FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12
22
FY2012 TEACHER EVALUATION SCALES REVISED 1/31/12 CAO Meeting School District of Palm Beach County
-
Upload
fiona-foreman -
Category
Documents
-
view
25 -
download
1
description
FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12. School District of Palm Beach County. CAO Meeting. Teacher Evaluation Scales. Instructional Practice (IP) Scale Student Learning Growth ( SLG ) Scale Final Rating Scale to combine IP and SLG. Teacher Evaluation Scales Developed by JTEC. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12
FY2012TEACHER EVALUATION SCALES
REVISED 1/31/12
CAO Meeting
School District of Palm Beach County
Teacher Evaluation Scales
Instructional Practice (IP) Scale
Student Learning Growth (SLG) Scale
Final Rating Scale to combine IP and
SLG
Weighted
Final Eval
Scale
Teacher Evaluation Scales
Developed by JTECInstructional
Practice(4) Highly Effective
(3) Effective
(2) Needs Improvement
(1) Unsatisfactory
Student Learning Growth
(4) Highly Effective(3) Effective(2) Needs Improvement(1) Unsatisfactory
Final Ratin
gHEEffNIU
Marzano - iObservation
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
InstructionalPractice
(4) Highly Effective
(3) Effective
(2) Needs Improvement
(1) Unsatisfactory
Instructional Practice
Level3
Level2
Level1
Level0
Level4
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at Level 1 or 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1 or 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at Level 1 or 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1 or 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at Level 1 or 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1 or 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at Level 1 or 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1 or 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at
Level 1, 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1 or 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Instructional Practice Rating Scale
Category I Teacher
Highly Effective (4)
Effective (3)
Developing(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
1-2 Years Experience
>= 65% at Level 4 and <= 1% at Level 1 or 0
>= 65% at Level 3 or
higher
< 65% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
Category II Teacher
Highly Effective(4)
Effective (3)
Needs Improvement (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
3+ Years Experience
>75% at Level 4 and 0% at Level 1, 0
>= 75% at Level 3 or
higher
< 75% at Level 3 or higher and
<50% at Level 1, 0
>= 50% at Level 1, 0
STUDENT LEARNING GROWTH
Student Learning Growth
(4) Highly Effective(3) Effective(2) Needs Improvement(1) Unsatisfactory
Student Learning Growth
U(1)
NI(2)
E(3)
HE(4)
2% 13% 72% 13%
Teachers in Florida
Highly Effective (13%)
Teachers in Florida
Effective (72%)
Teachers in Florida
Needs Development (13%)
Teachers in Florida
Unsatisfactory (2%)
Teachers in Florida
Combining Instructional Practice and Student Learning Growth
FINAL EVALUATION SCALE
WeightedFinal Eval
Scale
FY2012 Final Evaluation Weights
Teacher Instructional
Practice
Student Learning Growth
FCAT Classroom 60% 40%Non-FCAT Classroom
60% 40%
Non-Classroom 60% 40%WEIGHTED-AVERAGE
HE Eff NI U3.2 - 4.0 2.1 - 3.1 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 - 1.1
Student Learning Growth (40%)
1 2 3 4
PRACTIC
E (60%
)
1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
3 2.2 2.6 3 3.4
4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Final Evaluation RatingFCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40)
WEIGHTED-AVERAGEHE Eff NI U
3.2 - 4.0 2.1 - 3.1 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 - 1.1
Student Learning Growth (40%)
1 2 3 4
PRACTIC
E (60%
)
1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
3 2.2 2.6 3 3.4
4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Final Evaluation RatingFCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40)
WEIGHTED-AVERAGEHE Eff NI U
3.2 - 4.0 2.1 - 3.1 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 - 1.1
Final RatingScale
Teacher Evaluation Scales
Developed by JTECInstructional
Practice(4) Highly Effective
(3) Effective
(2) Needs Improvement
(1) Unsatisfactory
Student Learning Growth
(4) Highly Effective(3) Effective(2) Needs Improvement(1) Unsatisfactory
Final Ratin
gHEEffNIU
