APPR Comments

APPR:

Annual Professional Performance Review or

Ability to Publicly Persecute Recklessly?

APPR still lacks clear definition, as evidenced by the changes that have been made by the State since its onset.  For example, as discussed at Wednesday’s RVCTA Question and Answer session, on August 13, our administration received another guidance update on APPR.

The RVCTA Cabinet believes that an annual evaluation should not be developed so that it brings fear to our educators.  We have worked on our 80% of the APPR (20% local measures, 60% other measures) with our members in mind.  These efforts, and all efforts on behalf of our members in negotiating, represented a team approach for all instructional levels.   We have had many discussions internally within the cabinet, as well as with NYSUT local and statewide representatives, brothers and sisters from neighboring districts, and, of course, Central Administration.   We have actively trained (individually and with the entire Executive Council) to understand what would be best for our membership.  Conversations with administration were clear that the proposed document that you will vote on this week is a “living document,” one that will be in effect for 2012-2013 school year, to be modified and adjusted once again in the spring.  This proposed document was created with you in mind, based on survey results, APPR roundtable discussions, Executive Council meeting conversations and small group talks at prearranged off-campus locations.  We relied on you for input and feel that the proposed document reflects a fairly negotiated concept to be used in the evaluation of our educators over the course of the 2012-2013 school year, given guidelines provided by the State. 

It has been said that the implementation of APPR is a vehicle that will help in eliminating tenured teachers and breaking tenure.  Is this an attempt to circumvent tenure?  While we are sure that we will hear this stated, NYSUT says:

“Once granted tenure, a teacher/TA is guaranteed a system of due process, but is not guaranteed a job for life. The tenure law protects teachers/TAs from arbitrary or capricious dismissal. For example, it prevents a school district from firing a competent teacher/TA so that it can hire someone else who may have better personal or political connections.”

For facts about tenure, please visit our website or head over to NYSUT’s new member guide, found at http://nysut.org/newmember/survival_tenure.html . 

Under our APPR plan, a teacher who has received a Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) two years in a row will rely on the Superintendent of Schools for a final decision on his/her retention.  If the Superintendent ultimately determines that the member should not be retained, that member is still entitled to due process in a separate 3020A hearing. 

Will APPR fail on the statewide level?  Time will tell.  In the meantime, know that our plan has been created with you in mind, and was clearly supported through Tuesday’s unanimous “Yes” vote from our Executive Council.

On Wednesday, September 12, you will vote in the morning from your home school.  Please make sure that you vote, since an abstention will count as a “no” vote.  We want everyone to vote, despite inclusion in APPR or lack thereof.  To vote in any other manner would differentiate between our members and be contrary to your union leaders’ goals for our membership.

In unity,

RVCTA Cabinet

Viri Pettersen              Chris D’Ambrosio                 Joanne Wojdylo                     Chris Figaro

Michael Maschio                   Lena Cobia                 Lesli Deninno             Jenn Cino

Pondering Problem with Principals' Letter

The First Amendment to the US Constitution addresses our right to freedom of speech. As such, I was happy to see a letter generated by a colleague, South Side High School Principal Carol Burris, on the topic of Principal and Teacher Evaluation (APPR). Carol and Sean Feeney’s letter outlined reasons against the APPR guidelines, and I, as a child of the sixties, found myself swept up in their fervor.

Eventually, I committed my hands to the keyboard and signed the letter. I made sure to include a comment specific to our profession, adding that teachers would not comport themselves unethically in order to acquire a favorable evaluation. A moment later, my name and comment flew into cyberspace, and was listed in the Principals’ Letter database.

In the fall of 2011, discussions on the letter increased in frequency, in school, in meetings, and with friends and colleagues. I never returned to glance at the signatories because I wasn’t particularly interested. I read about Principal Burris and her strong opposition to the newly termed “Teacher Evaluation,” periodically eyeing her posts in The Washington Post and on other forms of media. Emails came sporadically under Sean Feeney’s name, with content frequently urging readers to push others to sign while simultaneously providing numbers of participants. My concern grew on where this particular “train” was headed and where it would ultimately stop.

Slowly, slowly the APPR was rebranded into “Teacher Evaluations.” In our district, Principal Burris told her staff of the mistakes made by NYSUT with regard to the evaluation system.  Members grew increasingly anxious with each update.  Principals in other buildings within our district simultaneously spread her word in order to garner support of the letter. Newsday got into the act. Washington Post’s The Answer Sheet became the primary forum for vocalization.

Our unit had no need to address APPR when this swirling tornado loomed overhead; rather our principal goal was to determine the impact of the New York State 2% tax cap on our members. But, like an annoying hangnail, the Principal’s Letter continued to crop up. During an executive council meeting, a middle school building representative announced that her principal told her that her union president had signed the letter, so why didn’t she? Annoyed, I responded that I had indeed signed the letter, with a comment. Had my added comment been mentioned in their conversation? No, it had not.

I then wrote to Sean Feeney, inquiring about the status of the comments posted with the signatures. On January 25, he replied, “That is a good point, Viri. Before we went to Albany last month, we prepared a document containing many of the comments. We should expand on this document and post it to the web site. Given that we told folks that only their name, title and location would be made public, we need to make sure that the comments are not readily identifiable. They are worth sharing, however.” A sufficient response? Admittedly yes, since it was their letter, but not one that made me pleased. A visit to their website yielded a handful of responses, all adamant in their support for the letter. My comment was absent. 

The push to attend the principals’ February 15 forum at LIU’s Tilles Center was inspiring, particularly when members were offered the opportunity to use the event as part of their professional development hour requirements.  The PD decision was certainly an administrative call, but I do wish that a similar offer were proffered when a rally to save public education was hosted at nearby Hofstra University last spring.

On February 16, Carol Burris sent the following email to LIU forum panelists and South Side High School teachers: “They settled. Cuomo got his 40%. The commissioner got the authority to say that the local plan is not rigorous enough. If I were a NYSUT member, I would not be pleased.” 

As a proud NYSUT member, I knew that we would be hearing from our leadership shortly with the facts that made the settlement a good one. 

Later that day she wrote, “I am totally perplexed by NYSUTs [SIC] praise for this agreement.  Know that I will continue to do all that I can and then some, and I am sure that I am speaking for Sean and others.  They would like nothing more than'to turn the page'. Last night Regent Tilles conveyed a personal message from John King to me. It was "tell Carol to take the 10% of her energy that she is putting into opposing APPR and now put it into promoting the rest of the reform agenda". Really? Well you all know me well enough to know that means  I 'double down' :)”   Seeing the principal’s relentless responses and use of catch-phrases such as “double-down” yielded a passion to make a point, but simultaneously created a frightened and anxious atmosphere within our educational community.

More emails poured out courtesy of Principal Burris, highly critical of NYSUT, as indicated in this letter, sent on February 19: “Dear colleagues, Sorry to intrude on vacation. The new principal and teacher eval system that our dear friends at NYSUT and SED negotiated is by far the worst ever. King gets to approve and overrule our plans, we do not do evals till Sept when we have the scores, and the point system for the categories is awful. You can be effective, effective and effective in all three and be ineffective overall. I write about it here…If you are one of the few on Long Island who have not signed on, please do so.

thanks and enjoy the vacation,

Carol”

The spin grew steadily, through a well-implemented approach. But, where was the tone of the original letter, to rally support through educators…calm, rational, generally non-confrontational educators? What had become of the group’s initial intent? Was it to show voice on a common concern or had it morphed into a new battle cry, with teachers’ lives at stake? And where, oh where was mention of the principals’ evaluative component?

Leo Casey, a UFT Vice President, cited data and provided sound explanations on the topic in his February 22, 2012 blog, “Setting the Record Straight on Teacher Evaluations: Scoring and the Role of Standardized Exams,” found on EdWize (http://www.edwize.org/setting-the-record-straight-on-teacher-evaluations-scoring-and-the-role-of-standardized-exams). Principal Burris tried to hijack questions of blog posters and respond with her spin. Casey, more than once, responded appropriately, accurately and professionally on APPR. 

What had been a point of reference in the summer now became a vehicle for ego and anti-union sentiment.

Ultimately, I admitted my mistake in originally registering with the Principals’ Letter database.  I wrote to Sean Feeney, requesting removal from the signature roster. What could have been an attempt to cooperatively work with educators of all levels had evolved into a mess that could well hurt our teachers. 

Consider my story. If you find that you, too, have fallen victim and question the purpose of this misleading and potentially damaging product, request removal as a signer, too.

RVCTA Clarifies Teacher Evaluation Concepts for Members

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/ 

Tax Cap - History Repeats Itself

We know that the imposition of a tax cap will be detrimental to our educational community.  However, if asked, would you be able to explain what may happen because of the tax cap legislation, and cite it with proven fact?  Please take a few minutes out of your day to view this video, provided with you in mind, to learn from history.  Watch “Tax Cap: History Repeats Itself” and see what happened when a tax cap was implemented in California.  Head to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0B7-csl4CM to see for yourself. 

Pensions - Providing Security in Retirement

 

As public employees, we are provided with a pension to support us in retirement years.  As members of NYSUT, all of us in Tiers 1 through 5 have contributed toward our retirement.  It is something on which we all rely.

Governor Cuomo is already campaigning for a Tier 6.  The primary component of this plan centers on the establishment of a 401(k)-like option.  If implemented, this plan could jeopardize the pension system as a whole. 

According to NYSUT Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta, “Contrary to the rhetoric, New York State’s public pensions help strengthen the state’s economy, create jobs and cost less to run than 401(k)-type plans.”   New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli backs Mr. Pallotta’s statement and has warned that this proposal could negatively impact our workforce and the pensions of retired public employees.  This proposal could lead to the erosion of the retirement system’s stability, as more new employees invest in the 401(k)-like option and less money goes into the retirement system.

At a National Public Pension Coalition meeting, Mr. DiNapoli stated, “The solution to dismantle the current defined benefit plans long term is not a solution; in fact [it] could create more challenges and costs down the road.” 

New York has one of the strongest public pension systems in the country, according to the Pew Center on the States and Governing magazine.  While the media has publicized increases, the facts are that employer contributions have been in the single digits since 1989, with six years of payments at less than 1.5 percent.  Most contributions actually come from investment income.  NYSUT United states that “90 cents of every pension dollar paid out through TRS came from investment income…Over the past 20 years, 83 cents of every dollar in benefits paid to New York retirees have come from investment returns, not employee or employer contributions.”

Tier 5’s implementation will reflect an overall savings of $35 billion over 30 years, since state and local workers will be contributing more to the retirement system.

Pensions are a vehicle to provide retirement security for public employees.  All workers – those in public and private sectors – are entitled to security in retirement.

- From NYSUT United, February, 2012

Tax Cap Facts

The Tax Cap is reality.  

With a May 15, 2012 budget vote rapidly approaching, this video was disseminated to our members earlier this month, providing insight into the facts surrounding the New York State tax cap. 

Take a moment to view it by heading over to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO2lb6snsIQ&feature=ema

What do we need?  We need you informed.  We need you vocal.  We need you voting!

Education is worth the investment.

Harvard Study Gauges Teacher Impact on Students

A recent Harvard study cited a direct correlation between a teacher’s success in the classroom to a student’s success in later life.  The study indicated that students who have “good” teachers would later earn better salaries.

When covered on January 6, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june12/teachers_01-06.html#transcript, PBS’ summary stated, “Replacing a bad teacher with an average or a good one has measurable economic benefits such as boosting a student's lifetime earnings by hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a new study done in part by Harvard University economist Raj Chetty. Ray Suarez and Chetty discuss the study's findings.” 

I have not researched the study in full as yet, but must say that PBS commentator Ray Suarez’ conversation with Harvard professor Raj Chetty supplied one and all with a prime example of using media as a vehicle for dissemination of misinformation.   Suarez does ask the correct question when he broaches the numerous variables involved in calculating success, but Chetty, ever-confident, comfortably falls back on his statistics and provides what he considers a relevant response, using a fourth grade teacher scenario.   He ignores influential components such as classroom chemistry, student participation, and family dynamics for a particular year. Any of these factors are integral and, depending on school size, may weight the nebulous term of class success or failure for a number of years.  He fails to take into account administrative influences and pressure from principals, again, impacting a student’s success.  These factors transcend well beyond a teacher’s influence.

Chetty states that value added payments for teacher success is a good move for students.   His comment, “So, for example, a teacher who is in the top 5 percent, an excellent teacher, we calculate generates about $250,000 or more of additional earnings for their students over their lives in a single classroom of about 28 students.”  While that $250,000 has great impact to the listening audience, it actually equates to an additional $8,929 per student, based on his example of 28 students, over the course of the student’s lifetime, which in turn equals $255 more per year over that lifetime, assuming 35 years of work.   His sweeping statement effectively negates such fulfilling, yet, from his mind’s eye, unprofitable professions as social work, education, legal aid or art history.  Furthermore, PBS’ summary referred to “boosting a student’s lifetime earnings by hundreds of thousands of dollars.”  I see roughly $9,000, even if the survey were valid.

When asked by Suarez, Chetty says that it could also be concluded from the study that it ought to be easier to fire ineffective teachers.  Absent the obvious subjectivity in Chetty’s response, I question whether the overall tone of the study skewed the results.  Furthermore, the comment came from someone who is promoting his survey, which should make for great play in news.  Randi Weingarten was unable to attend because she was “stuck in traffic.” Her attendance would have made for a fair debate.  Mr. Suarez should not have positioned the question in manner he selected.  But again, it does make for great news, no?

Professor Chetty throws his parting salvo by making an incongruous comparison between teaching and baseball.  “I think -- you know, let me make an analogy here. Suppose you are managing a baseball team, say, the Boston Red Sox, and you're trying to do as well as you can. You have players with different batting averages. One approach you might take is to bring the hitting coach out and try to raise the batting averages of the players you have.  But I think it also makes a lot of sense -- and this will make sense to sports fans -- that, on occasion, you might decide to let some of the players with lower batting averages go, and try to get somebody else who might do better. And so I think it makes sense to use a combination of those tools. Here, I think the stakes are even much bigger. We're talking about the future of our children, rather than winning a baseball game. So I think it does make sense to consider those policies seriously.”

The comparison was not only insulting; it showed arrogance and ignorance on Chetty’s part.  To be so insensitive as to compare the devotion of teaching, impacting each and every member of our society, to that of baseball effectively summarizes a shocking and distasteful show. 

- “New Study Gauges Teachers Impact on Students’ Lifetime Earnings.”  PBS NewsHour. PBS. 6 Jan. 2012. PBS.org. Web. Transcript. 8 Jan. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/‌newshour/‌bb/‌education/‌jan-june12/‌teachers_01-06.html#transcript>.

- ESP