Skip to main content


December 16, 2014
For More Information Contact:

JP O'Hare

(518) 474-1201



2014 Preliminary Statewide Evaluation Results Released

State-Imposed NYC System Differs from Overall State Distribution

State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr. today released the second year of statewide teacher and principal evaluation results.  The preliminary statewide composite results, based on data submitted by school districts and BOCES as of the October 17 deadline, show that, similar to the first year, the vast majority of teachers and principals received a high performance rating. The preliminary results show more than 95 percent of teachers statewide are rated effective (53.7 percent) or highly effective (41.9 percent); 3.7 percent are rated as developing; approximately one percent are rated ineffective.  More than 93 percent of principals are rated effective (65.6 percent) or highly effective (27.9 percent

This is the first year New York City educators were evaluated under the new Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) law.  King noted that while New York City teachers and principals were evaluated on the same overall scoring ranges as the rest of state, the three subcomponents used different ranges.  (When the New York City Department of Education could not reach agreement with the teachers union on terms of an APPR plan, King, as required by state law, set an evaluation plan in place for the City.)  The City’s results are more differentiated than the rest of the state.  Less than ten percent of teachers in the city are rated highly effective, while 82.5 percent are rated effective, 7 percent are developing and 1.2 percent are ineffective.

“The ratings show there’s much more work to do to strengthen the evaluation system,” Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch said.  “There’s a real contrast between how our students are performing and how their teachers and principals are evaluated.  The goal of the APPR process is to identify exceptional teachers who can serve as mentors and role models, and identify struggling teachers to make sure they get the help they need to improve.  I don’t think we’ve reached that goal yet.  The ratings from districts aren’t differentiating performance.  We look forward to working with the Governor, Legislature, NYSUT, and other education stakeholders to strengthen the evaluation law in the coming legislative session to make it a more effective tool for professional development.”

“The evaluation process is and always will be a work in progress,” King said.  “I’m concerned that in some districts, there’s a tendency to blanket everyone with the same rating.  That defeats the purpose of the observations and the evaluations, and we have to work to fix that.   But for the first time, we have a system that differentiates educator performance.  Districts can target professional development to help struggling teachers improve, and that will help our students do better. That’s a vision we all share.”

The evaluations are based on three measures:

  • 60 percent on observations and other measures agreed upon at the local level through collective bargaining;
  • 20 percent on student performance measures agreed upon at the local level through collective bargaining; and
  • 20 percent on student performance on grades 4-8 state assessments (where applicable) or district-determined student learning objectives.

King noted that part of New York City’s results may be attributed to aspects of the plan and its implementation.  The city’s plan relied on significant investments in lead evaluator training and calibration, the use of talent coaches to further prepare principals, the development of student learning objective targets by the district, performance-based assessments across grades and subjects, the option for teachers to use video when observed, and significant principal discretion in decision-making.

King said that many districts have adjusted their APPR plans since the original deadline.  Material changes to locally bargained evaluation plans from 65 percent of districts have been submitted and approved since January 2013.  In response to the Department’s Testing Transparency Reports issued July 1, 101 districts have submitted changes to their APPR plans that have reduced testing (see: 

Below are the preliminary results for the 2013-14 school year evaluations.  For more information, visit

Teachers               Statewide        Statewide w/o NYC                     NYC

Highly Effective           41.9%                 58.2%                                 9.2%

Effective                     53.7%                 39.3%                                82.5%

Developing                   3.7%                  2.0%                                 7.0%

Ineffective                    0.7%                 0.4%                                1.2%


Principals               Statewide        Statewide w/o NYC                   NYC

Highly Effective           27.9%                 33.1%                               18.4%

Effective                     65.6%                 61.3%                               73.5%

Developing                   5.3%                   4.7%                                6.5%

Ineffective                    1.2%                   1.0%                               1.6%


-30 -