Answering the Question: “From what sector will the independently trained evaluators be chosen and who will be doing their training?

From Jim Viola, SAANYS Director of Government Relations

This is an area that I expect will unfold in the next year or two. However, I have three thoughts regarding possibilities as to individuals who may serve as “independent trained evaluators.” They are:

* This matter should be addressed at the local level by negotiating the qualifications and/or procedures applicable to the appointment of independent trained evaluators (ITEs).

* I do NOT believe that it is necessary for independent trained evaluators to have completed Network Team Training by SED (though such training would likely be regarded in a positive light when considering applicant qualifications), and it may not be necessary for ITEs to participate in the full complement of turn-key training conducted by NTs. However, it will be necessary that ITEs satisfy the criteria set for evaluators and/or lead evaluators in the district/BOCES APPR Plan. Whoever is selected for such a role, should be very familiar with the rubric(s) that are applicable to the district as well as with the APPR provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (i.e.,  teachers’ or principals’).

* This will, no doubt, result in a new “cottage industry.” In some cases, districts may establish lists of independent evaluators (and individuals to decide APPR appeals).

Read Full Post »

Commissioner Offers More Details on APPR Agreement

This afternoon, following the governor’s APPR announcement, Commissioner King conducted a press conference. The following information was shared:

– The APPR timelines for the required implementation of §3012-c APPR provisions, upon the establishment of the successor collective bargaining agreement, remains in place. However, in order to receive the 4% increase in state aid each district must submit its negotiated APPR provisions for teachers and principals and have it approved by the January 2013 due date. If the APPR plan is not approved upon initial submission, it will have to be revised, resubmitted, and approved in time in order to receive the additional state aid. Commissioner King indicated that the department has a plan in place to ensure timely review.

– SED maintains that the new APPR system is better in three ways:

• It is less ambiguous, and clearly depicts the items that must be collectively bargained,  
• It includes a provision authorizing SED to monitor the negotiated APPR agreements for compliance and for rigor, and  
• It includes the governor’s “shot clock” provision making the 4% state aid increase contingent upon APPR implementation by January 2013 (and accelerating negotiations in many districts).

– The new APPR system maintains the HEDI score band configuration so Ineffective ratings for sub-components 1 and 2 will automatically lead to an Ineffective overall rating, regardless of the sub-component 3 score. Also, the commissioner pointed out that the statute provides narrative definitions for HEDI. To the extent locally set APPR bands for each sub-component are not sufficiently rigorous, the APPR plan will not be approved.

– Districts continue to have the authority to remove untenured teachers without the need for a §3020-a hearing.

– For sub-component 2 (20% local achievement) there will be a “Curve Rating” looking at the HEDI bands for that particular sub-component, based on the negotiated instrument to be used. SED will make a determination whether the standard is sufficiently rigorous. If not, it will be disapproved.

– For the 10 SIG schools, the APPR plans will be reviewed for 2011-12 under existing requirements. For 2012-13 and thereafter, the APPR plan may need to be revised to conform to the new APPR requirements.

Read Full Post »

APPR Agreement Reached

At 12:30 today Governor Cuomo delivered an announcement in the Capitol’s Red Room that APPR issues have been addressed. The APPR revisions will be included in a budget amendment and will conform to the “agreements” reached by the parties.

There was no discussion of necessary regulatory amendments, however, Commissioner King indicated that the new APPR requirements are more clear, as previously there was “more ambiguity” in choices.

Based on the announcement it is clear that the APPR procedures maintain the three subcomponents:

Sub-component 1 – State Growth Measures (20 points) – Retains the state growth requirements, including requirements related to the development of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs).

Sub-component 2 – Local Achievement Measures (20 points) – Allows for the use of state assessments in a manner that is different from the way such instruments were used for sub-component 1. It will also continue to allow for other instruments/measures such as SED approved third party assessments and district/BOCES assessments that meet state standards.

Sub-component 3 –  Teacher Performance (60 points) – Will require that “a majority of the teacher performance points will be based on classroom observations by an administrator or principal, and at least one observation will be unannounced. The remaining points will be based upon defined standards including observations by independent trained evaluators, peer classroom observations, student and parent feedback from evaluators, and evidence of performance through student portfolios.”

The agreements apparently also contain APPR appeals provisions that expressly apply to New York City teachers. It will allow for certain appeals to be heard by a neutral panel, apparently based on the basis for the appeal. Such a provision will be of interest to other school districts/negotiators in developing their appeals procedures.

However, all school districts will be required to submit their APPR plans to SED, beginning in July 2012. Each district’s plan will need to be reviewed and approved by SED by the January 2013 due date in order to qualify for the 4 percent increase in state aid. Districts that have an approved plan by September 2012 will receive “bonus points” if they plan to apply for a competitive grant. Commissioner King indicated that he expects that districts with early approvals will serve as models for other districts. In responding to questions regarding SED’s capacity to review approximately 700 APPR plans in a timely manner, the governor added that the “template will be straightforward” and that there should not be “many varieties.”

The governor spoke with Secretary Duncan earlier today, and based on that conversation he believes that any consideration to reclaim federal funds is now “off the table.”  It should also be noted that APPR requirements expressly focused upon principals were not discussed.

Read Full Post »

On February 15 SAANYS representatives visited three legislators – Senator Joseph Griffo (R, Rome/Utica), Assembly member Thomas Abinanti (D, Westchester) and Assembly member Donna Lupardo (D, Endwell). We also met with staff representing Senator George Maziarz (R, Niagara Falls) and Senator Carl Mancellino (R, Nassau). Discussions included the following positions:

School Aid
•    Strongly Support 4 percent ($805M) increase in School Aid
•    Recommend moving Competitive Grant funds ($250M) to Operating Aid
•    Recommend Early Retirement Program for Administrators
•    Oppose establishment of Tier VI Pension Program

Annual Professional Performance Review
•    Oppose State Aid Increase Contingent on 2013 Establishment
•    Not all districts were required to implement in 2011-12
•    Principals support doing teacher and principal evaluations that are more fair, constructive and effective

State Assessment
•    Strongly Support $7.7M Allocation for Regents Exams and GEDs

Tenured Teacher Hearings
•    Adamantly Oppose Reassignment of Hearing Costs to districts, bargaining units and individuals
•    An Unfunded Mandate for Districts
•    A Financial Hardship for Individuals
•    Strongly Support initiatives to increase efficiency
•    Reduce the Statute of Limitations
•    Limit the number of Charges and Specifications

Preschool Special Education Costs
•    Oppose reassignment of county costs to school districts
•    Don’t punish Districts for appropriate Recommendations

Read Full Post »

Be Careful What You Ask For – Executive Viewpoint by Kevin Casey

I look forward to the day when I do not feel compelled to write about APPR. It’s a topic that is emotionally charged, and which produces strong feelings in many. In a way it has also come to be symbolic of larger issues – the role of charter schools in public education; the extent of collective bargaining in public education; local control v. state or even federal control of education; and thus, teacher and principal evaluations have attracted the attention of state and national figures. Remember the good old days when evaluations used to be simply a local matter?

I recognize that there is a school of thought that believes that evaluation systems are too important to be left to the local level, but what I find troubling is what I believe to be a common premise that local evaluation systems are necessarily ineffective, or worse, purposefully designed to protect educators regardless of competence. Even if true in some isolated instances, I believe such a premise is largely untrue, and strikes me as patronizing.
Nevertheless, despite the complexity of an ever-evolving APPR process, Secretary of Education Duncan is threatening to require New York State to return the RTTT money unless it lives up to the promises in its RTTT application, which includes the implementation of the new APPR system this school year (for 4-8 ELA and math teachers and their principals). Similarly, Commissioner King has held up funding for the SIG schools unless those schools submit APPR plans that are not merely compliant with statute and regulation, but also acceptable to SED. Moreover, Governor Cuomo stated that if NYSUT and SED do not settle their litigation he will impose his own system through his significant budgetary authority. Whether or not a settlement occurs, the governor has threatened to withhold state aid increases if an approved (by SED) evaluation plan is not implemented by January 2013. This is what it has come to – a series of threats. To each I would caution to be careful of what you ask for, as you just might get it.

I consistently hear and read comments of regret from superintendents and board of education members when discussing participation in the RTTT program. The burdens outweigh the benefits, which are uncertain, and the costs exceed the grant income. If Secretary Duncan were to get his money back he would lose his leverage over education policy in New York State, and few districts would be interested in pursuing RTTT again. Having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I also suspect the state legislature would not again jam through a secretly negotiated evaluation law without first exposing it to the typical legislative vetting process.

I take Commissioner King at his word when he says he will not release SIG money to those grant recipients who do not adhere to grant requirements, but let’s not be naïve. If the commissioner withholds money from some of our neediest districts because those districts did not timely implement an evaluation system, which details have been doled out in increments (e.g., approved rubrics; SLOs in November) and successfully (to date) challenged in court, he will likely be blamed for hurting children in those needy districts as they reduce staffing and programs to face their new fiscal reality. If however, the SIG schools satisfy SED with their evaluation plans, then SED, and by extension Commissioner King, will own a piece of those plans for better or for worse.

If Governor Cuomo chooses to impose an evaluation system, then he will own the results. Recent experience tells us that the subject matter is extraordinarily variable and complex, and seems especially ill-suited for those without years of classroom and building experience. Imposing an untested system seems more likely to fail than succeed, but it will take a few years before we can make informed judgments.

The January 12, 2012 edition of Education Week (Vol. 31; No. 16) reports in some detail the Quality Counts Report of K-12 education nationwide. In overall scoring, New York ranks third in the nation (see story on page one). That’s not a figure you hear too often in current public debate, but one which I believe will be looked upon as a point of comparison after implementation of a new evaluation procedure, regardless of who owns it.

Read Full Post »