2012-13 PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
(PPR)
September 2012
GUIDANCE FOR 2012-13 GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
2
2012-13 PPR TIMELINE
October
2012
November
2012
January
2013
June
2013
October 15
November 30
January 31
June 28
Goals and
objectives due
Revisions to goals
and objectives
due
Mid-year PPR
summary
chart due
End-of-year PPR
summary due
(superintendent will
provide feedback to
principal by
November 15 if
applicable)
(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.
3
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 201213 citywide instructional expectations.
4
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.
5
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


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
Quantifiable and Verifiable
Improvements in Academic
Results

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
Quantifiable and Verifiable
Improvements in the School’s
Learning Environment

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
6
SAMPLE GOALS
7
SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION
AROUND STUDENTS EXPERIENCING COMMON
CORE-ALIGNED INSTRUCTION ACROSS SUBJECTS
Goal
Build teacher
teams’ capacity to
align units of study
with the Common
Core Learning
Standards
(CCLS), in
response to
student learning
needs.
Objectives
Action Plan
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.
Evidence/Interim
Benchmarks
• 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.
8
SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION
AROUND STUDENTS EXPERIENCING COMMON
CORE-ALIGNED INSTRUCTION ACROSS SUBJECTS
Goal
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).
Objectives
• 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 Corealigned writing units
that embed
expectations for
students to introduce
and analyze
supporting evidence
as well as to counter
claims.
Action Plan
• After participating in professional
development sessions about Common
Core-aligned, evidence-based essaywriting 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.
Evidence/Interim Benchmarks
• 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.
9
SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION
AROUND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
Goal
Deepen the
school
community’s
understanding of
what high-quality
teaching looks
like with a focus
on 3 schoolselected
competencies
from Charlotte
Danielson’s
Framework for
Teaching that
support
implementation
of the Common
Core.
Objectives
Action Plan
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 lowinference 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.
Evidence/Interim Benchmarks
• Through inter-visitations and
informal observations, teacher selfassessments 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.”
10
SAMPLE GOAL THAT ADDRESSES EXPECTATION
AROUND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
Goal
Improve teacher
effectiveness,
including those
new to the
profession, with
effective
feedback and
next steps from
short, frequent
cycles of
classroom
observation.
Objectives
Principal and assistant
principals will conduct
informal observations
for every teacher every
at least XX times/year,
focused on 3 schoolselected Danielson
competencies, and
provide teachers with
effective feedback
within one week after
75% of observations.
Action Plan
• 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.
Evidence/Interim Benchmarks
• 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).
11
SAMPLE GOAL FOCUSED ON IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE SCHOOL’S LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Goal
Develop staff’s
ability to prevent
disciplinary
problems and
develop a
positive,
collaborative
classroom and
school culture
conducive to
academic
achievement.
Objectives
• 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.
Action Plan
• 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.
Evidence/Interim Benchmarks
• 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.
12
SCORING GUIDELINES
13
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%
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
18
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.
19