and an additional growth component is included and also ineffective the teacher can be rated no higher than ineffective.

5. Student Performance Half
State-provided growth scores when at least 50% of teacher’s students are covered, or SLOs that are consistent with the state’s goal setting process. These will be based on one year’s worth of growth on an approved assessment, or School-wide, team, or linked results.

6. Student Performance Half
SLO process:
Must use a state-approved student assessment.
Consistent across district.
Will have the same parts.
Develop a back-up SLO for all teachers whose courses end in a State created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model.

7. Student Performance Half
An additional/optional growth measure can be locally negotiated, consistent across district:
A teacher-specific score based on a particular level of the state test,
School-wide growth score linked to state-provided school score,
School-wide, group, or team growth score that is locally computed, or
A growth score based on a state designed approved assessment (SLO/LAT).

8. Assessment Approval [Revised] RFQ is up
Assessment itself not submitted
Description of growthiness* is (ability to show one year’s worth of growth) for SLO
Approved assessments are available for use for any LEA
* growthiness is a technical term 

9. Assessment Approval There will be two lists:
Approved List of Assessments to be used with SLOs
Approved List of Supplemental Assessments to be used with Growth Models
* growthiness is a technical term 

10. SLO Target Setting
Group
Banded
Individual

11. Student Performance Half
All SLOs will use a prescribed conversion (it is no longer negotiable):
From slides presented to Board of Regents on June 15th. MGP ranges are based on school year results and may differ slightly in future years based on the distribution of teachers’ MGPs.
Overlap due to confidence intervals

12. Student Performance Half
This chart describes the weighting parameters:
Permissible Statewide Range
Minimum
Maximum
Mandatory subcomponent
50%
100%
Optional subcomponent 0%

13. Back-Up SLO Possibility
This is a possibility if the application of the schoolwide score is not possible or desirable. It still has the problem of a small n size if used at a teacher level.
“Effective”

14. Back-Up SLO Possibility
This is a possibility if the application of the schoolwide score is not possible or desirable
13/20 points, or “Developing”

15. The Matrix
Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.
* If the state-provided score is ineffective and an additional growth component is included and also ineffective the teacher can be rated no higher than ineffective.

16. The Observation Portion
At least one observation has to be completed by the principal or other trained administrator. At least one observation has to be completed by an impartial, independent trained evaluator. This observer cannot be assigned to the same school building as the teacher.*
* Rural districts might be able to apply for a waiver to relax the BEDS code requirement. Geographic distances might be the determining factor.

17. The Observation Portion
An independent trained evaluator may be employed within the district, but may not be assigned to the same school building, as defined by BEDS code, as the teacher being evaluated. Thus, for teachers, the two required observations must be two different individuals because a principal or other trained administrator must be located in the same building as the teacher being evaluated, and the independent evaluator must be in a different building (i.e., have a different BEDS code). If a staff member is reported to NYSED with a different virtual location code than the school or location BEDS code associated with the educator being evaluated, they could be the independent trained evaluator.

18. The Observation Portion
If using peer observers:
The district chooses the peer evaluator
The peer evaluator must be trained
The peer evaluator must have been rated as H or E in the previous year

19. The Observation Portion
Scores from observers will be scaled within these parameters:
Permissible Statewide Range
Minimum
Maximum
Principal or trained administrator
80%
90%
Independent Observer
10%
20%
Peer Observation O%

20. The Observation Portion
The frequency and duration of observations will be determined locally. An approved rubric must be used.

21. The Observation Portion
Each observer would assign 1-4 rubric score. Scores get combined based or weighting (following slide defines the ranges). Combined score is converted to H-E-D-I based on locally agreed-upon chart.

22. The Observation Portion
Each observer would assign 1-4 rubric score. Scores get combined based or weighting (following slide defines the ranges). Combined score is converted to H-E-D-I based locally agreed upon chart.

23. The Observation Process
These are prohibited from being used in an evaluation:
Lesson plans or other artifacts of practice
Parent or student feedback
Goal setting
Unapproved assessments
Some things such as lesson plans may be observable during a pre or post; these may be considered.

24. Scoring Example

25. Scoring Example

26. Scoring Example

27. Scoring Example Translate the rubric scores to an overall number
Average
Weight
Observiness*
Then go to negotiated scale to determine H-E-D-I
*Observiness is another technical term, describing how an artifact can be observed

28. Permissible Statewide Range
H-E-D-I Definitions
The actual cut scores are determined locally within these parameters.
Permissible Statewide Range
Minimum
Maximum
Highly Effective
3.5 to 3.75
4.0
Effective
2.5 to 2.75
3.49 to 3.74
Developing
1.5 to 1.75
2.49 to 2.74
Ineffective
1.49 to 1.74

29. Training Evaluators and Lead Evaluator training components:
NYS Teaching Standards
Evidence-based observation techniques
Application and use of student growth percentile method
Application of approved rubrics
Application of assessment tools the district employs
Application of any locally select measures of student growth
Use of the statewide reporting system
Scoring methodology used by the state and the district
Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLs and SWDs

30. Improvement Plans
The content of improvement plans will be determined by superintendent rather than through bargaining or negotiations.
Required for ineffective or developing
In place by October 1st
Include: areas in need of improvement, timeline, assessment of improvement

31. Corrective Action
The law requires an examination of APPR and score distributions. SED will have the option of imposing a Corrective Action Plan if there are significant discrepancies. Previously, Corrective Action could not impinge on anything that had been bargained. Corrective Action can now be asserted even over things that were bargained.

32. Plan Approval Four plans have been approved so far: APW Homer Newfield
South Glens Falls
Some others are in process
As of

33. Hardship Waivers
If documented good faith (reason, negotiating, and training) efforts are not fruitful, a waiver will be granted. Districts that receive the waiver would be exempt from the November 15th deadline. District would then target March 1st for a new plan approval. If not going to get a new plan approved by March 1st, the implementation of which wouldn’t be required until
OCM BOCES will be providing evidence of all who are enrolled in training to be submitted for hardship waiver application.

34. Hardship Waivers
The deadline to submit a waiver is November 1st (but do it earlier). There is no union sign-off required for the waiver application. Additional waivers are available to get you to July or August if necessary.

35. Hardship Prerequisites
August 28th: APPR Implementation Certification
October 16th: Submission date for data for Principals and Teacher
October 23rd: Staff evaluation verification report; same process as in

36. Jeff Craig from OCM BOCES for sharing
his research on APPR
EngageNY
Technical assistance from NERIC & FEH BOCES