Adam, what were you thinking when you signed this?
Historically, observations were supposed to help support the teacher. Teaching in the 21st Century outlined the process to be used, with Component A and Component B, pre- and post observation feedback and reports, and never anything put into your personnel file that was unsigned.
See ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE: DUE PROCESS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES in the
UFT Contract (see p. 110):
A. (1) "No material derogatory
to a teacher's conduct, service, character or personality
shall be placed in
the [teacher] files unless the teacher has had an opportunity to read the
material. The teacher shall acknowledge that he/she has read such material by
affixing his/her signature on the actual copy to be filed, with the
understanding that such signature merely signifies that he/she has read the
material to be filed and does not necessarily indicate agreement with its
content."
I think it is astonishing that Adam Ross, the Attorney for the UFT , would sign away a right that is clearly given to all members in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
By the way, no one wanted me to see this letter, above. I was the paralegal at a 3020-a, and I and the private Attorney I was working with submitted a Motion To Dismiss Any Unsigned Documents from the hearing. The DOE Attorney, Nicole Andrade, argued that this could not happen, because the UFT agreed to the submission of unsigned documents. I really did not believe this. We asked to see this agreement, and the Arbitrator ordered that we get a copy. That's how the letter got into my possession.
Article 21 of the CBA A(1) requires the removal of any and all documents submitted to 3020-a Arbitration and/or a personnel file which do not have the signature, or protest, written by the Respondent teacher on the document. Without any signature or protest by the Respondent, the Arbitrator at a 3020-a must assume that the Respondent never received the document under review. If the Respondent did not see the document requested by the Department to be placed into evidence, the document must not be allowed into evidence, as placing such a document into evidence would be a violation of not only the CBA, but also Respondent's right to due process.
Arbitration supports the mandate of the CBA and State Law which requires Arbitrators to determine whether the requirements of due process and just cause were met before, and after, the employee was disciplined or charged.
Arbitration has informal rules of evidence which are designed to allow both parties wide latitude in bringing forth facts to present their side of the story, however the CBA contains language which prohibits the arbitrator from looking beyond the contract. The most important point made here is, that due process requires that Respondent be informed of the charges made against him/her and his/her pedagogy, and then be provided with reasonable access to material that could be used in his/her defense.
All this is now moot.
Do you have a peer validator coming to see you? Be ready. They do what their name suggests, they validate the "whatever" your administrator has said/written about you.
And then there is this:
From: AdvanceSupport-NoReply
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:28 PM
Subject: Peer Validator Program
Dear Teacher,
Based on current records of your 2013-14 overall Annual Professional Performance Review rating, you will be assigned a Peer Validator during school year 2014-15.
The Peer Validator program is a joint initiative of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) that exists as part of Advance, our teacher evaluation and development system. This program, which is new this school year, provides all teachers who received an overall Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating of “Ineffective” (Safety Net Result, if applicable) for the 2013-14 school year with a Peer Validator in the 2014-15 school year. The Peer Validator’s job is to independently evaluate a teacher’s classroom performance.
Peer Validators are trained New York City teachers who are assigned to the Division of Teaching and Learning. Each Peer Validator applied to work in the program and met qualifications consistent with the terms set forth in the DOE’s collective bargaining agreement with UFT. They were selected for the position by a hiring committee comprised of DOE and UFT representatives. Each teacher who is assigned a Peer Validator will receive three unannounced, full-period classroom observations. The Peer Validator will assess teacher practice based on components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d of the Danielson Framework for Teaching. The Peer Validator will not communicate with you or your school’s administration about the APPR process. His/her role is to observe you in your classroom, in order to provide an independent assessment of the Measures of Teacher Practice component of the APPR. The Peer Validator cannot disclose his/her ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over, at which point both you and your lead evaluator will be provided with copies of the three completed Peer Validator observation reports.
The following answers to frequently asked questions will help you to understand more about this program and how it supports you:
1. Why was the Peer Validator program created?
New York State Education Law 3012-c requires that Independent Validators be assigned to teachers who received an overall APPR rating of “Ineffective” in a school year who were not rated “Ineffective” the year prior. As part of the DOE-UFT contract agreement this summer, the Independent Validators were replaced with Peer Validators, in recognition of the skills and abilities of teachers who work within our schools.
2. What do Peer Validators do?
Peer Validators perform their work entirely independent of the school-based evaluation process. They confer with neither teachers nor their supervisors during the program year. Visits are unannounced for both the school and the teacher. Peer Validators do not have access to any historical information regarding the teachers who they are observing. Finally, they do not disclose their ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over, at which point both lead evaluator and teachers are provided with copies of the three completed observation reports.
Peer Validators provide teachers being served by the program with three independent and unannounced observation visits to their classrooms. The observations must occur at least 20 school days apart. During those visits, the Peer Validator takes notes of what she/he sees and hears, and develops observation ratings for components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d using the same process and tools that school-based evaluators do.
3. What should I expect during a Peer Validator visit?
Each Peer Validator observation will be unannounced and last a full period. When the Peer Validator comes to your classroom, she/he will greet you and give you a copy of this letter. She/he will then observe and take detailed notes. As is also true for school-based evaluators, she/he may circulate around the classroom, examine student work, confer with students and take photographs unobtrusively. When the observation is concluded, the Peer Validator will leave. Other than the initial greeting, there is no communication between the teacher and Peer Validator.
If you have additional questions about the Peer Validator program, please contact the Advance Support Team at AdvanceSupport@schools.nyc.gov<mailto:AdvanceSupport@schools.nyc.gov>.
Thank you.
- The Advance Support Team
And:
6. TEACHER EVALUATION/PEER VALIDATOR
Teacher Practice Rubric
Observation
Cycle
Videotaping and Photographing
Covered
Employees
Multiple
Observers
Student Surveys
Scoring
Courses That Are Not Annualized
Rules Regarding Measures of Student
Learning
Growth Model
Conversion Charts
Measures of
Student Learning Options
Peer Validator
Do you have a peer validator coming to see you? Be ready. They do what their name suggests, they validate the "whatever" your administrator has said/written about you.
And then there is this:
From: AdvanceSupport-NoReply
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:28 PM
Subject: Peer Validator Program
Dear Teacher,
Based on current records of your 2013-14 overall Annual Professional Performance Review rating, you will be assigned a Peer Validator during school year 2014-15.
The Peer Validator program is a joint initiative of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) that exists as part of Advance, our teacher evaluation and development system. This program, which is new this school year, provides all teachers who received an overall Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating of “Ineffective” (Safety Net Result, if applicable) for the 2013-14 school year with a Peer Validator in the 2014-15 school year. The Peer Validator’s job is to independently evaluate a teacher’s classroom performance.
Peer Validators are trained New York City teachers who are assigned to the Division of Teaching and Learning. Each Peer Validator applied to work in the program and met qualifications consistent with the terms set forth in the DOE’s collective bargaining agreement with UFT. They were selected for the position by a hiring committee comprised of DOE and UFT representatives. Each teacher who is assigned a Peer Validator will receive three unannounced, full-period classroom observations. The Peer Validator will assess teacher practice based on components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d of the Danielson Framework for Teaching. The Peer Validator will not communicate with you or your school’s administration about the APPR process. His/her role is to observe you in your classroom, in order to provide an independent assessment of the Measures of Teacher Practice component of the APPR. The Peer Validator cannot disclose his/her ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over, at which point both you and your lead evaluator will be provided with copies of the three completed Peer Validator observation reports.
The following answers to frequently asked questions will help you to understand more about this program and how it supports you:
1. Why was the Peer Validator program created?
New York State Education Law 3012-c requires that Independent Validators be assigned to teachers who received an overall APPR rating of “Ineffective” in a school year who were not rated “Ineffective” the year prior. As part of the DOE-UFT contract agreement this summer, the Independent Validators were replaced with Peer Validators, in recognition of the skills and abilities of teachers who work within our schools.
2. What do Peer Validators do?
Peer Validators perform their work entirely independent of the school-based evaluation process. They confer with neither teachers nor their supervisors during the program year. Visits are unannounced for both the school and the teacher. Peer Validators do not have access to any historical information regarding the teachers who they are observing. Finally, they do not disclose their ratings for any observation until the annual rating period is over, at which point both lead evaluator and teachers are provided with copies of the three completed observation reports.
Peer Validators provide teachers being served by the program with three independent and unannounced observation visits to their classrooms. The observations must occur at least 20 school days apart. During those visits, the Peer Validator takes notes of what she/he sees and hears, and develops observation ratings for components 2a, 2d, 3b, 3c and 3d using the same process and tools that school-based evaluators do.
3. What should I expect during a Peer Validator visit?
Each Peer Validator observation will be unannounced and last a full period. When the Peer Validator comes to your classroom, she/he will greet you and give you a copy of this letter. She/he will then observe and take detailed notes. As is also true for school-based evaluators, she/he may circulate around the classroom, examine student work, confer with students and take photographs unobtrusively. When the observation is concluded, the Peer Validator will leave. Other than the initial greeting, there is no communication between the teacher and Peer Validator.
If you have additional questions about the Peer Validator program, please contact the Advance Support Team at AdvanceSupport@schools.nyc.gov<mailto:AdvanceSupport@schools.nyc.gov>.
Thank you.
- The Advance Support Team
And:
6. TEACHER EVALUATION/PEER VALIDATOR
Article 8J of the Teachers’ CBA
shall be amended to include the following:
The Board (DOE) and UFT agree
that the following, subject to approval by the Commissioner of Education,
represents the Parties APPR Plan as required by Education Law § 3012-c.
This Article replaces the
Commissioner’s June 1, 2013 APPR decision and subsequent clarification
decisions dated September 5, 2013 and November 27, 2013 (collectively “the
Commissioner’s Decision”).
Except as modified herein, the
terms of the Commissioner’s Decision are incorporated by reference and remain
in full force and effect. Except as stated herein, any dispute regarding this
APPR Plan and the Commissioner’s Decision shall be resolved exclusively through
negotiation between the parties or the grievance process set forth in Article
22 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Any issue regarding the
implementation of the APPR Plan with respect to the Measures of Student
Learning and scoring that was not addressed in the Commissioner’s Decision,
shall be resolved through negotiations between the parties and, in the absence
of an agreement, referred to the State Education Department for clarification.
The Parties agree to submit a
draft APPR Plan to the State Education Department no later than May 15, 2014.
Teacher Practice Rubric
In order to simplify and focus
the use of Danielson’s Framework for
Teaching (2013 Edition), and reduce unnecessary paperwork, only the
following eight (8) components of the rubric shall be rated: 1(a), 1(e), 2(a),
2(d), 3(b), 3 (c), 3(d), and 4(e). These eight (8) components shall be referred
to herein as the “Danielson Rubric.” Any reference to Danielson or the
Danielson Rubric in the Commissioner’s Decision shall be deemed to refer only
to these eight (8) components. In each observation, all components of the
Danielson Rubric shall be rated for which there is observed evidence. The
remaining components of the Danielson
Framework for Teaching (2013 Edition) not describe herein will continue to
be used by the Parties for formative purposes.
Observation
Cycle
1.
Feedback following an observation must be provided to the teacher
within fifteen (15) school days of the observation. Feedback must be
evidence-based and aligned to the Danielson Rubric.
2.
Evaluator forms shall be provided to the teacher no later than forty-five
(45) school
days following the observation. From the time an observation (formal
or informal, as defined by the
Commissioner’s Decision) is conducted until the time the teacher receives the
evaluator form for that observation, only one (1) additional evaluative
observation (formal or informal) may be conducted.
3.
The parties agree that Teacher Artifacts (as defined in the
Commissioner’s Decision) shall not be used in determining the Other Measures of
Effectiveness (“Measures of Teaching Practice”) subcomponent rating. Teachers
are not required to submit Teacher Artifacts (as defined in the Commissioner’s
Decision) except principals have the discretion to collect evidence related to
the Danielson Rubric in a manner consistent with the collective bargaining
agreement and the Commissioner’s Decision. The DOE and UFT shall jointly create
guidance for evaluators on the collection of evidence for the Danielson Rubric.
Whenever possible, the Parties will jointly present this guidance to school communities.
4.
An evaluator shall provide a score on any component that is observed
from the Danielson Rubric regardless of the observation option selected by the
teacher and regardless of whether it is a formal or informal observation (as
defined by the Commissioner’s Decision).
5.
In addition to the two observation options set forth in the
Commissioner’s Decision, teachers who have received “Highly Effective” as their
final APPR rating in the previous year may choose Option 3. Option 3 consists
of a minimum of three (3) informal observations that are used for evaluative
purposes. Option 3 is subject to the same procedures and scoring rules as
Options 1 and 2 as provided for in the Commissioner’s Decision as modified by
this APPR Plan.
A teacher that
chooses Option 3 shall make his/her classroom available for three (3) classroom
visits by a colleague per school year. The classroom visits described herein
shall not be used for any evaluative purpose. Any additional classroom visits
by colleagues shall only be with the consent of the teacher selecting Option 3.
The date and time of such visits shall be scheduled jointly by the teacher
selecting Option 3 and the principal.
6.
An evaluator may assess a teacher’s preparation and professionalism
only if the evaluator’s conclusions are based on observable evidence pertaining
to components 1a, 1e, and/or 4a of the Danielson Rubric during an observation
or if the evaluator observes evidence for these components during the fifteen
(15) school days immediately preceding a classroom observation.
7.
The parties agree to create an evaluator form that will allow
evaluators to rate and delineate between all components observed during a
classroom observation as well as (for components 1a, 1e, and 4e only) observed
within fifteen (15) school days prior to the classroom observation as part of
an assessment of a teacher’s preparation and professionalism. Each evaluator
form shall contain lesson-specific evidence for components observed during a
classroom observation and
teacher-specific evidence for components observed as part of an assessment of a
teacher’s preparation and professionalism.
8.
An evaluator shall not include or consider evidence regarding the
preparation and professionalism on an evaluator form if such evidence (or
conduct) is also contained in a disciplinary letter to the teacher’s file,
unless the evidence was directly observed by the evaluator during a classroom
observation (in which case the evidence may be on both an evaluator form and in
a disciplinary letter). Evidence not related to components 1a, 1e, and/or 4e,
or directly observed by the evaluator in the fifteen (15) school day period
immediately preceding a classroom observation shall not be considered in a
teacher’s evaluation.
9.
Consistent with the Commissioner’s Decision, there shall be Initial
Planning Conferences (“IPC”) and Summative End of Year Conferences (as defined
therein). Teachers shall have the sole discretion of setting professional goals
as part of the IPC. The DOE will explicitly state this in guidance for
evaluators and educators for the 2014-15 school year and thereafter.
Videotaping and Photographing
1.
All observations shall be conducted in person. The teacher and
evaluator may mutually consent to evaluators not being present when videotaping.
2.
A teacher may choose to have his/her observations videotaped. If a teacher chooses to have his/her
observations videotaped he/she shall select among the following options:
(a) the evaluator will choose
what observations, if any, will be videotaped; or (b) the evaluator shall
videotape the observations in the following manner: (i) if the teacher selected
Option 1, the formal observation shall be videotaped; (ii) if the teacher
selected Option 2, two (2) of the informal observations shall be videotaped (at
the evaluator’s option); or (iii) if the teacher selected Option 3, one (1) of
the informal observations shall be videotaped (at the evaluator’s option).
3.
Evaluators who take photographs during observations
relevant to the Danielson Rubric, should, to the extent practicable, be
unobtrusive (for example, photographs may be taken at the end of the observation).
Covered
Employees
1.
The DOE and the UFT agree to jointly request that the State Education
Department issue a determination as to whether teachers of programs for
suspended students and teachers of programs of incarcerated students are subject
to Education Law § 3012-c (and
therefore subject to this APPR Plan). Such decision shall be incorporated by
reference into this APPR Plan.
2.
In order for a classroom teacher to be covered by this APPR Plan, the
teacher must be teaching for at least six (6) cumulative calendar months in a
school year. If the teacher does not satisfy this requirement he/she shall not
be covered by this APPR Plan and shall be subject to the evaluation system set
forth in Article 8J of the collective bargaining agreement and Teaching for the
21st Century.
3.
The following shall apply to teachers who are teaching for more than six
(6) cumulative calendar months
in a school year but less than the full year due to either (a) paid or unpaid
leave of absence; (b) reassignment from teaching responsibilities; or (c) the
teacher commenced, or separated from, employment mid-year:
(a)
When a teacher is absent from the first day of school until the last
Friday of October, the IPC (as defined in this APPR Plan) shall be conducted within ten (10) school days of
his/her return to school.
(b)
When a teacher is absent between the last Friday of April and the last
Friday of June, and the absence was foreseen and the evaluator was aware that
the teacher would not be present during this period (e.g., they are taking a
maternity leave), the Summative Conference shall be held before the teacher leaves.
(c)
When a teacher is absent between the last Friday of April and the last
Friday of June and the absence was unforeseen (e.g., extended leave) and
therefore the evaluator could not conduct the Summative Conference ahead of
time, the Summative Conference shall be held no later than the last Friday of
October in the following school year. Evaluators shall have the discretion to
conduct the IPC and Summative Conference at the same time but must fulfill all
the requirements of both conferences.
(d)
When a teacher is unexpectedly absent for the remainder of the school
year (e.g., extended leave), the teacher shall have a minimum of two (2)
observations, which shall fulfill the observation requirements set forth herein.
(e)
When a teacher is absent during the period when the baseline or post-
test assessments are administered, and the teacher was assigned individual
target populations for his/her State and/or Local Measures, the teacher will
still receive Local and/or State Measures for individual target populations.
(f)
When a teacher is absent during the period when the targets are set
(for assessments with goal-setting), the teacher shall set targets and have
their targets approved within the first month of his/her return to school.
The DOE shall explicitly state
the rules described herein in guidance for educators for the 2014-15 school
year and all school years thereafter.
Multiple
Observers
For formative purposes
(observations conducted entirely for non-evaluative purposes), no more than
four (4) observers (either school-based or from outside of the school) may be
present in a classroom. Additional observers may be present in teacher’s
classroom with the teacher’s consent. The visits described in this paragraph
shall not be considered when scoring the Measures of Teacher Practice
subcomponent.
For evaluative purposes, no more
than one (1) evaluator (as defined by the Commissioner’s Decision) and two (2)
school-based observers (i.e., the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent or
trained administrator of the teacher’s school) may be present during a formal
or informal observation. The evaluator shall be solely responsible for the
observation report. The DOE and UFT shall jointly create guidance for evaluators
on the role of multiple observers. Whenever possible, the Parties will jointly
present this guidance to school communities.
In extraordinary circumstances,
only one (1) of the two (2) observers described herein may be an observer from
outside of the school may observe. The outside observer may only be either a
Network Leader or Deputy Network Leader (or its functional equivalent).
Student Surveys
The DOE shall pilot student
surveys during the 2013-2014 at mutually agreed upon schools and in all schools
during the 2014-2015 school year. During the pilot, student surveys shall not
be used for evaluative purposes. At the conclusion of each pilot year, the DOE
and UFT shall meet to discuss the results of the pilot and discuss the
possibility of continuing/discontinuing the pilot and use of the surveys for
evaluative purposes. If agreement is not reached at the conclusion of each
pilot year, the student surveys shall be used for non-evaluative purposes in
the 2014-2015 school year and evaluative purposes starting in the 2015-16
school year and thereafter. The implementation and scoring of the student
surveys in 2015-16 and thereafter shall be consistent with the Commissioner’s
Decision.
Scoring
For all formal and informal
observations (as defined by the Commissioner’s Decision), all components of the
Danielson Rubric shall be rated for which there is observed evidence. At the
end of the school year, Overall Component Scores shall be created for each of
the eight (8) components. The Overall Component Scores shall be the average of
each rated component from the observations and/or assessments of a teacher’s
preparation and professionalism.
An Overall Rubric Score will then
be calculated by taking the weighted average of the Overall Component Scores,
using the following weightings: 1a (5%), 1e (5%), 2a (17%), 2d (17%), 3b (17%),
3c (17%), 3d (17%), 4e (5%).
Formal and informal observations
(as defined by the Commissioner’s Decision) shall not receive average
observation ratings.
Formal and informal observations
(as defined by the Commissioner’s Decision) will no longer be afforded the
weights as provided for in the Commissioner’s Decision.
The Overall Rubric Score shall be
the basis for the 60 points of the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent,
unless the student surveys are used for evaluative purposes. If student surveys
are used for evaluative purposes, the Overall Rubric Score shall count for 55
of the 60 points of the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent score. The
implementation and scoring of the student surveys in 2015-16 and thereafter
shall be consistent with the Commissioner’s Decision.
Courses That Are Not Annualized
In the event
that Measures of Student Learning (MOSL) assessment options do not include
options for non-annualized courses: 1) in a school where each of the terms
covers content where the second term builds on content from the first, the fall
teacher shall administer the baseline and the spring teacher shall administer
the post-test. Teachers from all terms will be held accountable for the
students’ results; or 2) in a school where the second term does not build on
content from the first, these teachers shall be assigned Linked or Group
Measures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to a teacher of a course
leading to a January Regents, the post-test is the January Regents and a
baseline shall be administered in the fall.
For Group and Linked Measures
(as defined herein), if a student takes the same Regents exam in January and
June, only the higher result will be used for State and Local Measures. For
non-Group and Linked Measures, if a student takes the same Regents exam in
January and June, and has the same teacher in the fall and spring, only the
higher result will be used for State and Local Measures. If the student has
different teachers in the fall and spring, the January Regents will be used for
the fall teacher and the June Regents for the spring teacher.
Students will be equally
weighted in a teacher’s State and/or Local Measures subcomponent score if they
are in a teacher’s course for the same length of time (regardless of whether
they take the January or June Regents).
For assessments that use growth
models, the DOE will calculate scores following the rules outlined above. For
assessments that use goal-setting, the teacher who administers the baseline
will recommend targets for the students and the principal will approve. Fall
term teachers shall set targets on the same timeline as other
teachers. It is recommended that
in the fall principals consult with subsequent term teachers about student
targets if their assignments are known. Principals shall share these targets
with subsequent term teachers within the first month of the start of the new
term and provide these teachers with an opportunity to recommend any additional
changes to student targets. Principals shall communicate any changes to targets
to all affected teachers.
For assessments that use
goal-setting, teachers of subsequent term courses who have students who have
not previously had targets for them shall set and have their targets approved
within the first month of the start of the new term.
State and Local Measures
selections for teachers of non-annualized courses, including the application of
the 50% rule, shall be determined based upon the teachers’ entire school year
schedule. As subsequent term selections may not be known in the fall, teachers
shall administer all applicable assessments for the grades/subjects they are teaching
in the fall.
Rules Regarding Measures of Student
Learning
For the 2014-2015 school year and
thereafter the DOE shall issue guidance to the School MOSL Committee that sets
forth and explains the rules described herein.
There is no limit on the number
of Local Measures that a School MOSL Committee, as defined in this APPR Plan,
can recommend for a particular grade or subject. If a School MOSL Committee
selects the same assessment but different group for the Local Measures
subcomponent, the following are allowable subgroups since the DOE is currently
analyzing the performance of these groups of students: 1) English Language
Learners, 2) students with disabilities, 3) the lowest-performing third of
students, 4) overage/under-credited students, or 5) Black/Latino males
(consistent with New York City’s Expanded Success Initiative).
School MOSL Committees shall
consider, when selecting subgroups for Local Measures that the intent of having
both Local and State Measures is to have two different measures of student
learning. Using subgroups for Local Measures, by nature of the fact that they
are a subset of the overall population, will in many instances mean that State
and Local Measures are more similar to one another than if different
assessments are used for State and Local Measures. Therefore, subgroups should
not be selected for teachers in some schools if the subgroup selected reflects
the entire population of students the teacher serves (e.g., if a teacher only
teaches English Language Learners, the Committee shall not select English
Language Learners for their Local Measures and all of their students for the
same assessment on their State Measures).
In the event that schools
inadvertently select the same measures for State and Local Measures (after to the
extent possible they have had an opportunity to
correct), the lowest third
performing students will be used for Local Measures and the entire populations
of students used for State Measures.
The Central MOSL Committee will
revisit the list of allowable subgroups annually, taking into account feedback
from educators. If the Central MOSL Committee cannot agree on new/different
subgroups, the current list of subgroups will be used.
Evaluators cannot choose to go
above the 50% rule in selecting teachers’ State Measures. The 50% rule will be
followed for State Measures, per State Education Department guidance, such that
teachers’ State Measures must be determined as follows: for teachers of multiple
courses, courses that result in a state growth score must always be used for a
teacher’s State Measures. If a teacher does not teach any courses that result
in state growth scores, or state growth score courses cover less than 50% of a
teacher’s students, courses with the highest enrollment will be included next
until 50% or more of students are included.
The 50% rules shall not apply to
Local Measures. School MOSL Committees shall select the method that shall be
used to determine which courses shall be included in a teacher’s Local Measure.
In the 2014-15 school year and thereafter, the DOE will 1) state this rule,
provide guidance for teachers of multiple courses, and describe the benefits
and considerations of not following the 50% rule for Local Measures and 2)
explain how to record and track Local Measures selections for individual
teachers when the 50% rule is and is not used for Local Measures. The process
for setting student targets for Local Measures is the same as the process for
setting student targets for State Measures. The only exception is Group
Measures (not including Linked Measures) for Local Measures. For Group
Measures, the School MOSL Committees will have the option of recommending for
Local Measures that student targets are set either 1) following the process
used for State Measures or 2) by the Committee. If the School MOSL Committee’s
chooses to create the targets and the principal accepts the School MOSL
Committee’s recommendation, the School MOSL Committee must create these targets
no later than December 1. Targets must be submitted using a format determined
by the DOE. In the event that the School MOSL Committee cannot agree on Group
Measures targets for Local Measures, Group Measures targets will be determined
following the process used for State Measures which requires that
superintendents must finalize targets by January 15.
School MOSL Committees may
recommend which baselines will be used for Local Measures from a menu of
options created by the DOE. The only exceptions are instances where the same
assessments are used for teachers in the same grades/subjects for State
Measures. In these instances, the Principal shall select the baselines that
will be used for State and Local Measures.
School MOSL Committees may
recommend that Local Measures, Group Measures and Linked Measures may be used
with state-approved 3rd party
assessments. The DOE shall create
guidance that will include a description of which 3rd party assessments it can
use to create growth models.
School MOSL Committees may
recommend that for Local Measures, Group Measures and Linked Measures may be
used with NYC Performance Assessments. The DOE shall create guidance which will
include a description of which NYC Performance Assessments it can use to create
growth models, as well as the implications of selecting Group Measures with NYC
Performance Assessments for scoring.
Regarding the Local Measures
school-wide default, if a School MOSL Committee makes recommendations for Local
Measures in only some grades/subjects, the principal may accept those
recommendations and the Local Measures default would apply for the grades and
subjects for which there is no recommendation.
Principals must choose to accept
either all a School MOSL Committee’s recommendations or none of the School MOSL
Committee’s recommendations. If the School MOSL Committee recommends the Local
Measures default (or the principal does not accept the School MOSL Committee’s
recommendations and therefore the Local Measures default must be used), teachers
must administer NYC Performance Assessments in grades 4-8 ELA and Math (if they
are included in the DOE’s menu of NYC Performance Assessments that are approved
by the Commissioner annually). In the foregoing scenario, the DOE growth models
will be used to calculate a teacher’s score on the NYC Performance Assessments
in grades 4-8 ELA and Math.
Growth Model
Conversion Charts
For assessments where schools
opt to use DOE-created growth models for State or Local Measures, including the
Local Measures default, the DOE shall create scoring charts that convert growth
model scores into 0-20 points, taking into account confidence intervals. These
charts must be shared and discussed with the MOSL Central Committee (as defined
herein) annually. In addition, analyses will be conducted and shared with the
MOSL Central Committee regarding the comparability of Individual, Group, and
Linked Measures. If members of the MOSL Central Committee do not agree with any
element of the growth model conversion charts and/or how they were created, the
MOSL Central Committee members that are in disagreement may submit in writing
to the Chancellor their reasons for disagreement.
The parties agree to convene a
MOSL Technical Advisory Committee (the “MOSL TAC”) consisting of one person
designated by the DOE, one person designated by the UFT, and a person
mutually-selected by the Parties. To ensure
a meaningful and fair distribution of ratings, the MOSL TAC shall review the
methodology and approach to the creation of growth models and their conversion
charts and provide recommendations to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall have
final decision-making authority on the growth model conversion charts.
Measures of
Student Learning Options
1.
For the 2014-15 school year and thereafter the DOE shall create new
measures (referred to as “Linked Measures”) for Local and State Measures of
Student Learning such that there is an option for each teacher to be evaluated
based upon assessment results of students he/she teaches. Some or all
assessments are not linked to courses the teacher teaches.
2.
For the 2013-14 school year, the following process for “procedural
appeals” will only apply to “Group Measures” (i.e., measures where teachers are
evaluated based on the performance of some or all students they do not teach).
For the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, the following process for “procedural
appeals” will apply to Linked Measures and Group Measures. For the 2016-17
school year and thereafter the following process for “procedural appeals” will
apply only to Group Measures. In all cases, teachers with 50% or more of their
Local or State Measures based on Linked Measures/Group Measures shall be
eligible for the procedural appeals process.
3.
If a teacher receives “Ineffective” ratings in both the State and Local
Measures subcomponents and either is based on Linked Measures or Group
Measures, and in that year the teacher receives either a “Highly Effective” or
“Effective” rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, the
teacher shall have a right to a “procedural appeal” of such rating to a
representative of the DOE’s Division of Teaching and Learning.
a.
If the teacher receives a “Highly Effective” rating on the Measures of
Teaching Practice subcomponent, there shall be a presumption that the overall
APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective”
rating becomes either an “Effective” rating (in the instance where both the State and Local Measures of
Student Learning subcomponents are based on Linked Measures or Group Measures)
or a “Developing” rating (in the instance where only one of the State or Local
Measures of Student Learning subcomponents is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures);
b.
If the teacher receives an “Effective” subcomponent rating on the
Measures of Teaching Practice, there shall be a presumption that the overall
APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective”
rating becomes a “Developing” rating if both
the State and Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents are based on
Linked Measures or Group Measures. If only one of the State or Local Measures
of Student Learning subcomponents be based on Linked Measures or Group
Measures, the rating shall be appealed to the principal, who shall have the
discretion to increase the teacher’s overall APPR rating. If the principal does
not respond to the appeal, the teacher’s overall APPR rating shall be modified
to a “Developing” rating.
c.
The above-described procedural appeal process is separate and distinct
from, and in addition to the appeal processes set forth in the Commissioner’s Decision.
4.
In the event a teacher receives an “Highly Effective” rating in both
the State and Local Measures of Student Learning, and neither is based on
Linked Measures or Group Measures, and in that year the teacher is rated
“Ineffective” on Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, and this results
in the teacher receiving an “Ineffective” overall APPR rating, the UFT may
choose to appeal the rating to a three (3) member Panel consistent with the
rules for Panel Appeals as described in Education Law § 3012-c (5-a) and the
Commissioner’s Decision. However, these appeals shall not be counted towards
the 13% of “Ineffective” ratings that may be appealed pursuant to Education Law
§3012-c (5-a)(d) and the Commissioner’s Decision.
5.
The Parties agree to meet each fall to review and discuss other types
of anomalies in scoring and determine appropriate actions.
6.
The DOE and UFT shall establish a Measures of Student Learning Central
Committee consisting of an equal number of members selected by the DOE and the
UFT (herein referred to as the “MOSL Central Committee”). The MOSL Central
Committee shall convene within sixty (60) days after the ratification of this
agreement by the UFT and each month thereafter. The MOSL Central Committee
shall explore additional assessment options for the 2014-15 school year, which
could include state-approved 3rd party assessments or
existing assessments (e.g., Fitnessgram, LOTE exams), and review and approval
by the Chancellor, which would be offered as non-mandated options for State and
Local Measures. The MOSL Central Committee shall also examine the current range of
options and discuss expanded
options for the State and Local Measures of Student Learning including, but not
limited to, subject-based assessments, the use of portfolios, project-based
learning, and/or semi-annualized/term course assessments. The MOSL Central
Committee will also examine potential changes to the Local Measures default
each school year. The MOSL Central Committee shall propose expanded options for
the 2015-16 school year and thereafter.
Expanded options proposed by the
MOSL Central Committee shall be implemented for the 2015-2016 school year and
thereafter subject to review and approval by the Chancellor. All MOSL options
for the 2014-15 school year and thereafter shall be shared with the MOSL
Central Committee. The MOSL Central Committee shall review all MOSL options to
determine which options shall be proposed to the Chancellor for approval. If
members of the MOSL Central Committee cannot agree which options should be
proposed to the Chancellor, the MOSL Central Committee members that are in
disagreement may submit in writing to the Chancellor their reasons for
disagreement. The Chancellor shall have final decision-making authority.
7.
There will be no State Measures default. Principals must make decisions
for State Measures for all applicable grades/subjects in their school by the
deadline. For the 2014-15 school year, the Local Measures default for all
schools shall be a school-wide measure of student growth based on all applicable
assessments administered within the building which are limited to NYC
Performance Assessments, if developed by August 1 prior to the start of the
school year, and/or state-approved 3rd party assessments
(Chancellor must select by August 1 prior to the start of the school year),
and/or state assessments. The DOE and UFT shall annually review the Local
Measures default and discuss the possibility of altering the default. If
agreement is not reached at the conclusion of each year, the default will be
the same as that used in the 2014-15 school year.
8.
All decisions of the School MOSL Committee (as defined in the
Commissioner’s Decision) must be recommended to the principal and the principal
must 1) accept the recommendation (or opt for the Local Measures default) and
2) select the State Measures no later than ten (10) school days after the first day of school for students.
9.
In the event that a school uses the goal-setting option for State or
Local Measures, teachers must submit their proposed goals to their building
principal or designee no later than November 1 of each school year absent
extraordinary circumstances. The principal or designee must finalize teacher’s
goals no later than December 1 of each school year, absent extraordinary circumstances.
10.
Teachers whose MOSL scores would have been subject to chart 2.11 or
3.13 of the Commissioner’s
Decision shall now be assigned points such that 85%- 100% of students must meet
or exceed targets for a teacher to be rated Highly Effective; 55%-84% of
students must meet or exceed targets for a teachers to be rated Effective;
30%-54% of students must meet or exceed targets for a teacher to be rated
Developing; and 0%-29% of students must meet or exceed targets for a teacher to
be rated Ineffective.
Peer Validator
1.
Except as modified herein, the Peer Validator shall replace the
Independent Validator and fulfill all of the duties of and comply with the
provisions applicable to the Independent Validator set forth in Education Law §
3012-c(5-a) and the Commissioner’s Decision.
2.
Term:
The Peer Validator program shall be two (2) school years (2014-15 and 2015-16).
At the end of the two years, the parties must agree to extend the Peer
Validator program and in the absence of an agreement the parties shall revert
to the Independent Validator process as set forth in Education Law §
3012-c(5-a) and the Commissioner’s Decision.
3.
Selection: A joint DOE-UFT committee composed of an equal number of members from
the UFT and the DOE (the “Selection Committee”) shall be established to
determine selection criteria and screen and select qualified applicants to
create a pool of eligible candidates. The Deputy Chancellor of Teaching and
Learning shall select all Peer Validators from the pool of all eligible
candidates created by the Selection
Committee. To be eligible to become a Peer Validator an applicant must have at
least five (5) years teaching experience; be tenured as a teacher; have
received an overall APPR rating of Highly Effective or Effective (or
Satisfactory rating where applicable) in the most recent school year; and
either be a teacher, a teacher assigned, an assistant principal with reversion
rights to a tenured teacher position, or an education administrator with
reversion rights to a tenured teacher position.
4.
Duties:
The term for a Peer Validator shall be for two (2) years. All Peer Validators
shall work under the title of Teacher Assigned A and shall have the same work
year and work day as a Teacher Assigned A as defined in the collective
bargaining agreement. Peer Validators shall report to the Deputy Chancellor of
Teaching and Learning or his/her designee. Peer Validators shall conduct
observations consistent with the Commissioner’s Decision and shall not review
any evidence other than what is observed during an observation by the Peer
Validator. All assignments are at the discretion of the DOE, however Peer
Validators shall not be assigned to any school in which s/he previously worked.
The parties agree to consult regarding Peer Validator assignments and workload.
Peer Validators shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Deputy Chancellor of
Teaching and Learning or his/her designee. The review and evaluation of a Peer
Validator shall not be based in any way on whether the Peer Validator agrees or
disagrees with the principal’s rating. A Peer Validator may be removed from the
position at any point during the program provided that both the DOE and UFT
agree. Teachers who become Peer Validators shall have the right to return to
their prior school at the end of their term as a Peer Validator.
5.
Compensation: Peer Validators shall receive additional compensation in the amount
of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per year for the term of this
agreement above the applicable teacher compensation in accordance with the
collective bargaining agreement.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Carol Burris, principal, on the new NY State teacher evaluation plan announced yesterday
Carol is the courageous Long Island principal who co-authored the letter, signed onto by one third of all NY State principals, protesting the NYS teacher evaluation system. Her follow-up article for the Washington Post Answer Sheet was called, “Forging ahead with a nutty teacher evaluation plan.”
 |
| Carol Burris |
Below is the email she sent out, late last night; appended to a press release from Commissioner King and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, that contained an outline of the provisions in the agreement announced yesterday.
The agreement, as summarized by King and Tisch, says that test scores will trump all, as “Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall.”
In addition, the Commissioner can reject any locally devised system that isn’t “rigorous” enough, and can require “corrective” action if “districts evaluate their teachers positively regardless of students’ academic progress”, i.e. refuse to rate them as ineffective based on test scores alone.
This all will be done by means of unreliable state tests that in recent years have been repeatedly shown to be defective, as filtered through a “growth” model that has been shown to have even less reliability.
The only possible meaning of “multiple measures” in this context is that there are multiple ways to ensure that a teacher can be judged as a failure.
___
From: Carol Burris
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:16 PM
Dear friends,
Every teacher I know in NY is in a state of shock after seeing what NYSUT agreed to. I think principals were somewhat prepared, but I do believe that teachers had hoped that somehow NYSUT would come through for them. The power transferred to the commissioner is unprecedented. The governor's 'shot clock' flies in the face of the Taylor Law. The fact that Randi Weingarten applauded this agreement is beyond comprehension. Teachers feel abandoned.
The governor who just last week said "I am the government" is a bully who is now thumping his chest in victory as the 'student lobbyist'. My greatest fear is that educators will be so discouraged they will bow their heads. Anything you can write, post, blog or send as an editorial in the next days and weeks will help to lift spirits. I know Sean and I will keep the letter going but we will need your help in keeping resistance to this wrongheaded policy alive. thank you for all you do. Carol
No comments:
Post a Comment