Source: http://www.whufsd.com/district/district_apprslo_spotlight
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:52:39+00:00

Document:
have been included in the State-provided growth model results for their relevant teachers, principals, and schools. As a result of the waiver, in LEAs that no longer require these students to take their grade level assessment, these students are not included in the growth model.
take their grade level math assessment will remain excluded from the State-provided growth model.
For the 2014-15 school year, as the Department began the phase out of the Integrated Algebra Regents Exam, the State-provided growth model for grades 9-12 included only the Algebra I (Common Core) version of the Regents Exam in the grades 9-12 Mean Growth Percentile (MGP) measure. ELA MGPs, however, continued to include both the Regents Comprehensive Exam in English and the Regents Exam in ELA (Common Core). For students who took both versions of the ELA Regents exam in 2014-15, the higher of their two SGPs was incorporated into principals’ MGPs.
In 2015-16, the MGPs for grades 9-12 will include only versions of the Algebra I and ELA Regents Exams measuring the Common Core Learning Standards, as the Department continues to phase out the earlier assessments, and will no longer include the Regents Comprehensive Exam in English.
There are currently two different measures of student growth used in the Growth Model for principals of grades 9-12. The Mean Growth Percentile (MGP) is based on student growth on the Regents Exams in ELA (Common Core) and Algebra I (Common Core). The Comparative Growth in Regents Exams Passed (GRE) measure is based on student progress from one year to the next towards passing up to eight Regents exams. Both measures currently consider only the performance of students on Regents examinations. The Department plans to explore the possibility of expanding the model to also incorporate measures of student performance in advanced coursework aligned with college-readiness standards in order to recognize efforts to encourage student participation and success in college preparation courses.
NYSED is committed to an ongoing review of the State-provided growth model during the transition period and adopting modifications to the growth model methodology as appropriate. After three years of implementation of the State-provided growth model, based on the “similar student” characteristics first approved by the Board of Regents for inclusion in the 2012-13 school year, NYSED is exploring the adoption of State-provided growth results based on three years of data.
Research indicates that stability in growth results are greatly increased when growth models incorporate two or more years of data. NYSED is working with its vendor to develop processes to evaluate the feasibility of including up to three years of student results in State-provided growth scores.
More information about the potential move to multi-year growth scores will be communicated as it becomes available, and information regarding the student growth model will be updated as applicable to provide details on the computation of multi-year growth scores.
How often and for how long are the observations?
The law also requires the Commissioner to establish the frequency and duration of observations in regulations. The regulations allow the frequency and duration of observations to be established locally.
How will rubric subcomponents be selected and addressed across observations?
Must my district/BOCES continue to develop back-up SLOs for teachers of grades 4-8 ELA and math and principals of buildings which include these grade levels in the event that they do not, for any reason, receive a State-provided growth score?
For the 2015-16 school year, districts/BOCES implementing APPR plans consistent with the requirements of Education Law §3012-d should have already developed back-up SLOs for these educators, and these measures should continue to be used for purposes of calculating original scores and ratings where needed.
During the remainder of the transition period (i.e., the 2016-17 through 2018-19 school years), in order to minimize the burden on districts and BOCES, the Department is suspending the requirement that back-up SLOs be developed for teachers of grades 4-8 ELA and math and principals of buildings which include these grade levels.
Please note that high school principals of buildings which include all of grades 9-12 whose backup SLOs are based on Regents assessments shall continue to use those back-up SLOs for the purposes of calculating both original and transition scores and ratings during the entirety of the transition period.
As a reminder, in instances where excluding the results of the grades 3-8 ELA and math State assessments results and any State-provided growth scores results in no student performance measure for a teacher or principal in the Student Performance Category, districts/BOCES must develop an alternate SLO using assessments approved by the Department that are not the grades 3-8 ELA and math State assessments.
What are some examples of how the transition score and rating will be calculated for teachers and principals under §3012-c?
Ms. Williams is a principal of a K-5 building with a sufficient number of student scores to receive a State-provided growth score. For the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent, the results of the State-provided growth score (a score of 15 out of 20), because it is based on the grades 4 and 5 ELA and math State assessments, will be excluded from the evaluation during the transition period. Since at least 30% of the student population is covered by State-provided growth measures, there are no remaining measures to be used for this 11 subcomponent of her evaluation, and her school district must exclude this subcomponent when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating.
For the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent, the district’s approved APPR plan uses a student achievement measure based on a BOCES-developed assessment for ELA and math. Because this measure is not based on a grades 3-8 ELA or math State assessment, this measure must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Based on the processes outlined in the district’s approved APPR plan, Ms. Williams earns 14 out of 20 points for this portion of her evaluation.
For the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent, the district will assign points based on at least two school visits pursuant to a State-approved principal practice rubric. Because this subcomponent does not rely on assessments, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating.
Ms. Williams earns 55 out of 60 points. Ms. Williams earned 14 out of 20 points for the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent and 55 out of 60 points for the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent for a total of 69 out of 80 available points. In order to scale up these results to provide the overall composite transition score and rating, the district determines that Ms. Williams earned 86% of available points. Accordingly, her overall composite transition score is an 86 (100 points x 86%). Using the overall composite scoring bands required by Education Law §3012-c, Mrs. Smith receives an overall composite transition rating of Effective. Further, since districts/BOCES are still required to provide the original composite score and rating (for advisory purposes), Mrs. Smith’s original score is 84 (15 + 14 + 55), which is a rating of Effective.
Mrs. Johnson is an art teacher in a K-5 building. For the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent, the district’s approved APPR plan indicates that teachers of all K-5 non-tested grades and subjects will have their measure based on a school-wide SLO utilizing the results of the grades 3-5 ELA and math State assessments (a score of 12 out of 20). Because this SLO is based entirely on grades 3-8 ELA or math State assessments, the district must exclude it 10 when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Since Mrs. Johnson does not teach any other courses, there are no remaining measures to be used for this subcomponent of her evaluation, and her school district must exclude this subcomponent when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating.
For the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent, the district’s approved APPR plan utilizes a school-wide achievement measure for all teachers based on proficiency rates on the grades 3-5 ELA and math State assessments (a score of 14 out of 20). As in the State Growth subcomponent, this measure must be excluded when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Since Mrs. Johnson does not teach any other courses, there are no remaining measures to be used for this subcomponent of her evaluation, and her district must exclude this subcomponent when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating.
For the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent, the district will assign points based on observations and a structured review of artifacts pursuant to a State-approved practice rubric. Because this subcomponent does not rely on assessments, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Mrs. Johnson earns 56 out of 60 points.
Mrs. Johnson earned 56 out of 60 points for the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent for a total of 56 out of 60 available points. In order to scale up these results to provide the overall composite transition score and rating, the district determines that Mrs. Johnson earned 93% of available points. Accordingly, her overall composite transition score is a 93 (100 points x 93%). Using the overall composite scoring bands required by Education Law §3012-c, Mrs. Johnson receives an overall composite transition rating of Highly Effective. Further, since districts/BOCES are still required to provide the original composite score and rating (for advisory purposes), Mrs. Johnson’s original score is 82 (12 + 14 + 56), which is a rating of Effective.
Mr. Jones teaches 3 sections of Living Environment culminating in the Regents assessment with a total student population of 75 (25 students per course section). He also teaches a single section 9 of a science elective culminating in a local assessment with student population of 25. Because Mr. Jones’ Living Environment course is his largest course and covers more than 50% of his entire student population, he must write an SLO for this course and is not required to have any additional measures in the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent. Because the SLO for the Living Environment course utilizes the Regents assessment as the underlying evidence, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Mr. Jones earns 17 out of 20 points.
For the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent, the district’s approved APPR plan utilizes an achievement measure also based on the Living Environment Regents assessment. Because this measure utilizes the Regents assessment and it is not a State-provided growth score, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Mr. Jones earns 15 out of 20 points.
For the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent, the district will assign points based on observations and a structured review of artifacts pursuant to a State-approved practice rubric. Because this subcomponent does not rely on assessments, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Mr. Jones earns 56 out of 60 points.
Mr. Jones earned 17 out of 20 points for the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent, 15 out of 20 points for the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent, and 56 out of 60 points for the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent for a total of 88 out of 100 available points. Accordingly, his overall composite transition score is an 88. Using the overall composite scoring bands required by Education Law §3012-c, Mr. Jones receives an overall composite transition rating of Effective. Please note that this is the same score and rating as he will receive pursuant to the approved APPR plan (i.e., his original score and rating) as student achievement measures based on Regents assessments (that are not State-provided growth scores) are not excluded from transition score and rating calculations.
Mrs. Smith is a common branch grade 4 teacher with a sufficient number of student scores to receive a State-provided growth score and she does not teach any other courses. For the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent, the results of the State-provided growth score (a score of 17 out of 20), because it is based on the grade 4 ELA and math State assessments, will be excluded from the evaluation during the transition period. Since Mrs. Smith does not teach any other courses, there are no remaining measures to be used for this subcomponent of her evaluation, and her school district must exclude this subcomponent when calculating the overall composite transition score and rating.
For the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent, the district’s approved APPR plan uses a student achievement measure based on a State-approved third-party assessment for ELA and math. Because this measure is not based on a grades 3-8 ELA or math State assessment, this measure must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Based on the processes outlined in the district’s approved APPR plan, Mrs. Smith earns 16 out of 20 points for this portion of her evaluation.
For the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent, the district will assign points based on observations and a structured review of artifacts pursuant to a State-approved practice rubric. Because this subcomponent does not rely on assessments, it must continue to be used in its entirety for the purposes of calculating the overall composite transition score and rating. Mrs. Smith earns 56 out of 60 points.
Mrs. Smith earned 16 out of 20 points for the Locally Selected Measures subcomponent and 56 out of 60 points for the Other Measures of Effectiveness subcomponent for a total of 72 out of 80 available points. In order to scale up these results to provide the overall composite transition score and rating, the district determines that Mrs. Smith earned 90% of available points. Accordingly, her overall composite transition score is a 90 (100 points x 90%). Using the overall composite scoring bands required by Education Law §3012-c, Mrs. Smith receives an overall composite transition rating of Effective. Further, since districts/BOCES are still required to provide the original composite score and rating (for advisory purposes), Mrs. Smith’s original score is 89 (17 + 16 + 56), which is a rating of Effective.
Who is covered under APPR?
B3. Which teachers and other school personnel are considered “classroom teachers” under the regulations?
The regulations require that all classroom teachers be evaluated. The regulations define classroom teacher as a teacher in the classroom teaching service as defined in §80-1.1 of the Commissioner’s regulations, who is a teacher of record as defined in section 30-3.2 of the Rules of the Board of Regents, except evening school teachers of adults enrolled in nonacademic, vocational subjects and supplemental school personnel as defined in section 80-5.6 of the Commissioner’s regulations.
Pre-kindergarten Teachers Pre-kindergarten teachers are not subject to the new evaluation system.
Section 80-1.1 of the Commissioner’s regulations specifically excludes pupil personnel services from the definition of classroom teaching services. Therefore, school psychologists and school social workers who are pupil personnel service providers are not covered by the law.
Section 30-3.2(c) of the Commissioner’s regulations also excludes supplemental school personnel (e.g., teacher aides and teaching assistants) and the definitions in sections 30-3.2 and 80-1.1 also serve to exclude teachers of adult, community, and continuing education from the definition of classroom teaching service. This has the effect of further excluding teachers of GED courses, regardless of the age of the students taking the course.
A teacher performing instructional support services for more than 40% of his/her time will also not be included in the definition of classroom teacher for purposes of compliance with Education Law §3012-d unless he/she is also serving as a teacher in the classroom teaching service for 40% or more of his/her time and is a teacher of record.
School librarians and career and technical teachers are teachers in the classroom teaching service and are, therefore, subject to the new law if they are teachers of record.
Speech teachers, who are teachers of record, and are certified under §80-3.9 of the Commissioner's regulations or as a teacher of the speech and hearing handicapped or a teacher of speech and language disabilities and who provide instructional services are certified teachers within the classroom teaching service as defined in §80-1.1 of the Commissioner's regulations. Therefore, they are considered classroom teachers pursuant to Education Law §3012-d and the implementing regulations.
A licensed speech language pathologist under Title VIII of the Education Law that is not a certified teacher under the Commissioner’s regulations and does not provide instructional services is not considered a classroom teacher.
Itinerant teachers who are considered teachers of record at the BOCES for students in multiple schools must be evaluated pursuant to Education Law §3012-d. Substitute Teachers Substitutes, long-term or otherwise, are not covered by §3012-d unless they are also a teacher in the classroom teaching service and are serving as the teacher of record.
Part-time teachers, who are teachers in the classroom teaching service for 40% or more of a full-time position (4/10 position), and who are teachers of record, are subject to the evaluation system. This does not require that the teacher be a full time employee with the district.
B7. Will special education teachers who co-teach be subject to evaluation?
B8. Are “push-in” and “pull-out” teachers subject to evaluation?
“Push-in” and “pull-out” teachers who are not the sole teacher primarily responsible for the learning of a group of students, including Academic Intervention Services (AIS) specialists, are subject to the evaluation system in 2012-13 and each school year thereafter (even if they teach ELA or math to students in grades 4-8).
NYSED and districts have developed the capability in their data systems to track multiple teachers of record for students and to associate a share of instructional time or “dosage” to the push-in or pull-out teachers. NYSED will work with our provider to determine when and how these data can be incorporated into evaluations for teachers and principals. Until then, AIS teachers will have SLOs for the required subcomponent of the Student Performance Category (see Section D for further information on the use of SLOs).
D52. In 2012-13 and beyond, what do we do about teachers who have a class of students that is close to the minimum “n” size needed for NYSED to calculate a State provided growth score and who may lose enough students over the course of the school year to require that they use SLOs?
D99. Due to unforeseen circumstances, our district/BOCES has a number of teachers who will not receive a State-provided growth score as expected. What should we do?
Education Law §3012-c requires all teachers and principals in a district/BOCES who are subject to APPR to have a complete evaluation each school year. State aid increases are linked to the Commissioner’s approval of documentation that a school district has fully implemented the standards and procedures for conducting APPRs in accordance with Education Law §3012-c and Subpart 30-2 of the Rules of the Board of Regents by September 1 (see Sections C31 and 32 of APPR Guidance). Pursuant to Education Law §3012-c, a complete evaluation includes a score and rating for the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures, Locally Selected Measures, and Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness subcomponents, as well as an Overall Composite score and rating. The Department’s longstanding guidance to districts/BOCES for teachers and principals of grades 4-8 ELA and math with close to the minimum “n” size of student growth scores needed to generate a State-provided growth score has been to set back-up SLOs for the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent, in case there are not enough students, not enough scores or are unforeseen issues with the data to generate a State-provided growth score (see Section D52 of APPR Guidance).
If your district did not suspect that a back-up SLO would be needed and due to unforeseen circumstances, your district/BOCES has teachers or principals who will fall below the minimum threshold of 16 SGP scores in that grade/subject, district/BOCES leaders must determine the processes that will be used to set SLOs (e.g., short-term SLOs, back-up SLOs) to ensure that all educators are evaluated. As a reminder, pursuant to Education Law §3012-c, all teachers and principals subject to evaluation must have a complete APPR each school year. Therefore, district/BOCES leaders must put back-up SLOs in place for all educators who you anticipate may not receive a State-provided growth score, even if this occurs later in the school year.
Many educators set short-term SLOs for a variety of reasons – maternity leave, high levels of mobility, low threshold of student scores on State assessments, etc. The Department recommends that all districts/BOCES consult with their local counsel regarding the implementation of back-up SLOs for APPR purposes. You may also wish to review Sections D12, D19, D24, D52, E10, and M31 of APPR Guidance, as well as the “Alternative Target Setting Models within SLOs” webinar for guidance on SLOs based on small class sizes.
What is the “minimum expected growth” in SLOs?
SLO targets must reflect a minimum growth target of one year’s expected growth for every student, which may vary based upon a student’s academic preparedness (i.e., prior achievement) and learning needs. Such targets may take the following characteristics into account: poverty, students with disabilities, English language learners, and prior academic history. Targets should be set in such a way as to encourage accelerated gains and close achievement gaps.
Educators should look to standards and course curricula to determine what knowledge and skills students are expected to gain over the interval of instruction. The minimum rigor target for all students should reflect one year’s expected growth. To aid in this process, all assessments submitted for approval through the Department’s RFQ process, for use within SLOs, must be able to measure one year of expected growth.
Figure 4 illustrates questions educators need to ask themselves as they work to set targets that will ensure that all students are growing academically each year.
How might a district/BOCES differentiate targets while maintaining the rigor of a year’s worth of expected growth for students who enter significantly below or significantly above grade-level expectations?
Students begin a course with varying levels of preparedness so educators must determine what a year’s worth of grade-level growth will look like for students who enter significantly below or significantly above grade-level expectations.
• continuously challenge students to grow and deepen their understanding.
Rigorous but achievable growth targets accompanied by appropriate accommodations, supports, and intensity of instruction can help to ensure all students are successful in making the expected minimum year’s worth of growth.
What is the purpose of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)?
The development of SLOs encourages educators to focus and align instruction with district, BOCES, and school priorities, goals, and academic improvement plans. Setting long-term goals allows educators to plan backwards from a vision of student success. Research indicates that setting rigorous and ambitious learning goals, combined with the purposeful use of data through both formal and informal assessments, leads to higher academic performance by students.
Many educators set academic goals for students on a regular basis as part of the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) process and see it as an integral part of their practice. For some educators, setting and evaluating SLOs was a shift in practice and required new types of learning, collaboration, and use of data. Ultimately, the result of this shift in practice has led to more purposeful instruction, closer monitoring of student progress, and greater student growth.
Teachers and administrators value SLOs as evidence of educator impact on student performance in all grades and subject areas. New York State’s SLO process is tailored to the specific requirements of our teacher and principal evaluation system. We expect this approach will have significant instructional benefit by encouraging educators to be systematic and strategic in their instructional decisions, and lead to improved educator and student performance. Done thoughtfully, the SLO process will lead to an increase in the quality of discussions happening in districts/BOCES, schools, and classrooms that focus on student growth and learning, clearer indications of when and how to adjust instruction to meet students’ needs, and more targeted professional development efforts.
What are Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)?
A Student Learning Objective, or SLO, is an academic goal set for an educator’s students at the start of a course. It represents the most important learning that is aligned to Common Core, national, or state standards, as well as any other school and district/BOCES priorities. The goals must be specific and measurable, based on available prior student learning data. This baseline data may come from a variety of sources including pre-tests/pre-assessments and a student’s prior academic history.
Educators’ scores are based upon the degree to which the goals were attained, as evidenced by student academic performance at the end of the course. All assessments used with SLOs must be State-developed or approved by the Department pursuant to the RFQ for State-Designed Supplemental Assessments and Corresponding Growth Models and/or Assessment for Use with SLOs to be Used by New York State School Districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational 8 Services (BOCES) in Teacher and Principal Evaluations (found here: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/compcontracts/compcontracts.html).
Who is required to have an SLO?
All educators must be evaluated, in part, based on student growth on State assessments or other student growth measures when State assessments are not utilized. Generally, teachers and principals responsible for grades 4-8 ELA and/or math and high school principals (in buildings that include all of grades 9-12) will receive a State-provided growth score based on State assessments; however, these teachers and principals are also required to have back-up SLOs in case the Department is unable to calculate a State-provided growth score because there are not enough students, not enough scores, or unforeseen issues with the data submitted to generate a State-provided growth score. For the majority of educators (~80%), including those who don’t meet the minimum requirements for a State-provided growth score, students’ academic growth is captured using SLOs.
Please see attachment "5 facts about SLOs"
Please see attachments "SLO 1 - SLO 4"
Please see attachment "Obs and Eval"
We have designed and will continue to refine the observation schedule as needed. The current schedule "covers" us in terms of outside evaluators.
Please see attachment "Tenure 3012d"
Did you know the NYSED has made changes to the way teachers will be evaluated? Please read below for more information regarding student growth score and teacher observation models.
• For teachers whose courses end in a State created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model and at least 50% of a teacher’s students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such teachers shall have a State-provided growth score based on such model.
• For teachers whose course does not end in a State created or administered test or where less than 50% of the teacher’s students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such teachers shall have a Student Learning Objective (“SLO”) consistent with a goal setting process determined or developed by the Commissioner that results in a student growth score; provided that for any teacher whose course ends in a State created or administered assessment for which there is no State-provided growth model, such assessment must be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO.
A growth score based on a state designed supplemental assessment calculated using a State provided or approved growth model.
If a district does not locally select to use the optional second student growth subcomponent, then the mandatory subcomponent shall be weighted at 100%.
If the optional second student growth subcomponent is selected, then the weightings shall be established locally, provided that the mandatory student growth subcomponent shall be weighted at a minimum of 50% and the optional student growth subcomponent shall be weighted no more than 50%.
a second observation that shall be conducted by one or more impartial independent trained evaluator(s) selected and trained by the district. An independent trained evaluator may be employed within the district, but may not be assigned to the same school building as the teacher being evaluated.
One of the mandatory observations must be unannounced.
classroom observations conducted by a trained peer teacher rated Effective or Highly Effective on his or her overall rating in the prior school year from the same school or from another school in the district.
This section also requires all observations to be conducted using a teacher practice rubric approved by the commissioner pursuant to a Request for Qualification (“RFQ”) process, unless the district has an approved variance from the Commissioner and prescribes parameters for the observations category.
observations conducted by a principal or other trained administrator shall be weighted at a minimum of 80%.
observations conducted by independent impartial observers shall be weighted at a minimum of 10% .
if a district selects to use the optional third observation subcomponent, then the weighting assigned to the optional observations conducted by peers shall be established locally within the constraints outlined above.
Current APPR regulation 3012-c to be replaced by 3012-d.
Did you know that the NYSED and the Board of Regents has adopted a new APPR plan (3012-d)? We are currently in negotiations with all interested parties in creating a new plan. The latest a new plan can be in place would be in the 2016-2017 school. The intent of the plan is for it to be in place this school year.

References: §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §80
 §3012
 §80
 §80
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012
 §3012