Position Paper Amendments

to Current APPR Proposed Regulations

BY SIGNATORIES BELOW JUNE 2, 2015

We. the undersigned, have been empowered by the Constitution of the State of New York and appointed by the New York
State Legislature to serve as the policy makers and guardians of educational goals for the residents of New York State. As
Regents, we are obligated to determine the best contemporary approaches to meeting the educational needs of the states three
million P-12 students as well as all students enrolled in our post secondary schools and the entire community of participants who
use and value our cultural institutions.
We hold ourselves accountable to the public for the trust they have in our ability to represent and educate them about the
outcomes of our actions which requires that we engage in ongoing evaluations of our efforts. The results of our efforts must be
transparent and invite public comment.
We recognize that we must strengthen the accountability systems intended to ensure our students benefit from the most effective
teaching practices identified in research.
After extensive deliberation that included a review of research and information gained from listening tours, we have determined
that the current proposed amendments to the APPR system are based on an incomplete and inadequate understanding
of how to address the task of continuously improving our educational system.
Therefore, we have determined that the following amendments are essential, and thus required, in the proposed emergency
regulations to remedy the current malfunctioning APPR system.
What we seek is a well thought out, comprehensive evaluation plan which sets the framework for establishing a sound
professional learning community for educators. To that end we offer these carefully considered amendments to the emergency
regulations.
I. Delay implementation of district APPR plans based on April 1, 2015 legislative action until September 1,
2016.
A system that has integrity, fidelity and reliability cannot be developed absent time to review research on
best practices. We must have in place a process for evaluating the evaluation system. There is insufficient
evidence to support using test measures that were never meant to be used to evaluate teacher performance.
We need a large scale study, that collects rigorous evidence for fairness and reliability and the results need to
be published annually. The current system should not be simply repeated with a greater emphasis on a single
test score. We do not understand and do not support the elimination of the instructional evidence that
defines the teaching, learning, achievement process as an element of the observation process.
Revise the submission date. Allow all districts to submit by November 15, 2015 a letter of intent regarding
how they will utilize the time to review/revise their current APPR Plan.

Position Paper Amendments to Current APPR Proposed Regulations

Page 1

II. A. Base the teacher evaluation process on student standardized test scores, consistent with research; the
scores will account for a maximum of no more than 20% on the matrix.
B. Base 80% of teacher evaluation on student performance, leaving the following options for local
school districts to select from: keeping the current local measures generating new assessments with
performance driven student activities, (performance-assessments, portfolios, scientific experiments,
research projects) utilizing options like NYC Measures of Student Learning, and corresponding student
growth measures.
C. Base the teacher observation category on NYSUT and UFTs scoring ranges using their rounding up
process rather than the percentage process.
III. Base no more than 10% of the teacher observation score on the work of external/peer evaluators, an
option to be decided at the local district level where the decisions as to what training is needed, will also be
made.
IV. Develop weighting algorithms that accommodate the developmental stages for English Language
Learners (ELL) and special needs (SWD) students. Testing of ELL students who have less than 3 years of
English language instruction should be prohibited.
V. Establish a work group that includes respected experts and practitioners who are to be charged with
constructing an accountability system that reflects research and identifies the most effective practices. In
addition, the committee will be charged with identifying rubrics and a guide for assessing our progress
annually against expected outcomes.
Our recommendations should allow flexibility which allows school systems to submit locally developed
accountability plans that offer evidence of rigor, validity and a theory of action that defines the system.
VI. Establish a work group to analyze the elements of the Common Core Learning Standards and
Assessments to determine levels of validity, reliability, rigor and appropriateness of the developmental
aspiration levels embedded in the assessment items.
No one argues against the notion of a rigorous, fair accountability system. We disagree on the implied
theory of action that frames its tenet such as firing educators instead of promoting a professional learning
community that attracts and retains talented educators committed to ensuring our educational goals include
preparing students to be contributing members committed to sustaining and improving the standards that
represent a democratic society.
We find it important to note that researchers, who often represent opposing views about the characteristics
that define effective teaching, do agree on the dangers of using the VAM student growth model to measure
teacher effectiveness. They agree that effectiveness can depend on a number of variables that are not
constant from school year to school year. Chetty, a professor at Harvard University, often quoted as the
expert in the interpretation of VAM along with co-researchers Friedman & Rockoff, offers the following
two cautions: First, using VAM for high-stakes evaluation could lead to unproductive responses such as
teaching to the test or cheating; to date, there is insufficient evidence to assess the importance of this
concern. Second, other measures of teacher performance, such as principal evaluations, student ratings, or
classroom observations, may ultimately prove to be better predictors of teachers long-term impacts on
students than VAMs. While we have learned much about VAM through statistical research, further work is
Position Paper Amendments to Current APPR Proposed Regulations

Page 2

needed to understand how VAM estimates should (or should not) be combined with other metrics to
identify and retain effective teachers.i Linda Darling Hammond agrees, in a Phi Delta Kappan March
2012 article and cautions that none of the assumptions for the use of VAM to measure teacher
effectiveness are well supported by evidence.ii
We recommend that while the system is under review we minimize the disruption to local school districts
for the 2015/16 school year and allow for a continuation of approved plans in light of the phasing in of the
amended regulations.
Last year, Vicki Phillips, an Executive Director for the Gates Foundation, cautioned districts to move slowly
in the rollout of an accountability system based on Common Core Systems and advised a two year
moratorium before using the system for high stakes outcomes. Her cautions were endorsed by Bill Gates.
We, the undersigned, wish to reach a collaborative solution to the many issues before us, specifically at this
moment, the revisions to APPR. However, as we struggle with the limitations of the new law, we also wish
to state that we are unwilling to forsake the ethics we value, thus this list of amendments.
June 2, 2015
Kathleen Cashin
Judith Chin
Catherine Collins
*Josephine Finn
Judith Johnson
Beverly L. Ouderkirk
Betty A. Rosa

*I support the intent of the position paper

Position Paper Amendments to Current APPR Proposed Regulations

Page 3

Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Jonah Rockoff, Discussion of the American Statistical Associations Statement
(2014) on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment, May 2014, retrieved from:
http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.html. The American Statistical Association (ASA) concurs with
Chetty et al. (2014): It is unknown how full implementation of an accountability system incorporating test-based
indicators, such as those derived from VAMs, will affect the actions and dispositions of teachers, principals and
other educators. Perceptions of transparency, fairness and credibility will be crucial in determining the degree of
success of the system as a whole in achieving its goals of improving the quality of teaching. Given the
unpredictability of such complex interacting forces, it is difficult to anticipate how the education system as a
whole will be affected and how the educator labor market will respond. We know from experience with other
quality improvement undertakings that changes in evaluation strategy have unintended consequences. A decision
to use VAMs for teacher evaluations might change the way the tests are viewed and lead to changes in the school
environment. For example, more classroom time might be spent on test preparation and on specific content from
the test at the exclusion of content that may lead to better long-term learning gains or motivation for students.
Certain schools may be hard to staff if there is a perception that it is harder for teachers to achieve good VAM
scores when working in them. Overreliance on VAM scores may foster a competitive environment, discouraging
collaboration and efforts to improve the educational system as a whole. David Morganstein & Ron Wasserstein,
ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment, Published with license by
American Statistical Association, April 8 2014, published online November 7, 2014:
http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2330443X.2014.956906. Bachman-Hicks, Kane and Staiger
(2014), likewise admit, "we know very little about how the validity of the value-added estimates may change
when they are put to high stakes use. All of the available studies have relied primarily on data drawn from periods
when there were no stakes attached to the teacher value-added measures." Andrew Bacher-Hicks, Thomas J.
Kane, Douglas O. Staiger, Validating Teacher Effect Estimates Using Changes in Teacher Assignments in Los
Angeles, NBER Working Paper No. 20657, Issued in November 2014, 24-5:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20657.
i

Linda Darling-Hammond, Can Value Added Add Value to Teacher Evaluation? Educational Researcher,
March 2015 44, 132-37:
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/44/2/132.full.pdf+html?ijkey=jEZWtoEsiWg92&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr.
ii

Position Paper Amendments to Current APPR Proposed Regulations

Page 4