.
News Alert
Cops: Brooklyn Woman Murdered Housemate, Spread…

Seaford Working Toward Required Teacher Evaluation Plan

District negotiating with bargaining units to find best ways to implement Annual Professional Performance Review.

The Seaford School District is in the process of trying to implement a new state-required Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) for its teachers and administrators.

APPR is an evaluation system for teachers, principals, psychologists and central office administrators that New York State was required to implement in order to continue receiving federal Race to the Top funds. APPR is based on multiple measures of performance including student achievement and classroom observations.

Seaford Superintendent of Schools Brian Conboy explained at Thursday night’s Board of Education meeting that he and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction John Striffolino have attended training sessions to try and get up to speed on implementing APPR. The district is in negotiations with the United Teachers of Seaford and the Seaford Association of School Administrators to determine how certain elements of APPR will be executed.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in his State of the State address this past January that any district without an approved APPR plan by Jan. 17, 2013 will lose state aid, which in Seaford’s case would amount to $411,000. Districts will also be faced with additional costs for training, record keeping and grading of assessments.

“This is going to be a massive undertaking for us and every other district next year,” said Conboy during the June 7 school board meeting held at Seaford Manor School. “But I think we have the people in place to make it successful here in Seaford.”

__________________________________________________________________________________

Interested in Wantagh-Seaford news, events, community bulletins, blogs and businesses? Sign up for the free Wantagh-Seaford Patch daily newsletter.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Wayne Smith June 16, 2012 at 07:31 PM
I agree that we disagree.
Lorraine DeVita June 27, 2012 at 04:17 PM
teaching to the test- i dont understand this issue- If you have a mandated curriculum to follow and you teach it well and the TEST is based on the curriculm then pls explain what the harm is in teaching to the test. no one said when you teach to the test you had to exclude critical thinking, inferential reseasoning or diminish the latitude or depth of a subject. or be less creative in your methodologies .. Doesnt teaching to a test simply mean you have insured your students understand and grasp the concepts of the curriculm well enough to pass the exam. How does it impede the education of the student?Pls note I am not being sarcastic i truly would like a knowledgeable non sarcastic answer..
Chris Wendt June 27, 2012 at 04:54 PM
I would start with a more basic premise, what is the efficacy of "THE TEST"? To which I offer the following self-response: none to negative. ("Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect", with either of the adjectives "desired" or "intended" understood as being modifiers of the noun, effect). The next consideration I would lay out for you is "cost-benefit" or, "cost effectiveness", and for the purpose of this discussion, I mean the cost relative to the benefits or effectiveness of both THE TEST, and, of teaching to the test, and, by extension, of APPR itself, to whatever extent or weight is given to the results of THE TEST, you know, out there in THE REAL WORLD, wherever you think the real world is. I submit that THE TEST and teaching to it is probably more efficacious in places like Yonkers and the Bronx, or in states like Mississippi or Arkansas, than in suburban Long Island. But the government is partial to throwing out the baby with the bath water, and could not focus on improving crappy school systems without throwing the good ones into the bathtub for the same hard scrubbing. Efficacy, results...in Wantagh and Seaford the same stellar results, the same maximum graduation rates, the same stratospheric college-bound rates have existed and persisted for over 60 years that I am aware. We didn't need no stinking TEST back then, and we don't need no stinking TEST now. Same for teaching to THE TEST, and double for APPR to measure teachers' careers against.
Lorraine DeVita June 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Chris, Sitting here scratching my head at that last comment. Do you advocate NO testing AT ALL? Just throw the material out there and HOPE it sticks? Should we abolish SAT's ACt's, Regents too? Do you advocate and support the concept that you dont need a standard or measurement? If you support standards then how do you hope to monitor them improve them, make corrections, adjust or insure they are being met? You keep touting the results in Wantagh and Seaford are STELLAR- Chris the RESULTS dont support the comment. While the results are ADEQUATE - and in some cases improving. STELLAR is not an adjective i personally would use at this time. . If we abolish testing and dont measure through testing or performance evaluations HOW do you know a person is meeting a pre defined STANDARD? Whether that be a student or a teacher or for that matter ANY individual in ANY job? Interesting concept chris.... Those "stinking" tests are there afor a reason.. to INSURE the student is grasping the material.. The STUDENT has a RESULT if they dont perform to a standard on a test of the material they were taught. Why NOT the teacher who is REPOSNSIBLE for TEACHING the material? You concept is do away with all testing and let the chips fall where they may? Interesting - illogical but interesting ...
Chris Wendt June 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM
I gave my opinion of what are known as State Assessments, THE TEST(s), created for an entirely different purpose, but which have since become the very curriculum, the effectiveness of which they were intended to assess, and which will soon be used as hard date points in teacher evaluations. In my opinion, no, we do not need those standardized state assessments any more than we need APPR. By "we", I mean Wantagh, Seaford, and most LI school districts. The standard is spelled out in the NY State Constitution, "a sound, basic education". That is THE STANDARD which we are specifically financially required to support with our taxes. Your post points directly at THE PROBLEM trying to equate THE TEST with teacher PERFORMANCE: STUDENT PERFORMANCE and, PARENTAL PERFORMANCE. The fourth variable in the equation is the curriculum itself, meaning the syllabus, the textbooks, workbooks, manipulatives and other teaching aids, as well as the technology brought to bear on the subject. The assessments were created (1) to evaluate the curriculum and (2) to identify students at a early age who needed either supportive services or remediation, as part of NCLB. Numerous factors may underlie a child's requiring services, including maturation, development, disability, home life, language proficiency, disruptive or hostile school environment, poor curriculum, outdated textbooks, lack of support materials and supplies, poor teaching, poor scheduling or ineffective testing.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »