1 / 42

NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS. LEGAL PROVISIONS NEGOTIATION ISSUES “TO DO” LIST. Taylor Law – History . Duty to Bargain Procedure = mandatory subject Criteria = non-mandatory subject Application to APPR? Criteria created for districts statewide

locke
Télécharger la présentation

NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS LEGAL PROVISIONS NEGOTIATION ISSUES “TO DO” LIST

  2. Taylor Law – History • Duty to Bargain • Procedure = mandatory subject • Criteria = non-mandatory subject Application to APPR? • Criteria created for districts statewide • Still must negotiate procedures • State created areas of procedures districts may not have previously considered

  3. Legal Hierarchy LAWS: Primary authority REGULATIONS: Supplement law, details GUIDANCE: Opinion to clarify ambiguities, fill in gaps Applicationg to APPR? • Follow the law • Follow the regulations if valid & contradict law • Consider guidance as background & explanation

  4. SED’S PURPOSE Regents’ & Commissioner’s Reform Agenda: Improve “failing” schools by: • Rigorous common core standards • Data driven systems to inform instruction • Accountability through correlating staff evaluations with student performance • Improve student learning by improving teaching Use student performance data as required for Race to the Top Funds

  5. SED’S PURPOSE The Board of Regents’ Goal: “The ultimate goal of the State’s evaluation system is to ensure that there is an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school.” Teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness will be improved by assessing their performance with measures of student achievement, feedback, and improvement plans, in a comprehensive evaluation system.

  6. Comprehensive Evaluation System • 2010 Law: APPRs completed after 7/1/11 “shall include measures of student achievement and be conducted in accordance with this section.”

  7. Comprehensive Evaluation System • Phase-in for 2011-12: “all classroom teachers of common branch subjects or English language arts or mathematics in grades 4 to 8” and their building principals. • Effective in 2012-13: all other classroom teachers and principals.

  8. Comprehensive Evaluation System • Evaluations must be a “significant factor” for employment decisions such as: • Tenure Determination • Retention/Termination • Promotional Decisions • Supplemental Compensation

  9. Comprehensive Evaluation System • A teacher will get a single composite effectiveness score on his/her annual year-end APPR evaluation. • The comprehensive score must be based on the standards set forth in the Commissioner’s Regulations.

  10. Comprehensive Evaluation System A comprehensive evaluation system with multiple measures of effectiveness will result in a single composite performance score, with elements including: • Training of evaluators of teachers and principals; • Timely and detailed evaluation on all criteria; • Improvement plans for teachers/principals rated as ineffective or developing; • A process for teachers and principals to appeal evaluations & TIP/PIP; • Evaluations to be a significant factor in all employment decisions.

  11. Elements of the Multiple Measures: Student achievement 40% • 20% “growth” on state assessments; • 20% student achievement on locally selected measures; Locally developed “other measures” 60% • Non-student achievement measures (observations, etc.) • Locally selected by negotiated procedures consistent with the Commissioner’s standards 100%

  12. Elements of the Multiple Measures: • State assessments. Twenty points of the teacher’s or principal’s composite effectiveness score shall be based upon the teacher’s or principal’s “student growth percentile score” on State determined assessments, etc. (See CR § 30-2.4[b] & 2.5[b]).

  13. Elements of the Multiple Measures: • Locally-selected Measures of Student Achievement. Twenty points; may select measure from a menu of 5 choices described in the regs, including “a student assessment approved by the Department pursuant to the request for qualification (“RFQ”) process.” (See CR § 30-2.4[c][3] & 2.5[c]).

  14. Elements of the Multiple Measures: • Other Measures of Effectiveness. Sixty points. “Such measures shall be aligned with the New York State Teaching standards, which are enumerated [in § 30-2.4(d)(1)], and their related elements and performance indicators.” … “[P]erformance under this subcomponent must be assessed based on a teacher practice rubric approved by the Department.”

  15. Elements of the Multiple Measures: • Other Measures of Effectiveness. Observations, portfolios, informal observations, professional growth on goals, ets. • On Appeal: “[A]t least 40 [not half] of these 60 points shall be based on classroom observations, which may be performed in-person or by video and shall include multiple [not at least one] observations by a principal or other trained administrator. Some of these points may also be based on one or more observations by independent trained evaluators or in-school peer teachers.” (See CR § 30-2.4[d][1][iii]).

  16. Elements of the Multiple Measures: The “…annual professional performance reviews shall result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness related to the criteria included in the Regulations of the Commissioner.” The APPR scores to differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness on four quality rating categories (HEDI): • Highly Effective • Effective • Developing • Ineffective The Commissioner’s regulations to prescribe the minimum and maximum scoring ranges for each category

  17. Elements of the Multiple Measures: Scoring: • Up to 20% for state growth score (25% after value added) based on a normal distribution of state’s educators considering “confidence intervals;” • Up to 20% for locally selected assessments (On appeal: use ofstate assessments for this component); • Up to 60% for other locally selected measures; Scoring system to be: accessible on the website, distributed in advance, and consistent with the four state-developed rating categories

  18. Elements of the Multiple Measures:

  19. Elements of the Multiple Measures: The elements of the scores: • Rigorous and inter-rater reliability • Fair and equitable, publicly accessible • Scoring of the local 20% achievement & 60% other measures to be negotiated, consistent with Commissioner’s regulations • Rating scales to be the same for teachers and principals

  20. Elements of the Multiple Measures: Attribution of scores to “Teacher of Record:” • An individual or individuals (such as co-teachers) in classroom teaching assigned responsibility for a student’s learning in a grade/subject/course with aligned performance measures. • Teacher of Record excludes pupil personnel services and supervisory personnel. • State to provide guidance and to collect data to link students to teachers, courses, and standards (“linkages”).

  21. Elements of the Multiple Measures: Factors for linking students to teachers of record: • Students: • Starting and ending dates of student’s enrollment; • Student’s attendance; and • Teacher-student instructional weights • Teachers: • Apportioning to one or multiple teachers; • Starting & ending dates of teacher(s) assignment; • Teacher’s attendance • Teacher-student instructional weights • “Flags” excluding student

  22. Six Key Elements of the System Subject to Negotiations: • The procedures for selecting the 20% locally defined measures of student achievement (and maybe the measure); • Local measures, ratings, and effectiveness scores for the 60% of locally selected other measures (and maybe the rubric); • Procedures for Teacher/Principal Improvement Plans; • Procedures for Appeals; • Professional Development; and • Board/Superintendent use of evaluations in probation & tenure decisions.

  23. Negotiations • Bargaining Over Criteria. Section 3012-c may make evaluation criteria mandatory subjects for bargaining: “Except for … student growth measures … the elements comprising the composite effectiveness score shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the regulations of the commissioner, through negotiations conducted, pursuant to the requirements of Article 14 of the Civil Service Law.” (emphasis added)

  24. Negotiation • Section 3012-c may make evaluation criteria mandatory subjects for bargaining, but given the specificity of the new regulations, there is not much room left for bargaining. • Even local criteria must be aligned with the NYS Teaching Standards, and performance must be assessed based on teacher practice rubrics that are approved by the Department.

  25. NYSUT’s Challenge to the Measures: NYSUT’s legal challenge invalidated only six areas of the regulations, alleging that: • The regulations violate the new law; and • The Regents exceeded their authority in issuing those regulations.

  26. NYSUT’s Challenge to the Measures: NYSUT challenged SED’s authority to: • Use state tests as the local 20% of student achievement; • Apportion the points within the 60% local measure; • Prescribe the scoring ranges for the composite score and local 20% and weights for achievement and other measures; • Monitor and impose corrective action plans; • Limit appeal procedures (by its model) that are to be locally negotiated (e.g., appeals end at Superintendent); and • Preserve Board/Superintendent discretion in probation & tenure decisions.

  27. NYSUT’s Challenge to Measures: The NYSUT legal proceeding will NOT invalidate the evaluation system: it seeks to overturn some SED regulations prescribing matters NYSUT believes are subject to local negotiations. If NYSUT prevails, negotiations might be more extensive or cover additional points. NYSUT has NOT asked for an order to delay APPR’s implementation. In sum, this action does not justify districts delaying the APPR.

  28. Elements of the Evaluation System: Evaluator Training ALL evaluators of teachers & principals must be trained: • Before completing evaluations under the new law (but not observations); • The Board (the “governing body”) must ensure lead evaluators are certified; • SED established the structure for training of lead evaluators who may train others. Who must be trained: • “Lead evaluators:” the primary individuals responsible for conducting and completing evaluations of classroom teachers & building principals; • “Evaluators:” any individual who conducts evaluations; • “Independent evaluators:” trained consultants from outside the district (NYSUT challenges their use); and • Persons designated to hear appeals likely must be trained.

  29. Elements of the Evaluation System: Teacher/Principal Improvement Plans Teacher/Principal Improvement Plans are subject to local negotiations. For each teacher/principal rated developing or ineffective, the District must develop & implement an improvement plan: • by no later than 10 days after the date on which the educator must report prior to the opening of classes for the school year; • Identifying areas needing improvement; • Setting timelines for achieving improvements; • Defining how the District will assess the improvements; • Providing activities to assist the teacher improve in areas of deficiency. SED is to provide guidance.

  30. Elements of the Evaluation System: the Appeals Procedure Teachers &principals may challenge: • The substance of an evaluation; • Adherence to standards and methods; • Adherence to Commissioner’s Regulation; • Compliance with negotiated procedures; and/or • The issuance of and/or compliance with the terms of an improvement plan Districts must develop a procedure for the appeals: • That is locally negotiated; • “Timely and expeditious.” SED provided a model appeal process subject to negotiations (NYSUT’s challenge was to elements such as: time limits, Superintendent as hearing officer, & Board discretion on probation/tenure).

  31. Elements of the Evaluation System: Adoption of the APPR Plan The governing body of each school district and BOCES must adopt an APPR Plan by September 1, 2011 and annually, and file the Plan with SED upon completion. • The plan must be amended if not final due to negotiations. The Plan must include elements such as: • Procedures for reporting to SED the linkage of teacher/student/course and reporting subcomponent and total composite scores; • Procedures for teachers & principals to verify the courses and/or student rosters assigned to them; • Descriptions of the procedures for the assessment’s development, security and scoring, including ensuring assessments are not disclosed to students before administration and that teachers/ principals have no vested interest in the outcome of the assessments they score; • Procedures for timely feedback, improvement plans, evaluator training, maintaining inter-rater reliability, placing the Plan on its website to be publicly accessible, and appeals.

  32. Elements of the Evaluation System: Phase-In of the System for 2011-12 For 2011-12: Applies only teachers in common branch subjects of ELA and math in grades 4-8 and principals in buildings in which such teachers are employed. Scores are based on: • 20% on State assessments or comparable measures of student growth; • 20% on locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” per the Commissioner’s Regulations selected using negotiated procedures; and • 60% in other locally selected measures developed by negotiations.

  33. Elements of the Evaluation System: Phase-In of New System for 2012-13 For 2012-13: Same system and procedures from 2011-12 applicable to ALL classroom teachers and building principals if the Regents have not adopted a value-added growth model for the 2012-13 school year. Earlier implementation permitted for all teachers/principals in 2011-12.

  34. Elements of the Evaluation System: Phase-In of Value Added Growth Model For the first school year for which the Regents adopt a “value-added growth model,” the percentage of the composite score based on state assessment measures of student growth will increase from 20% to 25%, so the allocation will be: • 25% on State assessments or comparable measures of student growth; • 15% on other locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” per the Commissioner’s Regulations developed locally consistent with negotiated procedures; • 60% on other locally selected measures developed by negotiations.

  35. New Evaluation System: Implications for 2011-12 Recommendations for Action: • Public discussions to: • Affirm the District Vision/Mission • Identify what makes an effective teacher/principal • Review existing policies, practices, APPR, CBA, professional development • Review goals for student achievement • Review Board obligations & negotiable items in new law • Monitor negotiations • Develop communications plan • Consider impact on budget, testing, and professional development • Adopt APPR Plan by September 1

  36. New Evaluation System: Implications for 2011-12 Recommendations for Action: • Continue discussions, demonstrations, and use of materials to identify elements of excellent teaching and leading; • Review current APPR process as basis for 20% Local Achievement & 60% non-growth: • Review portfolio of assessments; • Rubrics; • Contract’s procedures for observations, evaluations, TIPs, etc.; • Multiple measures; and • ISLLC Standards; • Start discussions with teacher and principal associations.

  37. New Evaluation System: Implications for 2011-12 • Recognize & plan for volume/quality of work; • Set commitment to get it right; • Recognize unions’ positions and the influence of NYSUT/SAANYS on local units; • Solicit administrator input on teacher evaluation process; and • View the process as a work in progress for 2011-12.

  38. New Evaluation System:“To do” List • Start negotiations: who/when/goals; • Draft and Board adopt APPR Plan by 9/1 (subject to amendment); • Seek resources such as models, training, hearing officers (e.g., BOCES);

  39. New Evaluation System:“To do” List, cont’d 4. Start identifying and processes for choices about: • local measures of student achievement (state approved list); • teacher/principal practice rubrics; • other measures (e.g., surveys, self assessments, portfolios), • independent and peer reviewers/evaluators & designees for appeals, • number of observations, • gathering and preserving evidence,

  40. New Evaluation System:“To do” List, cont’d • scoring methodology for the assignments of points to locally selected measures of student achievement and other measures of teacher or principal effectiveness; • how to train all evaluators & certify lead evaluators; • how to maintain inter-rater reliability over time; • how Superintendent will re-certify lead evaluators; • how educators will receive timely and constructive feedback as part of the evaluation process & TIP/PIP; and • how to manage appeals of evaluations & TIP/PIP’s.

  41. New Evaluation System:“To do” List, cont’d • Plan other matters and staff assignments: • how to describe implementation & collection of evidence (e.g., forms, timelines, handbooks, procedures); • maintaining records for evaluation system; • Should the District have an expert on the growth metric; • Who participates in follow-up training during school year (10 days for teacher evaluation and 7 days for principal evaluation)?

  42. New Teacher Evaluation QUESTIONS • We all have them. • Many cannot be answered yet. • Yes, it is frustrating. • We can do our best for the kids

More Related