APPR for Principals 2012 - Niagara Falls City School District

Niagara Falls City School District Annual Professional Performance Review

Memorandum of Agreement Where and to the extent applicable, the Annual Professional Performance review of Building Principals shall be a significant factor for employment decisions and Principal development as determined by the District and will be subject to any procedures which may in the future be negotiated by the District and ASC.

1. The District and ASC agree to replace existing procedure. 2. The District and ASC agree that pursuant to New York State mandate the overall Composite Scores for Principal Rating Levels are as follows: 0-64 = Ineffective

65-74 = Developing 75-90 = Effective 91-100 = Highly Effective 3. The District and ASC agree to utilize the Multidimensional Principal Performance

Rubric in the evaluation of principals which is to comprise sixty (60) percent of the overall evaluation. The District and ASC further agree to the scoring methodology and overall rubric scoring chart attached hereto and made a part hereof as Appendix A.

4. The District and ASC agree that State-Provided measures of student growth shall comprise

twenty-five (25) points with an approved value added measure and where no state provided measures of growth are available. Locally selected measures of student achievement for principals with an approved value added measure shall comprise fifteen (15) points of the evaluation. The District and ASC agree that Local Measures of Student Achievement (including NWEA, item bank questions, and Student Learning Objectives) will be utilized in accordance with the Assessment Option Chart attached hereto and made a part hereof as Appendix B. The parties further agree to utilize SLO timeline and growth bands delineated in the Student Learning Objective Timeline Document Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Appendix C

5. The parties agree that observation of principals shall be conducted as follows:

Tenured Principals Observations of tenured principals shall consist of a minimum of two (2) formal and a

maximum of three (3) formal observations.

Probationary Principals Observations of probationary principals shall consist of a minimum of two (2) formal and

a maximum of four (4) formal observations.

All Principals shall receive at least one unannounced observation.

6. The parties agree that the Principal Improvement Plan (PIP) form attached hereto as Appendix D shall be utilized in the event a principal received a developing or ineffective rating. The parties agree that ratings of “ineffective” on any sub domain shall require a narrative explanation. ASC members receiving a mandated PIP will have the right to ASC representation during the development of said PIP. The District and ASC further agree if additional forms are required to complete the evaluations, a sub-committee comprised of both ASC and District representatives will meet to collaborate on their creation in accordance with paragraph 11 of this Agreement.

7. To the extent authorized by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

(FERPA), the District will provide each principal with an opportunity to review any information in the District’s possession that is necessary for verification of state and local assessment results that factor into that principal’s total composite effectiveness score. This shall include verification of subjects and/or student rosters assigned teachers in the building.

8. The District and ASC agree to the appeals procedure attached hereto and made a part hereof as Appendix E.

9. All principals will be provided with training on the evaluation system of principals and teachers

prior to the implementation of the new procedure. 10. The parties agree they will further conduct negotiations concerning the APPR regulations

adopted by the Board of Regents, and to the extent necessary to comply with said regulations and NY Education Law section 3012-c.

11. The parties agree to review the procedure for refinement/re-negotiation after the

2012-13 school year. 12. The parties agree that this Agreement shall become final and binding upon all

Parties following ratification of the Niagara Falls City School District Board of Education and the General Membership of the ASC.

________________________ _________________ Cynthia Bianco Date Superintendent of Schools ________________________ _________________ Jeffrey Showers Date President, ASC

APPENDIX A

Scoring Methodology for Multidimensional Principal Performance Rubric

Multidimensional Rubric Weighting Proposal

Domain 1: (5 pts) Shared Vision of Learning Culture (4 pts) Sustainability (1 pts)

Composite Score: Domain 1 Band I D E HE

Culture 1 2 3 4 Sustainability .25 .5 .75 1 Domain Total 1.25 2.5 3.75 5

Domain 2: (16 pts) School Culture & Instructional Program Culture (4 pts) Instruction Program (4 pts) Capacity Building (2 pts) Sustainability (2 pts) Strategic Planning (4 pts)


Culture 1 2 3 4 Instructional

Program 1 2 3 4

Capacity Building .5 1 1.5 2 Sustainability .5 1 1.5 2

Strategic Planning

1 2 3 4

Domain Total 4 8 12 16

Domain 3: (14pts) Safe, Efficient, Effective Learning Environment Capacity Building (4pts) Culture (4pts) Sustainability (2pts) Instructional Program (4pts)


Capacity Building 1 2 3 4 Culture 1 2 3 4

Sustainability .5 1 1.5 2 Instructional

Program 1 2 3 4

Domain Total 3.5 7 10.5 14

Domain 4: (5 pts) Community Strategic Planning (2 pts) Culture (2 pt) Sustainability (1 pts)


Strategic Planning

.5 1 1.5 2

Culture .5 1 1.5 2 Sustainability .25 .5 .75 1 Domain Total 1.25 2.5 3.75 5

Domain 5: (6 pts) Integrity, Fairness, Ethics Sustainability (2pts) Culture (4pts)


Sustainability .5 1.0 1.5 2 Culture 1 2 3 4

Domain Total 1.5 3 4.5 6

Domain 6: (2 pts) Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context Sustainability (0pts) Culture (2pts)


Sustainability Culture .5 1 1.5 2

Domain Total .5 1 1.5 2

Goal Setting and Attainment (12 pts) Uncovering Goals (4 pts) Evaluating Attainment (2 pts) Taking Action (2 pts) Strategic Planning (4 pts)

Composite Score: Goal Setting Band I D E HE

Uncovering Goals

1 2 3 4

Evaluating Attainment

.5 1 1.5 2

Taking Action .5 1 1.5 2 Strategic Planning

1 2 3 4

Domain Total 3 6 9 12

OVERALL RUBRIC COMPOSITE SCORE

Points Score Performance Level

0-24 0-64% I 25-36 65-74% D 37-50 75-90% E

51-60 91-100% HE

APPENDIX B

Assessment Option Chart

1

Niagara Falls City School District Assessment Grid

APPR 2012 – 2013 SLO – Elementary

A. Growth on State Assessments or Comparable Measures (State 20%/ 20 points)

Grades K – 2 ELA Grade Level

Assessment Option Recommendations

District Recommended Assessment Tool

Determination of Baseline

Scoring

K Third-Party State Approved AIMSweb Fall Benchmark Classroom Teacher 1 Third-Party State Approved AIMSweb Fall Benchmark Classroom Teacher 2 Third-Party State Approved AIMSweb Fall Benchmark Classroom Teacher

Grades 3 – 6 ELA Grade Level




Scoring

3 SLO with State Assessment NYS Grade 3 ELA Assessment Fall RIT Score NWEA 4 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 4 ELA Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 5 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 5 ELA Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 6 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 6 ELA Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model

2

Grades K – 2 Math

Grade Level




Scoring

K Third-Party State Approved NWEA MAP for Primary Grades Fall RIT Score NWEA 1 Third-Party State Approved NWEA MAP for Primary Grades Fall RIT Score NWEA 2 Third-Party State Approved NWEA MAP Fall RIT Score NWEA

Grades 3 – 6 Math Grade Level




Scoring

3 SLO with State Assessment NYS Grade 3 Math Assessment Fall RIT Score NWEA 4 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 4 Math Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 5 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 5 Math Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 6 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 6 Math Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model

3

Grades 4 – 6 Science

Grade Level



Determination of Baseline (One or More

of the Following)

Scoring

4 N/A if Common Branch NYS Grade 4 Science Assessment Prior Year Student Achievement Data

District Scoring Model

5 N/A if Common Branch* Erie 1 BOCES Consortium Locally Developed Item Bank

Pre-Test to Measure Readiness Prior Year Student Achievement Data Prior Year Summative Assessment Data

Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD




*Where Team Teaching Occurs, SLOs are content specific.

4

Grades 4 – 6 Social Studies

Grade Level



Determination of Baseline (One or More of the

Following)

Scoring





Pre-Test to Measure Readiness Prior Year Student Achievement Data Prior Year Summative



Pre-Test to Measure Readiness Prior Year Student Achievement Data Prior Year Summative



Teachers by Setting K‐6 Teachers by Setting Growth is State‐provided SGP/VA Growth is SLO

Self-Contained Teachers (Students with disabilities)

Yes, > 50% of students are covered by SGP/VA ELA – Growth on NYS ELA Assessments Math – Growth on NYS Math Assessments

Self-Contained Teachers (NYSAA

Growth on the NYSAA Datafolio based on student profiles ELA – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio Math – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio

Consultant Teachers AIMSweb or NYS Assessment determined by Teacher based on student profile

ESL ELA – Growth on NYSESLAT

5

Teachers of Other Subjects K‐6

Subject

Assessment Option Recommendations/ District Recommended Assessment Tool


Following)

Scoring

Art - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed

Pre-Test to Measure Readiness

Department-Based Scoring Teams*

Music - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered



Physical Education - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed

Pre-Test to Measure Readiness and/or Fitness

Report Card


*Teachers may not score their own students assessments.

6

B. Locally Selected Measure of Student Achievement (Local 20%)

Teachers in all grade levels and content areas, including ESL and consultant teachers, will create their SLO using the summative assessment measures. (The summative assessment measures vary depending on the grade level and content area.)

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring

K May us growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(1) State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents

SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Writing Assessment

Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD*

1 SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Writing Assessment






4 NWEA/Value Added Research Center (VARC) ELA or Math

NWEA


NWEA


NWEA NWEA NWEA

7

(2) State approved 3rd party

assessments (3) District, regional, or

BOCES- developed assessments provided that the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor (75% of the student population of a given classroom will meet mastery (80% or above) on a summative assessment measure.

(4) School-wide growth or

achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4 8 locally computed

(5) SLO with any State,

approved,

District/regional/BOC

developed


8

SAMPLE ONLY All grade levels and content areas will use the same criteria to determine the HEDI score:

HEDI Scoring

Goal: At least 75% of students will achieve mastery (80% or higher) on the summative assessment.

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 96- 100%

93- 95%

90- 92%

89% 88% 87% 85- 86%

83- 84%

81- 82%

79- 80%

77- 78%

75- 76%

74% 73% 71- 72%

69- 70%

67- 68%

65- 66%

64% 21- 63%

0- 20%

NOTE: Percentages are samples

Grade 6 Social Studies Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring

6 May us growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(1) State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents

District Pre- and Post-Assessments Created from Item Banks

Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD* Pre-Test/Teacher Scored

Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD* Pre-Test/Teacher Scored

Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD*

1

examinations and/or

department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally

(2) State approved 3rd party assessments

(3) District, regional, or BOCES- developed assessments provided that the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor (75% of the student population of a given classroom will meet mastery (80% or above) on a summative assessment measure.

(4) School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4-8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES-developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor

(5) SLO with any State, State- approved, or District/regional/BOCES developed assessment

ic, ical

cation

Locally Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment which may include performance-based measures


2


APPR 2012 – 2013 SLO – Preparatory School


Grades 7 & 8 ELA Grade Level




Scoring

7 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 7 ELA Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 8 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 8 ELA Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model

AIS Literacy Navigator Literacy Navigator Post Assessment

Literacy Navigator Pre-Assessment

Computerized ARO

Grades 7 & 8 Math Grade Level




Scoring

7 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 7 Math Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model 8 State Provided Growth NYS Grade 8 Math Assessment Provided by State District Scoring Model

AIS I Succeed I Succeed Post-Assessment I Succeed Pre-Assessment

Computerized

3

Grades 7 & 8 Science

Grade Level



Determination of Baseline (One or More

of the Following)

Scoring

7 District, Regional or BOCES Developed

Erie 1 BOCES Consortium Locally Developed Item Bank


Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD

8 SLO with Grade 8 Science Assessment (Mandatory)

NYS Grade 8 Science Assessment Pre-Test to Measure Readiness Prior Year Student Achievement Data Prior Year Summative Assessment Data

District Scoring Model


4

Grades 7 & 8 Social Studies

Grade Level




Following)

Scoring




Pre-Test/Teacher Scored








Teachers by Setting 7 & 8 Teachers by Setting Growth is State‐provided SGP/VA Growth is SLO


Yes, > 50% of students are covered by SGP/VA ELA – Growth on NYS ELA Assessments Math – Growth on NYS Math Assessments

Self-Contained Teachers (NYSAA Students)

Growth on the NYSAA Datafolio based on student profiles ELA – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio Math – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio

Consultant Teachers Growth based on reading intervention assessment TBD ESL ELA – Growth on NYSESLAT

5

Teachers of Other Subjects 7 & 8

Subject

Assessment Option Recommendations/ District Recommended Assessment Tool


Following)

Scoring

Art - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed



Family Consumer Science

-SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered -District, regional, or BOCES-developed



Health - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed



L.O.T.E. - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed



Music - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed



Physical Education - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed

Pre-Test to Measure Readiness and/or Fitness

Report Card


Technology - SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES-developed




6


Teachers in all grade levels and content areas will have the following goal: 75% of the student population of a given classroom will meet mastery (80% or above) on a summative assessment measure. (The summative assessment measures vary depending on the grade level and content area.)

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring 7 & 8 May us growth or achievement from

these options:

Measures based on: (1) State assessments, Regents

examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations

NWEA/Value Added Research Center (VARC) ELA or Math

NWEA

7

computed in a manner determined locally



(4) School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4-8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES- developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor

(5) SLO with any State, State‐ approved, or District/regional/BOCES developed assessment (for any teacher in a grade or subject without a State approved Growth or Value‐Added Model)


8

Grade 7 & 8 Science Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring

7 May us growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(1) State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally





8 NYS Grade 8 Assessment Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative – Building Level Protocols TBD*

9

(3) District, regional, or BOCES-

developed assessments provided that the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor (75% of the student population of a given classroom will meet mastery (80% or above) on a summative assessment measure.




10

SAMPLE ONLY

All grade levels and content areas will use the same criteria to determine the HEDI score:

HEDI Scoring



93- 95%

90- 92%

89% 88% 87% 85- 86%

83- 84%

81- 82%

79- 80%

77- 78%

75- 76%

74% 73% 71- 72%

69- 70%

67- 68%

65- 66%

64% 21- 63%

0- 20%

NOTE: Percentages are samples.

Grade 7 & 8 Social Studies Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring

7 May us growth or achievement from these options: Measures based on:

(1) State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using




8 District Pre- and Post-Assessments Created from Item Banks


1

State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally



(4) School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4-8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES-developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor


2


APPR 2012 – 2013 SLO – High School


Teachers by Setting 9‐12 Teachers by Setting Growth is State‐provided SGP/VA Growth is SLO


If Regents exam is administered, it must be used in SLO. Grades 9 and 10 use NWEA if no Regents exam is administered

Self-Contained Teachers (NYSAA Students)

Growth on NYSAA Datafolio based on student profiles ELA – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio Math – Growth using the NYSAA Datafolio

Any Push-In, Pull-Out, CT, ESL, etc.

SLO for subject area of focus. Use Regents exam if applicable, NWEA growth, dedicated intervention, assessments, or locally developed assessment using Item Banks. Regents must be growth and NWEA can be used for local measurement either using grade or achievement if both a Regents exam and NWEA are administered.

*SGP/VA = Student Growth Percentile/Value Added

3


Example of HEDI Scoring

HEDI Scoring



93- 95%

90- 92%

89% 88% 87% 85- 86%

83- 84%

81- 82%

79- 80%

77- 78%

75- 76%

74% 73% 71- 72%

69- 70%

67- 68%

65- 66%

64% 21- 63%

0- 20%

Percentages

NOTE: 0-20 HEDI scoring is mandatory (set by NYS Education Department). However, percentages are only examples of possible goals.

4


Grades 9 – 12 ELA

Grade Level Assessment Option Recommendations



Scoring

English 9 Third-Party State Approved NWEA Fall RIT Score NWEA English

Accelerated 9 Third-Party State Approved NWEA Fall RIT Score NWEA

English 10 Third-Party State Approved NWEA Fall RIT Score NWEA English

Accelerated 10 Third-Party State Approved NWEA Fall RIT Score NWEA

English 11 State Assessment NYS Comprehensive Regents Examination in English

District or Department created using prior year’s Regents exam


Summative – Regents Protocols

English 12 District Created using either NWEA or BOCES Item Bank

District Created using NWEA or BOCES Item Bank

District or Department created by teachers using NWEA Item Bank



AP Literature AP Exam AP Exam District or Department created by teachers using NWEA Item Bank

Pre-Test – Teacher Scored Summative – AP Scoring

AP Language AP Exam AP Exam District or Department created by teachers using NWEA Item Bank

Pre-Test – Teacher Scored Summative – AP Scoring

5

Grades 9 – 12 Social Studies




Scoring

Social Studies Global 1 (Gr. 9)

District created NWEA or BOCES Item Bank

District created using either BOCES or NWEA Item Banks

District or Department created using prior years summative assessment



Global 1 Accelerated (Gr.

9)

District created NWEA or BOCES Item Bank

District created using either BOCES or NWEA Item Banks

District or Department created using prior years summative assessment



Global 2 (Gr. 10) District created using Regents exam or locally created item bank

NYS Regents Global History & Geography Examination

District or Department created using parts of prior year’s Regents exam



US History District created using Regents exam or locally created item bank

NYS Regents US History & Government Examination

District or Department created using parts of prior year’s Regents exam



Social Studies Seminar (Gr. 12)

- SLOs must cover classes with the largest numbers of students until a majority of students are covered - District, regional, or BOCES- developed

District created using item bank questions



Human Understanding


District created using item bank questions



Social Studies AP Courses

AP Exams AP Exams Locally developed assessment using NWEA and/or BOCES Item Bank or past assessment

Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative AP – AP Scored

6

Grades 9 – 12 Math




Scoring

Integrated Algebra

Third-Party State Approved NYS Integrated Algebra Regents Examination

Fall RIT Score NWEA Pre-Test Summative – Regents Protocols

Geometry BOCES Consortium District Created

NYS Geometry Regents Examination

Prior year’s Geometry Regents exam revised



Algebra II/Trigonometry

BOCES Consortium District Created

NYS Algebra II/Trigonometry Regents Examination

Prior years Regents exam revised



Pre-Calculus BOCES Consortium District Created

Math Seminar District created using NWEA or BOCES Item Bank

BOCES Consortium or District Created

District created using item banks



7

Grades 9 – 12 Science




Scoring

Living Environment


NYS Living Environment Regents Examination

Prior year’s Regents exam – revised (selected questions)



Earth Science BOCES Consortium or District Created

NYS Earth Science Regents Examination

Prior year’s Regents exam – revised (selected questions)



Chemistry BOCES Consortium or District Created

NYS Chemistry Regents Examination




Physics BOCES Consortium or District Created

NYS Physics Regents Examination BOCES Consortium District Created



Science Seminar BOCES Consortium or District Created





Environmental Science (Non-

Regents)






NU STEP TBD if >50% of teacher’s student population

Niagara University TBD TBD

8

Grades 9 – 12 Other




Scoring

Business BOCES Consortium or District Created





L.O.T.E. BOCES Consortium or District Created





Health/PE BOCES Consortium or District Created





Art BOCES Consortium or District Created





Music BOCES Consortium or District Created





9

Locally Selected Measure of Student Achievement (Local 20%)

High School English Regents Courses

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring 9 May use growth or achievement from

these options:

Measures based on: (1) State assessments, Regents

examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally


SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Writing Assessment




11 SLO with District-Developed Pre-Writing Assessment and NYS Comprehensive Examination in English Regents

Pre-Test/Teacher Scored Summative – Regents Protocols



10

(3) District, regional, or BOCES‐

developed assessments provided that the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor on a summative assessment measure.


-OR- (5) SLO with any State, State‐

approved, or District/regional/BOCES developed assessment (for any teacher in a grade or subject without a State approved Growth or Value‐Added Model)

11

High School Math Regents Courses Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring

9 Integrated

Algebra

May use growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(6) State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher- specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally


SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Integrated Algebra Regents


10 Geometry

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Geometry Regents


11 Algebra II/

Trigonometry

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Algebra II/Trigonometry Regents


12 Math

Seminar

SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment


12



(9) School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4- 8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES- developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor


approved, or District/regional/BOCES developed assessment (for any teacher in a grade or subject without a State approved Growth or Value‐ Added Model)

13

High School Science Regents Courses

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring 9

Living Environment

May use growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(11)State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher- specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally

(12)State approved 3rd party assessments

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Living Environment Regents


10 Earth Science

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Earth Science Regents


11 Chemistry

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Chemistry Regents


12 Physics

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Physics Regents


12 Environmental

Science (Non‐Regents)




14


(14)School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4- 8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES- developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor



15

High School Social Studies Regents Courses

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring 9

Global Studies I May use growth or achievement from these options:

Measures based on:

(16)State assessments, Regents examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher- specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher- specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally




10 Global Studies II

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS Global History & Geography Regents


11 US History & Government

SLO with District-Developed Pre-Assessment and NYS US History & Government Regents


12 Social Studies

Seminar



Human Understanding



16



(19)School-wide growth or achievement based on: State-provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4-8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES-developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor



17

High School – All Other Areas

Grade Options District Recommended Assessment Tool Scoring Business May use growth or achievement from

these options:

Measures based on: (21)State assessments, Regents

examinations, and/or Regents equivalent assessments provided they are different than the measure used for the Growth sub-component. These include: (a) teacher-specific change in percentage of students who achieve a specified level of performance on State assessments; (b) teacher-specific growth measure computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State- determined level of growth; (c) other teacher-specific growth or achievement measure using State assessments, Regents examinations and/or department approved alternative examinations computed in a manner determined locally




L.O.T.E. SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment


Health/PE SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment


Art SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment


Music SLO with District-Developed Pre- and Post- Assessment


(23) District, regional, or BOCES‐ developed assessments

18

provided that the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor on a summative assessment measure.

(24)School-wide growth or achievement based on: State- provided school-wide growth score based on State ELA or Math assessment in grades 4-8; locally-computed measure based on State assessment or District, regional, or BOCES- developed assessment for which the District or BOCES verifies comparability and rigor

-OR- (25) SLO with any State, State‐ approved, or

District/regional/BOCES developed assessment (for any teacher in a grade or subject without a State approved Growth or Value‐ Added Model)

For any courses not included in this grid but which meet the criteria of >50% of an individual teacher’s number of students, the following recommendation should be followed for SLOs:

• Creating Pre-Assessment: If a prior year’s summative assessment or project was administered, select questions or tasks from the assessment to create the pre-assessment.

• 2012-13 Summative Assessments must be newly created using either the NWEA or BOCES Consortium item bank, depending on content area.

APPENDIX C

Student Learning Objective Timeline

20

Student Learning Objective (SLO) Timeline 2012-13 September-November January/Mid-year May-June

• Principals and teachers review school and

District academic priorities and identify key learning content by subject or department as needed.

• Teachers collect baseline data for all students.

• Teachers create measureable targets based on baseline data. Teachers should work collaboratively with grade/subject teams to set their SLOs.

• Teachers create draft SLOs and meet with their principal to discuss and revise as necessary.

• Principals must assess SLOs for rigor and ultimately approve them.

• All SLOs are completed by November 1, 2012 and entered into the District online system.

• District conducts random audit to ensure rigor and consistency.

• Teachers may choose to administer and/or analyze mid-year assessment data to determine students’ progress towards meeting their SLOs.

• Teachers and their supervisor may meet to discuss progress to date on SLOs. Teachers bring all relevant student data to this mid-year meeting.

• Principal provides teacher with specific feedback and discusses additional strategies based on the results of their student data.

• Mid-year assessment results are housed in the District online system.

• Students take summative assessments for their courses.

• Teachers and principals meet to discuss the results of the observational data.

• Students’ summative assessment scores are recorded and ascribed to the SLO in the online system for inclusion in teacher evaluations by June 30th.

• District reviews final scores and data for SLOs and/or conducts a randomized audit to check for rigor and consistency.

• Principal provides teacher with a final score for their SLO based on student growth/achievement and observational data by June

21

30th. Establish expectations for scoring SLOs and determining teacher ratings for the growth component. • Use State Growth Bands

Level

Growth

Measures of student growth

Highly Effective

Results are well-above state average for similar students (or district goals if no state test).

18-20

Effective

Results are meet state average for similar students (or district goals if no state test).

9-17

Developing

Results are below state average for similar students (or district goals if no state test).

3-8

22

Ineffective

Results are well-below state average for similar students (or district goals if no state test).

0-2

23

Growth or Comparable Measures: • Category 1: Scores provided by State - grades 4-8 ELA and math • Category 2: Growth on comparable measures

o SLOs which incorporate a State‐provided measure: o For any SLO that incorporates a State assessment with a State-provided

growth measure, it must utilize the same HEDI expectations as the State- provided growth measure for that State assessment.

o HEDI must be based on the State-provided scale. • Setting target when SLO is not State-provided:

o Option 1: Set a target for the average % mastery of standards across entire class/section.

Targets and HEDI Scoring

• 80% of students will demonstrate mastery of at least 75% of the Spanish II performance indicators as measured by the District’s summative assessment in May 2012.

Highly Effective

(18-20)

Effective

(9-17)

Developing

(3-8 points)

Ineffective

(0-2 points)

86-100% of students

78%-85% of students

66%-77% of students

65% or less of students

24

demonstrate mastery of 75% of the Spanish II performance indicators.

demonstrate mastery of 75% of the Spanish performance indicators.



• Option 2: Set a target for the average point gain on a hundred point scale from baseline to end-of-the-year summative assessment across entire class/section.

Teacher generated target embedded in SLO and agreed upon with evaluator/principal:

Average Point Gain Across Class

Average Baseline score: 73

Average Summative Score: 94

Target: Average point gain: 15 points

Average gain 21 points: Target reached

25

Scale to be used by Evaluator (Principal):

Rating Points

Highly Effective (18-20)

Effective (9-17)

Developing (3-8)

Ineffective (0-2)

Average point gain

25-27

15-24

6-14

0-5

• Option 3: Targets differ by each student’s baseline starting point (Performance Level 1-4). Districts can determine what level of growth for each starting level. See below:

What Student Progress Meets Expectations Performance

level End:1 (0-54)

End:2 (55-64)

End:3 (65-84)

End:4 (85-100)

Start: 1 No Yes Yes Yes Start: 2 No Yes Yes Yes

Start: 3 No No Yes Yes

26

Start: 4 No No Yes Yes

Above chart is an example of how the number of students meeting acceptable growth can be recorded.

The chart below represents how the number of students, when converted to percentage of overall student growth by evaluator/principal, equates to a HEDI rubric score.

Rating Points

Highly Effective (18-20)

Effective (9-17)

Developing (3-8)

Ineffective (0-2)

% students 85%+ 70-84% 50-69% 0-49%

27

Scoring

• District/evaluator will assess the results of each SLO separately, arriving at a HEDI rating and point value between 0-20 points.

• Each SLO must then be weighted proportionately based on the number of students included in all SLOs. This will provide for one overall growth component score between 0-20.

28

SLO as Locally-Selected (Achievement) Option:

• SLOs are an option for locally-selected measures, but only for teachers in a grade or subject without a State-approved Growth or Value-Added model. (Note: Local SLOs must be different than the Growth SLOs used in the Growth subcomponent).

• SLOs for the locally-selected option must include the same basic components as those for growth.

• Districts must set clear expectations for targets and scoring for the “local measures of student achievement” within the context of the Regulations:

Level

Growth

Measures of student growth

Highly Effective

Results are well-above state average for similar students (or District goals if no state test).

18-20

29

Effective

Results are meet state average for similar students (or District goals if no state test).

9-17

Developing

Results are below state average for similar students (or District goals if no state test).

3-8

Ineffective

Results are well-below state average for similar students (or District goals if no state test).

0-2

30

APPENDIX D

Principal Improvement Plan Form

31

Principal Improvement Plan (PIP) A PIP must be initiated whenever a principal receives a rating of developing or ineffective in a year-end evaluation. The PIP shall be designed by the Principal and the Deputy Superintendent. The PIP must be in place no later than September 10 of the following school year. An initial conference shall be held at the beginning of the school year where the PIP is discussed, signed, and dated at the beginning of its implementation. The Principal must be afforded the opportunity for a peer mentor of their choice from ASC. The Principal will select the mentor, subject to the approval of the Deputy Superintendent and ASC president. The Principal and mentor will collaborate during each quarter in meeting the goals stated in the PIP. All dealings between the mentor and the Principal shall remain confidential. At the conclusion of the school year, if all PIP goals and objectives are met, it will terminate. If the goals in the PIP have not been fully met, the district may deem the PIP unsuccessful, modify, and continue the PIP, or evaluate other options. The culmination of the PIP will be communicated in writing to the Principal. If the Principal is rated as developing or ineffective for any school year in which the PIP was in effect, a new plan will be developed by the Principal and the Deputy Superintendent in collaboration according to the component guidelines for the subsequent school year. A PIP must consist of the following components:

1. Specific Areas for Improvement: Domains, SLOs and student achievement specific. Develop specific, behaviorally written goals for the principal to accomplish during the period of the plan.

2. Expected Outcomes of the PIP: Identify specific recommendations for what the Principal is expected to do to improve in identified areas. Delineate Domain specific, realistic, achievable activities for the Principal.

3. Resources: Identify specific resources available to assist the Principal to improve performance. i.e. colleagues, courses, workshops, mentoring, materials, etc.

4. Responsibilities: Identify steps to be taken by the Deputy Superintendent and the Principal through the duration of the PIP. 5. Evidence of Achievement: Identify how progress will be measured and assessed, Specify next steps to be taken based upon whether the

Principal is successful, partially successful or unsuccessful in efforts to improve performance. 6. Timeline: Provide a specific timeline for implementation of the various components of the PIP and for the final completion of the PIP.

Identify the dates for preparation of written documentation regarding completion of the plan.

32

SAMPLE COMPONENTS OF A PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. Targeted Goals: Domains 1-6, Goal Setting Alignment to the Multidimensional Rubric. 2. Expected Outcomes: List of specific expectations related to target indicators. 3. Recommended Activities: List of specific activities. 4. Recommended Resources: Mutually agreed upon by Principal and Deputy Superintendent. 5. Evidence of Achievement: Identify how progress will be measured and assessed. Specify next steps to be taken based upon progress or lack

thereof. 6. Timeline for Measuring Achievement of Expected Outcomes: Identify dates for school visitations consistent with APPR plan; Identify

dates for progress meetings with Deputy Superintendent related to each identified targeted goal; Identify dates for assessment of overall progress.

PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PIP) Administrator________________________________ Level____________

33

Tenured_____ Probationary_____ School______________________________________ PIP Conference Date________________

A. Specific Behaviors to be changed; Targeted Goals

Evaluation Reference Required Behavior

B. Expected Outcomes

Indicator Specific Expectation

C. Recommended Activities/Resources

Activities

D. Evidence of Achievement

Evidence

34

E. Timeline for Measuring Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Date for School Visitation

Date Progress Monitoring with Deputy Superintendent

Dates Quarterly Overall Progress

Statement of Attestation by Administrator (Principal) I,__________________________________________ hereby affix my signature to this document indicating that the above mentioned items have been discussed with me and that I, having an understanding of such, hereby affirm that the changes as referenced to and required of me are understood and that furthermore I am in agreement with such agreements. _________________________________________________ ________________ PIP Administrator Date _________________________________________________ ________________ Deputy Superintendent Date

APPENDIX E Appeals

In order to implement the requirements of N.Y. Education Law section 3012-c and notwithstanding any other current bargaining obligation or agreement, the District and the ASC hereby agree as follows: The following appeals procedure shall apply and shall be the exclusive means for initiating, reviewing and resolving appeals related to an annual professional performance review (APPR) and or Principal Improvement Plan (PIP). A challenge or determination under this section shall be exempt from the grievance and arbitration provisions in the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and an Annual Professional Performance review or Principal Improvement Plan may not be challenged in any other forum. 1. Appeals for “Ineffective” Ratings or Three Consecutive “Developing” Ratings Appeals of Annual professional Performance Reviews shall be limited to only those which rate a principal as ineffective. A principal receiving three consecutive developing ratings may also appeal in accordance with the process outlined herein. A principal may challenge only:

a. The substance of the Annual Professional Performance Review; b. The District’s compliance with agreed upon procedures for conducting the Annual Professional Performance Review; c. The District’s issuance and/or implementation of the terms of the Principal Improvement Plan. d. The District’s adherence to the standards, methodologies, and regulations required for such Annual Professional Performance Reviews pursuant to sections 3012-c of the Education Law and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.

2. Post Evaluation meeting with Evaluator By June 30 or when the evaluation is completed, whichever is earlier, the principal will be notified by email that it is available in the Deputy Superintendent’s office. Upon retrieving the evaluation, the principal will sign a receipt. If the principal does not retrieve the evaluation within one week, the ten (10) day time period referenced below will begin running automatically. Consideration will be given to principals who are absent or on leave when notifications are sent. Any principal who receives an “ineffective” rating or a third consecutive “developing” rating, may, within ten (10) calendar days* of the issuance of the Annual Professional Performance Review or Principal Improvement Plan, request a meeting with the Deputy Superintendent to review all findings relating to the evaluation, including but not limited to any potential procedural or substantive disputes regarding the evaluation or PIP. The meeting, shall be held within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of the request at a mutually agreed upon date and time. The principal may have an ASC representative present if he/she chooses. At the meeting, the principal shall have the option of submitting written information to the Deputy Superintendent, explaining the basis for the disagreement with the evaluation and providing any relevant supporting documentation concerning the principal’s position.

The Deputy Superintendent shall within ten (10) calendar days of the meeting have the option to take any of the following action: respond to the principal in writing, modify the Annual Professional Performance Review or Principal Improvement Plan, or return the Annual Professional Performance review or Principal Improvement Plan to the Principal. 3. Appeal to the Superintendent of Schools Any principal who receives an “ineffective” or third consecutive “developing” Annual Professional Performance Review or Principal Improvement Plan, who seeks to challenge the final determination of the Deputy Superintendent, may submit a written appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. Burden of Proof A Principal choosing to appeal an “ineffective” or a third consecutive “developing” rating or Principal Improvement Plan, bears the burden of demonstrating the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which such relief is sought. Only one appeal in relation to any particular Annual Professional Performance Review or Principal Improvement Plan may be submitted. Written Appeals to the Superintendent of Schools All appeals shall be in writing and be filed with the Superintendent of Schools. Any grounds not raised in writing shall be deemed waived. Time for Principal Filing Any appeal filed by a principal receiving an “ineffective” rating, third consecutive “developing” rating or Principal Improvement Plan, must be submitted in writing to the Superintendent of Schools no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date the Principal receives the final evaluation or plan from the deputy Superintendent. In the event the principal chooses to request a post evaluation meeting, the appeal to the Superintendent must be submitted no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the Deputy Superintendent’s action. Any failure by the principal to file an appeal within this timeframe shall be considered a waiver and abandonment of the right to appeal. Content of Appeal The principal filing the appeal has the responsibility to submit a detailed written description of the specific areas of the evaluation and/or PIP in dispute together with a copy of the evaluation and or PIP presented to the principal and any additional documents or materials the principal believes relevant to the determination of the appeal. The principal may present any mitigating circumstances that he/she believes are relevant to the appeal, (including but not limited to building/class size, teachers and student population, teacher/student attendance, teacher leave. Personal leave/personal life, new initiatives/requirements, Central Office administrative support/relationship and physical environment) which shall be considered by the District along with all other information submitted during the appeal. It is agreed that for appeals filed due to the receipt of a third

consecutive “developing” rating, all three consecutive developing evaluations may be submitted for consideration as part of the Appeal. The principal shall have the right to ASC representation to assist with the drafting and filing of the appeal. All documents submitted at the time of the filing of the appeal shall be considered the record of the appeal for consideration. Any information, documents and/or materials not submitted at the time of the filing of the appeal shall not be considered in making a final determination. Evaluator Response Within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of an appeal, the Deputy Superintendent who issued the Annual Professional Performance Review and/or PIP shall file a written response to the appeal with the Superintendent of Schools. The response shall include any and all information documentation and material that is to be considered in support of the Annual Professional Performance Review and/or PIP and in response to the principal’s appeal. All documents submitted at the time of the filing the response to the appeal shall be considered as part of the record of the appeal for consideration. Any information, documents and/or materials not submitted at the time of the filing of the response to the appeal shall not be considered in making a final determination. The principal shall be provided with a copy of the response filed by the evaluator together with all information documentation and material that is submitted in support of the APPR and/or PIP. Meeting On Appeal Within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of the Evaluator response, the Superintendent shall meet with the principal and his/her Union Representative. Determination of Appeal The Superintendent of Schools shall render a written decision on the merits of the appeal based solely upon the record submitted. The written decision shall be rendered no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date upon which the meeting with the principal and his/her Union Representative is held. The written decision shall include the reasons and factual basis for each determination on each of the specific issues raised in the appeal. The Superintendent may choose to do any one or a combination of the following: Sustain the appeal Sustain the appeal and set aside a rating Sustain the appeal and modify a rating

Direct a new evaluation be conducted by the same or different evaluator Deny the appeal in total Deny the appeal in part and request a modification to the PIP In the event an appeal for a second consecutive ineffective evaluation is denied, the Superintendent’s decision shall advise the administrator that he/she may be subject to the commencement of an expedited 3020-a proceeding as allowed by the regulations. The District and ASC agree that all evidence and information procured as part of the record shall become part of the expedited 3020-a proceeding 4. Nothing raised by the principal at any point in this Appeals procedure shall be

construed to limit any evidence or arguments that the principal may raise in a formal statutory disciplinary or legal proceeding for actions not specifically related to appealing an evaluation per this procedure.

5. Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement shall in any way restrict or affect the

District’s non-reviewable authority to terminate the appointment of or deny tenure to a probationary principal, and any such termination or denial shall not in any way be subject to challenge through the grievance or arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties or in any other forum.

*It is understood by the District and ASC that for the purposes of the timelines referenced in this Agreement, school holidays and vacation periods will be taken into consideration when counting 10 calendar days.

APPR for Principals 2012 - Niagara Falls City School District

Documents

Transcript of APPR for Principals 2012 - Niagara Falls City School District