APPR Update

TO: WTA Members

FROM: Sam Campanelli, Sally Tripi, and Michelle Licht

DATE: October 3, 2012

RE: New appraisal process

New York State teachers, particularly members of the WTA, are the most highly trained and effective teachers in the country. Our members know that.  Central office administrators know that. Building administrators know that. Our school board members know that.  Unfortunately, the only people that do not seem to understand this are certain individuals in the New York State Education Department and in New York State government. Despite that fact that the old appraisal process was not broken, and it served our members and students well, it is now gone and we begin this school year with a new one. We are sure that you have heard what a difficult road it has been in developing this complicated new process, but we would like to assure you that we will do everything we can to assist you in navigating this new process. In this communication, we have attempted to break down the APPR process into straightforward, user-friendly terminology to help guide you through this year. As the year progresses, we will continue to communicate with you on this topic and seek meaningful feedback to ensure our members are evaluated fairly, accurately, and reliably.

A little history…

When we found out the appraisal process would be changing, the first thing we did was approach the district and ask to form a joint committee to make recommendations about the process.  We established a committee with equal representation from teachers and principals, and asked for volunteers to serve on the committee.  The senior reps looked at the list of volunteers and voted on the committee members to represent the WTA.  The teachers on the committee were Mike Harnick, Tara Fiore, Linda Cook, and Courtney Bryniarski.  (A special thanks to all these WTA representatives for their time, commitment, and professionalism while serving on this committee.) Michelle Licht and Dr. Kirsch chaired the committee. 

This committee started meeting almost two years ago and spent countless hours reviewing the State regulations, interviewing potential vendors, and arguing over what would be best for our district.  Throughout the process, the State changed the regulations almost weekly and the committee had to continually adjust.  For instance, the first rubric the committee recommended was changed by the publisher and didn’t meet the committee’s requirements anymore, so they had to start over on the rubric search.  The committee finally settled on the Silver rubric, which in the end, proved to be the most fair, realistic, and meaningful of all the rubrics reviewed by the committee. When there were areas about which the committee was unsure, other members were consulted, for example the high school English team leaders were asked to meet to offer input about how their areas would be assessed.  At several of the meetings, the instructional specialists were brought in to speak to specific subject areas.

At the end of last school year, the committee completed their work to the best of their ability.  The plan was created based on the recommendations of the committee and submitted to the State for approval.  In late August that plan was officially approved by the State.

Going forward…

Now that our plan has been approved by the State, the three of us have been meeting with the district to negotiate some of the other details that need to be included in the MOA.  An important thing to remember is that not everything is negotiable about APPR.  The regulations specifically afford us the right to negotiate certain parts of APPR, and there are other issues the district is willing to negotiate, but there are some parts over which we have no control.  What follows is an outline of the MOA as we see it coming together with clear distinctions between what can and cannot be negotiated. 

We ask all members to please take a few minutes and look through this outline and offer feedback.  Once we have heard from members, our next step will be to write the MOA and provide it to members.  We plan to have an open meeting so members can ask questions and then a district vote will be held. It is important to note that the district is completely aware that members still need to vote on it, but it made sense to see what the State said before drafting an MOA.  In fact, if we had tried to approve an MOA first, we would have now needed to vote on a third draft of it because so many changes had to be made based on the State’s feedback.

We realize that this will not be a fast process.  Most of the negotiated aspects of the new appraisal process affect how your score will be determined at the end of the school year.  This means administrators will start observations before the MOA is approved.  Administrators are always able to observe teachers, and they can use any rubric they want, so they’re not doing anything wrong by observing before we have the MOA in place.  It also means many teachers will be setting targets before we vote on an MOA.  What is important is how those targets translate to points, and that will be part of our MOA.

Another important thing to remember is that we can’t get out of adopting a new appraisal process.  APPR is now State law, just like having fire drills in the fall and spring.  We have some say in how it is implemented, but we don’t have the option of going back to the old system.  Yes, we are all stuck with the new process—and as a union we are doing our best to make it meaningful and fair to all.

Who is Included?:

All teachers.  Social workers, psychologists, speech therapists, guidance counselors, OTs, PTs, COTAs, nurses, teaching assistants, and teachers of hearing are not covered.  Those not covered under the State guidance will not experience a change in evaluation system.

Overview

Teachers under the new appraisal process will be evaluated and receive a score out of 100.  The scoring bands are set by the State and are not negotiable.  Here is the chart provided by the State:

Here is the chart with the proposed bands for teacher performance included:

Consequences

According to the State regulations, the district may choose to initiate 3020a discipline charges against any teacher who falls into the ineffective category in two consecutive years.  These charges would result in a hearing to determine whether the teacher should be disciplined or fired.  The 3020a process has not changed.  All tenured teachers are still entitled to due process.  While this provision sounds intimidating, it does not give the district any more authority to initiate 3020a charges than they had before.  Under our previous system, the district could choose to initiate 3020a charges against any teacher regardless of whether they had been in need of improvement on the appraisal process for several years, or never been in need of improvement. 

60 points—Teacher Performance

Set by the State

• Must choose one of the approved rubrics with no modifications
• Must include at least two observations, at least one unannounced
• Must convert to 60 points

Elements to be included in the MOA

• The Silver and Strong Thoughtful Classroom rubric will be used for all 60 points.
• Each of the ten rubric dimensions will be worth up to 4 points, for a total of 40 points.
• The rubric scores out of 40 points will be converted to a 60-point scale in such a way that those who average 4 points in each dimension will be assigned 60 points, those who average 3 points in each dimension will be assigned 57 points, and those who average 2 points in each dimension will be assigned 46 points. 
• Every teacher will be observed at least twice.
• One observation each year will be formal.  Formal observations will be announced in advance.  Teachers will be required to submit a pre-observation form.  Prior to the formal observation, a pre-observation conference will be held for all teachers who are untenured or on teacher improvement plans.  Pre-observation conferences with tenured teachers who are not on Teacher Improvement Plans will not be held unless request by the teacher or administrator.
• Beyond the formal observation, administrators will conduct at least one informal observation of each teacher.  It is anticipated that more than one could be needed to give teachers the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in each of the dimensions.  Teachers will also have the opportunity to provide artifacts demonstrating commitment to the various dimensions, especially those that would be difficult to observe (communication with parents, etc.).
• Within one week of any observation, the administrator will enter feedback onto the electronic form of the rubric. (If there are extenuating circumstances and the administrator is not able to enter feedback within a week, the teacher will be notified.)
• Post-observation meetings will not be held unless requested by the administrator or teacher.
• Instructional specialists will not be lead evaluators for any teachers and cannot observe unannounced.
• Instructional specialists may observe a teacher if the teacher is notified in advance.  In those cases, instructional specialists will be able to add feedback to the electronic version of the rubric.
• Except for untenured teachers or teachers on Teacher Improvement Plans, teachers will not have more than one observation per year by an instructional specialist.
• By a certain date, at least two observations will be completed and preliminary numbers will be entered in each dimension of the rubric.  These numbers will be based on all the administrator knows about the teacher.  This will give teachers a realistic view of their potential score, and allow them to invite administrators in to see lessons that would address specific dimensions as needed.  (We are still negotiating what that date will be with the district.)

20 points—Student Growth

This section is not negotiated. 

• Teachers of ELA and math grades 4 through 8 will have a score assigned by the State.  Based on last year’s test scores, 84% of teachers in this category across the State earned scores in the effective or highly effective range, 10% in the developing range, and 6% in the ineffective range.
• The State has determined that certain teachers need to have student learning objectives based on end-of-year tests.  We anticipate most teachers will get at least 13 points in this section.
• Most other teachers will be assigned a score based on the performance of students in their building on high stakes tests.  This is called a group metric.  We anticipate most teachers will get at least 13 points in this section.

20 points—Locally-selected measures of student performance

Set by the State

• Need to measure achievement
• Need to have consistent targets within a course
• Need to meet requirements for type of test (ex: teachers can’t see it before, teachers with a vested interest can’t score tests, etc.)

Elements to be included in the MOA:

• STAR will be used for K-8 teachers in ELA and math.
• Most other teachers will use a district or State assessment—many will be performance-based rather than paper/pencil.
• Targets will be set by representative teachers and the instructional specialist for courses that are taught by more than one teacher.
• Points will be assigned based on a conversion chart—20 points if 100% of your students need the target, 13 points for 80% meeting the target, 11 points for 75% of target, 3 points for 50% of target, etc.

Appeals Process

Our previous process did not have any appeals process.  The new State regulations have made an appeals process mandatory. 

Elements to be included in the MOA:

• Teachers may appeal ratings that fall in the developing or ineffective ranges.
• Appeals will be heard by panels composed of two teachers and two administrators.
• The panel will act as an impartial arbiter to determine: 1) if the appraisal process has been properly applied in the evaluation of a WTA member and 2) if a WTA member has been accurately and fairly assessed in their annual evaluation.
• The WTA president will observe the panels representing the WTA.  The Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources or the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction will observe the panels representing the district.
• If the panel is unable to reach a decision, the assistant superintendent who has observed will cast the deciding vote.

Teacher Improvement Plans

Set by the State:

• Teachers who receive a rating of developing or ineffective must be placed on a Teacher Improvement plan.
• The plan must define specific standards-based goals that a teacher must make progress toward attaining within a specific period of time, such as a 12-month period, and shall include the identification of areas that need improvement, a timeline for achieving improvement, the manner in which improvement will be assessed, and, where appropriate, differentiated activities to support improvement in these areas.

The plan should clearly describe the professional learning activities that the educator must complete. These activities should be connected directly to the areas needing improvement. The artifacts that the teacher must produce that can serve as benchmarks of improvement and as evidence for the final stage of the improvement plan should be described, and could include items such as lesson plans and supporting materials, including student work.

• The supervisor should clearly state in the plan the additional support and assistance that the educator will receive. In the final stage of the improvement plan, the teacher should meet with his or her supervisor to review the plan, alongside any artifacts and evidence from evaluations, in order to determine if adequate improvement has been made in the required areas outlined within the plan for the teacher.

Elements to be included in the MOA:

• Questions to be answered in the plan:
  
  • What dimensions or performance indicators are in need of improvement?
  • What evidence will demonstrate the improvement areas are completed?
  • What timeframes will be used?
  • Are there intermediate benchmarks that will indicate progress?
  • What directives/recommendations/requirements and/or suggestions have been given to the teacher?
  • What resources, guidance, follow-up will be provided for the teacher?

Other

Elements to be included in the MOA:

• Monthly meetings will be held between the district and the WTA to address any concerns that arise.