APPR: §3012-d

1. APPR: §3012-d As Adopted by Emergency ActionJune, 2015 Slides updated 10.29.15

2. Emergency Action The Board of Regents took emergency action on June 15, 2015. A few small changes were made in September after public comment period. These slides are not official. 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.

4. The Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

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 if the course has one.* • 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 • The use of state assessments for supplemental measures has to go through RFQ process, too (more rigorous)

9. Assessment Approval There will be two lists: • Approved List of Assessments to be used with SLOs (includes commercial and district-developed assessments) • Approved List of Supplemental Assessments to be used with Growth Models (more rigorous)

10. SLO Target Setting • Group • Banded • Individual

11. Student Performance Half All SLOs will useaprescribedconversion(itis no longernegotiable): Overlap due to confidence intervals

12. Student Performance Half This chart describes the weighting parameters:

13. Back-Up SLO Possibility “Effective”

14. Back-Up SLO Possibility 13/20 points, or “Developing”

15. The Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

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.*

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:

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

28. H-E-D-I Definitions The actual cut scores are determined locally within these parameters.

29. The Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

30. Principals, too The Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

31. Student Performancefor Principals Most principals will receive a growth score from the state. These principals must have a back-up SLO in case a score doesn’t come. Other principals will use an SLO. An optional growth measure can be chosen locally (like the teachers).

32. Principals “Observation” One observation shall be conducted by the principal's supervisor. A second observation shall be conducted by one or more impartial independent evaluators. This observer may be employed by the district but not assigned to the principal’s building (see next slide).

33. Principals “Observation” A principal’s supervisor (i.e., the Superintendent) is a district employee and therefore assigned to a different BEDS code as the principal being evaluated—therefore it is possible for the same administrator to serve as both the supervisor and impartial evaluator for the purpose of school visits.

34. The Observation Portion Scores from observers will be scaled within these parameters:

35. Principals, too The Matrix Scores from rubrics have to be converted to H-E-D-I levels for the matrix.

36. APPR: §3012-d Additional Regulations

37. 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

38. Training Independent Observer training components: • NYS Teaching Standards • Evidence-based observation techniques • Application of approved rubrics

39. Training Training certification: • APPR plan will document duration and nature of the training • APPR plan will attest to periodic recertification of evaluators

40. 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

41. 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.

42. Plan Approval The Review Room has been revised: • More drop-downs • More prescription • It is taking less time and fewer iterations to get to approval

43. Plan Approval Lots of Superintendent Attestations: • Back-up SLOs are in place • All targets are 1 year’s growth • All targets are reviewed and approved • A process to monitor SLOs is in place

44. Plan Approval Lots of Superintendent Attestations (cont.): • All observable components evaluated at least once per year • Component weighting is followed • Independent evaluators are from a different BEDS code (for teachers eval) • All evaluators are trained • At least one observation is unannounced • Artifacts are not used to determine a score

45. Plan Approval Lots of Superintendent Attestations (cont.): • Various reporting promises • Various regulatory promises

46. Plan Approval In our BOCES, these districts have been approved so far: • Fabius-Pompey • Homer • Jamesville-DeWitt • West Genesee

47. 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 2016-2017.

48. 2016-2017 Implementation Submit your new plan on “March 2nd” if you want it to apply to next year. Apply for a second waiver, just in case the queue is long. It is possible that a new hardship reason could be not switching from c to d in the middle of the year, but not yet approved as a reason.

49. Wait or Go?