Document Review STANDARDEVIDENCE Standard 1 - Professional KnowledgeDocumentation and Observation Standard 2 - Instructional PlanningDocumentation and Observation Standard 3 - Instructional DeliveryObservation Standard 4 - Assessment of/for LearningDocumentation and Observation Standard 5 - Learning EnvironmentDocumentation and Observation Standard 6 - ProfessionalismDocumentation and Observation Standard 7 - Student Academic ProgressDocumentation

Rating Levels Exemplary Proficient Developing/ Needs Improvement Unacceptable 4 points3 points2 points1 point Proficient is the performance standard and is the expected level of performance.

Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Evidence: Evidence: Certificate of completion for professional development, agenda of professional development led by teacher, article written for a state teachers’ organization, samples of the teacher’s innovative instructional approaches developed for the classroom, and the teacher’s reflection journal for the year. Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Evidence: Evidence: Certificate of completion for professional development, agenda of professional development led by teacher, article written for a state teachers’ organization, samples of the teacher’s innovative instructional approaches developed for the classroom, and the teacher’s reflection journal for the year.

Conclusions: Conclusions: It is apparent to the evaluator that the teacher addresses appropriate curriculum, pedagogy, and student developmental needs. During the formal observations, the teacher facilitated higher-level thinking, linked content to both past and future learning, and demonstrated high expectations for all students. Additionally, the teacher both participated and led division professional development. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Exemplary for Standard 1. Conclusions: Conclusions: It is apparent to the evaluator that the teacher addresses appropriate curriculum, pedagogy, and student developmental needs. During the formal observations, the teacher facilitated higher-level thinking, linked content to both past and future learning, and demonstrated high expectations for all students. Additionally, the teacher both participated and led division professional development. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Exemplary for Standard 1.

Standard 2: Instructional Planning Evidence: Evidence: Analysis of a classroom assessment; differentiation in lesson planning and practice; data driven curriculum revision work; and the course syllabi. Standard 2: Instructional Planning Evidence: Evidence: Analysis of a classroom assessment; differentiation in lesson planning and practice; data driven curriculum revision work; and the course syllabi.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher’s lessons were coherent, sequenced, and aligned with established curriculum and long-term instructional plans. His lesson planning reflected an understanding of student needs. Strategies were planned to enhance critical and creative thinking. More differentiation of content and process would most likely support mastery learning for all students. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 2. Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher’s lessons were coherent, sequenced, and aligned with established curriculum and long-term instructional plans. His lesson planning reflected an understanding of student needs. Strategies were planned to enhance critical and creative thinking. More differentiation of content and process would most likely support mastery learning for all students. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 2.

Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Evidence: Evidence: Class handouts and student work samples; formal observation(s); and annotated photographs of class activities Standard 3: Instructional Delivery Evidence: Evidence: Class handouts and student work samples; formal observation(s); and annotated photographs of class activities

Conclusions: Conclusions: During both observations the teacher Fostered critical and creative thinking and allowed for differing views that were supported with evidence. The teacher used many and varied instructional strategies/activities to include direct instruction, applying prior knowledge, and think-pair-share. Students received feedback from the teacher and gave feedback to one another. One area for growth would be the amount of instructional time used to introduce and explain both lessons. Excessive time was used for explanation; thereby, decreasing the instructional time needed for effective delivery. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 3. Conclusions: Conclusions: During both observations the teacher Fostered critical and creative thinking and allowed for differing views that were supported with evidence. The teacher used many and varied instructional strategies/activities to include direct instruction, applying prior knowledge, and think-pair-share. Students received feedback from the teacher and gave feedback to one another. One area for growth would be the amount of instructional time used to introduce and explain both lessons. Excessive time was used for explanation; thereby, decreasing the instructional time needed for effective delivery. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 3.

Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student Learning Learning Evidence: Evidence: Analysis of classroom assessment; writing rubric; and samples of both summative and formative assessments. Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student Learning Learning Evidence: Evidence: Analysis of classroom assessment; writing rubric; and samples of both summative and formative assessments.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher used formative and summative assessments for diagnostic, formative, and summative purposes. The teacher’s grading practices report final mastery in relationship to content goals and objectives. His assessments were appropriate for the developmental level of the students. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 4. Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher used formative and summative assessments for diagnostic, formative, and summative purposes. The teacher’s grading practices report final mastery in relationship to content goals and objectives. His assessments were appropriate for the developmental level of the students. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 4.

Standard 5: Learning Environment Evidence: Evidence: Classroom rules and positive reinforcement plan; student survey summary; schedule of daily classroom routines; formal observations and walkthroughs. Standard 5: Learning Environment Evidence: Evidence: Classroom rules and positive reinforcement plan; student survey summary; schedule of daily classroom routines; formal observations and walkthroughs.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher created a supportive, caring, and engaging learning environment. There were clear expectations. Students were engaged and could work independently. The classroom was configured to support multiple learning contexts (i.e., whole group, small groups, and individual learning). The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 5. Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher created a supportive, caring, and engaging learning environment. There were clear expectations. Students were engaged and could work independently. The classroom was configured to support multiple learning contexts (i.e., whole group, small groups, and individual learning). The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 5.

Standard 6: Professionalism Evidence: Evidence: Record of participation in extracurricular activities; examples of collaborative work with peers; evidence of communication with parents; copy of classroom newsletters; parent communication log. Standard 6: Professionalism Evidence: Evidence: Record of participation in extracurricular activities; examples of collaborative work with peers; evidence of communication with parents; copy of classroom newsletters; parent communication log.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher is professional in speech, actions, and demeanor. He communicates effectively with students, parents, and colleagues. He is a role model for others, continually participating in professional development, leading a department, and creating division-level curriculum that benefits teachers and students alike. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Exemplary for Standard 6. Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher is professional in speech, actions, and demeanor. He communicates effectively with students, parents, and colleagues. He is a role model for others, continually participating in professional development, leading a department, and creating division-level curriculum that benefits teachers and students alike. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Exemplary for Standard 6.

Standard 7: Student Academic Progress How do we synthesize multiple measures of student academic progress to rate a teacher on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress?

Putting It All together: How to Synthesize Multiple Data Sources for a Rating on Standard 7 Teachers for Whom Student Growth Percentile Data Are Neither Available nor Appropriate 1.Review data from student achievement goal setting. 2.Review data from at least a second source such as a second goal or other measures of student academic progress. 3.Assign a performance level rating based on the preponderance of evidence (using data-informed professional judgment).

Putting It All together: How to Synthesize Multiple Data Sources for a Rating on Standard 7 Teachers for Whom Student Growth Percentile Data Are Available and Appropriate 1.Follow the guidelines related to using student growth percentiles in teacher performance evaluation. According to this guidance, a rating may not always be possible to determine due to missing data. However, a range of appropriate ratings can be determined. 2.Review data from student achievement goal setting and determine a rating based on decision rules established. 3.Review data from student growth percentiles and from student achievement goal setting and make a determination based on the preponderance of evidence (using data-informed professional judgment) as to a final rating on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress.

Decision Rules for Judging Standard 7 Rating on Standard 7 (Student Academic Progress) ExemplaryProficientDeveloping/ Needs Improvement Unacceptable Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) More than 50% of students show high growth and no more than 10% show low growth At least 65% of students show moderate to high growth No more than 50% of students show low growth More than 50% of students show low growth Student Achievement Goal Setting (SAGS) Exceed Goal > 50% Meet Goal > 40% Did Not Meet Goal < 10% Exceed and/or Meet Goal > 80% Did not meet goal < 20% Exceed and/or Meet Goal > 50% Did Not Meet Goal = 21%- 49% Exceed and/or Meet Goal < 50% Did Not Meet Goal > 50% Other Measures Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicate exemplary student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicate on- target student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicate inconsistent student performance Other indicators of student achievement/ progress indicate overall low student performance

Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Evidence: Evidence: Student achievement goal setting document – revised at mid-term and end of year. Standard 7: Student Academic Progress Evidence: Evidence: Student achievement goal setting document – revised at mid-term and end of year.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher’s work resulted in appropriate student academic progress in the target areas. The teacher documents achievement of student academic progress goals and provides evidence of students’ progress throughout the year, monitors learning, and makes the adjustments to instruction as needed to meet achievement goals. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 7. Conclusions: Conclusions: The teacher’s work resulted in appropriate student academic progress in the target areas. The teacher documents achievement of student academic progress goals and provides evidence of students’ progress throughout the year, monitors learning, and makes the adjustments to instruction as needed to meet achievement goals. The preponderance of evidence leads the evaluator to assign a rating of Proficient for Standard 7.

Summative Rating StandardRatingScore 1 - Professional KnowledgeExemplary4 2 - Instructional PlanningProficient3 3 - Instructional DeliveryProficient3 4 - Assessment of and for Student LearningProficient3 5 - Learning EnvironmentProficient3 6 - ProfessionalismExemplary4 7 - Student Academic ProgressProficient 3 X 4 = 12 Total32 (Proficient)

Summative Rating Performance Level Rating Score Range Exemplary35-40 Proficient26-34 Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable10-19