Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FY2012 TEACHER EVALUATION SCALES REVISED 1/31/12 CAO Meeting School District of Palm Beach County."— Presentation transcript:

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

20 Student Learning Growth (40%) 1234 PRACTICE (60%) Final Evaluation Rating FCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40) WEIGHTED-AVERAGE HEEffNIU

21 Student Learning Growth (40%) 1234 PRACTICE (60%) Final Evaluation Rating FCAT Classroom Teacher (60/40) WEIGHTED-AVERAGE HEEffNIU

22 Teacher Evaluation Scales Developed by JTEC


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google