Summative Evaluation Configuration

Washington Township Public Schools2013-2014

Summative Weightings for Teachers with an SGP

30%SGP

15%SGO

55%Teacher Practice

2013-2014

Student Growth Percentile

Student Growth Objectives

Teacher Practice

Summative Weightings for Teachers without an SGP

15%SGO

85%Teacher Practice

2013-2014

Student Growth Objectives

Teacher Practice

Summative Weightings for Certified, Non-Classroom Staff

100%Teacher Practice

2013-2014

Teacher Practice

4 3 2 1 0

Formative Ratings Used for Each Domain Element

Innovating Applying Developing Beginning Not Using

Instructional Practice:Steps for Calculating the Status Score• Step 1: Rate observed elements at each of the following levels:

Innovating (4), Applying (3), Developing (2), Beginning (1), and Not Using (0)

Instructional Practice:Steps for Calculating the Status Score

• Step 2: Count the number of ratings at each level for each of the four domains

• Step 3: For each domain, determine the percentage of the total each level represents. (Automatically calculated on spreadsheet.)

ExampleStep 2: Count the number of ratings at each level for Domain 1

Innovating Applying Developing Beginning Not Using

STATUS SCOREDirections:1. Using the Domain Forms, count the number of times each scale level has been recorded2. Enter the frequency in the yellow highlighted cells

Frequency D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 - Innovative 12

Level 3 - Applying 34

Level 2 - Developing 15

Level 1 - Beginning 3

Level 0 – Not Using 2

Total Elements Used 66 - - -

Percentages D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 18%

Level 3 52%

Level 2 23%

Level 1 5%

Level 0 3%

100% 0% 0% 0%

ExampleStep 2: Count the number of ratings at each level for Domain 2

Innovating Applying Developing Beginning Not Using

STATUS SCOREDirections:1. Using the Domain Forms, count the number of times each scale level has been recorded2. Enter the frequency in the yellow highlighted cells

Frequency D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 - Innovative 12 7

Level 3 - Applying 34 14

Level 2 - Developing 15 7

Level 1 - Beginning 3 4

Level 0 – Not Using 2 3

Total Elements Used 66 35 - -

Percentages D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 18% 20%

Level 3 52% 40%

Level 2 23% 20%

Level 1 5% 11%

Level 0 3% 9%

100% 100% 0% 0%

ExampleStep 2: Count the number of ratings at each level for Domain 3

Innovating Applying Developing Beginning Not Using

STATUS SCOREDirections:1. Using the Domain Forms, count the number of times each scale level has been recorded2. Enter the frequency in the yellow highlighted cells

Frequency D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 - Innovative 12 7 4

Level 3 - Applying 34 14 8

Level 2 - Developing 15 7 5

Level 1 - Beginning 3 4 3

Level 0 – Not Using 2 3 2

Total Elements Used 66 35 22 -

Percentages D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 18% 20% 18%

Level 3 52% 40% 36%

Level 2 23% 20% 23%

Level 1 5% 11% 14%

Level 0 3% 9% 9%

100% 100% 100% 0%

ExampleStep 2: Count the number of ratings at each level for Domain 4

Innovating Applying Developing Beginning Not Using

STATUS SCOREDirections:1. Using the Domain Forms, count the number of times each scale level has been recorded2. Enter the frequency in the yellow highlighted cells

Frequency D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 - Innovative 12 7 4 3

Level 3 - Applying 34 14 8 6

Level 2 - Developing 15 7 5 4

Level 1 - Beginning 3 4 3 2

Level 0 – Not Using 2 3 2 -

Total Elements Used 66 35 22 15

Percentages D1 D2 D3 D4

Level 4 18% 20% 18% 20%

Level 3 52% 40% 36% 40%

Level 2 23% 20% 23% 27%

Level 1 5% 11% 14% 13%

Level 0 3% 9% 9% 0%

100% 100% 100% 100%

Domain Number of Elements Weight

1 41 68%

2 8 14%

3 5 8%

4 6 10%

Summative Evaluation Configuration for Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model

Domain Number of Elements Weight

1 16 49%2 7 21%3 4 12%4 6 18%

Summative Evaluation Configuration for Non-Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model

Score for a Classroom Teacher

3 3

Applying2.92

14%

?? ?? ?? ??

????????

?? ?? ?? ??

Review Part 1

• Q: True or False: All 4 Domains contribute to the calculation of my Overall Status Score

• A: True. Staff members’ final summative status score will include ratings in all 4 Marzano Domains.

Review Part 1

• Q: All 4 Domains contribute equal weighting in the calculation of my Overall Status Score. T/F?

• A: False, Domains with the more elements have a greater weight. Domain 1 has the greatest weight.

Score for a Classroom Teacher

3 3

Applying2.92

14%

?? ?? ?? ??

????????

?? ?? ?? ??

Summative Evaluation Vocabulary• Status Score – The whole number score received for each

domain.

• Overall Status Score – The final cumulative score after each domain has been weighted and combined.

• Proficiency Scale – The “cut score” (or percentage) that determines the Status Score.

• Category of Teacher – As per Achieve NJ, teachers are divided into three categories based on number of years experience.– Category 1: Non-Tenured, Years 1 & 2– Category 2: Non-Tenured, Years 3 & 4– Category 3: Tenured

Instructional Practice:Steps for Calculating the Status Score•Step 4: For each domain, apply the results from Step 3 to the description for each level on the Proficiency Scale (based on teacher’s experience level/category). This is a domain proficiency score and will be a number between 1 and 4.

• Category I: 1-2 years• Category II: 3-4 years• Category III: tenured

Implementation Year

Category I(Non-Tenured

Teachers in Year 1 or 2)

Category II(Non-Tenured

Teachers in Year 3 or 4)

Category III(Tenured Teachers)

Year 1 55% 55% 55%Year 2 55% 55% 55%Year 3 TBD* TBD* TBD*

*Evaluation of the tool may result in an increase in percentage

Summative Evaluation Configuration for Classroom Teacher Evaluation Model

•Represents the percentage of “Innovative” ratings needed in a Domain to be considered “Innovative” for that Domain in summation.•Represents the percentage of combined “Innovative” and “Applying” ratings needed in a Domain to be considered “Applying” for that Domain in summation.

CI Innovating (4) Applying (3) Developing (2) Beginning(1)

D1:At Least 55% at

Level 4At least 55% at

Level 3 or higher

Less than 55% at Level 3 or higher

and less than 50% at Level 1, 0

Greater than or equal to 50% at

Level 1, 0D2:

D3:

D4:

Proficiency Scale forCategory I TeachersThe Washington Township District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) has decided that we will utilize the same proficiency scale for all categories of teachers for the next 2 years. After 2 years, we will review our evaluation data to determine future scales. The scale for all teachers and non-classroom staff members is below:

Note: Scores are based on the Marzano scale: Innovating (4), Applying (3), Developing (2), Beginning (1) and Not Using (0)

Category 1: Years 1 & 2CI Innovating (4) Applying (3) Developing (2) Beginning(1)

D1: At Least 65% at Level 4 At least 65% at Level 3 or higher

Less than 65% at Level 3 or higher and less

than 50% at Level 1, 0

Greater than or equal to 50% at Level 1, 0D2:

D3:

D4:

Learning Sciences Recommended Scales:

Note: Scores are based on the Marzano scale: Innovating (4), Applying (3), Developing (2), Beginning (1) and Not Using (0)

Category 2: Years 3 & 4CI Innovating (4) Applying (3) Developing (2) Beginning(1)

D1: At Least 75% at Level 4 At least 75% at Level 3 or higher

Less than 75% at Level 3 or higher and less

than 50% at Level 1, 0

Greater than or equal to 50% at Level 1, 0D2:

D3:

D4:

Category 3: TenuredCI Innovating (4) Applying (3) Developing (2) Beginning(1)

D1: At Least 85% at Level 4 At least 85% at Level 3 or higher

Less than 85% at Level 3 or higher and less

than 50% at Level 1, 0

Greater than or equal to 50% at Level 1, 0D2:

D3:

D4:

Review Part 2

• Q: Are you in category I, II, or III?

• A: Non-tenured – year 1 or 2 – Category I Non-tenured – year 3 or 4 – Category II

Tenured – Category III

Review Part 2

• Q: To be “Applying” in a given Domain what combined percentage of “applying” and “innovating” ratings must I earn in that Domain?

• A: 55% combined.

Innovating – 4 Applying – 3 Developing -2 Beginning – 1 Not Using - 0

45

117

3

68.18% At InnovatingMatches the Rule for Innovating (4): “At Least 55% at Innovating- 4 or Higher”Score if Averaged: 2.7

Innovating Score Sample45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Score Count %

Innovating – 4 45 68.18%

Applying - 3 11 16.67%

Developing -2 3 4.55%

Beginning – 1 5 7.58%

Not Using – 0 2 3.03% 1

Innovating – 4 Applying – 3 Developing -2 Beginning – 1 Not Using - 0

10

36

712

69.7% At Applying - 3 or Innovating - 4Matches the Rule for Applying (3): “At Least 55% at Applying - 3 or Higher”Score if Averaged: 2.7

Applying Score Sample45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Score Count %

Innovating – 4 10 15.15%

Applying - 3 36 54.55%

Developing -2 12 18.18%

Beginning – 1 7 10.61%

Not Using – 0 1 1.52% 1

Innovating – 4 Applying – 3 Developing -2 Beginning – 1 Not Using - 0

010

2417

59.09% At Beginning - 1 or Not Using - 0Matches the Rule for Beginning (1): “50% or more at Beginning -1 or Lower”Score if Averaged: 1.4

Beginning Score Sample45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Score Count %

Innovating – 4 0 0.00%

Applying - 3 10 15.15%

Developing -2 17 25.76%

Beginning – 1 24 36.36%

Not Using – 0 15 22.73%

15

Innovating – 4 Applying – 3 Developing -2 Beginning – 1 Not Using - 0

115

2022

24.25% At Applying - 3 or Higher AND 42.42% At Beginning - 1 or LowerMatches the Rule for Developing (2): “Less than 55% at Applying - 3 orHigher and Less than 50% at Beginning -1 or Lower”Score if Averaged: 1.8

Developing Score Sample45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Score Count %

Innovating – 4 1 1.52%

Applying - 3 15 22.73%

Developing -2 22 33.33%

Beginning – 1 20 30.30%

Not Using – 0 8 12.12% 8

Score for a Category I Teacher

3 3

0.39 0.30

Applying2.92

Implement-ation Year

Category I(Non-

Tenured Teachers in Year 1 or 2)

Category II(Non-

Tenured Teachers in Year 3 or 4)

Category III(Tenured Teachers)

Year 1 55% 55% 55%

Year 2 55% 55% 55%

Year 3 TBD* TBD* TBD*

*Evaluation of the tool may result in an increase in percentage

Domain Number of Elements

Weight

1 41 68%2 8 14%3 5 8%4 6 10%

Conversion of 5 point scale to 4 point scaleInnovating Applying Developing Beginning

4.0 – 3.5 3.4 – 2.5 2.4 – 1.5 1.4 – 1.0

14%

0.42 2.04 0.42 0.16 0.30

3

Score for a Non-Classroom Teacher

3 3

1.47 0.63 0.24 0.54

Applying2.88

Implementation Year

Category I(Non-

Tenured Teachers in Year 1 or 2)

Category II(Non-

Tenured Teachers in Year 3 or 4)

Category III

(Tenured Teachers)

Year 1 55% 55% 55%

Year 2 55% 55% 55%

Year 3 TBD* TBD* TBD*

*Evaluation of the tool may result in an increase in percentage

Conversion of 5 point scale to 4 point scaleInnovating Applying Developing Beginning

4.0 – 3.5 3.4 – 2.5 2.4 – 1.5 1.4 – 1.0

Domain Number of Elements

Weight

1 16 49%2 7 21%3 4 12%4 6 18%

Non-Classroom Weights49% 21% 12% 18%

3

Review Part 3

• Q. The calculation of a classroom teacher’s Overall Status Score is the same regardless on tenure/non-tenure status. T/F?

• A: True

Review Part 3

• Q. The calculation of a staff member’s Overall Status Score is basically a weighted average of their ratings in the 4 Marzano Domains? T/F?

• A: True, but remember that the 4 Domain Status Scores themselves reflect the 55% threshold for “Applying” and “Innovating.”

Review Part 3

• Q. The Overall Status Score (2.92 and 2.88 in the examples) is my final AchieveNJ rating. T/F?

• A: False for teachers as SGP and SGO results are not factored in. True for certified, non-classroom faculty.

Achieve NJ Summative Scale

Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective

1.0 1.85 2.65 3.5

Remember:1) This includes SGP and SGO results as applicable.2) This is the number the state uses to determine educator

effectiveness level

Any questions?