Needs Improvement/Developing. An annual summative evaluation score that yields a ―Needs Improvement or Developing‖ rating as determined by the qualifying range.
Needs Improvement/Developing d. Unsatisfactory.
Needs Improvement/Developing. 1.15 An SLD score of less than zero (0), where all of the scores contained within the 95-percent confidence interval also lie below zero (0). Unsatisfactory Calculating SLD Points for Instructional Personnel with Data from Both Categories A & B For instructional personnel with data from categories A & B, SLD points obtained from both data sources will be combined using a weighted average of the number of current year students included in each calculation. Example: Xxxx is a first-year teacher, teaching one class of Advanced Placement English Language, with 20 students, and four classes of grade 10 English Language Arts, with 80 students. Xxxx received a State VAM (VAM) rating of 2.15 for his grade 10 ELA classes and a District Calculated Student Learning Data Score of 3.15 for his AP English Language Course. His final student learning score is calculated using the following formula: ((VAM SLD Points ∗ number of students in Grade 10 ELA) + ( District SLD Points ∗ number of students in AP ELA)) Which is, for Remy: ((2.15 ∗ 80) + (3.15 ∗ 20)) (172 + 63) 235 100 = 100 = 100 = 2. 35 Midyear Evaluation for Newly Hired Instructional Personnel (Category I Teachers) Category I employees will be given a midyear evaluation using student progress monitoring. The employee will select formative assessments aligned to state standards or benchmarks for the associated course or job position. Employees should be prepared to bring evidence, of one to three examples of data, to the mid year meeting to discuss. If the employee participates in the SAO process, the employee will use one of the indentified data sources in their SAO. SLD points will be calculated by the evaluator using the table “Converting District Calculated SLD Scores into Student Learning Data Points” and will be weighted as 33.33% of the midyear evaluation. The score of the midyear evaluation is independent of the final evaluation score. Students Included in the Calculation State VAM Data The district will follow the FLDOE’s procedures for flagging teacher-level Survey 2-3 matches for courses included on the state VAM course list (Appendix A). The results of this match procedure will be provided to the FLDOE for the calculation of VAM scores using a teacher- level Survey 2-3 match. This matching file will be submitted to DOE to calculate the teacher’s VAM scores according to DOE guidelines. District Calculated Student Learning Data For yearlong courses, students matched to the teacher during Surveys 2 and 3 a...
Needs Improvement/Developing. For first or second year teachers, this rating indicates the the teacher is developing. For tenured teachers, this rating indicates a demonstraton of consistently unacceptable perfomance. (Specific recommendations for improvement in the stated areas needing improvement shall be presented by the supervisor/evaluator.) Proficient – Meets or exceeds standards. (This rating demonstrates consistently acceptable performance.) OVERALL OBSERVATION/ EVALUATION [ ]PROFICIENT (70%+) [ ]NEEDS IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPING (40-69%) [ ]UNSATISFACTORY (<40%) SIGNATURE OF EVALUATEE DATE SIGNATURE OR EVALUATOR DATE DATE EVALUATION DELIVERED TO EVALUATEE . I agree with this evaluation. I disagree with this evaluation and will provide a divergent statement to the evaluator before the last day of the school year. This divergent statement will be attached to my evaluation and retained in my personnel file.
