Evaluation Ratings. 9.10.1 If the “Final Rating” is “Satisfactory,” no other meeting is necessary.
Evaluation Ratings. 10.6.3.1 There are four possible ratings on each objective under the six standards:
10.6.3.2 The level of “Meets Standard” is reached when the majority of the objectives in the standard are rated at “Satisfactory” or above. The majority is defined as:
10.6.3.3 The level of “Does Not Meet Standard” is received when fewer than the majority of the objectives in the standards are rated at “Satisfactory” or above.
10.6.3.4 An overall evaluation rating of “Meets Standards” shall mean that the unit member is performing at the level of “Meets Standard” on at least two (2) of the three (3) selected standards.
Evaluation Ratings a. At the conclusion of the evaluation process the evaluator shall give a rating of Highly Effective/Innovating, Effective/Proficient, Developing/ Professional Support Needed, or Unsatisfactory/Does Not Meet Standard in Standard 5 (Assessment) and each of the two other Standards agreed upon during the Goal Setting Conference. The evaluator may also give ratings in the remaining three Standards, with supporting evidence. In addition, the evaluator will indicate potential direction/focus for subsequent evaluation (see Evaluation Form, Appendix).
b. A teacher who receives an Unsatisfactory rating in any standard shall be re-evaluated annually until he/she achieves a Effective /Proficient rating or is separated from the District pursuant to Education Code and shall enter the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program.
c. A teacher who receives a Developing rating in any two (2) out of the three standards agreed upon in the goal-setting process shall be re- evaluated for the next year and may be entered into the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program. A teacher who receives a Developing rating in any three (3) of the standards shall be re-evaluated for the next year and may be entered into the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program.
d. Teachers referred to the TEAM support program will work with their evaluator and the TEAM Coach to develop and follow a support plan for improvement (TEAM Support Plan, Appendix).
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Standards (4),” “Meets Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Standards (1)” in each of the six standards of the CSTP. It is the intent of the parties to encourage unit members to advance their teaching practice on a continual basis against the standards in the CSTP. The judgments reached by the evaluator are not subject to the grievance procedure. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the standards in the CSTP.
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance of the SOW and the TPOC will assign a rating of either acceptable or unacceptable. The acceptable quality levels are outlined in Enclosure (1).
Evaluation Ratings. 14.7.1 At the conclusion of the evaluation process the evaluator shall give a rating of Effective/Proficient, Developing, Professional Support Needed, or Unsatisfactory/Does Not Meet Standard in Standard 5 (Assessment) and the other Standards agreed upon during the Goal Setting Conference. The evaluator may also give ratings in the remaining Standards, with supporting evidence, if the concern had previously been documented with the teacher under Section 14.5.2 (iii) . In addition, the evaluator will indicate potential direction/focus for subsequent evaluation (see Evaluation Form, Appendix D-13).
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Competency Standards (4),” “Meets Competency Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Competency Standards (1)” in each of the competency areas. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the classified competency areas.
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal and utilize a combined technical/risk rating. The following “Risk” descriptions will be used in the combined technical/risk evaluation ratings:
Evaluation Ratings. In its evaluation of the non-price factors, the Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Quoter’s proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Quoter’s likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The table below shows the ratings the Government will assign in its evaluation of these factors.
Evaluation Ratings. 2.1 Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Demonstrates Expertise,” “Meets Standards”, “Growth Expected,” or “Not Meeting Standards” in each of the six standards of the CSTP. It is the intent of the parties to encourage unit members to advance their teaching practice on a continual basis against the standards in the CSTP. This shall be pursued by using the CSTP Continuum, and by unit members developing their own individual evaluation plans that identify goals and objectives for the improvement of professional practice and student learning to be used during the course of the evaluation process. Unit members are encouraged to conduct a self- assessment to assist in identifying goals and objectives for improving their professional practice and student learning.
2.2 The judgments reached by the evaluator are not subject to the grievance procedure. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the standards in the CSTP and the CSTP Continuum.
