Common use of Performance Rating Clause in Contracts

Performance Rating. Describes the Administrator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  Exemplary: the Administrator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district- wide.  Proficient: the Administrator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.  Needs Improvement: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.  Unsatisfactory: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the Administrator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate, or both. U) Performance Standards: Locally developed standards and indicators pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, § 38 and consistent with, and supplemental to 603 CMR 35.00. The parties may agree to limit standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.04.

Performance Rating. Describes the Administrator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  Exemplary: the Administrator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district- district-wide.  Proficient: the Administrator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.  Needs Improvement: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.  Unsatisfactory: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the Administrator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate, or both. U) Performance Standards: Locally developed standards and indicators pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, § 38 and consistent with, and supplemental to 603 CMR 35.00. The parties may agree to limit standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.04.

Performance Rating. Describes the Administrator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  Exemplary: the Administrator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district- district-wide.  Proficient: the Administrator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.  Needs Improvement: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.  Unsatisfactory: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the Administrator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate, or both. U) Performance Standards: Locally developed standards and indicators pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, § 38 and consistent with, and supplemental to 603 CMR 35.00. The parties may agree to limit standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.04. Indicators will be related to the Administrator’s roles and responsibilities.

Performance Rating. Describes the Administrator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  ▪ Exemplary: the Administrator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district- district-wide.  ▪ Proficient: the Administrator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.  ▪ Needs Improvement: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.  ▪ Unsatisfactory: the Administrator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the Administrator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate, or both. U) Performance Standards: Locally developed standards and indicators pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, § 38 and consistent with, and supplemental to 603 CMR 35.00. The parties may agree to limit standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.04. Indicators will be related to the Administrator’s roles and responsibilities.