Summative ratings should apply the rating for When applying the summative rating from a each of the seven performance expectations, quantitative perspective, school divisions will with the most significant weight given to need to establish and document, a priori, Standard 7: Student Academic Progress. The for determining final summative ratings after the weighted contribution is calculated. For Guidelines for the Uniform Performance example, standard rounding rules may be Standards and Evaluation Criteria for suggest that school divisions weigh applied (any rating of 2.5 to 3.4 results in a Teachers each of the first six standards equally at 10 summative rating of proficient), possibly in percent, and that Standard 7 account for 40 conjunction with additional criteria. School percent of the evaluation. In determining the divisions also may establish and document final summative rating, the following approach additional criteria to the summative rating. For could be used: example, a school division may decide that no teacher can be given a summative rating of Apply numbers 1 (unacceptable) exemplary if they are rated below proficient on through 4 (exemplary) to the rating any of the seven standards, or that summative scale criteria should differ for teachers at different Exemplary = 4 points on the career ladder. A school division Proficient = 3 may decide that regardless of the sum of Developing/Needs Improvement = 2 weighted contributions, teachers with five or Unacceptable = 1; more years of experience who do not have an Calculate the weighted contribution of exemplary rating on Standard 7 (Student each standard to the summative Academic Progress) may not be given an overall evaluation; and exemplary rating. These decisions, and Add the weighted contribution to documentation of such decisions, must be made achieve the final summative before the are put in place. As well, Guidelines evaluation. it is critical that teachers understand the requirements before the evaluation cycle begins.
Summative ratings should apply the rating for each of the seven performance expectations, with the most significant weight given to Standard 7: Student Academic Progress. The Guidelines for the Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers suggest that school divisions weigh each of the first six standards equally at 10 percent, and that Standard 7 account for 40 percent of the evaluation. In determining the final summative rating, the following approach could be used: Apply numbers 1 (unacceptable) through 4 (exemplary) to the rating scale Exemplary = 4 Proficient = 3 Developing/Needs Improvement = 2 Unacceptable = 1; Calculate the weighted contribution of each standard to the summative evaluation; and Add the weighted contribution to achieve the final summative evaluation. When applying the summative rating from a quantitative perspective, school divisions will need to establish and document, a priori, for determining final summative ratings after the weighted contribution is calculated. For example, standard rounding rules may be applied (any rating of 2.5 to 3.4 results in a summative rating of proficient), possibly in conjunction with additional criteria. School divisions also may establish and document additional criteria to the summative rating. For example, a school division may decide that no teacher can be given a summative rating of exemplary if they are rated below proficient on any of the seven standards, or that summative criteria should differ for teachers at different points on the career ladder. A school division may decide that regardless of the sum of weighted contributions, teachers with five or more years of experience who do not have an exemplary rating on Standard 7 (Student Academic Progress) may not be given an overall exemplary rating. These decisions, and documentation of such decisions, must be made before the Guidelines are put in place. As well, it is critical that teachers understand the requirements before the evaluation cycle begins.
part_5.docx