APPR UpdateMarch, 2011

Chapter 103 ReviewWhat does the new law require?

New system for teachers (and principals)

20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)

20% Locally selected (and agree upon) measures (decreasing to 15%)

60% Multiple measures based on standards TDB

New system for teachers (and principals)

Highly effective Effective Developing Ineffective

New system for teachers (and principals)

A single composite score of teacher (or principal) effectiveness

New system for teachers (and principals)

Training for all evaluators (through Network Teams)

Use of improvement plans for developing and ineffective ratings

Utilize in other decisions Locally-developed appeals process Expedited 3020a process after two

ineffective ratings

New system for teachers (and principals)

All agreements after July 1, 2010 4-8 math and ELA (and principals)

July 2011 Everyone else July 2012 Implementation of the value-added

growth model (20% > 25%) 2012-2013

TimetableBoard of Regents Agenda

MONTH

January

February

March

April

May

June

ACTION

60% discussion

Local 20% discussion

Value added 20% discussion and

ratings/scores

Regents Task Force recommendations

Draft Regulations

Emergency Adoption of Regulations

Timetable

MONTH

January

February

March

April

May

June

ACTION

60% discussion

Local 20% discussion

Value added 20% discussion and

ratings/scores

Regents Task Force recommendations

Draft Regulations

Emergency Adoption of Regulations

Timetable

State student growth data 20% increasing to 25%

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model Annual achievement is more about the

students than the teacher

680

201

5

Teacher A

670

201

5

Teacher B

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model Adding average prior achievement for

the same students shows growth

680

201

5

Teacher A

670

201

5

Teacher B

660

201

4

645

201

4

+20 growth

+25 growth

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model Adding average prior achievement for

the same students shows growth

680

201

5

Teacher A

670

201

5

Teacher B

660

201

4

645

201

4

+20 growth

+25 growth

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model But what growth should students have

shown? What growth did similar students obtain? What is the difference between the

expected growth and the actual growth?

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model Comparing growth to the average

growth of the similar student is the value-added

680

201

5

Teacher A

670

201

5

Teacher B

660

201

4

645

201

4

+20 growth

665

20

15

avg.

for

sim

ilar

students

+25 growth

+15 val add665

20

15

avg.

for

sim

ilar

students

+5 val add

State student growth data

Value Added/Growth model Comparing growth to the average

growth of the similar student is the value-added

680

201

5

Teacher A

670

201

5

Teacher B

660

201

4

645

201

4

+20 growth

665

20

15

avg.

for

sim

ilar

students

+25 growth

+15 val add665

20

15

avg.

for

sim

ilar

students

+5 val add

State student growth data

Calculating similar student growth Lots of statistical analysis Student characteristics such as

academic history, poverty, special ed. status. ELL status, etc.

Classroom or school characteristics such as class percentages of needs, class size, etc.

State student growth data

Data collection and policy options Linking students, teachers, and courses Who is the teacher of record?▪ Scenario 1: Same Teacher the Entire Year▪ Scenario 2: Team Teaching▪ Scenario 3: Teacher for Part of the Year▪ Scenario 4: Student for Part of the Year▪ Scenario 5: Student Supplemental Instruction▪ Additional Scenarios???

State student growth data Non-tested areas

Non-tested areas

Teachers of classes with only one state test administration

K-12 educators High school (no test) educators Middle and elementary (no test)

educators Performance courses Others

Non-tested areas

Use existing assessments in other content areas to create a baseline for science tests and regents

Use commercially available tests

Non-tested areas

Add more state tests, such as: Science 6-8 Social studies 6-8 ELA 9-11 (2011-2012) PARCC ELA 3-11 (2014-2015) PARCC math 3-11 (2014-2015)

Non-tested areas

Add more state tests, such as: Science 6-8 Social studies 6-8 ELA 9-11 (2011-2012) PARCC ELA 3-11 (2014-2015) PARCC math 3-11 (2014-2015)

???

Non-tested areas

Use a group metric that is a measure of the school (or grade’s) overall impact

% growth model also can be used for school accountability measures

Empower local level resources to create and carry out a solution that meets state requirements

Local assessment measures20% decreasing to 15%

Local assessment measures

Objectives include: Provide a broader picture of student

achievement by assessing more Provide a broader picture by assessing

differently Verify performance of state measures

Local assessment measures

Reality check: Balance state/regional/BOCES

consistency while accounting for local context

School-based choice might appeal to teachers

Districts must be able to defend their decisions about the tests

Local assessment measures

Considerations include: Rigor Validity and reliability Growth or achievement measures Cost Feasibility

Local assessment measures

Options under consideration: Districts choose or develop assessments

for courses/grades Commercially available products Group metric of school or grade

performance Other options that meet the criteria

(previous slide)

Other 60%Multiple measures

Other 60%

Begins with the teaching standards:1. Knowledge of Students and Student Learning2. Knowledge of Content and Instructional

Planning3. Instructional Practice4. Learning Environment5. Assessment for Student Learning6. Professional Responsibilities and Collaboration7. Professional Growth

Other 60%

Begins with the teaching standards: Some things observable Some not observable thus requiring

some other form or documentation or artifact collection

Other 60%

Teacher practice rubrics: Describe differences in the four

performance levels Articulate specific, observable

differences in student and teacher behavior

Not known whether there will be a single rubric, menu to choose from, or total local option

Other 60%

Teacher practice rubrics: Describe differences in the four

performance levels Articulate specific, observable

differences in student and teacher behavior

Not known whether there will be a single rubric, menu to choose from, or total local option

Other 60%

Other items that might be included: Teacher attendance Goal setting Student surveys Portfolios/Evidence binders Other observer

TimetableBoard of Regents Agenda

MONTH

January

February

March

April

May

June

ACTION

60% discussion

Local 20% discussion

Value added 20% discussion and

ratings/scores

Regents Task Force recommendations

Draft Regulations

Emergency Adoption of Regulations

Timetable

MONTH

July

August

September

ACTION

NT Training (included evaluator training)

NT turns training to local evaluators

Implementation for covered teachers

Timetable