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 30-3 - Annual Teacher and Principal Evaluations for the 2019-20 School Year and Thereafter
Section 30-3.4 - Standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers under Education Law section 3012-d

Universal Citation: 8 NY Comp Codes Rules and Regs § 30-3.4

Current through Register Vol. 46, No. 12, March 20, 2024

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

(b) Student performance category.

The student performance category shall have one required subcomponent and one optional subcomponent as follows:

(1) Required first subcomponent.

(i) Each teacher shall have a student learning objective (SLO) using a form prescribed by the commissioner, consistent with the SLO process determined or developed by the commissioner, that results in a student growth score based on a State-created or -administered assessment or other approved student assessment. The SLO process determined by the commissioner shall include a minimum growth target of one year of expected growth. Such targets may take the following characteristics into account: poverty, students with disabilities, English language learner status, and prior academic history; provided, however, that the selection and use of the assessment for the SLO shall be subject to collective bargaining. SLOs shall include the following SLO 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 teacher highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective (HEDI); and

(h) rationale.

(ii) Districts shall collectively bargain the selection and use of a State-created or administered assessment or other approved student assessment as the underlying evidence for a teacher's SLO. Such SLO may be either teacher- and course-specific or based on school-, program-, district-, or BOCES-wide group, team, or linked results.

(2) Optional second subcomponent.

(i) A district may collectively bargain a second measure that shall be applied in a consistent manner, to the extent practicable, across the district based on a State-created or administered assessment or State-designed supplemental assessment. Such second measure shall be either:

(a) A second SLO, provided that this SLO is different than that used in the required subcomponent of the teacher's evaluation;

(b) a growth score based on a statistical growth model, where available, for either a State-created or -administered assessment or a State-designed supplemental assessment;

(c) a measure of student growth, other than an SLO, based on State-created or - administered assessments or State-designed supplemental assessments;

(d) a performance index based on State-created or administered assessments or approved student assessments;

(e) an achievement benchmark on State-created or administered assessments or approved student assessments; or

(f) any other collectively bargained measure of student growth or achievement included in the district's evaluation plan as approved by the commissioner.

(ii) Where appropriate, growth or achievement targets may consider the following student-level characteristics: poverty, English language learner status, disability status, and/or prior academic history.

(iii) The district shall measure student growth or achievement in the optional subcomponent using the same measure(s) for all classroom teachers in a course and/or grade level in a district.

(3) Weighting of subcomponents within student performance category.

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

(ii) If the optional second student performance subcomponent is selected, then the weighting of the required and optional subcomponents shall be determined locally, subject to approval by the commissioner in the submitted evaluation plan.

Each measure used in the student performance category (i.e., required SLOs, collectively bargained second student performance measures) must result in a score between 0 and 20.

Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph, districts shall calculate scores for SLOs in accordance with the minimum percentages prescribed in the table below; provided, however, that for teachers with courses 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 teachers 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 SLOs, scores of 0-20 shall be computed pursuant to a process described in the district's annual professional performance review plan as approved by the commissioner.

SLOs

Percent of Students Meeting Target Scoring Range

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

(iii) For the City School District of the City of New York, scores for SLOs that are based on the percentage of students meeting a target shall be calculated in accordance with the minimum percentages below:

SLOs

Percent of Students Meeting Target Scoring Range

0-9% 0

10-19% 1

20-29% 2

30-39% 3

40-49% 4

50-59% 5

60-62% 6

63-65% 7

66-68% 8

69-71% 9

72-74% 10

75-77% 11

78-80% 12

81-83% 13

84-86% 14

87-89% 15

90-91% 16

92-93% 17

94-95% 18

96-97% 19

98-100% 20

Any other district may submit a variance request to the department pursuant to section 30-3.16 of this Subpart to use the scoring ranges described in this subparagraph.

(4) Overall rating on student performance category.

(i) Multiple student performance measures shall be combined using a weighted average pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of this section to produce an overall student performance category score of 0 to 20. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, based on such score, an overall student performance category rating shall be derived from the table below:

Minimum Maximum

H 18 20

E 15 17

D 13 14

I 0 12

(ii) For the City School District of the City of New York, an overall student performance category rating shall be derived from the table below:

Minimum Maximum

H 16 20

E 11 15

D 6 10

I 0 5

Any other district may submit a variance request to the department pursuant to section 30-3.16 of this Subpart to use the table above to compute the overall student performance rating category rating.

(c) Teacher observation category. The observation category for teachers shall be based on at least two observations, one of which must be unannounced.

(1) Two required subcomponents.

(i) At least one observation shall be conducted by a principal or other trained administrator; and

(ii) At least a second observation shall be conducted by 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 observation 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 observation 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 teacher 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) a school district may apply to the department for a hardship waiver on an annual basis, in a timeframe and manner prescribed by the commissioner, if the school district believes that compliance with this requirement would create an undue burden on the school 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 teachers; 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 observations by impartial independent trained evaluators for teachers 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 observations by impartial independent trained evaluators for the 2019-2020 school year for teachers who receive a rating of highly effective, effective, or developing for the 2018-2019 school year; school districts would be required to conduct observations by impartial independent trained evaluators for the 2019-2020 school year for, at a minimum, teachers who receive a rating of ineffective for the 2018-2019 school year). For teachers 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 observation, provided that such second observation may be conducted by the building principal/supervisor or any individual selected and trained by the school district. The two observations for such teachers could be performed by the same individual. As part of its hardship waiver request, a school district shall submit a plan for conducting observations by the building principal or other individual selected and trained by the school district in lieu of the impartial independent trained evaluator subcomponent. For the other teachers in the district who must still receive a second observation by an impartial, independent trained evaluator (teachers who, at a minimum, received an ineffective rating in the preceding school year), the district must submit a plan for conducting such observations. 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 observation category may include a third optional subcomponent based on classroom observations conducted by a trained peer teacher rated effective or highly effective on their overall rating in the prior school year from the same school or from another school in the district.

(3) Frequency and duration of observations. The frequency and duration of observations shall be determined locally.

(4) All observations must be conducted using a teacher practice rubric approved by the commissioner pursuant to a request for qualification (RFQ) process, unless the district has an approved variance from the commissioner.

(i) Variance for existing rubrics. 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 request for qualification 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, has demonstrated how it will ensure inter-rater reliability and the rubric's ability to provide differentiated results over time.

(5) All observations for a teacher for the school year must use the same approved rubric; provided that districts may locally determine whether to use different rubrics for teachers who teach different grades and/or subjects during the school year.

(6) At least one of the required observations must be unannounced.

(7) Observations may occur either live or via recorded video, as determined locally.

(8) Nothing in this Subpart shall be construed to limit the discretion of a board of education, superintendent or a principal or other trained administrator to conduct observations in addition to those required by this section for non-evaluative purposes.

(9) The evaluator may select a limited number of rubric subcomponents for focus within a particular observation, so long as all observable subcomponents are addressed across the total number of annual observations.

(10) New York State teaching standards/domains that are part of the rubric but not observable during the classroom observation may be observed during any optional pre-observation conference or post-observation review or other natural conversations between the teacher and the evaluator and incorporated into the observation score.

(11) Points shall not be allocated based on any artifacts, unless such artifact constitutes evidence of an otherwise observable rubric subcomponent (e.g., a lesson plan viewed during the course of the observation may constitute evidence of professional planning).

(12) Each subcomponent of the selected practice rubric shall be evaluated on a 1-4 scale based on a State-approved rubric aligned to the New York State teaching standards and an overall score for the observation subcomponents and category shall be generated between 1-4. Such subcomponent and category scores shall incorporate all evidence collected and observed over the course of the school year. Scores for each subcomponent of the observation category shall be combined using a weighted average pursuant to paragraph (13) of this subdivision, producing an overall observation category score between 1-4. In the event that a teacher earns a score of 1 on all rated components of the practice rubric across all observations, a score of 0 will be assigned.

(13) Weighting of subcomponents within teacher observation category. The weighting of the subcomponents within the teacher observation category shall be established locally within the following constraints:

(i) observations conducted by a principal or other trained administrator shall be weighted at a minimum of 80 percent;

(ii) observations conducted by independent impartial observer(s), 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 observation subcomponent, then the weighting assigned to the optional observations conducted by peers shall be established locally within the constraints outlined in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of this paragraph.

(14) Overall rating on the teacher observation category. The overall observation score calculated pursuant to this subdivision 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

Minimum Maximum

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.