N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 30-3.4
(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) 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:
(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:
(3) Weighting of subcomponents within student performance category. 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.
(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 |
(4) Overall rating on student performance category.
(i) Multiple student performance measures shall be combined using a weighted average pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subdivision 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.
(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.
(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.
(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:
(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 |
(b) Student performance category.
The student performance category shall have one required subcomponent and one optional subcomponent as follows: