provisions of the APPR law which would not be amended, all teacher and principal evaluations must include a component ba
Memorandum LOBBY DAY of2014 Concern A.10475 (Nolan)/S.8301 (Marcellino) Legislation relating to teacher and principal evaluations This legislation would amend the statute governing the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) process for teachers and school principals. Among its provisions, the bill would: •
provide that use of grades 3 through 8 state assessments and other state tests to determine the student performance score in evaluations shall be optional, instead of mandatory.
•
make selection of alternative assessments to replace state assessments subject to collective bargaining between unions and school districts; under current law districts have authority to select the primary assessments used in evaluations.
•
provide that current local APPR plans would remain in force until a successor plan is negotiated between districts and unions and approved by the State Education; this would spare districts from facing a September 1, 2018 deadline to revise their plans in compliance with this bill or face loss of state aid increases.
Superintendents concur with parents, teachers, principals and other interested parties that the current APPR system needs not just revisions, but an overhaul. Many also concur that the current APPR law contributes to controversies which have undermined the use of assessments for purposes which superintendents value, such as evaluating the alignment of their schools’ curriculum and instruction with state standards. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the legislation could result in additional testing of students. Under federal law, schools must continue to test all students in mathematics and English language arts annually in grades three through eight and at least once in high school in ELA, math and science. Students are also required to pass Regents exams in multiple subjects to graduate. Further, under provisions of the APPR law which would not be amended, all teacher and principal evaluations must include a component based on student performance. So, if districts are to forego use in evaluations of state assessments which are federally required or necessary for graduation or course completion, adding replacement measures as required for APPR could result in additional testing of students. The above concern is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the proposed legislation would make the use of state created or administered assessments optional – districts and unions could agree to their use in current or modified form. Use of Regents Exam results in evaluating high school teachers has been common, for example. Many districts have used schoolwide measures based on state test results in their evaluations, enabling them to avoid adding tests merely to comply with the APPR law. The Legislature and the Governor expressly encouraged such a strategy in 2014 by enacting a provision that authorized expedited review by SED of APPR plan modifications intended to reduce testing. over, please…
N EW Y ORK S TATE C OUNCIL 7 Elk Street Albany, NY 12207-1002
OF
S CHOOL S UPERINTENDENTS
www.nyscoss.org
518/449-1063 Fax 518/426-2229
A.10475/S.8301 May 2018
Our members are troubled by the bill’s provision which would make the selection of assessments to be used in APPR subject to collective bargaining. This would undermine what has been a fundamental management prerogative, codified in current and prior versions of the APPR law and regulations. It is not just past practice that supports this viewpoint, but a policy position that there must be some level of management control over any evaluation process to ensure valid results. We strongly support the bill’s provisions assuring that current APPR plans remain in force until a successor agreement is negotiated and approved. This would spare districts, unions and the State Education Department from the likely impossible task of effectively revising local APPR plans by September 1, 2018 to avert the loss of state aid increases. APPR is unique among policy initiatives in that it affects every classroom in every public school in every district of our state, thereby affecting every child. Accordingly, revisions to APPR ought to be made with thoughtfulness and care. This bill attempts, imperfectly, to address some concerns with the APPR system as it stands, but it would not address all. Past major changes in APPR were made with limited consideration of the perspectives of leaders who are held accountable for implementing the initiatives – superintendents, principals and school board members. In formulating new changes to this pivotal area of policy, state officials should employ an inclusive and deliberative process which engages all the stakeholders who are responsible for its success and affected by its application.
2
