The New Comprehensive Teacher and Principal Evaluation Law

September 22, 2010

TimelineSchool Year Affected Teachers Student Growth Data Teacher Evaluations

Teacher evaluations conducted 2010-2011

All Classroom Teachers

Current APPR in effect (Does not include Student Growth criteria)

Based on eight criteria included in APPR in effect.

Teacher evaluations conducted on or after July 1, 2011

Classroom teachers in grades 4-8 in common branch and ELA and Mathematics

Student assessment data on state ELA and Math test administered in 2010-2011 school year will be used as the baseline for the initial computation of the composite effectiveness score.

20% based on state ELA and Math tests or comparable measures of student growth20% based on locally selected multiple measures of student performance60% based on locally developed measures of instructional practice consistent with standards prescribed in Regulations

Teacher evaluations conducted on or after July 1, 2012, and subsequent years before Regents approval of a value-added model

All Classroom Teachers

Student assessment data administered in 2011-2012 school year will be used as the baseline for the initial computation of the composite effectiveness score.

20% based on state ELA and Math tests or comparable measures of student growth20% based on locally selected multiple measures of student performance60% based on locally developed measures of instructional practice consistent with standards prescribed in Regulations

2012-2013 or subsequent years following Regents approval of a value-added model

All Classroom Teachers

Value-Added Growth Model 25% based on state ELA and Math tests or comparable measures of student growth15% based on locally selected multiple measures of student performance60% based on locally developed measures of instructional practice consistent with standards prescribed in Regulations and selected through negotiation, pursuant to the Taylor Law.

APPR

• Current categories include:– Content Knowledge– Pedagogical Practices– Instructional delivery– Classroom Management– Knowledge of student development– Use of assessment techniques/data– Effective collaborative relationships– Reflection of teaching practices

APPR Changes

• Adds Student Growth Category – The student growth category will be weighted 40%

of the final evaluation.– 20% to be based on student growth – 20% to be based on locally agreed to criteria– The weighting of the remaining eight categories

will be locally determined, total to = 100 points– 2013-2014 planned adoption of value added-

growth model.

APPR Changes

• Establishes four rating categories: – Highly effective– Effective– Developing– Ineffective– Rating to be determined by 100 point scale- scale

breakdown yet to be determined.

Value - Added Model

• Uses pre-test/post-test model to determine growth for the given timeframe

• Subtracts the typical growth shown for that timeframe

• Difference is the “Value – Added” attributable to a particular teacher

• Ex. (660 scale score on grade 3 exam – 680 on grade 4) – (10pt. average growth) = 10 pts.

Value – Added Shortcomings

• Must be alignment between pre-test and post test

Grade 4 Cohort Grade 5 Cohort Grade 6 Cohort Grade 7 Cohort Grade 8 Cohort0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

18%

9%

25%

15% 16%

9%

21%

14%

24%

14%

ELA Even Year Discrepancy

Perc

ent a

t Lev

el 4

Value – Added Shortcomings

• Horizontal scale should be more linear.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4400425450475500525550575600625650675700725750775

Performance Lvl to Scale Score Comparison

Performance Level

Scal

e Sc

ore

Sample Value – Added CalculationGrade Gender Ethnicity Economically disadvantagedLEP eligible Former LEP LEP durationNYSESLAT eligibleDisability Former SWDNYSAA eligibleStandard achieved Score

04 Male Black or African American YES Learning Disability Level 2 61904 Female Black or African American YES Speech or Language Impairment Level 1 60004 Male White Level 3 68504 Female Asian or Pacific Islander YES 5 Level 3 65604 Male White Level 3 67104 Male White Level 3 70404 Male White YES Level 3 66704 Male Black or African American YES Emotional Disturbance Level 2 62504 Male Black or African American YES Level 3 65904 Female American Indian or Alaska Native YES 4 Level 2 63104 Female White Level 3 69004 Male Black or African American YES YES Level 2 64904 Female White YES YES 1 Learning Disability Level 2 64604 Female Asian or Pacific Islander YES YES 5 Level 2 61904 Female White YES Level 3 671

Sample Value – Added Calculation

7.8Average Gain

Score 2008-2009 Growth Homeroom619 622 -3 Hmrm A600 580 20 Hmrm A685 698 -13 Hmrm A656 655 1 Hmrm A671 644 27 Hmrm A704 670 34 Hmrm A667 651 16 Hmrm A625 606 19 Hmrm A659 641 18 Hmrm A631 631 0 Hmrm A690 698 -8 Hmrm A649 641 8 Hmrm A646 #N/A 0 Hmrm A619 622 -3 Hmrm A671 670 1 Hmrm A

Sample Value – Added Calculation

7.8Average Gain

-2.8Average Gain

Teacher Average

District Average

10.6 Net Gain Value Added

Sample Value – Added Calculation

Category GrowthAll Students 7.8Male 13.3Female 1.6American Indian or Alaska Native 0.0Asian or Pacific Islander -1.0Black or African American 12.4White 8.1Low- SES 8.4Spec. Ed. 9.0

Category GrowthAll Students -2.8Male -5.7Female 0.9American Indian or Alaska Native 1.8Asian or Pacific Islander 9.2Black or African American 5.0White -7.1Low- SES 0.0Spec. Ed. -9.1

Teacher Average District Average

Category Value AddedAll Students 10.6Male 19.0Female 0.7American Indian or Alaska Native -1.8Asian or Pacific Islander -10.2Black or African American 7.4White 15.2Low- SES 8.4Spec. Ed. 18.1

Value Added

Sample Value – Added Calculation

Category GrowthAll Students 11.2Male 11.7Female 10.3American Indian or Alaska Native 0.0Asian or Pacific Islander 9.0Black or African American 16.7White 5.7Low- SES 14.4Spec. Ed. 12.6

Category GrowthAll Students -1.9Male -7.5Female 4.2American Indian or Alaska Native 1.8Asian or Pacific Islander 15.4Black or African American 8.6White -9.5Low- SES 11.4Spec. Ed. 22.3

School A School B

Building comparison for principal evaluations

Next Steps

• Negotiate the “locally selected criteria”• Triangulate assessments to yield a balanced

score• Establish weighting of remaining categories• Establish appeal process• Formalize mandatory educator improvement

plan process (cost of professional development)