Setting the record straight on teacher evaluations

We’ve filed two updates to our website on teacher evaluation in New York state to specifically address NYSUT’s recent settlement with the State Education Department.

First up: an exhaustive listing of answers to your Frequently Asked Questions on the many components of the new evaluation process. NYSUT’s Research and Educational Services team produced the Q&A in response to the questions we’ve heard from members on scoring bands, on locally selected measures of student growth, and much more.

The teacher evaluation website also has a new column by NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi to summarize the facts and counter the misconceptions about the agreement. Dick goes into particular detail to highlight the built-in safeguards against unfair evaluations. An excerpt:

As a party to the agreement (I was personally at the table throughout the negotiations), NYSUT sought to maintain principles that are good for students and fair to teachers. We believe we succeeded. This agreement creates a thoughtful, collaborative framework that allows teachers, principals and parents to develop a majority of the evaluation measures through conversation and negotiation. It recognizes the complexities involved in teacher evaluation and emphasizes the continual improvement of teaching skills in ways that benefit all children.

You can read his full column here.

For news and updates on teacher evaluations in New York state, keep your browser pointed to learnmore.nysut.org.

Tags: , , ,

39 Comments

  1. Carol Burris February 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    I am surprised that you would argue that a teacher who gets 46 out of 60 points, a fair share of points in my opinion, should not be considered effective. That would be an odd stance in bargaining. I am quite clear in the blog that I am making a proportional assumption. I would think that NYSUT would argue that near perfection in the 60 is not required for a teacher to be effective, especially since at least 31 points are based on principals’ observations of teachers. I agree with the judge who upheld the contention in your lawsuit that 64 if far too high a bar to set to get out of ineffective and that the cut of 64 means that student test scores have a disproportionate weight in the formula. I made your argument to the judge in the blog. Perhaps NYSUT and principals can make that argument to the legislature which still must approve the system.

    • Dick Iannuzzi February 25, 2012 at 6:36 am #

      The entry continues to misunderstand the court’s ruling and the new agreement. The bands were invalidated because the state wanted to use the state test as a single measure for 40% not because of where they were set. SED failed to achieve that end in the new agreement as well. The locally bargained 20% should now be a different authentic assessment. Continuing to focus on points over substance misses the intent of the agreement. Application of the rubric determines a teacher’s HEDI rating. That rating will drive a numerical score within an assigned range. The range is not meant to be proportional. The driving force in the locally developed 60% and 20% is the HEDI rating in each subcomponent. The corresponding scores applied to a composite score will then result in a valid composite score. Evaluators should focus on assigning a HEDI rating by applying the rubric. The numerical ranges assigned to the rating will then drive a fair and appropriate composite score.

      • Jon Dell'Olio February 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

        Is it correct that each district must submit their collectively bargained rubric to SED, but SED can reject that collectively bargained rubric? If SED has the right equal to a dictator who is to say “[the] numerical ranges assigned to the rating will then drive a fair and appropriate composite score.”? Also, who is going to pay for the different authentic locally created exams representing the other 20%?

        • Dick Iannuzzi February 26, 2012 at 11:09 am #

          The district and the local union decide which of the approved rubrics to use in the evaluation process. The district must submit the Annual Professional Performance Review plan to SED for review. Keep in mind that SED has always had some authority over the appropriateness of what goes on in individual school districts.The SED review is to ensure the plan complies with the law. The law gives clear authority to the district and the local union to agree on scoring ranges for the 60 percent, and to agree on how teachers are placed in the rating categories for both the local 20 percent and the 60 percent. Once a teacher’s rating is established, the corresponding score will ensure she/he reaches the appropriate composite score.
          The locally selected assessments are the responsibility of the district. The first thing each district should do is look at what assessments are already in use to determine if they could be utilized for the 20 percent locally selected assessments. This should help lessen any additional costs. In the end, for so many reasons, additional resources are needed and we continue to fight for more state aid in the current budget.

          • Sheila Scimone February 27, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

            While it appears that “clear authority” has been given to districts and locals to agree on scoring ranges and on where teachers should be placed in the rating categories, the fact is that the SED Commissioner has been granted the power to unilaterally reject any agreements that he deems are not sufficiently rigorous. This undermines the notion of “clear authority” to the point of meaninglessness. It deals a serious blow to collective bargaining.

      • JMitchell March 9, 2012 at 8:21 am #

        Mr. Iannuzzi:
        I have tried numerous times reaching out to you and others at headquarters in Albany and continue to fail to receive a satisfying answer to my original question.
        WHY did NYSUT agree to this evaluation law in the first place? It may seem irrelevant now as the law is in place; I assure you, this question is not irrelevant to many of us NYSUT members in the trenches. PLEASE explain the thinking behind the agreement with SED and the politicians in Albany. Thank you.

        • Dick Iannuzzi March 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

          Unless it is limited by law, the substantive criteria for the evaluation of professionals (APPR) are controlled by regulation established by the Board of Regents. The governor can also impose changes in law by inserting language into his budget proposal which can only be rejected if the legislature chooses to defeat the entire budget. The Governor and the Commissioner of Education, John King, demanded a greater role for testing and less of a role for collective bargaining. The scope of bargaining evaluations under the Taylor Law would have been negatively impacted in the process. We resisted. Rather than a unilaterally imposed teacher evaluation system that would have placed an unacceptable emphasis on standardized testing and severe restrictions on collective bargaining, NYSUT entered into negotiations that resulted in a settlement to our APPR law suit. The outcome of those negotiations places significant limits on student assessment, especially state tests (20%), and gives significant voice (80%) to collective bargaining.

          We probably all agree that the current APPR law is cumbersome and distracting. It is better than what would have been imposed, and gives greater voice to teachers than anywhere else in the country. Yes, it can be improved and in time we hope to be part of doing so and in blocking those who would weaken teacher voice.

          Teachers have always been accepting of accountability: we are held accountable on a daily basis by administrators, the community where we teach and the parents of our students. In its totality, this APPR proposal emphasizes a continual process of teacher improvement at every level—even the best know that there is more to learn every day. This APPR process increases our credibility with the public—our greatest ally against those who aim to destroy public education. Its cumbersomeness and challenges are worth the effort in gaining greater public support for public education.

      • Joe Bruno April 18, 2012 at 11:21 am #

        I’m sorry, but I am still unclear how President Iannuzzi is addressing Ms. Burris’ central point: That is, I believe, “A teacher can receive 3 effective scores and still be considered ineffective.” Iannuzzi is clear about the fact that a HEDI rating in a subcomponent comes first, driving the numerical score… WITHIN THAT SUBCOMPONENT. So a teacher’s 60% subcomponent looks good (“effective”), driving a score of 46 out of 60. The teacher’s 20% local looks good (“effective”), driving a score of 9 out of 20, and the teacher’s state tests look good (“effective”) driving another 9 out of 20. As already stated, this adds up to 64, “ineffective.”
        Ms. Burris makes the very, very, VERY reasonable suggestion that the legislature could simply say, “This can’t be the case. If you’re ‘effective’ in all three categories (or come on, how about 2 out of 3? I mean, give me a break), you must be considered ‘effective’ overall.” Iannuzzi’s version of this, that “practitioners” determine the HEDI category first, then give an appropriate score, still leaves a lot of ugly possibilities.
        First, there is still a bit too much ambiguity in who the “practitioners” legally can be, because (I mean, let’s face it) much of their subjective opinion will go into the local scoring.
        Second, and more importantly, I was expecting Iannuzzi to state that the HEDI score being ‘effective’ in one category would, if needed, drive the score for ANOTHER ‘effective’ category up a few points, in order to create an OVERALL score of ‘effective.’ Maybe I’m not reading carefully, but I don’t think this is stated. This would, however, satisfy me if it is the case.

        • NYSUT Research and Educational Services April 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

          The problem with Ms. Burris’s example is she presumes a scoring band for the 60 percent that creates the scenario she describes.
          Since the 60 percent band is set through collective bargaining, the local is able to ensure the scoring band for the 60 % is set in a way that ensures a teacher who receives an effective rating in all three subcomponents will also be effective in the composite rating.

          • Joe Bruno April 19, 2012 at 7:49 am #

            Thanks! We’ve got work to do…

  2. Gerry Carlin February 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    Q. Doesn’t the requirement for at least one unannounced observation interfere with collective bargaining?

    A. Although the amended law will require at least one unannounced observation, parameters for this type of observation must be established through collective bargaining. A number of our locals already allow unannounced observations and have bargained both procedures and how the observation will be used in the overall evaluation. For example, some locals have negotiated contract language that requires prior notification that a observation will occur during a specific time period, such as within two weeks beginning on a specific date. Some contracts specify that an initial observation will be a full, formal observation followed by one or more unannounced, more focused observations of shorter duration, such as 15 minutes. Each observation is followed by a conversation and documented with a report that includes the pertinent parts of the rubric. Unannounced observations also do not need to be weighted the same as a formal observation. Again, how the points are determined for the 60 percent must be locally negotiated.

    This is such spin! We negotiated unannounced observations out of our contract several contracts ago. This is a gotcha opportunity!

    • Dick Iannuzzi February 26, 2012 at 11:00 am #

      The unannounced observation was a demand by SED, and not one we thought sound educationally. It can have its place as outlined here and in that way be prevented from serving as a “gotcha” strategy. As in any agreement, there are some things you like and some you don’t. Overall we are confident we are well ahead in terms of a sound evaluation process. Certainly far better than what was demanded or what could have been imposed through unilateral regulation.

  3. Dick Iannuzzi February 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    SED and the Commissioner have always had some control over the way school districts comply with regulations and laws pertaining to education policy.
    Two aspects have been specified in the pending legislation: the Commissioner’s authority is clearly referenced as is the obligation to inform districts of specific deficiencies. Where the deficient area(s) involve collective bargaining, the manner in which the deficiency is addressed must also be through collective bargaining.

  4. Brendan Keiser February 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    Mr. Iannuzzi,

    Can you please clarify the following for me: If a teacher receives an ineffective rating two years in a row, will they automatically be fired?

    Can you also please clarify this: “Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall.”

    In regards to local assessments, BOCES is telling us (teachers) that there are over 700 districts in the state and that if teachers in each district submitted all of their locally based assessments, there is no way the state would go through all of them to check the validity and reliability. Therefore, the vendor list will be pushed and the district will have to foot the cost, which is upsetting to think about while personally hearing that my district is cutting 19 positions because of financial issues.

    Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

    • Dick Iannuzzi March 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

      Teachers will not automatically be fired if they receive
      2 ineffective ratings.
      If they receive 2 ineffective ratings in a row the district would have the option of bringing charges under an expedited 3020-a process that would only involve the teacher’s competence. The district will present the 2 ratings and proof that a TIP was provided and then the teacher will be able to present a defense.

      If a teacher receives an ineffective rating on both the state growth measure and the locally developed and selected measure of student achievement, the teacher will receive an overall in effective rating. Keep in mind the teacher will have received a maximum of 4 points out of 40 if they receive 2 ineffective ratings on the student achievement measures. Also keep in mind the selection of the local measures must be collectively bargained.

      Locally developed assessments do not have to be approved by SED. Your Superintendent simply must certify that the assessment is rigorous and comparable across classrooms. There is no requirement or any reason to select a commercial assessment which will cost the district money versus a locally developed test.

      • Bo April 1, 2012 at 11:36 am #

        Must both ratings be ineffective? In other words, what if a “3″ is scored on one of the achievement measures, and a “0″ is scored on the other? This is less than the total of “4″, yet one of the measures would be considered “in need of improvement.”

        • NYSUT Research and Educational Services April 2, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

          Under the scoring bands in the legislation, you must get 5 points combined from the state 20% and the local 20% in order to have an opportunity to reach the developing level in the overall composite score.

  5. robert March 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    This whole change with regard to teacher evaluations has demoralized teachers around the country. I have been an educator in mathematics for 10 years, and my wife has been an elementary school teacher for several years as well. We are very good at what we do and have received several commendations for our work with students. We had planned to move back to NY, but after all this talk about the publishing of teacher evaluations and measuring performance based on some standardized tests, we are taking a second look at our decision to re-locate, and will probably defer our decision, and perhaps even suspend any thoughts of ever moving back to New York. I feel real sorry for our education system in this country because all that seems to be happening is that those who have never taught in the classroom, nor have they ever been exposed to the teaching profession are dictating all of the rules. This country will lose alot of great educators due to the bashing of our profession.

  6. John March 8, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Can you explain the process by which you crafted and negotiated APPR to us? Who sat at that table? How am I represented? How was it voted upon? I can’t imagine a bill passing into law with which 100% of the constituency disagrees. Mr. Ianuzzi – 100% of those you represent are completely opposed to APPR. Admit you made a mistake and help us stop it in its tracks before it becomes law. Let’s go back to the drawing board and craft something that won’t harm learning environments, place undue burden on struggling districts and reinforce the misconceptions that the greatest problems in education have to do with the vast majority of dedicated educators. We are all for accountability, but APPR is cumbersome, distracting and philosophically ridiculous. I am on the front lines of negotiating in my district, and I can’t believe what I am being asked to do. There is no basis for this “experiment”, no research that supports it, and no evidence that it will help. The list of unintended consequences could go on for pages. Take this thing to referendum. Let us have a vote. Democracy is not being served.

    • Dick Iannuzzi March 10, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

      Unless it is limited by law, the substantive criteria for the evaluation of professionals (APPR) are controlled by regulation established by the Board of Regents. The governor can also impose changes in law by inserting language into his budget proposal which can only be rejected if the legislature chooses to defeat the entire budget. The Governor and the Commissioner of Education, John King, demanded a greater role for testing and less of a role for collective bargaining. The scope of bargaining evaluations under the Taylor Law would have been negatively impacted in the process. We resisted. Rather than a unilaterally imposed teacher evaluation system that would have placed an unacceptable emphasis on standardized testing and severe restrictions on collective bargaining, NYSUT entered into negotiations that resulted in a settlement to our APPR law suit. The outcome of those negotiations places significant limits on student assessment, especially state tests (20%), and gives significant voice (80%) to collective bargaining.

      We probably all agree that the current APPR law is cumbersome and distracting. It is better than what would have been imposed, and gives greater voice to teachers than anywhere else in the country. Yes, it can be improved and in time we hope to be part of doing so and in blocking those who would weaken teacher voice.

      Teachers have always been accepting of accountability: we are held accountable on a daily basis by administrators, the community where we teach and the parents of our students. In its totality, this APPR proposal emphasizes a continual process of teacher improvement at every level—even the best know that there is more to learn every day. This APPR process increases our credibility with the public—our greatest ally against those who aim to destroy public education. Its cumbersomeness and challenges are worth the effort in gaining greater public support for public education.

      Your elected Board of Directors was kept informed as negotiations developed. The board and local presidents were informed immediately once an agreement was reached. We have had several webinars with local presidents, staff and the board to keep everyone up to date and knowledgeable as to how to proceed. The process of educating leaders will continue with ongoing training and informational sessions for local leaders and staff. NYSUT will remain diligent in enforcing the safeguards in the proposed legislation and monitoring its implementation so that the focus remains on strengthening teacher effectiveness and maintaining our commitment to keep decision making at the local collective bargaining level.

  7. John March 29, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    How will teachers on special assignment, staff developers, guidance, librarians, speech therapist, literacy coaches, math coaches and other non-classroom teachers be rated?

    What if the teacher on special assignment over sees a teaching assistant or other paraprofessional? Where as they prepare the lessons and the TA provides the actual instruction.

    Thank you for your input.

    • NYSUT Research and Educational Services March 30, 2012 at 10:39 am #

      Q: How will teachers on special assignment, staff developers, guidance, librarians, speech therapist, literacy coaches, math coaches and other non-classroom teachers be rated?
      A: Most of the teachers listed above are not classroom teachers and will be covered by the old APPR. The exceptions are Librarians and speech therapists. SED has defined these titles as classroom teachers for purposes of the new APPR. These titles will be covered by the new APPR. For the state growth part they will do Student Learning Objectives.

      Q: What if the teacher on special assignment oversees a teaching assistant or other paraprofessional? Where they prepare the lessons and the TA provides the actual instruction.
      A: Teachers on Special assignment should be evaluated using the old APPR because they are no longer classroom teachers.

      • Carrie Favaro August 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

        I am curious about how it was established that a “Speech Therapist” would be considered as a classroom teacher and a “Speech Pathologist” is not. Does anyone at State Ed. know that SLPs and Teachers of the Speech and Hearing Handicapped do the same job and in our district were all hired as “Teachers of the Speech and Hearing Handicapped” regardless of CCC certification and licensure. It is evident that the NYS Education Department really doesn’t know the difference from a practical/hands-on point of view.

  8. Bo April 1, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    I have a concern, that administrators will be encouraged(pressured) into having observation scores match test scores, out of fear that they will be audited if the 2 scores are not in alignment. Is this true?

    • NYSUT Research and Educational Services April 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

      We were successful in forcing the district to release the teachers score on the 20% local and the 60% other teacher practice in order to avoid any pressure to change these scores once the 20% state growth measure score arrives from the state over the summer.

      • Bo April 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

        Can administrators be audited if there is a discrepancy between observation rating and state test rating.? Wondering if the following years’ observation rating could be influenced by previous year’s test score.

        • NYSUT Research and Educational Services April 5, 2012 at 8:47 am #

          The data will be available for the state and the district to make comparisons of the scores of the subcomponents. If principals use the previous years scores to make decisions about the current year, they could be just as far off because there is a new group of students taking the test.

  9. Gregg Wilbert April 6, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Mr. Iannuzzi clearly stated that the publishing of individual teacher APPR scores was not the intent of the law and will be legally challenged if such action is taken. I have already seen on Journal News LoHud.com an editorial poll asking the public to vote on, “Should evaluation info for individual teachers be made public?” Also, there have been articles from other sources about Gov. Cuomo supporting the release of evaluation data to the parents (translation: the public).

    I can’t imagine how it would be if a teacher is “only” rated “effective” (or “worse” ) and that classroom teacher faces students who have this kind of information. Will this information damage teacher-student educational relationships? What about the parents who wish that their child not be placed with a teacher who is not highly effective? Suppose a student fails a course, or does not do well, and that teacher is not rated “highly effective,” Can a parent(s) seek legal action?

    Our district has indicated (as has one other that I know of) that teachers will only “visit” the distinguished section of the Danielson teacher evaluation model. If this “understanding” is a factor in a teacher not receiving a highly effective rating how will the parents really process all this? I can predict that many will only be interested in the published ratings!

    Does the Freedom of Information Act trump any legal challenge to not publish teacher ratings? I can foresee taxpayers challenging any legal ruling that supported not publishing teacher scores.

    It is my hope that these and other concerns regarding the possible publication of teacher evaluation scores will be addressed in any legal challenge. Go, NYSUT!

  10. cunnan April 21, 2012 at 2:12 am #

    The classroom teacher has the closest relationship to the student! The individuals determining their effectiveness can have less teaching experience than the teacher, sometimes by 10-15 years. Why is this a step forward? Principals are usually former teachers, certified in a single area! How can they tell a different area certified teacher how to improve their teaching? We have all been to college for many years! Did our Method’s teacher really have a handle on our first year students? He/she hadn’t talked with a 15 year old in 20 years! Our state educational people (Gov Cuomo and young what’s his name were private schooled) have no idea what occurs in a real classroom! What happened to the respect that teachers recieved (i before e except after c) when we were in school. Parents (I am one) should have a more possitive role in our students, not highly paid administrators. Administrators should be working for us (teachers) rather than us working for them! This is a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse.Shame on you NYS Education department for not being a champion for the student,but for the administration! You are just playing politics with tax payers as usual. Shame on you! Hypocrits to the end I guess!

  11. Melissa May 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Hello,
    Are speech and language pathologists covered under the new APPR requirements?

    Thank you!
    Melissa

    • Betsy Sandberg May 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      Hi Melissa,
      Yes and no. I searched through the State Educaton Departmen’ts guidance memo (http://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/APPR-Field-Guidance.pdf) and found this:
      “Speech teachers, who are teachers of record, and are certified under section 80-3.9 of the Commissioner’s Regulations or as a teacher of the speech and hearing handicapped or a teacher of speech and language disabilities and who provide instructional services are certified teachers within the classroom teaching service as defined in section 80-1.1 of the Commissioner’s Regulations. Therefore, they are considered classroom teachers pursuant to Education Law 3012-c and the implementing regulations.
      A licensed speech language pathologist under Title VIII of the Education Law that is not a certified teacher under the Commissioner’s regulations and does not provide instructional services is not considered a classroom teacher.”

  12. Heather Riccardi June 4, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    I understand that as a speech language pathologist with teacher certification I will be expected to have SLOs, but how will it work when my caseload is spead out over 5 different grades (K-4)? and I’m working on everything from social language, grammar, stuttering, articulation, apraxia, etc.?? What would be an example for a speech language therapist’s SLO? What pre- and post- measures would you recommend? Who would evaluate my students? especially since I’m the only SLP working at these grade levels?

    Thank you,
    Heather

    • NYSUT Research and Educational Services June 4, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

      Speech Language Pathologists are unique and provide challenges to districts in determining how to include them in the new system. Because they will most likely not be a teacher of record for a state test, Speech Language Pathologists will be required to do SLOs for the 20% state growth. The process for how SLOs will be developed has been delegated by the state to local school districts. The state has set some parameters and then left the remainder for the district to decide.

      In order to meet the state requirement, you will have to have SLOs covering at least 50% of your students. If you have a group of students that can be given the same pre-test and post test, it will allow you to limit how many SLOs you will need to meet the 50% rule.

      SED has not produced any examples of SLOs for speech language pathologists. The generic format for an SLO can be found at http://www.engageNY.org. Pre-tests can be anything you want to use to measure your students baseline. SLOs are measuring a student’s growth so establishing a baseline is critical. Since your district is not likely to know how they want your SLO to look, you may want to develop one and present it to the district. The post test must be scored by someone other than you. The district will be responsible for identifying someone to score the post test.

  13. Kim Leach July 16, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Can you please cite your information for the SLP’s having to do SLO’s for 50% of their caseload? Our district curriculum person, trained with SED in Albany, was told the SLP’s are under the old APPR and would not be responsible for SLO’s either. Is this what is being considered “district level” decision? If you can provide specific clarification and/or citation, I’d appreciate it.
    Thank you so much!

  14. NYSUT Research and Educational Services August 7, 2012 at 9:56 am #

    Districts ultimately determine if SLPs are covered. There is a provision in section c of the guidance

  15. AR October 18, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    Are Teacher of the Deaf and hard of Hearing working as Itinerant required to write SLOs? It is hard to find information about this in the document.

  16. NYSUT Research and Educational Services October 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    You ask a good question. The answer will depend on how the district views your work.
    We have found there is flexibility within the APPR guidance provided by the State Education Department to exclude certain individuals holding teacher certification.
    If you are teaching students with disabilities in a special class, resource room, consultant teacher or integrated co-teaching service setting, then you would be a teacher of record and evaluated under the new APPR process. As a result, you may need to write SLOs.
    If, according to a student’s individualized education program (IEP), you are providing a “related service” (such as audiology services, interpreting services, assistive technology services, or other appropriate support services), then SED guidance supports not including you in the new APPR process.

  17. JB September 25, 2013 at 9:29 am #

    Though, as a Teacher of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, I was NOT covered by APPR requirements last year, my district still elected to give me a score. Now I’m told that for the 2013-2014 school year, TOD/HHs are included in the APPR process. I’m an itinerant providing a related service to students in multiple grade levels; mostly with one student at each grade level. Are TOD/HHs working in this situation truly included in APPR this year?

  18. NYSUT Research and Educational Services September 25, 2013 at 11:36 am #

    The law requires that all classroom teachers be evaluated under the new law and the Commissioner’s regulations define a classroom teacher as a teacher in the classroom teaching service, who is a teacher of record as defined in section 30-2.2 of the Rules of the Board of Regents. As a provider of related services, she is not primarily or directly responsible for any course content. She provides support to other teachers to help them provide the course content. She supports the students by helping them with the tools they need to receive instruction. Even if she shares responsibility with the teacher, her responsibility is with the mechanics, not the content so even in a “weighted” situation as described below.

    SED Guidance

    Itinerant Teachers

    Itinerant teachers who are considered teachers of record at the BOCES for students in multiple schools must be evaluated pursuant to Education Law § 3012-c.

    B2. What is a “teacher of record” in 2012-2013 and subsequent years?

    For the 2012-2013 school year and subsequent years, teacher of record is defined as those teachers who are primarily and directly responsible for a student’s learning activities that are aligned to the performance measures of a course. Beginning in the 2011-12 school year and school years thereafter, NYSED will collect additional data elements to support teacher of record determinations for evaluation purposes. These data elements will allow for identification of additional teachers of record for a course, if applicable, and will allow for the adjustment of the weighting of a student-learning result on a teacher evaluation (for example, based on partial-course student enrollment or teacher assignment). NYSED will work with its growth/value-added measures provider, the Regents Task Force, and industry-standards groups to determine when and how these additional data will affect the way students, teachers, courses, and assessments are connected for evaluation purposes.

Post Comment