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