APPR: RVCTA Member Clarification
To our members: This informational handout has been derived from Leo Casey’s blog and NYSUT’s website, which are linked below. For your assistance, additional reading to help clarify our recent settlement is also provided below.
Point System Used in Evaluation:
Teacher evaluations are based on a 100-point scale.
· 40 points of the evaluation are based on measures of student learning, which are divided into two distinct segments.
· 60 points of the evaluation are based on measures of teacher performance.
About the 40 points (measures of student learning):
· 20 points come from state assessments.
· If you teach ELA or Math in grades four through eight, the state assessment measure will be derived from the state’s standardized tests in those subjects.
· If you do not teach ELA or Math in grades four through eight, student learning objectives (aka SLOs) will be used as the state measure. These SLOs will be based on existing standardized tests or on local assessments that are aligned with common core standards.
o The SLOs will be important for the majority of teachers, since we have the option to eliminate standardized tests from the measure, instead opting for local assessments aligned to the common core standards.
· 20 points come from local assessments. These assessments:
· May be based on entirely different assessments of student learning, to include:
o Performance assessments that are “rigorous and comparable across classrooms”
o A new measure different from the state’s value-added growth measure, but still based on the results of the state’s standardized tests.
About the 60 points (measures of teacher performance):
· 31 of 60 points = “Supervisory Observations”
o Measures of teacher performance have to include supervisory observations of teacher lessons. These observations must account for at least 31 of the 60 points. The settlement permits unannounced observations for our members (at least one per member), but parameters for these observations will be negotiated through collective bargaining.
· 29 of 60 points = “Other Measures”
o Other measures may account for the remaining 29 points. These measures may include peer observations, portfolios, and other performance proof, such as lesson plans and student work.
Collective Bargaining Required
80 points of the 100 points in the teacher evaluation are collectively bargained with the RVCTA. This provides us with important input into teacher evaluations and allows us to develop a fair evaluation that is educationally sound and representative of our members. These 80 points represent our voice as practitioners.
Scoring Bands to be Utilized:
Scoring bands were developed by the State Education Department (SED) and could be problematic.
· If a teacher received very low scores (0 – 2) in the 40-point component (state and local assessments), this will automatically lead to an overall ineffective rating. The measures of teacher performance (60 points) will not come into play should this occur. However, keep in mind that half of the 40-point component comes from a collectively bargained authentic assessment, so this situation might possibly arise, but will definitely not be the norm. Inclusion of authentic assessments of student learning will be extremely important as part of this evaluation.
About HEDI
There are four scoring “cut points” that will be used in the 60-point segment (measures of teacher performance). They are “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing” and “Ineffective “ (HEDI). The scoring of this segment requires collective bargaining with the RVCTA. To date, a framework of teaching has not been discussed or chosen, nor has there been discussion on the weighting and scoring of measures that fall outside the realm of supervisory observations. The RVCTA will actively participate in determining which framework will be utilized and how the local assessment will be scored, but again, this conversation has not yet commenced.
Working With a Diverse Student Population
The measures of student learning (40-point segment) were not developed based on the presumption that all students will be able to meet the same academic standards in the same time frame. Accounting for students with learning challenges will be addressed. NYSUT states, “At this point, only one teacher can be identified as the “teacher of record” for purposes of computing a state-provided growth score. Special education and ELL teachers in self-contained classes would be the “teacher of record” and receive a state-provided growth score for the first 20 percent. All other teachers will need to have SLOs for the 20 percent growth. The 20 percent locally selected measure could be any of the options for the locally selected measures of student achievement. SED is in the process of developing a data system that can accommodate more than one “teacher of record.” When implemented, teachers who provide push-in or pull-out services will receive a state-provided growth score. The state-provided growth score will be adjusted for students with disabilities and ELLs. Similar adjustments should be included in local measures selected through collective bargaining.”
Additional Points
NYSUT advises, “The state-provided growth measure will capture student attendance and adjust the growth measure to account for absenteeism. The procedures for the 20 percent locally selected measures are collectively bargained, and can include attendance criteria.”
Scoring of Teacher Evaluations
| MEASURES OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE (60 of 100 points) | MEASURES OF STUDENT LEARNING (40 of 100 points) | ||
| Minimum of 31 Points | Up to 29 points | 20 Points | 20 points |
| Supervisory Observations | Other Measures such as Peer Observations and Portfolios of Artifacts of Teacher Performance | For Teachers of ELA and Math, Grades 4 through 8: Value-Added Growth from State Standardized Exams | For All Teachers: Growth on Local Assessments, such as Performance Assessments |
| AND | OR | ||
| For All Other Teachers: Growth Measures on “Student Learning Outcomes” | For Some Teachers: Different Measures of Growth from State Standardized Exams | ||
(Figure 1 – Delineation of 100 points for APPR – Leo Casey, “Setting the Record Straight on Teacher Evaluations: Scoring and the Role of Standardized Exams”)
For further information, please refer to:
NYSUT – “Setting the Record Straight” - http://learnmore.nysut.org/2012/02/24/setting-the-record-straight-new-yorks-teacher-and-principal-evaluation-law-2/ (also sent to your attention in a prior email, but will be the link to check if you have questions)
Edwize – Leo Clancy – “Setting the Record Straight on Teacher Evaluations: Scoring and the Role of Standardized Exams” - http://www.edwize.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-teacher-evaluations-scoring-and-the-role-of-standardized-exams#comments (an excellent piece worth reading)
Sherman Dorn – “Belated Thoughts on New York’s Teacher Evaluation Agreements” - http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=4586 (read through the paragraph on “relevant legislation” for more clarification)
Phi Delta Kappan, March 2012 – “Evaluating Teacher Evaluation” - http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/93/6/8.full (from Abstract: “Value-added models (VAMs), designed to evaluate student test score gains from one year to the next are often promoted as tools to accomplish this goal. However, current research suggests that VAM ratings are not sufficiently reliable or valid to support high-stakes, individual-level decisions about teachers. Other tools for teacher evaluation have shown greater success in measuring and improving teaching, especially those that examine teachers’ practices in relation to professional standards.”)
NYSUT - FAQ Page on Teacher Evaluations - http://learnmore.nysut.org/whats-really-going-on-with-teacher-evaluations-in-new-york-state/
