APPR
The impact on Garden City.
What is APPR?
Annual
Professional
Performance
Review
New York State
Educational Law § 3012-c
Established in 2010
Implemented 2012-2013
History
Evolved from New York State’s application for the
federal Race to the Top (RTTT) competition.
Districts and Unions were asked to “sign on” to the
application from NYS – we did.
NYS was awarded approximately $700 million to
“reform” education by:
Implementing CCSS (required)
Longitudinal Data System
Increasing Charter Schools
APPR System
How were those funds allocated?
$348.3 million to “build the capacity of educators
statewide and directly support new curriculum models,
standards, assessments, teacher and principal
preparation and professional development, and the
statewide student data system.”
The remaining funds to be spread out among school
districts and charter schools (increased from 200 to
460).
NYC Chancellor’s Office received $258,065,077
Garden City received $0
Back to APPR…
Evaluates Teachers and Principals
Receive a score on a 100 point scale
Receive a rating
Highly Effective (91-100)
Effective (75-90)
Developing (65-74)
Ineffective (0-64)
20% - State Growth
Score
20% - Locally
Determined
60% - Other
Measures of
Effectiveness
APPR Breakdown
20% - State Growth Score – IMPACTS STUDENTS
Teachers in Grades 4-8 receive a score from the state based
on student growth from the previous year
Grade 3 ELA and Math state assessments are used as
baseline data
Subjects with a state assessment (Regents Exam) must use
that assessment as the evidence when determining if the
target was met
APPR Breakdown
20% - Locally Determined – IMPACTS STUDENTS
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
Requires baseline data: Could be two tests – one in September and
one in the Spring, or data from the previous year can be used IF it is
related.
 *You wouldn’t use data from Earth Science to set a target in Biology
3rd Party State Approved Assessments
Acuity (McGraw Hill) was used 2012-2013 Grades 3-8
Acuity cost GCUFSD $80,000!
 We (district and GCTA jointly) looked at other approved assessments
APPR Breakdown
60% - Other Measures of Effectiveness
Requires at least two observations (as dictated by law) with
at least one being unannounced
We use the Danielson Rubric (GC adopted this rubric in 2007
– long before any NYSED guidance required the use of a
rubric)
The Evaluation Process
A teacher is observed and receives feedback from their
administrator during the school year. Teachers also have the
opportunity to provide their administrator with additional evidence
of effective teaching as defined in the Danielson rubric. The four
domains of the Danielson rubric are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Planning and Preparation
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Professional Responsibilities
The evidence collected by the administrator and provided by the
teacher are used to evaluate the teacher with the rubric.
The evaluation is scored from 1-4, then converted to a score on a 60
point scale
Evaluation Process continued…
Teachers administer SLOs, which require a target to be set
after determining a baseline (previous data or fall assessment)
Overall Growth Target
Overall Achievement Target
Individual Targets based on individual students
A spring assessment is used to determine if the student “met
the target”
On average, we use a table that links 75% of students meeting
the target to 15 out of 20 points for the local portion of the
evaluation.
Evaluation Process continued…
In grades 4-8, the state assigns a growth score out of 20 points
to teachers based on the previous year’s data
This year’s growth scores were calculated using two completely
different sets of standards and assessments
Commissioner King has said the 2013 scores are a new baseline
and shouldn’t be compared to the past, yet that’s exactly what he
did for teachers
All other grades require a SLO, which must use any applicable
state assessment as a factor
From King’s letter to parents dated
August 7, 2013
“Proficiency rates –the percentage of students meeting or
exceeding the standards –on the new Common Core
assessments cannot be compared with last year’s
proficiency results since the old scores are from an old
test based on the former standards. This is a new
beginning and starting point that will provide better,
clearer information to parents, teachers, and principals
about what our children know and are able to do.”
Evaluation Process continued…
 Each sub-component score is calculated
and labeled with a rating
 Local & State 20 point scores (rating
bands determined by the state)




Highly Effective (18-20)
Effective (9-17)
Developing (3-8)
Ineffective (0-2)
 Local 60 point score (rating bands
collectively bargained)




Highly Effective (59-60)
Effective (57-58)
Developing (50-56)
Ineffective (0-49)
Why does the 60 point band seem
“generous?” It comes down to math…
Sample Scores using state’s bands:
State Score: 9 (effective rating)
Local Score: 9 (effective rating)
If we use the Danielson rubric and a teacher
is rated as “effective” they must receive 57
points to receive an overall composite score
of 75 (the minimum effective score as
determined by the state).
Effective + Effective + Effective = EFFECTIVE
Ineffective (0-64) Developing (65-74) Effective (75-90) Highly Effective (91-100)
What’s required to implement APPR?
80% is collectively bargained between teachers/district and
principals/district. We have worked as a committee
comprised of teachers, principals, coordinators, central
admin, and parents to develop our new plan (rather than sit
at a table with lawyers – an additional expense)
Teacher Improvement Plans – required for any teacher with
overall composite rating of Ineffective or Developing (we
have been using TIPs successfully since we adopted the
Danielson rubric in 2007)
Appeals Process – GCTA was first in the state to negotiate an
appeals process required by the law
What else is required to implement APPR?
Money, Time and TESTS.
Tax Dollars (with a TAX CAP) are spent on: Third Party Assessments
(ex. Acuity and AIMSweb*), Professional Development to train
teachers & administrators, substitutes during training, data
management system to track and upload evaluations to NYSED
Time is lost on: administrators required to write at least one formal
observation for every teacher every year, creating assessments
instead of creating lessons, administering assessments instead of
teaching
TESTS…
*used for RTI
TESTS
 APPR requires every teacher K-12 to have an evaluation
that is based partly (40%) on student growth and/or
achievement. This requires evidence, a.k.a TESTS.
 Teachers/Subject areas that traditionally have not had
formal assessments now must use them
 Example areas that now require formal assessments:
Art, Music, Physical Education, Speech, FLES, Study
Skills, and KINDERGARTEN
rd
3










Grader in 2012-2013
ELA State Assessment – 3 days (70 minutes each day)
Math State Assessment – 3 days (70 minutes each day)
Acuity ELA – 2 days (50 minutes each day)
Acuity Math – 2 days (50 minutes each day)
AIMSweb – 3 days (15 minutes each day per child –
requires substitute all day) *also used for RTI
CoGATs – 3 days (45 minutes each day)
Music SLO – 2 days (40 minutes each day)
Art SLO - 2 days (40 minutes each day)
Physical Edcuation SLO - 2 days (40 minutes each day)
FLES SLO - 2 days (40 minutes each day)
TOTAL
TESTING TIME:
18.6 Hours
The Moral Battle
Trying to give credibility to an APPR system that deserves none.
Certain provisions of NYSED guidance allow for the use of state
assessments to be used for both state and local portions of the
evaluation, as well as for teachers who don’t actually teach ELA
or Mathematics to students.
When a Phys. Ed. teacher can be evaluated using ELA results,
that should be a red flag that this APPR system is meaningless
NYSED puts their spin on why the amount of testing shouldn’t
be blamed on them!
The Issues
 Your children take tests, created by the state or third-party,
that provide little, if any, meaningful feedback to a teacher.
 These assessments induce anxiety and stress for our kids
 Demoralizing to students and teachers
 Proficiency Scores were low (cut scores established AFTER the
test to match the 30% drop “prediction”)
 Teachers are rated based on test scores that are a mere
snapshot of what is accomplished over the school year
 Linking teacher performance to student performance leads
to “teaching to the test”
A Teacher’s Concern
 The student growth score is not reflective of what goes on in
the classroom
 A teacher could receive a growth score of 0 out of 20 with an
entire class scoring a 4 on the ELA and Math Assessments!
 A teacher could could score a 20 out of 20 with an entire class
scoring under the proficiency level!
 The state does not share what questions a student gets wrong,
eliminating the opportunity for a teacher to address areas in
need of improvement
Example of how Score is Created
 Danielson Rubric: Teacher receives all effective and highly
effective ratings in the four domains. The overall all rubric
score is a 3.5, which converts to a 59 on the 60 point scale –
rated Highly Effective.
 Local Score: 70% of the students in class meet the SLO target.
The component score is 14 out of 20 – rated Effective
 State Score: State uses a growth formula to assign a score.
90% of students in the class are rated “proficient” on the state
assessment, but didn’t show growth when compared to like
students across the state. Teacher receives a score of 1 out of
20 – rated Ineffective.
 Overall Composite Score: 59+14+1=74 (DEVELOPING)
A Teacher’s Concern
 Two overall “Ineffective” scores allow for an expedited
3020a proceeding – removal of tenure and termination
 Being placed on a TIP because of a state score, even
when the district has rated a teacher Effective and/or
Highly Effective in the local areas of the APPR plan
 Most importantly… a parent that requests a teacher
rating and score, without any meaning behind it, and
thinks less of the teacher because of a flawed system.
What can you do?
 If you can make the connection between APPR and High Stakes
Testing and understand how it hurts children and is another
unfunded mandate with a Tax Cap, you need to speak up.
 Teachers are not against accountability – we had a great evidencebased system in Garden City before the state thought they could
come up with something better.
 Contact your legislators and elected officials, and demand an end to
high stakes testing, and let them know that you know it’s linked to
APPR (be prepared for them to try and tell you you’re just a parent
and shouldn’t worry about APPR!)
Change is Needed
 Local Community Control of school districts needs to be
RESTORED!
 High-Stakes Testing not only hurts children, but it’s not
necessary in high performing districts like Garden City!
 APPR is just one example of another unfunded mandate
with a tax cap that is undemocratic – demand one
person, one vote!
 Contact your legislators and speak up!
Homework
 Advocate for your children! Write a letter, use the PTA
CAPWIZ (action alert system), or download the NYSUT
MAC app to your smartphone.
 http://capwiz.com/npta2/ny/mlm/signup
 https://mac.nysut.org/
 Educate yourself – read blogs, join various Facebook
pages, follow people on Twitter, attend a forum (if you
don’t need a ticket!)
 Watch “From First to Worst” on YouTube
Contact Information
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
NYSED Commissioner John King
New York State Education Department
89 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12234
Chancellor Merryl Tisch, Board of Regents
New York State Education Department
89 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12234
Roger Tilles, Nassau/Suffolk Regent
100 Crossways Park West
Suite 107
Woodbury, N.Y. 11797 Phone (516) 364-2533
Assemblyman Edward Ra
19th District
RaE@assembly.state.ny.us
Senator Kemp Hannon
6th District
hannon@nysenate.gov
District Office
1225 Franklin Avenue
Suite 465
Garden City, NY 11530
516-535-4095
Albany Office
LOB 504
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-4627
District Office
595 Stewart Ave. Suite, 540
Garden City, NY 11530
516-739-1700
Albany Office
The Capitol Room 420
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2200