(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.

1. (1) Mandatory first subcomponent.

   1. (i) For a teacher whose course ends in a State-created or administered test for which there is a State-provided growth model and at least 50 percent of a teacher’s students are covered under the State-provided growth measure, such teacher shall have a State-provided growth score based on such model; and

   2. (ii) for a teacher whose course does not end in a State-created or administered test or where less than 50 percent of the teacher’s students are covered by a State-provided growth measure, such teacher shall have a student learning objective (SLO) developed and approved by his/her superintendent or his or her designee, 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; provided that, for any teacher whose course ends 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 SLO elements, as defined by the commissioner in guidance:

      1. (a) student population;
      2. (b) learning content;
      3. (c) interval of instructional time;
      4. (d) evidence;
      5. (e) baseline;
      6. (f) target;
      7. (g) criteria for rating a teacher highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective (HEDI); and
      8. (h) rationale;
   3. (iii) for a teacher whose course does not end in a State-created or administered test or where a State-provided growth measure is not determined, districts may 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 student assessments approved by the department, as defined by the commissioner in guidance;
   4. (iv) districts shall develop back-up SLOs for all teachers whose courses 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 teachers.

2. (2) Optional second subcomponent. A district may locally select a second measure that shall be applied in a consistent manner, to the extent practicable, across the district based on State/Regents assessments or State-designed supplemental assessments and be either:

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

      1. (a) a teacher-specific growth score 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);
      2. (b) school-wide growth results based on a State-provided school-wide growth score for all students attributable to the school who took the State English language arts or math assessment in grades 4-8; or
      3. (c) district- or BOCES-wide or school-wide, group, team, or linked growth results using available State-provided growth scores that are locally-computed; or
   2. (ii) a growth score based on a State-designed supplemental assessment, calculated using a State-provided or approved growth model. Such growth score may include district- or BOCES-wide or school- or program-wide group, team, or linked results where the State-approved growth model is capable of generating such a score.
3. (3) All State-provided or approved growth model 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. (4) The district shall measure student growth using the same measure(s) of student growth for all classroom teachers in a course and/or grade level in a district.

   (c) Weighting of subcomponents within student performance category.

5. (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.
6. (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.

7. (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 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 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 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

   (d) Overall rating on student performance category.

8. (1) Multiple student performance measures shall be combined using a weighted average pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section 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

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

   1. (i) Two mandatory subcomponents.

      1. (a) one observation shall be conducted by a principal or other trained administrator; and

      2. (b) a second observation 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 subclause (1) of this clause, 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 clause (a) of this paragraph; or in cases where a hardship waiver is granted by the department pursuant to subclause (2) of this clause, a second observation shall be conducted as prescribed in subclause (2) of this clause. 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;

         1. (1) 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;
         2. (2) commencing with the 2016-2017 school year, 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 clause 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 subclause 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 2016-2017 school year for teachers who receive a rating of highly effective, effective, or developing for the 2015-2016 school year; school districts would be required to conduct observations by impartial independent trained evaluators for the 2016-2017 school year for, at a minimum, teachers who receive a rating of ineffective for the 2015-2016 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 subclause, 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. (ii) Optional third subcomponent. The observations category may include a third optional subcomponent based on classroom observations conducted by a trained peer teacher rated effective or highly effective on his or her overall rating in the prior school year from the same school or from another school in the district.
   3. (iii) Frequency and duration of observations. The frequency and duration of observations shall be determined locally.

   4. (iv) 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.

      1. (a) 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.
      2. (b) 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. (v) 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. (vi) At least one of the mandatory observations must be unannounced.
   7. (vii) Observations may occur either live or via recorded video, as determined locally.
   8. (viii) Nothing in this Subpart shall be construed to limit the discretion of a board of education, superintendent of schools or a principal or other trained administrator to conduct observations in addition to those required by this section for non-evaluative purposes.
   9. (ix) Observations must be based only on observable rubric subcomponents. The evaluator may select a limited number of observable rubric subcomponents for focus within a particular observation, so long as all observable teaching standards/domains are addressed across the total number of annual observations.
   10. (x) 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. (xi) 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. (xii) Each subcomponent of the observation category 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 category shall be generated between 1-4. Such subcomponent 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 subparagraph (xiv) of this paragraph, 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. (xiii) 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:

       1. (a) observations conducted by a principal or other trained administrator shall be weighted at a minimum of 80 percent;
       2. (b) 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;
       3. (c) 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 clauses (a) and (b) of this subparagraph.

   14. (xiv) Overall rating on the teacher observation category. The overall observation score calculated pursuant to subparagraphs (xii) and (xiii) 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

(b) Student performance category.

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