September 2011

2011-12 PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (PPR)

AGENDA

1. Overview of the Principal Performance Review (PPR) and Education Law 3012-c

2. New Policies around Goals and Objectives for 2011-12

3. Setting Goals and Objectives

4. Action Planning

5. Evidence

6. Scoring Guidelines

2

OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (PPR) AND

EDUCATION LAW 3012-c

3

PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (PPR)

The PPR was established in 2007 as an evaluative tool to measure principal performance as part of a joint agreement between the CSA and the DOE.

The Principal Performance Review (PPR) offers an opportunity to:> Examine the progress your school and students have made and

identify steps you can take to improve student outcomes over the upcoming school year.

> Provide a common language and point of discussion for principals, superintendents, and network leaders to talk about the role of the principal and the steps each principal should be taking to achieve their goals for their school.

> Provide a structured principal evaluation process to ensure fair and standardized ratings of principal performance across the system.

4

COMPONENTS (SCORING CRITERIA) OF THE PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (PPR)

Component Percentage of PPR Score

Goals and Objectives 31%

Progress Report 32%

Quality Review 22%

Compliance 10%

Compliance - Populations with Particular Needs 5%

5

The PPR results in an annual Final Rating for each principal based on the following components, which will remain the same for this year:

EDUCATION LAW 3012-c

In May 2010, New York State passed Education Law 3012-c establishing a comprehensive evaluation system for teachers and principals.

The new law requires each teacher and principal receive an annual professional performance review (APPR), resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and a rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective.

3012-c does not go into effect for principals in New York City until a new collective bargaining agreement is reached with the CSA.

  6

PRINCIPAL SUPPORT AND EVALUATION IN NYC

7

Superintendent

The DOE will explore ways to increase coherence across the ways NYC principals are supported and evaluated

during the upcoming school year.

Network Team

Accountability Tools

Principal

NEW POLICIES AROUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2011-12

8

The DOE has revised guidance for the goals and objectives section of the PPR for school year 2011-12 in order to:

> Prepare the system for upcoming changes to the PPR based on the new State Education Law 3012-c.

> Increase coherence around principals’ instructional priorities by aligning the citywide instructional expectations, principal capacity-building work, and PPR goals.

9

NEW POLICIES AROUND THE PPR

Goals and Objectives are now due to superintendents on October 14, 2011.

Principals must submit a minimum of 4 goals and a maximum of 5 goals.

Of the 4-5 goals each principal sets, at least two goals must be aligned to the 2011-12 citywide instructional expectations.

In alignment with 3012-c: all principals must set at least one goal addressing the

“principal’s contribution to improving teacher effectiveness” “Other goals address quantifiable and verifiable improvements in

academic results OR the school’s learning environment”

CHANGES FOR THE 2011-12 PPR

NOTE: Scoring criteria will not change for 2011-12.

10

ALIGNING GOALS TO THE 2011-12 CITYWIDE EXPECTATIONS

All principals should align at least two of their goals to the citywide instructional expectations:

> at least one goal that ensures they meet the expectations around engaging all students in at least one literacy and one math task embedded in a rigorous curriculum unit aligned to the Common Core

> at least one goal around teacher effectiveness that ensures they meet the expectations around engaging in short, frequent cycles of classroom observation and feedback using a rubric that articulates clear expectations for teacher practice

11

WHAT HAS STAYED THE SAME?

Goals are measurable.

Goals are aligned to the needs and priorities of the school.

Goals are critical to school improvement.

12

SETTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

13

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GOAL AND AN OBJECTIVE?

For the purposes of the PPR:

A goal is an overarching desired outcome, without setting a particular target.

An objective is a measurable target.

14

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TEMPLATE

Goal Describe your goal.

ObjectiveSet the measurable target that will define whether you have met your goal.

Action PlanDescribe your plan for meeting your goal, including staffing, scheduling, and funding.

EvidenceIdentify the objective evidence you will use throughout the year to evaluate your progress towards meeting your goal.

Identify a minimum of four and a maximum of five goals in narrative form as outlined below.

15

GUIDELINES FOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS GOALS

Can be process-oriented or outcome-oriented

In alignment with 3012-c, teacher effectiveness goals should focus on one or more of these categories:> Principal actions to implement and conduct teacher evaluation

effectively (e.g., quality of feedback provided to teachers)> Evidence of improved effectiveness of teaching staff (e.g., improved

retention of high performers)> Facilitation of teacher participation in professional development

opportunities

Goals about the Common Core instructional expectation could fit in this category at principal’s discretion (e.g., a goal around professional development for a teacher team to produce Common Core-aligned curricular units and tasks).

16

GUIDELINES FOR All OTHER GOALS

Must be outcome-oriented

In alignment with 3012-c, all other principal goals (not addressing teacher effectiveness) must address “quantifiable and verifiable improvements”

Goals must be based on measurable outcomes supported by concrete evidence that they were (or were not) obtained based on:

> Improvements in “academic results” OR> improvements in “the school’s learning environment,” resulting from

the principal’s leadership

Goals about the Common Core instructional expectation could fit in this category at principal’s discretion (e.g., XX% of students move up at least one level in a particular category within a Common Core-aligned rubric developed by teachers)

17

USING DATA TO IDENTIFY THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL

Consult multiple sources of data when defining goals and objectives, including: > Progress Report outcomes across all measures > Quality Review report focusing, in particular, on

identified areas for improvement> CEP > State accountability outcomes> Teacher and student data> Teacher, student, and/or parent responses on the

NYC School Survey

18

POTENTIAL GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL

Based on your school’s data, what goals will enable your school to achieve stronger student outcomes by June 2012?> How can your school make adjustments to improve specific categories on your

school’s Progress Report?> What strategic steps can you take to increase coherence and consistency in

instruction and/or systems to improve your Quality Review rating?> How can your school’s structures and strategies be improved to target student

outcomes, as identified by your schools NCLB Differentiated Accountability Status and/or PLA identification?

What are your students’ learning needs across different sub-groups and what adjustments need to be made to address those needs?

Given various levels of expertise among your teachers, what differentiated professional learning will result in improved teacher effectiveness to maximize student outcomes?

Has your school adopted a rubric for teacher evaluation? What is the professional development plan around this rubric?

What is your process for teacher feedback?

19

SAMPLE GOAL ALIGNED TO ACADEMIC RESULTS

Goal: Students will show progress in using evidence to support arguments.

Measurable Objective:

80% of students will effectively use evidence to support arguments across subject areas and grades.

Teachers will develop a Common Core-aligned unit of study that incorporates opportunities for students to conduct research and use supporting evidence.

Action Plan:

Teachers will develop collaborative lessons that incorporate oral and written skills needed for providing evidence to support arguments. Teachers meet weekly in department teams to assess student work and plan lessons that demand evidence to support a claim. Teachers meet bi-weekly in department teams to develop a rubric to assess the use of evidence to support a claim.

Evidence: 80% of students move up at least one level in the “use evidence” area of the rubric developed by teachers (pre-assessment to post-assessment). Teacher-developed unit of study aligned to the Common Core, including tasks, activities, and rubrics.

20

ACTION PLANNING

22

DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN

The action plan in your PPR should describe how you will attain your goals and objectives.

This section should include the steps and actions for meeting goals and objectives (staffing, scheduling, funding plans, etc.)

Potential Guiding Questions for Designing your Action Plan

1. How will you use resources (fiscal and talent) to help you accomplish your goals and objectives?

2. How will all the stakeholders factor into accomplishing your goals and objectives?

23

SAMPLE GOAL ALIGNED TO ACADEMIC RESULTS

Goal: Students will show progress in using evidence to support arguments.

Measurable Objective:

80% of students will effectively use evidence to support arguments across subject areas and grades.

Teachers will develop a Common Core-aligned unit of study that incorporates opportunities for students to conduct research and use supporting evidence.

Action Plan:

Teachers will develop collaborative lessons that incorporate oral and written skills needed for providing evidence to support arguments. Teachers meet weekly in department teams to assess student work and plan lessons that demand evidence to support a claim. Teachers meet bi-weekly in department teams to develop a rubric to assess the use of evidence to support a claim.

Evidence: 80% of students move up at least one level in the “use evidence” area of the rubric developed by teachers (pre-assessment to post-assessment). Teacher-developed unit of study aligned to the Common Core, including tasks, activities, and rubrics.

24

EVIDENCE

26

SAMPLE GOAL ALIGNED TO ACADEMIC RESULTS

Goal: Students will show progress in using evidence to support arguments.

Measurable Objective:

80% of students will effectively use evidence to support arguments across subject areas and grades.

Teachers will develop a Common Core-aligned unit of study that incorporates opportunities for students to conduct research and use supporting evidence.

Action Plan:

Teachers will develop collaborative lessons that incorporate oral and written skills needed for providing evidence to support arguments. Teachers meet weekly in department teams to assess student work and plan lessons that demand evidence to support a claim. Teachers meet bi-weekly in department teams to develop a rubric to assess the use of evidence to support a claim.

Evidence: 80% of students move up at least one level in the “use evidence” area of the rubric developed by teachers (pre-assessment to post-assessment). Teacher-developed unit of study aligned to the Common Core, including tasks, activities, and rubrics.

27

EVIDENCE FOR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

29

Example types of measurable evidence that could be used for goals focused on…

Quantifiable and Verifiable improvements in Academic

Results

Quantifiable and Verifiable improvements the School’s

Learning Environment

The Principal’s Contribution to Improving Teacher

Effectiveness Number or frequency of teacher

observations using a rubric of teacher practice

Quality of feedback provided to teachers throughout the year

Teacher responses on School Survey

Facilitation of teacher participation in professional development opportunities, including teacher teams engaged in collaborative inquiry work

Increased teacher participation in teacher leader /shared leadership opportunities

Improvement in State test scores

Improvements in credit accumulation

Improvement of internal measures, such as scores on common assessments or rubrics

****Note: targeted improvement could be across the entire school or focus on particular populations of students

Improved results in Academic Expectations, Communication, Engagement, or Safety & Respect from parents, teachers, or students on School Survey (i.e., improvement in percent of students who agree that “I feel welcome in my school.”)

Improvement in attendance data for school or for after-school programs

***Note: targeted improvement could be across the entire school or focus on particular populations of students

Goals about the Common Core instructional expectation could fall into any of these categories

SCORING GUIDELINES

30

The Progress Report grade will be converted to points using the conversion table below.

A 32

B 24

C 18

D 10

F 0

EVALUATION RUBRIC

A. Academic Performance

85%

Area ActivityFinal

Evaluation

Goals and Objectives (31%)Did the principal meet his/her Goals and Objectives?

Progress Report (32%)Results of the school’s Progress Report:

Quality Review Score (22%)Results of the school's Quality Review:

Academic Performance Sub-Total

The Quality Review score will be converted using the conversion table below.

Well Developed 22

Proficient 15

Developing 8

Underdeveloped 0

31

ATTENTION TO POPULATIONS WITH PARTICULAR NEEDS & COMPLIANCE

B. Attention to Populations with Particular Needs Points

5%

Special Education

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) mandated related and support services and SETSS were provided in a timely manner, and the first attend data was recorded into the computerized tracking system.

All special education evaluations were conducted within legally mandated timeframes: initial referrals were completed within sixty (60) calendar days of the receipt of parental consent; re-evaluations were completed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the referral; annual reviews of special education students were conducted as required.

IEP teams made recommendations, to the extent appropriate, for services in the least restrictive environment, including maintaining the student in his or her current school.

English Language Learners

The Language Assessment Battery-Revised (LAB-R) was administered to all students whose home language is not English.

Population with Particular Needs Sub-Total

C. Compliance with Legal Mandates/Key DOE Policies Points

10%

32

COMPLIANCE PORTION OF PPR

Office of Compliance Services will assess each school’s year-end overall compliance with federal, state, and local laws, as well as Chancellor’s Regulations.

For information regarding key dates and actions you may go to:

https://portal.nycenet.edu/DOEPortal/Principals/LegalServices/GeneralCounsel/default.htm

33

COMPUTING THE OVERALL SCORE

34

D. Computing the Overall

Score

Goals and Objectives

(31%) +

Progress Report (32%) +

Quality Review (22%) +

Populations with Particular

Needs (5%) +

Compliance (10%)

= Overall Score(100%)

Scores + + + + =

Using the columns to the

right, convert the Overall Score to

the corresponding

Rating.

Overall Score Range Rating

The Final Rating will be subject to the

considerations listed on the following slide.

91-100% 4 = Substantially Exceeds

71-90% 3 = Exceeds

53-70% 2 = Meets 31-52% 1 = Partially Meets

0-30% 0 = Does Not Meet

CALCULATING THE FINAL RATING

The Final Rating is subject to the superintendent’s consideration of the following guidelines which may result in a rating above or below the score on the Evaluation Rubric:

> The principal’s short time as the school’s leader (including due to illness during the preceding year).

> The principal’s recent appointment to turn around a previously failing school.

> The principal’s achievement or surpassing of his/her goals and objectives.

> Other circumstances of at least the same magnitude and effect.

35

DECREASING THE FINAL RATING

A superintendent may decrease the Final Rating if: > The principal receives an overall score of “0” on any component of

Part B or any category, e.g. “Business and Funding,” listed in the compliance checklist or desk review, OR

> The principal engaged in any misconduct conduct during the year.

Whether to decrease the rating depends upon the number of components or categories rated “0”, and/or the frequency and severity of the misconduct or inappropriate conduct as assessed by the superintendent.

36

2011-12 PPR TIMELINE

37

October 2011

November 2011

January 2012

June 2012

October 14

Goals and objectives due

November 30

Revisions to goals and objectives

due

January 30

Mid-year PPR summary chart due

June 30

End-of-year PPR summary

(superintendent will issue the final PPR

shortly after issuance of the 2011-2012 Progress Report)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

See more information on the Principals’ Portal, (click “Principal Evaluations” from the “Leadership & Staff Development” drop-down menu).

Contact your superintendent, network leader or Sarah Kleinhandler at skleinh@schools.nyc.gov with any questions.

38