Summative Evaluation TEAM – Teacher Candidate: Semester/Year: Grade: School: Evaluator: Residency: I or II (circle one) Please use this rubric at the end of the residency placement to make your overall assessment of the teacher performance. candidate’s Scoring Key: 1=Below Expectations 2=At Expectations 3=Above Expectations PLANNING Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Target (3) Overall Below Expectations At Expectations Above Expectations Rating Instructional goals rarely aligned to state goals were aligned to state goals were always clearly aligned Candidate’s Candidate’s Candidate’s planning content standards. Activities, materials, and content standards. Activities, materials, and to state content standards. Creative activities, assessments to student prior assessments built on prior student learning materials, and assessments built unconnected nontraditional learning or background. Individual and backgrounds. Plans included deep student knowledge. Plans provided needs neglected. differentiation for learners with needs multiple opportunities for students to have students’ but accommodations were not observed. their needs met. Student assignments required students assignments required students assignments required students to Candidate’s Candidate’s Candidate’s information. Assignments to interpret information rather than interpret information at a work to reproduce high of thought. products rarely had students draw conclusions reproduce it. Assignments had students Assignments nearly always required students to and/or offer support for them. draw conclusions. draw conclusions and support them orally or in writing. Quality of Some assessments had clear measurement Most assessments had clear measurement All assessments provided clear measurement assessments criteria. Some formative assessments were criteria. Formative assessments were criteria. Formative and summative assessments utilized used. Assessments used single measures utilized frequently. Assessments measured were used frequently. Assessments measured of performance. performance in more than one way performance in varied and unique ways. INSTRUCTION Knowledge Some objectives and standards were Most objectives and standards were All objectives and standard were consistently of standards communicated. Expectations for student communicated. Most expectations for communicated. All expectations for student & objectives performances were unclear. student performances were clear. performances were clearly communicated to students. objectives and standards were objectives and standards were All objectives and standard were Knowledge Some Most consistently of standards communicated. Expectations for student communicated. Most expectations for communicated. All expectations for student & objectives performances were unclear. student performances were clear. performances were clearly communicated to students. Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Target (3) Overall
Summative Evaluation – TEAM Teacher Candidate: Semester/Year: Grade: School: Evaluator: Residency: I or II (circle one) Please use this rubric at the end of the residency placement to make your overall assessment of the teacher candidate’s performance. Scoring Key: 1=Below Expectations 2=At Expectations 3=Above Expectations PLANNING Criteria Unacceptable (1) Below Expectations Acceptable (2) At Expectations Target (3) Above Expectations Overall Rating Instructional planning Candidate’s goals rarely aligned to state content standards. Activities, materials, and assessments unconnected to student prior learning or background. Individual students’ needs neglected. Candidate’s goals were aligned to state content standards. Activities, materials, and assessments built on prior student learning and backgrounds. Plans included differentiation for learners with needs but accommodations were not observed. Candidate’s goals were always clearly aligned to state content standards. Creative activities, materials, and nontraditional assessments built deep student knowledge. Plans provided multiple opportunities for students to have their needs met. Student work products Candidate’s assignments required students to reproduce information. Assignments rarely had students draw conclusions and/or offer support for them. Candidate’s assignments required students to interpret information rather than reproduce it. Assignments had students draw conclusions. Candidate’s assignments required students to interpret information at a high of thought. Assignments nearly always required students to draw conclusions and support them orally or in writing. Quality of assessments utilized Some assessments had clear measurement criteria. Some formative assessments were used. Assessments used single measures of performance. Most assessments had clear measurement criteria. Formative assessments were utilized frequently. Assessments measured performance in more than one way All assessments provided clear measurement criteria. Formative and summative assessments were used frequently. Assessments measured performance in varied and unique ways. INSTRUCTION Knowledge of standards & objectives Some objectives and standards were communicated. Expectations for student performances were unclear. Most objectives and standards were communicated. Most expectations for student performances were clear. All objectives and standard were consistently communicated. All expectations for student performances were clearly communicated to students. Knowledge of standards & objectives Some objectives and standards were communicated. Expectations for student performances were unclear. Most objectives and standards were communicated. Most expectations for student performances were clear. All objectives and standard were consistently communicated. All expectations for student performances were clearly communicated to students. Criteria Unacceptable (1) Acceptable (2) Target (3) Overall
exhibit_3.4.f.4_ready2teach_residency_ii_handbook.docx