Transcript UPDATE: RTTT What do we KNOW?

Teacher Evaluation & APPR
THE RUBRICS!
A RTTT Conversation
With
the BTBOCES RTTT Team
and local administrators
July 20, 2011
If there were no law,
nor regulations, and
you had the opportunity
and some resources
to improve
teacher evaluation,
what would you create?
Overview of the day. . .
• The regulations
• The rubrics. . .
• Current district practices
• What do you need?
Outcomes for this meeting. . .
• Describe the major components of Law (§3012-c) and
Regulations (§100.2) , particularly as it relates to teacher
evaluation.
Define the timelines
• Identify required components of APPR
• Describe the similarities and differences between rubrics
that are on the state approved list.
• Identify any regional interests in a “common” rubric”
• Define what your district “needs”
Major components of Law (§3012-c) and Regulations (§100.2)
On May 16, 2011, The Board of Regents voted to:
• Add Subpart 30-2, that sets the standards for
implementation of Ed Law 3012-C (Effective May 20,
2011)
• Amend Section 100.2(o) and set new rules for
evaluation of teachers and principals not covered in
subpart 30-2 (Effective July 1, 2011)
Implementation Timeline
2011-12:
▫ Teachers of ELA and Math grades 4 – 8
▫ Principals of schools in which these teachers are
employed
SEEKING CLARITY:
What is required of ALL teachers through the APPR
process in 2011-12???
2012-13
▫ All classroom teachers and building principals
Which teachers are impacted?
Who are included?
• Classroom teachers
• School librarians
• Career and technical teachers
Who are excluded?
• Pupil personnel services (school psychologists, social workers)
• Instructional support services teachers (ISS)
• Supplemental school personnel (teacher aides, assistants),
adult educators, continuing educators are not included.
100 point score
Highly Effective
Effective
91-100
75-90
Developing
Ineffective
65-74
0-64
1. 40 points (of 60) must be based on multiple classroom observations.
2. 20 points (of 60) are based on other evidence of teacher effectiveness.
3. 20% of score is based on student growth on state assessments
SCORE WILL BE SENT TO SCHOOLS FROM SED BY JUNE 15, 2012.
4. 20% of scores is based on student performance on locally selected measures
of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms
and that reflect local priorities, needs, and targets
NEW: DISTRICTS MAY SELECT TO USE STATE TESTS AS THE LOCAL MEASURE
Composite Scoring Ranges for 2011-12 School year
Student
Growth/State
Assessment
Student
Achievement
Local
Measures
Ineffective
0-2
0-2
Developing
3-11
3-11
Effective
12-17
12-17
Highly Effective
18-20
18-20
LEVEL
Other 60 points
Scoring ranges
locally
determined
(40 of 60
based on multiple
observation)*
Overall
Composite
Score
0-64
65-74
75-90
91-100
NOTE: A teacher who scores in the ineffective range in both the student
growth and locally selected measures of student achievement receives an
overall rating of “INEFFECTIVE”.
If the teacher is “INEFFECTIVE”, the school district or BOCES is required to
develop and implement a teacher improvement plan. (TIP)
Student growth:
• A change in achievement of an individual student
between two or more points of time (subpart 30-2)
STUDENT GROWTH PERCENTILE MODEL:
• The student is assigned a SGP score
▫ Methodology is based on Colorado Growth Model
▫ Change in a student’s achievement on state
assessment
 Between two or more points in time
 Compared to other students with similar past academic
performance on the assessment.
Student Growth Percentile Model Continued. . .
• Adjustments to a student’s SGP to calculate a TSGPS
• (Teachers’ Student Growth Percentile Score)
take into account a students:
 Poverty
 Disability status, and/or
 ELL status
• The TSGPS represents the mean or median adjusted
for those student characteristics for each of the
teacher’s assigned students
Options for Local Measure of Student Achievement (TEACHER)
(Subpart 30-2)
• Assessments from a state approved list of 3rd party developed
assessments
(Reviewed annually)
• District, regional, or BOCES developed whose rigor and comparability is
verified by the district or BOCES
Districts must include in their APPR plan an assurance that their district
developed assessment is rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
• State assessments
• Structured, district –wide goal setting process with any state and/or
school/teacher created assessment agreed to by an evaluator and teacher
Questions for the district to answer. . .
• What are the approved local measures?
Criteria: Common, rigorous, comparable
In the APPR, schools must: describe the assessment development, security,
and scoring processes utilized by the district, ensuring that assessments are
not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and
principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessment
they score.
• How will a “score” be defined?
LEVEL
Student Achievement Local
Measures
Ineffective
0-2
Developing
3-11
Effective
12-17
Highly Effective
18-20
Other Measures for Teacher (60 points)
Teacher performance must be assessed using an SED approved teacher practice rubric
40 POINTS OBSERVATION
• Multiple measures = 2 or more
observations
• in person or by video
• by trained principals, other
administrators, OR independent
evaluators, OR in-school peers.
• Any of the teaching standards NOT
addressed in classroom observation
must be assessed at least once a year
through one or more of the other
activities
20 points OTHER
COMBINATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Structured review of students work
• Teacher artifacts using portfolio or
evidence binder
• Feedback from students/parents,
and/or other teachers using
structured survey tool
• Teacher self-reflection and progress
on professional growth goals
(maximum 5 points.
Questions for the district to answer. . .
• What rubric will be selected?
• What is the process of selection?
• What is measured via the observation?
• What other “evidences” are appropriate?
• How will a “score” be defined?
▫ Score ranges are locally determined
Who conducts evaluations of teachers?
• An evaluator is anyone who conducts a teacher
evaluation
• Lead evaluator is the primary person responsible for
conducting and completing the evaluation
 Signs the summative APPR
• To the extent possible, should be the principal
and/or his designee
Evaluator training:
• School boards must
▫ ensure that evaluators are appropriately trained
▫ Certify lead evaluators as a qualified evaluation
TRAINING for the leader evaluator included:
▫ Training on the NYS teaching standards
▫ Evidence based observation techniques
▫ Application and use of:
 Student growth model
 State approved rubric
 Any assessment tools that the school uses to evaluate teachers,
including but not limited to structure portfolio reviews, surveys, PD
goals, school improvement goals, etc
 Scoring methods for local measure
 Specific considerations in evaluating teachers and principals of ELLS
and SWD
So. . .what about these rubrics???
List posted by SED on July 29, 2011
SED Teacher Rubrics
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachersleaders/practicerubrics/
SED’s APPROVED VENDORS:
1. Danielson's Framework for Teaching
 Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD)
2. Danielson's Framework for Teaching
 Teachscape
3. Marzano's Causal Teacher Evaluation Model
 Learning Sciences International, LLC
4. NYSTCE Framework for the Observation of
Effective Teaching
 NCS Pearson, Inc.
5. NYSUT Teacher Practice Rubric
 New York State United Teachers (NYSUT)
Comparing the rubrics
What do we know about the rubrics?
An activity to compare and contrast. . . .
ISSUES related to the selection and use of the rubrics. . . .
CONSIDERATIONS FOR “COMMON RUBRICS”
Compare your current APPR with the regulations?
What will you need next?
APPR (The new law and existing regulations)
We have been requested to put
together a workshop/webinar about
the requirements of APPR.
Stay tuned. . We are working on this
and will announce dates/times ASAP
If there were no law,
nor regulations, and
you had the opportunity
and some resources
to improve
teacher evaluation,
what would you create?
Thank you!
We are doing our very best to provide you with
current, accurate information.
The target continues to move. . .
It is always a pleasure to work with you!
Your RTTT team!