RACE TO THE TOP RAMIFICATIONS - College of New Rochelle

www2.cnr.edu
  • No tags were found...

RACE TO THE TOP RAMIFICATIONS - College of New Rochelle

The College of New Rochelle

The Changing Face of Education 2011

Race to the Top Ramifications:

Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

Michael McDermott

Principal

Scarsdale Middle School

Jere Hochman

Superintendent

Bedford Central School District


REGENTS TASK FORCE

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010

In this presentation:

• Chapter 103

• Regents Task Force

• Commentary and Observations


Chapter 103

The Basics, 101


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 i Regulations

V. Evaluator training in accordance with regulation

for each individual conducting teacher and

principal evaluations.


Key Elements of Education Law $3012-c

VI. A process for appeals for teachers and

principals i to challenge

(continued)

• 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


Phase-In of New Comprehensive

Evaluation 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 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 t growth on state t 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


Four Rating Categories to be used in

APPR Process

• APPRs must differentiate teacher and principal

effectiveness using the following quality rating categories:

Highly effective

Effective

Developing

Ineffective

• Commissioner’s regulations to prescribe the minimum

and maximum scoring ranges for each category.

• APPRs to result in single composite teacher or principal

effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple

measures of effectiveness.


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 Force

on 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

i _______________________________________________________________

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 Force

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness (continued)

Timeline

2012-20132013 Training i 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 p effectiveness


Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

September 2010

(Continued)

Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

Committee on

Non-Tested

Subjects

Committee on

Locally Selected

Assessments

Committee on 60%

Non-Growth

Measures for

Teachers

Committee on

60%

Non-Growth

Measures for

Principals

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

Recommendations to the

Commissioner

Commissioner Reports to the December Board of Regents


Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

January 2011

Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

(Continued)

Input from the

Center for

Assessment

Committee on

Student Growth/

Composite Scores

Teachers/Principals

Committee on

Non-Tested

Subjects

Committee on

Professional

Development

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

Recommendations to the Commissioner

Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 103

May/June 2011


Work of the Regents Advisory Task Force

on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

To Be Revised

Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

(Continued)

Input from the

Center for

Assessment

No recent updates

*NEW*

Committee on

Student Growth/

Composite Scores

Teachers/Principals

FEBRUARY

Committees on

Non-Tested

Subjects, 60%

Teacher and Principal,

& 20% locally

selected

CONTINUE

Committee on

Professional

Development

HAS NOT BEGUN

Regents Task Force Formulates Recommendations

C i i P t R g l ti t th R g t t I l t Ch t 10

Commissioner Presents Regulations to the Regents to Implement Chapter 10

May/June 2011


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 Task Force

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 ese of “Who is the teacher e 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

• Fellows and SED staff are working “behind the

scenes”


20% Tested Subjects

4-8 Math/ELA for Teachers and Principals

KEY ISSUES:

• Who is the teacher of record

FYIs

• No Committee

• No RFP

• No formal feedback and connection with National Center

for Improvement of Educational Assessment

(http://www.nciea.org)

Please note:

• “This train has left the track…”


Committee on 20% Non-Tested Subjects

Twenty ypercent 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)

FYIs

• Cit Criteria i 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

To Note:

When good local authentic assessments become high

stakes (for teachers) assessments


Committee on Locally Selected Assessments

(continued)

More Notes :

• 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 cassoo s


Committee on 60% Non-Growth Measures

for Teachers

The remaining percent of the evaluations, ratings and effectiveness scores

shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the

regulations of the commissioner through negotiations.

KEY ISSUES:

• Clarity of Standards (BoR has adopted the NY Teaching Standards)

• Flexibility with rubrics

• Flexibility on weighting g elements

• Define scoring bands

• Clearly defined expectations with performance descriptors for each

performance level

• Rubrics must include details for training and implementation

To Note:

• 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 scores

shall be locally developed, consistent with the standards prescribed in the

regulations 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 feedback

• Focus on measureable outcomes

• Flexibility in scoring bands

• Flexibility for experience in years as a leader

To Note:

• 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


What Are The Critical Issues for

Implementation

• Change

• Manageability

• Practicality

• The Value of Regulations

• Quality and Timing

• The Reality of Arbitration

• Cost

• Equity across the state


What Matters Most

• A district’s capacity to develop and implement

direction, accomplish goals and initiatives and insure

quality

• Understanding the magnitude and implications of

change on the system and people

• Recognizing the day to day reality to implement

quality evaluation

• Ongoing professional development and training

_______________ The Bottom Line ______________

• Insuring the “new work” improves student learning,

student performance, and professional practice


Commentary & Questions

• "To what extent do you believe the new

State system of teacher and principal

evaluation should be prescribed by SED

in the interests of uniformity and

consistency of standards versus s locally

negotiated flexibility that takes into

account local contexts, past practice

and effective current

processes/procedures"