2012-13 Principal Performance Review (PPR) September 2012

GUIDANCE FOR 2012-13 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2012-13 PPR TIMELINE October 15 Goals and objectives due November 30 January 2013 June 2013 October 15 Goals and objectives due (superintendent will provide feedback to principal by November 15 if applicable) November 30 Revisions to goals and objectives due January 31 Mid-year PPR summary chart due June 28 End-of-year PPR summary due (superintendent will issue the final PPR shortly after issuance of the 2012-2013 Progress Report) Submission Process: Email completed PPR goals and objectives, mid-year summary templates, and end-of-year summary templates directly to your superintendent (see appendices of the 2012-13 PPR Guide for templates). Please write “PPR Goals for [Principal Name], [DBN]” in the subject line. To identify your superintendent, please search for your school by DBN.

RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO PRINCIPAL EVALUATION (PPR) PROCESS Last year, the DOE revised guidance for the goals and objectives section of the PPR in order to: Prepare the system for upcoming changes to the PPR based on the new State Education Law section 3012-c. Increase coherence around principals’ instructional priorities by aligning the citywide instructional expectations, principal capacity-building work, and PPR goals. This year, at least two goals should address the 2012- 13 citywide instructional expectations.

GUIDELINES FOR 2012-13 PPR GOALS Principals will set 4 to 5 goals All principals will align at least two of their goals to the 2012-13 citywide instructional expectations: At least one goal should address the expectation around teacher development At least one goal should address the expectation around students experiencing Common Core-aligned instruction across subjects Like last year, all PPR goals must include measurable objectives that address: Improvement in academic achievement; Improvement in the school’s learning environment; or Actions you will take to support teacher development over the course of the school year.¹ ¹This is in accordance with New York State Education Law section 3012-c.

EVIDENCE FOR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Example types of evidence that could be used for goals focused on… The Principal’s Contribution to Improving Teacher Effectiveness Quantifiable and Verifiable Improvements in Academic Results Quantifiable and Verifiable Improvements in the School’s Learning Environment Number or frequency of formative 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 on 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

SAMPLE GOALS

Evidence/Interim Benchmarks SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION AROUND STUDENTS EXPERIENCING COMMON CORE-ALIGNED INSTRUCTION ACROSS SUBJECTS Goal Objectives Action Plan Evidence/Interim Benchmarks Build teacher teams’ capacity to align units of study with the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS), in response to student learning needs.   Building off of last year’s work, over the course of the 2012-13 school year each department in the core content areas (English, math, social studies, and science) will revise, and all teachers in these departments will implement, two Common Core-aligned units that: Are well-aligned to selected standards as indicated by CCLS alignment protocols developed by the network team Embed the skills outlined in the relevant Common Core instructional shifts Assess student learning with a rigorous performance task as indicated by Webb’s Depth of Knowledge All English, math, social studies, and science teachers will participate in weekly department meetings during their common planning blocks, with the support of our school’s network achievement coach. Department teams will examine student work from the 2011-12 school year to understand gaps in student knowledge or skill and inform the revision of their instructional units. During these meetings, department teams will refine curriculum units and engage in a structured protocol to ensure alignment with the selected Common Core standards. Teachers will collaboratively assess the quality of student work that comes out of the implementation of the first unit and repeat the cycle for the second unit. School leadership will meet weekly with teacher leaders (department chairs), join team meetings on a regular basis, and coordinate this work across the grades. Teachers will have additional per session curriculum planning and task design opportunities provided. Online schedule of common planning time for departments. 1-2 sample units of study that exhibit the qualities articulated above, including copies of performance tasks, rubrics, and student work.

Evidence/Interim Benchmarks SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION AROUND STUDENTS EXPERIENCING COMMON CORE-ALIGNED INSTRUCTION ACROSS SUBJECTS Goal Objectives Action Plan Evidence/Interim Benchmarks Students will demonstrate the ability to use clear and relevant evidence to support their assertions in essays aligned to the expectations of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS).   Across subject areas and grades, a minimum of 75% of students will improve in their use of evidence in their essays. All English, science, and social studies teachers will implement two Common Core-aligned writing units that embed expectations for students to introduce and analyze supporting evidence as well as to counter claims. After participating in professional development sessions about Common Core-aligned, evidence-based essay-writing units (including grading these essays using common rubrics), teachers will implement writing units that develop students’ capacity in the targeted areas. During teacher team meetings throughout the year, teachers will use protocols to assess the effectiveness of colleagues’ writing units. Instructional resources from the Common Core Library will serve as design models. All English, science, and social studies teachers will teach two of these writing units to their students by April 2013. Online gradebook shows that, using the common rubric as the tool of measurement, a minimum of 75% of students advanced at least one level from the first to the second essay within a discipline. At least 80% of students will agree that their teachers asked them to “complete an essay or project where you had to use evidence to defend your own opinion or ideas” 5 times or more on the New York City School Survey results (up from 62% percent last year). Sample student essays showing growth from fall to spring and representing a range of performance levels across the common rubric.

SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION AROUND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT Objectives Action Plan Evidence/Interim Benchmarks Deepen the school community’s understanding of what high-quality teaching looks like with a focus on 3 school-selected competencies from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching that support implementation of the Common Core.   By the end of the 2012-13 school year, school leaders and teachers will agree 75% of the time as to whether a given lesson reviewed during norming sessions or informal observations represents Ineffective, Developing, Effective, or Highly Effective practice across the school’s 3 selected competencies. In the fall, hold professional development to help teachers deeply understand 3 school-selected competencies. Identify resources and structures within the school to support teachers’ understanding of the Danielson Framework (e.g., ARIS Learn, teacher team meetings, inter-visitations). As a faculty, over the course of the school year, watch at least 4 classroom videos together and record low-inference observations. Dig deeply into 1-2 competencies at a time and discuss strategies for providing feedback and strengthening teacher practice, using evidence from the observations. Facilitate norming exercises through conversations before and after informal classroom observations by school leaders as well as teacher-to-teacher inter-visitations. Conduct regular observations providing feedback on the selected competencies. Through inter-visitations and informal observations, teacher self-assessments of their own practice on a selected Danielson competency are aligned with colleagues’ and/or school leaders’ assessments. School-made teacher survey indicates that at least 75% of teachers agree that “Teachers and administrators at my school have a shared understanding of effective teaching.”

SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION AROUND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT Objectives Action Plan Evidence/Interim Benchmarks Improve teacher effectiveness, including those new to the profession, with effective feedback and next steps from short, frequent cycles of classroom observation. Principal and assistant principals will conduct informal observations for every teacher every at least XX times/year, focused on 3 school-selected Danielson competencies, and provide teachers with effective feedback within one week after 75% of observations. Through professional development, develop shared norms among school leaders and teachers for engaging in feedback conversations. Early in the school year, school leaders ask for teachers’ input on the type(s) of feedback they find most helpful. School leaders set up and follow a schedule for teacher observation and feedback using the Danielson Framework. Online observation schedule as tracked by school leaders. 1-2 sample development plans for individual teachers that include dates of each observation and dates feedback provided. 2-3 examples of written observation feedback, including next steps, provided at different times of school year that demonstrate teachers’ development in areas in which feedback was provided (evidence that feedback had an impact on teachers’ classroom practice).

Evidence/Interim Benchmarks SAMPLE GOAL FOCUSED ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SCHOOL’S LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Goal Objectives Action Plan Evidence/Interim Benchmarks Develop staff’s ability to prevent disciplinary problems and develop a positive, collaborative classroom and school culture conducive to academic achievement. X% more teachers will report being well supported in addressing student behavior and discipline problems. Number of suspensions based on classroom incidents will decrease by 5% from last school year. Collaborate with Educators for Social Responsibility to ensure that 90% of the staff is trained in Guided Discipline by June 2011. School culture and climate team develops school-wide rules and procedures incorporating lessons from Guided Discipline training. School leaders emphasize and reinforce relevant rules and procedures throughout school year. Total number of suspensions based on classroom incidents decreases by 5% from school year 2010-2011 to 2011-2012. % of teachers responding “strongly agree” or “agree” to the question “I can get the help I need at my school to address student behavior and discipline problems” increases from XX% to XX% between 2011 and 2012.

SCORING GUIDELINES

Percentage of PPR Score COMPONENTS (SCORING CRITERIA) OF THE PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (PPR) The PPR results in an annual Final Rating for each principal based on the following components, which will remain the same for this year: Component Percentage of PPR Score Goals and Objectives 31% Progress Report 32% Quality Review 22% Compliance 10% Compliance - Populations with Particular Needs 5%

ADDITIONAL SCORING GUIDELINES For schools that do not get a Progress Report or Quality Review: For schools that did not receive a Quality Review, the most recent Quality Review score will count toward their overall PPR score. For phase-out schools and new schools without a Progress Report grade or a Quality Review score, the goals and objectives section will count as 85% of the total PPR score. For schools that do not receive a Progress Report grade, the goals and objectives section of the PPR will count as 63% of the overall PPR score.  For schools with multiple Progress Report grades: Schools that receive both an elementary/middle school Progress Report and a high school Progress Report grade will receive an average of their point totals on the two Progress Reports. For example, if a school scores a C (18 points) score on the elementary/middle school Progress Report and a B (24 points) on the high school Progress Report, then the school will get a total of 21 points (24 + 18= 42/2 = 21) for the Progress Report on the PPR.  For principals not assigned as “head of school”: Principals who are not assigned as “head of school” and who are alternately assigned as principals (excessed principals, principal assigned, etc.) will be evaluated 100% on goals and objectives.

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.

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 (Attention to Populations with Particular Needs) 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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, Sara Carvajal (Scarvaj@schools.nyc.gov) with any questions.