2017 18 Educator Guide Ems 11 8 2018

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 46

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

NYC Department of Education

School Quality Reports
Educator Guide
Elementary / Middle / K-8 Schools
2017-18
Last Updated: November 8, 2018

Overview
The School Quality Reports share information about school performance, set
expectations for schools, and promote school improvement. The School Quality
Reports include:


The School Quality Snapshot: A summary report for families and
community members to learn about school performance and quality.



The School Quality Guide: A more detailed, interactive report for
educators to investigate school data more deeply. The report is publicly
available for community members interested in more information.

The School Quality Reports include information from multiple sources, including
Quality Reviews, the NYC School Survey, and student performance in courses
and on state tests. The reports provide context for school performance results by
showing the results of a Comparison Group of similar students throughout the
city.
This Educator Guide describes the methodology used to calculate metric values
and ratings in the School Quality Reports.

School Quality Report Sections
The School Quality Reports are organized around the Framework for Great
Schools, which includes six elements—Rigorous Instruction, Collaborative
Teachers, Supportive Environment, Effective School Leadership, Strong FamilyCommunity Ties, and Trust—that drive student achievement and school
improvement.
The School Quality Reports do not include an overall grade or rating. Instead,
they share ratings and information on the six Framework elements and on
Student Achievement.
Rigorous Instruction: This rating reflects how well the curriculum and
instruction engage students, build critical-thinking skills, and are aligned to the
Common Core. This section uses data from the Quality Review and the NYC

NYC Department of Education

School Survey.
Collaborative Teachers: This rating reflects how well teachers participate in
opportunities to develop, grow, and contribute to the continuous improvement of
the school community. This section uses data from the Quality Review and the
NYC School Survey.
Supportive Environment: This rating reflects how well the school establishes a
culture where students feel safe, challenged to grow, and supported to meet high
expectations. This section uses data from the Quality Review, the NYC School
Survey, the percentage of students with attendance rates of 90% or higher, and
movement of students with disabilities to less restrictive environments.
Effective School Leadership: This rating reflects how well school leadership
inspires the school community with a clear instructional vision and effectively
distributes leadership to realize this vision. This section uses data from the
Quality Review and the NYC School Survey.
Strong Family-Community Ties: This rating reflects how well the school forms
effective partnerships with families to improve the school. This section uses data
from the Quality Review and the NYC School Survey.
Trust: This rating reflects whether the relationships between administrators,
educators, students, and families are based on trust and respect. This section
uses data from the NYC School Survey.
Student Achievement: This rating is based on a school’s state test results, how
students performed in core courses, how well students were prepared for their
next level of school, and how students in higher-need groups performed. The
section rating shows how the school performed against customized targets
based on the past performance of similar students.

Scores and Ratings
School Quality Report scores are on a 1.00 – 4.99 scale, and ratings are on a fourlevel scale. In the School Quality Guide, the four levels are called Exceeding Target,
Meeting Target, Approaching Target, and Not Meeting Target. In the School Quality
Snapshots, the four levels are called Excellent, Good, Fair, and Needs Improvement,
and are presented as 1-4 bars in a graphic.
Example of a 4-bar rating in Rigorous Instruction:

New York State School Designations
New York State implements a state accountability system, which measures student
performance on NYS ELA and math exams and Regents exams as well as
graduation rates. State accountability status does not affect the School Quality
Report ratings.

NYC Department of Education

Definitions
School Quality Report School Type
School Quality Reports are provided for the following school types:
School Type

Grades and Students Served

Early Childhood School

K, K-1, K-2, K-3

Elementary School

K-4, K-5, and K-6

K-8 School*

K-7, K-8, and K-12 (minus grades 9-12)

Middle School

5-8, 6-8, and 6-12 (minus grades 9-12)

District 75 School

K-8 and K-12, focused on students with disabilities

High School

9-12, K-12 (minus grades K-8), and 6-12 (minus
grades 6-8)

Transfer High School

9-12, focused on overage and undercredited
students.

Young Adult Borough
Center (YABC) Program

9-12, focused on overage and undercredited
students

* If a new K-8 school has grade 6, but does not yet have grades 3 or 4 it will be considered a middle school
until it adds one of those grades.

A school that serves grades K-12 receives two separate School Quality Reports: one
for the K-8 part of the school, and one for the high school.
Similarly, a school that serves grades 6-12 receives two separate School Quality
Reports: one for the middle school, and one for the high school.
This document explains the rules for the School Quality Reports for three school
types: elementary schools, K-8 schools, and middle schools. Separate Educator
Guides explain the rules for the other school types.

Survey School Type
For scoring survey results, schools are placed into a survey school type:
School type

Grade range

Early Childhood School

PK-K, PK-1, PK-2, PK-3, K, K-1, K-2, K-3

Elementary School

3K-5, PK-4, PK-5, PK-6, K-4, K-5, K-6, 2-5, 3-5,
4-5

Elementary / Middle School

3K-8, PK-7, PK-8, K-7, K-8, 3-8, 4-8

Elementary / Middle / High School

PK-9, PK-12, K-9, K-10, K-11, K-12, 3-12

Middle School

5, 5-6, 5-8, 6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9

Middle / High School

5-12, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 7-12

High School

9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 10-12

NYC Department of Education

Transfer School

Transfer Schools serving grades from 9-12

District 75 School

District 75 Schools

YABC

For example, the survey results of a school that served grades 6-12 are compared to
the survey results of other schools in the Middle / High School category.

Comparison Group
See pages 16-18 of this Educator Guide for a detailed explanation of a school’s
Comparison Group.

Economic Need Index
The Economic Need Index estimates the percentage of students at the school facing
economic hardship. The metric is calculated as follows:


If the student is eligible for public assistance from the NYC Human
Resources Administration (HRA) or lived in temporary housing in the past
four years, the student’s Economic Need Value is 1.



Otherwise, the student’s Economic Need Value is the percentage of families
with school-age children in the student’s Census tract whose income is below
the poverty level, as estimated by the American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimate. This percentage is converted to a decimal from 0.00 to 1.00.



The school’s Economic Need Index is the average of its students’ Economic
Need Values.

The Economic Need Index captures economic factors that affect student
achievement without relying on student lunch forms, which can be burdensome and
unreliable.

Students in a School’s Lowest Third
A school’s lowest third in ELA is the third of students in each grade at the school
who scored the lowest on the New York State ELA exam in May 2017. The
school’s lowest third in mathematics is the third of students in each grade at the
school who scored the lowest on the New York State math exam in May 2017.

Students in Lowest Third Citywide
The lowest third citywide in ELA is the third of students in each grade throughout
the city who scored the lowest on the New York State ELA exam in May 2017
citywide. The lowest third citywide in mathematics is the third of students in each
grade throughout the city who scored the lowest on the New York State math
exam in May 2017 citywide.

NYC Department of Education

Grade

ELA

Math

2.21

2.28

2.24

2.10

2.00

1.98

2.05

2.00

2.35

1.98

2.44

1.95

Minimum N (Number of Students)
In general, a school’s metric value is not reported if fewer than 15 students
contributed to the metric. For the Average Proficiency Rating for School’s Lowest
Third metrics, the minimum number of students required is five. For Closing the
Achievement Gap metrics, the minimum number of students required for each metric
is five.
Metrics with fewer than the minimum number of students are not reported and do not
contribute to the school’s ratings because of confidentiality considerations and the
unreliability of measurements based on small numbers.
In addition, if fewer than 25% of eligible students took the Grade 3-8 state tests in
ELA or Math, the state-test metrics in that subject will be N/A. In these cases, the
limited data may not be representative of student performance across the school.

Attribution of Students to Schools
Students are attributed to schools based on the October 31, 2017 audited register.
We use the enrollment from this register because it is audited for accuracy and used
to allocate funds to schools.

Performance Levels
New York State assigns Performance Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 to scale scores on the
State Common Core ELA and math exams. These performance levels reflect the
extent to which students demonstrate the level of understanding expected at their
grade level, based on the New York State P-12 Common Core Learning Standards.

NYC Department of Education

Level 1

Students performing at this level are well below proficient in standards
for their grade. They demonstrate knowledge, skills, and practices that
are considered insufficient for the expectations at this grade.

Level 2

Students performing at this level are below proficient in standards for
their grade. They demonstrate knowledge, skills, and practices that are
considered partial but insufficient for the expectations at this grade.

Level 3

Students performing at this level are proficient in standards for their
grade. They demonstrate knowledge, skills, and practices that are
considered sufficient for the expectations at this grade.

Level 4

Students performing at this level excel in standards for their grade.
They demonstrate knowledge, skills, and practices that are considered
more than sufficient for the expectations at this grade.

Proficiency Ratings
For the School Quality Reports, the scale scores on State Common Core math
and ELA exams are assigned a Proficiency Rating from 1.00 to 4.50. The first
digit of the Proficiency Rating corresponds to the Performance Level, and the
other digits reflect how close the student is to the next level. For example, a 2.90
is a Level 2, but close to a Level 3.
Impact of Math Double-Testing Waiver
For the 2017-18 school year, the United States Department of Education approved a
math-testing waiver submitted by the New York State Education Department. Under
this waiver, students in grade 7 and 8 who take math Regents examinations are not
required to take the Common Core math test for their grade level. After this waiver,
the NYC DOE implemented a policy that students in accelerated math courses
should not take the grade 7 or 8 Common Core math tests unless (1) the student’s
parent decided otherwise or (2) the school obtained an exception from the Office of
Academic Policy and Systems for a course aligned to both grade 7 or 8 standards
and high-school math standards.
Due to the double-testing waiver, a number of students—including some of the
strongest performers—do not take the grade 7 and 8 Common Core state math tests.
To prevent this policy from distorting the performance data and ratings in the School
Quality Reports, the NYC DOE includes student results on math Regents
examinations in the state-test metrics by converting the math Regents scores into
imputed proficiency ratings on the grade 7 and 8 Common Core math tests. These
imputed proficiency ratings—based on the NYC DOE’s analysis of students who took
both the math Regents exam and grade 7 or 8 Common Core math test—estimate
what scores on a math Regents exam are equivalent to on the grade 7 or 8 Common
Core math test. The imputed proficiency ratings are used in all metrics or calculations
based on proficiency ratings (e.g., average proficiency ratings, percent proficient).
To discourage unnecessary double testing, the NYC DOE uses only the Regents
exam score for students who take both a math Regents exam and the grade 7 or 8
Common Core math test. Conversion tables showing the imputed proficiency ratings
for scores on the Regents exams will be available in Appendix A of this Educator
Guide.

NYC Department of Education

Student Achievement
Metrics
This section describes the Student Achievement metrics in the School Quality Guide.
The School Quality Snapshot includes a subset of those metrics.

State Exam Metrics
To be included in the denominator for the state-exam metrics, a student must


Be on the school’s October 31, 2017 audited register, and



Have taken the relevant New York State ELA or math exam in 2018.

The following metrics are calculated separately for ELA and math based on third
graders’ performance on the 2018 State exams.
If fewer than 25% of eligible students took the state tests in that subject, the ELA
and/or math metric values will be N/A. In these cases, the limited data may not be
representative of student performance across the school.

► Percentage of Students at Proficiency (Level 3 or 4): ELA and
Math
These metrics show the percentage of students who scored at Level 3 or Level 4 on
the state exam, out of all the students at the school who took the exam. The metrics
are calculated separately for ELA and math.

► Average Proficiency Rating for All Students: ELA and Math
These metrics show the average Proficiency Rating, on a scale from 1.00 to 4.50, for
all students at the school who took the exam. The metrics are calculated separately
for ELA and math.

► Average Proficiency Rating for School’s Lowest Third: ELA and
Math
These metrics show the average Proficiency Rating, on a scale from 1.00 to 4.50, for
the lowest-performing third of students within each grade in the school. The metrics
are calculated separately for ELA and math.
The lowest third is based on the students’ scores on the relevant test in May 2017.
The minimum number of students for these metrics is 5.
Note on 2017-18 Targets for Grade 3-8 ELA and Math State Test Metrics: The
New York State Education Department redesigned and rescaled the Grade 3-8 ELA
and Math exams in 2018 and stated that the 2018 results cannot be compared with
prior years. As a result, the 2017-18 targets for the ELA and Math test results that we
set in advance (based on 2016-17 test results) and published in the 2016-17 School
Quality Guides cannot properly be applied to schools’ 2017-18 results. To address
this issue, we calculated new targets for the Grade 3-8 ELA and Math exams based

NYC Department of Education

on Comparison Group results on the 2017-18 exams (instead of using targets based
on Comparison Group results on the 2016-17 exams). This approach allows the
targets to be based on a comparable set of test results from the same year, rather
than a non-comparable set of test results from last year.
NOTE: The 2017-18 School Quality Guide will share estimated targets for these
metrics for 2018-19 based on the entire population of standard-assessment-eligible
students in grades 3-8 in Fall 2018. The targets will be adjusted based on the
students at the school who actually take the exams in Spring 2019.

Core Course Pass Rate Metrics
(Middle and K-8 schools only)
To be included in the core course pass rate metric, a student must


Be continuously enrolled in the school from October 31, 2017 through June
30, 2018;



Be in 6th, 7th, or 8th grade in 2017-18; and



Be eligible for standard assessment (i.e., non-NYSAA).

Credits obtained during summer school do not contribute to this metric.

► Core Course Pass Rates: English, Math, Science, and Social
Studies (middle and K-8 schools only)
These metrics show the percentage of students in 6th through 8th grade who received
a passing grade in a full-year core course in the relevant subject area. School
grading policies must be based primarily on student progress toward and mastery of
the New York State Common Core Learning Standards. For additional guidance, see
the middle school grading policy memo.
The metrics are calculated separately for English, math, science, and social studies.
The School Quality Snapshot includes a single core course pass rate, which is the
average of the core course pass rates in the four subjects.

Next-Level Readiness Metrics
► Middle School Core Course Pass Rates of Former Students
(elementary schools only)
This metric shows how the school’s 2016-17 5th graders performed as 6th graders in
2017-18 by showing their pass rates in core courses in English, math, science, and
social studies. To be included in this metric, a student must


Have been in 5th grade in 2016-17;



Have been continuously enrolled in the elementary school under
consideration from October 31, 2016 through June 30, 2017;



Be enrolled in a NYC DOE middle or K-8 school from October 31, 2017

NYC Department of Education

through June 30, 2018; and


Be eligible for standard assessment (i.e., non-NYSAA).

This metric accounts for the middle schools that students attend by adjusting for the
average core course pass rate of similar students at the middle school.
If a student attended a charter middle or K-8 school that did not report credits to the
NYC DOE, the student is excluded from the metric.

► Percent of 8th Grade Students Who Earned High School Credit
(middle and K-8 schools only)
This metric shows the percentage of students in 8th grade who passed a high-schoollevel course and the related Regents exam by June of their 8th grade year. To be
included in this metric, a student must


Be continuously enrolled in the school from October 31, 2017 through June
30, 2018;



Be in 8th grade in 2017-18; and



Be eligible for standard assessment (i.e., non-NYSAA).

To contribute positively to this metric, the student must pass the course and earn a
college-ready score on the related Regents exam. Students who earned high-school
credit in more than one subject count the same as those who earned credit in one
subject.
Schools in the New York Performance Standards Consortium with middle-school
grades will receive N/A for this metric on their middle-school School Quality Report.
Because this metric requires students to have earned a college-ready score on the
Regents exam in 8th grade, it is not applicable to these schools. For purposes of
calculating the Student Achievement score, the weight attributed to this metric will be
proportionally distributed to the remaining metrics for the school (as occurs in general
when a school has N/A on a Student Achievement metric).

► 9th Grade Credit Accumulation of Former 8th Graders (middle
and K-8 schools only)
This metric is based on the 9th-grade credit accumulation of the school’s 2016-17 8th
graders who attended a NYC DOE high school in 2017-18. To be included in this
metric, a student must


Have been in 8th grade in 2016-17;



Have been continuously enrolled in the middle or K-8 school under
consideration from October 31, 2016 through June 30, 2017;



Be enrolled in a NYC DOE high school from October 31, 2017 through June
30, 2018; and



Be eligible for standard assessment (i.e., non-NYSAA).

NYC Department of Education

Students contribute to the numerator of this metric as follows:




A student will contribute zero to the numerator of this metric if the student
earned less than eight credits in 9th grade.
Students that earned ten or more credits contribute one to the numerator.
For students earning less than ten credits and more than 7.99, this metric
adjusts for the average credit accumulation rate of similar students at the
high school.

If a student attended a charter high school that did not report credits to the NYC
DOE, the student is excluded from the metric.
If more than 50% of a middle school’s former 8th graders attend non-NYC DOE high
schools, a metric value is not calculated for that school.

Closing the Achievement Gap Metrics
These metrics reflect how well the school helps high-need students succeed. In some
cases, schools will not receive ratings for these metrics because those students
make up a very small proportion of the school’s student population.
The metric values show the school’s results for its students in the relevant subgroup.
The metric value is not reported if the school has fewer than five students in the
subgroup. Metric scores and ratings show how the school’s results compared to its
customized targets. A metric will not be scored, however, if the students are a very
small proportion of the school—specifically, if the school’s population percentage is
more than one standard deviation below the citywide average. These unscored
metrics receive a rating of “N/A” in the School Quality Snapshot.
The following table summarizes these rules:
Closing the Achievement Gap Metrics
No metric value if…

Fewer than five students in the category.

No metric score or rating if…

School’s population percentage is more than one
standard deviation below the citywide average.

► English Language Learner Progress
This metric measures the percentage of English Language Learners demonstrating
movement toward English language proficiency. To contribute to the denominator of
this measure, a student must have taken the 2018 New York State English as a
Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT).
Students will contribute positively to this measure if they meet one of three criteria:


They took the 2017 NYSESLAT exam and their 2018 overall performance
level is higher than in 2017;



They did not take the 2017 NYSESLAT exam and their 2018 overall
performance level is Emerging or higher; or



They scored level three or above on the State ELA exam in 2018 but not in
2017.

NYC Department of Education

► Average Student Proficiency Rating in ELA and Math among:
Students with Self-Contained Placements; Students with ICT
Placements; Students with SETSS placements; English Language
Learners; Students in the Lowest Third Citywide; Black and
Hispanic Males in the Lowest Third Citywide
These metrics show the average proficiency ratings from the following student
groups: (1) students with disabilities in self-contained placements, (2) students with
disabilities in ICT placements, (3) students with disabilities in SETSS placements, (4)
English Language Learners, (5) students in the lowest third citywide, and (6) Black
and Hispanic males in the lowest third citywide. The most restrictive disability setting
to which a student was assigned during the past four school years is used to
determine inclusion in the first three groups. Any student identified as an English
Language Learner for any of the past four school years will be included in the
measures focused on ELLs. If a student belongs to more than one of these groups,
the student is counted in all of those groups.
These metrics are calculated separately for ELA and Math.

Additional Information
► “Then and Now” Table
The School Quality Snapshot includes a table showing key student results broken out
by students’ starting points.
For elementary schools, the table shows performance on state Math and ELA tests in
5th grade broken out by 3rd grade starting points (Level 1, 2, 3-4):




Among students who started at Level 3 or 4 in 3rd grade, the percentage that
scored Level 3 or 4 in 5th grade;
Among students who started at Level 2 in 3rd grade, the percentage that
scored Level 3 or 4 in 5th grade; and
Among students who started at Level 1 in 3rd grade, the percentage that
scored Level 2, 3, or 4 in 5th grade.

The comparable percentages for the school’s Comparison Group (of similar students)
are provided for context. The data are based on students who were fifth graders in
2016-17 and 2017-18.
For middle and K-8 schools, the table shows performance on state Math and ELA
tests in 8th grade broken out by 5th grade starting points (Level 1, 2, 3-4):
 Among students who started at Level 3 or 4 in 5rd grade, the percentage that
scored Level 3 or 4 in 8th grade;
 Among students who started at Level 2 in 5th grade, the percentage that
scored Level 3 or 4 in 8th grade; and
 Among students who started at Level 1 in 5th grade, the percentage that
scored Level 2, 3, or 4 in 8th grade.
The comparable percentages for the school’s Comparison Group (of similar students)
are provided for context. The data are based on students who were eighth graders in
2016-17 and 2017-18.

NYC Department of Education

The starting point Levels are based on rescaled test scores, so that a starting point of
Level 1 reflects a score on a prior version of the state exam that would be equivalent
to a Level 1 on the most recent state exam.
Values are not reported if there are fewer than 15 students in the category.

► Attendance
The attendance rate includes the attendance for all K-8 students on a school’s
register at any point during the school year (September through June). The
attendance rate is calculated by adding together the total number of days attended
by all students and dividing it by the total number of days on register for all students.
Pre-K attendance is excluded for any school that has a pre-K grade. Students in
grades 9-12 are not included in the middle school report of a 6-12 school (or in the K8 report of a K-12 school).

NYC Department of Education

Student Achievement
Scores and Ratings
The School Quality Reports include scores and ratings based on the targets that
were published in the previous year’s School Quality Reports. Those targets were
customized for each school based on the performance of the Comparison Group of
similar students. The targets specified the values needed for a school to receive a
metric rating of Exceeding Target, Meeting Target, Approaching Target, or Not
Meeting Target.

Metric Scores and Ratings
For each metric, the school received a metric score from 1.00 to 4.99 based on how
the school’s metric value compared to the published targets. The score is analogous
to the state test proficiency ratings based on scale scores: the first digit indicates the
rating level, and the subsequent digits show how close the result is to the next level.





If the school did not meet its Approaching Target level, the first digit is 1.
If the school met its Approaching Target level (but not higher targets), the
first digit is 2.
If the school met its Meeting Target level (but not the higher target), the first
digit is 3.
If the school met its Exceeding Target level, the first digit is 4.

The subsequent digits reflect how close the school’s value was to the next higher
target level.
Example: If a school surpassed the Meeting Target level (t3) but did not
reach the Exceeding Target level (t4), the metric score would be: 3 +
(school’s metric value – t3) / (t4 – t3), with the score not to exceed 3.99.
Example: If a school received a metric score of 2.50, the 2 means that the
school’s value met the Approaching Target level (but did not meet the
Meeting Target level), and the .50 means that the school’s result fell halfway
between the Approaching Target level and the Meeting Target level.
To generate scores between 1.00 and 1.99 and between 4.00 and 4.99, a bottom
and top of the target range are used in addition to the published target levels. The
bottom of the target range is set at the bottom of Comparison Group range, and the
top of the target range is set at the top of Comparison Group range.1
Example: If a school surpassed the Exceeding Target level (t4), the metric
score would be: 4 + (school’s metric value – t4) / (top of target range – t4),
with the score not to exceed 4.99.
In the School Quality Snapshot, the 4-bar ratings for specific metrics are based on
the metric ratings described above.
1

See pages 18-19 for further details on the Comparison Group range.

NYC Department of Education

Weighted Average Score
The Weighted Average Score is a weighted average of the Student Achievement
metric scores (not including the Closing the Achievement Gap metrics), where each
metric score is multiplied by its weight percentage.
If any metrics (not including the Closing the Achievement Gap metrics) are missing,
their weight is distributed proportionally to the other metrics.
The weight percentage for each metric is listed in the School Quality Guide Appendix,
which can be accessed at the bottom of the “Student Achievement Outcomes” tab of
the Online School Quality Guide.

Closing the Achievement Gap Additional Points
The Closing the Achievement Gap metrics are additional points that can increase a
school’s Student Achievement score.
For each Closing the Achievement Gap metric, a score is calculated on the 1.00 –
4.99 scale, based on the published targets, in the same way as for the other Student
Achievement metrics—except that the metric score will be blank (N/A) if the school’s
population percentage for the applicable subgroup is more than one standard
deviation below the citywide average.
For each Closing the Achievement Gap metric, the extra points will be (metric score –
1.00) / (4.99 – 1.00) x extra points possible. The extra points possible are specified in
the School Quality Guide Appendix. If a Closing the Achievement Gap metric score is
N/A, the extra points associated with that metric do not shift to any other metrics.
The total Closing the Achievement Gap Additional Points is the sum of the extra
points earned on each metric.

Overall Student Achievement Score and Rating
The Overall Student Achievement Score equals the Weighted Average Score plus
the Closing the Achievement Gap Additional Points, rounded to the nearest
hundredth, and capped at 4.99.
The Student Achievement section rating is based on the first digit of the Overall
Student Achievement Score:
 If the first digit is 4, the section rating is Exceeding Target.
 If the first digit is 3, the section rating is Meeting Target.
 If the first digit is 2, the section rating is Approaching Target.
 If the first digit is 1, the section rating is Not Meeting Target.
Schools designated for phase-out and schools in their first year of operation in 201718 do not receive a Student Achievement rating.

NYC Department of Education

Rating Labels in the Guide and Snapshot
The ratings in the School Quality Snapshot are the same as in the School Quality
Guide, except that different rating labels are used in the Snapshot:
School Quality Guide
Rating Labels

School Quality Snapshot
Rating Labels

Exceeding Target

Excellent

Meeting Target

Good

Approaching Target

Fair

Not Meeting Target

Needs Improvement

NYC Department of Education

Student Achievement
Metric Comparisons
In addition to the scores and ratings based on the targets published last year, the
School Quality Reports provide context for a school’s performance by sharing city
averages, district averages, and the results of a Comparison Group of similar
students throughout the city.

City and District Averages
In general, we calculate city and district averages by taking n-weighted averages of
school-level results for all schools within the same school type. The n-weighting is
based on the number of students at each school included in the metric; it means that
a school with many students included in a metric will count more toward the city and
district averages than a school with fewer students included in that metric.
For ELA and math percent proficient, city and district averages are calculated
differently from the general approach. For elementary schools, these averages are
based on results from students in grades 3 through 5. For middle schools, these
averages are based on results from students in grades 6 through 8. For K-8, these
averages are based on results from students in grades 3 through 8.

Comparison Group Results
To understand how effectively a school helps its students, it is important to take into
account students’ starting points and challenges that they face. Without that context,
schools can be mischaracterized as ineffective simply because they serve higherneed students.
The School Quality Reports provide context for each school’s performance by
showing the results of a Comparison Group of similar students. The Comparison
Group results estimate how the students at the school would have performed if they
had attended other schools throughout the city. By comparing the school’s results to
the Comparison Group, a reader can assess the school’s effectiveness at helping
students improve and exceed expected outcomes.
To generate the Comparison Group, each student at the main school is matched to
the 50 most similar students from other schools throughout the city, based on prior
test scores and demographic factors. The similar students identified for each student
are grouped together into a large Comparison Group. We then calculate the
performance results (such as average test scores) of the Comparison Group.
The process of matching each student with the 50 most similar students involves two
main steps.


Step 1: For each student, the DOE identifies a large group of students who are
exact matches on the following student characteristics:

NYC Department of Education

Elementary School (K-5)
-Grade Level
-ELL category2
-IEP category (past 4 yrs) 3
-Temporary housing (past 4 yrs)
or HRA-eligible

Middle School (6-8)
-Grade Level
-ELL category
-IEP category (past 4 yrs)
-Temporary housing (past 4 yrs)
or HRA-eligible

Example: If a student is in 4th grade, is not an ELL, is in a self-contained
disability setting, and was in temporary housing, the first step is to identify all
other students from other schools who are in 4th grade, are not ELLs, are or
were in self-contained disability settings during the past four years, and are
or were in temporary housing during the past four years or are eligible for
public assistance (HRA-eligible).




Step 2: Within the group of students identified in Step 1, the DOE finds the 50
students who are most similar to the main student based on the following factors:
Elementary School (K-5)
Primary Factors4
-Grade 3 ELA score
-Grade 3 Math score

Middle School (6-8)
Primary Factors5
-Grade 5 ELA score
-Grade 5 Math score

Secondary Factors
-School’s % students with IEPs
-School’s Economic Need Index
-School’s % ELL

Secondary Factors
-School’s % students with IEPs
-School’s Economic Need Index
-School’s % overage
-School’s % ELL

To find the 50 most similar students from the group, the primary factors are
weighed more heavily than the secondary factors.
Example: Student A is a 7th grader. Her group of Step 1 matches includes
Student B and Student C. Student A scored 2.8 on both her Grade 5 ELA
and Math exams, Student B scored 2.1, and Student C scored 2.9. Student A
is more likely to be matched with Student C than with Student B.
Example: Student D is a 5th grader. His group of Step 1 matches includes
Student E and Student F. All three students scored 2.7 on both their Grade 3
ELA and Math exams. Student D’s school has 25% students with disabilities,
Student E’s school has 23% students with disabilities, and Student F’s school

For elementary and middle school students, ELL category is defined by the most recent NYSESLAT
score, grouped as: (1) Beginning or Intermediate, (2) Advanced, (3) Proficient or not ELL.
3 For elementary and middle school students, the IEP category is defined as the most restrictive of the
following three categories, over the lookback period: (1) Self-Contained, (2) ICT or SETSS, (3) Related
Services only or no IEP.
4 For fourth and fifth graders, if the Grade 3 ELA or Math state exam scores are missing, scores are imputed
with multiple regression using the exact-match characteristics, the school’s average proficiency in the
subject, prior student attendance, and prior NYSESLAT score. For third graders (who do not yet have state
test scores), Grade 2 attendance is used as a matching factor. If Grade 2 attendance is missing, it is imputed
with multiple regression using the exact-match characteristics, secondary factors, and prior NYSESLAT
score.
5 For middle-school students, if the Grade 5 ELA or Math scores are missing, prior-grade test scores are
used. If those scores are unavailable, the Grade 5 ELA or Math scores are imputed with multiple
regression using the student’s exact-match characteristics, prior student attendance, prior student
NYSESLAT score, and the school’s average incoming proficiency in the subject.

NYC Department of Education

has 2% students with disabilities. Student D is more likely to be matched with
Student E than with Student F.


In addition to the primary factors based on the student’s own characteristics,
secondary factors about school characteristics are also taken into account
because the school’s population can have peer effects on the student.

Once the Comparison Group has been established by finding 50 matches for each of
the students attributed to the school, we calculate the performance results (such as
test scores) achieved by that Comparison Group.
Example: For a school with 300 students, we find 50 matches for each
student and the Comparison Group has 300 x 50 = 15,000 students in it.6 We
then calculate performance results for the Comparison Group—such as an
average ELA state test score.
The Comparison Group results are shared in the Snapshot and the Guide.
Note that the Comparison Group results for state-test metrics reported in the
Snapshot and Guide are limited to students matched to main students at the school
who actually took the state exam (or a Math Regents instead of the state math
exam). If a main student at the school did not take the state exam, the student’s 50
matches do not contribute to the school’s Comparison Group result. Limiting to
matches of students who actually took the exam provides a more accurate
benchmark for assessing the school’s results.

Citywide and Comparison Group Percent of Range
The School Quality Reports also use a comparison called “percent of range,”
including a citywide percent of range and a Comparison Group percent of range.
These values are not displayed directly in the reports, but are used to calculate
metric targets.
Range
The range spans two standard deviations above and below the average, and it
represents a continuum from very poor to very strong results (excluding extreme
outliers).
For example, if the average ELA average proficiency for middle schools is 2.26, with
a standard deviation of 0.9, the top of the range is 2.26 + 2 × 0.9 = 2.44, and the
bottom of the range is 2.26 − 2 × 0.9 = 2.08.
If the calculated top of the range goes beyond what is theoretically possible, the
range is cut off so that only the possible values are used. For example, if the average
core course pass rate for a peer group was 96% and the standard deviation was 3%,
the peer range might extend up to 102%, which is impossible for a school to achieve.
In that case, we would use 100% as the highest value in the range instead.
If the calculated bottom of the range is lower than the theoretical minimum for a
metric, then the top of the range will be adjusted downward so that the average stays
in the middle of the range. This ensures that a school that achieves the average will
While the same student cannot appear more than once in an individual student’s group of 50 matches, a
student can appear multiple times in the school’s Comparison Group. This can occur if the same student
falls within the group of 50 matches for multiple students at the school.
6

NYC Department of Education

fall at the middle of the range.
The Comparison Group range is similar to the citywide range, with two differences.
First, the middle of the range is the Comparison Group’s result (instead of the
citywide average). Second, the top and bottom of the range are two conditional
standard deviations away from the middle. While the standard deviation used for the
citywide range reflects how far away each school in the city was from the citywide
mean, the conditional standard deviation used for the Comparison Group range
reflects how far away each school in the city was from its own Comparison Group’s
result. The conditional standard deviation sheds light on the degree to which very
poor performers fall below their Comparison Group’s result and the degree to which
very strong performance surpass their Comparison Group’s result.
Example: A school’s average proficiency rating on the ELA state exam is
3.14, which is 0.20 higher than the Comparison Group’s 2.96. Is the school’s
result exceptional, or just somewhat above average? If the conditional
standard deviation is 0.10, then the Comparison Group performance range
runs from 2.76 to 3.14. This school’s result is at the top of this range, two
conditional standard deviations above average—a very strong performance.
Based on the conditional standard deviation in this example, only a very
small percentage of schools throughout the city would be expected to exceed
their Comparison Group value by 0.20 on this metric. (Note that the
conditional standard deviation used in this example is hypothetical.)

Percent of Range
The percent of range reflects the position of the school’s result within the range. The
percent of range shows how far along the path, from very poor performers to very
strong performers, the school’s result fell. For example, a percent of range of 70%
means that the school’s result covered 70% of the distance between the results of
very poor performers and very strong performers.
Another way to interpret percent of range is based on standard deviations away from
the mean:
Percent of Range

Interpretation7

Two or more standard deviations below average

25%

One standard deviation below average

50%

Equal to the average

75%

One standard deviation above average

100%

Two or more standard deviations above average

In general (assuming that results are normally distributed), approximately 2% of
schools achieve results that are two or more standard deviations above (or below)
average, approximately 15% of schools achieve results that are one or more
standard deviations above (or below) average, and approximately two-thirds of
schools achieve results within one standard deviation of the mean.
The percent of range can be calculated based on the following formula:
percent of range =

(school′ s result) − (bottom of range)
(top of range) − (bottom of range)

These interpretations do not apply if the range has been cut off to leave out values that are theoretically
impossible, as described on page 17.

NYC Department of Education

Impact and Performance Scores
For informational purposes, the School Performance Dashboard summarizes the
differences between the school’s results and the Comparison Group’s results as an
“impact” score, and summarizes the differences between the school’s results and the
citywide averages as a “performance” score. The impact score sheds light on the
school’s effectiveness by taking into account student factors and comparing the
school’s results to the Comparison Group of similar students. The performance score
reflects whether the school outperformed the citywide average, without making any
adjustments to account for the student population of the school.
Impact Score Calculation
We calculate the impact score through the following steps:




For each Student Achievement metric, we calculate the difference between
the school’s result and its Comparison Group result.
o Example: The school’s ELA percent proficient was 5 percentage
points higher than its Comparison Group.
We standardize these differences by converting them to standard-deviation
units.
o Example: The school’s ELA percent proficient was 0.6 standard
deviations higher than its Comparison Group.
We translate the standardized differences to a 0.00 to 1.00 scale.
o This scale spans four standard deviations, from -2 to +2, and
transforms them to a 0.00-1.00 point scale centered around 0.50.
o Examples:
 If the school’s result is the same as the Comparison Group,
the score is 0.50.
 If the school’s result is 2 standard deviations above the
Comparison Group, the score is 1.00.
 If the school’s result is 1 standard deviation below the
Comparison Group, the score is 0.25. The calculation is (-1 /
4) + 0.50 = 0.25.
 If the school’s result is 0.6 standard deviations above the
Comparison Group, the score is 0.65. The calculation is
(+0.6 / 4) + 0.50 = 0.65.
o Any difference more than 2 standard deviations below the
Comparison Group is scored as 0.00, and any difference more than
2 standard deviations above the Comparison Group is scored as a
1.00.
We take a weighted average of the 0.00-1.00 scores for each Student
Achievement metric to produce an overall impact score for the school.
o We use the same set of Student Achievement metrics and the same
metric weights that we use to produce the Student Achievement
rating in the School Quality Reports (except that the Impact score
does not include any Closing the Achievement Gap metrics, which
provide additional points on the School Quality Reports).

Performance Score Calculation
We calculate the performance score the same way, except that the school’s results
are compared to the citywide average instead of the Comparison Group value.


For each Student Achievement metric, we calculate the difference between
the school’s result and the citywide average.
o Example: The school’s ELA percent proficient was 5 percentage

NYC Department of Education



points higher than the citywide average.
We standardize these differences by converting them to standard-deviation
units.
o Example: The school’s ELA percent proficient was 0.6 standard
deviations higher than the citywide average.
We translate the standardized differences to a 0.00 to 1.00 scale.
o This scale spans four standard deviations, from -2 to +2, and
transforms them to a 0.00-1.00 point scale centered around 0.50.
o Examples:
 If the school’s result is the same as the citywide average, the
score is 0.50.
 If the school’s result is 2 standard deviations above the
citywide average, the score is 1.00.
 If the school’s result is 1 standard deviation below the
citywide average, the score is 0.25. The calculation is (-1 / 4)
+ 0.50 = 0.25.
 If the school’s result is 0.6 standard deviations above the
citywide average, the score is 0.65. The calculation is (+0.6 /
4) + 0.50 = 0.65.
o Any difference more than 2 standard deviations below the citywide
average is scored as 0.00, and any difference more than 2 standard
deviations above the citywide average is scored as a 1.00.
We take a weighted average of the 0.00-1.00 scores for each Student
Achievement metric to produce an overall performance score for the school.
o We use the same set of Student Achievement metrics and the same
metric weights that we use to produce the Student Achievement
rating in the School Quality Reports (except that the Impact score
does not include any Closing the Achievement Gap metrics, which
provide additional points on the School Quality Reports).

NYC Department of Education

Student Achievement
Targets
The targets are realistic and rigorous goals customized for each school, based on the
historical performance of their Comparison Group. In other words, the targets are driven
by results that have been achieved in the past by students who are very similar—based
on incoming test scores, economic need, and disability status—to the students at the
main school.
The process for calculating specific targets for each school follows these steps:


Step 1: For each school, we calculate the Comparison Group percent of range
(on a 0-100% scale) for each of its Student Achievement metrics in the prior year.
These results show where the school’s metric value fell within its Comparison
Group performance range.



Step 2: For each metric, we review the set of Comparison Group percent of range
results from Step 1 for all schools (of the same school type), and determine the
Comparison Group percent of range cut levels associated with the following
percentiles for Exceeding Target, Meeting Target, and Approaching Target:
School Type
Elementary
Middle
K-8

Approaching
Target
15th percentile
15th percentile
15th percentile

Meeting Target
50th percentile
45th percentile
45th percentile

Exceeding
Target
85th percentile
75th percentile
80th percentile

Example: For ELA percent proficient for a middle school, Step 1
produces a set of all the Comparison Group percent of range values on
that metric by all middle schools in the city. In Step 2, the 75th percentile
of that set of values is the Comparison Group percent of range cut level
for Exceeding Target, the 45th percentile of that set is the cut level for
Meeting Target, and the 15th percentile of that set is the cut level for
Approaching Target. For example, if the 75th percentile of the set of
values is 70%, that means that the top 25% of middle schools achieved
Comparison Group percent of range scores of 70% or higher on that
metric, and 70% is the Comparison Group percent of range cut level for
Exceeding Target on that metric.


Step 3: For each school, we set specific targets for the next year by finding the
actual metric values that would be needed for the school to achieve the
Comparison Group percent of range cut score. Step 3 can be thought of as taking
each school’s customized comparison range, and going a specified portion of the
way along that range to find a specific target for the school.
Example: For ELA percent proficient for a middle school, suppose that
Step 2 produces a Comparison Group percent of range cut level of 70%
for Exceeding Target—meaning that the top 25% of middle schools
achieved Comparison Group percent of range scores of 70% or higher
on that metric. Suppose that the school’s comparison range for ELA
percent proficient ran from 20% to 50%. The school’s specific target for

NYC Department of Education

Exceeding Target on ELA percent proficient would be 70% of the way
along that range—or 70% x (50% - 20%) + 20% = 41%.


Step 4: The targets calculated in Step 3 are compared to a set of floors and
ceilings: the targets cannot fall below the floors and cannot be above the ceilings.
These floors and ceilings are designed to prevent unreasonable results (e.g., a
school receiving a very low metric rating despite achieving a very high raw metric
value, or a school receiving a very high metric rating despite achieving a very low
raw metric value). See Appendix B for a table of target floors and ceilings.

The Comparison Group range used in Step 3 of the target-setting is based on a
Comparison Group of matches to the students attributed to the school in October, shortly
before the School Quality Reports are released. The matching method works the same
as described above in the section on Comparison Group results, except that there is a
one-year offset: each student at the school is matched to 50 students who were in the
student’s grade last year.
Example: To create a Comparison Group to set targets for 2017-18, the fourth
graders at a school (in October 2017) are each matched to the closest 50 students
throughout the city who were fourth graders in 2016-17 (and are fifth graders in 201718).
This approach allows the school’s targets to be customized and based on the closest
matches to the specific students at the school in the report year.
Although Step 2 of the target-setting process involves finding cut levels associated with
fixed percentiles, the ratings do not have a fixed distribution. Because these targets are
set ahead of time, schools will not be competing for a limited number of top ratings. The
percentages of schools achieving each rating will depend on how schools perform
against their targets. If all schools perform well, then all schools can get strong ratings.
Note that the School Quality Guide shares estimated targets for the Grade 3-8 ELA and
Math state test metrics based on the entire population of standard-assessment-eligible
students in grades 3-8 in October before the School Quality Report is released. The
targets are adjusted based on the students at the school who actually take the exams
during the school year.
Note on 2017-18 Targets for Grade 3-8 ELA and Math State Test Metrics: The New
York State Education Department redesigned and rescaled the Grade 3-8 ELA and Math
exams in 2018 and stated that the 2018 results cannot be compared with prior years. As
a result, the 2017-18 targets for the ELA and Math test results that we set in advance and
published in the 2016-17 School Quality Guides cannot properly be applied to schools’
2017-18 results.
To address this issue, we calculated new targets for the Grade 3-8 ELA and Math exams
based on Comparison Group results on the 2017-18 exams (instead of using targets
based on Comparison Group results on the 2016-17 exams). This approach allows the
targets to be based on a comparable set of test results from the same year, rather than a
non-comparable set of test results from last year.

NYC Department of Education

Framework Elements
Metrics and Data Sources
The Framework elements use the following data sources:
Section
Rigorous Instruction

Data Sources
 NYC School Survey
 Quality Review indicators 1.1, 1.2, 2.2

Collaborative
Teachers

 NYC School Survey
 Quality Review indicators 4.1, 4.2

Supportive
Environment

 NYC School Survey
 Quality Review indicators 1.4, 3.4
 Chronic absenteeism (or average change in student
attendance, for some school types)
 Movement of students with disabilities to less
restrictive environments

Effective School
Leadership

 NYC School Survey
 Quality Review indicators 1.3, 3.1, 5.1

Strong FamilyCommunity Ties

 NYC School Survey
 Quality Review indicators 3.4

Trust

 NYC School Survey

Quality Review
The Framework ratings incorporate results from the school’s most recent Quality
Review on the following indicators:
1.1

Rigorous, engaging, and coherent curricula aligned to the Common Core
Learning Standards.

1.2

Research-based, effective instruction that yields high quality student work.

1.3

Aligned resource use to support instructional goals that meet students’
needs.

1.4

Structures for a positive learning environment, inclusive culture, and student
success.

2.2

Curricula-aligned assessment practices that inform instruction.

3.1

School-level theory of action and goals shared by the school community.

3.4

A culture of learning that communicates and supports high expectations.

4.1

Support and evaluation of teachers through the Danielson Framework and
analysis of learning outcomes

4.2

Teacher teams engaged in collaborative practice using the inquiry approach
to improve classroom practice.

NYC Department of Education

5.1

Regularly evaluate school-level decisions with a focus on the Common Core
Learning Standards.

Schools that received Quality Reviews in 2016-17 or later have ratings on all ten
indicators. Schools that received their latest Quality Review in 2015-16 or earlier
have ratings on five indicators: 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 3.4, and 4.2.
For additional information about the Quality Review, please visit
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/school-quality/quality-review

NYC School Survey
The NYC School Survey is administered annually to students in grades 6-12, and to
parents and teachers of students in all grades (3-K through 12). The survey gathers
information from school communities on the six elements of the Framework for Great
Schools.
The survey is organized as groups of questions relating to a measure, and groups of
measures relating to an element.


Example: The element of Rigorous Instruction is composed of five
measures: Common Core Shifts in Literacy, Common Core Shifts in Math,
Course Clarity, Quality of Student Discussion, and Academic Press. The
NYC School Survey includes groups of questions related to each of those
measures.

See Appendix B for a detailed explanation of the element-measure-question survey
structure.

► Question-Level Percent Positive
For each survey question, we calculate the percentage of “positive” responses
(excluding “I don’t know” or missing responses from the denominator).
Positive responses are defined as those in the favorable half of response options
(i.e., out of four possible response options, the two most favorable options are treated
as positive responses).

► Measure-Level Percent Positive
For each measure, we calculate the percentage of positive responses. This value is
the average of the percent positives of all the questions within the measure.

► Element-Level Percent Positive
For each element, we calculate the percentage of positive responses. This value is
not simply the straight average of the percent positives of all the questions within the
element. Instead, this value is the average of the measure-level percent positives for
all the measures within the element. (For example, the percent positive for the
Rigorous Instruction element is the average of the percent positives on its five
measures: Common Core Shifts in Literacy, Common Core Shifts in Math, Course
Clarity, Quality of Student Discussion, and Academic Press.)

NYC Department of Education

For additional information about the survey, please visit
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/reports/school-quality/nyc-school-survey
or email surveys@schools.nyc.gov

Other Metrics
► Percentage of Students with Attendance Rates of 90% or
Higher (Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle, K-8, High Schools)
This metric shows the percentage of students at the school with attendance rates of
90% or higher. Because chronic absenteeism is defined as students with attendance
rates below 90%, this metric shows the percentage of students who are not
chronically absent.
Each student’s attendance rate is calculated by adding together the total number of
days when the student was present and dividing it by the total number of days on
register for the student at the school (the sum of the days when the student was
present and the days when the student was absent). If a student’s total number of
days on register at the school is less than 20, the student’s attendance rate is treated
as N/A and the student does not contribute to this metric.
Pre-K attendance is excluded for any school that has a Pre-K grade. For K-12
schools, this metric is calculated separately for the K-8 grades and 9-12 grades.
Similarly, for 6-12 schools, the metric is calculated separately for the 6-8 grades and
the 9-12 grades.

► Movement of Students with Disabilities to Less Restrictive
Environments (Non-District 75 Schools)
This measure recognizes schools that educate students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment that is educationally appropriate. Students with an IEP during
any of the last four school years are sorted into four tiers based on primary program
recommendations and the amount of time spent with general education peers, as of
the end of September of each year. The denominator for this measure includes all K8 students with tier two or higher in any of the years 2016-17, 2015-16, or 2014-15.
Students who are newly certified in 2017-18 are excluded.
The numerator contribution of each student is the highest tier number from the last
four school years minus the tier number for 2017-18. This number can range from
zero (for students who are in their highest tier in 2017-18) to three (for students who
were previously in Tier Four and are in Tier One in 2017-18). Negative numbers are
not possible; students who move to a more restrictive environment count the same as
if they had always been in that setting.
Tier One – General education
 No IEP, or
 IEP with a recommendation of related services only
Tier Two – 80-100% of time with general education peers
 Primary recommendation of SETSS or ICT, or
 Primary recommendation of self-contained, spend 80-100% of instructional
periods with general education peers
Tier Three – 40-79% of time with general education peers

NYC Department of Education



Primary recommendation of self-contained, spend 40-79% of instructional
periods with general education peers

Tier Four – 0-39% of time with general education peers
 Primary recommendation of self-contained, spend 0-39% of instructional
periods with general education peers
Students who start a less restrictive program at the beginning of 2017-18 count
immediately, but if they start the less restrictive program mid-year, they will not
contribute to the metric until the next year.

NYC Department of Education

Framework Elements
Scoring and Ratings
Scoring and Rating Structure
Element ratings on the Framework Report are generated through a multi-step
process:
 Step 1: Raw metric values are collected from the data sources.
 Step 2: Raw metric values are converted into metric scores, on a scale
from 1.00 – 4.99.
 Step 3: The metric scores are combined to generate an element score.
 Step 4: The element score is used to generate an element rating.
This Technical Report explains this multi-step process for the different data
sources and elements. It explains how raw metric values are converted into
metric scores for Quality Reviews, the NYC School Survey, chronic absenteeism
(and average change in student attendance), and movement of students with
disabilities to less restrictive environments. It explains how the metric scores are
combined to produce element scores for the six elements—Rigorous Instruction,
Collaborative Teachers, Supportive Environment, Effective School Leadership,
Strong Family-Community Ties, and Trust. It then explains how ratings are
determined from the element scores.

Raw Values and Metric Scores
This section explains how raw metric values are converted into metric scores for
each of the different data sources in the Framework Report.

Quality Reviews
Quality Review indicator ratings are converted into metric scores as follows:
QR Indicator Rating

Metric Score

Well Developed

4.99

Proficient

3.50

Developing

2.00

Under Developed

1.00

NYC School Survey
For survey scoring, schools are categorized by a survey school type, and are
compared to other schools of the same survey school type.
The scoring method for the NYC School Survey follows the structure of the survey,
which was organized as groups of questions relating to a measure, and groups of

NYC Department of Education

measures relating to an element.8
The following process is used to generate a survey element score:
(1) Question-level percent positive (percentage of positive responses to a
question)
↓
(2) Measure-level percent positive (average of the question-level percent
positive values for all questions within the measure)
↓
(3) Measure score (score based on the measure-level percent positive)
↓
(4) Survey element score (average of measure scores for all measures within
the element)
Each step in this process is described in detail below.
(1) Question-level percent positive
For each question, this metric is the percent of “positive” responses (excluding “I
don’t know” or missing responses from the denominator).
“Positive” responses are defined as those in the favorable half of response options
(i.e., out of four possible response options, the two most favorable options are treated
as positive responses).
(2) Measure-level percent positive
This metric is the average of the question-level percent positive values for all
questions within the measure.
For example, Outreach to Parents is a measure within the element of Strong FamilyCommunity Ties. The Outreach to Parents percent positive is the average of the
question-level percent positive values on all the Outreach to Parents questions.
(3) Measure score
This metric converts the measure-level percent positive into a score on a 1.00-4.99
scale.
The basic idea is that survey results fairly close to the city average receive scores in
the 3-bar range (3.00 – 3.99), results substantially above average receive scores in
the 4-bar range (4.00 – 4.99), and results substantially below average receive scores
in the 2-bar or 1-bar range (2.00 – 2.99 or 1.00 – 1.99). In addition, if a school’s
measure-level percent positive is very high, it will receive a high measure score
(regardless of whether the result is substantially above the citywide average).
We implement this idea by setting cut levels (measure-level percent positive) for each
rating category (e.g., the 4-bar category of Exceeding Target). The school’s 1.00-4.99
measure score is based on the highest category achieved, and the distance to the
next-higher cut level. The cut levels are based on the citywide average percent
positive (PP) and the standard deviation (SD) among school-level results of schools.
We use the “top of scoring range” and “bottom of scoring range” values to help
calculate scores in the 4.00-4.99 range and the 1.00-1.99 range.
Rating Category
8

Percent Positive (PP) Cut Level

See Appendix C for a detailed explanation of the element-measure-question survey structure.

NYC Department of Education

Top of Scoring Range
Exceeding Target (4 bars)
Meeting Target (3 bars)
Approaching Target (2 bars)
Bottom of Scoring Range

citywide mean + 2 SD, not to exceed 100
citywide mean PP + 0.75 SD, not to exceed 95
citywide mean PP – 0.5 SD, not to exceed 90
citywide mean PP – 1 SD, not to exceed 85
citywide mean + 2 SD, not to fall below 0

Examples:
 If a school’s percent positive on a Framework measure is halfway between the
Meeting Target and Exceeding Target cut levels, it will receive a score of 3.50 on
that Framework measure.


If a school’s percent positive on a Framework measure is one-quarter of the way
between the Exceeding Target cut level and the Top of Scoring Range, it will
receive a score of 4.25 on that Framework measure.

Additional Notes:
 We set separate targets for each Framework measure and for each survey
school type. In other words, the citywide averages and standard deviations are
calculated separately for each survey school type and for each Framework
measure.
o For example, the target cut levels for a middle school will be based on
the citywide average and standard deviation among middle schools only.


To avoid drawing significant scoring distinctions based on small PP differences,
we will not allow the SD in the formula to fall below 5 points.



The top of the scoring range is set at least 5 percentage points above the
Exceeding Target level (but not to exceed 100).



The bottom of the scoring range is set at least 5 percentage points below the
Approaching Target level (but not to fall below 0).

(4) Survey element score
This metric is the average of the measure scores for all measures within the element.
For example, the Strong Family-Community Ties element contains two measures:
Teacher Outreach to Parents and Parent Involvement in the School. The school’s
survey element score for the Strong Family-Community Ties element is the average
of the measure score for the Teacher Outreach to Parents measure and the measure
score for the Parent Involvement in the School measure.

Low Response Rates and Numbers
Each element in the Framework draws primarily from questions asked of one (or two)
respondent groups. If there was a low response rate or very few responses submitted
by that respondent group, then the survey element score will be N/A. The following
table describes these situations:

NYC Department of Education

Element

Standardized survey element score will be N/A if…

Rigorous Instruction

 Teacher response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded.

Collaborative Teachers

 Teacher response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded.

Supportive
Environment

For Elementary Schools and Early Childhood Schools:
 Teacher response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded.
For other school types:
 Student response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 students responded.

Effective School
Leadership

 Teacher response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded.

Strong FamilyCommunity Ties

 Average of teacher response rate and parent
response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded, or
 Fewer than 5 parents responded.

Trust

 Average of teacher response rate and parent
response rate was less than 30%, or
 Fewer than 5 teachers responded, or
 Fewer than 5 parents responded.

Percentage of Students with 90% Attendance
The metric score for this metric is based on how the school performed against its
2017-18 targets in the previous year’s School Quality Reports. The first digit reflects
the highest target level achieved, and the two digits after the decimal point reflect
how close the school was to the next higher target. (For example, a score of 3.50
means that the school met its Meeting Target level, and was halfway between the
Meeting Target level and the Exceeding Target level.)
We calculate and report this metric separately for EMS grades and HS grades. If a
school spans both EMS grades and HS grades (and received metric values for both
school types), we use the average of the EMS score and the HS score for
Framework scoring.

Movement of Students with Disabilities to Less
Restrictive Environments
The metric score for this metric is based on the 2017-18 targets published in the
previous year’s School Quality Reports. The first digit reflects the highest target level
achieved, and the two digits after the decimal point reflect how close the school was
to the next higher target.
We calculate and report this metric separately for EMS grades and HS grades. If a
school spans both EMS grades and HS grades (and received metric values and
scores for both school types), we use the average of the EMS score and the HS
score for less restrictive environment for Framework scoring.

NYC Department of Education

Element Scores
Weighted Average of Data Scores
The school’s element scores are a weighted average of the scores from the data
sources within each element category. The weights depend on whether the
school received a Quality Review in 2016-17 or later (with ten rated indicators) or
whether the school received its most recent Quality Review in 2015-16 or earlier
(with five rated indicators). If the survey response rates or numbers fall below
specified thresholds, then the element score will be N/A.
The following table shows how scores from the different data sources are
weighted and combined to produce the element scores:

Weighted Combinations of Data Scores to Produce Element Scores
Different Weights For Different Scenarios
Received
Quality Review
in 2016-17 or later

Most Recent
Quality Review from
2015-16 or earlier

Survey (Rigorous Instruction)

25%

Quality Review 1.1

25%

Quality Review 1.2

25%

Quality Review 2.2

25%

Survey (Collaborative Teachers)

50%

Quality Review 4.1

25%

—

Quality Review 4.2

25%

50%

Survey (Supportive
Environment)

35%

Quality Review 1.4

15%

—

Quality Review 3.4

15%

30%

Chronic Absenteeism
(Average Change in Attendance
for Transfer Schools, YABCs, and
District 75 Schools)

30%

Less Restrictive Environment

Low Survey Reponses

Rigorous Instruction
If teacher response rate is less than 30%
or fewer than 5 responses
Element score is N/A.

Collaborative Teachers
If teacher response rate is less than 30%
or fewer than 5 responses
Element score is N/A.

Supportive Environment

If teacher response rate is less than 30%
or fewer than 5 responses (for ES); If
student response rate is less than 30% or
fewer than 5 responses (for non-ES)
Element score is N/A.

NYC Department of Education

Weighted Combinations of Data Scores to Produce Element Scores
Different Weights For Different Scenarios
Received
Quality Review
in 2016-17 or later

Most Recent
Quality Review from
2015-16 or earlier

40%

100%

20%

—

Quality Review 3.1

20%

—

Quality Review 5.1

20%

—

Survey (Strong FamilyCommunity Ties)

85%

Quality Review 3.4

15%

Low Survey Reponses

Effective School Leadership
Survey (Effective School
Leadership)
Quality Review 1.3

If teacher response rate is less than 30%
or fewer than 5 responses
Element score is N/A.

Strong Family-Community Ties
If average of teacher and parent response
rates is at less than 30% or fewer than 5
teacher or parent responses
Element score is N/A.

Trust
Survey (Trust)

100%

If average of teacher and parent response
rates is at less than 30% or fewer than 5
teacher or parent responses
Element score is N/A.

Examples:


If the school received a finalized Quality Review Report in 2016-17, the
school’s element score for Collaborative Teachers = 0.50 x survey element
score for Collaborative Teachers + 0.25 x QR 4.1 metric score + 0.25 x QR
4.2 metric score.



If the school’s most recent Quality Review was in 2014-15, the school’s
element score for Collaborative Teachers = 0.50 x survey element score for
Collaborative Teachers + 0.50 x QR 4.2 metric score.



For a middle school, if the student response rate was under 30%, the
school’s element score for Supportive Environment is N/A.

Missing Data
If Quality Review data is unavailable for a district school, its element scores will be
N/A for all elements except for Trust.
For charter schools and YABCs, which do not receive Quality Reviews, any weight
that would be applied to the Quality Review is shifted to the other data sources in the
element. For example, a charter school’s element score for Rigorous Instruction is

NYC Department of Education

based 100% on the survey.9
If a school does not have a score for Chronic Absenteeism, Average Change in
Student Attendance, or Less Restrictive Environment, the weight for that metric is
generally shifted to the other data sources in the element.
If a charter school’s attendance rate is N/A, then its Supportive Environment element
score and rating are N/A.

Element Ratings
Element ratings are based on the first digit of the school’s element score:
Rating

Element Score

Excellent (4 bars)

4.00 to 4.99

Good (3 bars)

3.00 to 3.99

Fair (2 bars)

2.00 to 2.99

Needs Improvement (1 bar)

1.00 to 1.99

Schools designated for phase-out or in their first year do not receive Framework
element scores or ratings.

Because element scores based on Quality Reviews and survey results can be systematically different
from element scores based on surveys only, we rescale the element scores for charter schools and
YABCs in Rigorous Instruction, Collaborative Teachers, Supportive Environment, and Strong FamilyCommunity Ties. The rescaling puts the results for charter schools and YABCs (without Quality Reviews)
on the same scale as the element scores of district schools (with Quality Reviews).

NYC Department of Education

Appendix A (Conversion Tables)
This table will be added.

NYC Department of Education

Appendix B (Target Floors and Ceilings)
Floors and Ceilings for 2017-18 Targets
The following table shows floors (levels that the specific targets cannot go below) and ceilings (levels that
the specific targets cannot go above).
Target Floors

Target Ceilings

Approaching
Target

Meeting
Target

Exceeding
Target

Approaching
Target

Meeting
Target

Exceeding
Target

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.90

3.40

3.60

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.50

2.75

3.00

10%

15%

50%

70%

90%

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.90

3.40

3.60

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.50

2.75

3.00

10%

15%

50%

70%

90%

ELA

65%

75%

85%

92%

95%

97%

Math

65%

75%

85%

92%

95%

97%

Science

65%

75%

85%

92%

95%

97%

Social Studies

65%

75%

85%

92%

95%

97%

MS Adjusted Core Course Pass Rate
of Former 5th Graders

60%

70%

80%

92%

95%

97%

Percent of 8th Graders Earning HS
Credit

10%

15%

92%

95%

97%

9th Grade Adjusted Credit
Accumulation of Former 8th Graders

60%

70%

80%

92%

95%

97%

ELA Average Proficiency Rating
(subgroups)
Self-Contained

1.70

1.80

1.90

3.80

3.90

4.00

Integrated Co-Teaching

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

SETSS

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

ELL

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

Lowest Third Citywide
Black and Hispanic Males in
Lowest Third Citywide

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

State Test Results - ELA
Average Student Proficiency
Average Student Proficiency School's Lowest Third
Percentage of Students at Level 3
or 4
State Test Results - Math
Average Student Proficiency
Average Student Proficiency School's Lowest Third
Percentage of Students at Level 3
or 4
Core Course Pass Rates (Grades 6-8)

NYC Department of Education

Target Floors

Math - Average Proficiency Rating
(subgroups)
Self-Contained

Target Ceilings

Approaching
Target

Meeting
Target

Exceeding
Target

Approaching
Target

Meeting
Target

Exceeding
Target

1.70

1.80

1.90

3.80

3.90

4.00

Integrated Co-Teaching

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

SETSS

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

ELL

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

Lowest Third Citywide
Black and Hispanic Males in
Lowest Third Citywide

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

1.80

1.90

2.00

3.80

3.90

4.00

ELL Progress (ES / K-8)

30%

40%

50%

92%

95%

97%

ELL Progress (MS)

20%

30%

40%

92%

95%

97%

Percentage of Students with 90%+
Attendance

55%

60%

65%

90%

94%

98%

NYC Department of Education

Appendix C (Survey Questions by Framework Element)
Element-Measure-Question Structure of the NYC
School Survey
The following tables show the measures within each element, the respondent group(s) asked about each
measure, and the questions that were asked.
Element
Measure
Rigorous Instruction
Academic Press
Common Core shifts in literacy
Common Core shifts in math
Course clarity
Quality of student discussion
Collaborative Teachers
Cultural awareness and inclusive classroom
instruction
Innovation and collective responsibility
Peer collaboration
Quality of professional development
School commitment
Supportive Environment
Classroom behavior
Guidance
Peer support for academic work
Personal attention and support
Preventing Bullying
Safety
Social-emotional

Non-elementary schools
Students
Teachers
Parents

































Effective School Leadership
Inclusive leadership
Instructional leadership
Program coherence
Teacher influence






Strong Family-Community Ties
Outreach to parents
Parent involvement in school
Trust
Parent-principal trust
Parent-teacher trust
Student-teacher trust
Teacher-principal trust
Teacher-teacher trust

Elementary schools
Teachers
Parents























NYC Department of Education

Rigorous Instruction
Questions included within each measure in the Rigorous Instruction element.

Academic Press
S
S

q4a
q4g

How much do YOU agree with the following statements?
I’m learning a lot in my classes at this school to prepare me for the next level or grade.
My classes at this school really make me think critically.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

S
S
S
S
S

q5a
q5b
q5c
q5d
q5e

In how many of your classes …
are you challenged?
do your teachers ask difficult questions on tests?
do your teachers ask difficult questions in class?
do you work in small groups?
do your teachers want students to become better thinkers, not just memorize things?
1 = None, 2 = A few, 3 = Most, 4 = All

How many students in your classes…
feel challenged?
have to work hard to do well?
respond to challenging test questions?
respond to challenging questions in class?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All
* These teacher questions are included for scoring only for Elementary Schools and Early Childhood Schools, where
students do not take the NYC School Survey.
*T
*T
*T
*T

q20a
q20c
q20e
q20g

Common Core shifts in literacy
T
T
T
T

q16a
q16b
q16c
q16d

For general/self-contained/literacy/science/social studies: In planning my last instructional unit, I had
the resources and tools I needed to include multiple opportunities for…
building students’ knowledge through content-rich non-fiction.
reading and writing experiences grounded in evidence from text, both literary and informational.
students to interact with complex grade-level text.
students to interact with academic language.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 =Strongly agree

Common Core shifts in math
T

q17a

q17b

q17c

For general/self-contained/math/science: In planning my last instructional unit, I had the resources and
tools I needed to include multiple opportunities for…
focusing deeply on the concepts emphasized in the standards to help students build strong
foundations for learning.
creating coherent progressions within the standards from previous grades to current grade so student
knowledge/skills build onto previous learning as foundations for math concepts.
developing students’ conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and their ability to apply math in
context.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Course clarity
In how many of your classes, this school year, do YOU feel the following statement is true?
S
S

q2a
q2b

I learn a lot from feedback on my work.
It's clear what I need to do to get a good grade.

NYC Department of Education

S
S
S

q2c
q2d
q2e

The work we do in class is good preparation for our class tests.
The homework assignments help me learn the course material.
I know what my teacher wants me to learn in class.
1 = None, 2 = A few, 3 = Most, 4 = All

Quality of student discussion
T
T
T
T
T

q19a
q19b
q19c
q19d
q19e

How many students in your classes…
build on each other’s ideas during class discussions?
use data or text references to support their ideas?
show that they respect each other’s ideas?
provide constructive feedback to their peers/teachers?
participate in class discussions at some point?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All

Collaborative Teachers
Questions included within each measure in the Collaborative Teachers element.

Cultural awareness and inclusive classroom instruction
S

q1f

S
S
S
S
S

q1g
q1h
q1i
q1j
q1k

T
T
T

q2a
q2b
q2c

T
T

q2d
q2e

q2f

T
T

q2g
q2h

How much do YOU agree with the following statements?
My teachers use examples of students’ different cultures/backgrounds/families in their lessons to make
learning more meaningful for me.
I see people of many races, ethnicities, cultures, and backgrounds represented in the curriculum.
In general, my teachers treat students from different cultures or backgrounds equally.
I feel that my teachers respect my culture/background.
In general, my teachers make their lessons relevant to my everyday life experiences.
In general, my teachers present positive images of people from a variety of races, ethnicities, cultures,
and backgrounds.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = I don't know
Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. I am able to...
receive support around how to incorporate students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds in my practice.
use my students' prior knowledge to make my lessons relevant to their everyday life.
modify instructional activities and materials to meet the developmental needs and learning interests of
all my students.
adapt instruction to ensure it represents all cultures/backgrounds positively.
design appropriate instruction that is matched to students' need (e.g. English language learners (ELL)
proficiency and students with disabilities).
apply my knowledge of parents' various cultural backgrounds when collaborating with them regarding
their child's educational progress.
develop appropriate Individual Education Programs for my students with disabilities.
distinguish linguistic/cultural differences from learning difficulties.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = I don't know

Innovation and Collective responsibility
T
T
T
T
T

q1a
q1b
q1c
q1d
q1e

How many teachers at this school…
help maintain discipline in the entire school, not just their classroom?
are actively trying to improve their teaching?
take responsibility for improving the school?
are eager to try new ideas?
feel responsible that all students learn?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All

NYC Department of Education

Peer collaboration
T
T
T
T

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. At this school…
teachers design instructional programs (e.g. lessons, units) together.
teachers make a conscious effort to coordinate their teaching with instruction at other grade levels.
the principal/school leader, teachers, and staff collaborate to make this school run effectively.
teachers talk with one another about instruction.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

q8a
q8b
q8c
q8d

Quality of professional development
T
T
T
T

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. Overall, my
professional development experiences this year have...
been sustained and coherently focused, rather than short-term and unrelated.
included enough time to think carefully about, try, and evaluate new ideas.
included opportunities to work productively with colleagues in my school.
included opportunities to work productively with teachers from other schools.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

q10a
q10b
q10c
q10d

School commitment
T
T
T

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following.
I usually look forward to each working day at this school.
I would recommend this school to parents/guardians seeking a place for their child.
I would recommend this school to other teachers as a place to work.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

q4a
q4b
q4h

Supportive Environment
Questions included within each measure in the Supportive Environment element.

Classroom behavior
S
S
S
S
S

q6a
q6b
q6c
q6d
q6e

In how many of your classes at this school do YOU feel most students…
listen carefully when the teacher gives directions?
follow the rules in class?
pay attention when they are supposed to?
work when they are supposed to?
behave well even when the teacher isn't watching?
1 = None, 2 =A few, 3 = Most, 4 = All

How many students in your classes…
listen carefully when the teacher gives directions?
follow the rules in class?
pay attention when they are supposed to?
do their work when they are supposed to?
behave well in class even when the teacher isn't watching?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All
* These teacher questions are included for scoring only for Elementary Schools and Early Childhood Schools, where
students do not take the NYC School Survey.
T*
T*
T*
T*
T*

q20b
q20d
q20f
q20h
q20i

Guidance
S
S

q9a
q9b

If you are a student in grades 6-8, ANSWER this question. If you are a student in grades 9-12,
SKIP this question. How much do YOU agree with the following statements?
This school provides guidance for the application process for high school.
This school educates families about the application/enrollment process for high school.

NYC Department of Education

1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

S
S
S
S

S
S

q10a
q10b
q10c
q10d

q11a
q11b

If you are a student in grades 9-12, ANSWER this question. How much do YOU agree with the
following statements? Adults at this school (including teachers, administrators, counselors, and
the principal)…
talk to me about what I plan to do after high school.
encourage me to continue my education after high school.
provide me with information about the college application process.
help me plan for how to meet my future career goals.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree
If you are a student in grades 9-12, ANSWER this question. How much do YOU agree with the
following statements? Adults at this school (including teachers, administrators, counselors, and
the principal)…
help me consider which colleges to apply to.
show me options for how to pay for college (scholarship, grants, loans, work study programs,
etc.).
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = N/A

Peer support for academic work
S
S
S
S

q6f
q6g
q6h
q6i

In how many of your classes at this school do YOU feel most students…
feel it is important to come to school every day?
feel it is important to pay attention in class?
think doing homework is important?
try hard to get good grades?
1 = None, 2 = A few, 3 = Most, 4 = All

How many of the students in your class(es)…
q24a feel it is important to come to school every day?
q24b feel it is important to pay attention in class?
q24c think doing homework is important?
q24d try hard to get good grades?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All
* These teacher questions are included for scoring only for Elementary Schools and Early Childhood Schools, where
students do not take the NYC School Survey.
T*
T*
T*
T*

Personal attention and support
S
S
S
S
S

q3a
q3b
q3c
q3d
q3e

In how many of your classes, this school year, do YOU feel the following statement is true? My
teachers…
help me catch up if I am behind.
notice if I have trouble learning something.
give me specific suggestions about how I can improve my work in class.
explain things a different way if I don't understand something in class.
support me when I am upset.
1 = None, 2 = A few, 3 = Most, 4 = All

Preventing bullying
S

q8a

q8b

q8c

How often are the following things true?
At this school students harass, bully, or intimidate other students.
At this school students harass, bully, or intimidate each other because of their race, religion,
ethnicity, national origin, or citizenship/immigration status.
At this school students harass, bully, or intimidate each other because of their gender, gender
identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

NYC Department of Education

q8d

At this school students harass, bully, or intimidate each other because of other differences, like
disability or weight.
1 = None of the time, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Some of the time, 4 = Most of the time

Safety
S

q4h

How much do YOU agree with the following statements?
Discipline is applied fairly in my school.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

S
S
S
S

q7a
q7b
q7c
q7d

How much do you agree with the following statements? I feel safe…
outside around this school.
traveling between home and this school.
in the hallways, bathrooms, locker rooms, and cafeteria of this school.
in my classes at this school.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

T*
T*
T*
T*

q25a
q25b
q25c
q25d

How much do you agree with the following statements? My students are safe…
outside around this school.
traveling between home and this school.
in the hallways, bathrooms, locker rooms, and cafeteria of this school.
in my class(es).
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

How much do you agree with the following statement?
Discipline is applied to students fairly in my school.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree
* These teacher questions are included for scoring only for Elementary Schools and Early Childhood Schools,
where students do not take the NYC School Survey.
T*

q26

Social-emotional
T

q21a

T
T
T
T
T
T

q21b
q21c
q21d
q21e
q21f
q21g

q21h

How many adults at this school…
help students develop the skills they need to complete challenging coursework despite
obstacles?
tell their students they believe they can achieve high academic standards?
teach critical thinking skills to students?
teach students how to advocate for themselves?
teach students the organizational skills needed to be prepared for their next level?
recognize disruptive behavior as social-emotional learning opportunities?
teach students the skills they need to regulate their behavior (i.e. by focusing their attention,
controlling their emotions, or managing their thinking, behavior, and feelings)?
have access to school based supports to assist in behavioral/emotional escalations?
1 = None, 2 = Some, 3 = A lot, 4 = All, 5 = I don’t know

Effective School Leadership
Questions included within each measure in the Effective School Leadership element.

Inclusive leadership
P

q2b

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about
this school.
The principal/school leader encourages feedback from parents/guardians and the community through
regular meetings with parent/guardian and teacher leaders.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = I don’t know

NYC Department of Education

P
P
P

q3a
q3b
q3c

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements. The
principal/school leader at this school…
is strongly committed to shared decision making.
works to create a sense of community in the school.
promotes family and community involvement in the school.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = I don’t know

Instructional leadership
T
T
T
T
T

q11a
q11b
q11c
q11d

T
T
T

q11f
q11g
q11h

q11e

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. The principal/school
leader at this school...
makes clear to the staff his or her expectations for meeting instructional goals.
communicates a clear vision for this school.
understands how children learn.
sets high standards for student learning.
sets clear expectations for teachers about implementing what they have learned in professional
development.
carefully tracks student academic progress.
knows what’s going on in my classroom.
participates in instructional planning with teams of teachers.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Program coherence
T
T
T

q8e
q8f
q8g

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. At this school…
once we start a new program, we follow up to make sure that it’s working.
it is clear how all of the programs offered are connected to our school’s instructional vision.
curriculum, instruction, and learning materials are well coordinated across the different grade levels
at this school.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Teacher influence
T

q9e

T
T
T
T
T

q12a
q12b
q12c
q12d
q12e

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. At this school…
the principal/school leader encourages feedback through regular meetings with parent and teacher
leaders.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree
How much influence do teachers have over school policy in each of the areas below?
Hiring new professional personnel.
Planning how discretionary school funds should be used.
Selecting instructional materials used in classrooms.
Developing instructional materials.
Setting standards for student behavior.
1 = No influence, 2 = Little, 3 = A moderate amount, 4 = A great deal of influence

Strong Family-Community Ties
Questions included within each measure in the Strong Family-Community Ties element.

Outreach to parents
T

q9a

T
T

q9b
q9c

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following. At this school…
parents/guardians are offered opportunities to visit their child's classroom, such as observing
instruction, participating in an activity with their child, etc.
teachers understand families' problems and concerns.
teachers work closely with families to meets students' needs.

NYC Department of Education

q9d

q1a

q1b

P
P
P
P

q1c
q1d
q1e
q1h

school staff regularly communicate with parents/guardians about how parents can help students learn.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree
Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this
school.
School staff regularly communicate with me about how I can help my child learn.
My child's school offers me opportunities to visit my child's classroom, such as observing instruction,
participating in an activity with my child, etc.
I am greeted warmly when I call or visit the school.
Teachers work closely with me to meet my child's needs.
I feel well-informed by the communications I receive from my child's school.
My child's school communicates with me in a language and in a way that I can understand.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Parent involvement in school
P

q4a

P
P

q4b
q4c

q6a

q6b

Since the beginning of the school year, how often have you…
been asked or had the opportunity to volunteer time to support this school (for example, spent time
helping in classrooms, helped with school-wide events, etc.)?
communicated with your child's teacher about your child's performance?
seen your child’s projects, artwork, homework, tests, or quizzes?
1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often
During the school year, how likely are you to…
attend a general school meeting or school event (open house, back to school night, play, dance, sports
event, or science fair)?
go to a regularly scheduled parent-teacher conference with your child's teacher?
1 = Very unlikely, 2 = Somewhat unlikely, 3 = Somewhat likely, 4 = Very likely

Trust
Questions included within each measure in the Trust element.

Parent-principal trust
P
P
P
P

q1i
q1j
q1k
q1l

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this
school.
I feel respected by my child's principal/school leader.
I trust the principal/school leader at his or her word (to do what he or she says that he or she will do).
The principal/school leader is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly.
The principal/school leader at this school works hard to build trusting relationships with parents/
guardians like me.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Parent-teacher trust
P
P

q1f
q1g

q2a

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this
school.
I feel respected by my child's teachers.
Staff at this school work hard to build trusting relationships with parents/guardians like me.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree
Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this
school.
Teachers and parents/guardians think of each other as partners in educating children.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree, 5 = I don’t know

NYC Department of Education

Student-teacher trust
S
S
S
S
S

q4b
q4c
q4d
q4e
q4f

How much do YOU agree with the following statements?
There is at least one adult in the school that I can confide in.
My teachers will always listen to students' ideas.
My teachers always do what they say they will do.
My teachers treat me with respect.
When my teachers tell me not to do something, I know they have a good reason.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly agree

Teacher-principal trust
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

q5a
q5b
q5c
q5d
q5e
q5f
q5g
q5h
q5i

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following.
I feel respected by the principal/school leader at this school.
The principal/school leader at this school is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly.
The principal/school leader has confidence in the expertise of the teachers at this school.
I trust the principal/school leader at his or her word (to do what he or she says that he or she will do).
At this school, It’s OK to discuss feelings, worries, and frustrations with the principal/school leader.
The principal/school leader takes a personal interest in the professional development of teachers.
The principal/school leader looks out for the personal welfare of the staff members.
The principal/school leader places the needs of children ahead of personal interests.
The principal and assistant principals function as a cohesive unit.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree

Teacher-teacher trust
T
T
T
T
T

q4c
q4d
q4e
q4f
q4g

Please mark the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following.
Teachers in this school trust each other.
It's OK in this school to discuss feelings, worries, and frustrations with other teachers.
Teachers respect other teachers who take the lead in school improvement efforts.
I feel respected by other teachers at this school.
Teachers at this school respect those colleagues who have a specific expertise.
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.5
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 46
Language                        : en-US
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
Author                          : Sarah
Creator                         : Microsoft® Word 2016
Create Date                     : 2018:11:09 09:50:21-05:00
Modify Date                     : 2018:11:09 09:50:21-05:00
Producer                        : Microsoft® Word 2016

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

2017 18 Educator Guide Ems 11 8 2018

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation