Educator Evaluation Results Glossary
Locally-Selected Measures Rating (Education Law §3012-c)
These data are the "Locally-Selected Measures" subcomponent ratings based on scores reported to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-c from the 2012-13 through 2015-16 school years.
Education Law §3012-c required that 20% of a teacher's or principal's evaluation be based on Locally-Selected Measures.
A Locally-Selected Measure either measured growth or achievement from a selection of available assessment options. Points were assigned to educators in a manner determined locally, through collective bargaining, using regulatory standards and scoring ranges.
Measures used for the Locally-Selected Measures subcomponent had to be different from the growth measures used in the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent. However, the Locally-Selected Measure could have been based on the same State assessment, State-approved 3rd party assessment, or LEA-developed assessment as long as the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent was a different measure of growth than that used for the Locally-Selected Measures subcomponent. This would include, but not be limited to, measuring results from different courses or students, using different assessments and/or using a different measure on the same assessment (achievement instead of growth or a subgroup of students, for example).
The scoring ranges for the Locally-Selected Measures subcomponent were set in Education Law §3012-c and were as follows:
- Highly effective (18-20 points): results are well-above LEA-adopted expectations for growth or achievement for grade/subject.
- Effective (9-17 points): results meet LEA-adopted expectations for growth or achievement for grade/subject.
- Developing (3-8 points): results are below LEA-adopted expectations for growth or achievement for grade/subject.
- Ineffective (0-2 points): results are well-below LEA-adopted expectations for growth or achievement for grade/subject.
Original Ratings
These data are the subcomponent and/or Category ratings and Overall Composite Ratings reported to 91ÉçÇø beginning in the 2015-16 school year by LEAs calculated pursuant to the LEA’s approved evaluation plan without any modifications, substitutions, or replacements as a result of the transition regulations (see "Transition Scores/Ratings" below). Accordingly, an educator's Original ratings include the results of the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments and/or State-provided growth scores.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Governor's Common Core Task Force, sections 30-2.14 and 30-3.17 of the Rules of the Board of Regents required that the results of the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments and State-provided growth scores would not have evaluative consequences for educators beginning in the 2015-16 school year (i.e., the "transition period"). During the transition period, an educator's Original Overall Composite Rating was used for advisory purposes only.
For purposes of public reporting of aggregate data pursuant to Education Law §3012-c, as made applicable to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d by section 30-3.15 of the Rules of the Board of Regents, the Original Overall Composite Ratings were be reported in addition to Transition Overall Composite Ratings through the 2017-18 school year. Beginning in the 2018-19 school year, only one set of evaluation scores and ratings were required to be reported – transition, where applicable, otherwise, original scores and ratings.
Educators whose student performance measures were not based on the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments or State-provided growth scores (e.g., teachers with SLOs based on Regents assessments) were not impacted by the transition regulations. LEAs continued to evaluate such teachers using the measures specified in the LEA’s approved evaluation plan. Accordingly, only one set of scores and ratings continued to be reported for such educators.
Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness Rating (Education Law §3012-c)
These data are the "Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness" subcomponent ratings based on scores reported to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-c in the 2012-13 through 2015-16 school years.
Education Law §3012-c required that 60% of teacher and principal evaluations be based on multiple measures of teacher/principal effectiveness consistent with standards prescribed by the Commissioner in regulation. This included the extent to which the educator demonstrated proficiency in meeting New York State's teaching or leadership standards. Education Law §3012-c also stated that the scoring ranges and the process for assigning points (on a 0-60 scale) for the Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness subcomponent were to be locally established through negotiations.
At least a majority (31) of the 60 points of a teacher's evaluation were based on multiple classroom observations - meaning 2 or more - by a principal or other trained administrator. Classroom observations could be performed in person or via video. At least one observation by a principal or other trained administrator was unannounced. observations for these points.
At least a majority (31) of the 60 points of a principal's evaluation were based on a broad assessment of principal leadership and management actions based on the principal practice rubric, by the principal's supervisor, a trained administrator, or a trained independent evaluator. The assessment incorporated multiple school visits by a supervisor, a trained administrator, or other trained evaluator, where at least one visit was from a supervisor and at least one visit was unannounced. A LEA could allocate the full 60 points of a principal's evaluation to the broad assessment of principal leadership and management actions based on the State approved principal practice rubric.
The process by which points were assigned and the scoring range was determined locally and was required to be transparent and provided in advance to applicable educators. Each LEA described its process for assigning the other 60 points in its evaluation plan, which was required to be published on its web site.
The following narrative descriptions were used when a LEA rated a teacher/principal in this subcomponent, in order to effectively differentiate educators' performance in ways that improve student learning and instruction:
- Highly effective: overall performance and results exceed the teaching or leadership standards.
- Effective: overall performance and results meet the teaching or leadership standards.
- Developing: overall performance and results need improvement in order to meet the teacher or leadership standards.
- Ineffective: overall performance and results do not meet the teacher or leadership standards.
Overall Composite Rating (Education Law §3012-c)
This rating is provided to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs with approved evaluation plans.
Each classroom teacher and building principal received an overall rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective (HEDI). In evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-c, the overall rating was based on a single composite effectiveness score that was calculated based on the scores received by the teacher or principal in each of the three subcomponents (State Growth or Other Comparable Measures, Locally-Selected Measures, and Other Measures of Educator Effectiveness).
For evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-c in the 2012-13 through 2015-16 school years, the scoring ranges for each Overall Composite Rating were as follows and were set by statute:
- Highly Effective (91-100)
- Effective (75-90)
- Developing (65-74)
- Ineffective (0-64)
[see Education Law §3012-c(2)(a)(2)].
Overall Rating (Education Law §3012-d)
This rating is provided to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs with approved evaluation plans.
Each classroom teacher and building principal must receive an overall rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective (HEDI). In evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d, the overall rating is calculated based on the ratings received in the Student Performance Category and Observation or School Visit Category, using a State-prescribed matrix.
For evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d during the 2015-16 school year and thereafter, the Overall Composite Rating is determined using the following methodology:
Scoring matrix for the overall rating:
State Growth or Other Comparable Measures Rating (Education Law §3012-c)
These data were the "State Growth or Other Comparable Measures" subcomponent ratings based on scores provided to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-c in the 2012-23 through 2015-16 school years.
As part of the APPR process, New York State teachers of math and English Language Arts (ELA) in grades 4-8 and their principals received State-provided growth scores. These growth scores described how much students in their classrooms and schools were growing academically in mathematics and ELA (as measured by the New York State 3-8 math and ELA assessments) compared to similar students statewide.
For the 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-16 school years, two measures were used to calculate the State-provided growth score for high school principals of all of grades 9-12. One of the measures was the calculation of a mean growth percentile (MGP) for a principal based on student growth on the Algebra I and ELA Regents exams compared to similar students1. In addition, 91ÉçÇø developed a measure of student growth based on the number of Regents exams passed annually starting in the year of student entry into 9th grade, compared to similar students statewide. Please note that during the 2015-16 through 2018-19 school years, State-provided growth scores were used only for purposes of calculating original scores and ratings.
In all other grades and subjects (i.e., those for which the State did not have an approved growth model including high school principals with other grade configurations [e.g. 9-10, 10-12, etc.]), Education Law §3012-c required that teachers' and principals' evaluations be based in part on comparable measures of student learning growth. For these grades/subjects, districts were required to utilize the Student Learning Objective process.Ìý
The scoring ranges for the State Growth or Other Comparable Measures subcomponent were set in Education Law §3012-c and were as follows:
- Highly effective (18-20 points): results were well-above state average for similar students (or LEA goals if no state test).
- Effective (9-17 points): results met state average for similar students (or LEA goals if no state test).
- Developing (3-8 points): results were below state average for similar students (or LEA goals if no state test).
- Ineffective (0-2 points): results were well-below state average for similar students (or LEA goals if no state test).
Student Performance Category Rating (Education Law §3012-d)
These data are the "Student Performance Category" ratings based on scores provided to 91ÉçÇø by LEAs conducting evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-d in the 2015-16 school year and thereafter. All student performance measures under Education Law §3012-d must measure student growth, and all student performance measures must be capable of generating a score of 0-20. The measures available in the Required and Optional subcomponents of the Student Performance Category are described in the definitions for each subcomponent.
The Student Performance Category consists of two subcomponents - one required and one optional. If only the Required Student Performance Category subcomponent is used, it is weighted as 100% of each educator's overall Student Performance Category score. If a LEA locally negotiates the use of the Optional Student Performance Category subcomponent, the weightings for each subcomponent are established locally, provided that the Required subcomponent must be weighted at a minimum of 50%, and the Optional subcomponent must be weighted no more than 50%.
An educator's scores in the subcomponents of the Student Performance Category are combined using a weighted average to produce an overall Student Performance Category score of 0 to 20. Using this score, an overall Student Performance Category rating shall be derived from the table below:
Overall Student Performance Category Score and Rating
Suppression Rules - Evaluation Data
Evaluation data are suppressed as follows:
a. If any single HEDI category has a cell total that equals the row total, the entire row of data is suppressed; and
b. If the row total is less than five, the entire row of data is suppressed.
Teacher Observation/Principal School Visit Category Rating (Education Law §3012-d)
These data are the "Teacher Observation Category" ratings for teachers, and "Principal School Visit Category" ratings for principals based on scores reported to 91ÉçÇø from evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d in the 2015-16 school year and thereafter.
Education Law §3012-d requires that the Teacher Observation/Principal School Visit Category be based on at least two types of required observations/school visits (i.e., the Required subcomponents) and may also be based on one optional type of observation/school visit (i.e., the Optional subcomponent). Teachers' classroom observations may be conducted in person or by video. However, principals' school visits may only be conducted in person. Additionally, each educator must receive at least two observations/school visits annually; one of the required observations/school visits must be unannounced. For additional information regarding the scoring of teacher observations/principal school visits including information about which elements of the rubric must be scored, prohibited elements, and parameters for establishing scoring ranges, please see Section K of theÌý§3012-d APPR Guidance document.
Transition Scores/Ratings
For the 2015-16 school year and beyond, educators whose evaluations are based, in whole or in part, on the results of the grades 3-8 ELA or math State assessments and/or State-provided growth scores, shall be provided transition scores and ratings which exclude the results of the grades 3-8 ELA and math State assessments and any State-provided growth scores. Where a measure is based only in part on the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments or State-provided growth scores, LEAs must determine whether to use the measure with the remaining assessments when calculating an educator's transition scores/ratings.
Beginning in the 2015-16 school year for LEAs that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-c or Education Law §3012-d, transition scores and ratings for the Student Performance Category and the Overall Transition Rating will be determined using the scores/ratings in the remaining subcomponents/Categories of an educator's evaluation that are not based on the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments or State-provided growth score. LEAs that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-c in 2015-16 were required to scale up the scores of the remaining subcomponent according to a locally-determined methodology to calculate a new Overall Transition Score out of 100. Districts that conducted evaluations pursuant to Education Law §3012-d were required to determine a new Overall Composite Transition Rating based on the remaining subcomponents/Categories of an educator's evaluation using the matrix prescribed in statute and Subpart 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents.
For evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d beginning in 2016-17, in instances where no scores or ratings in the subcomponents of the Student Performance Category can be generated, an alternate SLO must be developed by the LEA consistent with guidelines prescribed by the Commissioner using assessments approved by the Department that are not the grades 3-8 ELA and math State assessments. This could include any other State assessments, e.g., the grade 4 and 8 State science assessments or Regents examinations.
Beginning in 2015-16, State-provided growth scores are computed for advisory purposes only. Overall HEDI ratings based on such growth scores were provided to teachers and principals through the 2018-19 school year. For the 2015-16 school year and beyond, only the Overall Composite Transition Rating will be used for purposes of employment decisions, including tenure determinations and for purposes of proceedings under Education Law §§ 3020-a and 3020-b and teacher and principal improvement plans and the individual's employment record.
From 2015-16 through 2017-18 ,for purposes of public reporting of aggregate data and disclosure to parents pursuant to Education Law §3012-c(10)(b), as made applicable to evaluations conducted pursuant to Education Law §3012-d by section 30-3.15 of the Rules of the Board of Regents, both the Transition and Original Overall Composite Score and/or Rating pursuant to Education Law §3012-c or §3012-d (as applicable) and Subpart 30-2 or 30-3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents (as applicable) were reported along with an explanation of the Overall Composite Transition Score and/or Rating. Beginning in 2018-19, only one set of scores and ratings are required to be reported – transition, where applicable, otherwise original.
Educators whose student performance measures are not based on the grades 3-8 ELA/math State assessments or State-provided growth scores (e.g., teachers with SLOs based on Regents assessments) are not impacted by the transition regulations. LEAs must continue to evaluate such teachers using the measures specified in the LEA’s approved evaluation plan. Accordingly, only one set of scores and ratings will be reported for such educators.