A Network Connecting School Leaders From Around The Globe
Education Law §3012-c requires a new performance evaluation system for classroom teachers (“teachers”) and building principals (“principals”). New York State will implement a statewide comprehensive evaluation system for school districts and boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES). The evaluation system is designed to measure teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance, including measures of student achievement and evidence of educator effectiveness in meeting New York State teacher or school leader standards.
The new statewide evaluation system established by section 3012-c builds on, and does not eliminate, New York’s existing APPR process, which is set forth in §100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations. For guidance on how the new law relates to the APPR regulations found in §100.2(o), see paragraph N4(a) of this document.
Under the new law, New York State will differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness using four rating categories – Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective (HEDI). Education Law §3012-c(2)(a) requires annual professional performance reviews (APPRs) to result in a single composite teacher or principal effectiveness score, which incorporates multiple measures of effectiveness. The results of the evaluations shall be a significant factor in employment decisions, including but not limited to promotion, retention, tenure determinations, termination, and supplemental compensation, as well as teacher and principal professional development (including coaching, induction support, and differentiated professional development).
The statute can be found at
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&... $$EDN3012-C$$@TXEDN03012-C+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKE N=16942100+&TARGET=VIEW
The Commissioner’s regulations to implement the new law can be found at
The regulations are organized as follows:
Section 30-2.1 of the regulations clarifies that the existing APPR regulations (section 100.2[o] of the Commissioner’s regulations) remain in effect for teachers and principals who are not subject to the provisions of the new law. For “teachers” and “building principals” subject to the new law, school districts and BOCES must comply with the requirements in Subpart 30-2 of the Rules of the Board of Regents. However, the Department recommends that, to the extent possible, districts and BOCES begin the process of rolling this system out for the evaluation of all classroom teachers and building principals in the 2011-2012 school year so that New York can quickly move to a comprehensive teacher and principal evaluation system.APPR Guidance, page 4
It also reiterates the language from the statute that says the regulations do not override conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect on July 1, 2010 until the agreement expires and a successor agreement is entered into; at that point, however, the new evaluation regulations apply. This section also clarifies that nothing in the regulations shall be construed to affect the statutory right of a school district or BOCES to terminate a probationary teacher or principal or to restrict a school district’s or BOCES’ discretion in making a tenure determination pursuant to the law.
Section 30-2.2 defines the terms used throughout the regulations. Section 30-2.3 lists the information that every district or BOCES must include in its APPR plan.
Section 30-2.4 provides that, for the 2011-2012 school year, only classroom teachers in the common branch subjects who teach English language arts and/or mathematics to students in grades 4 through 8 shall be subject to the requirements of the new law. This section lays out the requirements for such teachers. It provides that 20 points of the evaluation will be based on student growth on state assessments and 20 points will be based on locally selected measures; explains what types of locally selected measures of student achievement may be used (first for teachers, then for principals); and describes what types of other measures of effectiveness may be used for the remaining 60 points (first for teachers, then for principals).
Section 30-2.5 lays out the requirements for evaluating all classroom teachers and building principals for the 2012-13 school year and thereafter. This section explains how the requirements for the state assessment and locally selected measures subcomponents will differ, including the points assigned for each subcomponent, depending on whether the Board of Regents has approved a value-added growth model for particular grades/courses and subjects. The remaining 60 points will be assigned based on the same criteria as the preceding section.
Section 30-2.6 explains how evaluations will be scored and rated. Sections 30-2.7 and 30-2.8 outline the processes by which the Department will review and approve teacher and principal practice rubrics and student assessments, respectively, for use in districts’ and BOCES’ teacher and principal evaluation systems.
Section 30-2.9 describes the requirements for evaluator training. Section 30-2.10 covers teacher and principal improvement plans, and Section 30-2.11 covers appeals procedures.
Waiting for this to be a future NEWSDAY headline. Poor districts and BOCES teachers score lower on teacher "performance evaluations" then regular suburban school districts.
By keeping test scores on State tests weighted so heavily, teachers are destined to be damned who teach students starting significantly below students with similar chronological ages. The APPR system as currently constructed will be a disservice to staff working with urban, minority, special needs students. With this lack of performance tied into streams of funding revenue, Insult will be added to the injury.
There are no provisions in APPR for staff teaching students who qualify for Alternate performance evaluations, or work with a specific student for a small portion of their teaching workload. An Art teacher or a speech teacher has little overall input into the capabilities of a particular student to improve their performance on a state test. It is inappropriate to be judged for 40% of performance as quality teachers unless it is determined by comparison to peers working with comparable populations. Variable standards that measure the effectiveness of an educators skills in ways that can be directly influenced by that person's teaching prowess are needed. As it is currently proposed, the APPR system is a politically driven " HOUSSE of Cards" that needs to be exposed.