New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
Title 8 - EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Chapter I - Rules of the Board Of Regents
Part 30 - Tenure Areas and Annual Professional Performance Reviews For Classroom Teachers and Building Principals
Subpart 30-2 - Annual Professional Performance Reviews of Classroom Teachers and Building Principals Conducted Prior to the 2019-20 School Year or for Annual Professional Performance Reviews Conducted Pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement Entered into on or Before April 12, 2019 Which Remains in Effect on or After April 12, 2019 Until a Subsequent Agreement is Reached
Section 30-2.5 - Standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of building principals under Education Law section 3012-d

Universal Citation: 8 NY Comp Codes Rules and Regs § 30-2.5

Current through Register Vol. 46, No. 39, September 25, 2024

(a) Ratings.

Annual professional performance reviews conducted under this section shall differentiate principal effectiveness resulting in a principal being rated highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective based on multiple measures in the following two categories: the student performance category and the school visit category.

(b) Student performance category.

Such category shall have at least one mandatory first subcomponent and an optional second subcomponent as follows:

(1) Mandatory first subcomponent.

(i) for a principal with at least 30 percent of his/her students covered under the State-provided growth measure, such principal shall have a State-provided growth score based on such model; and

(ii) for a principal where less than 30 percent of his/her students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such principal shall have a student learning objective (SLO), on a form prescribed by the commissioner, consistent with the SLO process determined or developed by the commissioner, that results in a student growth score; provided that, for any principal whose building or program includes courses that end in a State-created or administered assessment for which there is no State-provided growth model, such assessment must be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO. Provided, however, that during the 2015-16 school year, while the department transitions to a new computer based examination, the district shall determine whether to use the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) as the underlying assessment for such SLO. In instances where a district determines not to use the NYSAA, the district must determine whether to use SLOs based on a list of approved student assessments, or a district- or-BOCES-wide or school- or program-wide group, team, or linked results based on State/Regents assessments, or other assessments approved by the department, as defined by the commissioner in guidance. The SLO process determined by the commissioner shall include a minimum growth target of one year of expected growth, as determined by the superintendent or his or her designee. Such targets, as determined by the superintendent or his or her designee, may take the following characteristics into account: poverty, students with disabilities, English language learners status and prior academic history. SLOs shall include the following elements, as defined by the commissioner in guidance:

(a) student population;

(b) learning content;

(d) evidence;

(e) baseline;

(f) target;

(g) criteria for rating a principal highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective (HEDI); and

(h) rationale;

(iii) for a principal of a building or program whose courses do not end in a State-created or administered test or where a principal growth score is not determined, districts shall use SLOs based on a list of State approved student assessments. SLOs set for courses in the principal's building which do not end in a State-created or administered test may incorporate district or BOCES-wide or school or program-wide results from State-created or administered tests, or other student assessments approved by the department;

(iv) districts shall develop back-up SLOs for all principals whose buildings or programs contain courses that end in a State-created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model, to use in the event that no State-provided growth score can be generated for such principals.

(2) Optional second subcomponent. A district may select one or more other measures for the student performance category that shall be applied in a consistent manner, to the extent practicable, across the district based on either:

(i) a second State-provided growth score on a State-created or administered test; provided that a different measure is used than that for the required subcomponent in the student performance category, which may include one or more of the following measures:

(a) principal-specific growth computed by the State based on percentage of students who achieve a State-determined level of growth (e.g., percentage of students whose growth is above the median for similar students);

(b) district- or BOCES-wide or school- or program-wide growth results using available State-provided growth scores that are locally-computed; or

(ii) a growth score based on a State-designed supplemental assessment, calculated using a State-approved growth model. Such growth score may include district- or BOCES-wide or school- or program-wide group, team, or linked measures where the State-approved growth model is capable of generating such a score.

(3) All State-provided or approved growth scores must control for poverty, students with disabilities, English language learners status and prior academic history. For SLOs, these characteristics may be taken into account through the use of targets based on one year of expected growth, as determined by the superintendent or his or her designee.

(4) The district shall measure student growth using the same measure(s) of student growth for all building principals within the same building configuration or program.

(1) If a district does not locally select to use the optional second student growth subcomponent, then the mandatory subcomponent shall be weighted at 100 percent.

(2) If the optional second student growth subcomponent is selected, then the mandatory subcomponent shall be weighted at a minimum of 50 percent and the optional second subcomponent shall be weighted at no more than 50 percent.

(3) Each measure used in the student performance category (State provided growth score, SLOs, State-designed supplemental assessments) must result in a score between 0 and 20. The State will generate scores of 0-20 for measures using a State-provided growth score. Districts shall calculate growth scores for SLOs in accordance with the minimum percentages prescribed in the table below; provided however that for principals of a building or program with small "n" sizes as defined by the commissioner in guidance, districts shall calculate scores for SLOs using a methodology prescribed by the commissioner in guidance and for principals in the City School District of the City of New York, districts shall calculate scores for SLOs using the methodology approved by the commissioner in its APPR plan. For all other measures that are not State-provided growth measures, scores of 0-20 shall be computed locally in accordance with the State provided or approved growth model used.

SLOs Percent of Students Meeting	Scoring Range
Target
0-4%	0
5-8%	1
9-12%	2
13-16%	3
17-20%	4
21-24%	5
25-28%	6
29-33%	7
34-38%	8
39-43%	9
44-48%	10
49-54%	11
55-59%	12
60-66%	13
67-74%	14
75-79%	15
80-84%	16
85-89%	17
90-92%	18
93-96%	19
97-100%	20

(4) Overall rating on student performance category. Multiple measures shall be combined using a weighted average, to produce an overall student performance category score of 0 to 20. Based on such score, an overall student performance category rating shall be derived from the table below:

Overall Student Performance Category Score and Rating
	Minimum	Maximum
H	18	20
E	15	17
D	13	14
I	0	12

(d) Principal school visits category.

The school visits category for principals shall be based on a State-approved rubric and shall include up to three subcomponents; two of which are mandatory and one of which is optional.

(1) Two mandatory subcomponents. A district shall evaluate a principal based on at least:

(i) one school visit shall be based on a State-approved principal practice rubric conducted by the building principal's supervisor or other trained administrator; and

(ii) a second school visit shall be conducted by either one or more impartial independent trained evaluator(s) selected and trained by the district or in cases where a hardship waiver is granted by the department pursuant to clause (a) of this subparagraph, a second school visit shall be conducted by one or more evaluators selected and trained by the district, who are different than the evaluator(s) who conducted the evaluation pursuant to subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; or in cases where a hardship waiver is granted by the department pursuant to clause (b) of this subparagraph, a second school visit shall be conducted as prescribed in clause (b) of this subparagraph. An independent trained evaluator may be employed within the district, but may not be assigned to the same school building as the principal being evaluated;

(a) a rural school district, as defined by the commissioner in guidance, or a school district with only one registered school pursuant to section 100.18 of the commissioner's regulations may apply to the department for a hardship waiver on an annual basis, in a timeframe and manner prescribed by the commissioner, if due to the size and limited resources of the school district, it is unable to obtain an independent evaluator within a reasonable proximity without an undue burden to the school district;

(b) commencing with the 2016-2017 school year, a school district may apply to the department for a hardship waiver on an annual basis, on a form and in a timeframe prescribed by the commissioner, if the school district believes that compliance with this clause would create an undue burden on the district in one or more of the following areas: compliance with the independent evaluator requirement would result in financial hardship; the district lacks professionally trained staff to comply with the independent evaluator requirement; the district has a large number of principals; and/or compliance with the independent evaluator requirement could impact safety and management of a building. A hardship waiver granted by the department under this clause shall excuse, but not prohibit, school districts from conducting school visits by impartial independent trained evaluators for principals who received a rating of highly effective, effective, or developing in the preceding school year (e.g., school districts would be excused, but not prohibited, from conducting school visits by impartial independent trained evaluators for the 2016-2017 school year for principals who receive a rating of highly effective, effective, or developing for the 2015-2016 school year; school districts would be required to conduct school visits by impartial independent trained evaluators for the 2016-2017 school year for, at a minimum, principals who receive a rating of ineffective for the 2015-2016 school year). For principals who are excused from the impartial independent trained evaluator requirement pursuant to a hardship waiver granted by the department under this clause, school districts shall conduct a second school visit, provided that such second school visit may be conducted by the principal's supervisor or any individual selected and trained by the school district. The two school visits for such principals could be performed by the same individual. As part of its hardship waiver request, a school district shall submit a plan for conducting school visits by the principal's supervisor or other individual selected and trained by the school district in lieu of the impartial independent trained evaluator subcomponent. For the other principals in the district who must still receive a second school visit by an impartial, independent trained evaluator (principals who, at a minimum, received an ineffective rating in the preceding school year), the district must submit a plan for conducting such school visits. Once a hardship waiver is approved by the department, it shall be considered part of the school district's annual professional performance review plan for such school year.

(2) Optional third subcomponent. The school visit category may also include a third optional subcomponent based on school visits conducted by a trained peer administrator rated effective or highly effective on his or her overall rating in the prior school year from the same or another school in the district.

(3) Frequency and duration of school visits. The frequency of school visits shall be established locally.

(4) All school visits must be conducted using a principal practice rubric approved by the commissioner pursuant to an RFQ process, unless the district has a currently approved variance from the commissioner.

(i) Variance for existing rubric. A variance may be granted to a district that seeks to use a rubric that is either a close adaptation of a rubric on the approved list, or a rubric that was self-developed or developed by a third-party, upon a finding by the commissioner that the rubric meets the criteria described in the RFQ, and the district has demonstrated that it has made a significant investment in the rubric and has a history of use that would justify continuing the use of that rubric.

(ii) Variance for use of new innovative rubrics. A variance may be granted to a district that seeks to use a newly developed rubric, upon a finding by the commissioner that the rubric meets the criteria described in the RFQ and the district has demonstrated how it will ensure inter-rater reliability and the rubric's ability to provide differentiated results over time.

(5) All school visits for a principal for the year must use the same approved rubric; provided that districts may locally determine whether to use different rubrics for a principal assigned to different grade level configurations or building types.

(6) At least one of the mandatory school visits must be unannounced.

(7) School visits may not be conducted via video.

(8) Nothing in this Subpart shall be construed to limit the discretion of a board of education, superintendent of schools, or other trained administrator from conducting school visits of a principal in addition to those required under this section for non-evaluative purposes.

(9) School visits may be based only on observable rubric subcomponents.

(10) The evaluator may select a limited number of observable rubric subcomponents for focus on within a particular school visit, so long as all observable leadership standards are addressed across the total number of annual school visits.

(11) Leadership standards and their related functions that are part of the rubric but not observable during the course of the school visit may be observed through other natural conversations between the principal and the evaluator and incorporated into the observation score.

(12) Points shall not be allocated based on any artifacts, unless such artifact constitutes evidence of a rubric subcomponent observed during a school visit. Points shall not be allocated based on professional goal-setting; however, organizational goal-setting may be used to the extent it is evidence from the school visit and related to a component of the principal practice rubric.

(13) Each subcomponent of the school visit category shall be evaluated on a 1-4 scale based on a State-approved rubric aligned to the leadership standards and an overall score for the school visit category shall be generated between 1-4. Such subcomponent scores must incorporate all evidence collected and observed over the course of the school year in that subcomponent. Scores for each subcomponent of the school visit category shall be combined using a weighted average, producing an overall school visit category score between 1-4. In the event that a principal earns a score of 1 on all rated components of the practice rubric across all school visits, a score of 0 will be assigned. Weighting of Subcomponents with Principal School Visit Category. The weighting of the subcomponents with the principal school visit category shall be established locally within the following constraints:

(i) school visits conducted by a superintendent or other trained administrator shall be weighted at a minimum of 80 percent.

(ii) school visits conducted by independent impartial trained evaluators or other evaluators selected by the district if a hardship waiver is granted, shall be weighted at a minimum of 10 percent.

(iii) if a district selects to use the optional third school visit subcomponent, then the weighting assigned to the optional school visits conducted by peers shall be established locally within the constraints outlined in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph.

(14) Overall rating on the principal school visits category. The overall principal school visit score shall be converted into an overall rating, using cut scores determined locally for each rating category; provided that such cut scores shall be consistent with the permissible ranges identified below:

(15) The overall principal/school visit score shall be converted into an overall rating, using cut scores determined locally for each rating category; provided that such cut scores shall be consistent with the permissible ranges identified below:

Overall Observation Category Score and Rating
	Min	Max
H	3.5 to 3.75	4.0
E	2.5 to 2.75	3.49 to 3.74
D	1.5 to 1.75	2.49 to 2.74
I	0	1.49 to 1.74

Disclaimer: These regulations may not be the most recent version. New York may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.