Sec. 30-3.5. Standards and criteria for conducting annual professional performance reviews of building principals under Education Law section 3012-d

(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 required subcomponent and an optional second subcomponent as follows:

(1) Required first subcomponent. A district may select, or if applicable, collectively bargain one or more measures for the required student performance category that shall be applied in a consistent manner, to the extent practicable, across the district. Such measure shall be based on one or more of the following:

(i) 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 based on a State-created or -administered assessment or other State-approved student assessment. Such SLO may be either principal- and building- or program-specific or based on district-, or BOCES-wide group, team, or linked results. 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 their designee. Such targets, as determined by the superintendent or their designee, may take the following characteristics into account: poverty, students with disabilities, English language learner 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;

(ii) An input model where the principal’s student performance rating shall be determined based on evidence of principal practice that promotes student growth related to the leadership standards. If a district uses the input model, the district’s evaluation plan as approved by the commissioner shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) a description of the areas of principal practice that will be evaluated;

(b) a description of how the selected areas of principal practice promote student growth;

(c) a description of the evidence of student growth and principal practice that will be collected; and

(d) a description of how the district will use the evidence to differentiate effectiveness resulting in a score from 0 to 20 and ratings of highly effective, effective, developing, or ineffective.

(2) Optional second subcomponent. A district may select, or if applicable, collectively bargain 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 a State-created or administered assessment or State-designed supplemental assessment. Such second measure shall be either:

(i) a second SLO, provided that this SLO is different than that used in the required subcomponent of the principal’s evaluation;

(ii) 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;

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

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

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

(vi) four, five, or six year high school graduation rates;

(vii) an input model based on evidence of principal practice that promotes student achievement or growth related to the leadership standards; or

(viii) any other collectively bargained measure of student growth or achievement as described in the district’s evaluation plan, subject to approval by the commissioner.

(3) 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.

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

(5) 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 mandatory 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.

(iii) Each measure used in the student performance category (i.e., required SLOs, second student performance measures) must result in a score between 0 and 20. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph, 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 SLOs, scores of 0-20 shall be computed pursuant to a process described in the district’s evaluation plan as approved by the commissioner.

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

(iv) 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.

(v) 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. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (vi) 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

(vi) 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 category rating.

(c) Principal school visit category.

Principals’ professional performance shall be evaluated based on a State-approved rubric using multiple sources of evidence collected and incorporated into the school visit protocol. Where appropriate, such evidence may be aligned to building or district goals; provided, however, that professional goal-setting may not be used as evidence of teacher or principal effectiveness. Such evidence shall reflect school leadership practice aligned to the Leadership Standards and selected practice rubric.

(d) The school visit category for principals shall include up to three subcomponents; two of which are required and one of which is optional.

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

(i) at least 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) at least 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 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) 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 requirement 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 their 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 required 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, or other trained administrator from conducting school visits of a principal in addition to those required under this section for non-evaluative purposes.

(9) The evaluator may select a limited number of rubric subcomponents on which to focus in a particular school visit, so long as all observable rubric subcomponents are addressed across the total number of annual school visits.

(10) 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 school visit score.

(11) 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.

(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 leadership standards and an overall score for the school visit subcomponents and category shall be generated between 1-4. Such subcomponent and category scores must incorporate all evidence collected and observed over the course of the school year. 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.

(13) Weighting of subcomponents with principal school visit category. The weighting of the subcomponents in 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 clauses (a) and (b) of this subparagraph.

(14) Overall rating on the principal school visit 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:

	Overall School Visit 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