Current through Register Vol. 46, No. 12, March 20, 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;
(c) interval of instructional time;
(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.
(c)
Weighting of subcomponents within
student performance category.
(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
|