Syracuse city school board presentation on teacher evaluations

7/27/2019 Syracuse city school board presentation on teacher evaluations

1/60

Su per in t en d en t Sh a r on L . Con t r er a s

Oct ob er 1 , 2 013

APPR Review and Preliminary Results2012 2013

1


2/60

APPR Background2


3/60

3

Vision

To become the most improvedurban school district in

America

SCSD Strategic Plan 2012-2017


4/60

Great Expectations and the NYS Regents reform agendaboth include a focus on teacher and leader effectiveness.

4

Strategic Plan Goal 2:Recruit, develop, support andretain effective teachers and

school leaders.

Strategic Plan Goal 4:Build a district culture on highexpectations, respect and co-accountability for performance

that recognizes and rewardsexcellence at all levels of theorganization.


5/60

Also, the Board of Education recognizes the importance of greatteachers and leaders in its Core Beliefs and Commitments.

5

Two of our Core Beliefs and Commitments:

We believe that teachers have the greatest positive

impact on student achievement. We will recruit, develop, support, reward and retain world-classteachers.

We believe that effective leaders produce excellent

results. We will recruit, develop, retain, and reward leaders who champion

a relentless focus on high student achievement and effectivelymanage teacher talent.


6/60

After 3

INEFFECTIVE

Teachers

After 3

HIGHLYEFFECTIVE

Teachers

6

57

55

0 20 40 60 80 100

Group 2

Group 1

Average Percentile Rank

Beginning of 2nd Grade

27

76

0 20 40 60 80 100

Group 2

Group 1

Average Percentile Rank

End of 5th Grade

49

Dallas students who begin 2nd

grade at about the same level of

math achievement

may finish 5thgrade math at

dram atical ly dif ferent levels

depending o n the qual i ty of their

teachers.

We know there are big differences in outcomes of studentsbased on their teachers levels of effectiveness.


7/60

7

How did we get here?

NYS Education Law Section 3012-c

Race to Top effective teacher evaluation system is a condition

Actions of Governor Cuomo linking state aid to overall studentperformance and teacher and principal evaluation systems

Recent actions of Governor Cuomo extending previously agreed toplans until a new plan is agreed upon

Movement across the nation to strengthen teacher and principalevaluation systems

Most of the specifics of the new teacher and principalevaluation systems are dictated by New York State law.

7


8/60

We believe that teachers have the greatest positive impact onstudent achievement and principals make the difference inteacher quality.

What happens in classrooms matters far beyond the doors ofthe classroom and school.

Getting to a place where all students and schools have and keepgreat teachers and leaders is a top priority.

We know that great teachers and leaders can changeoutcomes for students.

8


9/60

The District has invested 1 of every 30 dollars in its budget toprofessional development.

We have a Director of Professional Development, a dedicatedProfessional Development Center, and new Office of TalentManagement staff focused on building teacher and leader skills.

Because we now have APPR data for teachers and principalsacross SCSD schools for the first time, we are more able thanever to plan and provide great, targeted support.

Targeted, differentiated professional development is a keylever for building great teachers and leaders.

9


10/60

We believe in data-driven decision making to ensurecontinuous improvement at all levels.

Most teachers fall in the middle this is mostly not about rockstars or bad teachers.

Put the labels aside: the details of observers feedback will help

everyone keep getting better.

The purpose of APPR is to provide ongoing, individualizedfeedback.

10


11/60

Highly effective teachers and principals can earn annualperformance Teacher Incentive Fund bonuses (nearly 10% ofaverage salary).

Those who are consistently effective can take on TIF careerpathway roles ways they can advance in their careers,especially without having to leave the classroom or school.

On the other hand, the least effective teachers and principalscan be prioritized for intensive support.

We also want to recognize, reward, retain, and leverage themost effective teachers and principals.

11


12/60

Our APPR plans were built to align with New York Staterequirements for an objective rating system.

Ratings are based on multiple measures of performance toensure that they are as accurate as possible not based juston one persons opinion oron assessment data alone.

Over time, we seek to get even better at identifying individualstrengths and growth areas while meeting all Staterequirements.

Collectively, we are constantly making evaluations even moreaccurate and helpful.

12


13/60

Boost effectiveness of allteachers through effectiveevaluation and targetedprofessional development.

Improve or exit thepersistently leasteffective teachers.

Retain andleverage themost effectiveteachers.

C

A

B

Current performance Potential performance

Effectiveness in Improving Student Achievement

Framework for Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

13

We can improve overall performance of teachers and principalsthrough three tactics, focusing mostly on PD and coaching.


14/60

Changes to NYS Education Law Section 3012-c

Teachers and principals must now be evaluated annually and using ascale of 0-100 points, assigned one of the following ratings:

Highly Effective (91-100 points)Effective (75-90 points)Developing (65-74 points)Ineffective (0-64 points)

Evaluations must include the following components: growth on stateassessments, locally selected measures of student achievement andteacher/principal observations and individual professional growthplan.

New York State law sets the parameters for the teacher andprincipal evaluation process.

14


15/60

APPR The Equation15

60%

OtherMeasures

20%Local

20%State

Growth100%


16/60

T E A C H E R E V A L U A T I O N S

APPR Requirements16


17/60

APPR for Teachers

17

60%Other

Measures

20%

Local

20%State

Growth

100%


18/60

NY State TeachingStandards: Approved Rubric

Multiple Measures(State approved options)

At least a majority (31) of the 60 pointsmust be based on multiple classroomobservations (a minimum of 2)byprincipal or other trained administrator:

- At least one must be unannounced- May be conducted using video or in-

person

Any remaining standards not addressedin classroom observation must beassessed at least once a year

1.Observation(s) by trained independentevaluators

2.Observation(s) by trained in-school peerteachers

3.Feedback from students and/or parents

using a State-approved survey tool

4.Structured review of lesson plans,student portfolios, and/or other teacherartifacts

60% Other Measures

18


19/60

Conducting Observations

Principal/trained administrator 2 observations for every teacher

o One announced, one unannounced

o Multiple days of training

o Certification

Peer Observerso Content-focused teaching experts

o Trained and certified observers

Probationary and tenured teachers opting for peer observations

o Two announced observations

Tenured teachers may opt for peer observations

o One announced observation

19


20/60

APPR for Teachers

20

60%Other

Measures

20%

Local

20%State

Growth

100%


21/60

Elementary, Middle, and K-8Teachers

High School Teachers

School-wide measures of studentgrowth based on a state-provided

MGP growth score covering allstudents

Reduce students scoring at level 1 inMath by 10 percentage points

Reduce students scoring at level 1 inELA by 10 percentage points

Increase students score at Level 3 &4 in Math by 5 percentage points

Increase students scoring Level 3 &4 in ELA by 5 percentage points

Increase 3% proficiency on theELA Regents Exam

Increase 3% proficiency on theAlgebra Regents Exam

Increase 3% proficiency on theGlobal Studies Regents Exam

Increase 3% proficiency on the USHistory Regents Exam

Increase 3% proficiency on theLiving Environments RegentsExam

Local Measures-School Growth

21


22/60

High School Local Measures

Increase Proficiency Rate by 3% on the following RegentExams (Capped at 4 points):

1. ELA

2. Algebra3. Global Studies

4. U.S History

5. Living Environment

22


23/60

High School Local Measures.

The Proficiency Rates are based on Cohort Results throughAugust from 2011-12 and 2012-13.

For each Regents Exam:

% Change in Proficiency Rate: 2012-13 Proficiency Rate 2011-12 Proficiency Rate

Points Earned= % Point increase in Proficiency Rate X 1.2

23


24/60

High School Local Measures.

The total score earned by each high school was calculatedas follows:

Total Points: Points earned by ELA + Points earned byAlgebra + Points earned by Global History+ Points earnedby U.S. History + Points earned by Living Environment

HEDI Scale

Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

Total Points 0-2 3-8 9-17 18-20

24


25/60

K-8 School Local Measures

1. Reduce the number of students scoring at level 1 inMath by 10 % Points (Capped at 2.5 points)

2. Reduce the number of students scoring at level 1 in

ELA by 10 % Points (Capped at 2.5 points)

3. Increase the number of students scoring at level 3 and4 in Math by 5 % Points (Capped at 2.5 points)

4. Increase the number of students scoring at level 3 and4 in ELA by 5 % Points (Capped at 2.5 points)

25


26/60

K-8 School Local Measures.

26


27/60


27


28/60

K-8 SchoolLocal Measures.

Based on the 2012 Cut-Scores and Matching 2013 Cut-Scorestables, the Proficiency levels from 2011-12 were converted into2012-13 proficiency levels.

Once the conversion was done, the percentage change wascalculated for ELA and MATH based on the following formulas:

% Change in Level 1: 2012-13 Percentage of Students in Level 1

2011-12 Percentage Students in Level 1

% Change in Level 3+4: 2012-13 Percentage of Students inLevel 3+4 2011-12 Percentage Students in Level 3+4

28


29/60


For ELA and Math:

Points Earned= % Point decrease in Level 1 X 0.225

Points Earned= % Point increase in Level 3+4 X 0.45

29


30/60

30

The total sco re earned by each K -8 school was

calculated as fol lows:

Total Points: Po ints earned b y ELA + Points earned

by Math + Poin ts earned based on a State-pro vided

MGP grow th score.

HEDI Scale

Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

Total Points 0-2 3-8 9-17 18-20

K-8 SchoolLocal Measures.


31/60


32/60

State Growth

Every teacher receives a growth score (based onState assessment OR SLO)

Pre- and post-assessment improvement and

achievement Terra Nova 3/SRI

AIMSweb

District-developed assessments

Performance-based assessments preferable

32


33/60

P R I N C I P A L E V A L U A T I O N S

APPR Requirements33


34/60

APPR for Principals

34

60%Other

Measures

20%

Local

20%State

Growth

100%


35/60

Approved Rubric Multiple Measures

Multiple school visits bysupervisor, trained administrator,or trained independent evaluator

Any remaining leadershipstandards not addressed in theassessment of the educators

practice must be assessed at leastonce a year

At least a majority (31) of the 60points shall be based on broadassessment of practice based onthe approved rubric

Any remaining points shall beassigned based on: results of one

or more ambitious andmeasurable collaborativelyestablished goals

60% Other Measures

35


36/60

Conducting Observations

District developed rubric focusing on

Instructional leadership

Organizational leadership

60 total points

Observations/school visits

Probationary/non-tenured

2 observations by supervisor and 1 by trained administrator

Tenured

2 observations by supervisor

36


37/60

APPR for Principals

37

60%Other

Measures

20%

Local

20%State

Growth

100%


38/60

Elementary, Middle, and K-8Principals

High School Principals

Reduce students scoring atLevel 1 in Math and ELA by 10

percentage points (Each countsfor a maximum of 3.75 points)

Increase students scoring atLevels 3 & 4 in Math and ELAby 5 percentage points (Eachcounts for a maximum of 3.75points)

Increase by 5 percentage points thenumber of students in the 2012cohort promoted from grade 9 to 10

compared to the promotion rate ofthe 2011 cohort (5 point maximum)

Increase by 5 percentage points thenumber of students in the 2011cohort promoted from grade 10 to 11compared to the promotion rate ofthe 2010 cohort (5 point maximum)

Increase by 4 percentage points thenumber of students graduatingusing the August graduation rate forthe 2012 13 school year (5 point

maximum)

Local Measures-School Growth

38


39/60

APPR for Principals

39

60%MultipleMeasures

20%

Local

20%State

Growth

100%


40/60

State Growth

Principals in Elementary, Middle and K-8 Schoolswith Grades 4-8

Student growth on state assessments in ELA andmathematics as prescribed by the Commissioner of the New

York State Department of Education

Principals in High Schools

Student growth on Regents exams assessments asprescribed by the Commissioner of the New York StateDepartment of Education

40


41/60

2012 2013 APPR Results41

Al t 6 t f t h it ( ll)


42/60

Almost 60 percent of teachers composite (overall) scoresplace them in the Effective range on the HEDI scale.

42

2%

58%

33%

7%

Teacher Composite APPR Ratings

Highly Effective

Effective

Developing

Ineffective

All numbers are prel imin ary, sub ject to add it ional ver i f icat ion.

Th l j it f t h i l t K 8 d hi h


43/60

The large majority of teachers in elementary, K-8, and highschools have Effective or Highly Effective ratings.

43


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Elementary K-8 Middle High

Ratings by School Level

Highly EffectiveEffective

Developing

Ineffective

State gro th scores about 200 pro ided b the State and


44/60

State growth scores about 200 provided by the State andthe rest based on SLOs average 11 points out of 20 possible.

44


1312

8

11 11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Elementary K-8 Middle High All

Average State Growth Scores

Local measure scores based on school wide measures of


45/60

Local measure scores based on school-wide measures ofstudent achievement average 6.1 points out of 20 possible.

45


5.6

7.2

4.6

8.1

6.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Average Local Measures Scores

Professional practice scores based mostly on observations


46/60

Professional practice scores based mostly on observationsby administrators and Peer Observers are very high.

46


58.2

58.3

58.1

58.558.3

55

55.556

56.5

57

57.5

58

58.5

59

59.5

60


Average Professional Practice Scores

Below you can see HEDI rating distributions for teachers


47/60

Below, you can see HEDI rating distributions for teachersacross the 3 APPR components compared to overall ratings.

47


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State - 20 Local - 20 Other - 60 Composite - 100

Teacher Ratings by APPR Component


Developing

Ineffective

Almost three quarters of principals composite (overall)


48/60

Almost three-quarters of principals composite (overall)scores place them in the Effective range on the HEDI scale.

48


73%

7%

20%

Principal Composite APPR Ratings

Highly Effective

Effective

Developing

Ineffective

Below you can see HEDI rating distributions for principals


49/60

Below, you can see HEDI rating distributions for principalsacross the 3 APPR components compared to overall ratings.

49


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State - 20 Local - 20 Other - 60 Composite - 100

Principal Ratings by APPR Component


Developing

Ineffective


50/60

Improvement Plans50

New Yorks APPR statute sets up a special process for


51/60

Focus on those with Developing or Ineffective ratings:

Educators who receive a developing or ineffective ratingwill be required to work with a supervisor to develop a

Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) or Principal Improvement Plan(PIP).

The TIPs and PIPs are developed collaboratively with theeducator, their manager, and their union representatives.

These plans outline how we will work together to driveimprovement in instructional practice and student achievement.

New York s APPR statute sets up a special process forensuring we support educators continuous improvement.

51

Observation rating data provides a clear starting point when


52/60

Observation rating data provides a clear starting point wheneducators are developing Improvement Plans.

52


53/60

B O N U S E S A N D C A R E E R P A T H W A Y S T H R O U G HT H E T E A C H E R I N C E N T I V E F U N D

Rewarding and Retaining

Effective Educators53

Knowing that our people are our greatest resource we devote


54/60

Amount of

Total Budget

Used for

Compensation

81%Memphis

68%Chicago

73%Syracuse

80%Boston

65%New York City

77%Los Angeles

74%Houston

Sources: SCSD Budget 2013-14 and Fiscal Year 2012-13 budgets available on the websites of:Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City

Knowing that our people are our greatest resource, we devotemuch of our annual budget to compensation.

54

However a perceived lack of competitive pay and opportunities


55/60

10%

18% 17%13%

35%

65%71% 72%

75%

87%

Offers acompetitive

starting salary

Salary wouldincrease quickly

Paysappropriately for

skill/effort

Financiallyrewards goodperformance

Offersopportunities to

advance

Teaching Preferred Occupation

Top-Third Graduates' Agreeing with Statements about Occupations

55

However, a perceived lack of competitive pay and opportunitiesto advance has diminished opinions of a teaching career.

Percentage of graduates who agreed or strongly agreed. Sources: Closing the Talent Gap,McKinsey & Company, September 2010. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap.

Now SCSD is leveraging Teacher Incentive Fund bonuses and
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gaphttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap


56/60

Now, SCSD is leveraging Teacher Incentive Fund bonuses andcareer pathways to reward teachers and principals.

56

$6,000

Group 1 /Non-Study

Highly

EffectiveTeachers

Performance

Bonuses

$9,000

Group 1 /Non-Study

Highly

EffectivePrincipals

4 PrincipalLevels with

Stipendsup to

$3,000

Career

Pathways

4 TeacherLevels with

Stipendsup to

$2,500

A variety of career pathway roles can also extend the reach of


57/60

Educators who continuallydemonstrate effectiveness can

have access to roles that:

Allow them to extend their reach tostudents and colleagues

Provide opportunities to specialize inparticular skills

Have clear and consistent job descriptions

Have rigorous selection criteria and a

standardized selection process Allow them to earn additional

compensation for taking on additionalresponsibilities

57

A variety of career pathway roles can also extend the reach ofthe most effective teachers and principals.

The Teacher Incentive Fund program supports the Districts


58/60

Bonuses and Career Pathways can help us:

Recruit talented teachers and school leaders

Provide more development opportunities

Retain talented teachers and school leaders longer

Give more students access to the best teachers and leaders

Align efforts of teachers and school leaders with District goals

The Teacher Incentive Fund program supports the District sgoals related to talent recruitment, development and retention.

58

The TIF grant also provides funding for ongoing differentiated


59/60

Current and Potential Uses of TIF for Informing andDelivering PD:

Salaries for Peer Observers, who are responsible for

identifying strengths and weaknesses based on expert contentknowledge

Cost of online platform for APPR data

Payment for Professional Development attendance

Creation or purchase of additional PD offerings

The TIF grant also provides funding for ongoing, differentiatedprofessional development to support TIPs and PIPs.

59

Additional analysis of data will help us provide the right


60/60

Boost effectiveness of allteachers through effectiveevaluation and targetedprofessional development.

Improve or exit the

persistently leasteffective teachers.

Retain andleverage themost effectiveteachers.

C

A

B

Effectiveness in Improving Student Achievement

Framework for Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

60

Additional analysis of data will help us provide the rightsupports to all educators to ensure we get better and better.

Current performance Potential performance

Documents

Syracuse city school board presentation on teacher evaluations