1. FY2012 TEACHER EVALUATION SCALES REVISED 1/31/12 CAO Meeting School District of Palm Beach County

2. Teacher Evaluation Scales  Instructional Practice (IP) Scale  Student Learning Growth (SLG) Scale  Final Rating Scale to combine IP and SLG

3. Teacher Evaluation Scales Developed by JTEC

4. Marzano - iObservation INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE

5. Instructional Practice Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Level 0 Level 4

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. STUDENT LEARNING GROWTH

13. Student Learning Growth U (1) NI (2) E (3) HE (4) 2%13%72%13% Teachers in Florida

14. Highly Effective (13%) Teachers in Florida

15. Effective (72%) Teachers in Florida

16. Needs Development (13%) Teachers in Florida

17. Unsatisfactory (2%) Teachers in Florida

18. Combining Instructional Practice and Student Learning Growth FINAL EVALUATION SCALE

19. FY2012 Final Evaluation Weights TeacherInstructional Practice Student Learning Growth FCAT Classroom60%40% Non-FCAT Classroom60%40% Non-Classroom60%40% WEIGHTED-AVERAGE HEEffNIU 3.2 - 4.02.1 - 3.11.2 - 2.01.0 - 1.1

20. Student Learning Growth (40%) 1234 PRACTICE (60%) 111.41.82.2 21.622.42.8 32.22.633.4 42.83.23.64 Final Evaluation Rating FCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40) WEIGHTED-AVERAGE HEEffNIU 3.2 - 4.02.1 - 3.11.2 - 2.01.0 - 1.1

21. Student Learning Growth (40%) 1234 PRACTICE (60%) 111.41.82.2 21.622.42.8 32.22.633.4 42.83.23.64 Final Evaluation Rating FCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40) WEIGHTED-AVERAGE HEEffNIU 3.2 - 4.02.1 - 3.11.2 - 2.01.0 - 1.1

22. Teacher Evaluation Scales Developed by JTEC