1 / 24

MCSD APPR

MCSD APPR. The New Teacher Evaluation Paradigm 12.4.12. MTA Committee worked over several months to create proposal from April-November 2012 post regulations change APPR Document negotiated by the MTA and the District Approved by the BOE on 11.15.12 Submitted to NYSED for approval 11.15.12

shina
Télécharger la présentation

MCSD APPR

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. MCSD APPR The New Teacher Evaluation Paradigm 12.4.12

  2. MTA Committee worked over several months to create proposal from April-November 2012 post regulations change • APPR Document negotiated by the MTA and the District • Approved by the BOE on 11.15.12 • Submitted to NYSED for approval 11.15.12 • Returned for revisions 12.3.12 • SED phone conference 12.5.12 Timeline

  3. Beth Lauri—HS SS (co-chair) • Maryellen Hurley—MS SS (co-chair) • Tim Potts—MS SS (MTA Pres) • Tracey Orlan—MS ELA (MTA VP Grievances) • Brenda Sywalski—HS Art • Patty Gilman—HS SE • George Grobusch—MS SS • Kim Seymour—MS LOTE • Jaime Rusin—MS SE • Jennifer Somers--Elem • Michael Cordisco—Elem • Sharon Strysko—Elem • Dawn Clayton—Elem Music • Jen Mitchell—Speech Therapist Committee Members

  4. Training by NYSUT in APPR law requirements • Examined numerous approved and submitted APPR agreements • Created our proposal • Submitted to the district on 10.24.12 • Meeting re discrepancies on 11.13.12 with Tammy & committee • Finalized and submitted via portal 11.15.12 (MTA & MCSD) • Revision Process commencing 11.5.12 Process

  5. 20 Local • Which rubric • Scoring for local and rubric • TIPS Plan • Appeals process** • Data gathering What we could negotiate

  6. State 20 • SLO process What we could NOT negotiate

  7. 20 points State Growth Score/SLO • 20 points Local growth/achievement measure • 60 points Multiple Measure of Teacher Effectiveness • Converted from the rubric Elements of APPR

  8. Chart

  9. Teachers (4-8) get a growth score from the state worth 20% • Some exceptions based on numbers • When value-added is approved this increases to 25% • Takes into account SWD, ELL, Poverty • All other teachers need a SLO 20% State Growth/SLO

  10. People being brought in from BOCES to help with writing of SLOs • Faculty meeting time, after school (paid), TBD • Pre and post assessments to measure growth required • Pre assessments in most cases will be generated by BOCES • Some choices (e.g. August Regents) • We will have greater involvement in the process in the future • Post assessments dictated by state in some cases (e.g. Regents, state tests) • Others district or BOCES created SLOs

  11. Team scoring model • Based on Kingston’s model • We all have a stake in literacy • Equity and fidelity • Controls for class make-up • K-8 NWEA Reading Test growth scores • Testing to begin 1.14.13 • VARC provided scored • By building based on standard deviation Local 20—K-8

  12. Team scoring model • Based on Kingston’smodel • We all have a stake in literacy • Equity and fidelity • Controls for class types, content area variations • 9-12 ELA Regents exam • % of students getting 65 or higher on ELA exam Local 20—9 -12

  13. 60 points based on the Marshall Rubric • 7-10 mini observations per year • NOT just observations! • End of year summative meeting to complete the rubric • Overall rubric score • Where you end up NOT an average! • Converted to the 60 point scale (in the appendix pg 27) Multiple Measures

  14. Pre-cycle meeting with Lead Evaluator • Go over the rubric together—commencing 12.17.12 • Score yourself prior to meeting • Only MASA members • Currently Principal, Ass’t Principal • Current plan to rotate each year where more than one choice • 7-10 ten minute observations by one Lead Evaluator • 5-10 minute chat within 24 hours • 4 Square write up after the chat • Emailed to teacher, CC’d to Tammy • NO SCORE Mini Observations

  15. If after successive mini observations no improvement seen in noted deficiency • Pre-conference, full period observation, post conference Formal Observations

  16. Scores which the district has compiled provided before end of the school year. • Complete scores provided prior to September 1st each year for the previous year. • Teachers rated as “Ineffective” or “Developing” must have a TIP in place within ten days of start of the school year. Scores

  17. Plan for improvement—NOT disciplinary • Peer mentor • Reassessment after each quarter • Right to have mentor present in all meetings • Right to have MTA rep present in all meetings • Specific document in plan to be used for ALL TIPs. TIP

  18. Right to appeal HEDI rating if “Ineffective” or “Developing” as composite rating AND • Ineffective or Developing in Measures of Teacher Effectiveness • Process outlined on page 14 of APPR document Appeals Process

  19. Re-open to tweak unanticipated issues June 2013 and June 2014. • Will become part of the new contract in some form • Part and parcel or a reference to it Re-opener Clause

  20. Questions?

More Related