A review or the Regents Reform Agenda in NYS, and how teacher improvement can affect student performance. A look into the standards and assessment, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around struggling schools as part of the Regents Reform Agenda.

1. Improving Teaching Practice in
New York State
The Regents Reform Agenda and
Annual Professional Performance
Review Process

2. How is Race to the Top changing the P-
12 school landscape, and what are the
implications for Schools of Education?

3. Introductions
• Dr. Karen Bell, Dean SUNY New Paltz
• Dr. Stephen Danna, Dean SUNY Plattsburgh @ Queensbury
• Dr. James Butterworth, Executive Director Capital Area
School Development Association (CASDA at UAlbany)
• Rita Floess, NBCT Mentor Coordinator, Albany CSD
• Joseph Pesavento, Director Mid-Hudson Teacher Center

4. Regents Reform Agenda
Highly Effective
School Leaders
 Standards and Assessment
 Data Systems to Support
Instruction
 Great Teachers and Leaders
College and
 Turning Around Struggling Schools
Highly Effective
Teachers Career Ready
Students
4

5. 3 Initiatives
5

6. 100-Point Evaluation System
6

7. Teachers AND Principals:
Sixty Percent
-Based on NYS Teaching Standards or the ISSLC
Standards
-Menu of state approved rubrics to assess
performance on Standards
-Variance process available for district/BOCES
who seek to use a rubric not on State-approved list.

8. Teachers: Sixty Percent Cont.
•Multiple measures
•At least 31 of the 60 points shall be
based upon multiple (at least 2)
classroom observations by Principal
or trained evaluator, one must be
unannounced.

9. Teachers: Sixty Percent Cont.
•Remaining Points
• Observation(s) by trained evaluator(s)
• Observation(s) by trained, in-school peer
teachers
• Feedback from students and/or parents using
state approved survey tools
• Structured review of lesson plans, student
portfolios and or teacher artifacts
•All Standards must be addressed each year

10. New York State Teaching
Standards
1. Knowledge of Students and Student Learning
2. Knowledge of Content and Instructional Planning
3. Instructional Practice
4. Learning Environment
5. Assessment for Student Learning
6. Professional Responsibilities and Collaboration
7. Professional Growth

11. Effects of Support and Challenge on
Teacher Development
high
Retreat Growth
Challenge
Status Quo Confirmation
low
low high
Vision Learning Support Barber, 2003

12. Teacher-Leader Ef fectiveness
Continuum
12

13. What is the research telling us
about improving teacher
effectiveness through evidence-
based evaluation?

14. Study: Measures of Ef fective Teaching

15. Measures of Ef fective Teaching
Unique project in many ways:
 in the variety of indicators tested,
5 instruments for classroom observations
Student surveys (Tripod Survey)
Value-added on state tests
 in its scale,
3,000 teachers
22,500 observation scores (7,500 lesson videos x 3 scores)
900 + trained observers
44,500 students completing surveys and supplemental assessments
• and in the variety of student outcomes studied.
Gains on state math and ELA tests
Gains on supplemental tests (BAM & SAT9 OE)
Student-reported outcomes (effort and enjoyment in class)

16. Dynamic Trio
Measures have different strengths
…and weaknesses
Potential for
Measure Predictive power Reliability Diagnostic Insight
Value-added
H M L
Student survey
M H M
Observation
L M/H H

17. Key Finding: Use Multiple measures
•All the observation rubrics are positively associated with student
achievement gains
•Using multiple observations per teacher is VERY important (and
ideally multiple observers)
•The student feedback survey tested is ALSO positively associated
with student achievement gains
•Combining observation measures, student feedback and value-
added growth results on state tests was more reliable and a better
predictor of a teacher’s value-added on State tests with a different
cohort of students than:
» Any Measure alone, Graduate degrees, Years of
teaching experience

18. Framework for Teaching Four Steps
(ASCD Danielson)
Unsatisfactory
Yes/no Questions, posed in
rapid succession, teacher
asks all questions, same few
students participate.
Some questions ask for
student explanations, uneven
Proficient Basic
attempts to engage all
students.
Most questions ask for
explanation, discussion
develops/teacher steps
aside, all students
Advanced
participate.
All questions high quality,
students initiate some
questions, students engage
other students.

19. gains
Rank Survey Statement
Student survey items with strongest relationship to MS math gains:
1 • Students in this class treat the teacher with respect
2 • My classmates behave the way my teacher wants
3 • themclass stays busy and doesn’ t waste time
Our
to
4 • In this class, we learn a lot every day
5 • In this class, we learn to correct our mistakes
Student survey items with the weakest relationship to MS math gains:
38 • I have learned a lot this year about [the state test]
• Getting ready for [the state test] takes a lot of time
39
in our class
Note: Sorted by absolute value of correlation with student achievement gains. Drawn from “Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching
Project”. For a list of Tripod survey questions, see Appendix Table 1 in the Research Report.

20. Focus on 20 Points-Growth Measures

21. ELA/Math 4-8 Teachers: Growth Measures
• State-provided student scores comparing student
growth to those with similar past test scores (may
include consideration of poverty, ELL, SWD status)
• Value-added model with additional controls when
approved, which can be no earlier than 2012-2013

22. Student Learning Objectives
…an academic goal for a teacher’s students set at the start of
a course. It represents the most important learning for the
year (or, semester, where applicable). It must be specific
and measurable, based on available prior student learning
data, and aligned to the Common Core, State, or national
standards, as well as any other school and district priorities.
Teachers’ scores are based upon the degree to which their
goals were attained
22

23. NYSED SLO Framework
All SLOs MUST include the following basic components:
Student Population Which students are being addressed?
What is being taught? CCSS/National/State standards? Will this goal apply to all standards
Learning Content
applicable to a course or just to specific priority standards?
Interval of Instructional
What is the instructional period covered (if not a year, rationale for semester/quarter/etc)?
Time
Evidence What assessment(s) or student work product(s) will be used to measure this goal?
Baseline What is the starting level of learning for students covered by this SLO?
Target(s) What is the expected outcome (target) by the end of the instructional period?
How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective)
HEDI Criteria
versus “well-below” (ineffective) , “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)?
Rationale Why choose this learning content, evidence and target?
www.engageNY.org
www.engageNY.org 23
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center

24. Student Population, Baseline, and
 SLO Target ApproachTarget(s)
1: Set a common growth target.
90% of students, including special populations, will grow by 60
percentage points or more on their summative assessment
compared to their pre-test for the standards. (e.g., Student E’s
target is 60 more than 30, or 90.)
Student Pre-Test Score Summative Target
Student A 10 70
Student B 20 80
Student C 5 65
Student D 0 60
Student E 30 90
Student F 10 70
24
www.engageNY.org
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center

25. HEDI
This is how different levels of student growth will
translate into one of four rating categories:
• Highly effective,
• Effective,
• Developing, and
• Ineffective
25

26. Focus on 20 points-Local Measures
26

27. Teachers: Local Measures Cont.
• May choose growth or achievement measure
from these options:
• State Assessments, Regents exam (different
measure than growth component)
• List of State-approved 3rd party assessments
• District or BOCES developed assessment (must
verify comparability and rigor)
• School-wide group, or team results
• Structured district-wide goal setting process

28. Implementing the Common Core
Instructional Shifts Demanded by the Core
6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy
Balancing Informational and Literary
Text
Building Knowledge in the Disciplines
Staircase of Complexity
Text-based Answers
Writing from Sources
Academic Vocabulary
28

29. How can IHE support
educators with the Regents
Reform Agenda?

30. IHE and Current
SUNY New Paltz
Practitioners
•Current Research
•Collaboration especially in high needs schools
•Preparation for new roles in teaching
•Teacher Leadership
•National Board Certification

31. • State-wide system
• Policy Board
• Continuum of practice
• Resources and expertise
www.engageNY.org
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center

33. What is the impact of the
Regents Reform Agenda on
Higher Education?

34. Education
• Integrate CCLS and Teacher Standards in all
course work.
• Require all teachers to develop CCLS aligned
lessons.
• Use state-approved rubrics for student teacher
evaluation.
• Focus observations on CCLS and NYS teacher
standards.
• Use current technologies
• Assessment design and analysis, RTI…..

35. Resources
www.engageny.org
http://www.nysteachercenters.org/
bellk@newpaltz.edu
dann1253@plattsburgh.edu
Jbutterworth@ualbany.edu
This webinar was sponsored by the New York State
Teacher Center Higher Education Committee and CASDA and
produced at NERIC. June 2012