![Page 1: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FY2012TEACHER EVALUATION SCALES
REVISED 1/31/12
CAO Meeting
School District of Palm Beach County
![Page 2: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Teacher Evaluation Scales
Instructional Practice (IP) Scale
Student Learning Growth (SLG) Scale
Final Rating Scale to combine IP and
SLG
![Page 3: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Marzano - iObservation
INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
InstructionalPractice
(4) Highly Effective
(3) Effective
(2) Needs Improvement
(1) Unsatisfactory
![Page 5: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Instructional Practice
Level3
Level2
Level1
Level0
Level4
![Page 6: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
STUDENT LEARNING GROWTH
Student Learning Growth
(4) Highly Effective(3) Effective(2) Needs Improvement(1) Unsatisfactory
![Page 13: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Student Learning Growth
U(1)
NI(2)
E(3)
HE(4)
2% 13% 72% 13%
Teachers in Florida
![Page 14: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Highly Effective (13%)
Teachers in Florida
![Page 15: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Effective (72%)
Teachers in Florida
![Page 16: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Needs Development (13%)
Teachers in Florida
![Page 17: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Unsatisfactory (2%)
Teachers in Florida
![Page 18: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Combining Instructional Practice and Student Learning Growth
FINAL EVALUATION SCALE
WeightedFinal Eval
Scale
![Page 19: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: FY2012 teacher evaluation scales Revised 1/31/12](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/5681332e550346895d9a29e2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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