Oceanside, Island Park educators ace performance review

Every teacher and principal in the Oceanside and Island Park School districts—all 499 combined—received a rating of either “highly effective” or “effective” in the 2012-13 New York State Annual Professional Performance Review, released Thursday by the State Education Department.

Of the 426 Oceanside educators rated, 269, or 63 percent, were rated as “highly effective,” and the remaining 157 were rated as effective.

In Island Park, 40 of 73 educators, 55 percent, were rated “highly effective” and 33 were rated effective.

The state averages were: 51 percent “highly effective;” 44 percent “effective;” 5 percent “developing;” and 1 percent “ineffective.”

The Long Island averages were: 57 percent “highly effective;” 41 percent “effective;” 2 percent “developing;” and less than one half of one percent of Long “ineffective.” The figures cover a total of 33,200 educators Islandwide.

“[The] release of evaluation data will enable New Yorkers to see, for the first time, the results of their schools’ teacher and principal evaluations,” Dennis Tompkins, the Department of Education’s chief spokesman, said in a prepared statement. “The goal of the evaluation process has always been to improve teaching and learning by targeting professional development where it is most needed in order to improve student outcomes. When teachers and principals receive the right tools to improve their practice, their students benefit—it’s really as straightforward as that.”

“I’m not surprised, but I am glad,” said Bob Transom, President of the Oceanside Board of Education. “The numbers speak for themselves. The ratings show what we’ve always believed: our teachers are a cut above.”

The teacher and principal evaluation system, known as APPR, was introduced in May 2010 as the state pushed for more comprehensive teacher evaluations to coincide with the federal Race to the Top initiative. APPR was met with apprehension by teachers and school administrators. Among the complaints was that the new system was being put in place too hastily; teachers in grades 4 through 8 received their first evaluation under the new system in July 2011. Another complaint APPR is its use of student progress on state tests as a key measure of teachers’ effectiveness. On August 14, the Department of Education released the results of the second year of Common Core testing, which showed that students statewide improved on the math exam but regressed marginally on the English exam. Thirty-six percent of all New York State students met or exceeded state standards in math, and 31 percent met or exceeded standards in English.

“We’re not 100 percent satisfied with the system,” Transom said. “The state is still tweaking it.”

As part of the evaluation, each classroom teacher and building principal receives an overall rating of “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” or “ineffective.” This rating is based on a single composite effectiveness score, ranging from 0-100 points, that is calculated based on the scores received by the teacher or principal in each of the three subcomponents: State Growth or Other Comparable Measures, Locally-Selected Measures of Student Achievement, and Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness.

“It is important to remember that each APPR plan is locally negotiated and unique,” Tompkins said. “It’s important to remember, too, that more than 80 percent of New York’s teachers were rated exclusively on criteria that were negotiated by local districts and their local educator bargaining units. And for the other 20 percent of teachers (teachers in grades 4-8 ELA and Math), only 20 percent of their rating was based on student performance on the state assessments.”