REGENTS TASK FORCE REGENTS TASK FORCE on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

In this presentation: • Chapter 103• Regents Task Force • NYSCOSS Task Force

Advise on Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 & Overview of NYSCOSS

Participation, Review, and Communications

Chapter 103 Chapter 103 The Basics, The Basics,

101101

Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c

I. Comprehensive system with multiple measures of effectiveness which would result in a single composite score• 40% Student Achievement

→ 20% growth on State assessments→ 20% student achievement on local measures

• 60% non-growth measures locally developed and negotiated consistent with standards proscribed by the Commissioner

II. Differentiated rating categories: • Highly Effective• Effective• Developing• Ineffective

Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c

(continued)

III. Timely and constructive feedback on all criteria.

IV. Improvement plans for teachers/principals rated as ineffective or developing.

• Locally negotiated

• Consistent with Commissioner’s Regulations

V. Evaluator training in accordance with regulation for each individual conducting teacher and principal evaluations.

VI. A process for appeals for teachers and principals to challenge

• Substance• Adherence to standards and methodologies• Adherence to Commissioner’s Regulations• Compliance with locally negotiated

procedures

VII.A significant factor to be negotiated for professional development, compensation and promotion

Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c

(continued)

Phase-In of New ComprehensiveEvaluation System

• 2011-2012: Only for teachers in the common branch subjects of ELA and math in grades 4-8 and for principals in buildings in which these teachers are employed.

• Score to be based on:

20% on student growth on state assessments or comparable measures of student growth + 20% on other locally selected measures of student achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) +60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals

Applicability to All Classroom Teachers and Building Principals

2012-13: Applicable to all classroom teachers and building principals

If Board of Regents has not adopted a value-added growth model for the 2012

2013 school year, all teachers and principals become subject to requirements

applicable to teachers and principals in 2011-2012, with their score to be based

on:20% on student growth on state assessments or comparable

measures of student growth + 20% on other locally selected measures of student

achievement that “are rigorous and comparable across classrooms” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) +

60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals

Applicability to All Classroom Teachers and Building Principals (Continued)

Commencing the first school year for which Regents adopts a value-added growth model (may be 2012-2013), the percentage of evaluation to be based on state assessment measures of student growth increases from 20% to 25%.

25% on student growth 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” (in accordance with Commissioner’s regulations and as are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated) +

60% on other locally selected measures developed through negotiations between the District/BOCES and the unions representing the teachers and principals

• APPRs must differentiate teacher and principaleffectiveness using the followingfollowing quality rating categories:

Highly effectiveEffectiveDevelopingIneffective

• Commissioner’s regulations to prescribe the minimumand maximum scoring ranges for each category.

• APPRs to result in single composite teacher or principaleffectiveness score, which incorporates multiplemeasures of effectiveness.

Four Rating Categories to be used Four Rating Categories to be used in APPR Processin APPR Process

REGENTS TASK FORCE The Regents Advisory Task Force

The Who, What and How of the Regents Advisory Task Force

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

WHO is “The Regents Advisory Task Force On Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness?”

• Negotiations prior to law: Who was at the table?

• Chaired by Vice Chancellor Cofield and Regent Young

• Facilitated by SED Staff and Fellows

• Participants include unaffiliated teachers and principals, NYSUT, UFT, SAANYS, university representatives, NYSSBA, NYSCOSS and others

• Observers

Work of the Regents Advisory Task Forceon Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

Timeline

July 2010 New collective bargaining agreements must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010

_______________________________________________________________July 2011 New performance evaluation system for teachers with 4-8

grade ELA and/or math assignments along with their respective principals

_______________________________________________________________2011-2012 Training Evaluators

_______________________________________________________________July 2012 New performance evaluation system goes into effect for the

remaining teachers and principals

Work of the Regents Advisory Task Forceon Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

(continued)

Timeline

2012-2013 Training Evaluators

___________________________________________________________

2012-2013 Implementation of Teacher and Principal Improvement Plans and thereafter

Implementation of a value-added growth model (if available) to be used within the teacher and

principal performance evaluation system

___________________________________________________________

Sept. 2012 Refinement of performance measures for teacher and

and thereafter principal effectiveness

Work of the Regents Advisory Task Forceon Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

September 2010Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness

Committee on

Locally Selected

Assessments

Committee on Non-Tested

Subjects

Committee on 60%Non-GrowthMeasures for

Teachers

Committee on 60%

Non-GrowthMeasures for

Principals

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

Recommendations to theCommissioner

Commissioner Reports to the December Board of Regents

(Continued)

Work of the Regents Advisory Task Forceon Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

January 2011Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness

Committee onStudent Growth/

Composite Scores

Teachers/Principals

Input from the

Center forAssessment

Committee on Non-Tested

Subjects

Committee on

ProfessionalDevelopmen

t

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

Recommendations to the Commissioner

Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 103

May/June 2011

(Continued)

Work of the Regents Advisory Task Forceon Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

To Be Revised

Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

*NEW* Committee on

Student Growth/

Composite Scores

Teachers/PrincipalsFEBRUARY

Input from the

Center forAssessment

No recent updates

Committees on Non-Tested

Subjects, 60% Teacher and

Principal, & 20% locally selected

CONTINUE

Committee on

ProfessionalDevelopment

HAS NOT BEGUN

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 10May/June 2011

(Continued)

Key Points That Require Critical

Attention • Who is “a teacher”? What about multiple teachers in a

classroom?

• The evaluation “rating system” or “scoring bands” and how they will be applied to a teacher, within a category of evaluation, and across the state

• The Appeals Process: Who may appeal? To Whom? How far? How often?

• What is negotiated? What is in regulations?

• Teacher/Principal In Need of Improvement and Improvement Plans

• The implementation timeline and degree of “high stakes” annually

• Practical application, capacity for implementation, and manageability of the entire process in a school, district, and state to do this work right and well

WHAT is the Meeting Format?

Monthly Meetings

• General sessions - Presentations and Q&A

• Sub-committees - First stage: Four Sub-committees started with long lists of

questions, readings, and discussion;

Still defining terms, discussing standards, and debating procedures for proposed regulations.

WHAT Has Been Covered in the First Six General Sessions?

September…. Overview of process

October………. National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment

November…… Value-Added Analysis Presentation

December…… Presentation of “Who is the teacher of record?” and brainstorming of variables to control in value-added analyses

January……….Presentation from each subcommittee

February……..Group synthesis and discussion with Commissioner

WHAT is the Work of the

Committees? Committee members participate in:

• Sub-committee meetings

• Website “discussion,” commentary, and document sharing

• Conference calls between Albany meetings

• “Strawman”/Draft Documents for Review

• SED surveys (PLEASE RESPOND with key issue talking points)

• Fellows and SED staff are working “behind the scenes”

20% Tested Subjects4-8 Math/ELA for Teachers and

Principals KEY ISSUES:• Who is the teacher of record?

CONCERNS:• No Committee• No RFP• No formal feedback and connection with National

Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment (http://www.nciea.org)

POTENTIAL OPTIONS:• “This train has left the track…”

Committee on 20% Non-Tested Subjects

Twenty percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth

data on state assessments as prescribed by the Commissioner or a

comparable measure of student growth if such growth data is not

available.

KEY ISSUES:

• 80% of all teachers in NYS are in this category

→ Teachers with one state assessment

→ Teachers with no state assessments

• Who is “the teacher of record?”

• What about teachers who provide pupil support services?

Committee on 20% Non-Tested Subjects

(Continued)

CONCERNS: • Criteria for developing regulations -

→ There must be comparability at state, district and school levels

→ There must be rigor and validity→ There must be feasibility in administration, cost and time→ There must be data produced that positively impacts

instruction

POTENTIAL OPTIONS:• Use existing state assessments• Use existing standardized assessments (e.g., MAP/ACT/Terra Nova)• Develop new State assessments• Allow for local assessments that meet criteria as stipulated by

Commissioner• Allow for locally developed growth goals defined by groups of

teachers that meet criteria as stipulated by the Commissioner

Committee on Locally Selected Assessments

“Twenty percent shall be based on other locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner and are developed locally in a manner consistent with procedures negotiated, pursuant to the requirements of article fourteen of the Civil Service law.”

Committee on Locally Selected Assessments (continued)

KEY ISSUES:• Interpreting the law and legal implications

Challenging conversations with respect to genuine high expectations for quality, rigor, and comparability across classrooms

• What is Bargained vs. What is in Regulations? Procedures or Content?Regulations could end up with a menu of options

from state, other sources, and/or locally developed

CONCERNS: • When good local authentic assessments

become high stakes (for teachers) assessments

POTENTIAL OPTIONS: • Off-the-shelf assessment (NWEA MAP, Scantron

Performance Series, CTB Acuity, ACT Explore / College Board ReadiStep)

• Locally developed “authentic” assessment

• Must be aligned with NYS and Common Core Standards

All would need to pass muster of rigor as defined by rubric, validity, reliability, and comparability

across classrooms

Committee on Locally Selected

Assessments (continued)

Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Teachers

The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness scoresshall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in theregulations of the commissioner through negotiations.

KEY ISSUES:• Clarity of Standards (BoR has adopted the NY Teaching Standards)• Flexibility with rubrics • Flexibility on weighting elements• Define scoring bands

CONCERNS: • Clearly defined expectations with performance descriptors for each

performance level• Rubrics must include details for training and implementation

POTENTIAL OPTIONS:• Multiple measures of teacher practice• No single rubric but develop criteria for rubric selections

Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures for Principals

“The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness scoresshall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in theregulations of the commissioner through negotiations.”KEY ISSUES: • Reference to Wallace Committee work• Use of ISSLC or similar standards• Based on multiple measures and contain multiple sources of feedbackCONCERNS: • Focus on measureable outcomes• Flexibility in scoring bands• Flexibility for experience in years as a leaderPOSSIBLE OPTIONS: • Focus on leadership and management• Focus on managing school operations• Focus on supervising and developing teachers• Focus on progress against school wide goals• Focus on progress against individual professional development goals

Reminders

• Still more questions than answers

• Varying legal opinions on a number of

points • Caution: No decisions yet

Final Recommendations: The Commissioner

NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness

Keeping An Eye on the Keeping An Eye on the ProcessProcess NYSCOSS Executive Committee

***NYSCOSS Staff

*** House of Delegates

*** Advisory Task Force Representatives

***Regents Task Force Members

***ALL MEMBERS!

NYSCOSSNYSCOSS Task Force on Task Force on Teacher and Principal Teacher and Principal

EffectivenessEffectivenessDr. Jon Hunter Dr. Howard S. Smith Dr. Jere HochmaFairport Williamsville BedfordRegents Advisory NYSCOSS Task Force Chair Regents Advisory Dr. Christopher Clouet, White Plains City

SDDr. Harriet Copel, Shoreham-Wading River CSD Ms. Jeanne Dangle, Baldwinsville CSDMrs. Kathleen Davis, Holland Patent CSD

Mrs. Maureen Donahue, Friendship CSDMr. Michael Ford, Phelps-Clifton Springs CSD Mr. Chad Groff, Jasper-Troupsburg CSDDr. Margaret Keller-Cogan, Clarkstown CSDDr. Lorna Lewis, East Williston UFSDMrs. Maria Rice, New Paltz CSDMr. Joseph Stoner, Maine-Endwell CSDDr. Colleen Taggerty, Olean City SD

Work of the NYSCOSS Task Force onTeacher and Principal Effectiveness

Originally, critical issues were: • Timelines• Appeals Process• Value-added student growth measures to assess teacher

and principal performance• Determining what should be in regulation to ensure the

“vision”• Determining which certificated professional owns

student growth results (by any measure) for students with multiple certificated professionals

• The feedback process to ensure the “vision”• Determining how to isolate variables to measure the

impact on teaching and student learning of the APPR statute and regulations, including the plan to gather feedback from the field

Work of the NYSCOSS Task Force onTeacher and Principal Effectiveness (Continued)

• Public presentations and information gathering

• Three Position Papers Developed to Date:Paper #1: Appeals Process

Paper #2: Locally Selected Assessments

Paper #3: Regulation and Implementation Considerations

What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field

We must help SED understand: • Change – Superintendents are the gatekeepers of what

matters and what is attended to annually

• Manageability - The practical aspects of implementing quality evaluations

• Practicality - The dynamics and realities of collective bargaining

• The Value of Regulations –“You can’t collectively bargain a vision”

• Quality and Timing – We can do this fast or we can do this right

• The Reality of Arbitration - We can only influence Commissioner’s “guidance” on this as appeals

are to be bargained; however, the stronger the “guidance”, the better the chance for compliance and/or support if challenged

What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field (Continued)

Additional Important Points:

• New “Higher Stakes” evaluations must be done well and fairly

• Will there be “scoring bands” in each category of evaluation?

• How will the Commissioner determine the point system and “cut points” on four levels of evaluation?

• Will the “high stakes-ness” be phased in as the system gets put in place over the first few years

• The “key role” of the Superintendent: Do they “get” what it means to be in our chairs?

What Are The Critical Issues Talking Points From The Field (Continued)

Additional Important Points:

• We are the keepers of a district’s capacity to develop and implement direction and then accomplish goals and initiatives

• We anticipate the magnitude and implications of change on the system

• We know the day to day reality to implement quality evaluation

• We understand the need for quality, ongoing professional development and training

• How will we know the “new work” improves student learning, student performance, and professional practice?

Next Steps - NYSCOSS Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness

• Continue to communicate with “The 700+”

• Continue to consider feedback and modify and adjust “critical issues” as necessary

• Develop proposed regulations, where appropriate

• Anticipate implementation procedures

• Keep Boards of Education informed

Next Steps - NYSCOSS Advisory Task Force on Teacher and Principal

Effectiveness (continued)

Position Paper #4Position Paper #4

What Can YOU Do?What Can YOU Do?• Respond to all SED surveys• Incorporate key “Talking Points” in all

communications with SED officials, on surveys, and other opportunities

• Refer to “Position Papers” for content• To keep high expectations and credibility:

→ This must be done right and well or it becomes a technical, checklist task

→ Appeals must end with the Superintendent→ Bargaining only for processes, not content, of

evaluations→ This must be manageable and “do-able” → “You (SED) need us!” Superintendents set the tone and

value of any new district endeavor

Experienced Superintendents Know...

…that teacher and principal evaluation is often times about student and parent perceptions…

NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher NYSCOSS Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectivenessand Principal Effectiveness

• Questions• Comments• Suggestions

Thank You!