FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Annual Professional Performance Review Plan for
Teachers and Principals/Instructional Administrators
Covered By L. 2010, Ch. 103, Effective September 1, 2011
The Board of Education of the School District (the "District"), acting in public session on
________________ (date), hereby adopts this Annual Professional Performance Review Plan (the
"APPR Plan") for those of its classroom teachers and principals/instructional administrators who will
become covered by the annual professional performance review provisions of Chapter 103 of the Laws
of 2010 during the 2011-12 school year.
1.
Definition of Covered Teachers/Principals/Instructional Administrators
This APPR Plan will apply only to classroom teachers of common branch subjects or English
language arts or mathematics in grades four through eight and their principal/instructional
administrator.
2.
Ensuring Accurate Principal/Instructional Administrator, Teacher and Student Data
The District shall provide accurate data to the State Education Department (the "SED") in a format
and timeline prescribed by the Commissioner. The District shall also provide an opportunity for
every covered teacher and principal/instructional administrator to verify the subjects and/or student
rosters assigned to him/her. The _________________ (specify responsible title, e.g.,
Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent) shall be designated as the Data Coordinator who shall
be in charge of collecting the required data, overseeing changes in and maintenance of the local
data management systems, and ensuring the accuracy of the data. The Data Coordinator shall
have the authority to assign tasks and deadlines, as required.
3.
Reporting Individual Subcomponent Scores
The Data Coordinator shall be responsible for reporting to the SED the individual subcomponent
scores and the total composite effectiveness score for each covered classroom teacher and
principal/instructional administrator in the District, and shall do so in a format and timeline
prescribed by the Commissioner.
4.
Development, Security and Scoring of Assessments
The Data Coordinator shall be responsible for overseeing the assessment development, security,
and scoring processes utilized by the District under this APPR Plan, and shall take steps to ensure
that any assessments and/or measures used to evaluate teachers and principals/instructional
administrators are not disseminated to students before administration, and that teachers and
principals/instructional administrators do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the
assessments they score. [See Appendix A]
5. Details of the District's Evaluation System
The details of the District's Chapter 103 evaluation system cannot be described at this time
because those details must be determined through collective negotiations with the bargaining
agent of the covered teachers and principals/instructional administrators (where applicable), and
such negotiations have not been finalized. Upon the completion of the negotiations, this APPR
Plan will be amended to reflect the agreed-upon procedures. [See Appendix B]
1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
6. Details of Timely and Constructive Feedback Provided to Teachers and
Principals/Instructional Administrators
The details of how the District shall provide timely and constructive feedback to teachers and
principals/instructional administrators under Chapter 103 cannot be described at this time
because those details must be determined through collective negotiations with the bargaining
agent of the covered teachers and principals/instructional administrators (where applicable), and
such negotiations have not been finalized. Upon the completion of the negotiations, this APPR
Plan will be amended to reflect the agreed- upon procedures. [See Appendix C]
7. Appeals of Annual Professional Performance Reviews
The details of the District's procedure for resolving appeals of annual professional performance
reviews under Chapter 103 cannot be described at this time because those details must be
determined through collective negotiations with the bargaining agent of the covered teachers and
principals/instructional administrators (where applicable), and such negotiations have not been
finalized. Upon the completion of the negotiations, this APPR Plan will be amended to reflect the
agreed-upon procedures. [See Appendix D]
8.
Duration and Nature of Training Provided to Evaluators and Lead Evaluators
a) The "lead evaluator" is the administrator who is primarily responsible for a teacher's or
principal’s/instructional administrator’s APPR composite rating under Chapter 103.
The term "evaluator" shall include any administrator who conducts an observation or
evaluation of a teacher or principal/instructional administrator.
b) All evaluators shall successfully complete a training course that meets the minimum
requirements prescribed in Chapter 103. Such training shall include application and
use of the State-approved teacher and principal/instructional administrator practice
rubric(s) selected for use in evaluations.
c) To be deemed a district certified lead evaluator one must successfully complete a
training course meeting the minimum requirements prescribed in the law and
regulations.
d) Other details of the District's training for evaluators and lead evaluators (including the
duration and nature of such training and the process for certifying lead evaluators)
cannot be described at this time. Those details must be determined through collective
negotiations with the bargaining agent of the covered teachers or
principals/instructional administrators (where applicable) over the selection of a
practice rubric and other related negotiable issues. Upon the completion of these
negotiations, this APPR Plan will be amended to reflect the agreed-upon procedures.
e) Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit an evaluator who is properly certified by
the State as a school administrator from conducting classroom observations or school
visits as part of an annual professional performance review under Chapter 103 prior to
completion of the training required by said Chapter or the regulations thereunder, as
long as such training is successfully completed prior to completion of the annual
professional performance review.
2
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
9.
Required Certificates
The District shall include with this APPR Plan any certifications required by the law or regulations
upon the completion of collective negotiations with the bargaining agent of the covered teachers
and principals/instructional administrators (where applicable).
10.
Effect on Existing Collective Bargaining Agreements
Nothing herein shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of collective bargaining
Agreements.
11.
Filing and Publication of APPR Plan
This APPR Plan shall be filed in the District Office, and shall be made available to the public on the
District's website by September 10, 2011, or within ten days after its adoption, whichever shall later
occur.
Adoption Date:
Legal Reference(s): Education Law §3012-c., 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 30-2 and Section 100.2(o).
3
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
APPENDIX A
Recommendation of the Regional Steering Committees
Teacher Evaluation: Process for Selecting Local Measures
The approval of a locally adopted system should include the following process:
1. Local assessments should be selected by the grade level and/or subject area teachers who teach
each course. Principals/instructional administrators should have the option of working with
teachers on this process. It is strongly recommended that assessments should be the same locally
selected measures of student achievement or growth across all classrooms in same grade/subject
in district or BOCES, however the regulations allow for comparable measures.
2. Once a local assessment system has been created/adapted/adopted by the teachers it must be
approved by the building principal/instructional administrators l to ensure comparability, validity,
rigor, degree to which the assessment can be aligned to State standards, and degree to which the
assessment(s) match classroom instruction. The principal/instructional administrator will provide
the superintendent with the agreed upon local assessment plan for all subject areas/grade levels
located within the school.
3. In the event of non-approval, where no acceptable outcome can be agreed upon by the
principal/instructional administrators and teachers, a committee will be formed to make
recommendations for revisions necessary for final approval. The review committee should be
comprised of a department chair (if applicable), teacher(s), principal, superintendent’s designee,
and a union delegate. Final approval of the assessment system must come from the
superintendent in the form of official certification to the state.
**Recommendations for Awarding of Points are Forthcoming**
Principal/Instructional Administrator Evaluation: Process for Selecting Local Measures
We recommend that the superintendent and principal/instructional administrators collaboratively complete
the goal setting process that will be used to obtain the 20 points of the local assessment portion of the
principal’s/instructional administrator’ s APPR (eventually 15 points).
1. Look at the list of assessments (local and state) that apply under the responsibility of the
principal/instructional administrator.
2. Determine assessments that measure outcomes that have been identified as areas of focus
(building/district goals).
3. Select up to 5 goals based on locally selected measures of student achievement or growth.
4. Create/use suggested rubric to record assessment goals.
5. Determine benchmark/targets for each goal.
6. Collaboratively determine the weight that each goal will have towards the calculation of the 20
points for the final Local Assessment component. (It may be possible that all goals are worth
equal points. However the weight of each goal or points assigned may vary. For example, if there
4
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
are three goals, one goal may be worth 10 points, the second goal may be worth 5 points and the
third goal may be worth 5 points.)
7. Reconvene at end of school year to determine progress toward goals and calculate the final
composite score.
Background Information
In accordance with Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010, all state tested subjects will offer a local assessment
in addition to the state provided assessment.
These locally selected measures must add value to classroom instruction. There needs to be a purpose
and/or use other than solely for evaluation that is not undermined by its use as part of evaluation.
The term “assessment(s)” pertains not only to “tests,” but may include other forms of assessment that
relate to student achievement. These assessments should measure growth over one or more points in
time. The 20% must include multiple assessments.
Multiple-measure systems improve the accuracy and stability of teachers’ evaluations by reducing reliance
on any single measure of a teacher’s performance. This local option should be aligned with NY State
Common Core Standards, meet statewide criteria, and consist of multiple measures of student
performance such as:







Criterion referenced test
Curriculum based assessments
Formative assessments
Norm referenced tests
Performance assessments
Portfolio or student work
Summative assessments
Local Assessments for teachers may come from:





District, regional or BOCES-developed assessments provided that the district or BOCES
verifies comparability and rigor.
School-wide, group, or team results based on state or allowable local assessments,
provided that the district or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor.
List of State-approved 3rd party, State or Regent-equivalent assessments.
Structured District or BOCES-wide goal setting process for use with any state, 3rd party’ or
school (teacher-created) assessment agreed to by evaluator and teacher provided that the
district or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor.
Or a combination of any of the above.
Additionally principals/instructional administrators may be assessed on:


Student achievement levels or growth on State assessments in ELA and/or mathematics for
grades 4-8 (e.g., percentage of students in the school whose performance levels on State
assessments are proficient or advanced).
Student growth or achievement on State assessments in ELA and/or mathematics in grades
4-8 for students with disabilities.
5
FOR REFERENCE ONLY





4, 5 and/or 6-year high school graduation and/or dropout rates for principals/instructional
administrators employed in a school with high school grades.
Percentage of students who earn a Regents diploma with advanced designation and/or
honors
Percentage of a cohort of students that achieve specified scores on Regents examinations
and/or Department approved alternative examinations as described in section 100.2(f) of
this Title.
Students progress toward graduation in the school using strong predictive indicators,
including but not limited to 9th and/or 10th graded credit accumulation and/or the
percentage of students that pass 9th and/or 10th grade subjects most commonly
associated with graduation and/or students’ progress in passing the number of required
Regents examinations for graduation.
Or a combination of any of the above.
All assessments must be verified for comparability, validity, rigor, degree to which the assessment can
aligned to State standards, and degree to which the assessment(s) match classroom instruction. The
Superintendent in each district must sign off on the local assessments used per the regulations.
For the purpose of this document the following definitions will be agreed upon:







Content-Rich: This is based on a template to determine rigor and indicators of higher-order
thinking.
Rigorous: This is based on a template to determine rigor and indicators of higher-order
thinking.
Curriculum Aligned: Alignment determined by comparison with “Common Core” are content
standards.
Assessed Authentically: Standards-based processes are developed and utilized by
teachers or contracted professionals
Reliable: Assessments are determined to be consistent across classrooms and overtime
through rubric use and analysis.
Valid: Assessments are determined to measure what is intended to be measured
through standards alignment analysis and other measures.
Inter-rater reliability: Those scoring are trained and deemed proficient in scoring.
Examples of Assessments/Measures of Student Success












Vendor approved NYS Assessments
Regionally created Assessments
Locally Created Assessments
RTI Assessments
Types of Diplomas - Percentage Advanced Designation/Advanced Designation with Honors
College Credits Obtained
Advanced Placement Scores
Advanced Placement Participation
GED Completion for Identified Population
Graduation Rates - 4, 5, or 6 Years
CTE Certificates
Technical Assessments
6
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Subcomponent and Composite Scoring Ranges for 2011-12 School Year
Level
Locally Selected Measures of Student Achievement or Comparable Measures.
Ineffective
1
Results are well-below district or BOCES-adopted expectations for growth or
achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject.
Developing
2
Results are below district or BOCES-adopted expectations for growth or
achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject.
Effective
3
Results meet district or BOCES-adopted expectations for growth or achievement
of student learning standards for grade/subject.
Highly
Effective
4
Results are well-above district or BOCES-adopted expectations for growth or
achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject.
7
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
APPENDIX B
Recommendation of the Regional Steering Committee for Teacher Evaluation
 Of the teacher evaluation rubrics approved by the New York State Education Department, we
endorse only the Robert Marzano and Charlotte Danielson models. Though we think both
rubrics are useful, the group had a strong preference for the Robert Marzano framework.
 We recommend districts consider the use of the iObservation software package as the means
for conducting the required annual evaluations.
www.iobservation.org.
For further information please visit
 We recommend that districts consider the use of walk-through observations. However, we
recommend that for teachers who will receive developing or ineffective ratings, at least one
traditional formal observation be conducted during the year.
Recommendation of the Regional Steering Committee for Principal/Instructional
Administrator Evaluation
 The steering committee recommends the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) model. For further information please visit www.valed.com.
Background Information (Teacher Evaluation)
 The Marzano and Danielson models are both aligned with the New York Teaching Standards
and contain similar content. However, the Marzano model includes a level of specificity that
we did not find in the Danielson model. By including observable teacher and student
behaviors, Marzano offers a degree of clarity that will be useful as teachers look to improve
their professional practice. The Danielson model requires the evaluator to make more
inferences and this generalization might lead to different interpretations.
 The iObservation software looks very different for the Marzano and Danielson models. The
committee would encourage districts to look closely at both before making a final decision.
There are features in both models that we found intriguing. At the risk of oversimplifying,
there seems to be a greater focus on formative assessment in the Marzano model, with an
emphasis on improving teacher practice while the Danielson model seemed to be designed
as a summative assessment.
 Although it was not entirely clear from the demonstration we saw, it appears as though a
mechanism for arriving at a score out of 60 points is built in to the iObservation platform.
However, the weights of the domains can be customized by district.
 Though districts are certainly free to select any of the approved rubrics, the committee felt
there would be several advantages to adopting one rubric throughout the region. First, there
would be a significant cost-savings involved if all districts were to use the same software.
Secondly, it would be much easier for the School Improvement office to offer regional
professional development if all schools were using the same model. Third, as teachers and
principals/instructional administrators move between districts, having the same rubric in place
would help ease the transition.
8
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Marzano Causal Evaluation Model
Domain
Domain I: Classroom
Strategies and
Behaviors
Domain 2: Planning
and Preparation
Domain 3: Reflecting
on Teaching
Sub-Component
 Communicating Learning
Goals and Feedback
 Establishing Rules and
Procedures
 Helping Students Interact
with New Knowledge
 Helping Students Practice
and Deepen New Knowledge
 Helping Students Generate
and Test Hypotheses
 Engaging Students
 Recognizing Adherence to
Rules and Procedures
 Establishing and Maintaining
Effective Relationships with
Students
 Communicating HighExpectations for All Students
 Planning and Preparing
Lessons and Units
 Planning and Preparing for
Use of Resources and
Technology
 Planning and Preparing for
the Needs of English
Language Learners
 Planning and Preparing for
the Needs of Students
Receiving Special Education
 Planning and Preparing for
the Needs of Students Who
Lack Support for Schooling


Domain 4:
Collegiality and
Professionalism



Evidence
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Formal Classroom Observation
Walk-Through Observations
Video Observations
Peer Review
Student/Parent Surveys
Students/Parent Interviews
Teacher-Created Materials (i.e
lesson plans, unit plans,
projects, tests)
Other resources provided by
teacher or gathered by the
administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Formal Classroom Observation
Walk-Through Observations
Video Observations
Peer Review
Student/Parent Surveys
Students/Parent Interviews
Teacher-Created Materials (i.e
lesson plans, unit plans,
projects, tests)
Written communications
Student Management System
(i.e. grade book, discipline
referrals)
Other resources provided by
teacher or gathered by the
administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Evaluating Personal
Goal Meeting(s) with Principal
Performance
MyLearningPlan.com
Developing and
Implementing a Professional Other resources provided by
teacher or gathered by the
Growth Plan
administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Promoting a Positive
Informal observation during
Environment
Promoting Exchange of Ideas faculty, grade level, department,
and committee meetings
and Strategies
Promoting District and School Written Communication
Other resources provided by
Development
teacher or gathered by the
administrator
Points
0-40
0-10
0-5
0-5
9
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Marzano/iObservation Point Conversion
Conversion to the New York State Ratings Categories
The teacher’s status score reflects his/her overall understanding and application of the Art and Science of
Teaching framework across the Marzano Causal Evaluation Model Four Domains: Domain 1: Classroom
Strategies and Behaviors; Domain 2: Planning and Preparing; Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching;
Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism.
The following steps outline the process used to calculate status score. The Status Score aggregates
teachers’ ratings across all observed elements within the framework to result in a score.
1. Using the Domain Forms, rate observed elements at each of the following levels: Innovating (4),
Applying (3), Developing (2), Beginning (1), and Not Using (0)
2. Count the number of ratings at each level for each of the four domains.
3. For each domain, determine the percentage of the total each level represents (this process is
automated in a spreadsheet).
4. For each domain, apply the results from Step 3 to the description for each level on the Proficiency
Scale (based on teacher’s experience level). This is a domain proficiency score and will be a
number between 1 and 4.
5. Using the four domain frequency scores, compute the weighted average to obtain the Status
Score. The 3 Category Proficiency Scales can be used to determine a numerical value that
represents a proficiency score for each domain. Each domain can be weighted to obtain an overall
Status Score. LSI recommends the following weight for each domain but percentages can be
adjusted by the district:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Domain 1: 68%, 41 Elements
Domain 2: 14%, 8 Elements
Domain 3: 8%, 5 Elements
Domain 4: 10%, 6 Elements
This weighting system distinguishes the Marzano Causal Evaluation Model from traditional evaluation
models in that Domain 1 carries the most weight as these strategies are directly related to student
learning. Additionally, the most emphasis is placed on the domain proven by research to have the most
direct, CAUSAL impact on student achievement.
The weighted average of the 4 domain proficiency scores will result in a single number that can be
translated into the following final scale:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Highly Effective (3.5 – 4.0)
Effective (2.5 – 3.4)
Developing (1.5 – 2.4)
Ineffective (1.0 – 1.4)
The Instructional Practice Score reflects teachers’ performance across all elements within the framework
(Domains 1-4) and accounts for teachers’ experience levels. Further it assigns weight to the domain with
the greatest impact on student achievement (Domain 1) and acknowledges teachers’ focus on eliberate
practice by measuring teacher improvement over time on specific elements within the framework.
10
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
The four category ratings are identical to the categories New York State has adopted. The levels used
for each domain element are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Highly Effective
Effective
Developing
Ineffective
11
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching
Domain
Domain I: Planning
and Preparation
Sub-Component






Domain 2: The
Classroom
Environment






Domain 3:
Instruction




Domain 4:
Professional
Responsibilities






Demonstrating Knowledge
of Content and Pedagogy
Demonstrating Knowledge
of Students
Setting Instructional
Outcomes
Demonstrating Knowledge
of Resources
Designing Coherent
Instruction
Designing Student
Assessments
Creating an Environment of
Respect and Rapport
Establishing a Culture for
Learning
Managing Classroom
Procedures
Managing Student
Behavior
Organizing Physical Space
Communicating with
Students
Using Questioning and
Discussion Techniques
Engaging Students in
Learning
Using Assessment in
Instruction
Demonstrating Flexibility
and Responsiveness
Reflecting on Teaching
Maintaining Accurate
Records
Communicating with
Families
Participating in a
Professional Community
Growing and Developing
Professionally
Showing Professionalism
Evidence
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Formal Classroom Observation
Walk-Through Observations
Video Observations
Peer Review
Student/Parent Surveys
Students/Parent Interviews
Teacher-Created Materials (i.e lesson
plans, unit plans, projects, tests)
Other resources provided by teacher or
gathered by the administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Formal Classroom Observation
Walk-Through Observations
Video Observations
Peer Review
Student/Parent Surveys
Students/Parent Interviews
Teacher-Created Materials (i.e.class
expectations)
Written communications
Student Management System
(discipline referrals)
Other resources provided by teacher or
gathered by the administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Formal Classroom Observation
Walk-Through Observations
Video Observations
Peer Review
Student/Parent Surveys
Students/Parent Interviews
Teacher-Created Materials (i.e lesson
plans, unit plans, projects, tests)
Other resources provided by teacher or
gathered by the administrator
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Goal Meeting(s) with Principal
Informal observation during faculty,
grade level, department, and
committee meetings
Teacher-created materials (i.e.
newsletter, webpage)
Student Management System (i.e.
attendance, grade book)
Written Communication
Other resources provided by the
teacher or gathered by the
administrator.
Points
0-10
0-15
0-25
0-10
12
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Danielson/iObservation Point Conversion
Conversion to New York State Rating Categories
The four performance rating categories (levels of performance) are Distinguished, Proficient, Basic, and
Unsatisfactory.
The categories can convert easily to New York State's rating categories as follows:




Distinguished = Highly Effective
Proficient = Effective
Basic = Developing
Unsatisfactory = Ineffective
Background Information (Principal/Instructional Administrator Evaluation)
The VAL-ED instrument is easy to adopt. Completing the VAL-ED, a 72-item inventory of behaviors,
requires just 20-25 minutes per respondent. This can be done very easily at a faculty meeting. Or, the
assessments can be handed out to teachers and completed on their own time; all that is needed is a
faculty representative willing to pick up the assessments, put them in an envelope, and send them off.
Because the teacher surveys are completely anonymous (no names required), there is no need to worry
about loss of confidentiality. Additionally, schools or individual teachers can opt to take the VAL-ED
online. This service will remind respondents with customized emails and allows them to complete the
assessment on their own time in the privacy of their home or classroom. Respondents will be able to
save their progress and log out at any time. For more information please visit www.valed.com.
VAL-ED Point Conversion
Conversion to New York State Rating Categories
The three cut scores used to differentiate the four levels of leadership proficiency are: 3.29 between
Basic and Below Basic; 3.60 between Basic and proficient; and 4.00 between proficient and
distinguished. The result of these cut scores is that principals/instructional administrators who earn a
mean item response score averaged across all respondent groups in the range of 1.0 to 3.28 will be
described as behaving at the Below Basic level. Principals/instructional administrators who earn a
mean item response score averaged across all respondent groups in the range of 3.29 to 3.59 will be
described as behaving at the Basic level. Principals/instructional administrators who earn a mean
item response score averaged across all respondent groups in the range of 3.60 to 3.99 will be
described as behaving at the proficient level. Finally, principals/instructional administrators who earn
a mean item response score averaged across all respondent groups in the range of 4.00 to 5.00 will be
described as behaving at the distinguished level. Based on our national field trial with 300
principals/instructional administrators, these cut scores resulted in 17% of principals/instructional
administrators at the Below Basic level, 33% at the Basic level, 36% at the proficient level, and 14% at
the distinguished level of proficiency.
The categories can convert easily to New York State's rating categories as follows:




Below Basic = Ineffective
Basic = Developing
Proficient = Effective
Distinguished = Highly Effective
13
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
APPENDIX C
Recommendations of the Regional Steering Committees
Professional Development
The district will support each teacher’s and principal’s/instructional administrator’s development and ensure
that all individuals receive appropriate professional development. Everyone within the system should focus
on the goal of student achievement (as per APPR regulations). The district will identify in a timely manner
standard areas that need improvement and will provide opportunities for growth.
Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP)
The Teacher’s Growth and Goal Setting Plan and the Teachers’ Assistance Plan (TAP) which are
included with the TIP are provided as options for use prior to the initiation of the New York State
mandated TIP. Both of the options and the TIP require negotiations between the District and Local prior
to implementation.
Principal/Instructional Administrator Improvement Plan (PIP)
The principal/instructional administrator evaluation steering committee recommends use of the
principal/instructional administrator improvement plan template.
14
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Teachers’ Growth and Goal Setting Plan Description:






Completed by all teachers at the beginning of the school year, during staff development day(s)
Goals are tied to New York State Standards and/or adopted rubrics
Intended to help all teachers grow professionally
Not to be used as a disciplinary tool or to gather evidence to discipline a teacher
Should be developed in collaboration with appropriate administrator(s)
May be individual or group plan or combination
TEACHERS’ GROWTH AND GOAL SETTING PLAN
Staff Member(s) _____________________________________________________________________
School ____________________________________________________________________________
Date _______________________________
A)
List the target goal(s) of the teachers’ growth plan.
B)
State the specific objectives for goals/growth.
C)
Plan for attaining goals/growth (activities/timelines).
D)
Indicators of attainment of goals/growth.
Year
1
2
3
4
15
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Teachers’ Assistance Plan (TAP) Description:







Teacher initiated and voluntary
Based upon recommendations from evaluations and observations
Contains SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely)
Promotes growth and achievement
Not to be used as a disciplinary tool or to gather evidence to discipline a teacher
Tied to New York State Standards and/or adopted rubrics
Developed in collaboration with teacher and administrator
TEACHERS’ ASSISTANCE PLAN
Staff Member ______________________
Grade Level/Subject Area______________
Administrator ______________________
Date _______________________________
A) List area(s) of assistance.
B) State specific objectives to be met.
C) Plan for assistance (peer mentors, activities, timeline).
D) Administrator(s)’ support to assist teacher to improve performance (peer mentors, activities,
timeline).
E) Criteria for measurement of progress.
F) Date for review.
16
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
TEACHER IMPROVEMENT PLAN
_________________________
Teacher
________________________
Composite Score
_________________________
Subject/Grade Level
________________________
Score Breakdown
_________________________
Administrator
Standards
Chosen for
Further
Development
Action(s)
to be
Taken
_____________
Preconference
_____________
Observation(s)
Administrator’s
Teacher’s
Responsibilities Responsibilities
Timeline
for
Progress
Date(s):
_____________
Coaching
Indicators
of
Success
Improvements
Made and
Documented
Administrator’s Signature: _______________________________________________________
Date: __________________
Teacher’s Signature: ____________________________________________________________
Date: __________________
Representative/Witness Signature: _________________________________________________
Date: __________________
Or Teacher’s Signature Waiving Representation: _____________________________________
Date: __________________
17
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
PRINCIPAL /INSTRUCTIONAL ADMINISTRATOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
__________________________
Principal/Instructional Administrator
___________________________
Composite Score
__________________________
Building/Area of Supervision
___________________________
Score Breakdown
__________________________
Supervisor
___________________________
Date(s) of Observation(s)
Differentiated Activities to Support Improvement
Needed Areas of
Improvement
Action(s) to
be Taken
Supervisor’s
Responsibilities
Principal/Instructional
Administrator’s
Responsibilities
Timeline
for
Achieving
Improvement
The Manner in
which Improvement
will be Assessed
Progress
Documentation
Supervisor’s Signature: ____________________________________________________
Date: ___________________
Principal/Instructional Administrator’s Signature: ________________________________
Date: ___________________
18
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
APPENDIX D
Recommendations of the Regional Steering Committee for Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Appeals Procedure
To the extent that a teacher wishes to issue an appeal, the following appeals procedure is established in
accordance with Section 3012-c of the Education Law.
1. Appeals will be limited to the following situations:
a) A teacher completing the first year of a three-year probationary appointment may appeal
only an ineffective APPR composite rating;
b) Any other teacher may appeal only an ineffective or a developing APPR composite
rating;
c)
Any teacher may appeal an improvement plan if and only if the plan was generated as
the result of an ineffective or developing composite rating, in accordance with Section
2e, below.
2. The scope of any appeal will be limited to the following subjects:
a) The substance of the individual’s annual professional performance review;
b) The District’s adherence to the standards and methodologies required for such reviews,
pursuant to Education Law 3012-c;
c) The adherence to the Commissioner’s regulations, as applicable to such reviews;
d) Compliance with any applicable locally negotiated procedures regarding annual
professional performance reviews or improvement plans, as limited by Section 1, above;
or,
e) The District’s issuance and/or implementation of the terms of the teacher improvement
plan under Education Law 3012-c in connection with an ineffective or developing rating.
3.
A teacher may not file multiple appeals regarding the same performance review or teacher
improvement plan. All grounds for appeal must be raised with specificity within one appeal. Any
grounds not raised at the time the appeal is filed shall be deemed waived.
4.
In an appeal, the teacher has the burden of demonstrating a right to the relief requested and the
burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.
5.
The following timelines will be strictly adhered to unless extended by mutual agreement. Failure of
the petitioner to meet a timeline will nullify the appeal; failure of the respondent to meet a timeline
will allow movement of the appeal to the next level.
19
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Level 1 – Evaluator
(Informal) Following a qualifying event, as defined in Sections I and II, above, the teacher shall be
encouraged and shall be entitled to schedule a follow up meeting to informally discuss with the evaluator
any and all related issues.
(Formal) Any appeal must be submitted to the evaluator in writing no later than ten (10) school days of
the date when the teacher receives his/her annual professional performance review. If a teacher is
challenging the issuance or implementation of a teacher improvement plan, the appeal must be submitted
in writing within ten (10) school days of issuance or of the time when the teacher knew or should have
known of an alleged implementation breach of such plan.
When filing an appeal, the teacher must submit a detailed written description of the specific grounds for
the appeal as well as the performance review and/or improvement plan being challenged. Along with the
appeal, all supporting documentation must be submitted, or specifically noted if pending. Any grounds for
appeal or any supporting documentation/information not submitted or noted at the time the appeal is filed
shall not be considered.
Within ten (10) school days of receipt of an appeal, the evaluator responsible for the issue(s) being
appealed must submit a detailed written response to the appeal. Along with the response, all supporting
documentation must be submitted, or specifically noted if pending, as well as any additional documents or
materials relevant to the response. Any supporting documentation/ information not submitted or noted at
the time the response is issued shall not be considered in the deliberations related to the resolution of the
appeal. The teacher initiating the appeal, and the Teachers’ Association President, shall receive copies of
the response and any and all additional information submitted with the response.
Level 2 – Superintendent
Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Level 1 response, if a teacher is not satisfied with such
response the teacher must submit the appeal to the Superintendent of Schools, or the Superintendent’s
designee. (If the Superintendent was the evaluator at Level 1, this Level 2 appeal must go to the
Superintendent’s designee.) The Superintendent or designee will be provided all documentation
submitted in both the appeal and the evaluator’s response.
Within five (5) school days of receipt of the teacher’s appeal, the Superintendent or designee will conduct
a hearing at which the teacher (and representative at the option of the teacher) and the evaluator (and
representative at the option of the evaluator) will be allowed to present oral arguments in support of the
appeal and the response, respectively.
Within five (5) school days of the Superintendent hearing, the Superintendent or designee will issue a
written determination to the teacher, the Teachers’ Association President, and the evaluator.
Level 3 – Panel
Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Level 2 determination, if a teacher is not satisfied with such
determination and if the Teachers’ Association deems the appeal meritorious, the Association must submit
the appeal to a bipartisan panel* comprised of two (2) teacher representatives and two (2) administration
representatives. The panel will be provided the entire appeals record; however, any information identifying
the appellant or the appellant’s district, evaluator or superintendent will be redacted prior to receipt by the
panel. Further, the anonymity of the panel members will be protected to the extent possible throughout
this procedure.
20
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Association’s appeal, the panel will jointly conduct a paper
review and deliberation of the matter, and will issue a written recommendation for resolution to the
Teachers’ Association President and the Superintendent of Schools or designee. The recommendation
may be to deny the appeal, to sustain the appeal and grant the remedy sought, or to sustain the appeal
and modify the remedy; further, reasoning for the recommendation, as well as dissenting opinions, if any,
will be included with the recommendation.
Upon ratification of this appeals procedure by both the Teachers’ Association and the District, each party
will designate at least one and not more than two representatives as SLL regional panelists. Those
individuals will be provided training regarding APPR legislation and regulations and will be expected to be
available to serve on panels as needed for appeals in other SLL districts that utilize this appeals
procedure. The SLL BOCES and Regional NYSUT Office will maintain a computerized listing of all
representatives from which a random selection of panelists can be obtained. Whenever such a panel is
convened, the four panelists must be from four different districts and none can be from the appellant’s
district. Panelist costs will be shared by the Associations and by the Districts.
*
Level 4 – Superintendent
Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Level 3 recommendation for resolution, the Superintendent of
Schools or designee will give due consideration to the panel’s recommendation and will issue a final and
binding decision, in writing, to the appellant, to the Teachers’ Association, and to the panel members.
Whether the appeal is denied, sustained, or modified, such decision will set forth the reasons and factual
basis for each determination on each of the specific grounds raised in the appeal. If the appeal is
sustained, the Superintendent or designee may set aside or modify a rating or improvement plan or order
a new evaluation or improvement plan if procedures have been violated.
6. The entire appeals record will be part of the teacher’s APPR.
7. This appeals procedure constitutes the exclusive means for initiating, reviewing, and resolving any
and all appeals within the scope of Sections I and II, above. A teacher may not resort to any other
contractual grievance procedure for the resolution of these appeals, except as otherwise authorized
by law.
8. Nothing in this appeals procedure will restrict the right of the district or the obligation of the teacher
to proceed in accordance with otherwise standard practice, e.g., implementation of an improvement
plan or denial/granting of tenure, while an appeal is pending.
21
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Recommendation of the Regional Steering Committee for Principal/Instructional
Administrator Evaluation
Principal/Instructional Administrator Appeals Procedure
To the extent that a Principal/Instructional Administrator wishes to challenge a performance review and/or
improvement plan under the new evaluation system, the following appeals procedure is established in
accordance with Section 3012-c of the Education Law.
1.
2.
Appeals will be limited to the following situations:
a)
Principal/Instructional Administrator completing the first year of a three-year probationary
appointment may appeal only an ineffective APPR composite rating;
b)
Any other Principal/Instructional Administrator may appeal only an ineffective or a
developing APPR composite rating;
c)
Any Principal/Instructional Administrator may appeal an improvement plan if and only if
the plan was generated as the result of an ineffective or developing composite rating.
The scope of any appeal will be limited to the following subjects:
a)
The substance of the individual’s annual professional performance review;
b)
The District’s adherence to the standards and methodologies required for such
reviews, pursuant to Education Law 3012-c;
c)
The adherence to the Commissioner’s regulations, as applicable to such reviews;
d)
Compliance with any applicable locally negotiated procedures regarding annual
professional performance reviews or improvement plans, as limited by Section I,
above; or,
e)
The District’s issuance and/or implementation of the terms of the
Principal/Instructional Administrator improvement plan under Education Law 3012-c
in connection with an ineffective or developing rating.
3. A Principal/Instructional Administrator may not file multiple appeals regarding the same
performance review or Principal/Instructional Administrator improvement plan. All grounds for
appeal must be raised with specificity within one appeal. Any grounds not raised at the time the
appeal is filed shall be deemed waived.
4. In an appeal, the Principal/Instructional Administrator has the burden of demonstrating a right to the
relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.
5. The following timelines will be strictly adhered to unless extended by mutual agreement. Failure of
the petitioner to meet a timeline will nullify the appeal; failure of the respondent to meet a timeline
will allow movement of the appeal to the next level.
22
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Level 1 - Evaluator
(Informal) Following a qualifying event, as defined in Sections I and II, above, the Principal/Instructional
Administrator shall be encouraged and shall be entitled to schedule a follow up meeting to informally
discuss with the evaluator any and all related issues.
(Formal) Any appeal must be submitted to the evaluator in writing no later than fifteen (15) calendar days
of the date when the Principal/Instructional Administrator receives his/her annual professional
performance review. If a Principal/Instructional Administrator is challenging the issuance or
implementation of a Principal/Instructional Administrator improvement plan, the appeal must be submitted
in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days of issuance or of the time when the Principal/Instructional
Administrator knew or should have known of an alleged implementation breach of such plan.
When filing an appeal, the Principal/Instructional Administrator must submit a detailed written description
of the specific grounds for the appeal as well as the performance review and/or improvement plan being
challenged. Along with the appeal, all supporting documentation must be submitted, or specifically noted
if pending, as well as the remedy sought by the Principal/Instructional Administrator if the appeal is
sustained. Any grounds for appeal or any supporting documentation/information not submitted or noted at
the time the appeal is filed shall not be considered.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of an appeal, the evaluator responsible for the issue(s) being
appealed must submit a detailed written response to the appeal. Along with the response, all supporting
documentation must be submitted, or specifically noted if pending, as well as any additional documents or
materials relevant to the response. Any supporting documentation/ information not submitted or noted at
the time the response is issued shall not be considered in the deliberations related to the resolution of the
appeal. The Principal/Instructional Administrator initiating the appeal, and the Administrators’ Association
President or appellant’s designee shall receive copies of the response and any and all additional
information submitted with the response.
Level 2 – Panel
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Level 1 determination, if a Principal/Instructional
Administrator is not satisfied with such determination, the Principal/Instructional Administrator must submit
the appeal to a bipartisan panel* comprised of two (2) superintendents and two (2) other administration
representatives. The panel will be provided the entire appeals record; however, any information identifying
the appellant or the appellant’s district will be redacted prior to receipt by the panel.
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Principal/Instructional Administrator’s appeal, the panel will
jointly conduct a brief hearing, a paper review, and deliberation of the matter, and will issue a written
recommendation for resolution to the Principal/Instructional Administrator and the Superintendent of
Schools. The recommendation may be to deny the appeal, to sustain the appeal and grant the remedy
sought, or to sustain the appeal and modify the remedy; further, reasoning for the recommendation, as
well as dissenting opinions, if any, will be included with the recommendation.
Upon the District’s acceptance (or ratification by both parties where Association present) of this appeals
procedure, the parties will designate two administrative representatives as SLL regional panelists. Those
individuals will be provided training regarding APPR legislation and regulations and will be expected to be
available to serve on panels as needed for appeals in other SLL districts that utilize this appeals
procedure. The SLL BOCES will maintain a computerized listing of all representatives from which a
random selection of panelists can be obtained. Whenever such a panel is convened, the four panelists
must be from four different districts and none can be from the appellant’s district.
*
23
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Level 3 – District Superintendent (St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES CEO)
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Level 3 recommendation for resolution, if either the
Principal/Instructional Administrator or the Superintendent of Schools is not satisfied with such
recommendation, the dissatisfied party must submit the entire appeals record to the District
Superintendent or designee.
Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the appeals record, the District Superintendent or designee will
issue a final and binding decision to the Principal/Instructional Administrator and the Superintendent of
Schools. Whether the appeal is denied or sustained, such decision will set forth the reasons and factual
basis for each determination on each of the specific grounds raised in the appeal. If the appeal is
sustained, the District Superintendent or designee may set aside or modify a rating or improvement plan if
it has been affected by substantial error or defect, or order a new evaluation or improvement plan if
procedures have been violated.
6. This appeals procedure constitutes the exclusive means for initiating, reviewing, and resolving any
and all challenges and appeals related to a Principal/Instructional Administrator’s performance
review and/or improvement plan generated as the result of an ineffective or developing rating. A
Principal/Instructional Administrator may not resort to any other contractual grievance procedure for
the resolution of such challenges or appeals, except as otherwise authorized by law.
7. Nothing in this appeals procedure will restrict the right of the District or the obligation of the
Principal/Instructional Administrator to proceed in accordance with otherwise standard practice,
e.g., implementation of an improvement plan or denial\granting of tenure, while an appeal is
pending.
24