Multiple Measures. A. Multiple measures of student growth must be used in the evaluation process and such measures may include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based assessments.
Multiple Measures. Multiple measures of student performance shall be included as part of classroom instruction and the evaluation process. Multiple measures include, but are not limited to, teacher observation, teacher daily records, student performance, tasks on assessments for various content areas, student portfolios, and other indicators utilized by the District or individual teacher for instruction purposes.
Multiple Measures. 60% The follow conversion chart will be used to convert a Rubric Score to a Composite Score: Total Average Rubric Rating Conversion score for composite Ineffective 0-49 1.000 0 1.008 1 1.017 2 1.025 3 1.033 4 1.042 5 1.050 6 1.058 7 1.067 8 1.075 9 1.083 10 1.092 11 1.100 12 1.108 13 1.115 14 1.123 15 1.131 16 1.138 17 1.146 18 1.154 19 1.162 20 1.169 21 1.177 22 1.185 23 1.192 24 1.200 25 1.208 26 1.217 27 1.225 28 1.233 29 1.242 30 1.250 31 1.258 32 1.267 33 1.275 34 1.283 35 1.292 36 1.300 37 1.308 38 1.317 39 1.325 40 1.333 41 1.342 42 1.350 43 1.358 44 1.367 45 1.375 46 1.383 47 1.392 48 1.400 49 Developing 50-56 1.5 50 1.6 50.7 1.7 51.4 1.8 52.1 1.9 52.8 2 53.5 2.1 54.2 2.2 54.9 2.3 55.6 2.4 56.3 Effective 57-58 2.5 57 2.6 57.2 2.7 57.4 2.8 57.6 2.9 57.8 3 58 3.1 58.2 3.2 58.4 3.3 58.6 3.4 58.8 Highly Effective 59-60 3.5 59 3.6 59.3 3.7 59.5 3.8 59.8 3.9 60 4 60.25 (round to 60)
Multiple Measures. 60% of the total score is based on multiple measures aligned with the NYS Teaching Standards. At least a majority (31) of the 60 points shall be based on multiple (at least 2) classroom observations by principal, or other trained administrator, at least one of which must be unannounced. Student Growth and Student Achievement Measures Annual professional performance reviews shall differentiate teacher effectiveness using composite effectiveness scores. Based on such a composite effectiveness score teacher shall be rated as Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective. The State Education Department has set the following scoring ranges for the overall components: Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective
Multiple Measures. Administrators will receive training pertaining to the utilization of the tool so that it is used consistently throughout the district. Teachers are evaluated using multi-measures with options that include walk-throughs, informal and formal observations, narratives through conferencing, goals, lesson planning, utilization of a variety of resources, teaching delivery models including technology, students records, multi-measures of assessment, communication, and staff collaboration.
Multiple Measures. This section of the evaluation is worth 60 points, which are distributed as follows: 60 Point Scale Highly Effective 55-60 Effective 45-54 Developing 39-44 Ineffective 0-38 Level Student Growth on State Assessments or other comparable measures Locally Selected Measures of Student Achievement 60% Other Measures Highly Effective Results are well‐above State average for similar students (or district goals if no State test). Results are well above district or BOCES‐adopted expectations for growth or achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject. Overall performance and results exceed standards. Effective Results meet State Average for similar students (or district goals if no State test). Results meet district or BOCES‐adopted expectations for growth or achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject. Overall performance and results meet standards Developing Results are below State average for similar students (or district goals if no State test). Results are below district or BOCES‐adopted expectations for growth or achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject. Overall performance and results need improvement in order to meet standards Ineffective Results are well‐below State average for similar students (or district goals if no State test). Results are well‐below district or BOCES‐adopted expectations for growth or achievement of student learning standards for grade/subject. Overall performance and results are well below standards. Component Details Definition of Covered Teacher: This APPR Plan will apply only to a teacher and/or professional instructional staff covered under the OCS Faculty Association contract. It does not apply to teaching assistants and Certified Occupational Therapists. Rubric: The NYSUT Teaching Standards Rubric is identified as the rubric for use in the evaluation system. 20% Student Growth Measures (25% with approved Value-Added measure): The NYS Education Department will provide growth scores for students in grades 4-8 in ELA and math. Student growth is defined as the change in individual student achievement between two or more points in time. For those content areas where there is not a student growth measure currently in place, the summative evaluation will be pro-rated from a possible total 80 points. 20% Locally Selected Measures of Achievement (15% with approved Value-Added measure): Each department, team or level will determine the appropriate locally selected measure of achievement. Th...
Multiple Measures. High School GPA for Placement STLCC currently uses multiple measures, including high school GPA, to appropriately place students. This placement, however, is based upon a minimum seven-semester GPA. Where dual enrollment students do not possess a seven-semester GPA, the GPA cannot be used as a stand- alone measure for placement.
Multiple Measures. 30 Multiple measures of student growth must be a a substantial factor in the evaluation process 31 and such measures may include classroom-based, school-based, District-based, and state 32 based tools.
Multiple Measures. 60% The follow conversion chart will be used to convert a Rubric Score to a Composite Score: Total Average Rubric Score Rating Conversion score for composite Ineffective 0-49 1.000 0 1.008 1 1.017 2 1.025 3 1.033 4 1.042 5 1.050 6 1.058 7 1.067 8 1.075 9 1.083 10 1.092 11 1.100 12 1.108 13 1.115 14 1.123 15 1.131 16 1.138 17 1.146 18 1.154 19 1.162 20 1.169 21 1.177 22 1.185 23 1.192 24 1.200 25 1.208 26 1.217 27 1.225 28 1.233 29 1.242 30 1.250 31 1.258 32 1.267 33 1.275 34 1.283 35 1.292 36 1.300 37 1.308 38 1.317 39 1.325 40 1.333 41 1.342 42 1.350 43 1.358 44 1.367 45 1.375 46 1.383 47 1.392 48 1.400 49 Developing 50-56 1.5 50 1.6 50.7 1.7 51.4 1.8 52.1 1.9 52.8 2 53.5 2.1 54.2 2.2 54.9 2.3 55.6 2.4 56.3 Effective 57-58 2.5 57 2.6 57.2 2.7 57.4 2.8 57.6 2.9 57.8 3 58 3.1 58.2 3.2 58.4 3.3 58.6 3.4 58.8 Highly Effective 59-60 3.5 59 3.6 59.3 3.7 59.5 3.8 59.8 3.9 60 4 60.25 (round to 60) APPR Agreement Finalized 9/17/12 APPENDIX E - 1 HF-L Evidence Review Report Name of Teacher: School: Grade Level(s): Subject(s): _ Name of Evaluator: Date: Teacher Reflection: Evaluator Comments: Component Rubric Score 1a 1b-optional 1c-optional 1d-optional 1e 1f 4a 4b-optional 4c 4d 4e 4f-optional Component Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Multiple Measures. Create a comprehensive K-12 program analysis to develop the Holistic Assessment of Content Knowledge, also known as Option 5, as part of the Multiple Measures assessment model to support diverse teacher candidates; and to assess and evaluate the necessary steps to create the conditions for a sustainable, robust, culturally responsive and teacher-centered approach that would qualify candidates to meet the standard teaching licensure requirements in Oregon. At TSPC’s discretion, funds may be used for 0.75 FTE to coordinate the analysis. • Must conduct program development and analysis and coordinate meetings with stakeholders to oversee program activities. • Must include input from the stakeholders who originally helped draft Option 5: Holistic Assessment of Content Knowledge (must at least include a member from the University of Oregon’s Sapsik'ʷałá Teacher Program Advisory Council). • Must consider and include relevant research on Oregon’s current assessment requirements and provide suggestions to ensure equal access to assessment programs. • Must make a determination of whether or not the Holistic Assessment of Content Knowledge is racially affirming; aligned to Oregon statutes and mandated curricula; and encourages the recruitment of diverse teachers. This analysis may involve TSPC conducting and paying for the piloting or testing of other possible models within the Multiple Measures approach.
