APPRDiscussion

BoardofRegents
May18,2015

TimelineRelatedtoNewYorkStatesEvaluationSystem
2007:
Chapter57oftheLawsof2007addedEducationLaw3012bwhich,forpurposesof
evaluatingacandidatefortenure,requiredanevaluationoftheextenttowhichthe
teachersuccessfullyutilizedanalysisofavailablestudentperformancedataandother
relevantinformationwhenprovidinginstruction,butprovidedthattenurecouldntbe
grantedordeniedbasedonstudentperformancedata.
2008:
Chapter57oftheLawsof2008createdasunsetforEducationLaw3012b,which
expiredonJuly1,2010.Chapter57oftheLawsof2008alsocreatedalegislative
commissiononvalueaddedassessments,butthiscommissionwasneverempanelled.
2010:
GovernorPatersonsignedChapter103oftheLawsof2010,whichaddedanewsection
3012ctotheEducationLaw,establishingacomprehensiveevaluationsystemfor
teachersandprincipals,effectiveJuly1,2010.
USDEannouncedthatNewYorkisselectedforaRTTTawardofapproximately$700M.

TimelineRelatedtoNewYorkStatesEvaluationSystem
201112:
FirstyearofStateprovidedgrowthscoreresultsforall48ELAandmathteachersandtheir
buildingprincipals.
EvaluationsforteachersandprincipalsaredoneinsomeNYSdistricts(e.g.,SchoolImprovement
GrantandTeacherIncentiveFund).
EvaluationLawisrevised.GovernorCuomosignedthebillintolawonMarch27,2012(Chapter21
oftheLawsof2012).TheBoardofRegentsadoptedemergencyregulationstoconformtothe
major2012legislativechanges.
201213:
AllNYSdistrictsmusthaveanapprovedAPPRplanbyJanuary17,2013orriskstateaidincreases.
EvaluationsforteachersandprincipalsaredoneinalldistrictsexceptforNYC.NYCisrequiredby
lawtohaveaStateimposedevaluationplan.
TheLegislaturefurtheramendstheEvaluationLaw(PartAofChapter57oftheLawsof2013).
201314:
SecondyearofevaluationsforalldistrictsinNYS,exceptNYC.FirstyearforNYC.
TheLegislaturefurtheramendstheEvaluationLaw(Chapter56oftheLawsof2014).
NYCsstateimposedplanyieldsgreaterdifferentiationthansystemsinplaceinotherstates.
201415:
ThirdyearofevaluationsforalldistrictsinNYS,exceptNYC.SecondyearforNYC.
3 TheLegislaturefurtheramendstheEvaluationLaw(Chapter56oftheLawsof2015).

MilestonesforImplementingEducationLaw3012d
Date

Milestone

May7,2015

APPRLearningSummit.Statewideday of
discussiontosolicitStateandnational
expertfeedback

May18, 2015

Present recommendationstotheBoardof
RegentsandseekfeedbackforJune
regulations

June15,2015

BoardofRegentsmeetingtoapprove
Commissionersregulations

StatewideStakeholderEngagement
TheDepartmentreceivedmorethan3,000emailstoeval2015@nysed.gov.Inaddition,staffhas
consultedthefollowingStatestakeholdergroupsattheLearningSummitandinindividualmeetings:

Statewide StakeholderEngagement*
DistrictSuperintendents

NYSSBA

Big5Districts/NYCDOE

NYSCOSS

SmallCitySchoolDistricts

NYSPTAandrelatedparentgroups

NYSUT/UFT

MembersoftheNYSEDAssessment
TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee

SAANY/ESSAA/NYSFSA

ProfessionalStandardsandPractice
Board(PSPB)

CommissionersAdvisory Councilfor
NYSTeachers

NYSCOSSCommissionersAdvisory
Council

*StakeholderslistedabovethatdidnotparticipatedirectlyintheLearningSummitwere
providedwithtimeforindividualconversationswithDepartmentstaff.

NationalExpertEngagement
TheDepartmenthasconsultedwiththefollowingnational
expertsviatheLearningSummit*:

CatherineBrown,CenterforAmericanProgress
StephenCaldas,Manhattanville College
LesleyGuggenheim,TheNewTeacherProject
SandiJacobs,NationalCouncilonTeacherQuality
TomKane,HarvardGraduateSchoolofEducation
AaronPallas,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity
JesseRothstein,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

*Nationalexpertswhowerenotabletoparticipatewereinvitedtosubmit
commentsandmaterialstobepostedontheLearningSummitwebpage.
6

GuidingPrinciples
Theserecommendationsareguidedbythefollowing
principles:
Weremainmindfulthattheevaluationlawwasadopted
in2010andreaffirmedbystateelectedofficialsfour
additionaltimes(in2012,2013,2014,and2015).
ThepurposeofNewYorkStatesevaluationsystemis
andshouldbetosupportteaching,learning,andtalent
managementdecisions.
Technicalparametersalonewillnotensurethatteachers
receivemeaningfulfeedback.Thiswillrequireextensive
professionaldevelopmentandacomprehensive
approachtotalentmanagementbyschooldistricts.
7

SummaryofRecommendations:Observations
Technicalparameterscansupportbutcannotensuremeaningfulfeedback
forteachersandprincipals.Properprofessionaldevelopmentiscritical.
Existingobservationrubricsshouldremaininplace.
Observationsshouldfocusonspecificobservableprofessionalbehaviors,
whileensuringthatallobservableteachingstandardsareassessedeach
year.Artifactsshouldbeallowedtotheextenttheyconstituteevidenceof
anotherwiseobservablerubricsubcomponent.
Observationparameters(number,duration,etc.)shouldbeestablishedas
differentiatedminimumstandardsthatallowforlocalbestpractices.
SchoolBuildinggenerallyshouldbedefinedbyBEDScodeforthepurpose
ofindependentobservers.
Multipleobservations(principal/supervisor,independent,peer)shouldbe
combinedthroughaweightedaverage.Weightsshouldreflecttheroleof
theprincipalastheinstructionalleaderofaschool.
Toensurethattheprocessforscoringrubricsiscomparableacrossdistricts,
scoresonobservationscouldbeexpressedasapercentageofpossible
pointsforobservedsubcomponents(inadditiontothefamiliar14ratings).
ScoringrangestocreateObservationHEDIscoresshouldbesetbasedona
commonsenseapproachtopercentageofpointsearned(65%,75%,90%).
8

SummaryofRecommendations:StudentPerformance
Growthcanberepresentedthroughtheuseoftherequiredstudentgrowth
subcomponentandtheoptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponent.
TheDepartmentshouldconveneadvisorygroupstorecommend
enhancementsforthenextgenerationofassessmentsandgrowthmodels
(performancebasedassessmenttasks,additionalgrowthcovariates,new
highschoolgrowthmetrics,multiyeargrowthmodels,possible
adjustmentstothenormativemethodtodetermineHEDIratingsand/or
developmentofcriterionreferencedmeasuresofgrowth).
Untilnextgenerationgrowthmodelsareavailableandadopted,existing
methodstoestablishgrowthscoresshouldbecontinued.SLOtargets
shouldreflectayearofexpectedstudentgrowth,whichwillvarybya
studentsacademicpreparednessandlearningneeds.
Multiplegrowthmeasures(i.e.,requiredandoptionalstudentgrowth
subcomponents)shouldbecombinedthroughaweightedaverage.Weights
shouldnotincentivizeadditionaltestsforstudents.
Oncemultiplemeasuresarecombinedthroughaweightedaverage,itis
recommendedthatscoringrangestocreateaStudentPerformanceHEDI
scoreshouldbesetbasedonacommonsenseapproachtopercentageof
pointsearned(e.g.,65%,75%,90%).
9

SummaryofRecommendations:OtherAreas
Someaspectsoftheprincipalevaluationshouldbedifferentthanthe
teacherevaluation.Similartoteachers,independentobserverscould
includeanyoneoutsideoftheprincipalsbuilding,definedbyBEDScode.
Althoughprofessionalgoalsettingisnowaprohibitedelementofprincipal
evaluations,organizationalgoalsettingcouldbeusedtotheextentthatitis
evidenceofanobservablecomponentofthepracticerubric.
Withfewexceptions,theprovisionsof3012cshouldbecarriedforwardto
3012dtolimittheburdenofnewnegotiationswherelocalpracticesare
successful.
Waiversfromthegeneralprohibitionagainstassigningastudenttoan
Ineffectiveteacherfortwoconsecutiveyearsshouldbegrantedonlyifthe
districthasanimprovementand/orremovalplaninplacefortheteacherin
question,consistentwithlawandregulation.
ShorttermhardshipwaiversfromtheNovember15deadlineshouldbe
accompaniedbygoodfaithattemptstocollectivelybargainandtrainforthe
newsystem.
Inresponsetofieldrequest,theDepartmentshouldprovideamodelplan
foroptionalfieldconsiderationonceregulationshavebeenadopted.
10

ObservationCategory

11

Current: Variousscoringrangesexistforobservation
rubricsthatareselectedandimplementedlocallyunder
EducationLaw3012c.
NYSEDRecommended;
determinedlocally

NYSUT Recommended;
determinedlocally

NYC
Commissioner Imposed

Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(% ofpoints)

Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

3.7
(93%)

4.0
(100%)

3.5
(88%)

4.0
(100%)

3.26
(82%)

4.0
(100%)

2.9
(73%)

3.6
(92%)

2.5
(63%)

3.4
(87%)

2.51
(63%)

3.25
(81%)

1.9
(48%)

2.8
(72%)

1.5
(38%)

2.4
(62%)

1.76
(44%)

2.50
(62%)

1.0
(0%)

1.8
(47%)

1.0
(0%)

1.4
(37%)

1.0
(0%)

1.75
(43%)
12

Current: Inordertocombineintothe20/20/60=100pointscale,
variousconversionsof the60pointscoringrangetoHEDIcategories
exist.Theseconversionscanresultinverylittledifferentiationinthe
HighlyEffectiveandEffectiveranges.
NYSUT Recommended;
determinedlocally

NYC
Commissioner Imposed

Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

59
(98%)

60
(100%)

55
(92%)

60
(100%)

57
(95%)

58
(97%)

45
(75%)

54
(91%)

50
(83%)

56
(94%)

39
(65%)

44
(74%)

0
(0%)

49
(82%)

0
(0%)

38
(64%)

The60point
conversionis
nolonger
necessary
becauseofthe
matrix
approachto
combining
Student
Performance
and
Observation
categories.

13

Recommended: UnderEducationLaw3012c,districtshavenegotiatedavarietyofwaysfor
convertingrubricscoresto060pointsandcorrespondingHEDIratingcategories.SEDs
recommendationistotreattheoverallobservationscoreasapercentageofpossiblepointsand
applycommonsensepercentageofpointscutscoresthatwillbecomparableacrosslocally
selectedandlocallyweightedrubrics.
NYSUTandUFT
Recommended

NYSED
Recommended

NYCDOE Recommended

Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
(%ofpoints) (%ofpoints) (%ofpoints) (%ofpoints) (%ofpoints) (%ofpoints)

3.5
(88%)

4.0
(100%)

3.6
(90%)

4
(100%)

3.76
(94%)

4.0
(100%)

2.5
(63%)

3.49
(87%)

3
(75%)

3.59
(90%)

2.76
(69%)

3.75
(93%)

1.5
(38%)

2.49
(62%)

2.6
(65%)

2.99
(74%)

1.76
(44%)

2.75
(68%)

1
(0%)

1.49
(37%)

1
(0%)

2.59
(64%)

1
(0%)

1.75
(43%)

Notethatnotechnicalparameterwillensurethatteachersreceivemeaningfulfeedbackabouttheirrelative
strengthsandweaknesses.Meaningfulfeedbackwilloccuronlyifqualitytrainingisprovidedthatincorporatesan
understandingofthetechnicalparameters.
14

Recommended: ScoringRangesforObservationCategory
(necessarytobeenteredintotheEvaluationMatrix)

Statewide
Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

3.6
(90%)

4
(100%)

3
(75%)

3.59
(90%)

2.6
(65%)

2.99
(74%)

1
(0%)

2.59
(64%)

Howitwouldwork:
Eachobservation(principal/supervisor,
independent,peer)wouldbecompleted
usinga14rubric,producinganoverall
scorebetween14.
Multipleobservationswouldbecombined
usingaweightedaverage(dependingon
theweightsadoptedinregulation),
producinganoverallObservationcategory
scorebetween14.
Becauseevaluationcategorieswillbe
combinedaccordingtothematrix,thereis
noneedtoconvertintoa60pointscale.
Thisoverallobservationscorewouldbe
convertedintoanHEDIratingandentered
intotheEvaluationMatrixtodetermine
theoverallevaluationrating.
15

Recommended: SubcomponentWeightsfor
ObservationCategory
Howitwouldwork*:
Fortheindependent
evaluator,
recommended
percentagesinclude:
NYCDOE:5to
20%,determined
bythedistrict.
NYSUT:1to5%,
subjecttolocal
bargaining.
UFT:1to25%,
subjecttolocal
bargaining

Iftherearenooptionalpeerobservations,theroleof
theprincipalasinstructionalleaderwouldbe
reflectedas
Principal/supervisorobservationsweighted80%
Independentobservationsweighted20%
Ifthereareoptionalpeerobservations,theroleof
theprincipalasinstructionalleaderwouldbe
reflectedas
Principal/supervisorobservationsweighted80%
Peerobservationsweighted10%
Independentobservationsweighted10%

*ThealignmentofthesesubcomponentsamongeachotherandwithStudentPerformancecategorywillbe
subjecttoauditandcorrectiveactionaspermittedunderSections9(a)and9(b)ofEducationLaw3012c.

16

EvaluationMatrix
Thestatutemandatestheuseofthematrixbelowtodetermineateacherscomposite
scorebasedonthetwocategoriesoftheevaluation(see3012d(5)):

Student
Performance

Observation
HighlyEffective
(H)

Effective
(E)

Developing
(D)

Ineffective
(I)

HighlyEffective(H)

Effective(E)

Developing(D)

Ineffective(I)

D*

D*

*IfateacherisratedIneffectiveontheStudentPerformancecategory,andaStatedesignedsupplementalassessmentwas
includedasanoptionalsubcomponentoftheStudentPerformancecategory,theteachercanberatednohigherthanIneffective
overall(see3012d(5)(a)and(7)).
17

Recommended: Number,Frequency,andDuration
ofObservations
Howitwouldwork:
Atleasttwoobservations(oneprincipal/supervisor;oneindependent),eachat
least20minutesindurationfornontenuredteachersandtenuredteachers
whowerenotratedHighlyEffectiveorEffectiveoveralltheprioryear.
o Independentobserversmustbetrainedandselectedbythedistrict.This
mayincludeobservationsbyotheradministrators,departmentchairs,or
peers(e.g.,teacherleadersoncareerladders)solongastheyarenotfrom
thesamebuilding(definedassameBEDScode)astheteacherbeing
evaluated.
Therequiredminimumdurationforthetworequiredobservationsisreduced
to10minuteseachforatenuredteacherratedHighlyEffectiveorEffective
overallintheprioryear.
Atleastoneobservationmustbeunannounced.
Inadditiontotheabove,shortwalkthroughobservations(510minutes)are
permissible.
Observationsmayoccurliveorbyliveorrecordedvideo.
18

Recommended: ObservationRubrics
Howitwouldwork:
Districtscanchooseateacherpracticerubricfromamenuofstateapproved
practicerubrics.Thecurrentlyapprovedlist,underEducationLaw3012c,will
remainineffect.
Theevaluatormayselectalimitednumberofobservablerubricsubcomponentsfor
focuswithinaparticularobservation(whichdeterminesthetotalnumberof
possiblepoints),solongasallobservableTeachingStandards/Domainsare
addressedacrossthetotalnumberofannualobservations.
UnderEducationLaw3012d(6),artifactsareaprohibitedelementofteacher
evaluations.However,evidencedocumentedduringanobservationcyclemaybe
consideredtotheextentthatitconstitutesevidenceofanotherwiseobservable
rubricsubcomponent(e.g.,alessonplanviewedduringthecourseofthe
observationcyclemayconstituteevidenceofprofessionalplanning).
TeachingStandards/Domainsthatarepartoftherubric,butnotobservableduring
theclassroomobservation,maybeobservedduringa preobservationconference
orpostobservationrevieworothernaturalconversationsbetweentheteacherand
theprincipal/supervisorandincorporatedintotheobservationscore.Regardless,
pointsshallnotbeallocatedbasedonartifactssubmittedtoorreviewedbythe
evaluatoroutsideoftheobservationcycle.
19

StudentPerformanceCategory

20

Current: ScoringRangesforStudentLearningObjective20Points
(necessaryforcombinationintoa20/20/60100pointscalewhenastateprovidedgrowth
scoreisnotavailable)
RestofState
(Recommendedinguidance) Percent ofPoints
Rating
(20possible
Percent of
Scoring
points)
StudentsMeeting
Range
Target

I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
H
H
H

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

065%

6677%

7885%

86100%

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%

NYC
(Imposed)
Scoring
Range

PercentofStudents
MeetingTarget

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

04%
58%
912%
1316%
1720%
2124%
2528%
2933%
3438%
3943%
4448%
4954%
5559%
6066%
6774%
7579%
8084%
8589%
9092%
9396%
97100%

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
E
E
E
H
H
H

SeeAppendix
forflexibilityto
address
sensitivityin
smallgroup
situations.

21

Current: ScoringRangesforStateProvidedGrowthScore20Points*
(necessaryforcombinationintoa20/20/60100pointscale)
RestofState

Percent
NYC
Rating
of
Rating
Scoring MGP
Scoring MGP
Points
Range Range
Range Range

I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
H
H
H

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

328
2932
3335
2935
36
37
38
39
40
3643
4445
4648
4950
5152
5355
5657
5861
6268
6768
6972
7394

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

323
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2937
3840
3648
4955
5668
6768
6972
7394

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
E
E
E
H
H
H

Eachscorebetween0and20is
associatedwithameangrowth
percentile(MGP)value,orthe
meanofeachteachersindividual
studentgrowthpercentiles(SGP).
SGPsareameasureofgrowthfor
eachstudentcomparedtosimilar
students.

*MGPrangesarebasedon1314schoolyearresultsandmaydifferslightlyinfutureyearsbasedonthedistributionof
22
teachersMGPs.

Current: MethodtodeterminepointswiththeScoringRangesforStateProvided
GrowthScore20Points

Foreachteacher,anMGPandaconfidencerangearereported,representingtheupperandlowerlimitsontheMGP withina95%
statisticalconfidence.
TodetermineateachersHEDIrating,theteachersMGPvalueiscomparedtothemeanandstandarddeviationofMGPsforall
teachers,andtheteachersconfidencerangeisusedtoconfirmtheratingcategoryinwhichheorsheshouldbeplaced.
Afterallteachersareassignedtoaratingcategory,growthscorepoints(020)aredistributedacrossteachersineachcategoryso
thathigherMGPsearnhigherpoints,andthenumberofteachersreceivingeachscoreisapproximatelyproportionaltothenumber
ofscorepointvaluesinthecategory.

23

NYCDOEsuggestedcutscoresforMGPsthataremore
directlyrelatedtoanabove/belowthemeandetermination.
Measure

ConfidenceRange

Growth Rating

Measure>1.5SDabove
Mean

LowerLimit>Mean

HighlyEffective

MeasureaboveMean

Any

Effective

MeasurebelowMean

UpperLimit> Mean

Effective

MeasurebelowMean

UpperLimit<Mean

Developing

Measure> 1.5SDbelow
Mean

UpperLimit<belowMean

Ineffective

24

NYSUTsuggestedcutscoresforMGPsthatwoulddefine
Ineffectiveastwoormorestandarddeviationsbelowthemean
(vs.1.5currently),reducingthepercentofIneffectiveratings.
Measure

ConfidenceRange

Growth Rating

Measure1.5SDabove
Mean

LowerLimit>Mean

HighlyEffective

Measure<1.5aboveMean

Any

Effective

Any

Effective

Measure>2 SDbelowmean

UpperLimit< Mean

Developing

Measure1 SDbelowMean

UpperLimit<Mean

Developing

Measure2.0SDbelow
Mean

UpperLimit<.75below
Mean

Ineffective

Measure>1SDbelowMean

25

Recommended: Parametersforgrowthscores
Howitwouldwork:
Maintainexistingnormativemethodtoestablishgrowthscoresfortherequired
andoptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponentsonexistingStateassessmentsand
newStatedesignedsupplementalassessments.
MaintaininthegrowthmodelthefulllistofcharacteristicsdescribedinSection
D1oftheAPPRGuidance(e.g.,prioracademichistory,Englishlanguagelearner
status,disabilitystatus,poverty).
Explorewithstakeholdersandtechnicalexpertsfutureassessmentandmetrics
options,newcovariatesforthegrowthmodel,newhighschoolgrowthmetrics,
multiyeargrowthmodels,possibleadjustmentstonormativemethodto
determineHEDIratings,and/orcriterionreferencedmeasuresofgrowth.
SuperintendentscontinuetohavesolediscretiontodetermineSLOtargets.
Thesetargetsmustreflectayearofexpected studentgrowth,whichwillvaryby
astudentsacademicpreparednessandlearningneeds(seeAppendix).
SLOsmayincorporategroupmeasures,includingschoolwidemeasures.Linked
groupmeasures(groupmeasuresbasedonlyonateachersroster)are
encouraged.
26

Recommended: OptionalStudentGrowthSubcomponent
withNoAdditionalTesting
Examplesofhowitcouldwork:
ComputedbytheStatebasedonthepercentageofstudentswho
achieveaStatedeterminedlevelofgrowthonaStateassessment
(e.g.,atleastaverageforsimilarstudents).Suchmeasurescould
incorporatemultipleyearsofdata.
StatecalculatedschoolwideresultsbasedontheStateprovided
growthscoresofallstudentsintheschooltakingthegrades48
StateELAormathassessment.
Locallycomputedschoolwideresultsbasedonallorasubsetof
Stateprovidedgrowthscores.

27

Recommended: OptionalStudentGrowthSubcomponentand/or
RequiredStateGrowthSLOswithLocallySelectedAdditionalTesting
Howitwouldwork:
Inordertoaccommodatelocallyselectedadditionaltesting,the
Departmentwillissue,withadvicefromstakeholdersandexpertsin
assessmentandgrowthmetrics,aRequestforQualifications(RFQ) for
assessmentscertifiedtoprovideacceptableinstructionaland
psychometricqualitiesandtheabilitytogenerateacceptable
measuresofgrowthconsistentwiththerequirementsof3012d:
1) AsanoptionallocallyselectedStatedesignedsupplemental
assessmenttobeusedwithaStateprovidedorapprovedgrowth
model;and/or
2) Asameasureofexpectedstudentgrowthtobeusedintherequired
studentgrowthsubcomponentforSLOsthatdonotuseanexisting
Stateassessment.
28

Recommended: ScoringRangesforStudentPerformanceCategory
(necessarytobeenteredintotheEvaluationMatrix)

Statewide
Min
(%ofpoints)

Max
(%ofpoints)

18
(90%)

20
(100%)

15
(75%)

17
(85%)

13
(65%)

14
(70%)

0
(0%)

12
(60%)

Howitwouldwork:
Eachperformancemeasure(Required
StudentGrowthsubcomponentand
OptionalStudentGrowth
subcomponent)wouldresultina
growthscorebetween0and20
points.
Multiplemeasureswouldbe
combinedusingaweightedaverage
(dependingontheweightsadopted
inregulation),producinganoverall
StudentPerformancecategoryscore
between0and20points.
Thisoverallstudentperformance
scorewouldbeconvertedintoaHEDI
ratingandenteredintothe
EvaluationMatrixtodeterminethe
overallevaluationrating.
29

Recommended: DetailedScoringRangesforGrowthScores
StateProvided
GrowthScores

SLOs
Rating

Notethat,forSLOs,NYSUTand
UFTrecommended:
I=029%meetingtarget
D=3054%meetingtarget
E=5584%meetingtarget
H=85100%meetingtarget

SeeAppendix
forflexibilityto
address
sensitivityin
smallgroup
situations.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
E
E
E
H
H
H

Percentof
Percent
Students Scoring ofPoints Scoring MGP
Meeting Range
Range Range
Target

04%
59%
1014%
1519%
2024%
2529%
3034%
3539%
4044%
4549%
5054%
5559%
6064%
6569%
7074%
7579%
8084%
8589%
9092%
9396%
97100%

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%

*MGPrangesarebasedon1314schoolyearresultsandmaydifferslightlyinfutureyearsbased
onthedistributionofteachersMGPs.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

323
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2937
3840
3648
4955
5668
6768
6972
7394

Rating

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
E
E
E
H
H
H
30

Recommended: SubcomponentWeightsfor
StudentPerformanceCategory
(necessarytobeenteredintotheEvaluationMatrix)

Fortherequired
studentgrowth
subcomponent,
recommended
percentagesinclude:
NYSUT:nomore
than20%
UFT:nomore
than40%

Howitwouldwork*:
Ifthereisnooptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponent:
Requiredstudentgrowthsubcomponent(State
providedgrowthscoresorSLOs)wouldbe
weighted100%.
Ifthereisanoptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponent,
thefollowingweightsarerecommendedtoavoidthe
creationofanincentiveforadditionaltesting:
Requiredstudentgrowthsubcomponent(State
providedgrowthscoresorSLOs)wouldbe
weighted80%.
Theoptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponent
wouldbeweighted20%.

*ThealignmentofthesesubcomponentsamongeachotherandwithObservationcategorywillbesubjectto
auditandcorrectiveactionaspermittedunderSections9(a)and9(b)ofEducationLaw3012c.
31

EvaluationMatrix
Thestatutemandatestheuseofthematrixbelowtodetermineateacherscomposite
scorebasedonthetwocategoriesoftheevaluation(see3012d(5)(b)):

Student
Performance

Observation
HighlyEffective
(H)

Effective
(E)

Developing
(D)

Ineffective
(I)

HighlyEffective(H)

Effective(E)

Developing(D)

Ineffective(I)

D*

D*

*IfateacherisratedIneffectiveontheStudentPerformancecategory,andaStatedesignedsupplementalassessmentwas
includedasanoptionalsubcomponentoftheStudentPerformancecategory,theteachercanberatednohigherthanIneffective
overall(see3012d(5)(a)and(7)).
32

Recommended: PrincipalEvaluation
Howitwouldwork:
Parametersforteacherevaluationswouldlargelyapplytoprincipalsaswell:
1) Fortherequiredstudentgrowthsubcomponent,principalswouldcontinueto
useStateprovidedgrowthscoreswhereavailable.Allotherprincipalswould
useSLOswiththesameoptionsasforteachers.
2) Fortheoptionalstudentgrowthsubcomponent,principalswouldhavethe
sameoptionsasteachers,exceptthatschoolwideELAandmathmeasures
wouldnotbeallowed.
3) Videowillnotbeallowedfortheprincipalobservationmeasures.
4) Similartoteachers,independentobserversmayincludeanyoneoutsideofthe
principalsbuilding,definedbyBEDScode(superintendent,otherprincipals,
departmentchairs/directors).
5) UnderEducationLaw3012d(6),professionalgoalsettingisnowaprohibited
elementofprincipalevaluations.However,organizationalgoalsettingmaybe
usedtotheextentthatitisevidenceofanobservablecomponentofthe
practicerubric.
6) Similartoteachers,districtscanchooseaprincipalpracticerubricfromamenu
ofstateapprovedpracticerubrics.Thecurrentlyapprovedlist,underEducation
Law3012c,willremainineffect.
33

Recommended:Continuationof3012c
Provision of3012c

3012c(2)(d)

AreaoftheLaw

Evaluatortraining

Recommended for
carryoverto3012d?

Revisions

Yes

1) Addlanguage ontrainingof
independentandpeer observers
2) Eliminaterequirementstothe
extent theydonotcomplywith
3012d

3012c(2)(k)

Submissionofplans

Yes

1) Eliminate9/1deadlinefor
approvalofplans
2) Add3/1deadlineforsubmission
ofmaterialchanges
3) Eliminatereferencesto2012
schoolyear
4) Eliminatereferencestoannualor
multiyear plans
5) Eliminatelanguagerequiring
writtenlistofdeficiencies

3012c(2)(k1)

Materialchangesto
reduceassessments

Yes

Nochangesneeded

3012c(2)(k2)

Reductionoftime
spentonfieldtests

Yes

Nochangesneeded

3012c(2)(l)

Triborough
amendment

Yes

Nochangesneeded
34

Recommended:Continuationof3012c
Provision of3012c

AreaoftheLaw

Recommended for
carryoverto3012d?

Revisions

3012c(4)

TIPs/PIPs

Yes

1) Provideformanagementdiscretion
ondevelopingandimplementing
TIPs/PIPs
2) Requireplanstobeimplemented
byOctober1

3012c(5)

Appeals

Yes

1) Cleanuptobeconsistentwith
3012d

3012c(5a)

NYCappeals

Yes

1) Cleanuptobeconsistentwith
3012d

3012c(9)

Monitoring

Yes

1) Preserve theDepartments
authoritytomonitorasintended
bythestatute
2) Cleanuptobeconsistentwith
3012d

3012c(10)

FOIL/personalprivacy
ofAPPRdata

Yes

1) Cleanuptobeconsistentwith
currentpracticeand3012d

35

Recommended: WaivertoAssignStudentstoan
IneffectiveTeacherforTwoConsecutiveYears
Howitwouldwork:
IfadistrictwishestoassignastudenttoanIneffective
teacherinthesamesubjectfortwoconsecutiveyears,
thedistrictmustrequestawaiver.
Waiversmaybeassignedifthedistrictcannotmake
alternatearrangements(e.g.,toofewteachersqualified
toteachthesubject).
SinceconsecutiveassignmenttoanIneffectiveteacher
hasademonstratednegativeimpactonastudent,
waiverswillbegrantedonlyifatruehardshipis
demonstratedandthedistricthasanimprovement
and/orremovalplaninplacefortheteacherinquestion,
consistentwithlawandregulation.
36

Recommended: HardshipWaiverforNovember15ApprovalDeadline
Howitwouldwork:
Tobeconsideredforawaiver,aspartofitssubmission,thedistrictwould
needtosubmitevidenceofitsgoodfaithattemptstonegotiateanewAPPR
planconsistentwith3012dandtrainstaffinthenewrequiredprocedures
priortoNovember15.
Ifawaiverisnotgrantedordistrictdoesnotmeetthedeadlinetoapply,the
districtforfeitstheincreaseinstateaidfor201516andmustsecure
approvalforanevaluationsystemalignedto3012dwhenasuccessor
agreementisreached.
Thepreviouslyapproved(201415)APPRplanremainsineffectduringany
approvedwaiverperiodpursuantto3012d(12).
Ifgranted,waiverswillbeineffectforrenewabletwomonthperiods.
Ifadistrictwishestorequestanadditionaltwomonthwaiver,evidenceof
additionalgoodfaithcollectivebargainingandappropriatetrainingsince
thelastwaivermustbesubmittedtwoweekspriortotheexpirationofthe
currentwaiver.
APPRplansapprovedpriortoMarch1,2016willapplytothe201516
schoolyear.PlansapprovedafterMarch1,2016willapplytothe201617
schoolyear.
Thefinaldeadlineforplanapprovaltosecure201516stateaidincreasesis
September1,2016.
37

Appendix

38

StudentLearningObjectives
(SLOs)

39

Current:ScoringRangesforSmallnStudentLearningObjectives20points
ComesfromNYSEDGuidanceonSettingSLOswithsmallnsizes:
https://www.engageny.org/resource/alternativetargetsettingmodelswithinstudentlearning
objectivesslos

Points,from03,areassigned
basedoneachstudents
movementfromabaseline
performancelevelfrom14to
asummativeperformance
levelfrom14alignedwith
thequalitativedescriptions.
Pointsarethenaveragedfor
allstudentsonateachers
courseroster.
HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE

EFFECTIVE

Level 1= performance is well-below average/expectations

Level 2= performance is below average/approaching
expectations
Level 3= performance is average/meeting expectations
(also aligned with concept of proficiency)
Level 4= performance is well-above average/ exceeding
expectations (also aligned with concept of mastery)

Rating

Highly
Effective

Effective

Developing

Ineffective

Average
Points

2.7 3.0

2.3 2.6

1.9 2.2

01.8

INEFFECTIVE

DEVELOPING

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

3.0

2.9

2.7
2.8

2.6

2.5

2.3
2.4

2.1
2.2

1.9
2.0

1.68
1.8

1.54
1.67

1.40
1.53

1.26
1.39

1.12
1.25

.98
1.11

.84
.97

.70
.83

.56
.69

.42
.55

.28
.41

.14
.27

0.13

40

Improvingstudentlearningisatthecenterofallourwork.Settinglongterm
goals,asseeninStudentLearningObjectives,allowseducatorstobestrategicas
theyplanbackwardsfromavisionofstudentsuccess.

Preparation
reviewstandardsand
coursecurricula
reviewavailable
assessments
reviewavailable
historicaldata
determinepriority
content

Development:
collectandanalyzemultiple
sourcesofbaselinedata

Implementation
regularlyassessstudent
progress

reevaluateprioritycontent
basedonstudentneeds

discussprogresswith
colleaguesand
evaluator(s)

determinetargetsthat
ensureatleastayears
gradelevelgrowthand
accelerategainsfor
studentsenteringbelow
gradelevelexpectations

revisesupportsand
instructional
interventionsifstudents
arenotprogressingas
expected

ResultsAnalysis
collect,analyze,and
reportfinalevidenceof
studentlearning
calculateoutcomesand
translatetoHEDIratings
organize,review,and
reflectondatatoinform
classroom,schoolwide,
anddistrictwidedecisions
aroundstudentacademic
goalsandinstruction

Whendonethoughtfully,theSLOprocesscanleadtohigherqualitydiscussionsfocusedonstudent
growthandlearning,clearerindicationsofwhenandhowtoadjustinstructiontomeetstudentneeds,
andmorestrategicplanningofprofessionaldevelopmentofferings.
41

41

Educatorsmustsetaminimumgrowthtargetofoneyearsgradelevel
growth,exceptforthosestudentswithIEPs,whereinthedistrictmayneed
tospecifyanalternativegrowthtarget.
Educatorsshouldlooktostandardsand
coursecurriculatodeterminewhat
knowledgeandskillsstudentsare
expectedtogainovertheintervalof
instruction
Theminimumrigortargetforallstudents
shouldreflectproficiencyoftherelevant
courseorgradelevelstandards,orin
otherwords,oneyearsgrade level
growth
Studentsbeginacoursewithvarying
levelsofpreparednesssoeducatorsmust
determinewhatayearsworthofgrade
levelgrowthwilllooklikeforstudents
whoentersignificantlybelowor
significantlyabovegradelevel
42expectations

Wheredo
studentsneedto
be?

Whatdowedo
whentheyareon
track?Whatdo
wedowhenthey
areofftrack?

Growthtargetsshould
expectallstudentsto
makeoneyearsworth
ofgradelevelgrowth,
butthisalonewillnot
closeachievement
gapsormovelow
performerstowards
gradelevel
expectations.

Howwillwe
knowtheyareon
track?

Wherearethey
now?

Howdoweget
themthere?

42

Itisexpectedthatallstudentsshouldbemakingatleastoneyears
expectedgradelevelgrowth,however,targetsmaybedifferentiatedbased
onstudentslevelofpreparedness.
Determinewhatthemostimportantlearningisforthespecifiedcourse/gradelevel;
decidewhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeabletodoinordertobesuccessfulinthe
subsequentcourse/gradelevel.

Usemultiplesourcesofbaselinedatatoidentifyhow
preparedeachstudentistomeettheseexpectations.
Studentswhobeginthe
coursesignificantly
belowgradelevel
expectationswillneed
tomakemorethana
yearswrothofgrade
levelgrowth,inorderto
catchuptotheir
peers.Targetsshouldbe
setthatencourage
acceleratedgainsand
closeachievementgaps.

43

Somestudentswillenter
thecourselacking
prerequisiteknowledgeor
skills.

Determinetargetsthatwill
acceleratestudentgains
andcloseachievement
gaps.

Somestudentswillenter
thecoursewiththe
necessaryprerequisite
knowledgeorskills.

Somestudentswillenterthe
coursewithprerequisite
knowledgeorskillsthat
exceedtheexpectation.

Determinetargetsthatwill
ensurestudentsmasterthe
relevantcoursecontentand
preparethemforthenextlevel
ofinstruction.

Determinetargetsthatwill
continuouslychallenge
studentstogrowand
deepentheir
understanding.

43

StatutoryLanguage

44

StatutoryLanguage:ObservationWeightingandScoringRanges
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(b)states:Thecommissionershalldeterminetheweights,
and/orweightingoptionsandscoringrangesforthesubcomponentsof
theobservationcategorythatresultinacombinedcategoryrating
and3012d(7)furtherstatesthattheprocessbywhichweightsand
scoringrangesareassignedtosubcomponentsandcategoriesis
transparent...andmustensurethatitispossibleto obtainanynumber
ofpointsintheapplicablescoringranges, including zero,in each
subcomponent

45

StatutoryLanguage:ObservationRubrics
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(b)states:Theobservationscategoryforteachersshallbe
basedonastateapprovedrubricandshallincludeuptothree
subcomponents

46

StatutoryLanguage:Number,FrequencyandDurationof
ObservationsandObservationParameters
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(b) states,Thecommissionershallalsodeterminethe
minimumnumberofobservationstobeconductedannually,including
frequencyandduration,andanyparameterstherefor.

47

StatutoryLanguage:StudentPerformanceWeightsandScoringRanges
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(a)(2)states:Thecommissionershalldeterminetheweights
andscoringrangesforthesubcomponentorsubcomponentsofthe
studentperformancecategorythatshallresultinacombinedcategory
ratingand3012d(7)furtherstatesthattheprocessbywhichweights
andscoringrangesareassignedtosubcomponentsandcategoriesis
transparent...andmustensurethatitispossibleto obtainanynumber
ofpointsintheapplicablescoringranges, including zero, in each
subcomponent

48

StatutoryLanguage:ParametersforStateprovidedGrowth
Model
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(a)(1)(A)states:forateacherwhosecourseendsinastate
createdoradministeredtestforwhichthereisastateprovidedgrowth
model,suchteachershallhaveastateprovidedgrowthscorebasedon
suchmodel
3012d(4)(a)(2)states:Thecommissionershallalsosetparametersfor
appropriatetargetsforstudentgrowthforbothsubcomponents,and
thedepartmentmustaffirmativelyapproveandshallhavethe
authoritytodisapproveorrequiremodificationsofdistrictplansthat
donotsetappropriategrowthtargets,includingafterinitial
approval.

49

StatutoryLanguage:ParametersforGrowthTargets (SLOs)
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(a)(1)(B)states:forateacherwhosecoursedoesnotendina
statecreatedoradministeredtestsuchteachershallhaveastudent
learningobjective(SLO)consistentwithagoalsettingprocess
determinedordevelopedbythecommissioner,thatresultsinastudent
growthscore;providedthat,foranyteacherwhosecourseendsina
statecreatedoradministeredassessmentforwhichthereisnostate
providedgrowthmodel,suchassessmentmustbeusedasthe
underlyingassessmentforsuchSLO.
3012d(4)(a)(2)states:Thecommissionershallalsosetparametersfor
appropriatetargetsforstudentgrowthforbothsubcomponents,and
thedepartmentmustaffirmativelyapproveandshallhavetheauthority
todisapproveorrequiremodificationsofdistrictplansthatdonot
setappropriategrowthtargets,includingafterinitialapproval.
50

StatutoryLanguage:StateApprovedAssessments(Optionaland
RequiredComponent)
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(4)(a)(2)(A)and(B) statethattheoptionalstudentperformancecategorymaybe
eitherasecondstateprovidedgrowthscoreonastatecreatedoradministeredtest,
oragrowthscorebasedonastatedesignedsupplementalassessment,calculatedusing
astateprovidedorapprovedgrowthmodel.Theoptionalsecondsubcomponentshall
provideoptionsformultipleassessmentmeasuresthatarealignedtoexisting
classroomandschoolbestpracticesandtakeintoconsiderationtherecommendationsin
thetestingreductionreport
3012d(2)(d)definesstatedesignedsupplementalassessmentsasaselectionofstate
testsorassessmentsdevelopedordesignedbythestateeducationdepartment,orthat
thestateeducationdepartmentpurchasedoracquiredfrom(i)anotherstate;(ii)an
institutionofhighereducation;or(iii)acommercialornotforprofitentity,providedthat
suchentitymustbeobjectiveandmaynothaveaconflictofinterestorappearanceofa
conflictofinterest;suchdefinitionmayincludetestsorassessmentsthathavebeen
previouslydesignedoracquiredbylocaldistricts,butonlyifthestateeducation
departmentsignificantlymodifiesgrowthtargetsorscoringbandsforsuchtestsor
assessmentsorotherwiseadaptsthetestorassessmenttothestateeducation
department'srequirements.
51

StatutoryLanguage:OverallRating
StatutoryLanguage

Section3012d(5)(a)states:
Thefollowingrulesshallapply:ateacherorprincipalwhois
(1)ratedusingtwosubcomponentsinthestudentperformancecategoryand
receivesaratingofineffectiveinsuchcategoryshallberatedineffectiveoverall;
provided,however,thatifthemeasureusedinthesecondsubcomponentisastate
providedgrowthscoreonastatecreatedoradministeredtestpursuanttoclause(A)
ofsubparagraphoneofparagraphaofsubdivisionfourofthissection,ateacheror
principalwhoreceivesaratingofineffectiveinsuchcategoryshallnotbeeligibleto
receivearatingofeffectiveorhighlyeffectiveoverall;
(2)ratedusingonlythestatemeasuresubcomponentinthestudentperformance
categoryandreceivesaratingofineffectiveinsuchcategoryshallnotbeeligibleto
receivearatingofeffectiveorhighlyeffectiveover all;and
(3)ratedineffectiveintheteacherobservationscategoryshallnotbeeligibleto
receivearatingofeffectiveorhighlyeffectiveoverall.
Section3012d(5)(b)liststheoverallratingcombinationsbasedonallavailablestudent
performanceandteacherobservationcategoryratings(i.e.,thematrixpresentedon
slide21)
52

StatutoryLanguage:PrincipalRegulations
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(14)states,The commissionershalladopt regulationstoalign

theprincipal evaluationsystemassetforthinsectionthreethousand
twelvecof thisarticlewiththenewteacherevaluationsystemsetforth
herein.

53

StatutoryLanguage:Continuationof3012c
StatutoryLanguage

Section3012d(15)states:
Theprovisionsofparagraphsd,k,k1,k2andlofsubdivisiontwoand
subdivisionsfour,five,fivea,nine,andtenofsectionthreethousand
twelvecofthisarticle,asamended,shallapplytothissectiontothe
extentdeterminedbythecommissioner.

54

StatutoryLanguage:WaiverProcessforAssignmentofStudents
toIneffectiveTeachers
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(8) states,Astudentmaynotbeinstructed,fortwoconsecutive
schoolyears,byanytwoteachersinthesamedistrict,eachofwhom
receivedaratingofineffectiveunderanevaluationconductedpursuant
tothissectionintheschoolyearimmediatelypriortotheschoolyear
inwhichthestudentisplacedintheteacher'sclassroom;provided,
thatifadistrictdeemsitimpracticabletocomplywiththissubdivision,
thedistrictshallseekawaiverfromthedepartmentfromsuch
requirement.

55

StatutoryLanguage:ProhibitedElements
StatutoryLanguage

3012d(6) states,Thefollowingelementsshallnolongerbeeligibleto
beusedinanyevaluationsubcomponentpursuanttothissection:
a. Evidenceofstudentdevelopmentandperformancederivedfrom
lessonplans,otherartifactsofteacherpractice,andstudent
portfolios,exceptforstudentportfoliosmeasuredbyastate
approvedrubricwherepermittedbythedepartment;
b. Useofaninstrumentforparentorstudentfeedback;
c. Useofprofessionalgoalsettingasevidenceofteacherorprincipal
effectiveness;
d. Anydistrictorregionallydevelopedassessmentthathasnotbeen
approvedbythedepartment;and
e. Anygrowthorachievementtargetthatdoesnotmeetminimum
standardssetforthinregulationsofthecommissioneradopted
hereunder.
56