The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Education

THE EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADMINISTRATOR RATINGS OF

TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ON THE STATE OF

TEXAS ASSESSMENTS OF ACADEMIC READINESS

A Dissertation in

Curriculum and Instruction

by

Yanira Oliveras

© 2014 Yanira Oliveras

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2014

ii

The dissertation of Yanira Oliveras was reviewed and approved* by the following:

James F. Nolan

Hermanowicz Professor of Education

Dissertation Advisor

Chair of Committee

Bernard Badiali

Associate Professor

Program Coordinator Curriculum and Supervision

Iris Striedieck

Assistant Professor of Education

Edgar Yoder

Professor of Extension Education

Rose Zbiek

Professor in Charge of Graduate Studies

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

Abstract

The quality of education and the teachers’ effectiveness impact students’ lives beyond

classroom performance (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2012) and achievement on standardized

tests. However, some claim there is a prevalent failure to recognize teacher’s effectiveness, to

effectively document poor teacher performance and to provide teachers with the support needed

to improve their pedagogical practices (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009).

Furthermore, in Texas, it is unclear if teacher effectiveness as defined and measured by the

teacher evaluation system, the Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), has any

relationship to the students’ performance on the state of Texas’ reading and mathematics

Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). Teacher effectiveness must be clearly defined

in order to duplicate effective practices and ultimately positively impact student achievement.

Hence, the intent of the study was to begin gathering data to shed some light on the degree to

which administrators’ ratings of teachers effectiveness correlate with student learning as

measured by high-stakes testing. The study focused on the relationship between the classroom

practices, as evaluated by Domains I and II of PDAS, and third, fourth and fifth graders’

performance on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests.

The quantitative, correlational study was conducted in a North Texas Independent School

District using PDAS and STAAR data from the spring of 2013. Three hundred fifty two teacher

evaluations ratings for Domains I and II were paired with their classes’ average scale score on

the third, fourth and fifth grade 2013 reading and mathematics STAAR.

Noteworthy conclusions include: (1) In general administrator ratings of teacher effectiveness

on Domains two and three of the PDAS system have very low correlations with student

performance on STAAR; (2) Successful student engagement in learning that is learner-centered

iv

and has depth and complexity appears to have a significant positive impact on student

achievement on reading and mathematics tests. (3) Self-directed learning, learner-centered

instruction, opportunities for critical thinking and meaningful use of technology as an

instructional tool make a significant contribution in explaining the differences in students’ test

scores.

Suggestions for additional research include qualitative studies where principals identify

highly effective teachers who implement research-based instructional practices and produce

students who achieve above the state’s average on STAAR. Furthermore, a longitudinal study

which looks at student performance over time and on various assessments could aid in the

identification of teachers who produce high levels of student growth while implementing

effective instructional practices. Similarly, additional research on valuable teacher evaluation is

needed.

v

Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………. viii

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… x

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………... xi

Chapter 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………….. 1

Overview of the Problem ………………………………………………. 1

Background of the Study ………………………………………………. 3

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………. 7

Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………… 8

Significance of the Study ………………………………………………. 9

Definitions …………………………………………………………… 10

Limitations …………………………………………………………… 13

Chapter 2 Literature Review ……………………………………………………… 15

High-Stakes Testing ……………………………………………………. 17

History of High-Stakes Testing ………………………………... 17

Opponents of High-Stakes Testing …………………………….. 19

Proponents of High-Stakes Testing ……………………………. 21

Testing and Accountability ……………………………………. 22

History of Texas High-Stakes Testing …………………………. 25

Teacher Evaluations ……………………………………………………. 27

Recurring Concerns Regarding Teacher Evaluations ………….. 29

Teachers Evaluation Tools and Processes ……………………... 33

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness ……………………………… 34

Value-Added Models ………………………………………….. 36

Variety of Factors Impacting Student Learning………………... 37

Teacher Evaluation in Texas …………………………………… 39

Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology ……………………………………. 44

Problem Overview …………………………………………………… 45

Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………… 45

Research Questions …………………………………………………….. 46

Research Design ……………………………………………………… 47

Sample …………………………………………………………………. 47

Data Collection ………………………………………………………… 49

Context …………………………………………………………………. 49

Instruments …………………………………………………………… 52

vi

Table of Contents

Page

Reliability ……………………...………………………………………. 55

Validity …………………………………………………………………. 57

Variability ………………………………………………………………. 59

Data Analysis …………………………………………………………… 60

Researcher’s Perspective………………………………………………... 62

Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Results ……………………………………………… 65

Data Analysis …………………………………………………………… 66

Domain I (Student Engagement) and Reading Test Score

Correlations…………………………………………………... 68

Domain II (Learner Centered Instruction) and Reading Test

Score Correlations……………………………………………… 71

Domain I (Student Engagement) and Mathematics Test Score

Correlations…………………………………………………….. 73

Domain II (Learner Centered Instruction) and Mathematics

Test Score Correlations………………………………………… 76

Chapter 5 Findings, Conclusions and Implications ……………..………………… 80

Summary of the Study…………………………………………………... 80

Findings…………………………………………………………………. 82

Domain I: Student Engagement and Reading Test Scores…… 82

Domain II: Learner Centered Instruction and Reading Test

Scores…………………………………………………………. 83

Domain I: Student Engagement and Mathematics Test Scores. 83

Domain II: Learner Centered Instruction and Mathematics

Test Scores……………………………………………………. 84

PDAS and STAAR Data Analysis…………………………… 84

Conclusions and Implications…………………………………………... 86

Issues Related to Teacher Evaluations…...…………………… 86

Issues Related to Standardized Tests as Measure of Student

Learning……………………………………………………..... 88

Focusing on Effective Instructional Practices………………… 91

Future Research…………………………………………………………. 97

References ……………………………………………………………………………… 102

Appendix A Professional Development and Appraisal System Instrument………….. 115

Appendix B Professional Development and Appraisal System Scoring Guide……… 122

vii

Table of Contents

Page

Appendix C Linear and Quadratic Regression Scatterplots…………………………... 181

Appendix D Statistical Components of the Study …………………………………… 186

Appendix E Raw Data ……………………………………………………………….. 189

viii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Summary of the data included in the analysis……………………………… 67

2 Summary descriptive statistics for student STAAR variables and teacher

domain variables……………………………………………………………. 67

3 Reading STAAR and PDAS Domain I Pearson Correlations …………… 69

4 Regression results for Reading STAAR scores and Domain I Criteria …… 70

5 STAAR Reading Scores Regressed on the Domain I Criteria ……………... 70

6 Reading STAAR and PDAS Domain II Pearson Correlations …………… 72

7 Regression results for Reading STAAR scores and Domain II Criteria …… 72

8 STAAR Reading Scores Regressed on the Domain II Criteria ……………. 73

9 Mathematics STAAR and PDAS Domain I Pearson Correlations…….…… 74

10 Regression results for Mathematics STAAR test scores and Domain I

Criteria ……………………………………………………………………... 75

11 STAAR Mathematics Scores Regressed on the Domain I Criteria ……… 75

12 Mathematics STAAR and Domain II Pearson Correlations ……………….. 76

13 Regression results for Mathematics STAAR test scores and Domain II

Criteria ……………………………………………………………………... 77

14 STAAR Mathematics Scores Regressed on the Domain II Criteria ……….. 78

15 Summary of Data Analysis and Findings ………………………………….. 79

16 Appendix D: PDAS Domain I and II and Reading STAAR Scores ….......... 187

17 Appendix D: PDAS Domain I and II and Mathematics STAAR Scores........ 188

18 Appendix E: Reading STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teachers’

PDAS Domain I Ratings …………………………………………………… 190

19 Appendix E: Reading STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teachers’

PDAS Domain II Ratings ………………………………………………… 197

ix

List of Tables

Table Page

20 Appendix E: Mathematics STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and

Teachers’ PDAS Domain I Ratings ……………………………………… 206

21 Appendix E: Mathematics STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and

Teachers’ PDAS Domain II Ratings ……………………………………… 213

x

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Huitt’s Improving Classroom and School Effectiveness Model…………… 38

2 Appendix C: Domain I and Reading Scatterplot…………………………… 182

3 Appendix C: Domain II and Reading Scatterplot………………...………… 183

4 Appendix C: Domain I and Mathematics Scatterplot……….....…………… 184

5 Appendix C: Domain II and Mathematics Scatterplot……………………… 185

xi

Acknowledgements

My journey to earn a doctorate degree has been unusual and full of unexpected turns but

one thing has been consistent, my husband’s and family’s support. I will forever be grateful for

their encouragement and support throughout this journey.

To mami, papi, Lyma, Lili and Enid, thank you for taking care of our girls so many times

so I could write or take a break with Carlos. Your support is and will always be greatly

appreciated. Los quiero mucho!!

Mama Ada, gracias por toda tu ayuda. Le doy gracias a Dios por haberme dado una

abuela como tú y bendecirme al todavía tenerte en esta vida.

Earning my Ph. D. from Penn State has been a dream come true and I must thank my

friends and colleagues, Wendi, Jill, Adam and Steven, who encouraged me to pursue this dream

when I no longer believed it was possible.

I would also like to thank my friends, the teachers and staff I’m honor to work with, and

my fellow principals for continuously checking up on me and encouraging me to persevere.

Thank you for understanding every time I declined an invitation and for always thinking of me!

To my committee members, especially Dr. Jim Nolan, thank you for being willing to

work with me after all these years. Thank you for your guidance and the countless hours you

spent reading my work. I will always be indebted to you.

And last but not least, to Carlos and my girls, Carolina and Mariana, who I dedicate this

work to. I’m sorry I was busy writing so many hours this last year. Thank you for your love,

patience and support. Carlos Alberto: thanks for taking care of the girls and our home as a single

dad would especially throughout this journey. Without your support, I would have never been

able to complete this dissertation. Thank you for being the best husband, friend, and dad in the

world. I’m truly blessed to have you in my life. ¡Te amo!

xii

Carolina and Mariana: thank you for always stopping by my desk to kiss and hug me. I

love you more than words can say and I couldn’t be prouder of how kind, thoughtful and loving

you both are. Remember to always believe in yourself and know that you are both capable of

achieving whatever YOU decide to pursue. ¡Las amo!

Chapter One

Introduction

Overview of the Problem

Teacher effectiveness and high quality education impact students’ lives beyond the

classroom performance and achievement on standardized tests. Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff

(2012) report that “recent research has shown that high-quality early-childhood education has

large impacts on outcomes such as college completion and adult earnings” (p. 1). By analyzing

data for over 2 million children, from various socio-economic backgrounds with a

disproportionate higher number of children from economically disadvantaged homes than a

sample representative of the national population would have, Chetty et al. (2012) concluded that

highly effective teachers not only produce students with higher scores on tests but they

significantly impact their students’ future. Students working with highly effective teachers “are

more likely to attend college, attend higher-quality colleges, earn more, live in higher

socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods, and save more for retirement. They are also less

likely to have children during their teenage years” (Chetty et al., 2012, p.1). Students who have

highly effective teachers for multiple years outperform their peers; the teacher effectiveness is of

outmost importance as educators work to improve education and student achievement (Tucker &

Stronge, 2005).

Improving the quality of instruction and ultimately increasing student achievement, as

measured by standardized tests, is the purpose of Title 1, Part A under the No Child Left Behind

Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 13). Although the general public tends to focus on

the standardized testing required by NCLB, Congress understood that closing the achievement

gap would not take place without improvement in the quality of teaching (Caffrey & Kuenzi,

2

2010, p. 1). Although highly qualified is not the same as highly effective teachers, those who

produce high levels of student growth (Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011), “The No Child Left

behind Act requires states to ensure that Title I schools provide instruction by highly qualified

instructional staff” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 19). States were required to develop

plans to ensure all teachers of core subjects were considered highly qualified by the end of the

2005-2006 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

Highly effective teachers positively impact student achievement on standardized tests

(Chetty et al., 2012, p.4); however, some claim that public schools across the nation, fail to

recognize “teacher’s effectiveness – the most important fact for school improving student

achievement” (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009, p. 3). Some claim “that

administrators fail to document poor performance adequately and refuse to provide struggling

teachers with sufficient support” (Weisberg et al., 2009, p. 2). Recognizing and addressing

teacher effectiveness will not only lead to higher student achievement but according to

researchers, it could improve the chances of a better future for public schools’ students.

Once teacher effectiveness is defined and addressed, teachers and administrators must

also address what the U.S. Congressed recognized by identifying economically disadvantaged

students as a subgroup.

When the US Congress determined that economically disadvantaged students

would be a subgroup whose test scores would contribute to a school’s “adequate

yearly progress” (No Child Left Behind, 2002), they made a claim about reality.

They claimed that poor children are members of a legitimate category and that

those children share features that are related to their experience in school. (Bomer,

Dworin, May & Semingson, 2008, p. 2498)

In a state where over three million students, 60.4% of Texas’ pre-kindergarten through

twelve grade students are economically disadvantaged, (Texas Education Agency, 2012a),

3

teacher effectiveness in meeting these students needs while preparing for the State of Texas

Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) must be defined.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between

teachers’ effectiveness according to the Texas’ Professional Development and Appraisal System

(PDAS) Domains I and II and their students’ achievement on the Texas reading and mathematics

STAAR tests. PDAS Domain I focuses on determining teachers' effectiveness as it relates to

students constant, successful engagement “in learning that has great depth and complexity”

(Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 1) while Domain II focuses on teachers’ ability to

provide learner-centered, research-based instruction that promote critical thinking and problem

solving (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, 8).

Background of the Study

Chetty et al. (2012) have drawn the conclusion that “finding policies to raise the quality

of teaching is likely to yield substantial economic and social benefits” (p. 5). Hence recognizing

the need to hold teachers accountable for the quality education they provide students is only the

beginning of the process to improve student achievement, the quality of education and ultimately

affecting students’ future quality of life.

Teacher effectiveness must be clearly defined in order to duplicate effective practices and

ultimately positively impact student achievement, especially achievement of historically

underperforming students, children from low-income families. NCLB set guidelines for student

assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 20) and requirements for highly qualified

teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 13) while allowing states to develop student

assessments and define how to measure teacher effectiveness. In Texas, since 2011-2012,

students’ achievement is measured by the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness

4

(STAAR) program as a result of House Bill 3 enacted in the 81st Texas Legislature (Texas

Education Agency, 2010b, p. 7). House Bill 3 changed Texas “assessments in a manner that

allows the measurement of performance across grades culminating in college readiness

performance standards in Algebra II and English III” (Texas Education Agency, 2010b, p. 7). At

the elementary level, the STAAR program includes the NCLB required reading and mathematics

assessment in third through fifth grade and science assessment in fifth grade (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002, p. 20), in addition to a writing test in fourth grade.

While the assessment program was redesigned and administered for the first time in

2011-2012, teacher effectiveness continues to be measured through the 1995 Texas teacher

appraisal system. In 2010-2011, 86% of Texas Local Education Agencies used PDAS as the

appraisal system to evaluate teacher performance (Texas Education Agency, 2011). Teachers are

evaluated through classroom observations using the criteria set in the PDAS established by the

74th

Texas Legislature in 1995 (Texas Education Agency, 2010a). Teacher ratings are based on a

minimum of one 45-minute observation, walk-through observations throughout the school year

and the Teacher Self-Report (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2013). PDAS criteria define

teacher’s effectiveness and student engagement in the learning process. The system requires

administrators to use observable data and other documented sources to rate the five classroom

centered domains, Domain I through V, (Texas Education Agency, 2005a), and teacher self-

reported information, observable as well as documented sources for the last three domains,

Professional Development, Compliances with Policies and Improvement of Academic

Performance for all student on the Campus (Texas Education Agency, 2005a).

Domain I and II focus on the instructional model and practices being implemented in the

classroom. According to the PDAS Scoring Guide, Domain I requires teachers to provide

5

instructional activities that result in “active, successful student participation in the learning

process” (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 1). The five evaluation criteria within

Domain I are “students are actively engaged in learning” (Region 13 Education Service Center,

2004, p. 1), “students are successful in learning” (p. 2), “student behaviors indicate learning is at

a high cognitive level (e.g., critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, etc)” (p. 3),

“students are self-directed/self-initiated as appropriate to the lesson objectives” (p. 4), and

“students connecting learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline, and with

the other disciplines” (p. 5). The Scoring Guide outlines nine evaluation criteria for Domain II

(Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004). Domain II overarching focus is learner-centered

instruction. The nine evaluation criteria outline expectations for “objectives and goals include

basic knowledge/skills and central themes/concepts of the discipline” (Region 13 Education

Service Center, 2004, p. 6), “instructional content is learner-centered (e.g., related to the interests

and varied characteristics of students)” (p. 7), “instructional strategies promote critical thinking

and problem solving” (p. 8), “instructional strategies include motivational techniques to

successfully and actively engage students in the learning process” (p. 9), “instructional strategies

are aligned with the objectives, activities, student characteristics, prior learning, and work and

life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines” (p. 10), “the teacher varies

activities appropriately and maintains appropriate pacing and sequencing of instruction” (p. 12),

“the teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content” (p. 13), “the teacher

uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students” (p. 14), and “the

teacher makes appropriate and effective use of available technology as a part of the instructional

process” (p. 15).

6

Teachers are evaluated on each evaluation criterion using PDAS’ four categories, which

include: exceeds expectations with a value of five points, proficient valued at three points, below

expectations with a value of one point and unsatisfactory at zero points (Texas Education

Agency, 2005b). The points earned for each criterion are added for a total rating for each

domain; the overall domain rating matches the criteria categories. Given that each domain has a

different number of evaluation criteria; PDAS has provided a range of scores for each category.

For Domain I, teachers must have 20 to 25 points to be rated as exceeds expectations, 12 to 19

points to be considered proficient, 4 to 11 to be rated as below expectations and 0 to 3 for

unsatisfactory performance (Texas Education Agency, 2005b). The provided ranges for Domain

II are 37 to 45 points to be within the exceeds expectations category, 23 to 36 points to be rated

as proficient, 7 to 22 for performance below expectations and 0 to 6 points for unsatisfactory

(Texas Education Agency, 2005b). In addition, within the PDAS Scoring Guide (Region 13

Education Service Center, 2004), administrators are provided with detailed explanation of what

to look for in the classrooms in order to rate teachers within each evaluation criterion.

According to PDAS, teachers that exceed expectations facilitate learning in which

“students are consistently engaged and successful in learning that has great depth and

complexity” (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p.1) while improving the academic

performance of all students on the campus (Region 13 Education Center, 2004). The problem

teachers face on a daily basis is the requirement to implement research-based, rigorous, student-

centered instructional practices that meet the requirements as set by PDAS while preparing

students for a standardized test. Furthermore, while working to close the achievement gap,

teachers working in schools that have high number of low income students frequently voluntarily

address the wide range of needs of their economically disadvantaged students, who often live in

7

ill maintained housing, lack clothes that are in good condition and often have no access to

nutritious food (Bomer et al., 2008). Sanders (2008) claims that:

While the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 attempts to

"ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a

high-quality education" the consequences of the statute may instead deny access to

adequate education for a large portion of the population. Its implementation,

primarily through its system of rewards and punishments, may actually inhibit

educational opportunities for the very population it was designed to serve – low

income students (p 1).

While NCLB strongly emphasizes the use of “effective instructional methods and

strategies based on scientifically based research” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 20),

“many teachers find that the steady stream of standardized tests is taking too much time away

from classroom instruction, undermining their efforts to provide a developmentally appropriate

program that meets the needs of all students and truly helps them to learn” (Odland, 2007, p. 98-

B).

Statement of the Problem

Although the U.S. Congress and the Texas Education Agency have set clear expectations

for student achievement as measured by the state assessments, the Texas’ STAAR, and teacher

effectiveness as measured by the Texas teacher appraisal system, PDAS, respectively, it is

unclear if the PDAS’ Classroom Centered Domains, particularly Domain I and II, correlate to the

students’ performance on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. If a teacher is considered

proficient or highly effective, exceeds expectations as defined by PDAS, his/her performance

should be a predictor of students’ performance on the state tests. However, it is unclear if that is

the case. When teachers who serve high numbers of economically disadvantaged students are

rated as highly effective, their students’ performance on the state assessments should correlate.

The instructional plans implemented by highly effective teachers who work with students that

8

are highly successful on the state’s assessments should be outlined and shared with other

teachers to ensure all teachers serving diverse student populations have the tools and

understanding to meet the requirements as set by PDAS while preparing all students, including

low-income students for the rigorous tests.

Purpose of the Study

Given that the goal of PDAS is “to improve student performance through the

professional development of teachers” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 6), the purpose of

this study was to determine if a correlation exists between teachers’ effectiveness according to

PDAS Domains I and II and their students’ achievement on the reading and mathematics

STAAR tests. The study focused on the relationship between the classroom activities, as

evaluated by PDAS, and third, fourth and fifth graders’ performance on the reading and

mathematics STAAR tests. If a teacher is rated as exceeds expectations or proficient on PDAS,

one should be able to assume that those teachers’ students will perform at or above the state

average on the STAAR tests.

In order to determine if the instructional practices considered effective under PDAS are

positively impacting achievement of students on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests, the

following questions and sub-questions were addressed:

1. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to

explaining differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

2. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

9

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to

explaining differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

3. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to

explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

4. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to

explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

Significance of the Study

The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’

effectiveness, as defined by PDAS’ Domain I and II, and the performance of third, fourth and

fifth grade students on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. If the study shows that a

correlation exists, campus administrators and teachers will have an insight into effective

instructional practices that highly successful teachers, as defined by PDAS and their students’

achievement on STAAR, use in their classrooms to meet the needs of all students while

successfully preparing them for the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. Given that 81% of

the students in the school district where the study was conducted and 60.4% of Texas students

are economically disadvantaged instructional practices gleaned from this study could potentially

impact many students’ education across the State of Texas.

10

Definitions

The following are terms and definitions that will be used throughout the study and will

be looked into in more depth in the next chapter.

Administrator. The term administrator will be used interchangeably with appraiser.

An administrator is a campus employee, principal or assistant principal, who has completed the

required graduate education and training to be certified as a Principal in the State of Texas and

has been trained on the Texas’ Professional Development and Appraisal System to evaluate

teachers.

Economically disadvantaged students. Used interchangeably with poor students or low-

income students. Students who have been labeled by the school district following federal

guidelines as students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch. According to the U. S.

Department of Education, “eligibility for free or reduced-price meals is determined by household

size and income or through categorical eligibility, which serves as a proxy for income data. The

U. S. Secretary of Agriculture sets the income eligibility levels annually” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012, p. 2) For Example, “for 2013 school year a child in a household of four persons

would be eligible for free lunch if the family’s annual income is no more than $29,965, and for

reduced-price lunch if the family’s income does not exceed $42,643” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012, p. 2).

Evaluation. The process followed by campus administrators to determine the level of

effectiveness of classroom teachers according to the Texas’ Professional Development and

Appraisal System.

Highly effective teachers. For the purpose of this study, highly effective teachers will

be those who have been rated as proficient or exceeds expectations on PDAS’ Domain I and II

11

and their students’ performance on the reading or mathematics STAAR test is above the state’s

average.

Highly qualified teachers. As defined by NCLB, highly qualified teachers “have state

certification (which may be alternative state certification), hold a bachelor’s degree, and have

demonstrated subject area competency” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 19).

Learner-Centered Instruction. As defined by PDAS, instructional content that relates to

the students’ varied characteristics and interests. Instructional practices that allow students to

“consistently make connections between learning and their unique needs, interests and/or

characteristics” (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 7).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a landmark in

education reform designed to improve student achievement and change the culture of America’s

schools” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 9). When President Bush signed NCLB into

law in 2002, the U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige said, “With this new law, we’ll make

sure we’re providing all of our children with access to a high-quality education” (U.S.

Department of Education, 2002, p. 9).

Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS). The teacher appraisal system

used at the school district where the study was conducted. PDAS was developed and

implemented after:

Senate Bill 1, passed in 1995, required the Commissioner of Education to develop

a recommended appraisal system for Texas teachers with input from teachers and

other professionals. In addition to specifying general characteristics of an appraisal

system, Texas Education Code (TEC) §21.351 requires that criteria for the

commissioner’s recommended system include: (1) teachers' implementation of

discipline management procedures; and (2) the performance of teachers' students.

(Texas Education Agency, 2005a, p. 17)

12

Professional Development and Appraisal System Domains. The Texas teacher appraisal

system is divided into eight PDAS domains. Teachers must be rated on the eight domains. The

first five domains are classroom centered domains. The eight domains are: Domain I: Active,

Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process, Domain II: Learner-Centered

Instruction, Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress, Domain IV: Management

of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time and Materials, Domain V: Professional

Communication, Domain VI: Professional Development, Domain VII: Compliance with Policies,

Operating Procedures and Requirements, Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance

of all Students on the Campus (Texas Education Agency, 2005a, 2005b). The focus of this study

was the overall ratings for Domains I and II.

Professional Development and Appraisal System Evaluation Criteria. PDAS includes

fifty-one evaluation criteria within the eight domains (Texas Education Agency, 2005a, 2005b).

The PDAS Scoring Guide provides guidelines for each criteria under each of the four categories

or ratings: exceeds expectations, proficient, below expectations and unsatisfactory. The rating in

each criterion is combined for an overall domain rating with the same categories as each

criterion.

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). Texas assessment

program that began in the 2011-2012 school year as mandated by Texas House Bill 3. For the

purpose of this study, STAAR assessments were limited to the third, fourth and fifth grade

reading and mathematics assessments. Although fifth grade students, per the Texas’ Student

Success Initiative, have three opportunity to take the reading and mathematics assessments to

meet promotion requirements, only the first administration results will be included in the data

analysis given that third and fourth graders only have one opportunity to take the tests.

13

Teachers. For the purpose of this study, teachers are third, fourth and fifth grade

teachers responsible for teaching reading and/or mathematics to students who take the STAAR

tests.

Walk-Through Observation. Shorter observations, anywhere from three to fifteen

minutes, conducted by administrators that when documented and shared with the observed

teacher are used as observable data for teachers’ summative PDAS evaluations.

Limitations

When analyzing the data and considering the finding, the following limitations must be

considered.

1. The STAAR tests are the most rigorous assessment program the State of Texas has

administered. The tests have only been administered two school years and released tests

were made available for public view after the spring 2013 administration.

2. PDAS requires a minimum of one 45 minute observation. Some campus administrators

choose to base summative evaluations on one 45-minute observation, while others spend

countless hours in the classrooms throughout the year and use all documented walk through

observations to complete the summative evaluation.

3. PDAS evaluations are completed by campus administrators who are trained by the Regional

Center, and considered approved appraisers, upon completing Principal certification. After

the original PDAS training, campus administrators conduct teacher appraisals with no

oversight from the State which could result in teachers receiving ratings of proficient or

exceeds expectations with no correlation to the Scoring Guide or their student performance.

In some instances, some administrators might use evaluations as a way to reward teachers for

14

their work in an era of state testing when job-related stress is high, and not as a true

representation of their job performance.

4. Although the PDAS Scoring Guide provides clear guidelines for rating each criterion, human

bias might not be ruled out in all cases.

5. The analysis focused on teacher impact on class mean scores, not individual students. Thus,

teachers may have had a more significant impact, positive or negative, on individual students

than is expressed in the mean scores.

Summary

In an effort to shed some light into the effective practices being implemented in Texas

classrooms, that not only prepare students for a test, but also engage students in learning that is

challenging and relevant, the study sought to determine if there is a correlation between teachers’

ratings on their evaluations and their students’ scores on the STAAR reading and mathematics

tests.

The next four chapters will present the design, results and implications of the study.

Chapter Two presents a review of teacher evaluation and high-stakes testing literature. Chapter

Three outlines the research design and methodology used to explore the research questions while

Chapter Four presents the data analysis and statistical results of the study. Finally, Chapter Five

outlines the conclusions, implications and presents recommendations for further studies.

15

Chapter Two

Literature Review

This chapter will begin with an examination of the literature on high stakes testing

including a history of high stakes testing in Texas, the context for the present study. The focus

of the chapter then turns to questions surrounding the process of teacher evaluation. The chapter

includes a brief history of teacher evaluations with a strong focus on concerns regarding

administrator assessment of teacher effectiveness and concerns about teacher evaluation

processes and tools. In addition, the chapter reviews one of the most recent trends in teacher

evaluation, the use of student test scores as an indicator of teacher effectiveness including the use

of value added models. Finally, the chapter concludes with a brief description of the current

teacher evaluation system in Texas and a rationale for the present study.

Introduction

Campus principals are often considered the teachers’ supervisors; however, in the

majority of cases campus administrators act as evaluators rather than supervisors. Campus

administrators ultimately have two different roles; evaluating and supervising teachers. It is

important “to acknowledge a crucial issue – that measuring teachers and developing teachers are

different purposes with different implications” (Marzano, 2012, p. 16). Teacher evaluations are

processes generally designed and used with the purpose of measuring and making judgments

regarding the quality of instruction and the teacher’s competence. Evaluations focus on assessing

the teaching process (Marshall, 2013, p. 38) while supervision focuses on the improvement of

the teachers’ skills with the purpose of eventually improving student achievement (Marzano,

Frontier & Livingston, 2011, p. 2). Teacher evaluations are a bureaucratic process meant to

16

protect the children’s right while on the other hand, supervision is not meant to be a bureaucratic

process but rather a tool to improve teacher’s pedagogical competence driven by the teachers’

desire to improve student learning (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). Once deficiencies are identified

through an evaluation process, teachers should be given the instructional support through a

supervision model that facilitates teachers’ professional development, potentially leading to

improved teacher practice and greater student learning.

In recent years, as a result of Race to the Top grants, teacher evaluations have been

changing at an unparalleled rate (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Similarly there has been an

increased attention to standardized testing and the link between student success and teacher

quality. Teacher evaluations have been increasingly linked to student achievement (Sartain,

Stoelinga, & Krone, 2010, p. 1). Concerns regarding the use of teacher evaluations are not new

phenomena and cannot purely be attributed to the latest movement to link students’ test scores to

teacher evaluations. Administrators and teachers value meaningful and accurate teacher

evaluations; however, concerns regarding the way evaluations are handled have persisted over

the last 35 years (Danielson & McGreal, 2000. p 15). There is a “disconnect between teacher

evaluation systems and actual teacher performance” (Weisberg et al., 2009, p. 10) which is

evident in the existing gap between the teacher evaluation ratings and their students’

performance (Weisberg et al., 2009).

Weisberg et al. (2009) studied thousands of teachers whose evaluations were

predominantly positive; however, the percentage of students that failed to meet basic standards

was consistently high. Teacher evaluations have been the center of many debates over the years,

similarly the high-stake standardized tests that are used to illustrate the gap between teacher

performance and student achievement have been studied extensively. High-stakes testing has

17

increased since the implementation of No Child Left Behind which has resulted in debates

regarding the use of high-stakes testing in classrooms across the United States. The purpose of

this study was to look at the empirical relationship between these two controversial measures of

success.

High-Stakes Testing

Regardless of one’s beliefs about teacher evaluations and whether or not student

achievement on high stakes testing should be a part of the teacher evaluations, curriculum

designers and other education stakeholders would agree that assessments are vital in the

education process. Since well-designed instruction alone does not guarantee its intended effect,

assessments can provide educators key information about the effectiveness of instruction (Denvir

& Brown as cited in William, 2010). Yet, in the present education system the assessment

process goes beyond the teacher-created, classroom assessments designed to guide instruction.

Assessments in today’s educational system are often equated to state-mandated and state-

developed high-stakes testing. Although the benefits of high-stakes testing are thus far unclear

(Marchant, 2004), high-stakes testing continues to gain popularity. High-stakes testing has been

the center of countless educational debates since the authorization of the 2001 No Child Left

Behind Act (Haertel and Herman cited in William, 2010).

History of High-Stakes Testing

Though standardized testing in the United States has gained vast attention in the last

twelve years, high-stakes testing goes back to the 19th

century (Firestone, Schorr and Monfils,

2004). In 1861, the Royal Commission recommended that the public funds distribution be

dependent on the condition of the schools facilities, student attendance, and student achievement

18

as measured by oral examinations of students in schools that received public funds (Royal

Commission cited in William, 2010). In the United States, the first standardized test was

administered in Massachusetts in the mid-1800 with the intent to classify students by ability and

determine the effectiveness of the Massachusetts’ school system (Parkay, Hass and Anctil,

2010).

High-stakes tests are not a modern era phenomenon; however, the beginning of the

modern state testing in the United States, as known today, is dated to 1971 with the passing of

the Florida’s Education Accountability Act (Firestone et al., 2004). The testing movement spread

reasonably fast and by 1982, 36 states had some sort of mandated testing program. Eighteen

years later, most states required students to take at least one standardized, high-stakes test

(Editorial Projects in Education as cited in Firestone et al., 2004).

The growth in state testing was promoted by various factors including political, financial

and concerns about the effectiveness of the educational system (Firestone et al., 2004, p. 4-5).

The concerns regarding the adequacy of educational performance and the movement for testing

and accountability, mainly originated outside of the education field (Firestone et al., 2004, p. 7),

triggered policymakers to use high-stakes tests in their endeavor to determine which schools and

districts were effectively meeting the goals of the education system and which were not (Haertel

and Herman as cited in William, 2010, p. 109). “This movement is in part a reaction to the

remarkable sameness of American teaching in schools over the last hundred or more years”

(Firestone et al., 2004, p. 7).

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, with unprecedented power, has been considered a progression of earlier efforts to

utilize high-stakes testing to increase educational performance (William, 2010). One of the core

19

beliefs of NCLB developers was the assumption that the use of high-stakes testing would

measure the effectiveness of teaching and increase student performance (William, 2010).

Policymakers assumed that the outcome of the educational system could be measured by the tests

based on student performance given the supposition that student results could be largely

attributed to the quality of the education students received at the schools (William, 2010).

Conversely, high-stake testing systems have not produced the expected outcomes (Firestone et

al., 2004). Educators and others have debated and extensively criticized the effects of the Texas’

testing system has had in the cognitive level of instructional practices and student achievement

(Firestone et al., 2004; Haney, 2000). Researchers have suggested that the quality of education

has weakened after the implementation of higher standards, high-stakes testing and sanctions

linked to state testing (Firestone et al., 2004; Gordon & Reese as cited in Haney, 2000).

McCollum (2011) suggests that the education system, driven by a demand for easily accessible

numbers, is at risk by utilizing tests to determine the value of the education with no evidence that

support such use of test results.

Opponents of High-Stakes Testing

In spite of the lack of research supporting the use of tests to determine the effectiveness

of the education system, “high-stakes testing has become the reform of choice for U.S. public

schools” (Jones, Jones and Hargrove, 2003, p. 1). Policymakers, politicians, parents and the

public expect test scores to provide a picture of the quality of schools and the level of student

achievement (Jones et al., 2003). The expectations and the continuous pressure to deliver high

test scores as an indication of effectiveness seemed to have changed instructional practices. The

increasing pressure teachers feel to improve student achievement as measured by high-stakes

testing has resulted in a growing trend in classrooms around the nation; teachers feel compelled

20

to teach to the test. Teaching to the test implies that teachers are altering instructional practices

with the sole purpose of helping students do well on the tests, with no consideration to authentic

learning of the subject matter (Firestone et al., 2004; McCollum, 2011). Teaching to the test

often results in the abandonment of high-yield instructional strategies to focus on the narrow

scope of the curriculum that is tested (Marchant, 2004). Firestone et al. (2004) have labeled this

practice as decontextualized test preparation; the planning and teaching of lessons that are

loosely related to the curriculum and mainly focused on the test (Firestone et al., 2004).

Researchers advise about the danger of using high-stakes testing as a measure of school

effectiveness. According to Rapple as cited in William (2010):

True accountability in education should not be facilely linked to mechanical

examination results, for there is a very distinct danger that the pedagogical

methods employed to attain those results will themselves be mechanical and the

education of children will be so much the worse. (p. 108)

As a result of the manipulation of instructional practices and the potential for the use of

mechanical instructional methods, drawing conclusions about the quality of the education based

on standardized test scores is problematic (William, 2010). Not only are instructional practices

used to achieve the results uncertain, the process of administering standardized tests has minimal

impact on student learning (Marchant, 2004). Standardized tests provide no feedback hence “the

exercise is one of demonstrating knowledge and skills rather than learning” (Marchant, 2004, p.

3). Despite the continuous national movement to value high-stakes testing as a measure of

schools’ effectiveness, teachers across the U.S. continue to report that they doubt the states’

testing programs would have a positive impact on the quality of education taking place in our

schools (Jones, Egley, and Hogan as cited in Jones et al. 2003; Kaplan and Owings as cited in

Jones et al., 2003).

21

Proponents of High-Stakes Testing

While many teachers are unconvinced about the benefits of the testing movement, and

those opposed to the movement of teaching to the test believe that it artificially increases tests

scores due to the fact that teachers are held accountable for teaching the content tested but are

not held accountable for being effective teachers (Haney, 2000; Greene, Winters, & Forster,

2003), the proponents of high-stakes testing believe the movement has positively impacted

instructional practices. Advocates propose that the purpose of high-stakes testing is “to draw

inferences about the extent to which variations in student achievement is associated with

variations in the quality of schooling” (William, 2010, p. 111). The differences in the quality of

education provided by each school will correlate to test scores (William, 2010).

Supporters of high-stakes testing believe that the required tests have challenged “the

status quo and raised the instructional bar” (Firestone et al., 2004, p. 2). Teachers have been

required to change instruction to ensure students are ready for more cognitively challenging tests

(Firestone et al., 2004). Some have argued that teachers have not had sufficient pressure to

improve instruction prior to high-stakes testing; for those teachers, “the added stress might have

been the positive pressure that they needed to reassess their practices” (Jones et al., 2003, p.

139). Similarly, motivation theories suggest that some teachers and students were not adequately

challenged; “positive, productive, challenge-based stress” will have a positive impact on the

teachers’ performance (Reeve as cited in Jones et al., 2003, p. 140) and ultimately in student

achievement. Correspondingly, Firestone et al. (2004) suggested that:

A more optimistic view of teaching to the test starts from the idea that American

education is not sufficiently challenging for any of our students. The curriculum

often emphasizes basic facts and skills, and new topics more relevant to the 21st

century are sometimes not introduced until later on, if at all. (p. 2)

22

Based on their three-year study of New Jersey’s state testing, Firestone et al. (2004) conclude

that changing the state tests alone will not bring on the needed change; however, open-ended

questions on states tests could potentially promote cognitively challenging instruction in

preparation for the tests (Firestone et al., 2004). At the heart of the reformers who have proposed

and support high-stakes testing is the ideal that teaching will be positively impacted by high-

stakes tests and result in intellectually demanding instruction (Firestone et al., 2004).

Testing and Accountability

While test proponents hope the result of the high-stakes testing movement is

improvement in the quality of education, Stecher and Barron (as cited in Firestone et al., 2004)

suggest that teachers might positively impact students’ scores by making adjustments without

truly changing their teaching approaches. Regardless of which of the high-stakes testing

argument one supports, the movement of the last twelve years and the extensive research that has

followed the authorization of NCLB have shown that “testing has been implemented as a way to

measure student achievement and school quality and as a mechanism to hold students and

educators accountable” (Jones et al., 2003, p. 1). Although the debates over high-stakes testing

as a measure of teacher effectiveness seemed to have recently significantly increased, “there is

nothing new in the idea that results of simple testing procedures could be used to hold students

and their teachers to account” (William, 2010, p. 108).

Proponents of the use of high-stakes testing as part of the accountability systems hope

that high-stakes testing will “encourage teachers to focus on meaningful achievement areas and

improve those areas in their students” (Marchant, 2004, p. 4). “The key assumption of

accountability testing is that differences in the achievement of students on standardized tests

should be primarily attributable to differences in the quality of education received by students”

23

(William, 2010, p. 108) The scores of a teacher’s students illustrate the quality of teaching and

learning taking place in that classroom and can provide a foundation for accountability

(Marchant, 2004). William (2010) stated that:

The logic of accountability testing is deceptively simple. Students attending higher

quality schools will (by definition) have higher achievement than those attending

lower quality schools, so that differences in the quality of schooling will result in

systematic differences in achievement between schools. Provided the

accountability tests assess school achievement, then higher test scores will indicate

higher quality schooling. However, what is required for school accountability is

the converse: that higher student scores are indicative of higher quality schooling.

(p. 110)

Not only are student scores used as indicator of the quality of schooling, test results are

being used to mechanically compare teachers, schools and school districts; these comparisons are

high-stakes and may involve rewards and penalties (Jones et al., 2003) for teachers, schools and

school districts. According to William (2010), in the current accountability system, as in

previous systems,

The stakes are much greater for teachers, schools, and districts than they are for

individual students. It focuses on the performance of successive cohorts of

students, rather than individual students, so that in each school, what matters is that

the proportion of each student in each grade (from third to eighth grade) achieving

proficiency (however it is defined by the state). (p. 110)

The use of high-stakes tests results for accountability has the distinctive characteristics that the

stakes are greater for teachers than for students (William, 2010). Yet high-stake for teachers and

low for students is a U.S. phenomenon; in other countries where high-stakes testing are used for

accountability, the stakes are high for both students and teachers and in some cases, stakes are

low for teachers and high for students (William, 2010).

Critics of the current accountability systems disapprove of the practice of using one test

as the measure of what students have learned. “One test cannot be validly used to determine

whether or not students graduate, are promoted, or have access to higher levels of learning”

24

(Jones et al., 2003, p. 158). Some similarly argue that the one test cannot validly demonstrate the

effectiveness of a teacher. Koretz (2008) argue that “educational achievement tests are in many

ways analogous to this Zogby poll in that they are a proxy for a better and more comprehensive

measure that we cannot obtain” (p. 19).

The purpose of evaluation in education is to determine “the extent to which students have

acquired the knowledge and skills that comprise the goals and outcomes of a curriculum”

(Parkay et al., 2010, p. 358). The accountability systems have redefined the goals of student

evaluations. English and Steffy (2001) suggest that “when the purpose of testing is not to create

a means to review what students have learned and reteach if necessary, but solely as a salary

mechanism, we think testing has been corrupted” (p. 135). Although the accountability systems’

goals might be to measure student achievement, “just as a pollster cannot directly measure later

voting behavior, there are some aspects of the goals of education that achievement tests are

unable to measure” (Koretz, 2008, p. 20). The components of the current accountability systems,

specifically the sub-group structures put in place upon the authorization of NCLB focus on group

gains rather than individual learning and achievement (English and Steffy, 2001). Group-

focused practices go against the educational goals of student assessments and might fall short of

truly measuring student achievement.

Another argument of critics of the current accountability systems is the dismissal of non-

educational factors that might have a huge impact on education achievement and hinder a true

representation by test results of the quality of schools (Koretz, 2008). “When a school performs

well or poorly on an achievement test, the reason can be the quality of education, any number of

noneducational causes, or – more likely – both” (Koretz, 2008, p. 114).

25

English and Steffy (2001) advise against basing decisions on one test due to psychometric and

the limitations of tests that only test developers might understand; tests may limitedly measure

what they claim to assess. “All data do not measure the most important things, and some of it

may be trivial, misleading, or unimportant” (English, 2010, p. 113).

History of Texas High-Stakes Testing

The Texas accountability systems have been known for eliciting debates regarding the

excessive use of testing as the way to measure school’s success. Some claim that the Texas’

standards-based education model has been labeled as worthy of replication (Haney, 2000);

however, Walter Haney (2000) claims the Texas accountability system is far from what others

believe it to be. He warns readers against drawing conclusions about education reforms based

solely on test results as has been the case in Texas (Haney, 2000). The use of tests as measures of

competencies and schools’ success dates back to 1979 when the first assessment program began

after the 66th

Texas Legislature (Texas Education Agency, 2012b).

The Texas assessment program began with basic mathematics, reading and writing

assessments for students in third, fifth and ninth grade (Texas Education Agency, 2012b). The

first administration of the Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS) took place 1980 (Texas

Education Agency, 2012b); since then the Texas assessment program has undergone a number of

revisions. In 1986, the Texas Education Agency implemented the first high-stakes testing; high

school students were required to pass the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills

(TEAMS) to receive their high school diploma (Texas Education Agency, 2012b). Four years

later, with the implementation of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), the Agency

began to focus on the assessment of academic skills rather than minimum skills (Texas

Education Agency, 2012b). TAAS not only shifted the focus to the assessment of academic

26

skills, it increased the number of grade levels in which it was required to administer the tests.

All students in third through eighth grade and tenth grade were required to take the reading and

mathematics TAAS, while students in fourth, eight and tenth grade had to take a writing test. In

addition, eight graders had to take a science and social studies assessments (Texas Education

Agency, 2012b). Participation was not the only requirement for tenth graders; beginning in

1993, they were required to pass exit level exams in reading, writing and mathematics to

graduate. Throughout the 1990 decade, additional end of course exams at the secondary level

were implemented.

Ten years later, a new assessment program was developed, the Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). TAKS was developed and aligned to the state’s curriculum, the

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). In 2003, the stakes got higher for elementary

students with the implementation of the Student Success Initiative (SSI) (Texas Education

Agency, 2012b). Third graders were required to pass the reading test to be promoted to fourth

grade. When those students reached fifth and eighth grade, they were required to pass the reading

and mathematics exams to be promoted (Texas Education Agency, 2012b). There were many

changes made to the assessment program throughout the decade TAKS was in place. The

changes culminated with the development and implementation of the latest assessment program,

the replacement of TAKS, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR).

The STAAR program includes the same tests as TAKS in third through eighth grades but

replaced high school grade level specific tests with 15 end of course exams (Texas Education

Agency, 2012b).

The STAAR tests were first administered in 2012, as required by the Texas Legislature to

replace TAKS. Unlike its predecessors, the STAAR is scored on a vertical scale system. The

27

vertical scale allows educators to directly compare students’ scores from one grade level to the

next within the same content area (Texas Education Agency, 2013d). The STAAR assessment

program was designed with the intent to vertically align the assessment of the Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills standards from high school all the way through elementary with an

emphasis on college readiness (Texas Education Agency, 2013d). Given the vertical alignment,

the Texas Education Agency has identified readiness and supporting standards that are eligible

for testing decreasing the standards tested at each grade level (Texas Education Agency, 2013d).

The cognitive level of the STAAR test is higher than any other assessment program in the history

of Texas accountability and high-stakes testing. The literature exploring the recent assessment

program is limited to the field testing of questions and statistical analysis of the scale scores

conducted by the Texas Education Agency prior to implementation of the assessment program.

However, regardless of the limited research of the effectiveness of STAAR as a measure of

student performance and teacher effectiveness, the controversy surrounding the rigorous

assessments is far from limited.

Teacher Evaluations

Although teacher evaluation dates back to the eighteenth century (Marzano et al., 2011;

Nolan & Hoover, 2011), consistent focus on teacher evaluation emerged in the 1960s (Danielson

& McGreal, 2000, p.15). Researchers visualized “teacher evaluation as a mechanism for

improving teaching and learning” (Danielson & McGreal, 2000, p. 15); however, at the time,

evidence suggesting that the student learning was related to the quality of teaching was

nonexistent (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). In the 1960s and 1970s, with the focus on

improvement of science and mathematics instruction, evaluation was considered the way to

improve the quality of instruction and ultimately change schools (Danielson & McGreal, 2000;

28

Nolan & Hoover, 2011). The clinical supervision research that emerged at the same time resulted

in deeper understanding of instructional practices being used in the classrooms. The

understanding about instructional practices that resulted from the research was used to develop

further studies aimed at identifying the teachers’ behaviors that were better predictors of student

achievement (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Although originally intended as a tool for

supervision, the tools developed at the time were regularly and mainly used as evaluation

checklists (Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

In the 1970s, evaluations and supervision models were shaped by Madeline Hunter’s

seven elements of lesson design (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

Checklists and rating scales to appraise teachers became the norm in teacher evaluation, resulting

in oversimplified teaching. Although simplistic, the findings and practices of this period

significantly impacted the evidence of the importance of the teachers’ role in students’ education

(Danielson & McGreal 2000). Teacher evaluations based on Hunter’s model prevailed through

the 1970s and into the 1980s. In the late 1980s and 1990s, alternate teacher evaluation models

were developed. Some of the evaluation models were high-stakes and used to make employment

decisions while others were developed to determine quality of teaching (Marzano et al., 2011).

Teacher evaluations then began to focus on more complex results such as problem solving and

collaborative learning (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The research findings from over 40 years

of studies, that have looked at teacher evaluations and how teaching relates to student

achievement, have resulted in a “knowledge base capable of moving the field beyond

testimonials and unsupported claims toward scientific statement based on credible data” (Brophy

as cited in Danielson & McGreal, 2000, p. 14).

29

Researchers have provided substantial evidence showing that effective teachers have a

positive impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Given the existing research,

teacher evaluations have shifted from mere measurement of competency to systems that also

promote supervision in an effort to foster teacher’s growth (Mayo, 1997). School districts often

intend to use appraisal systems as a way to ultimately improve the quality of the instruction

taking place in the classroom; however, evaluation processes are generally incompatible with

such intent (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). Teacher evaluation systems could potentially impact

student learning if the evaluators effectively target areas in need of improvement (Goldrick,

2002) and supplement the process with appropriate supervision. Regardless of the shift in

evaluations toward systems that measure teacher effectiveness and focus on teacher development

(Marzano, 2012), and the general understanding that school’s success is significantly attributable

to teachers’ effectiveness (Weisberg et al., 2009), teacher evaluations continue to rely on

minimal observations by a supervisor who generally simply files the document (Danielson &

McGreal, 2000) without utilizing the gathered information for supervision to ultimately improve

teaching practices. Teacher evaluations continue to be used for their original purpose, a process

through which the evaluator judges the quality of the instruction and teacher performance (Nolan

& Hoover, 2011).

Recurring Concerns Regarding Teacher Evaluations

Sartain et al. (2010) concluded that the methods being used to evaluate teachers have

been unsuccessful in providing teachers with pertinent information and differentiating between

effective and weak instruction. The literature identifies several common threads when it comes

to recurring concerns regarding teacher evaluations including: 1) the system provides minimal

information for teachers to change their practices and improve instruction (Darling-Hammond,

30

2013; Searfross & Enz as cited in Sartain et al., 2010); 2) classroom observations are brief and

sporadic and conducted by administrators with minimal training (Darling-Hammond, 2013;

Weisberg et al., 2009), and 3) there is a sense of indifference regarding the appraisal of

effectiveness of teachers and the practices being implemented in the classrooms (Weisberg et al.,

2009).

In some cases, appraisers are unwilling to give teachers honest evaluations (Danielson &

McGreal, 2000), perpetuating what Richard Elmore (1999) has labeled as “the buffer” (p. 2).

Elmore (1999) defines “the buffer” as the actions taken by school administrators to protect what

is truly taking place in the classrooms from public scrutiny; the actions of the administrators to

manage the systems rather than the instructional practices taking place in the schools. By

protecting teachers from intrusive inquiry from outsiders, administrators create a false sense of

confidence from stakeholders (Elmore, 1999). Schmoker (2006) explains that this “buffer” has

given teachers a false sense of effectiveness, produced teacher isolation, and lack of

collaboration. Some administrators even seem to prefer giving all teachers excellent evaluations

to avoid confrontations (Weisberg et al., 2009). Some argue these appraisers’ irresponsible

actions have painted a picture of excellence among teachers, and a lack identification and

dismissal of ineffective teachers (Weisberg et al., 2009).

For evaluations to effectively identify teachers who are having a positive impact,

evaluations must look beyond the teachers’ classroom performance and take into consideration

the teachers’ involvement in the school as a whole (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). However, no matter

how involved the teachers are outside their classrooms, the classroom practices are a

fundamental component of teacher evaluations (Danielson, 2012). The scope of the classroom

observations must be broad and include all the content areas taught by the teachers (Nolan &

31

Hoover, 2011). Comprehensive facts must be gathered over time (Nolan & Hoover, 2011) to

ensure teacher evaluations are true representations of the teachers’ performance whether the

teacher is successful or in need of assistance.

Regardless of the evidence collected by evaluators, an overpowering culture has been

established surrounding teacher evaluations. Teachers expect excellent evaluations with no

consideration to the quality of their instruction (Danielson & McGreal, 2000), their involvement

in the schools as a whole and their students’ achievement. By rating the majority of teachers as

superior, administrators are failing to recognize teachers who are indeed outstanding (Weisberg

et al., 2009), and who produce greater levels of student growth (Weisberg et al., 2009). Darling-

Hammond (2013) found evidence to suggest that evaluations often overlook the achievement of

the students assigned to teachers. Administrators’ actions and the ease with which teachers are

rated as superior have created school cultures where teachers do not accept anything but superior

ratings (Weisberg et al., 2009) regardless of their students’ success or failure. Paradoxically,

teachers and administrators can identify ineffective instruction in their schools. Over fifty

percent of teachers can identify a teacher who they believe is ineffective and should be dismissed

(Weisberg et al., 2009). However, teachers working below expectations are rarely dismissed

(Weisberg et al., 2009) and are allowed to continue working with students. Holding teachers

accountable is the administrators’ responsibility. Administrators must make judgment regarding

teacher effectiveness in an effort to protect the children in their schools (Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

Administrators who fail to recognize struggling teachers are not only failing the students

but are being unfair to teachers. Evaluation systems provide standards and criteria to ensure a

fair, valid and reliable evaluation; however, summative evaluations tend to be extraordinarily

alike for all teachers (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). By inaccurately rating all teachers as outstanding,

32

teachers develop the understanding that only teachers who administrators are intending to

dismiss receive unsatisfactory evaluations, resulting in a culture of mistrust between

administrators and teachers (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Only highly skilled administrators are

able to establish and maintain positive working relationships while holding teachers accountable

and helping them grow, as they exercise their duties as evaluator and supervisor simultaneously

(Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

Although the low number of ineffective teachers dismissed is a problem, Weisberg et al.

(2009) concluded that the problem is “in fact just one symptom of a larger, more fundamental

crisis—the inability of our schools to assess instructional performance accurately or to act on this

information in meaningful ways” (p. 2). The rare dismissal of ineffective teachers allows low

performing teachers to remain in the classrooms while the excessive rating of teachers as

outstanding fails to identify truly effective teachers who could have the potential to positively

impact instruction in their colleagues’ classrooms (Weisberg et al., 2009). While administrators

must be held accountable for their responsibilities as evaluators and supervisors, they must have

the tools to identify teachers according to their needs and be able to act accordingly. Evaluation

systems that facilitate the process of identifying deficient teachers must be available for

administrators to use. Valuable evaluation tools will take into account the teachers’ instructional

practices, their abilities to meet the needs of their students, and their contribution to the school

while providing opportunities for high quality, timely professional development (Darling-

Hammond, 2013).

33

Teachers Evaluation Tools and Processes

Educators and leaders must “address our national failure to acknowledge and act on

differences in teacher effectiveness once and for all” (Weisberg et al., 2009, p. 2). Evaluations

tools must set clear standards of effective teaching for teachers in all stages of their careers

(Darling-Hammond, 2013). Researchers ask that policymakers and those responsible for the

current education system begin to differentiate and recognize effective and ineffective teachers

and to use student achievement data to measure teacher effectiveness (Weisberg et al., 2009;

Sartain et al., 2010). Some even argue that linking student achievement to teacher evaluations is

only logical since teachers are hired to teach (Everson, Feinauer & Sudeweeks, 2013; Isoré,

2009). Weisberg et al. (2009) suggest that administrators begin by evaluating teachers based on

the teachers’ ability to deliver instruction that results in student learning and success. The

identification of effective teachers should be administrators’ primary role and one for which they

are held accountable (Weisberg et al., 2009). However, there is consensus that schools are not

equipped with evaluation systems to make precise personnel decisions (Darling-Hammond,

Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel & Rothstein, J., 2011).

In most current evaluation systems, the role of the teacher is passive (Nolan & Hoover,

2011; Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The administrator observes the teacher, analyzes the

observed behavior and determines the results of the evaluation while the teacher simply teaches

and provides no input to the process (Nolan & Hoover, 2011; Danielson & McGreal, 2000).

Existing systems are generally used as a human resource tool rather than a tool to identify

instructional areas in need of improvement (Goldrick, 2002). Evaluation systems ought to

measure the outcomes of teaching rather than merely looking at teaching behavior (Goldrick,

2002).

34

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness

In an effort to measure the outcome of teaching and teacher effectiveness, value-added

and alternate evaluation models are being developed to measure the teachers’ effectiveness, by

using student performance, students’ input, classroom observations in addition to other pertinent

information (Stecher, Garet, Holtzman & Hamilton, 2012). However, regardless of the increased

attention and study of such models, school principals continue to be responsible for judging

teachers performance and completing teacher evaluations (Nolan & Hoover, 2011), which along

with years of service, are the two methods predominantly used to determine tenure of teachers.

The large of percentage of teachers receiving satisfactory or outstanding evaluations from

their principals is contentious. For instance, only two percent of teachers in a large school

district were rated below satisfactory while the schools where they worked did not meet adequate

yearly progress (Weisberg et al., 2009). “A plethora of studies and observations reveal evaluation

ratings are grossly inflated” (Frase & Streshly, 1994, p. 48). By rating everyone as proficient or

outstanding, campus administrators are denying teachers constructive feedback; hence it is

understandable when teachers do not find their evaluations helpful. Out of 1,010 teachers who

participated in a nationwide survey only 26% considered their evaluations beneficial (Darling-

Hammond, 2013). Teachers have reported that the principals’ experience and perceived

pedagogical knowledge influences the level of confidence they have on the principals’ judgment

of their effectiveness as teachers (Zimmerman & Deckert-Pelton, 2003).

The problem of principals as judges of teacher effectiveness may lie in the nature of the

tools used by principals to assess teachers’ effectiveness. Principal assessment of teacher

effectiveness is often considered subjective given that a teacher’s evaluation could potentially

vary depending on the principal completing the appraisal; different principals value different

35

teacher qualities (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005). While others suggest the problem is rooted in the lack

of time and training to help principals become appraisers of teaching and instructional leaders

(Darling-Hammond, 2013). Principals may be seen by some as an impediment to the success of

teacher evaluations; at the same time others believe principals can add value to the process

(Zimmerman & Deckert-Pelton, 2003).

Regardless of the overall views of the role principals play in the evaluation system, some

teachers find their evaluations useful while others consider them pointless. Some suggest that

the lack of reliable principals’ judgment regarding teachers’ performance (Medley & Coker,

1987) is the reason evaluations are of no professional learning value to teachers. In contrast,

others have reported that principals can correctly identify highly effective and struggling teachers

while they are less effective in identifying those with average ability (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005,

2006, 2008). Principals could accurately rank teachers who improve student achievement when

asked to rate individual teacher characteristics, including the teachers’ abilities to increase

student performance on reading and math, rather than the teachers’ overall performance (Lefgren

& Jacob, 2006, 2008). The literature presents opposing arguments regarding the role and

effectiveness of the principal in the evaluation systems. Similarly, studies conducted with the

purpose of validating the accuracy of evaluations completed by principals were deemed

inconclusive (Gregoire, 2009); conversely in her study, Gregoire (2009) concluded that

principals can effectively appraise teachers provided that they follow effective evaluation

standards. Whether one believes principals have been capable or not of accurately judging

teacher effectiveness, there is a real need for empirical studies that attempt to ascertain the

accuracy of principal’s ratings of teacher effectiveness.

36

Value-Added Models

While the literature provides contradictory arguments regarding principals’ efficiency in

predicting student success by judging teacher effectiveness, some studies suggest that value-

added measures are better predictors of student success (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008). If teachers’

effectiveness is measured by students’ learning, teachers considered successful should be those

whose students are mastering what the teachers are presenting (Fenstermacher & Richardson

2005). Systems that support this view of teacher effectiveness must begin by defining the

standards that the student must learn in alignment with standards for teaching practices (Darling-

Hammond, 2013).

Some contend that measuring student success should not be measured by standardized

tests; however, there is no reliable evidence to support that teacher quality correlates to students’

performance on tests (Isoré, 2009). Hence some researchers have developed alternate evaluation

systems to look at teaching outcomes as measured by the high-stakes testing. Some even argue

that evaluation systems that do not take some student achievement into consideration are

unreliable (Peterson & Peterson, 2006). The most common system developed with the intent of

measuring teacher effectiveness as measured by student achievement is the value-added model.

In 1982, the first value-added model was designed by William Sanders, a statistician, who used

previous tests scores to predict students’ growth as measured by standardized tests (Duffrin,

2011). Since the first model was designed, school districts across the country have used value-

added models assuming that teacher effectiveness is determined by measuring gains made by the

teachers’ students on achievement tests (Darling-Hammond et al., 2011).

Although many consider value-added models a promising tool to forecast the impact

teachers have on student success, researchers warn educators against using the models as the sole

37

tool to evaluate teachers and accurately measure teacher effectiveness (Weisberg et al., 2009;

Darling-Hammond et al., 2011, 2012) due to the limitations of the results of single tests

(Goldrick, 2002) and the different results one gets depending on the content area being tested and

the students assigned to each teacher (Darling-Hammond et al., 2011, 2012). For instance,

teachers who work with high achieving students might be labeled as unsuccessful due to the

limited room for growth once the students perform at high levels on standardized tests (Darling-

Hammond, 2013). Depending on the students assigned to the teachers, teachers may be in an

advantageous or disadvantaged position within a value-added model (Darling-Hammond et al.,

2011); the students assigned could potentially unfairly impact the teachers’ evaluation.

Value-added measures are complicated and narrowly focused given that these models

only look at results of standardized tests without taking into account things for which teachers

have no control such as student backgrounds (Stecher et al., 2012). It is challenging, if not

impossible, to discern between the factors that can be attributed to teachers’ efforts and the

factors for which teachers have no control, such as the child’s background, home life and the

other teachers that might work with the students (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Some argue that

student scores on high-stakes tests should not be the sole measure of teachers’ effectiveness

because teachers cannot control the effort students put forth or their actions (Nolan & Hoover,

2011). If student test scores are used to measure teachers’ performance, they must be combined

with additional observational data in order to accurately establish the correlation between the

teachers’ performance and the students’ achievement (Nolan & Hoover, 2011).

Variety of Factors Impacting Student Learning

Student achievement is impacted by many variables, including but not limited to the

classroom teacher’s effectiveness. Huitt (as cited in McIlrath & Huitt, 1995) identified school

38

related variables as well as student-based contextual influences, which have the potential to

impact student achievement on standardized tests. In his classroom and school effectiveness

model (Figure 1), Huitt (as cited in McIlrath & Huitt, 1995) highlights the importance of

“Academic Learning Time (ALT)” (p. 5), the amount of time the students are successfully

engaged in learning, and “content overlap” (Brady, Clinton, Sweeney, Peterson & Poynor as

cited in McIlrath & Huitt, 1995, p. 5), the amount of time spent learning knowledge and skills

that are tested. When linking teacher evaluations to student achievement, “ALT”, “content

overlap” (McIlrath & Huitt, 1995) as well as many other uncontrollable student-based variables

cannot be ignored.

Figure 1

Huitt’s Improving Classroom and School Effectiveness Model a

a (McIlrath & Huitt, 1995, p. 5)

39

Teacher Evaluation in Texas

Value-added models are being used by school district across the country as integral parts

of teacher evaluations; however, the teacher evaluation system developed by the Texas

Education Agency in the mid-1990 has no features of a value-added model. Nor is there any

direct use of student high-stakes testing in the process of teacher evaluation. Texas’ current

Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) was first implemented in 1997 (Texas

Education Agency, 2005a, p. 2). Although student success in learning as observed in the

classroom is considered throughout the instrument, PDAS barely considers students’

achievement on high-stakes standardized testing as a criterion to determine teacher effectiveness.

The instrument, found in Appendix A, only considers student achievement on the state’s tests in

one of the eight domains, but student achievement results do not have to be reported on the

evaluation. Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance of all Students on Campus

requires teachers to analyze assessment data in one of the criteria within Domain VIII (Texas

Education Agency, 2005b) while other criteria within that domain require that teachers integrate

the standards being tested by the state in their instructional and intervention plans. Domain VIII

is rated by the appraiser based on teacher self-reported information without the need to document

the actual test results.

In 2010, Glynna Y. Pate, a doctoral student at Capella University, conducted a study to

determine if there was a relationship between PDAS Domain VIII and student achievement on

the state test, at the time the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Pate (2010)

concluded that there was no correlation between “teacher effectiveness, as measured by their

PDAS score” (p. 88) on Domain VIII, and their students’ reading and mathematics achievement

on the TAKS tests (Pate, 2010). Given the self-reporting nature of Domain VIII and the

40

conclusions drawn by Pate (2010), it could be said that the current appraisal system used in 86%

of Texas schools (Texas Education Agency, 2011) is at the opposite end of the teacher evaluation

spectrum when compared to value-added models.

Although PDAS is far from a value-added model, the classroom centered, observable

domains focus on student learning and take into consideration student success and student

engagement. PDAS consists of eight domains; the first four domains and part of the fifth domain

are first rated by the appraiser after conducting one 45-minute formal observation. The first five

domains are considered the classroom centered domains (TEA, 2005b). Domain I has five

criteria and takes into consideration the quality and quantity of “active, successful student

participation in the learning process” (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 1). The

nine criteria in Domain II evaluate the quality and quantity of “learner-centered instruction”

(Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 6). Domain III focuses on the evaluation of

learning and feedback teachers provide their students about their progress (Region 13 Education

Service Center, 2004); Domain III includes six criteria. Domain IV has eight criteria that

evaluate the management of student discipline, the instructional strategies used by the teacher to

meet the varied need of the students, as well as the teacher’s management of time and

instructional materials (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004). The last classroom-centered

domain, Domain V, assesses the teacher’s professional communication with students and the

teacher’s ability to engage reluctant students in learning (Region 13 Education Service Center,

2004). Only the first three of the six criteria within Domain V are generally rated during the

formal observation. Domain V is the first domain which requires that teachers provide

documentation outside the observable documentation. Domain V takes into consideration the

teachers’ communication and interaction with students as well as “parents, staff, community

41

members and other professionals” (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004, p. 40). The

second half of Domain V and the remaining domains, Domain VI through VIII, are not rated by

the appraiser after the 45-minute observation, but rather at the end of the school year after the

teacher completes Part Two of the Teacher’s Self Report.

During the second semester, using the teacher’s self-evaluation, documentation provided

by the teacher, and any other information the appraiser has documented according to the PDAS

timeline and guidelines, the appraiser completes a summative evaluation. The first four domains

and the first half of the fifth domain are reevaluated. The appraiser averages the formal

observation ratings and the year’s walk-through observations to complete the summative

evaluation. In addition, the appraiser rates the last domains for the first time using the teacher’s

self-report and any additional documentation gathered throughout the year. Domain VI, which

includes four criteria, rates the quality, quantity, and the impact the teacher’s professional

development has on student performance (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004). Domain

VII, the shortest domain with only three criteria, evaluates the teacher’s compliance with

policies, procedures and requirements (Region 13 Education Service Center, 2004). The nine

criteria within Domain VIII assess a wide variety of activities that impact the “improvement of

academic performance for all students on the campus” (Region 13 Education Service Center,

2004, p. 49). The criteria within the last domain include the evaluation of the quality of the

instruction aligned to the curriculum and the state assessments, the teacher’s ability to analyze

state assessment data, the adjustment made to instruction based on data, the teacher’s efforts to

collaborate with others, the impact of the instructional materials used to support the state’s

assessments, the teacher’s effort to monitor student attendance, as well as the identification of

students at risk of failing and intervention provided to those students (Region 13 Education

42

Service Center). The appraiser completes the summative evaluation, rating all 50 criteria. The

teacher must receive the summative evaluation at least five days prior to the summative

conference, which must be held no later than 15 days before the last day of instruction unless the

teacher waives the conference (Texas Education Agency, 2005b).

While Texas teachers and evaluators continue to use the PDAS, a review of the

instrument is underway. In 2010, 13 years after PDAS was first implemented, the Texas

Education Commissioner Robert Scott asked the Texas Education Agency to review the current

teacher evaluation system (Texas Association of School Boards, 2012). Given that the request

was not mandated by Texas Legislature, it has not received a lot of attention outside Austin

(Texas Association of School Boards, 2012). Texas Association of School Boards (TASB)

officials have predicted that in the new system, if and when in place, student achievement will

have more weight in teachers’ evaluations than in the current Professional Development and

Appraisal System (Texas Association of School Boards, 2012). Although a new evaluation

system with increased value given to student achievement is only in the development process,

the Agency has developed a school accountability system that measures and takes into account

student growth as measured by the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness

(STAAR). The program is the latest of Texas’ assessment programs and is far more rigorous

than any other high-stakes testing administered in Texas.

Summary

Whether Texas or national administrators, teachers, policymakers and the general public

agree or disagree with the use of high-stakes testing as a measure of student achievement, as well

as teacher effectiveness and school success, the national debate is likely to continue. Cimbricz

as cited in Marchant (2004) explain:

43

A review of the larger literature initially suggested that state-mandated testing both

positive and negatively influenced teachers’ beliefs and practice. Once my gaze

focused on those works that could be identified as research, however, empirical

support for the claim that state-mandated testing positively influences teachers’

beliefs and practice seemed to vanish. (p.4)

Despite the lack of empirical evidence concerning the impact of high-stakes testing, there is

clearly no evidence that the use of high-stakes tests is diminishing in any way. In addition the

Race to the Top Initiative has placed a very strong emphasis on developing statewide teacher

evaluation systems that include both rigorous administrator assessments of teacher effectiveness

and linking teacher effectiveness ratings to student achievement. As this review has made clear,

there are significant gaps in our empirical knowledge in both of these areas, thus the current

study hopes to begin accumulating empirical knowledge by shedding light on the degree to

which administrator ratings of teacher effectiveness correlate with student learning as measured

by high-stakes tests.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is an empirical relationship between

what the state of Texas considers effective teachers as measured by the Professional

Development and Appraisal System in Domains I and II, the domains in which student-centered

learning is valued and route memorization and teaching to the test would be considered

unsatisfactory, and students’ scores on the Texas’ high-stakes tests, the State of Texas

Assessments of Academic Readiness. In the next chapter, Chapter Three, the research design

and methodology used to explore the research questions are presented. Chapter Four explores

the data analysis and statistical results of the study while Chapter Five presents the conclusions,

implications and presents recommendations for further studies.

44

Chapter Three

Research Design and Methodology

Introduction

In 2010-2011, 86% of Texas Local Education Agencies used the Professional

Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) as the appraisal system to evaluate teacher

performance (Texas Education Agency, 2011). Although the majority of the state’s teachers are

being evaluated with PDAS, the relationship between the teachers’ evaluation ratings and their

students’ achievement on the state’s standardized tests, the State of Texas Assessments of

Academic Readiness (STAAR), is unknown. In 2012, only 76 percent of 327,936 third grade

students in the State of Texas met the satisfactory performance level or passing standard on the

STAAR reading test (Texas Education Agency, 2013a), 77 percent met the satisfactory

performance level on the fourth grade reading test (Texas Education Agency, 2013b) while 77

percent of the fifth grade students passed the reading test (Texas Education Agency, 2013c, p. 1)

and only 70 percent of over 514,000 third through fifth grade economically disadvantaged

students met the same performance standard (Texas Education Agency, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

Results on the mathematics STAAR tests are lower than the reading standards (Texas

Education Agency, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Seventy percent of third grade students, 69 percent of

fourth graders and 74 percent of fifth grade students met the mathematics standards while 60

percent of economically disadvantaged third and fourth graders and 67 percent of fifth grade

economically disadvantaged students met the mathematics standards (Texas Education Agency,

2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

Given the substandard performance of students on the state’s tests, Texas campus

administrators ought to have the capacity to identify effective teachers whose PDAS appraisals

45

meet or exceed the state’s expectations while successfully preparing students for the STAAR

test. Given the time spent on teacher observations, PDAS should be a reliable tool to aid

educators in the identification of the effective educators within their schools or school districts.

Problem Overview

In a North Texas Independent School District, with 352 elementary teachers in grades

three, four, and five, campus administrators spend at least forty-five minutes in each classroom

to conduct formal observations in order to complete the teachers’ PDAS evaluations. Campus

administrators in this district spent at least 264 hours observing classroom teachers and an

undetermined amount of time completing the evaluation reports. With the amount of time being

spent in the classrooms evaluating teachers, administrators ought to be able to establish a

relationship between student success and the PDAS evaluations. Given the impact teachers have

on student achievement (Chetty et al., 2012), and the fact that some claim that “teacher’s

effectiveness [is] the most important factor for school improving student achievement”

(Weisberg et al., 2009, p. 3), it is important to assess the extent PDAS evaluations can help

Texas educators identify rates of student success but most importantly replicate the success of

teachers in preparing students for the STAAR test while engaging the students in challenging,

student-centered learning.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between

teachers’ effectiveness according to their ratings on the Professional Development and Appraisal

System (PDAS) Domains I and II and their students’ achievement, as measured by standardized

tests scores, on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. The study examined the overall

46

domain ratings in Domains I and II and looked to determine if there were any criteria within each

domain that contributed to explaining the differences in students’ scores on the STAAR tests.

Research Questions

The purpose of the study was to answer the questions that could potentially start a

dialogue among administrators regarding the use of Texas’ PDAS to identify teachers who are

effectively meeting or exceeding the expectations of PDAS while successfully preparing students

for the STAAR reading and mathematics tests.

1. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to explaining

differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

2. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to explaining

differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

3. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to explaining

differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

4. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to

explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

47

Research Design

In order to answer the research questions and determine whether there is a correlation

between teachers’ effectiveness according to the Professional Development and Appraisal

System (PDAS) Domains I and II and their students’ achievement on the reading and

mathematics STAAR tests, a quantitative study with “a correlational approach” (Creswell, 2014,

p. 155) was conducted. The study sought to determine if a correlation exists between two

variables, teachers’ ratings on PDAS and their class average scores on the reading and

mathematics STAAR test. It was concluded that a correlation exists if the results of the study

showed that “the values of one variable are somehow associated with the values of the other

variable” (Triola, 2010, p. 536). The study looked to identify which PDAS criteria if any, within

Domains I and II, have a correlation to the second variable, student performance on STAAR, in

an effort to identify individual PDAS criteria that contributed to explaining the differences of

students’ scores on the STAAR tests.

Sample

Given the nature of the correlational study, individuals were not randomly selected. Data

from intact third through fifth grade classes were used for the study. Teachers in the chosen

school district were a natural and convenient group to include in the study. The study examined

teacher evaluations and third, fourth and fifth grade reading and mathematics STAAR results

from a North Texas Independent School District. “A single-stage sampling procedure is one in

which the researcher has access to names in the population and can sample the people (or other

elements) directly” (Creswell, 2014, p. 158). A single-stage sampling procedure was used given

that the researcher was granted access to appraisal and achievement data for all third through

fifth grade teachers and students from the North Texas Independent School District.

48

Given that the study focused on student performance of those in third, fourth and fifth

grade, the study involved stratification of the population. Fowler as cited in Creswell (2014)

explained that stratification “requires that characteristics of the population members be known so

that the population can be stratified first before selecting the sample” (p. 158). The sample was

selected after the teacher population of the North Texas Independent School District was

stratified based on the grade level each teacher instructed during the 2012-2013 school year.

Teachers who were responsible for preparing at least one group of students for the Texas’

STAAR reading and mathematics tests were included in the sample. Teachers who taught third,

fourth and fifth grade but taught subjects other than reading and mathematics were not included

in the sample. In 2013, 352 teachers instructed third, fourth and fifth grade at the North Texas

Independent School District in which the study was conducted.

Student data were also stratified. The district serves a diverse population with a large

number of English language learners, typically Hispanic and economically disadvantaged

students. Out of the district’s total student population of over 34,000, around 7,600 students

participated in the third, fourth and fifth grade STAAR reading and mathematics tests. Given the

varied accommodations provided to special education students during testing based on the

students’ individual needs and individualized education plans, to ensure data included was

standardized without variations based on individual accommodations and modifications, students

who received special education services and took a modified or alternate version of the STAAR

tests were excluded. Once special education students’ data were removed from the study data,

the study included data for students in 237 intact reading classes and 241 intact mathematics

classes. Of the 6,954 students included in the study, 85% or approximately 5,930 students

qualified as economically disadvantaged in 2013.

49

Data Collection

Retrospective data were collected in a North Texas Independent School District that

serves over 16,000 elementary students in twenty elementary schools. Third, fourth and fifth

grade STAAR reading and mathematics April 2013 results as scored and reported by the Texas

Education Agency were requested from the school district’s Planning, Evaluation and Research

Department. Data requested included STAAR reading and mathematics average scale scores for

237 third through fifth grade reading classes and 241 third through fifth grade mathematics

classes that participated in the STAAR tests in 2013. Student identities were confidential.

Special education students’ STAAR-Modified and STAAR-Alternative data were not included in

the study.

In addition, 2013 PDAS data were requested for those teachers responsible for teaching

the 6,954 students included in the study. The teachers’ PDAS evaluation data were collected as

completed and reported by campus administrators through the online management system during

the 2012-2013 school year. The teachers’ identities remained anonymous. PDAS Domain I and

Domain II data were requested including individual criterion data and overall domain ratings.

STAAR and PDAS data was collected and organized by teacher to determine the correlation, if

any, between the teachers’ ratings on PDAS and STAAR scale scores of the students assigned to

each teacher.

Context

The study was conducted at a North Texas school district that serves over 16,000

elementary students in 20 kindergarten through fifth grade campuses. Each elementary school is

led by an administrative team consisting of the campus principal and two assistant principals.

Each administrative team is responsible for the evaluation and supervision of all teachers and

50

staff members at their school. Central office administrators provide little to no oversight of the

formal evaluation process except for the Division Director of Elementary Schools who during

the year the data monitored weekly walk through observations to ensure each campus

administrator was visiting 15 to 20 classrooms every week. Reports concerning weekly walk

throughs were collected on a weekly basis. In addition, the director of Human Resources gets

involved in the evaluation process in the event a teacher formally requests a second appraiser; at

which point the Director appoints an administrator from another campus to conduct the second

evaluation.

Although campus administrators generally work in isolation in their job as evaluators, in

recent years, a culture of collaboration among elementary campus principals in the chosen North

Texas school district has emerged. The shift in the relationship among principals might be

credited to a high turnover at the elementary principalship level and changes in central

administration. Fifteen out of the 20 elementary principals, 75%, are in their first through third

year at their current school; ten of those 15 principals are in their first principalship. As a result

of the elementary principals’ range of experience, the 2013 elementary principals received the

required PDAS training anywhere from one to sixteen years previously, which might have had

an impact on the implementation of the evaluation tool. Perhaps the change in the culture and

the expanding collaboration among elementary principals has been the result of the high number

of first year principals in the last three years. Principals have developed mentoring relationships

which have resulted in frequent dialogue and collaboration. Principals visit each other’s schools

to conduct learning walks and discuss the areas of strength and need at each school. Although

principals do not collaborate in the evaluation process, they often call on their colleagues to talk

through the evaluation of struggling teachers and their plan to address the unsatisfactory areas.

51

Although a somewhat contentious subject at the chosen school district, some might argue

that the recent principal turnover was a result of changes at central administration. After more

than two decades under the leadership of one superintendent, in the summer of 2010, a new

superintendent, who some might call extremely progressive in comparison to the former, was

hired. His team, a combination of returning and new central office administrators, began

studying the established practices and systems which resulted in inevitable changes. One of the

most noticeable was the focus of principals' meetings. Although the principals' meetings have

been taking place for many years, in 2011 the focus of the meetings drastically changed. For over

a decade, principals meetings were predominantly management oriented with minimal

opportunity for instructional leadership development. The purpose of the meetings shifted to an

instructional focus which included professional development for campus leaders, collaboration,

and minimal managerial information. Principals were given the opportunity to focus their

conversations and time together on instructional practices and strategies rather than on the task

and management duties of school administration. The learning that has taken place in the latest

principals' meetings has strengthened the principals' instructional leadership skills, given

principals the tools to better judge teacher effectiveness, and ultimately provide teachers with

more honest, accurate evaluations.

In addition to the change in the focus of the meetings, due to the restructuring of central

administration, the Division Director of Elementary Schools, who is responsible for principals'

evaluations, is able to spend significantly more time visiting principals at the schools and

monitoring the number of walk through observations each campus administrator conducts on a

weekly basis. During the visits, the campus leaders and the Division Director visit classrooms

and engage in conversation about instruction and teacher effectiveness. The discussion often

52

includes how the principal will start an instructional dialogue with the teachers to address the

observed concerns through the evaluation and supervision process or how effective practices

observed could be replicated in other classrooms at the school and in other schools within the

district. The Division Director's visits and the conversations that have emerged during the visits

provide principals with their supervisor’s support when addressing areas of concern but also hold

principals accountable to ensure mediocrity and unsatisfactory practices are not overlooked.

Instruments

The two sources of data for this study were results from the State of Texas Assessments

of Academic Readiness (STAAR) and Texas’ Professional Development and Appraisal System

(PDAS). While school districts may choose to use a locally developed appraisal system (Texas

Education Agency, 2005a), all students must take STAAR to assess mastery of the grade level’s

curriculum starting in third grade (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Both instruments are widely

used across the Texas of State. Whereas all students must participate on STAAR; 86% of Texas

Local Education Agencies used PDAS in 2011 as the appraisal system to evaluate teacher

performance (Texas Education Agency, 2011).

The STAAR tests were developed by the Texas Education Agency in collaboration with

Pearson Education, as mandated by HB 3 passed by the 81st Texas Legislature in 2009 for

implementation beginning in the spring 2012 (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). The STAAR

assessment program replaced the TAKS program. The Texas Legislature required that new

assessments be more rigorous and focus on college readiness (Texas Education Agency, 2012c).

The STAAR tests are directly aligned to the state’s curriculum, the Texas Essential Knowledge

and Skills (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). At the elementary level, students in third, fourth

and fifth grade are tested in mathematics and reading. In addition fourth grade students take a

53

writing test and fifth graders take a science test (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Students who

participate in bilingual education programs and receive academic instruction in Spanish have the

opportunity to take the STAAR test in Spanish while they acquire and develop English language

proficiency (Texas Education Agency, 2012c).

The STAAR tests are highly confidential and strict security measures must be taken by

school districts to ensure all school personnel follow the test administration procedures as

outlined in the District and Campus Coordinator Manuals (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). The

content of the STAAR tests are confidential; district and campus personnel may not view, ask or

discuss the content of the tests. The Texas Education Agency requires that all materials be

maintained secured at all times to avoid unauthorized access to the tests (Texas Education

Agency, 2013d). The content of the tests may only be viewed upon the release of tests by the

Texas Education Agency according to the agency’s predetermined schedule. The first STAAR

tests were released for public viewing in August of 2013. Although the tests were not available

for viewing until 2013, the first student results were released for the 2012 administration of

STAAR. The results are reported by individual student including raw and scale scores. The raw

number of test items in each grade level varies; however; STAAR scale scores are vertically

aligned within each subject and easily compared across grade levels. Given the nature the scale

scores, for the purpose of this study, only 2013 scale scores as determined and reported by the

Texas Education Agency were requested and analyzed.

While the STAAR assessment program has been in place for only two school years, the

state’s teacher evaluation system, the Texas’ Professional Development and Appraisal System

(PDAS), has been in place since the fall of 1997. PDAS was developed as required upon the

passing of the 1995 Senate Bill 1 and following the requirements outlined in the Texas Education

54

Code Section 21.351 (Texas Education Agency, 2005a). The inclusion of the performance of the

teachers’ students on the appraisal system was one of the criteria set by the Texas Education

Code Section 21.351 (Texas Education Agency, 2005a).

The appraisal instrument is organized into eight domains including fifty-one criteria

within the domains (Appendix A). Each criterion is rated independently according to the PDAS

Scoring Guide (Appendix B) and totaled for a comprehensive domain rating. Each criterion has

a value of up to five points. The appraiser must determine if the teachers’ performance in each

criterion exceeds expectations, which carries a five-point value per criterion, proficient with a

three-point value, below expectations for one point or unsatisfactory with no point value. Under

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process, teachers are

evaluated in five criteria and may receive up to 25 points. For Domain I to be rated as an overall

exceeds expectations domain, the criteria total points must be between 20 and 25 points.

Teachers are considered proficient in Domain I if they receive 12 to 19 points. Their

performance is considered below expectations if the total number of points for Domain I are

between four and 11; while performance is unsatisfactory if three or less points are awarded.

Likewise Domain II has predetermined total values to determine the overall rating of the

domain. Domain II focuses on Learner-Centered Instruction while evaluating nine observable

criteria. Teachers’ performance is considered exceeds expectations if the total value of the

domain is between 37 and 45 points while teachers with a total of 23 to 36 points are considered

proficient in Domain II. If teachers are awarded seven to 22 points in Domain II, their

performance is below expectations whereas a total of 6 or less points would be considered

unsatisfactory. Similarly, the remaining six domains have predetermined point values to

establish overall performance in each domain. Under the Texas’ Professional Development and

55

Appraisal System teachers do not receive an overall performance score; each domain is scored

independently. For the purpose of the study, the instrument was not used in its entirety; the

study focused on Domain I and II, two of the observable domains and the two that mainly focus

on the instructional practices of the teachers and student-centered instruction. The additional

components of the PDAS instrument, Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress,

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time and Materials,

Domain V: Professional Communication, Domain VI: Professional Development, Domain VII:

Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements, and Domain VIII:

Improvement of Academic Performance of all Students on the Campus, were not included in the

study. Given the study’s focus on pedagogical practices used by the classroom teachers, the

observable domains that focus on feedback, classroom management and discipline were

excluded. All self-reporting criteria were also excluded given the varied responses and effort

teachers might put into reporting their work. In addition, a 2010 research study by a doctoral

student concluded that there was no correlation between “teacher effectiveness, as measured by

their PDAS score” on Domain VIII, and their students’ reading and mathematics achievement on

the TAKS tests (Pate, 2010, p. 88). For these reasons, self-reporting domains were excluded

from this study.

Reliability

The Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) and the State of Texas

Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), the two instruments used for this study, were

developed under the guidance of the Texas Education Agency. As part of the development of

these instruments, the Texas Education Agency determined the reliability of the instruments.

56

The Texas Education Agency considers the Texas students’ assessments, STAAR, highly

reliable (Texas Education Agency, 2012c) and dependable instrument to make valid

interpretations (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). The STAAR tests are expected to generate

consistent results when the same tests are administered repeatedly (Texas Education Agency,

2012c). “During the 2011–2012 school year, reliability for the STAAR test score was estimated

using statistical measures such as internal consistency, classical standard error of measurement,

conditional standard error of measurement, and classification accuracy” (Texas Education

Agency, 2012c, p. 109). The reliability of the multiple-choice STAAR tests was estimated by

using two types of internal consistency measures. “Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR20)” (Texas

Education Agency, 2012c, p. 60) was used for STAAR third through fifth grade reading tests that

exclusively include multiple choice questions. The reliability of tests like the mathematics

STAAR, which included a combination of multiple choice and open ended questions, was

measured using a “stratified coefficient alpha” (Texas Education Agency, 2012c, p. 60). Texas

evaluates internal consistency evidence for all students in addition to subgroups by gender and

ethnicity. In addition to the estimates of internal consistency that are made for the full

assessment, estimates are also made for each of the content areas’ reporting categories (Texas

Education Agency, 2012c). The reading STAAR results are organized into three reporting

categories while mathematics has five reporting categories.

While the STAAR test scores are a reliable measure of student performance, the

Professional Development and Appraisal System is considered a reliable instrument to measure

teacher performance and effectiveness as long as the teacher and appraiser have received the

required PDAS training (Pate, 2010). Hence, for the purpose of this study, PDAS is considered a

reliable instrument given the training and resources the Texas Education Agency has in place to

57

ensure consistency in the use of the instrument and scoring of each criterion. In addition, the

school district where the study was conducted requires new teachers and campus administrators

to complete a comprehensive face to face or online training while returning teachers and

administrators are required to participate in yearly update training.

Validity

Validity of student assessments refers to the extent to which conclusions being drawn

about the scores are accurate representations of student achievement (Texas Education Agency,

2012c). The Texas Education Agency collects data annually as evidence of the validity of the use

of STAAR scores (Texas Education Agency, 2012c) and not the validity of the actual scores

(Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Supporting validity evidence was organized into five

categories: “test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and

consequences of testing” (AERA/APA/NCME; & Schafter, Wang & Wang as cited in Texas

Education Agency, 2012c, p. 65). The evidence of validity based on test content supports the

notion that the STAAR test scores adequately measures the students’ mastery of the curriculum,

the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). “Validity evidence

supporting Texas’ test content comes from the established test development process and the

judgments of subject matter experts’ about the relationship between the items and the test

construct” (Texas Education Agency, 2012c, p. 65).

After the original development of the tests items, Texas test developers collect evidence

to determine the validity based on response processes. Response processes refer to the cognitive

behaviors needed to answer a test question (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Pilot-testing takes

place in order to collect data about the test item types and formats. Once the formats and types

are deemed appropriate, students across the state participate in field testing to collect evidence

58

about the student responses (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Educators and experts review the

evidence from field testing to determine the validity of the response processes.

Although internal structure evidence is used to estimate reliability, the structural

composition of the assessments is analyzed for validity purposes when there are two language

versions of the same assessment (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). Third through fifth grade

English language learners whose native language is Spanish have the option of taking the third

through fifth grade STAAR tests in Spanish. The internal structure validity of the English and

Spanish tests was supported by “a study conducted on the structural equivalence of transadapted

tests” (Davies, O’Malley & Wu as cited in Texas Education Agency, 2012c). The study

provided evidence that the same concepts were measured by the English and Spanish versions of

the tests supporting the validity of the internal structure of the tests (Texas Education Agency,

2012c).

In addition to comparing the different language versions of STAAR, Texas’ tests

developers also used the relationship between the performances on two measures, or criterion-

related validity, as another source of validity evidence. A large number of studies were carried

out to assess the relationship between performance on STAAR and other related assessments.

For instance, the performance on the STAAR assessments was compared to performance on the

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), and the performance on STAAR was

linked to performance on other courses and grade level assessments (Texas Education Agency,

2012c).

The last type of validity evidence considered by Texas’ test developers is consequential

validity. Although the state’s assessments are intended to impact curriculum and instruction, the

tests might have unintentional consequences such as “teaching to the test” (Texas Education

59

Agency, 2012c). The Texas Education Agency has put into action a plan to document the

consequential validity of STAAR (Texas Education Agency, 2012c). The Agency has collected

and plans to continue collecting data from a variety of stakeholders as evidence of the intended

and unintended consequences of the inferences being made as a result of the assessments and the

test scores (Texas Education Agency, 2012c).

The Texas Education Agency has collected data as evidence of validity of conclusions

being drawn from STAAR scores regarding the students’ mastery of the Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills as supported by validity tests measuring the validity of the content of the

tests, the internal structure of the assessments, the response processes, relations to other

assessment measures and the consequences of the tests (Texas Education Agency, 2012c).

Given the evidence collected by the Texas Education Agency, the STAAR tests are considered a

valid measure of students’ mastery of the curriculum and a valid instrument for this study.

Whereas the Texas Education Agency collects annual data as evidence of the validity of

the conclusions being drawn from STAAR scores, each school district is responsible for

monitoring the implementation of PDAS. Certain that the campus administrators and teachers

included in this study have been trained on the components and PDAS scoring guide, the

instrument is considered a valid measure of teacher performance as defined by the PDAS

Scoring Guide.

Variability

While all campus administrators at the North Texas School District where the study was

conducted were trained on PDAS at a local Region Service Center, administrators participated in

the required training anywhere from one to sixteen years ago. Teachers were trained on PDAS as

their evaluation instrument at the beginning of their first year of teaching in a school system that

60

uses PDAS as their teacher appraisal system and participated in a yearly hour updated provided

by campus administrators. The Texas Education Agency has used PDAS as the recommended

teacher appraisal system for sixteen years and considers PDAS a dependable instrument to

evaluate teacher effectiveness (Texas Education Agency, 2005b). However, there are sources of

variability within the instrument, the most influential being the individual differences of the

campus administrators completing the PDAS evaluations and the teacher’s disposition the day of

the forty-five minute formal observation. Although the PDAS Scoring Guide outlines

specifically what the evaluator looks for when completing an evaluation, personal interpretation

of the guide is inevitable. Individual differences such as this one are unsystematic variances

which are part of life and could never be totally eliminated (Martella, Nelson, Morgan &

Marchand-Martella, 2013).

While PDAS variability relates to the campus administrator completing the evaluation

and the teacher being observed, on STAAR, variability relates to the children taking the

assessments. Another source of unsystematic variance are individual differences (Martella et al.,

2013); in this study, the individual differences relate to the students’ academic and personal

strength which vary from student to student. Additionally, the STAAR tests measure student

mastery of the content on a predetermined day of the school year, variability related to each

child’s effort, enthusiasm, health and other personal factors cannot be removed from the study.

Data Analysis

In order to determine if there was any correlation between the teachers’ 2013 ratings on

the Professional Development and Appraisal System’s Domains I and II and their students’ April

2013 scale score on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, a correlation study

was conducted. Individual teacher ratings in each of the two domains and the criteria within each

61

domain were considered the independent variables. The class average scale scores were

considered the dependent variables. The teachers’ PDAS rating data were matched with the

STAAR data of the class assigned to each teacher in order to determine if there is a correlation

between PDAS ratings and the students’ performance on reading and mathematics STAAR tests.

Each domain rating was analyzed independently of each other to determine if there is correlation

between the independent variables and the dependent variable, the teacher’s students’ scale

scores on the 2013 reading and mathematics STAAR and the teachers’ PDAS ratings on Domain

I and II.

Curve estimation linear and quadratic scatter plots (Appendix C) were created to visually

explore the data and to assess the assumption of linearity prior to using Pearson correlation. The

scatterplots provide evidence that the linearity assumption was met. Likewise, mathematics

STAAR data were used to create two additional scatterplots to visually explore the data linked to

the mathematics test scores.

Linear correlation coefficient r or Pearson correlation coefficient r (Triola, 2010) was

used to measure the strength of the correlations of the bivariate data, the teachers’ PDAS ratings

and their classes’ average scale scores on STAAR. Multiple regression tests were conducted for

each of the PDAS domains to explore the relationships between the individual criterion and the

students’ test scores. Class average STAAR scale scores, not individual students’ scores were

used; hence, individual student scores were hidden. Conclusions and implications that could be

drawn from individual student scores were not considered or included in the study. Appendix D

provides a visual representation of the statistical tests that were conducted to determine the

relationship between the independent and dependent variables and answer the research questions.

The independent variables data, PDAS ratings, and the dependent variables data, students’

62

STAAR scale scores, were paired for the statistical analysis. Every teacher’s ratings on each of

the overall domains included in the study were paired with the teacher’s class’ average scale

score on the assessment the teacher was responsible for; subsequently, the ratings for each

criterion within each domain were paired with the same STAAR average scale score. The study

included student-teacher paired data for 352 third through fifth grade teachers organized into

four sets of paired data. Once the STAAR scores and PDAS ratings were paired the names of all

teachers were permanently deleted from the data files. Appendix E provides charts of all raw

data as paired for the study.

A statistics computer program, SPSS, was used to calculate the Pearson correlation

coefficient r using 0.05 level of significance. The multiple regressions data were analyzed to

determine the relative contribution to the STAAR scores.

Researcher’s Perspective

At the time of the study, I was serving as an elementary school principal in the school

district where the study was conducted. I was on my sixth year as a campus principal with four

years of experience as an assistant principal. I was trained as a PDAS appraiser in 2001, during

my first year as assistant principal, and have been responsible for providing PDAS training to

new or returning teachers every year since 2002. As a campus principal, I have the responsibility

of overseen the implementation of PDAS and ensuring fidelity of implementation at my school.

I share the responsibility for appraising the faculty using PDAS with two assistant principals,

whom I supervise. Throughout the years, I have conducted countless walk throughs with the

assistant principals to ensure consistency of implementation of the evaluation system at the

campus level. In order for the information gathered throughout the evaluation process to be

63

useful, I value providing teachers with honest feedback and suggestions on how to improve

instruction and learning.

In addition to my role as a teacher evaluator, I oversee the implementation of the state’s

curriculum, which is assessed on the STAAR tests in third through fifth grade level, at the

elementary level. As the instructional leader at the school, I expect teachers to engage students

in learning that is rigorous and relevant to the students while preparing them for the STAAR

tests. Although I understand the importance of the STAAR tests given the requirements set by

the state and the federal government, as a principal and educator, I value engaging students in

learning that is challenging and relevant to them and not just the content of the standardized

tests. I respect the teachers’ efforts to help students grow academically even if the growth is not

enough for a child to meet the state’s standards on the tests.

I focused my research on teacher evaluations and state testing given the enormous weight

these two systems have on my job as a school principal, and the potential impact these two

systems have in the education of our children.

Summary

This study was a quantitative study that used data from intact third through fifth grade

classes. Pearson correlation coefficient r and multiple regression tests were used to determine

whether there is a correlation between teachers’ PDAS ratings and their classes’ reading and

mathematics STAAR scale scores. The study included the 2013 STAAR scale scores for 6,954

third, fourth and fifth grade students and the 2012-2013 appraisal results of the 352 teachers

responsible for preparing these students for the state’s STAAR reading and mathematics tests.

The study was conducted in a North Texas Independent School District with consent from the

district’s Planning, Evaluation and Research Department and Division Director of Elementary

64

Schools. The identity of students and teachers are anonymous to the reader and when feasible to

the researcher.

Chapter Four will present the data analysis and statistical results of the study. Finally,

Chapter Five outlines the conclusions, implications and presents recommendations for further

studies.

65

Chapter Four

Data Analysis and Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between teachers’ ratings on

Domain I (teachers' effectiveness as it relates to students constant, successful engagement in

learning that has great depth and complexity), Domain II (teachers’ ability to provide learner-

centered, research-based instruction that promote critical thinking and problem solving) of the

Texas’ Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) as completed by campus

administrators in the spring of 2013, and students’ scale scores on the reading and mathematics

2013 STAAR tests. Three hundred fifty two PDAS teachers’ ratings on Domains I and II, and

their students’ 2013 STAAR intact class average scale scores were included in the study. Of the

352 teachers, 126 were reading and mathematics teachers, while 111 teachers were solely

responsible for teaching reading and the remaining 115 teachers were mathematics instructors.

Paired to the PDAS ratings of the 237 reading teachers were the 2013 average reading STAAR

scale scores of 6,770 third through fifth grade students. There were 6,954 third through fifth

grade students’ mathematics STAAR scale scores paired with 241 mathematics teachers.

The teachers’ PDAS ratings for Domains I and II, including 14 individual criterion item

ratings, were exported from Eduphoria School Objects, an online PDAS management system.

The reading STAAR scores were exported from AWARE an application within Eduphoria. Prior

to matching the teachers’ PDAS ratings to their respective intact class average STAAR scale

score, special education students’ data were extracted due to the varied accommodations and

modifications provided during the test administrations based on the students’ handicapping

conditions and needs. Once both data sets, PDAS ratings and STAAR reading or mathematics

66

scores, were exported, they were organized into charts, found in Appendix E, pairing the

individual teacher’s PDAS ratings and his or her class STAAR average reading or mathematics

test score. Third through fifth grade teachers who did not have STAAR student reading or

mathematics scores assigned to them were excluded from the study. The STAAR average scores

assigned to nineteen teachers who were missing PDAS summative data were also excluded. Prior

to data analysis, once the test scores and PDAS ratings were paired, the names of all teachers

were permanently deleted from the data analysis files.

Data Analysis

Pearson correlation coefficients, r, were computed using two variables per correlation

analysis (1) 2013 STAAR reading average scale scores and the reading teachers’ 2013 overall

Domain I ratings, (2) 2013 STAAR reading average scale scores and the reading teachers’ 2013

overall Domain II ratings, (3) 2013 STAAR mathematics average scale scores and the

mathematics teachers’ 2013 overall Domain I ratings, and (4) 2013 STAAR mathematics

average scale scores and the mathematics teachers’ 2013 overall Domain II ratings. Multiple

regression was used to identify PDAS criterion with significant relationships to the students’

STAAR scores. Multiple regressions were computed for (1) 2013 STAAR reading average scale

scores and the reading teachers’ 2013 Domain I criteria ratings, (2) 2013 STAAR reading

average scale scores and the reading teachers’ 2013 Domain II criteria ratings, (3) 2013 STAAR

mathematics average scale scores and the mathematics teachers’ 2013 Domain I criteria ratings,

and (4) 2013 STAAR mathematics average scale scores and the mathematics teachers’ 2013

Domain II criteria ratings. Appendix E provides charts of the four sets of raw paired data and

Table 1 summarizes the data used in the analysis.

67

Table 1

Summary of the data included in the analysis

STAAR Scale Number Criterion Items Number of Teachers Number of Total Students

Reading 9 individual items 237 6,770 in 237 teacher classes

Mathematics 5 individual items 241 6,954 in 241 teacher classes

The data collected included reading and mathematics teachers’ ratings as rated by campus

administrators on PDAS Domains I and II as well as the teachers’ class average scale scores on

the STAAR reading and mathematics tests. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for

students STAAR scores and teacher evaluation domains variables.

Table 2

Summary descriptive statistics for student STAAR variables and teacher domain variables

Variables

Statistic

STAAR

Reading

Score a

STAAR

Math Score b

Domain I

Value c

for Reading

Domain II

Value d

for Reading

Domain I

Value c

for Math

Domain II

Value d

for Math

N 237.000 241.000 237.000 237.000 241.000 241.000

Mean 1446.360 1477.113 18.730 33.181 18.846 33.332

Median 1447.790 1473.000 19.000 33.000 19.000 33.000

Standard

Deviation 90.765 90.474 3.786 5.740 3.596 5.551

Low Value 1219.000 1252.000 7.000 19.000 7.000 19.000

High Value 1689.670 1774.000 25.000 45.000 25.000 45.000

a STAAR reading scores could theoretically range from a low score of 729 to a high of 2021.

b STAAR math scores could theoretically range from a low score of 755 to a high of 2064.

c Domain I values could theoretically range from a low value of 0 to a high value of 25.

d Domain II values could theoretically range from a low value of 0 to a high value of 45.

68

The average scores of the 237 reading classes and their teachers’ PDAS ratings were

included. The average reading scale score for the third grade classes included in the study was

1377.98. Fourth grade average reading scale score was 1458.28 while the fifth grade average

reading scale score was 1502.87. The average reading score of the classes at each grade level

included in the study is below the state’s average scale scores; the state’s average reading scale

scores, not including special education students, were: 1431 for grade three, 1513 for grade four

and 1554 for grade five. The highest possible reading score in 2013 was 2021. The average

PDAS overall rating in Domain I for the reading teachers included in the study was 18.730, with

the highest possible rating of 25. The mean rating in Domain II for reading teachers was 33.181,

while 45 is the highest possible rating.

The mean STAAR score for the 241 mathematics classes included in the study was 1477.113

with a median of 1473; the highest possible mathematics score was 2064. More specifically, the

average mathematics scale score for the third grade classes included in the study was 1415.90,

fourth grade’s average scale score was 1488.45, and 1530.40 was the average mathematics scale

score for the study’s fifth grade classes. The mathematics average scores are below the state’s

averages, the state’s average for grade three was 1470, for grade four 1539, and fifth grade

classes averaged a scale score of 1596. The mathematics teachers, similarly to the reading

teachers, received an average rating of 19 in Domain I and 33 in Domain II.

Domain I (Student Engagement) and Reading Test Score Correlations

The first research question examined whether there is a correlation between the teachers’

PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’ scores on the reading STAAR test. PDAS Domain I

focuses on determining teachers' effectiveness as it relates to student’s constant, successful

engagement in learning that has great depth and complexity.

69

Two hundred thirty seven reading teachers’ PDAS ratings for Domain I and their students

reading STAAR scores were analyzed. The relationship was tested using a Pearson correlation

analysis. Table 3 presents the data for the first research question.

Table 3

Reading STAAR and PDAS Domain I Pearson Correlations

Reading

Average

Test Score Domain I

STAAR Reading Average

Test Score

Mean 1446.360

Standard Deviation 90.765

Pearson Correlation 1.000 .200

Sig. (2-tailed) .002

N 237 237

PDAS Domain I-Student

Engagement

Mean 18.730

Standard Deviation 3.786

Pearson Correlation .200 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .002

N 237 237

Note: Mean values represent an average of the 237 intact class averages.

There is a significant positive, low relationship (r= .200; p = .002) between the teachers’

PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’ average scale scores on the reading STAAR test.

Using Cohen’s (2010) interpretation regarding the effect size of correlation coefficients, this

would be considered as representing a small effect size.

Domain I (Student Engagement) Individual Criterion Items and Reading Test

Scores. Following the analysis of the first research question, the following sub-question was

explored. What is the relative contribution for each criterion in Domain I to explaining

differences in the STAAR reading test scores? Two hundred thirty seven reading teachers

PDAS ratings on the five criteria within Domain I and their students reading STAAR scale

70

scores were analyzed. The correlation and relative contribution of each criterion item to the

reading STAAR scores was tested using multiple regression analysis and semi partial

correlation. The data analysis for sub-question one is presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4

Regression results for Reading STAAR scores Domain I criteria

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 99664.226 5 19932.845 2.496 .032

Residual 1844578.754 231 7985.189

Total 1944242.979 236

R Square = .051 Adjusted R Square = .031

Table 5

STAAR Reading Scores Regressed on the Domain I Criteria

Correlation Information Unstandardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Zero-

order Partial Part b

Std.

Error Beta

Engaged in learning .124 -.026 -.026 -2.856 7.125 -.035 -.401 .689

Successful in learning .114 .020 .019 1.938 6.517 .023 .297 .766

Critical thinking .174 .094 .092 9.808 6.811 .110 1.440 .151

Self-directed learning .195 .121 .119 12.161 6.572 .142 1.850 .066

Connects learning .111 .051 .050 5.055 6.463 .055 .782 .435

There is statistical evidence to reject the hypothesis that there is no correlation between the

summed PDAS Domain I ratings and students’ average scores on the reading STAAR test.

However, further analysis of the individual five criterion items in Domain I, data presented in

Table 5, indicate that no one individual criterion makes a statistically significant contribution to

explaining differences in the STAAR reading scores. This is further substantiated when

examining the semi partial correlations in Table 5. The values for each criterion item are very

71

small. Individual criterion items in Domain I do not statistically explain the differences in the

STAAR reading test scores when controlling for the influence of the other criterion items.

Although criterion three, critical thinking and problem solving, and criterion four, self-directed

learning, had the highest Beta values, the p-values were not statistically significant. The five

criteria within PDAS Domain I when examined individually had no statistically significant

contribution in explaining differences in the students’ STAAR reading scores.

Domain II (Learner Centered Instruction) and Reading Test Score Correlations

The second research question examined whether there is a correlation between the teachers’

PDAS Domain II ratings (teachers’ ability to provide learner-centered, research-based instruction

that promotes critical thinking and problem solving) and their students’ scores on the reading

STAAR test. Two hundred thirty seven reading teachers’ PDAS ratings on Domain II and their

students reading STAAR scores were analyzed. The Pearson correlation results to examine the

second research question are presented in Table 6.

The data indicate that there is a significant, positive low correlation (r=.150; p =.021)

between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’ average scale scores on the

reading STAAR test. Using Cohen’s (2010) interpretation regarding the effect size of correlation

coefficients, this would be considered as representing a small effect size.

Domain II (Learner Centered) Individual Criterion Items and Reading Test Scores. A

follow up sub question was to analyze the relative contribution of each criterion item within

Domain II in explaining differences in the STAAR reading scores. Tables 7 and 8 present the

results of multiple regression analysis and semi partial correlation.

72

Table 6

Reading STAAR and PDAS Domain II Pearson Correlation

Reading

Average Test

Score Domain II

STAAR Reading Average

Test Score

Mean 1446.360

Standard Deviation 90.765

Pearson Correlation 1.000 .150

Sig. (2-tailed) .021

N 237 237

PDAS Domain II-

Learner Centered

Mean 33.181

Standard Deviation 5.741

Pearson Correlation .150 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .021

N 237 237

Table 7

Regression results for Reading STAAR scores and Domain II Criteria

Sum of Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Regression 148019.990 9 16446.666 2.070 .033

Residual 1795278.958 226 7943.712

Total 1943298.948 235

R Square = .076 Adjusted R Square = .039

The data in Table 7 confirms that there is a statistically significant relationship (p = .033)

between the teachers’ ratings on Domain II and their students’ reading STAAR scores. The

multiple regression conducted to determine the contribution of each individual criterion within

Domain II (Table 8) provided evidence to suggest that criterion two, learner-centered instruction

(p=.033;beta=.170), and criterion nine, the use of technology (p=.017; beta=.165), have a

statistically significant, although relatively low contribution to explaining differences in the

STAAR reading scores. The semi partial correlation values further revealed low values .137 and

73

.153 respectively. Each contributed less than two percent of unique variance in the reading

scores. The remaining criteria within Domain II: (1) instruction that is designed around the goals

and objectives of the course, (3) critical thinking and problem solving, (4) the use of

motivational strategies, (5) alignment of instruction to the course objectives, (6) pacing and

sequencing of the lesson, (7) clear explanation of the importance and value of the lesson, and

(8) the teacher’s questioning, do not make an individual significant contribution to explaining

differences in the STAAR reading scores.

Table 8

STAAR Reading Scores Regressed on the Domain II Criteria

Correlation Information Unstandardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Zero-

order Partial Part B

Std.

Error Beta

Goals and objectives .081 .045 .043 4.807 7.138 .053 .673 .501

Learner-centered .166 .141 .137 14.113 6.568 .170 2.149 .033

Critical thinking .146 .071 .069 7.863 7.328 .091 1.073 .284

Motivation Strategies .014 -.115 -.111 -11.290 6.492 -.136 -1.739 .083

Alignment .084 .037 .036 4.048 7.207 .043 .562 .575

Pacing/Sequencing .036 -.055 -.052 -5.325 6.487 -.065 -.821 .413

Value and importance .040 -.011 -.010 -1.092 6.664 -.012 -.164 .870

Questioning .098 -.013 -.013 -1.365 6.896 -.016 -.198 .843

Use of technology .200 .157 .153 20.025 8.356 .165 2.396 .017

Domain I (Student Engagement) and Mathematics Test Score Correlations

The third research question examined the correlations between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I

ratings and their students’ scores on the mathematics STAAR test. Two hundred forty one

mathematics teachers PDAS ratings on Domain I and their students’ mathematics STAAR

74

average test scores were analyzed. The relationship was explored using a Pearson correlation

analysis. The results are presented in Table 9.

The results of the Pearson’s r analysis revealed there is a significant positive, low

relationship (r=.259; p = < .001) between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their

students’ scores on the mathematics STAAR mathematics test. Using Cohen’s (2010)

interpretation regarding the effect size of correlation coefficients, this would be considered as

approaching a low moderate effect size.

Table 9

Mathematics STAAR and PDAS Domain I Pearson Correlations

Math

Average Test

Score Domain I

STAAR Math Average Test

Score

Mean 1477.113

Standard Deviation 90.474

Pearson Correlation 1.000 .259

Sig. (2-tailed) <.000

N 241 241

PDAS Domain I—Student

Engagement

Mean 18.846

Standard Deviation 3.596

Pearson Correlation .259 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) <.000 N 241 241

Domain I (Student Engagement) Individual Criterion Items and Mathematics Test

Scores. Further analysis of the specific items comprising the student engagement domain

examined the teachers’ ratings on the individual criterion items within Domain I and the

students’ scores on the mathematics STAAR test. Tables 10 and 11 summarize the results

exploring the relative contribution each criterion on the mathematics STAAR test scores.

75

Table 10

Regression results for Mathematics STAAR test scores and Domain I Criteria

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Regression 175882.089 5 35176.418 4.621 <.000

Residual 1781344.960 234 7612.585 Total 1957227.050 239 R Square = .090 Adjusted R Square = .070

Table 11

STAAR Mathematics Scores Regressed on Domain I Criteria

Correlation Information Unstandardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Zero-

order Partial Part B

Std.

Error Beta

Engaged in learning .183 .029 .027 3.063 6.971 .036 .439 .661

Successful in learning .144 .010 .010 .965 6.150 .012 .157 .875

Critical thinking .238 .147 .142 14.379 6.303 .162 2.281 .023

Self-directed learning .246 .163 .157 16.202 6.417 .176 2.525 .012

Connects learning .067 -.007 -.007 -.703 6.189 -.008 -.114 .910

The regression analysis provides statistical evidence to conclude there is a significant

relationship between Domain I item ratings and students’ STAAR mathematics scores.

Furthermore, the regression shows that there was a positive, low relationship between criterion

three (p=.023; beta = .162), critical thinking, and the STAAR mathematic test scores as well as

criterion four (p=.012; beta=.176), self-directed learning and the STAAR mathematics test

scores. Criterion one, student engagement in learning as defined by PDAS, criterion two,

students success in learning, and criterion five, students connect learning, do not contribute

significantly to explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics scores. The semi partial

76

correlations for these two items were .142 and .157. The unique contribution to variance in the

mathematics scores for each was very small.

Domain II (Learner Centered) and Mathematics Test Score Correlations

The fourth research question examined the correlations between the teachers’ PDAS Domain

II ratings and their students’ scores on the mathematics STAAR test. Pearson correlation was

used to analyze two hundred forty one teacher PDAS Domain II ratings and the students’

STAAR mathematics test scores linked to those teachers (Table 12).

Table 12

Mathematics STAAR and Domain II Pearson Correlations

Math Average

Test Score Domain II

STAAR Math Average

Test Score

Mean 1477.113

Standard Deviation 90.474

Pearson Correlation 1.000 .214

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 241 241

PDAS Domain II –

Learner Centered

Mean 33.332

Standard Deviation 5.551

Pearson Correlation .214 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

N 241 241

The Pearson correlation analysis (Table 12) reveals there is a significant positive, low

relationship (r=.214; p=.001) between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR exam. Using Cohen’s (2010) interpretation regarding the

effect size of correlation coefficients, this would be considered as a low effect size.

77

Domain II (Learner Centered) Individual Criterion Items and Mathematics Test

Scores. The final sub question explored the relative contribution of each criterion item within

Domain II in explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics scores. The multiple regression

results are presented in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13

Regression results for Mathematics STAAR test scores and Domain II Criteria

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 196400.677 9 21822.297 2.839 .003

Residual 1767935.047 230 7686.674

Total 1964335.724 239

R Square = .100 Adjusted R Square = .065

The results summarized in Table 13 reveal the collective items for Domain II statistically (p-

.003) explain differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores. The multiple regression data

summarized in Table 14 indicates that criterion three, critical thinking and problem solving, had

a statistically significant influence (p=.005; beta = .227; semi partial correlation = .178) in

explaining differences in mathematics STAAR test scores. No other individual criterion item

within Domain II seems to have a statistical relationship to the STAAR mathematics scores.

78

Table 14

STAAR Mathematics Scores Regressed on the Domain II Criteria

Correlation Information Unstandardized

Coefficients

T Sig. Zero-

order Partial Part B

Std.

Error Beta

Goals and objectives .109 -.031 -.029 -3.412 7.331 -.037 -.465 .642

Learner-centered .163 .076 .073 7.290 6.287 .086 1.159 .247

Critical thinking .256 .184 .178 19.577 6.890 .227 2.841 .005

Motivation Strategies .027 -.104 -.099 -9.900 6.267 -.115 -1.580 .116

Alignment .167 .110 .105 13.108 7.777 .137 1.686 .093

Pacing/Sequencing .091 -.029 -.028 -2.784 6.307 -.034 -.441 .659

Value and importance .072 .018 .017 1.752 6.581 .018 .266 .790

Questioning .142 -.001 -.001 -.104 6.246 -.001 -.017 .987

Use of technology .157 .090 .086 10.728 7.803 .090 1.375 .171

Summary

Chapter Four presented the data analysis of information gathered to examine the

correlation and relative contribution PDAS item ratings of Domain I and II have in explaining

the differences in the STAAR reading and mathematics test scores. Pearson correlations,

multiple regressions, and semi partial correlations were used to answer the four research

questions and four research sub-questions. Table 15 summarizes the findings and presents the

components of PDAS that have a statistically significant correlation to STAAR test scores. The

correlations between the PDAS domains and criteria rating and the STAAR test scores were

minimal. In the case of the reading STAAR test, three variables had a positive, significant

relationship to the reading scores. Similarly, when analyzing the data linked to the mathematics

STAAR test, five variables yielded a significant positive, low relationship between the

mathematics test scores and the teachers’ PDAS ratings. Overall, there is no relationship in this

79

district between teacher evaluation ratings and intact class STAAR mean scores; unique variance

that can be explained by teacher categorical data is less than two percent. In Chapter Five,

conclusions and implications of the data analysis as well as the recommendations for further

studies are presented.

Table 15

Summary of Data Analysis and Findings

PDAS Domains and Criteria Reading STAAR Test Scores Math STAAR Test Scores

Domain I Low Correlation Low Correlation

1. Engaged in learning No Correlation No Correlation

2. Successful in learning No Correlation No Correlation

3. Critical thinking No Correlation Low Contribution

4. Self-directed learning No Correlation Low Contribution

5. Connects learning No Correlation No Correlation

Domain II Low Correlation Low Correlation

1. Goals and objectives No Correlation No Correlation

2. Learner-centered Low Contribution No Correlation

3. Critical thinking No Correlation Low Contribution

4. Motivation Strategies No Correlation No Correlation

5. Alignment No Correlation No Correlation

6. Pacing/Sequencing No Correlation No Correlation

7. Value and importance No Correlation No Correlation

8. Questioning No Correlation No Correlation

9. Use of technology Low Contribution No Correlation

80

Chapter Five

Findings, Conclusions and Implications

This chapter presents a summary of the study and its findings, followed by a discussion

of the findings and the implications of the study. Lastly, recommendations for further research

are presented.

Summary of the Study

The quality of education and teachers’ effectiveness impact students’ lives beyond their

classroom performance and achievement as measured by standardized tests. However, some

claim there is a prevalent failure to recognize teacher effectiveness, to effectively document poor

teacher performance and to provide teachers with the support needed to improve their

pedagogical practices (Weisberg et at., 2009). Furthermore, in Texas, it is unclear if teacher

effectiveness as defined and measured by the teacher evaluation system, the Professional

Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), has any empirical relationship with students’

performance on the state of Texas’ reading and mathematics Assessments of Academic

Readiness (STAAR). Teacher effectiveness must be clearly defined in order to share effective

practices and ultimately positively impact student achievement for a wider range of students.

Hence, the intent of the study was to gather data to shed some light on the degree to which

administrators’ ratings of teachers’ effectiveness on the PDAS correlate with student learning as

measured by STAAR.

The study focused on the relationship between the classroom practices, as evaluated by

Domains I and II of PDAS, and third, fourth and fifth grade students’ performance on the reading

and mathematics STAAR tests. In order to determine if the teachers rated as more effective using

81

PDAS are positively impacting achievement of students on the reading and mathematics STAAR

tests, the following questions and sub-questions guided the study.

1. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to

explaining differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

2. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the reading STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to

explaining differences in the STAAR reading test scores?

3. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain I ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain I to

explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

4. Is there a correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II ratings and their students’

scores on the mathematics STAAR test?

a. What is the relative contribution of each criterion item in Domain II to

explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics test scores?

In an effort to answer the research questions, a correlational study was conducted at a

North Texas Independent School District. The study included 352 teacher evaluations ratings for

Domains I and II paired with their classes’ average scaled score on the third, fourth and fifth

grade 2013 reading and mathematics STAAR. Pearson correlation, multiple regressions, and

semi partial correlation were used to analyze the data.

82

Findings

The analysis of the teacher PDAS ratings and their classes’ average scores on reading and

mathematics STAAR was driven by the four research questions and four sub-questions stated

above. The data were analyzed with the purpose of examining the relationships between

teachers’ ratings on Domain I: teachers' effectiveness as it relates to students constant, successful

engagement in learning that has great depth and complexity, and Domain II: teachers’ ability to

provide learner-centered, research-based instruction that promotes critical thinking and problem

solving, of the PDAS as rated by campus administrators in the spring of 2013, and their students’

scale scores on the reading and mathematics 2013 STAAR tests. The analysis of evaluation data

was conducted keeping in mind that the evaluation tool, PDAS, rates each concept as defined by

the PDAS Scoring Guide rather than the individual instructional practices. Each PDAS criterion

defines the instructional concepts that should be implemented in the classrooms with no

clarifying statements or particular attention to the different instructional practices included

within each concept evaluated in each criterion.

Domain I: Student Engagement and Reading Test Scores

PDAS Domain I focuses on determining teachers' effectiveness as it relates to student’s

constant, successful engagement in learning that has great depth and complexity. The correlation

and regression results provided evidence to reject the hypothesis that there was no correlation

between the overall PDAS Domain I ratings and the students’ average scores on the reading

STAAR test. Based on the results, the overall level of the teachers’ effectiveness as it relates to

student’s constant, successful engagement in learning that has great depth and complexity has a

significant positive but low impact on student achievement on the reading STAAR test.

However, the individual criteria within Domain I do not explain the differences in the reading

83

STAAR scores. The five criteria individually analyzed were (1) student engagement in learning,

(2) student success in learning, (3) critical thinking and problem solving, (4) self-directed

learning and (5) opportunities to connect learning.

Domain II: Learner Centered Instruction and Reading Test Scores

The second research question focused on the correlation between the teachers’ PDAS

Domain II ratings (teachers’ ability to provide learner-centered, research-based instruction that

promotes critical thinking and problem solving) and their students’ scores on the reading

STAAR test. The correlation between the teachers’ PDAS Domain II and their students’ scores

on the reading STAAR test indicated that the teachers’ effectiveness as measured in Domain II

has a significant positive, low impact on students’ performance on the reading STAAR test.

Further analysis of the individual criteria ratings in Domain II indicates that learner-centered

instruction and the use of technology have a positive but low impact on the students’ reading

STAAR scores. The remaining criteria within Domain II, (1) instruction that is designed around

the goals and objectives of the course, (3) critical thinking and problem solving, (4) the use of

motivational strategies, (5) alignment of instruction to the course objectives, (6) pacing and

sequencing of the lesson, (7) clear explanation of the importance and value of the lesson, and (8)

the teacher’s questioning, do not make a statistically significant contribution individually to

explaining differences in the reading STAAR scores.

Domain I: Student Engagement and Mathematics Test Scores

The third research question focused on the analysis of Domain I ratings in relationship to the

mathematics STAAR scores. The correlation between Domain I and the students’ average scores

provided evidence to support the claim that the teachers’ effectiveness as it relates to the

84

students’ constant, successful engagement in learning that has great depth and complexity has a

positive impact on the students’ STAAR scores. Additionally, the results of the regression

analysis provide evidence that support the claim that criterion three, critical thinking, and

criterion four, self-directed learning, contribute significantly to explaining differences in the

STAAR mathematics scores. In contrast, the remaining criteria, (1) student engagement in

learning, (2) student success in learning, and (5) students connecting learning, do not contribute

significantly to explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics scores.

Domain II: Learner Centered Instruction and Mathematics Test Scores

The fourth research question examined the relationship between the teachers’ PDAS Domain

II ratings and the mathematics STAAR scores. The correlation provides evidence to support the

claim that the teachers’ effectiveness as it relates to learner-centered instruction has a positive,

low impact on the differences in the mathematics STAAR scores. The analysis of the individual

criterion revealed that only criterion three, critical thinking and problem solving, had a statistical

significant influence in explaining differences in the mathematics scores. The remaining eight

criteria in Domain II, (1) goals and objectives, (2) learner-centered instruction, (4) motivational

strategies, (5) alignment, (6), pacing and sequencing, (7) value and importance, (8) appropriate

questioning and inquiry and (9) the use of technology, had no statistically significant impact on

the STAAR mathematics scores.

PDAS and STAAR Data Analysis

Further analysis of the raw PDAS data revealed that ten out of 237 reading teachers

included in the study, 4%, received below expectations on Domains I and II. Out of the ten

reading teachers rated below expectations, six received substandard ratings in both Domain I and

85

II while four were rated as below expectations in one of the two domains and proficient in the

other domain. Similarly, six out of 241 mathematics teachers, 2%, received an overall rating of

11 points or less, below expectations or unsatisfactory, on Domain I while three mathematics

teachers, 1%, received an overall rating of below expectations, 22 points or less, on Domain II.

Two of the mathematics teachers were rated as below expectations on both domains while the

other five received a below expectations rating in one of the two domains. In other words, 96%

of reading teachers and up to 99% of all mathematics teachers were rated as proficient or

exceeding expectations on their 2013 PDAS evaluations.

In contrast, according to the Texas Academic Performance Report (Texas Education

Agency, 2013e) 70% of the third through fifth grade students in the school district met the

reading standards while 68% met the mathematics standards. It is important to point out that the

2013 STAAR reading passing standard ranged from 50 to 57% and the 2013 mathematics

STAAR passing standard ranged from 54 to 60% (Texas Education Agency, 2014a), anywhere

from ten to 20 percentage points below what is popularly considered passing, 70%.

Furthermore, only 28% of the district’s third through fifth graders met the recommended final

standard in reading, while 41% of Texas third through fifth grade students met the same

standard. The recommended final reading passing standards, to be implemented as the passing

standard in 2015-2016, range from 75 to 78% as passing.

Similarly, 19% of the district’s third through fifth grade students met the recommended

final passing level in mathematics, set between 78 to 83% (Texas Education Agency, 2014a)

while 34% of the State’s students met the same standard. The analysis of the raw data indicate

that the PDAS ratings of teachers in the North Texas school district were consistently high while

the performance of the students was below the state’s average. Correspondingly, in Pate’s 2010

86

study, Texas teachers who were rated as highly effective on PDAS were associated with low

student scores on the Texas assessments (Pate, 2010). The conclusions drawn from this study

also compare to the findings of previous studies from across the United States where teachers

working at low performing schools received high ratings on their performance evaluations

(Weisberg et al., 2009).

Conclusions and Implications

These inconsistencies between ratings of teacher effectiveness and student learning as

identified by the state assessment system are quite puzzling. If one believes that effective

teaching practices should be reflected in tests scores that purport to measure student

achievement, the findings of this study concerning the impact of the instructional practices

measured by PDAS and students STAAR scores lead to a wide range of potential conclusions

and a host of concomitant questions come to mind. Some of these questions focus on issues

related to teacher evaluation as a tool for identifying effective teaching practices while others

relate to issues surrounding the use of standardized tests as the measure of student learning for all

students.

Issues Related to Teacher Evaluations

The findings of this study and the analysis of the PDAS data raise questions regarding the

implementation of PDAS in Texas schools, the alignment of instructional practices deemed

effective under PDAS and the impact they have on student achievement, as well as a potential

gap between those practices and how effectively they promote student achievement among

diverse student populations.

87

In a school district where the percentage of students who met the STAAR standards is

below the state average, even when the state passing standards ranged from 50 to 60%, 97 to

99% of teachers were rated as proficient or exceeding expectations. Given the STAAR and

PDAS rating data, one might conclude that campus administrators inflated PDAS ratings.

Previous studies have found that evaluation ratings are often inflated (Frase & Streshly, 1994).

If that was the case in this study, it would not be an anomaly in the field of teacher evaluations.

Similarly, if the results of the study were influenced by the lack of evaluation training provided

for administrators, the practices of the school district where the study was conducted would be

aligned to previous studies where the researchers found that evaluation training was minimal

(Weisberg et al., 2009).

Since the impact the individual PDAS criterion had in explaining the differences in the

reading and mathematics scores was minimal, only two out of 14 individual criteria (14%) had

an impact on the reading scores while three criteria (21%) had an impact on the mathematics

scores, one might hypothesize that the standards that have been selected for use in the PDAS

system are not well chosen standards for effective instructional practice. Conversely, one could

argue that the standards are well chosen but that administrators lack the ability to accurately rate

teacher effectiveness or had the ability to rate effectively but chose to rate teachers with no

fidelity to the PDAS Scoring Guide. If the gap between teacher effectiveness and student

achievement is explained by the administrators’ lack of ability to accurately rate teachers,

perhaps leadership development and evaluation training should be provided to help campus

administrators understand how to effectively use the evaluation tool to identify areas of need and

use the information gathered to drive teacher supervision. This potential conclusion concerning

administrator ineffectiveness in employing the rating system appropriately is aligned with

88

previous studies conducted about administrators’ use of evaluations systems (Danielson &

McGreal, 2000; Goldrick, 2002; Sartain et al., 2010; Weisberg et al., 2009).

The limited relationship between student achievement on STAAR and teacher ratings on

PDAS might also be the result of a lack of fidelity of implementation and inconsistent

understanding of the purpose of the instrument. Although TEA has indicated that “the goal of

PDAS is to improve student performance through the professional development of teachers”

(Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p.10), it appears the actual implementation of the evaluation

system is not aligned to the initial goal of the instrument (Robinson, 2009). If that was the case

in this study, one could contend that the instrument has failed to serve the intended original goal

since student performance does not seem to correlate to teacher effectiveness as measured by

PDAS. However, despite the goal of PDAS, evaluation tools are not intended to improve student

achievement as suggested by the stated PDAS goal. Evaluation processes are generally

incompatible with such intent (Nolan & Hoover, 2011). Teacher evaluation systems could

potentially impact student learning if the evaluators effectively target areas in need of

improvement (Goldrick, 2002) and supplement the process with appropriate supervision.

Issues Related to Standardized Tests as Measures of Student Learning

Campus administrators might be using PDAS as designed but the instrument might be

measuring instructional practices that have little to no impact on student achievement as

measured by high-stakes testing. Conceivably, the criteria valued and rated through PDAS

promote good teaching with a focus on student engagement in student-centered, self-directed

challenging learning, but fail to value instructional strategies that facilitate the students’ transfer

of knowledge and skills to standardized tests. The majority of the teachers might indeed have

met the PDAS criteria to be rated as proficient or exceeding expectations, but failed to provide

89

students with the necessary skills to demonstrate mastery of the acquired knowledge and skills

on the tests like STAAR. The disconnect between the instructional practices documented

through PDAS and the students’ achievement could possibly be a product of the high-stake

testing shortfalls. Standardized tests are unable to measure some of the objectives of teaching

and learning (Koretz, 2008); perhaps measuring achievement of students from diverse

backgrounds is a deficit of the Texas assessment program.

One might also argue that teachers are indeed proficient or highly successful in the

implementation of effective instructional strategies but factors beyond their control negatively

impacted their students’ achievement on the STAAR tests. The study was conducted in a school

district where 81 percent of all students are economically disadvantaged, 40 percent are English

language learners and 72 percent are Hispanic. Teaching-learning models emphasize the

relationship between student-centered influences such as their family and home life (McIlrath &

Huitt, 1995) which impact student achievement but teachers cannot control. The context in

which students learn has a relationship with the variables students and teachers bring to the

classroom (McIlrath & Huitt, 1995) hence the students’ background or the context in which they

are learning, must be taken into consideration when planning instruction particularly in areas

where student learning is measured by standardized tests. The challenges students from these

historically underperforming groups face could have had an impact on the students’ STAAR

performance. Research has shown that Hispanic students enter kindergarten with lower reading

and mathematics skills than white students with wider gaps upon entering kindergarten when the

students come from economically disadvantaged homes (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Therefore,

one could make a case that PDAS does not take into account the different research-based

practices that have been shown to be effective when working with the challenging population

90

served at the school district where the study was conducted. For instance, PDAS does not take

into account the students’ use of total physical response, requiring students to speak in complete

sentences or the facilitation of structured academic conversations (Seidlitz & Perryman, 2010);

all strategies that have shown to help English language learners succeed in school. If the

practices that have been shown to positively impact the performance of these students are not

valued by PDAS, how can administrators document and .hold teachers accountable for the

implementation of such practices? When the state’s evaluation system fails to include those

practices into their evaluation system, what message is being sent regarding research-based

practices that impact the achievement of minority populations? In a state where over 51 percent

of the students are Hispanic and over 60 percent are economically disadvantaged (Texas

Education Agency, 2014b), should these practices not be valued and included in the teacher

evaluation system?

Others might claim that standardized tests, such as STAAR, are not accurate measures of

what students are in fact learning in classrooms where effective teachers provide good

instruction as defined by evaluation instruments like PDAS. “All data do not measure the most

important things, and some of it may be trivial, misleading, or unimportant” (English, 2010, p.

113). If either of the previous two arguments is accurate, campus administrators must help

teachers find a balance between research-based instruction that effectively meets the needs of all

students, while preparing for standardized tests that might not measure the most valuable

educational experiences. Since the authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,

“whatever could not be measured did not count” (Ravitch, 2010, p. 21). School success and

effectiveness are measured by the performance of students on standardized tests; testing has

become a major concern in schooling (Ravitch, 2010). In order to be considered successful in an

91

era of accountability and high-stakes testing, campus administrators and teachers have the

responsibility to find a balance in engaging students in learning that is challenging, student-

centered and self-directed while preparing students to transfer the knowledge and skills to the

tests. Teachers and administrators must understand the importance of “content overlap” (Brady

et al., as cited in McIlrath & Huitt, 1995, p. 5) in order to ensure instructional time is being

utilized to teach the curriculum while focusing on the knowledge and skills tested on the

standardized tests, otherwise the assessments become aptitude tests rather than a measure of the

mastery of the curriculum (McIlrath & Huitt, 1995). Teachers must master the balance between

the “art and the science of teaching” (Marzano, 2007) in an era where high-stakes testing define

schools success and effectiveness.

Focusing on Effective Instructional Practices

Some of the individual instructional practices assessed through PDAS did have a

statistically significant impact in explaining the differences in the STAAR scores. Thus, it is

important to examine those specific practices and identify what can be learned. First, student

engagement, the focus of Domain I, had a significant positive, low relationship with the reading

and mathematics STAAR scores. Teachers’ effectiveness in maintaining “active, successful

student participation in the learning process” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 37) while

providing opportunities for students to be “challenged by instruction and make connections to

work and life applications” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 37) positively impacted

students’ performance on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. The essence of Domain I

could be connected to the Rigor/Relevance Framework developed by the International Center for

Leadership in Education (Daggett, 2009). The Rigor/Relevance Framework, as Domain I,

attaches importance to the application of knowledge and skills to new situations (Daggett, 2009)

92

and having the competence to create solutions using the acquired knowledge and skills (Daggett,

2009). If teachers effectively engage students in learning that promotes the “application” and

“adaptation” (Daggett, 2009) of learned knowledge and skills, students are more likely to

successfully apply the appropriate knowledge and skills on the STAAR test and ultimately in life

outside the classroom. If the student engagement has a significant impact on student

achievement as indicated by the results of the correlation, campus administrators and teachers’

would be well advised to focus on identifying the most effective ways to engage students in

learning that result in the students’ successful application of the acquired knowledge and skills.

While no individual criterion within Domain I was found to statistically explain the

differences in the STAAR reading scores, criteria three, critical thinking, and four, self-directed

learning, significantly contributed to explaining differences in the STAAR mathematics scores.

“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from,

or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to

belief and action” (Wilson Mulnix, 2012, p. 465). According to PDAS Domain I criteria three,

effective teachers provide learning opportunities where “students are consistently engaged in

connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world

beyond the classroom” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p.65). Students in classrooms of

proficient teachers are engaged in learning at high levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, at the

application level or higher (Texas Education Agency, 2005b). Given the positive impact

criterion three had on the mathematics STAAR scores, and previous studies that have provided

evidence that students in classrooms of teachers who value the use critical thinking skills in

mathematics scored higher on mathematics tests (Kaplan & Owings, 2001), how can educators

93

continue to find effective ways to engage students in learning at higher cognitive levels? How

can teachers ensure critical thinking and opportunities for students to engage in the intellectual

process that results in the application or analysis of the knowledge and skills learned in schools

outside the classroom or on standardized tests such as STAAR?

Self-directed learning, as defined by PDAS, allows the learner to “create and extend a

skill, knowledge or concept connected to the learning objective” (Texas Education Agency,

2005b, p. 66). When learners successfully direct their own learning, they “appear able to transfer

learning, in terms of both knowledge and study skill, from one situation to another” (Rothwell &

Sensenig, 1999, p. 9). Self-directed learners are therefore engaged in learning and invested in

learning which results in deep learning (Cullen, Harris, & Hill, 2012). Based on the findings of

this study and previous research studies, it appears that it would beneficial if teachers find the

most effective ways to provide students with opportunities to direct their own learning, by

allowing students to create and extend their learning, which results in the mastery and the

transfer of knowledge and skills to other context. It seems that students are more likely to

successfully transfer the learned knowledge and skills to problems presented on the STAAR

mathematics tests when given the opportunity to be engaged in self-directed learning.

Overall ratings in Domain II had a significant positive, low relationship to both reading

and mathematics scores. When Domain II individual criterion were analyzed, two criteria, (2)

learner-centered instruction, and (9) the use of technology, had a statistically significant impact

on the reading STAAR scores, and one criterion, (3) critical thinking, made a contribution in

explaining differences in the mathematics STAAR scores.

Domain II focuses on the learner-centered instruction. Learner-centered instruction, as

defined by PDAS, provides for learning opportunities and instructional strategies that are

94

“aligned to the learning objectives and activities, student needs, and work and life applications”

(Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 38). “The instructional strategies promote application of

learning through critical thinking and problem solving” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 38)

while the teachers use “appropriate motivational and instructional strategies which successfully

and actively engage students in the learning process” (Texas Education Agency, 2005b, p. 38).

Students who have the opportunity to connect learning to their own experiences and interests are

more likely to use the learned knowledge and skills (Kaplan & Owings, 2001). The findings of

this study imply that when effective learner-centered instruction that promotes critical thinking

and engages students in learning is implemented, it positively impacts the students’ performance

on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. Not only does the overall Domain II rating

support the previous conclusion, but criterion two within Domain II, which focuses on the rating

of the teachers’ effectiveness in the implementation of learner-centered instruction also supports

the conclusion that learner-centered instruction positively impacts students’ reading STAAR

scores. “There is evidence that providing all students with the same reading instruction can be

detrimental to student achievement” (Ankrum & Bean, 2008, p. 134). Learner-centered

instruction in reading, where the teacher adapts instruction to meet the needs of the students,

positively impacts students’ reading development and improvement. Research in classrooms

where the teacher did not differentiate reading instruction provided evidence that students made

little to no progress in reading when reading instruction was not differentiated (McGill-Franzen,

Zmach, Solic, & Zeig, 2006; Moody, Vaughn & Schumm, 1997). Not only do students benefit

from reading at their instructional level, student-centered instruction provides the opportunities

for students to read text that is meaningful and interesting. Encouraging students to read more

could potentially have a positive impact on their reading proficiency and performance on reading

95

standardized tests if instruction includes the teaching of varied methods for students to transfer

learning (Allen, 2005).

In addition to learner-centered instruction, the effective use of technology as part of the

instructional process, Domain II criterion nine, had a statistically significant in explaining

differences in reading STAAR test scores. According to PDAS, the effective use of technology

as an instructional tool promotes student engagement in learning and increases student

enthusiasm (Texas Education Agency, 2005b). In a study conducted in 2005, Lei and Zhao

concluded that technology can indeed have a positive impact on student achievement. However,

the impact the use of technology has on student achievement depends on how the technology is

being utilized (Lei & Zhao, 2005). If high quality technology instruction cannot be guaranteed,

Lei and Zhao (2005) recommend that the time spent using technology for instruction is limited to

avoid a negative impact on student achievement. Alsafran and Brown (2012) found that the use

of technology and the way technology is used in Singapore schools has a positive correlation

with student achievement. However, the way technology is being used in the schools in the

United States was found to be ineffective (Alsafran and Brown, 2012). Singapore schools have a

statistically significant higher number of computers than schools in the United States and use the

technology more often than teachers in the United States (Alsafran and Brown, 2012). In the

cases where teachers in the United States had access to computers, 63% never used the available

computers; while in Singapore, 54% of teachers reported using the computers for instruction on a

regular basis (Alsafran and Brown, 2012). Moreover, the successful implementation of

technology depends on disposition of the classroom teacher (Middleton & Murray, 1999) and

their beliefs about the students’ readiness to use technology as an instructional tool (Jacobson et

al, 2010). In order for the billions of dollars spent on technology to have a positive impact on

96

student learning, learning must shift from teacher-centered to student-led to give the learners the

opportunity to engage in authentic, relevant learning experiences (Richardson, 2013). Given

previous research and the low contribution the technology criterion had in explaining the

differences in student scores, one would have to caution teachers to limit the use of technology

when the use does not have a clear instructional purpose and further research with regards to

appropriate use of technology is conducted.

The findings of the study should be taken into consideration but with extreme caution

given the low impact the criteria had in explaining the differences on the STAAR scores.

However, given previous studies related to each of the individual criterion, campus

administrators could look into the possibility of professional development targeting the effective

and consistent implementation of the instructional practices found to have the greatest impact on

student achievement, and student performance on the STAAR tests. If the findings of this study

are accurate representation of the instructional practices being implemented in the classrooms of

the school district, should teachers who are identified as highly effective in the implementation

of these instructional practices be asked to provide professional development opportunity to help

others duplicate the effective practices in their classrooms? What are campus leaders doing to

promote the use of effective instructional practices that further student engagement, self-directed

learning, student-centered instruction, critical thinking and the appropriate use of instructional

technology?

Concisely, the study has provided evidence to conclude that rigorous and relevant

instruction positively impacts student achievement. Instruction that is learner-centered, relevant

to students, and engages students in the learning process while connecting learning to life outside

the classroom can positively impact reading and mathematics achievement. Facilitating learning

97

that is learner-centered and allows for students to use instructional technology positively

impacted student achievement in reading. While providing students with the opportunity to

engage in self-directed learning that is cognitively challenging, rigorous, positively impacted

student achievement in mathematics. Students who have the opportunity to participate in

learning that is relevant and challenging could potentially experience an increase in their

performance on the Texas state tests.

It is important to note that the specific criteria on the PDAS are expressed as ,

overarching concepts rather than as specific instructional practices. These broad statement of

effective behavior may have played a significant role in the results of this study. For example,

the definition of criterion three in Domain I, critical thinking and problem solving, could

theoretically vary based on the appraisers’ understanding of the concepts of critical thinking and

problem solving. While rating criterion three, one administrator might focus on the cognitive

level of the learning as others focus on the opportunities given to students to solve problems at

various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Further analysis of PDAS as an evaluation tool, including

the Scoring Guide provided to teachers and appraisers, is needed before more definite

conclusions can be drawn regarding the concepts and instructional practices that seemed to

contribute to explaining differences in the STAAR scores.

Future Research

Although the study shed light into some of the instructional practices that impact student

achievement, it also identified areas of concern and raised large number of questions that could

be explored in future research studies. Some specific recommendations for future studies are

provided below:

98

1. Researchers (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005, 2006, 2008) have found that principals are indeed

capable of identifying highly effective and struggling teachers. Hence, in order to

identify the reasoning behind the high ratings teachers received on PDAS at the North

Texas district, a qualitative study that looks at principals’ perceptions and those who can

accurately predict which teachers have a positive and negative impact on student

achievement on the tests is needed. The findings of such a study could potentially and

accurately identify teachers who are effective in class and also produce high levels of

student success on state tests. The identification of highly effective teachers could

potentially impact the teaching practices in other classrooms around the school district.

2. In order to identify instructional practices valued by PDAS that could potentially have a

stronger impact on student achievement, qualitative research is needed to take a closer

look at the instructional practices of teachers who not only have high PDAS ratings but

who have high rates of student success as measured by authentic classroom assessments

or performance on reading and mathematics universal screeners, such as the

Developmental Reading Assessment and the reading and mathematics Children’s

Progress Academic Assessments, instruments that measure student growth and identify

student strengths and areas in need of improvement. How are the effective teachers

closing the gap between learning in class and achievement as measured by standardized

tests? Furthermore, what do these teachers value and consider key factors to their

students’ success in class and on STAAR tests?

3. Opponents of high-stakes testing often argue that using tests to measure teacher

effectiveness is not appropriate given that the student achievement is exclusively

measured on the day of the test. Hence, a longitudinal research study ought to be

99

conducted to establish the relationship between the teachers’ effectiveness and student

growth based on STAAR tests results and additional reading and mathematics diagnostic

tests available in the school district. A more comprehensive analysis of students

assessment results would give a more inclusive view of teacher effectiveness as measured

by their students achievement on a various assessments not just STAAR. The

identification of truly effective teachers can be beneficial to students across the district,

and not just the students in those classrooms. By replicating the practices of effective

teachers, students in other classrooms will benefit from equally effective instruction.

4. Similarly, a more comprehensive assessment of teacher effectiveness should be studied.

Valuable evaluation tools should take into account the teachers’ instructional practices,

their abilities to meet the needs of their students, and their contribution to the school

while providing opportunities for high quality, timely professional development (Darling-

Hammond, 2013). An in-depth analysis of the current Texas teacher evaluation system

and the effectiveness of the instrument in assessing teachers’ instructional practices is

needed.

5. On the other hand, if one assumes that the teacher evaluations are accurate and a high

percentage of teachers are successfully implementing the pedagogical practices valued by

PDAS, a study of instructional practices that meet the needs of economically

disadvantaged students and English language learners is needed. What instructional

strategies successfully meet the needs of these special populations? What instructional

practices help economically disadvantaged students and English language learners

transfer the acquired knowledge and skills to standardized tests? What other instructional

practices should be included in the Texas teacher evaluation system?

100

6. Perhaps the focus of future efforts by educators and researchers ought not to be in

evaluating and trying to fix the current education system but rather becoming innovative

educators. There is evidence that current teacher evaluation systems have significant

flaws and appear to have minimal impact they have in improving instructional practices.

Similarly, there is research documenting the negative impact standardized testing has on

teaching and student learning. Still, educators devote countless hours to both of these

phenomena. Christensen, Horn & Johnson suggest that “no longer will research on best

practices or what works best on average across education suffice…education research

must move toward understanding what works from the perspective of the individual

students in different circumstances” (Christensen, Horn & Johnson, 2011, p. 186). It is

time for educators to focus their time and efforts on creating a new education system that

gives attention to the children and their learning needs while devaluing the aspects of the

current education system that have no true impact on the children’s education and their

future. School leaders should focus their efforts in putting in place systems that support

change (Schlechty, 2010) in order to transform the educational system into an innovative

system where children excel,

Summary

This study was conducted with the purpose of shedding some light on the relationship

between the classroom practices, as evaluated by Domains I and II of PDAS, and third, fourth

and fifth graders’ performance on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. The intent was to

identify any instructional practices considered effective under PDAS that are positively

impacting achievement of students on the reading and mathematics STAAR tests. The study

identified various instructional practices that made a positive but low contribution in explaining

101

the differences in the students’ STAAR scores. In addition, the analysis of the PDAS data

demonstrated high teacher evaluation ratings associated with student test scores significantly

below average. The PDAS ratings assigned by administrators brought up questions regarding the

administrators’ ability to provide useful feedback as well as the value they might put or not on

PDAS. Additionally, the data lead to questions regarding the effectiveness of the instructional

practices valued by PDAS in meeting the needs of diverse student populations. Furthermore, the

students’ scores lead to questions regarding the gap between learning taking place in the

classrooms and students’ achievement on the state’s assessments. Further research is still needed

to determine the use of PDAS as a valuable measurement of teacher effectiveness and the

correlation to students’ achievement on the STAAR tests.

102

References

Allen, J. (2005). Teaching for transfer: Bridging best practice and high-stakes testing. Voices

from the Middle, 13(2), 42-43. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/213931912?accountid=13158

Alsafran, E., & Brown, D. S. (2012). The relationship between classroom computer technology

and students’ academic achievement. Research in Higher Education Journal, 15, 1-19.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/993151562?accountid=13158

Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2008). Differentiated reading instruction: What and how.

Reading Horizons, 48 (2), 133-146. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/236486668?accountid=13158

Bomer, R., Dworin, J. E., May, L., & Semingson, P. (2008). Miseducating teachers about the

poor: A critical analysis of Ruby Payne's claims about poverty. Teachers College Record,

110 (12), 2497-2531. Retrieve from

http://www.tcrecord.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/library/content.asp?contentid=14591

Caffrey, E. D., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2010). Value-added modeling for teacher effectiveness.

Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from

http://congressional.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/congressional/result/congres

sional/pqpdocumentview?accountid=13158&groupid=99212&pgId=7678ec7f-c559-

4d73-97a9-c15df466cf20

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2012). Great teaching. Education Next, 12 (3)

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1237826679?accountid=13158

103

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011) Disrupting class: How disruptive

innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (2010). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Taylor & Francis e-

Library version]. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-

Qualitative-Quantitative-

ebook/dp/B00DYWBXXE/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1377996066&sr=8-1

Cullen, R., Harris, M., & Hill, R. R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum: Design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com

Daggett, W. (2009). Rigor/relevance framework. Rexford, NY: International Center for

Leadership in Education. Retrieved from

http://www.leadered.com/pdf/R&Rframework.pdf

Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practices. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 32-37.

Danielson, C. F. & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.

[Unity Reader version]. Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pennstate/Doc?id=10044783

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392

Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for

Effectiveness and Improvement. Oxford, OH: Teachers College Press.

104

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E. H., & Rothstein, J. (2011). Getting

teacher evaluation right: A background paper for policy makers. Washington DC:

National Academy of Education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533702

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating

teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (6), 8-15.

Duffrin, E. (2011). What’s the value in value-added? The Education Digest, 77(2), 46-49.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/896478461?accountid=13158

Elmore, R. F. (1999). Building a new structure for school leadership. American Educator, 23(4),

6-13. Retrieved from

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter9900/NewStructureWint99_00.pdf

English, F. W. (2010). Deciding what to teach & test: Developing, aligning, and leading the

curriculum. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.

English, F. W. & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: creating a level playing field

for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, Maryland:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Everson, K. C., Feinauer, E., & Sudweeks, R. R. (2013). Rethinking teacher evaluation: A

conversation about statistical inferences and value-added models. Harvard Educational

Review, 83(2), 349-370, 400, 402. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1399327202?accountid=13158

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in

teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213. Retrieved from

http://www.tcrecord.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/library/search.asp?field_option1=Arti

cle%20Title&field1=On%20Making%20Determinations%20of%20Quality%20in%20Te

105

aching&operator1=AND&field_option2=All%20Fields&field2=&operator2=AND&field

_option3=All%20Fields&field3=&type=ad

Firestone, W., Schorr, R., & Monfils, L. (Eds.). (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test:

Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Frase, L. E., & Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher

evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 47-57. Retrieved from

http://download.springer.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/static/pdf/394/art%253A10.1007

%252FBF00972709.pdf?auth66=1382151762_65c8b176ff72308f15e4028c4a231b3a&ex

t=.pdf

Goldrick, L. (2002). Improving teacher evaluation to improve teaching quality. Washington, DC:

National Governors' Association, Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480159

Greene, J. P., Winters, M. A., & Forster, G. (2003). Testing high stakes tests: Can we believe the

results of accountability tests? Civic Report, 33.

Gregoire, S. A. (2009). Effectiveness of principals as evaluators of teachers. (Doctoral

dissertation, The University of Minnesota). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/304954423?accountid=13158. (304954423).

Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 8(41). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/index.html

Isoré, M. (2009), Teacher evaluation: current practices in OECD countries and a literature

review. OECD Education Working Papers, 23. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd-

106

ilibrary.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docserver/download/5ksf76jc5phd.pdf?expires=13

81091197&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=FA5F2A8D7D01ADDD0B11C9B7B384

4DD1

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005) Principals as agents: subjective performance measurement in

education. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11463.pdf

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on

subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-

136. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/522974.pdf?accept

TC=true

Jacobson, M. J., So, H. J., Teo, T., Lee, J., Pathak, S., & Lossman, H. (2010). Epistemology and

learning: Impact on pedagogical practices and technology use in Singapore schools.

Computers & Education, 55, 1694-1706. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S0360131510

00206X

Jones, M., Jones, B & Hargrove, T. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing.

Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2001). Teacher quality and student achievement:

Recommendations for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 85 (628), 64-73.

Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

107

Lefgren, L., & Jacob, B. A. (2006). When principals rate teachers. Education Next, 6 (2)

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1237806770?accountid=13158

Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study.

Computers & Education. 49 (2007), 284-296.

Marchant, G. (2004). What is at stake with high stakes testing? A discussion of issues and

research. Ohio Journal of Science. 104 (2), 2-7.

Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Martella, R. C.; Nelson, J. R.; Morgan, R. L.; Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013). Understanding

and Interpreting Educational Research. Retrieved from

http://reader.eblib.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/(S(lgdo1mbid01tegooaxlewa1j))/Reade

r.aspx?p=1186793&o=837&u=aLhS%2bFVSYUM%3d&t=1378139684&h=F96F3B946

87C67883DC3E9C35AB42424337E04B4&s=18290889&ut=2679&pg=1&r=img&c=-

1&pat=n#

Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-

19.

Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision supporting the art and

science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mayo, R. W. (1997). Trends in teacher evaluation. The Clearing House, 70(5), 269-270.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218196265?accountid=13158

McCollum, D. (2011). The deficits of standardized tests: Countering the culture of easy numbers.

Assessment Update, 23(2), 3-5.

108

McGill-Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The confluence of two policy

mandates: Core reading programs and third grade retention in Florida. Elementary School

Journal, 107, 67-91.

McIlrath, D. A., & Huitt, W. G. (1995). The teaching-learning process: A discussion of models.

Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved

from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/modeltch.html

Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher

performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242-247. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539630

Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student

academic achievement in reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional

Media, 26 (1), 109. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/204260743?accountid=13158

Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. S. (1997). Instructional grouping for reading. Remedial

& Special Education, 18, 347-356.

Nolan, J. F. & Hoover, L. A. (2011). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Odland, J. (2007). NCLB: Time to reevaluate its effectiveness. Childhood Education, 83(2), 2-

98B, 98N. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/210390594?accountid=13158

Parkay, F., Hass, G. & Anctil, E. (2010). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing

quality educational programs. Boston: Pearson.

109

Pate, G. (2010). The Texas professional development and appraisal system: Links to student

achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/839826028?accountid=13158. (839826028).

Peterson, K. D., & Peterson, C. A. (2006). Effective teacher evaluation: A guide for principals.

[Sage Research eBook version]. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.4135/9781412990219

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and

choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading

in the elementary grade. American educational research journal. 46 (3), 853-891.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284864

Region 13 Education Service Center. (2004). 2004 PDAS revision: Scoring criteria guide.

Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www4.esc13.net/uploads/pdas/docs/ScoringCriteriaGuide.pdf

Region 13 Education Service Center. (2013). Professional development and appraisal system

(PDAS). Retrieved from http://www4.esc13.net/pdas/

Richardson, W. (2013). Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70 (6), 10-14.

Robinson, G. W. (2009). Principals’ perceptions regarding the role of the Professional

development and appraisal system in teacher supervision in Texas. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Houston). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/304895504?accountid=13158

Rothwell, B. & Sensenig, K. (1999). The sourcebook for self-directed learning. Amherst, MA:

HRD Press, Inc. [Google eBook]. Retrieved from

110

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yWes2NRKQroC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq

=importance+of+self-

directed+learning&ots=x4aNq2gIBH&sig=oSXpSQ7IXqB1ewvUxk_kOI1pq9U#v=onep

age&q=importance%20of%20self-directed%20learning&f=true

Sanders, A. (2008). Left behind: Low-income students under the no child left behind act

(NCLB). Journal of Law and Education, 37(4), 589-596. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/200982802?accountid=13158

Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R. & Krone, E. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluation: Findings from

the first year of the excellence in teaching project in Chicago public schools. Chicago,

IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED512286.pdf

Schmoker, Mike. (2006). Results Now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in

teaching and learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

Schlechty, P. C. (2010) Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning

organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seidlitz, J. & Perryman, B. (2010). 7 Steps to a language-rich interactive classroom: Research-

based strategies for engaging all students. San Clemente, CA: Canter Press.

Stecher, B., Garet, M., Holtzman, D., & Hamilton, L. (2012). Implementing measures of teacher

effectiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 39-43.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L.W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case

analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

Journal of Teacher Education. 62 (4), 339-355. Retrieved from

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/62/4/339

111

Texas Association of School Boards. (2012). Texas districts test new teacher evaluation systems

for state model. HR Exchange. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tasb.org/services/hr_services/hrexchange/2012/october12/eval_pilots_lead.as

px

Texas Education Agency. (2005a). Professional development and appraisal system: Participant

manual. Austin, TX.

Texas Education Agency. (2005b). Professional development and appraisal system: Teacher

manual. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www4.esc13.net/uploads/pdas/docs/PDAS_Teacher_Manual.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2010a). 10_01 Adopted revisions to 19 TAC chapter 150, subchapter

AA. Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=2147492075

Texas Education Agency. (2010b). Historical overview of assessment in Texas. Austin, TX.

Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147506146

&libID=2147506139

Texas Education Agency. (2011). Systems used to evaluate teacher performance. Austin, TX.

Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147502759

&libID=2147502753

Texas Education Agency. (2012a). 2011-2012 State performance report. Austin, TX. Retrieved

from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2012/state.html

Texas Education Agency. (2012b). Historical overview of assessment in Texas. Austin, TX.

Retrieved from

112

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2576980524

2&libID=25769805242

Texas Education Agency. (2012c). Technical digest 2011-2012. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=25769805232

Texas Education Agency. (2013a). State of Texas assessments of academic readiness summary

report: Grade 3 reading. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147507357

&libID=2147507348

Texas Education Agency. (2013b). State of Texas assessments of academic readiness summary

report: Grade 4 reading. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147507360

&libID=2147507351

Texas Education Agency. (2013c). State of Texas assessments of academic readiness summary

report: Grade 5 reading. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147507348

&libID=2147507339

Texas Education Agency. (2013d). State of Texas assessments of academic readiness (STAAR):

Vertical scale technical report. Austin, TX. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2576980605

3&libID=25769806056

Texas Education Agency. (2013e). 2012-2013 Texas academic performance report. Austin, TX:

Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/2013/srch.html?srch=D

113

Texas Education Agency. (2014a). STAAR® raw score conversion tables for 2012-2013. Austin,

TX: Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=2147510637

Texas Education Agency. (2014b). Texas academic performance report: 2012-2013 state

performance. Austin, TX: Retrieved from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/2013/state.pdf

Triola, M. F. (2010). Elementary statistics using Excel. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington,

DC: Education Publications Center. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data in

EDFacts: A white paper on current status and potential changes. Washington DC: Office

of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/free-lunch-white-paper.doc

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect. The Education

Digest, 75(2), 31-35. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/218196265?accountid=13158

William, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist,

45(2), 107-122.

Wilson Mulnix, J. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy

and Theory, 44 (5), 464-479.

114

Zimmerman, S., & Deckert-Pelton, M. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: teachers’ perceptions

of the principals’ role in professional evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 87(636), 28-37.

Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com/content/87/636/28

115

Appendix A

Professional Development and Appraisal System Instrument

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Engaged in learning

2. Successful in learning

3. Critical thinking/ problem solving

4. Self-directed

5. Connects learning

Total: 20 to 25 Exceeds Expectations

12 to 19 Proficient

4 to 11 Below Expectations

0 to 3 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Goals and objectives

2. Learner-centered

3. Critical thinking and problem solving

4. Motivational strategies

5. Alignment

Total: 37 to 45 Exceeds Expectations

23 to 36 Proficient

7 to 22 Below Expectations

0 to 6 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

6. Pacing/sequencing

7. Value and importance

8. Appropriate question- ing and inquiry

9. Use of technology

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

Revised June 20121

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Monitored and assessed

2. Assessment and in- struction are aligned

3. Appropriate assess- ment

4. Learning reinforced

5. Constructive feedback

Total: 25 to 30 Exceeds Expectations

15 to 24 Proficient

5 to 14 Below Expectations

0 to 4 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

6. Relearning and re-evaluation

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Below(x 1)

Proficient(x 3)

Exceeds(x 5)

1. Discipline procedures

Total

8. Manages time and materials

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials

Subtotal

2. Self-discipline and self-directed learning

3. Equitable teacher- student interaction

4. Expectations for behavior

5. Redirects disruptive behavior

Total: 34 to 40 Exceeds Expectations

20 to 33 Proficient

6 to 19 Below Expectations

0 to 5 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

6. Reinforces desired behavior

7. Equitable and varied characteristics

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

Revised June 20122

Domain V: Professional Communication

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Written with students

2. Verbal/non-verbal with students

3. Reluctant students

4. Written with parents, staff, community members, and other professionals

5. Verbal/non-verbal with parents, staff, com- munity members, and other professionals

Total: 25 to 30 Exceeds Expectations

15 to 24 Proficient

5 to 14 Below Expectations

0 to 4 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

6. Supportive, courteous

Domain VI: Professional Development

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Campus/district goals

2. Student needs

3. Prior performance appraisal

4. Improvement of student performance

Total: 16 to 20 Exceeds Expectations

9 to 15 Proficient

3 to 8 Below Expectations

0 to 2 Unsatisfactory

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

Revised June 20123

Domain VII: Compliance With Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total

Subtotal

1. Policies, procedures, and legal require- ments

2. Verbal/written directives

3. Environment

Total: 13 to 15 Exceeds Expectations

9 to 12 Proficient

3 to 8 Below Expectations

0 to 2 Unsatisfactory

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

Revised June 20124

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance Of All Students on the Campus

Exceeds(x 5)

Proficient(x 3)

Below(x 1)

Unsatis-factory(x 0)

Total 1-9

Subtotal 1-9

1. Aligns instruction

2. Analyzes state assessment data

3. Appropriate sequence

Total: 37 to 45 Exceeds Expectations

23 to 36 Proficient

7 to 22 Below Expectations

0 to 6 Unsatisfactory

4. Appropriate materials

5. Monitors student performance

6. Monitors attendance

7. Students in at-risk situations

8. Appropriate plans for intervention

9. Modifies and adapts

40 to 50

24 to 39

8 to 23

0 to 7

**Teachers's 1stYear on Campus

Teacher's SubsequentYears on Campus

**Campus performance rating or AYP not scored as per Commissioner's Rules, Ch. 150.1002(f)

PLUS 10. Campus Performance Rating of:

A. Exemplary

Recognized

Academically Acceptable

Academically Unacceptable

B. Meets AYP

*Needs Improvement

*If needs improvement, list in the spaces below Indicators from page 6.

=

=

=

=

=

=

4

2

1

0

1

0 Total A+B ________

Graduation Rate/Attend

Participation Performance

Participation & Performance (Sum of 1-10)

Final Total Domain VIII

_______

_______

_______

_______

_______

_______

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

Comments:

Strengths Areas to Address

Signature of Appraiser:

My appraiser has given me a copy of this Observation Summary Report.

Signature of Teacher:

Date:

Date:

Observation Summary

Signature of Appraiser:

My appraiser and I have discussed this Summative Annual Appraisal Report.

Signature of Teacher:

Date:

Date:

Summative Annual Appraisal

Revised June 20125

2 0 1 2 R e v i s i o n

Name:

Beginning Time:

Appraiser: Date: Campus: Assignment/Grade:

Ending Time:P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A n d A p p r a i s a l S y s t e m

Observation SummarySummative Annual Appraisal

AYP Needs Improvement Indicators

Reading Performance and/or Participation1.

Performance Only1a.

Participation Only1b.

Performance and Participation1c.

Mathematics Performance and/or Participation2.

Performance Only2a.

Participation Only2b.

Performance and Participation2c.

Graduation Rate3.

Attendance4.

Reading and Mathematics5.

Reading Performance Only and Math Performance Only5a.

Reading Performance Only and Math Participation Only5b.

Reading Performance Only and Math Performance and Participation5c.

Reading Participation Only and Math Participation Only5d.

Reading Participation Only and Math Performance and Participation5e.

Reading Performance Only and Graduation Rate6.

Reading, Mathematics, and Graduation Rate7.

Reading/Performance, Math/Performance and Graduation Rate7a.

Reading/Performance, Math/Participation and Graduation Rate7b.

Reading/Performance, Math/Performance/Participation and Graduation Rate7c.

Mathematics and Graduation Rate8.

Mathematics/Performance and Graduation Rate8a.

Mathematics/Participation and Graduation Rate8b.

Mathematics Performance/Participation and Graduation Rate8c.

Revised June 20126

122

Appendix B

Professional Development and Appraisal System Scoring Criteria Guide

���������������� ������������������

2004 PDAS Revision

Scoring Criteria Guide

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 1 Revised June 2004

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process I-1. Students are actively engaged in learning. Things To Consider • Students are focused on the learning objective during the academic learning time. • Evidence of alignment of activities with the learning objective. Quality: Engagement in the learning produces student success. Look for the level of engagement as determined by the strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the activities with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the number of students actively engaged in the learning at regular intervals.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently engaged and successful in learning that has great depth and complexity.

QUALITY Students are engaged and successful in learning.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in learning.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Student engagement is consistently self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement is self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement is occasionally self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is frequently a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Student engagement is rarely/never self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is almost always/always a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Students consistently take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Student engagement is self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement is occasionally self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is frequently a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Student engagement is rarely/never self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is almost always/always a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Students are consistently engaged in connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Student engagement is self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement is occasionally self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is frequently a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Student engagement is rarely/never self-directed/intrinsically motivated. Student engagement is almost always/always a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Multiple instructional strategies aligned with the learning objectives are used to engage learning.

Instructional strategies are aligned with the learning objectives.

Instructional strategies are frequently driven by academic content and/or activities rather than by learning objectives.

Instructional strategies are almost always/always driven by academic content and/or activities rather than by learning objectives.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students are active learners.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are active learners.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are active learners.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are active learners.

Students are focused on learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students are focused on learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students are focused on learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students are focused on learning objective that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Instructional strategies/activities reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Instructional strategies/activities reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Instructional strategies reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Instructional strategies reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 2 Revised June 2004

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process I-2. Students are successful in learning. Things To Consider • Students demonstrate success with the stated, implied or written learning objectives. • Assessment is aligned with the stated, implied or written learning objectives. Quality: Assessment criteria and standards are clear and have been communicated to the student. Look at the level of success of students through strength, impact, variety and alignment of the assessment with

the content and instruction. Quantity: Focus on the number of students that are assessed. Focus on the number of students that are successful in the learning.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful in learning. Learning objectives have great depth and complexity.

QUALITY Students are successful in learning. Learning objectives have some depth and complexity.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in learning. Learning objectives are frequently at low levels of complexity.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in learning. Learning objectives are almost always/always at low levels of complexity.

Student engagement and success are consistently self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement and success are self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Students consistently take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Students take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Students are consistently successful in connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom. Students are consistently assessed on learning that is aligned with the learning objectives.

Students are successful in connecting/applying learning within the discipline. Students are assessed on learning that is aligned with the learning objectives.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Assessment strategies are frequently driven by academic content and/or activities rather than by learning objectives.

Students are rarely/never successful in learning. Assessment strategies are almost always/always driven by academic content and/or activities rather than by learning objectives.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students are successful in reaching the learning objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are successful in reaching the learning objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are successful in reaching the learning objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are successful in reaching the learning objectives.

Assessment strategies consistently reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Assessment strategies reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Assessment strategies reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Assessment strategies reflect the unique needs/characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 3 Revised June 2004

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process I-3. Student behaviors indicate learning is at a high cognitive level (e.g., critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, etc.). Things To Consider • Students are involved in learning activities at the application level or higher on Bloom's Taxonomy. • Learning activities produce a logical and innovative approach, or a solution to a problem or concern. Quality: Look at the level of thinking to determine the strength, impact, variety and alignment of the learning activity. Learning activities are at the application level or higher on Bloom's Taxonomy

when appropriate to the learning objective. Students are challenged by the instruction. Quantity: Focus on the number of students involved in learning activities at the application level or higher on Bloom's Taxonomy, when appropriate to the learning objective.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful in learning that has depth, complexity and links to a conceptual foundation.

QUALITY Students are successful in the learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in the learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

QUALTIY Students are rarely/never successful in the learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students consistently take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products that reflect the application level or higher on Blooms’ Taxonomy.

Students take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products that reflect the application level or higher on Blooms’ Taxonomy.

Students are occasionally successful in the learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students are rarely/never successful in the learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

Students are consistently engaged in connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students are engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

Students are occasionally engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

Students are rarely/never engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90%-100%) Students are focused on complex and challenging learning objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are focused on challenging learning objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are focused on challenging objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are focused on challenging objectives.

Students are engaged in instructional activities that are driven by high level learning objectives.

Students are engaged in instructional activities that are driven by high level learning objectives.

Students are engaged in instructional activities that are driven by high level learning objectives.

Students are engaged in instructional activities that are driven by high level learning objectives.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 4 Revised June 2004

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process I-4. Students are self-directed/self-initiated as appropriate to the lesson objectives. Things To Consider • Students create or extend a skill, knowledge or concept connected to the learning objective. • Students initiate or adapt activities and projects to enhance understanding. • Students demonstrate task commitment. Quality: Focus on appropriateness of content for self-directed/self-initiated opportunities. Quantity: Focus on the number of students that are appropriately self-directed/self-initiated.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful in extending the learning, appropriately questioning the teacher and/or peers and/or producing products using appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUALITY Students are successful in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

Students are consistently successful in finding their own strategies for connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students are successful in finding their own strategies for connecting/applying learning.

Students are occasionally successful in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities. Most instruction is teacher directed.

Students are rarely/never successful in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities. Most instruction is teacher directed.

The teacher uses a variety of motivational and instructional strategies to promote student responsibility/investment in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

The teacher uses motivational and instructional strategies to promote student responsibility/investment in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

The teacher occasionally uses motivational and instructional strategies to promote student responsibility/investment in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

The teacher rarely/never uses motivational and instructional strategies to promote student responsibility/investment in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90%-100%) Students are engaged in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are engaged in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are engaged in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are engaged in appropriate self-directed/self-initiated activities.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 5 Revised June 2004

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process I-5. Students connecting learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline, and with other disciplines. Things To Consider • Students demonstrate a connection of the learning to work and life applications. • Students demonstrate a connection of the learning to prior/future learning within the discipline. • Students demonstrate a connection of the learning with other disciplines. Quality: Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the connection with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the number of students that can demonstrate a connection of the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline, and with other disciplines.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory

QUALITY Depth and complexity of learning are consistently characterized by successful student connection of the learning with prior/future learning within the discipline, with other disciplines, with students’ interests/experiences, with issues beyond the classroom.

QUALITY Depth and complexity of learning are characterized by successful student connection of the learning with prior/future learning within the discipline.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in learning.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Student responsibility/investment in complex learning is consistent.

Student responsibility/investment in learning is present.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Students consistently take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Students take reasonable risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

Students are consistently engaged in producing high quality products, which connect learning with prior/future learning within the discipline, with other disciplines, with students’ interests/experiences, with issues beyond the classroom.

Students are engaged in producing quality products, which connect learning with prior/future learning within the discipline.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Students are rarely/never successful in learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students are successful in connecting the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are successful in connecting the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are successful in connecting the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are successful in connecting the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

Students are engaged in multiple activities to connect the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

Students are engaged in multiple activities to connect the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

Students are engaged in multiple activities to connect the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

Students are engaged in multiple activities to connect the learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 6 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-1. Objectives and goals include basic knowledge/skills and central themes/concepts of the discipline. Things To Consider • The learning objective is communicated or implied. • The learning objective addresses a new skill or knowledge. • The learning objective connects to a central theme/concept of the discipline. • The learning objective addresses the TEKS, as appropriate. Quality: Objectives and goals reflect important learning and conceptual understanding. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the learning objective to a central theme/concept of the discipline. Quantity: Objectives and goals reflect needs of all students.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful in learning that is constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

QUALITY Students are successful in learning that is constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in learning. Instruction is occasionally constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in learning. Instruction is rarely/never constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

Students consistently find their own strategies for constructing learning and for connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students find their own strategies for constructing learning and for connecting/applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students are occasionally successful in learning. Instruction is occasionally constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

Students are rarely/never successful in learning. Instruction is rarely/never constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline.

Multiple strategies are consistently used to communicate the specific new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

Strategies are used to communicate the specific new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

Strategies are occasionally used to communicate the specific new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

Strategies are rarely/never are used to communicate the specific new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

Learning is consistently constructed around concepts that are central themes/concepts in more than one discipline.

Learning is constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline rather than miscellaneous, unconnected sets of knowledge and/or skills.

Learning is occasionally constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline; it frequently consists of unconnected sets of knowledge/skills.

Learning is rarely/never constructed around central themes/concepts of the discipline; it almost always/always consists of unconnected sets of knowledge/skills.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students are consistently aware of the specific, new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are aware of the specific, new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are occasionally aware of the specific, new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are rarely/never aware of the specific, new learning objectives (skill and/or concept).

Learning objectives are appropriate to the unique needs/characteristics of all students.

Learning objectives are appropriate to the unique needs/characteristics of all students.

Learning objectives are appropriate to the unique needs/characteristics of all students.

Learning objectives are appropriate to the unique needs/characteristics of all students.

New learning is aligned with the TEKS, when appropriate. New learning is aligned with the TEKS, when appropriate.

New learning is aligned with the TEKS, when appropriate.

New learning is aligned with the TEKS, when appropriate.

Instruction has been collaboratively planned and delivered to insure connection between/among disciplines.

Instruction has been collaboratively planned and delivered to insure connection between/among disciplines.

Instruction has been collaboratively planned and delivered to insure connection between/among disciplines.

Instruction has been collaboratively planned and delivered to insure connection between/among disciplines.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 7 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-2. Instructional content is learner-centered (e.g., relates to the interests and varied characteristics of students). Things To Consider • Teacher relates instruction to the interests of students. • Teacher relates instruction to the needs of students. • Teacher relates instruction to the varied characteristics of students. Quality: Content is relevant to students and instructional goals. Lesson structure allows for different pathways according to student needs. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of content with

the varied characteristics of students. Quantity: Look for appropriate connections to all students.

Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently engaged and successful in the learning.

QUALITY Students are engaged and successful in the learning.

QUALITY Students are occasionally engaged and successful in the learning.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never engaged and successful in the learning.

Students consistently make their own connections between the learning and their unique needs, interests, and/or characteristics.

Students are engaged and successful in the learning.

Students are occasionally engaged and successful in the learning. Students are frequently dependent on the teacher to make connections between their learning and their unique needs.

Students are rarely/never engaged and successful in the learning. Students are almost always/always dependent on the teacher to make connections between their learning and their unique needs.

The teacher consistently uses unique /creative/innovative strategies to relate the learning to the unique needs, interests, and or characteristics of the students.

Students are engaged and successful in the learning.

Students are occasionally engaged and successful in the learning.

Students are rarely/never engaged and successful in the learning.

Instruction provides students with multiple pathways/approaches for new learning that meet their unique needs, interest, and or characteristics.

Students are engaged and successful in the learning.

Students are occasionally engaged and successful in the learning.

Students are rarely/never engaged and successful in the learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Instruction is related/connected with the unique needs, interests, and characteristics of students.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Instruction is related/connected with the unique needs, interests, and/or characteristics of students.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Instruction is related/connected with the unique needs, interests, and/or characteristics of students.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Instruction is related/connected with the unique needs, interests, and/or characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 8 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-3. Instructional strategies promote critical thinking and problem solving. Things To Consider • Content and activities are at the application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy when appropriate to the learning objective. • Instructional strategies are research based. • Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area. Quality: Teacher guides students to construct knowledge through experience. Instruction progresses coherently producing success in application of the learning. Look for strength, impact, variety, and

alignment of the strategies with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the number of students performing at the application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy when appropriate to the learning objective.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUALITY Students are successful in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

Students are consistently successfully engaged in unique, creative, and/or innovative critical thinking/problem solving activities.

Students are successfully engaged in creative, critical thinking/problem solving activities.

Students are occasionally successfully engaged in critical thinking/problem solving activities. Students are frequently engaged in routine, rote activities.

Students are rarely/never successfully engaged in critical thinking/problem solving activities. Students are almost always/always engaged in routine, rote activities.

Students' critical thinking/problem solving consistently leads to connections between new learning and prior/future learning, other disciplines, the world of the student, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students are successfully engaged in creative, critical thinking/problem solving activities.

Students are occasionally successfully engaged in critical thinking/problem solving activities. Students are frequently engaged in routine, rote activities.

Students are rarely/never successfully engaged in critical thinking/problem solving activities. Students are almost always/always engaged in routine, rote activities.

Students consistently initiate and/or devise their own strategies for critical thinking/problem solving and or devise their own activities. Students consistently construct their own knowledge through inquiry and experience.

Students are successfully engaged in creative, critical thinking/problem solving activities.

Students occasionally initiate and/or devise their own strategies for critical thinking/problem solving and/or devise their own activities. Strategies for critical thinking/problem solving are typically teacher devised and directed.

Students rarely/never initiate and/or devise their own strategies for critical thinking/problem solving and/or devise their own activities. Strategies for critical thinking/problem solving are typically almost always/always teacher devised and directed.

Students are doing the thinking and problem solving and the teacher is acting as a guide.

Students are successfully engaged in creative, critical thinking/problem solving activities.

The teacher frequently does most of the thinking and problem solving and the students are passive recipients.

The teacher almost always/always does most of the thinking and problem solving and the students are passive recipients.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students are engaged in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students are engaged in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students are engaged in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students are engaged in critical thinking and problem solving activities (i.e., application level or higher on Bloom’s Taxonomy).

Instructional strategies are research based. Instructional strategies are research based.

Instructional strategies are research based. Instructional strategies are research based.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 9 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-4. Instructional strategies include motivational techniques to successfully and actively engage students in the learning process. Things To Consider • Strategies include elements of motivation, such as, level of concern, interest, knowledge of results, positive classroom climate and acknowledgments. • Instructional strategies are research based. • Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the discipline. Quality: Motivational techniques produce active engagement of students in the learning process. Engagement in the learning process produces learning success. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment

of the motivational techniques and the learning success. Quantity: Motivational techniques are used as necessary to engage students and produce learning success.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successfully engaged in critical thinking and problem solving, connecting new learning to their own lives, to other disciplines, and/or to issues in the world beyond the classroom.

QUALITY Students are successfully engaged in learning objectives that are at an appropriate level of difficulty.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successfully engaged in learning.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successfully engaged in learning.

Learning objectives are consistently at appropriate levels of complexity.

Learning objectives are at appropriate levels of complexity.

Learning objectives are occasionally at appropriate levels of complexity.

Learning objectives are rarely/never at appropriate levels of complexity.

Student engagement is consistently self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Student engagement is self-directed/intrinsically motivated.

Students are occasionally successfully engaged in learning. Student engagement is frequently a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Students are rarely/never successfully engaged in learning. Student engagement is almost always/ always a result of mechanical manipulation or coercion by the teacher.

Students consistently take reasonable risks in responding, extending, appropriately questioning the teacher and/or peers, and/or producing products that represent complex learning.

Students take risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

Students are occasionally successfully engaged in learning.

Students are rarely/never successfully engaged in learning.

Students are consistently engaged in connecting and/or applying learning to other disciplines, their own lives, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Students are engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

Students are occasionally engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

Students are rarely/never engaged in connecting/applying learning within the discipline.

Students are consistently eager and excited about the learning. Students are not reluctant to ask questions and/or ask for assistance when they are having difficulty.

Students are eager and excited about the learning.

Students are occasionally eager or excited about the learning.

Students are rarely/never eager or excited about the learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Motivational techniques are used as necessary to engage students and produce learning success.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Motivational techniques are used as necessary to engage students and produce learning success.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Motivational techniques are used as necessary to engage students and produce learning success.

QUANTITY LESS THEN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Motivational techniques are used as necessary to engage students and produce learning success.

Instructional strategies are research based. Instructional strategies are research based.

Instructional strategies are research based. Instructional strategies are research based.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the discipline.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the discipline.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the discipline.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the discipline.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 10 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-5. Instructional strategies are aligned with the objectives, activities, student characteristics, prior learning, and work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines. Things To Consider • Instructional strategies are aligned with the lesson objectives. • Instructional strategies are aligned with the activities. • Instructional strategies are aligned with student characteristics. • Instructional strategies are aligned with prior learning. • Instructional strategies are aligned with work and life applications. • Instructional strategies are research based. • Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area. Quality: Teacher connects critical attributes of the learning, personal lives, work, prior/future learning, content within the discipline, and with other disciplines. Teacher selects and organizes topics so students

make connections between what is taught in school and what they experience outside the classroom. Quantity: There is common practice of the alignment of instructional strategies to curriculum objectives.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher uses unique, creative, and/or innovative strategies to make multiple connections between the critical attributes of the learning and students’ personal lives, work, prior/future learning, content within the discipline, and/or the content in other disciplines.

QUALITY The teacher connects critical attributes of the learning to students’ personal lives, work, and prior/future learning, content within the discipline, and content in other disciplines.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally connects critical attributes of the learning to students’ personal lives, work, and prior/future learning, content within the discipline, and content in other disciplines.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never connects learning within the discipline and rarely/never makes connections among the learning and students’ personal lives, work, prior/future learning, content within the discipline, or content in other disciplines.

The teacher consistently selects topics, which are central themes and concepts of the discipline, and organizes academic content to focus it on issues in the world beyond the classroom.

The teacher selects and organizes topics so students make connections between what is taught in school and what they experience outside the classroom.

The teacher occasionally selects and organizes topics so students make connections between what is taught in school and what they experience outside the classroom.

The teacher rarely/never selects and organizes topics so students make connections between what is taught in school and what they experience outside the classroom.

The students successfully make their own and/or multiple connections between what is being learned and other disciplines, their own lives, the world of work, and/or issues in the world beyond the classroom.

The students successfully make connections between what is being taught in school and the world beyond the classroom.

The students occasionally make connections between what is being taught in school and the world beyond the classroom.

The students rarely/never make connections between what is being taught in school and the world beyond the classroom.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 11 Revised June 2004

Domain II-5 Continued QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Instructional strategies are aligned with the lesson objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Instructional strategies are aligned with the lesson objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Instructional strategies are aligned with the lesson objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Instructional strategies are aligned with the lesson objectives.

Instructional strategies are aligned with the activities. Instructional strategies are aligned with the activities.

Instructional strategies are aligned with the activities.

Instructional strategies are aligned with the activities.

Instructional strategies are aligned with student characteristics.

Instructional strategies are aligned with student characteristics.

Instructional strategies are aligned with student characteristics.

Instructional strategies are aligned with student characteristics.

Instructional strategies are aligned with prior learning. Instructional strategies are aligned with prior learning.

Instructional strategies are aligned with prior learning.

Instructional strategies are aligned with prior learning.

Instructional strategies are aligned with work and life applications.

Instructional strategies are aligned with work and life applications.

Instructional strategies are aligned with work and life applications.

Instructional strategies are aligned with work and life applications

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Instructional strategies reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 12 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-6. The teacher varies activities appropriately and maintains appropriate pacing and sequencing of instruction. Things To Consider • Teacher varies activities. • Teacher maintains pacing. • Teacher sequences instruction. Quality: Look for appropriateness of activities, pacing and sequence of instruction. Learning activities are relevant to students. Transitions occur without loss of instructional time. Sequence of instruction

reflects recent research and/or current knowledge and practice within the content area. Quantity: Activities are challenging for most students. Teacher demonstrates a variety of strategies, as appropriate. Focus on the number of students that are successful.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students consistently complete transitions and administrative tasks quickly, with little or no direction from the teacher—procedures are in place and students know what they are.

QUALITY Students complete transactions and administrative tasks quickly. Transitions and administrative tasks consume little or no instructional time.

QUALITY Students occasionally complete transactions and administrative tasks quickly. Transitions and/or administrative tasks frequently consume significant amounts of instructional time.

QUALITY Students rarely/never complete transactions and administrative tasks quickly. Transitions and/or administrative tasks almost always/always consume significant amounts of instructional time.

The teacher consistently adjusts and/or allows students to adjust the sequence of activities and/or the pace to meet the individual needs/characteristics of students.

Student engagement and success indicate that the sequence of activities and pace of the lesson are appropriate.

Student engagement and success occasionally indicate that the sequence of activities and pace of the lesson are appropriate. Students frequently disengage from learning and/or are unsuccessful as a result of inappropriate sequence of activities and/or inappropriate pace of the lesson (too fast or too slow).

Student engagement and success rarely/never indicate that the sequence of activities and pace of the lesson are appropriate. Students almost always/always disengage from learning and/or are unsuccessful as a result of inappropriate sequence of activities and/or inappropriate pace of the lesson (too fast or too slow).

The teacher consistently uses interesting, fun, and/or relevant activities so that students are engaged in the learning process.

The teacher uses interesting, fun, and/or relevant activities so that students are engaged in the learning process.

The teacher occasionally uses interesting, fun, and/or relevant activities so that students are occasionally engaged in the learning process. Students are frequently engaged because of teacher manipulation/coercion.

The teacher rarely/never uses interesting, fun, and/or relevant activities so that students are never/almost never engaged in the learning process. Students are almost always/always engaged because of teacher manipulation/coercion.

The teacher is consistently proactive in insuring that prior learning for the new learning is in place.

The teacher is proactive in insuring that prior learning for the new learning is in place.

The teacher frequently moves from one stage of the learning to the next even when many students are not being successful.

The teacher almost always/ always moves from one stage of the learning to the next even when many students are not being successful.

The teacher consistently monitors students’ understanding at every stage of the learning before moving to the next stage.

The teacher monitors students’ understanding at every stage of the learning before moving to the next stage.

The teacher occasionally monitors students’ understanding at every stage of the learning before moving to the next stage.

The teacher rarely/never monitors students’ understanding at every stage of the learning before moving to the next stage.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Activities are challenging for most students.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Activities are challenging for most students.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Activities are challenging for most students.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Activities are challenging for most students.

Teacher demonstrates a variety of strategies/activities, as appropriate.

Teacher demonstrates a variety of strategies/activities, as appropriate.

Teacher demonstrates a variety of strategies/activities, as appropriate.

Teacher demonstrates a variety of strategies/activities, as appropriate.

Students are successful. Students are successful. Students are successful. Students are successful.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 13 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction

II-7. The teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content. Things To Consider • Teacher stresses value of the activity. • Teacher projects necessity for content into future learning objectives. • Teacher communicates importance of content in the lives of students. Quality: Teacher conveys genuine enthusiasm for the content. Students demonstrate commitment to the value of the activity/content. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of connection to the

activity/content. Quantity: Focus on the number of students that make the connection to the learning.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students consistently demonstrate an understanding of the value/importance of the learning.

QUALITY Students demonstrate an understanding of the value/importance of the learning.

QUALITY Students occasionally demonstrate an understanding of the value/importance of the learning.

QUALITY Students rarely/never demonstrate an understanding of the value/importance of the learning.

Students consistently are eager and excited about the activity/content.

Students are eager and excited about the activity/content.

Students are occasionally eager and excited about the activity/content.

Students are rarely/never eager and excited about the activity/content.

The students consistently make their own connections between the new learning and prior learning, future learning, learning in other disciplines, their own lives, and/or the world beyond the classroom.

The students make their own connections between the new learning and prior learning, future learning, learning in other disciplines, their own lives, and/or the world beyond the classroom.

The students are occasionally able to make their own connections between the new learning and prior learning, future learning, learning in other disciplines, their own lives, and/or the world beyond the classroom.

The students are rarely/never able to make their own connections between the new learning and prior learning, future learning, learning in other disciplines, their own lives, and/or the world beyond the classroom.

The teacher consistently uses a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies to demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher uses a variety of strategies to demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher uses strategies to demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher rarely/never uses strategies to demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher consistently structures the lesson in such a way that students discover for themselves the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher structures the lesson in such a way that students discover for themselves the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher occasionally structures the lesson in such a way that students discover for themselves the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher rarely/never structures the lesson in such a way that students discover for themselves the value/importance of the content/activity.

Students consistently apply new learning and/or produce products that demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

Students apply new learning and/or produce products that demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

Students occasionally apply new learning and/or produce products that demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

Students rarely/never apply new learning and/or produce products that demonstrate the value/importance of the content/activity.

The teacher consistently communicates genuine excitement and enthusiasm for the content/activity.

The teacher communicates genuine excitement and enthusiasm for the content/activity.

The teacher occasionally communicates genuine excitement and enthusiasm for the content/activity.

The teacher rarely/never communicates genuine excitement and enthusiasm for the content/activity.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher emphasizes the value and importance of the activity/content.

Students make a commitment to the activity/content. Students make a commitment to the activity/content.

Students make a commitment to the activity/content.

Students make a commitment to the activity/content.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 14 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-8. The teacher uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students. Things To Consider • Teacher uses questioning strategies that challenge. • Teacher uses questioning strategies that engage students. • Teacher varies questioning strategies. Quality: Look for evidence of student progress and/or success. Look for students initiating probes and making appropriate contributions. Look for strength, variety, impact, and alignment of questions with

content. Quantity: Focus on the number of students sampled.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students consistently participate in challenging questioning and/or inquiry techniques.

QUALITY Students participate in challenging questioning and/or inquiry techniques.

QUALITY Students occasionally participate in challenging questioning and/or inquiry techniques.

QUALITY Students rarely/never participate in challenging questioning and/or inquiry techniques.

Instruction is consistently student-centered, inquiry-based learning and focuses on students as thinkers and problem-solvers.

Instruction is student-centered, inquiry-based learning and focuses on students as thinkers and problem-solvers.

Instruction is occasionally student-centered, inquiry-based learning and focuses on students as thinkers and problem-solvers.

Instruction is rarely/never student-centered, inquiry-based learning and focuses on students as thinkers and problem-solvers.

Students consistently and successfully initiate extensions of the questions/answers and/or the inquiry process.

The teacher uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

Students consistently initiate contributions to the questions/answers and/or the inquiry process.

The teacher uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

Students consistently appropriately challenge/question the teacher and/or their peers in the inquiry process.

The teacher uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

Students consistently design their own guiding questions/inquiry processes.

The teacher uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher consistently uses a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process. The teacher frequently uses rote, dull repetitive strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process. The teacher almost always/always uses rote, dull repetitive strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

Teacher and/or student questioning/inquiry strategies consistently promote successful critical thinking, problem solving, and connectivity within the discipline, with other disciplines, to the world of the student, and/or to issues in the world beyond the classroom.

Teacher and/or student questioning/inquiry strategies promote successful critical thinking, problem solving, connectivity within the discipline, and connectivity with other disciplines.

The teacher occasionally uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process. The teacher frequently uses rote, dull repetitive strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process. The teacher almost always/always uses rote, dull repetitive strategies for questioning and/or for guiding an inquiry process.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 15 Revised June 2004

Domain II: Learner-Centered Instruction II-9. The teacher makes appropriate and effective use of available technology as a part of the instructional process. Things To Consider • Technologies (computers, calculators, telecommunication, multimedia, videotape and film, laser disc, CD-ROM, satellite/distance learning, facsimile (fax), modem, scanners, etc.) are used as instructional

tools, when available and appropriate. Quality: Technology is suitable to the instructional goal. Technology engages the students mentally. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of instructional process and technology. Quantity: Focus on the utilization of technology as an instructional tool.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The use of available technology is appropriate and aligned with the instructional goals.

QUALITY The use of available technology is appropriate and aligned with the instructional goals.

QUALITY The use of available technology is occasionally appropriate and occasionally aligned with the instructional goals.

QUALITY The use of available technology is rarely/never appropriate and rarely/never aligned with the instructional goals.

Students are highly engaged and enthusiastic as a result of the use of the technology.

Students use available technology. Students occasionally use available technology. Students rarely/never use available technology.

Students consistently use technology to: • promote depth and complexity of learning; • connect learning to other disciplines, their own world,

and the world beyond the classroom and/or; • produce products that represent complex learning.

Students use technology to: • promote depth and complexity of

learning; • connect learning to other

disciplines, their own world, and the world beyond the classroom and/or;

• produce products that represent complex learning.

Students occasionally use technology. Student use of technology is frequently limited to transmission of rote information and/or for rote drill and practice.

Students rarely/never use technology. Student use of technology is almost always/ always limited to transmission of rote information and/or for rote drill and practice.

The teacher consistently utilizes a variety of technology resources when appropriate and available.

The teacher utilizes a variety of technology resources when appropriate and available.

The teacher occasionally utilizes a variety of technology resources when appropriate and available.

The teacher rarely/never utilizes a variety of technology resources when appropriate and available.

The teacher consistently seeks out and secures available and/or new technology.

The teacher seeks out and secures available and/or new technology.

The teacher frequently misses opportunities to secure and use available and/or new technology.

The teacher almost always/always misses opportunities to secure and use available and/or new technology.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher makes use of available technology as a part of the instructional process.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher makes use of available technology as a part of the instructional process.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher makes use of available technology as a part of the instructional process.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher makes use of available technology as a part of the instructional process.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 16 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-1. Academic progress of students is monitored and assessed. Things To Consider • Teacher monitors student work during guided practice. • Teacher provides for formative assessment prior to independent practice. • Teacher assesses student progress toward learning goals. Quality: Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information on student progress is focused on student progress in learning. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the assessment

with the objectives. Quantity: Focus on the number of students that are monitored and assessed.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information on student progress is consistently focused on short-term and long-term student progress in learning.

QUALITY Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information on student progress is focused on student progress in learning.

QUALITY Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information on student progress is frequently mechanical and is only occasionally focused on student progress in learning.

QUALITY Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information on student progress is almost always/always mechanical and is rarely/never focused on student progress in learning.

Teacher consistently uses a variety of effective, creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies for monitoring, assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

Teacher uses effective strategies for monitoring, and assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

Teacher occasionally uses effective strategies for monitoring, and assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

Teacher rarely/never uses effective strategies for monitoring, and assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

The teacher consistently acts on assessment data before moving from one stage of instruction to the next and to plan new instruction.

The teacher acts on assessment data before moving from one stage of instruction to the next and to plan new instruction.

The teacher moves from one stage of instruction to the next and plans new instruction with limited information regarding student progress.

The teacher moves from one stage of instruction to the next and plans new instruction with little/no information regarding student progress.

The teacher consistently provides positive, specific, and timely feedback, which results in student progress toward learning goals (e.g., students repeating their successes and correcting their mistakes).

The teacher provides positive, specific, and timely feedback, which results in student progress toward learning goals (e.g., students repeating their successes and correcting their mistakes).

The teacher’s feedback to students is occasionally positive, specific, and/or timely; feedback occasionally results in student progress toward learning goals (e.g., students repeating their successes and correcting their mistakes).

The teacher’s feedback to students is rarely/never positive; feedback rarely/never results in student progress toward learning goals (e.g., students repeating their successes and correcting their mistakes).

The teacher consistently uses monitoring and assessment strategies that reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher uses monitoring and assessment strategies that reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher occasionally uses monitoring and assessment strategies that reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher rarely/never uses monitoring and assessment strategies that reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher consistently conducts formal/informal formative assessments and consistently acts on that information to adjust learning to promote student learning.

The teacher conducts formal/informal formative assessments and acts on that information to adjust learning to promote student learning.

The teacher occasionally conducts formal/informal formative assessments and occasionally acts on that information to adjust learning to promote student learning.

The teacher rarely/never conducts formal/informal formative assessments and rarely/never acts on that information to adjust learning to promote student learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Academic progress of students is monitored and assessed using both formative and summative assessment.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Academic progress of students is monitored and assessed using both formative and summative assessment.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Academic progress of students is monitored and assessed using both formative and summative assessment.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Academic progress of students is monitored and assessed using both formative and summative assessment.

There is consistent alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment.

There is consistent alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment.

There is consistent alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment.

There is consistent alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 17 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-2. Assessment and feedback are aligned with goals and objectives and instructional strategies. Things To Consider • Assessment is directly linked to goals and objectives. • Assessment is directly linked to instructional strategies. • Feedback is directly linked to goals/objectives and instructional strategies. Quality: Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the assessment with the objectives. Feedback is specific to the assessment. Quantity: Assessment and feedback are aligned with instructional goals, objectives, and strategies.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Specific, positive feedback to all students is consistent and results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

QUALITY Positive feedback results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

QUALITY Positive feedback is occasional and/or occasionally results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

QUALITY Positive feedback is rare/absent and/or rarely/never results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

Teacher consistently uses a variety of effective, creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies for monitoring, assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

Teacher uses strategies for monitoring, assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress.

Teacher occasionally uses strategies for monitoring, assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress. Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information regarding student progress is frequently mechanical and is occasionally focused on student progress in learning.

Teacher rarely/never uses a variety of strategies for monitoring, assessing, and/or providing feedback on student progress. Teacher’s system for obtaining, interpreting, and acting on information regarding student progress is almost always/always mechanical and is rarely/never focused on student progress in learning.

The teacher consistently acts on assessment data before moving from one stage of instruction to the next and to plan new instruction.

The teacher acts on assessment data before moving from one stage of instruction to the next and to plan new instruction.

The teacher moves from one stage of instruction to the next and plans new instruction with limited information regarding student progress in learning.

The teacher moves from one stage of instruction to the next and plans new instruction with little/no information regarding student progress in learning.

The teacher consistently provides positive, specific, and timely feedback, which results in student progress toward learning goals.

Positive feedback results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

Positive feedback is occasional and/or occasionally results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

Positive feedback is rare/absent and/or rarely/never results in successful students repeating their success and unsuccessful students recognizing their errors and becoming successful.

Monitoring and assessment strategies consistently reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Monitoring and assessment strategies reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Monitoring and assessment strategies occasionally reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Monitoring and assessment strategies rarely/never reflect an understanding of the unique needs and characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 18 Revised June 2004

Domain III-2 Continued

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Assessment and feedback are aligned with instructional goals, objectives, and strategies. so that goals/objectives drive the instructional activities and both formative and summative strategies are assessing the extent to which students did/did not reach the goals/objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Assessment and feedback are aligned with instructional goals, objectives, and strategies so that goals/objectives drive the instructional activities and both formative and summative strategies are assessing the extent to which students did/did not reach the goals/objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Assessment and feedback are aligned with instructional goals, objectives, and strategies so that goals/objectives drive the instructional activities and both formative and summative strategies are assessing the extent to which students did/did not reach the goals/objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Assessment and feedback are aligned with instructional goals, objectives, and strategies so that goals/objectives drive the instructional activities and both formative and summative strategies are assessing the extent to which students did/did not reach the goals/objectives.

Students are monitored and assessed and receive feedback. Students are monitored and assessed and receive feedback.

Students are monitored and assessed and receive feedback.

Students are monitored and assessed and receive feedback.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 19 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-3. Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students. Things To Consider • Assessment strategies reflect developmental level of students. • Assessment strategies address learning needs of students. Quality: Assessment strategies produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of assessment strategies with varied characteristics

of students. Quantity: Teacher uses a variety of assessment strategies/models to check for understanding.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Assessment strategies consistently produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

QUALITY Assessment strategies produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

QUALITY Assessment strategies occasionally produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

QUALITY Assessment strategies rarely/never produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

Teacher consistently utilizes creative, unique, and/or innovative assessment strategies that consistently produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

Assessment strategies produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

Assessment strategies occasionally produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

Assessment strategies rarely/never produce evidence of student success and/or the need for corrective teaching.

Teacher consistently utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the developmental level of students.

Teacher utilizes assessment strategies, which are appropriate to the developmental level of the students.

Teacher frequently utilizes assessment strategies, which are inappropriate for the developmental level of students.

Teacher almost always/always utilizes assessment strategies which are inappropriate to the developmental level of students.

Teacher consistently utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the learning styles of students.

Teacher utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the learning styles of students.

Teacher frequently utilizes assessment strategies, which are inappropriate to the learning styles of students.

Teacher almost always/always utilizes assessment strategies which are inappropriate to the learning styles of students.

Teacher consistently utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the unique, special needs of students.

Teacher utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the unique, special needs of students.

Teacher frequently utilizes assessment strategies, which are inappropriate to the unique, special needs of students.

Teacher almost always/always utilizes assessment strategies which are inappropriate to the unique, special needs of students.

Teacher consistently utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the unique language/cultural characteristics of students.

Teacher utilizes assessment strategies, which are chosen and/or customized to fit the unique language/cultural characteristics of students.

Teacher frequently utilizes assessment strategies, which are inappropriate to the unique language/cultural characteristics of students.

Teacher almost always/always utilizes assessment strategies which are inappropriate to the unique, language/cultural characteristics of students.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 20 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-4. Student learning is reinforced. Things To Consider • Learning is positively reinforced. • Reinforcement communicates high expectations. • Reinforcement techniques are research based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area. • Reinforcement is appropriate to the needs of the learner. Quality: Reinforcement results in student engagement and success in the learning. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of reinforcement with the learning. Quantity: Look for uniformity and consistency of reinforcement.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Reinforcement consistently results in students understanding why they are successful and they are able to repeat their effort and success.

QUALITY Reinforcement results in students understanding why they are successful and they are able to repeat their effort and success.

QUALITY Reinforcement is sometimes used; it occasionally results in students understanding why they are successful and they are occasionally able to repeat their effort and success.

QUALITY Reinforcement is sometimes used; it rarely/never results in students understanding why they are successful and they are rarely/never able to repeat their effort and success.

Intensity and frequency of reinforcement are consistently monitored and adjusted to fit the level of the student performance and the needs of the students.

Intensity and frequency of reinforcement are appropriate to the student performance and the needs of the students.

Intensity and frequency of reinforcement are occasionally appropriate to the student performance and the needs of the students. Reinforcement is frequently contrived and artificial.

Intensity and frequency of reinforcement are rarely/never appropriate to the student performance and/or the needs of the students. Reinforcement is almost always/always contrived and artificial.

Reinforcement of high level, complex responses and performances is consistently specific to the student and to the response/performance.

Reinforcement of student performance is specific to the student and to the response/performance.

Reinforcement of student performance is occasionally specific to the student and to the response/performance.

Reinforcement of student performance is rarely/never specific to the student and to the response/performance.

Reinforcement consistently results in an increase in the frequency, level, and/or quality of student performances.

Reinforcement results in an increase in the frequency, level, and/or quality of student performances.

Reinforcement occasionally results in an increase in the frequency, level, and/or quality of student performances.

Reinforcement rarely/never results in an increase in the frequency, level, and/or quality of student performances.

Students consistently self-assess and provide feedback for themselves and/or their peers.

Teacher appropriately reinforces learning.

Teacher occasionally appropriately reinforces learning.

Teacher rarely/never appropriately reinforces learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Successful student learning is acknowledged/positively reinforced.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Successful student learning is acknowledged/positively reinforced.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Successful student learning is acknowledged/positively reinforced.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Successful student learning is acknowledged/positively reinforced.

Successful student learning is reinforced using a variety of verbal, nonverbal, and extrinsic strategies.

Successful student learning is reinforced using a variety of verbal, nonverbal, and extrinsic strategies.

Successful student learning is reinforced using a variety of verbal, nonverbal, and extrinsic strategies.

Successful student learning is reinforced using a variety of verbal, nonverbal, and extrinsic strategies.

Reinforcement communicates high expectations for learning and performance.

Reinforcement communicates high expectations for learning and performance.

Reinforcement communicates high expectations for learning and performance.

Reinforcement communicates high expectations for learning and performance.

Reinforcement techniques are research based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Reinforcement techniques are research based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Reinforcement techniques are research based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Reinforcement techniques are research based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 21 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-5. Students receive specific, constructive feedback. Things To Consider • Teacher gives specific and immediate feedback, when appropriate. • Feedback pinpoints needed corrections. • Feedback provides clarification of the content. • Feedback moves the student toward success with the learning objective. Quality: Feedback results in student engagement and success in the learning process. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the feedback with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the specific and timely feedback.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Feedback consistently results in students understanding why they are successful (so that they repeat/extend to a higher level their effort and success) and/or why they are unsuccessful (so that they correct their understanding/errors and are successful).

QUALITY Feedback results in students understanding why they are successful (so that they repeat their effort and success) and/or why they are unsuccessful (so that they correct their understanding/errors and are successful).

QUALITY Feedback is present but only occasionally results in students understanding why they are successful (so that they repeat their effort and success) and/or why they are unsuccessful (so that they correct their understanding/errors and are successful).

QUALITY Feedback is rarely/never present; when it is present, it rarely/never results in students understanding why they are successful (so that they repeat their effort and success) and/or why they are unsuccessful (so that they correct their understanding/errors and are successful).

Timely, specific feedback consistently results in a higher level/frequency of student commitment to the learning.

Timely, specific feedback results in a higher level/frequency of student commitment to the learning.

Feedback is occasionally timely and/or specific; when it is present it occasionally results in a higher level/frequency of student commitment to the learning.

Feedback is rarely/never timely and/or specific; when it is present it rarely/never results in a higher level/frequency of student commitment to the learning.

Teacher consistently utilizes creative, unique, and or innovative strategies to provide students with timely, specific feedback.

Teacher provides students with timely, specific feedback.

Teacher occasionally utilizes effective strategies to provide students with timely, specific feedback. Feedback is frequently non-specific/ harsh/negative and/or results in students disengaging from the learning.

Teacher rarely/never utilizes effective strategies to provide students with timely, specific feedback. Feedback is always/almost always non-specific/ harsh/negative and/or results in students disengaging from the learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Students receive timely, specific, and constructive feedback on progress in learning.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Students receive timely, specific, and constructive feedback on progress in learning.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Students receive timely, specific, and constructive feedback on progress in learning.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Students receive timely, specific, and constructive feedback on progress in learning.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 22 Revised June 2004

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress III-6. The teacher provides opportunities for relearning and re-evaluation of material. Things To Consider • Teacher identifies content or skill, which needs to be re-taught or re-evaluated, as appropriate. • Teacher utilizes a variety of re-teach and re-evaluation techniques, as appropriate. • Techniques are research-based or reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area. Quality: Relearning opportunities result in student success. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the re-teach technique with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the impact of the re-teaching, not the number of times the teacher re-taught or re-evaluated material.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students are consistently successful as a result of a re-teach and/or have a higher/more complex understanding as a result of a re-evaluation of the learning.

QUALITY Students are successful as a result of a re-teach and/or have better understanding as a result of a re-evaluation of the learning.

QUALITY Students are occasionally successful as a result of a re-teach and/or have little additional understanding as a result of a re-evaluation of the learning.

QUALITY Students are rarely/never successful as a result of a re-teach and/or have little additional understanding as a result of a re-evaluation of the learning.

Teacher consistently uses creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies that result in a high level of student success and/or a higher, more complex understanding.

Teacher uses effective strategies that result in student success in learning.

Teacher occasionally uses effective strategies that result in student success in learning.

Teacher rarely/never uses effective strategies that result in student success in learning.

Teacher consistently uses strategies that fit the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Teacher uses strategies that fit the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Teacher occasionally utilizes strategies that fit the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Teacher rarely/never utilizes strategies that fit the unique needs/characteristics of students.

The teacher consistently monitors and adjusts instruction and reflects an understanding of students by quickly adjusting instruction for additional clarification or for extension of the learning.

The teacher monitors and adjusts instruction and reflects an understanding of students by adjusting instruction for additional clarification or for extension of the learning.

The teacher occasionally monitors and adjusts instruction and/or shows a lack of understanding of students by not adjusting instruction for additional clarification or for extension of the learning.

The teacher rarely/never monitors and adjusts instruction and/or shows a lack of understanding of students by not adjusting instruction for additional clarification or for extension of the learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher provides opportunities for relearning and re-evaluation of material, when appropriate.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher provides opportunities for relearning and re-evaluation of material, when appropriate.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher provides opportunities for relearning and re-evaluation of material, when appropriate.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher provides opportunities for relearning and re-evaluation of material, when appropriate.

Techniques for re-teaching and/or re-evaluation are researched-based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Techniques for re-teaching and/or re-evaluation are researched-based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the correct area.

Techniques for re-teaching and/or re-evaluation are researched-based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

Techniques for re-teaching and/or re-evaluation are researched-based and reflect current knowledge and practice within the content area.

The teacher uses a variety of strategies to effectively re-teach and/or re-evaluate learning.

The teacher uses a variety of strategies to effectively re-teach and/or re-evaluate learning.

The teacher uses a variety of strategies to effectively re-teach and/or re-evaluate learning.

The teacher uses a variety of strategies to effectively re-teach and/or re-evaluate learning.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 23 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-1. The teacher effectively implements the discipline management procedures approved by the campus. Any lack of effective implementation is rare, inadvertent, and does not seriously compromise the needs of

students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus. Things To Consider • Campus-adopted discipline management process is in evidence in the teacher’s normal rules and routines of the classroom and school-related activities. • Lack of implementation is “rare, inadvertent, and does not seriously compromise” the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus. • [See NOTE (1) & (2).] Quality: Student behavior is appropriate. The classroom is safe. Teacher response to misbehavior is highly effective and sensitive to student’s individual needs. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment

of the discipline management process with instructional goals and objectives. Look for uniformity and consistency in implementation. Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Student behavior is consistently appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is occasionally appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is rarely/never appropriate.

Discipline management procedures are consistently implemented. Unique, creative, and/or innovative strategies are consistently used to implement the discipline management procedures.

Discipline management procedures are implemented.

Discipline management procedures are occasionally implemented. Any lack of effective implementation is rare, inadvertent, and does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Discipline management procedures are rarely/never implemented. AND/OR Lack of implementation is repetitive and/or intentional and seriously compromises the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Implementation of the discipline management plan consistently reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Implementation of the discipline management plan reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Implementation of the discipline management plan occasionally reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students. The lack of understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of the students is repetitive and/or intentional but does not seriously compromise the needs of students.

Implementation of the discipline management plan rarely/never reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students. AND/OR Lack of understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students is repetitive and/or intentional and seriously compromises the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Implementation of the discipline management plan consistently relies on high interest/relevant classroom instruction.

Implementation of the discipline management plan relies on high interest/relevant classroom instruction.

Implementation of the discipline management plan occasionally relies on high interest/relevant classroom instruction. Implementation frequently relies on the enforcement of rules/consequences.

Implementation of the discipline management plan rarely/never relies on high interest/relevant classroom instruction. Implementation almost always/always relies on the enforcement of rules/consequences.

Students are consistently engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management.

Students are engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management.

Students are occasionally engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management.

Students are rarely/never engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 24 Revised June 2004

Domain IV-1 Continued Implementation of the discipline management plan consistently results in a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment.

Implementation of the discipline management plan results in a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment.

Implementation of the discipline management plan occasionally results in a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment. Any lack of a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment does not seriously compromise the needs of the students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Implementation of the discipline management plan rarely/never relies on a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment. AND/OR Lack of a positive, supportive, respectful classroom environment seriously compromises the needs of the students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

The teacher participates in the development of the discipline management procedures and offers suggestions for improvement.

Discipline management procedures are implemented.

Discipline management procedures are occasionally implemented.

Discipline management procedures are rarely/never implemented.

Any lack of effective implementation is rare/inadvertent and does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Any lack of effective implementation is rare/inadvertent and does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

There are some elements of the plan that are not implemented but the lack of effective implementation is random/inadvertent and does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

Lack of implementation is repetitive and/or intentional and seriously compromises the needs of students or the effective operation of the classroom or campus.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 25 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-2. The teacher establishes a classroom environment that promotes and encourages self-discipline and self-directed learning. Things To Consider • Classroom procedures and routines result in student self-management of behavior. • Classroom procedures and routines result in student self-directed extensions and application of learning. • [See NOTE (2).] Quality: Student behavior is appropriate. Students are productively engaged. Teacher establishes high expectations for the learning and behavior of all students. Look for strength, impact, variety, and

alignment of classroom routines with learning objectives. Quantity: Look for uniformity and consistency of behavior.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Student behavior is consistently appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is occasionally appropriate.

QUALITY Student behavior is rarely/never appropriate.

Students are consistently engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management learning.

Students are engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management learning.

Students are occasionally engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management learning. Appropriate behavior is frequently the result of manipulation and/or enforcement of rules/consequences.

Students are rarely/never engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management learning. Appropriate behavior is almost always/always the result of manipulation and/or enforcement of rules/consequences.

Unique, creative, and/or innovative strategies are consistently used to promote and encourage self-discipline and self-directed learning and reflect an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Strategies to promote and encourage self-discipline and self-directed learning reflect an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Strategies to promote and encourage self-discipline and self-directed learning occasionally reflect an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Strategies to promote and encourage self-discipline and self-directed learning rarely/never reflect an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

The teacher consistently creates a safe, positive, supportive, respectful environment so that students take appropriate risks in the learning.

The teacher creates a safe, positive, supportive, respectful environment so that students take appropriate risks in the learning.

The teacher occasionally creates a safe, positive, supportive, respectful environment so that students take appropriate risks in the learning.

The teacher rarely/never creates a safe, positive, supportive, respectful environment so that students take appropriate risks in the learning.

High-interest/relevant classroom instructions consistently provide vehicles for self-management and self-directed learning.

High-interest/relevant classroom instructions provide vehicles for self-management and self-directed learning.

High-interest/relevant classroom instructions occasionally provide vehicles for self-management and self-directed learning.

High-interest/relevant classroom instruction rarely/never provide vehicles for self-management and self-directed learning.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 26 Revised June 2004

Domain IV-2 Continued QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher establishes a classroom environment that promotes and encourages self-discipline and self-directed learning.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher establishes a classroom environment that promotes and encourages self-discipline and self-directed learning.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher establishes a classroom environment that promotes and encourages self-discipline and self-directed learning.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher establishes a classroom environment that promotes and encourages self-discipline and self-directed learning.

The teacher plans and implements instruction to provide opportunities for self-directed learning.

The teacher plans and implements instruction to provide opportunities for self-directed learning.

The teacher plans and implements instruction to provide opportunities for self-directed learning.

The teacher plans and implements instruction to provide opportunities for self-directed learning.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 27 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-3. The teacher interacts with students in an equitable manner, including fair application of rules. Things To Consider • Teacher provides opportunities for all students to participate. • Teacher relates to students in an equitable and consistent manner. • Teacher is fair in the application of rules. • [See NOTE (1) & (2).] Quality: Teacher interactions are appropriate to developmental, cultural norms and varied characteristics of students. Teacher-student interactions demonstrate respect. Look for uniformity and consistency in

interactions. Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY All interactions (teacher/student and student/student) are consistently courteous and respectful.

QUALITY All interactions (teacher/student and student/student) are courteous and respectful.

QUALITY Interactions (teacher/student and student/student) are occasionally courteous and respectful. Interactions (teacher/student and student/student) frequently lack courtesy, but the interactions do not compromise the needs of students.

QUALITY Interactions (teacher/student and student/student) are rarely/never courteous and respectful. Interactions (teacher/student and student/student) almost always/always lack courtesy and/or the interactions seriously compromises the needs of students.

Rules are applied consistently and fairly to all students.

Rules are applied consistently and fairly to all students.

Rules are occasionally applied consistently and/or fairly to all students. Inconsistency and/or unfairness in the application of rules do not compromise the needs of students.

Rules are rarely/never-applied consistently/fairly to all students. AND/OR Inconsistency and/or unfairness in the application of rules seriously compromise the needs of students.

Interactions consistently reflect an awareness of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Interactions reflect an awareness of the unique needs/characteristics of students.

Interactions occasionally reflect an awareness of the unique needs/characteristics of students. Lack of courteousness or respect does not seriously compromise the needs of the students.

Interactions rarely/never reflect an awareness of the unique needs/characteristics of students. AND/OR Lack of an awareness of the unique needs/characteristics of students seriously compromises the needs of the students.

Teacher is consistently courteous and respectful even when circumstances make it difficult to do so. Interactions are not only courteous/respectful but also serve to support, dignify, and encourage student efforts in learning.

Teacher is courteous and respectful even when circumstances make it difficult to do so.

Teacher is occasionally courteous and respectful even when circumstances make it difficult to do so. Lack of courteousness or respect does not seriously compromise the needs of the students.

Teacher is rarely/never courteous and respectful even when circumstances make it difficult to do so. AND/OR Lack of courteousness or respect seriously compromises the needs of the students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 28 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-4. The teacher specifies expectations for desired behavior. Things To Consider • Teacher explains expectations for behavior. • Teacher restates expectations when behavior is not appropriate. • [See NOTE (2).] Quality: Student behavior is appropriate. Teacher states reason for desired student behavior. Student behavior is consistent with stated expectations. Quantity: Focus on appropriate behavior, not the overt statement of expectations. Focus on the number of students behaving appropriately.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Students consistently understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

QUALITY Students understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

QUALITY Students occasionally understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

QUALITY Students rarely/never understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

Students are consistently engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management and learning.

Students are engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management and learning.

Students are occasionally engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management and learning. Appropriate behavior is frequently the result of teacher manipulation and enforcement of rules/consequences rather than engagement in learning.

Students are rarely engaged in appropriate self-direction/self-management and learning. Appropriate behavior is almost always/ always the result of teacher manipulation and enforcement of rules/consequences rather than engagement in learning.

Unique, creative, and/or innovative strategies are consistently used to promote and encourage self-discipline and self-directed learning.

Students understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

Students occasionally understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

Students rarely/never understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

High-interest/relevant classroom instructions frequently and consistently provide vehicles for self-management and self-directed learning.

Students understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

Students occasionally understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

Students rarely/never understand and meet the expectations for desired behavior.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher specifies expectations for desired behavior.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher specifies expectations for desired behavior.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher specifies expectations for desired behavior.

QUANTITY LESS OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher specifies expectations for desired behavior.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 29 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-5. The teacher intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior. Things To Consider • Teacher identifies students engaged in activities other than the assigned task. • Teacher re-directs students in accordance with adopted campus discipline management policies. • [See inference opening statement for Domain IV] • [See Note (1) & (2).] Quality: Student behavior is appropriate. Monitoring is subtle and preventative. Look for strength, impact, variety, impact, and alignment of intervention with the behavior. Focus on appropriate behavior not

the overt redirection of behavior. Look for uniformity and consistency of interventions. Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior stops.

QUALITY The off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior stops.

QUALITY The off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior occasionally stops after redirection.

QUALITY The off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior rarely/never stops after redirection.

There is little or no need to stop/redirect behavior because students are consistently engaged in quality learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are occasionally engaged in learning and behaving appropriately. The teacher frequently must redirect off-task, inappropriate or disruptive behavior because students show little interest/engagement in the learning.

Students are rarely/never engaged in learning and behaving appropriately. The teacher almost always/always must redirect off-task, inappropriate or disruptive behavior because students show little interest/engagement in the learning.

There is little or no need to stop/redirect behavior because the teacher has created a learning environment that is consistently safe, positive, supportive, and risk-free.

The teacher has created a learning environment that is safe, positive, supportive, and risk-free.

The teacher has created a learning environment that is occasionally safe, positive, supportive, and risk-free. Where the learning environment is frequently inappropriate, the needs of the students or effective operations of the campus/district have not been seriously compromised.

The teacher has created a learning environment that is rarely/never safe, positive, supportive, and risk-free. AND/OR Where the learning environment is inappropriate, the needs of the students or the effective operations of the campus/district are seriously compromised.

The teacher consistently plans instruction that is challenging and that permits students to be consistently successful.

The teacher plans instruction that is challenging and that permits students to be successful.

The teacher occasionally plans instruction that is challenging and that permits students to be successful. There is a need to frequently stop/redirect behavior.

The teacher rarely/never plans instruction that is challenging and that permits students to be successful. There is almost always/always a need to frequently stop/redirect behavior.

There is little or no need to stop/redirect behavior because the teacher patiently assists students who are frustrated and/or unsuccessful.

Students are engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are occasionally engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are rarely/never engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 30 Revised June 2004

Domain IV-5 Continued The teacher consistently intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior in ways that preserve the student’s dignity.

The teacher intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior in ways that preserve the student’s dignity.

The teacher occasionally intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior in ways that preserve the student’s dignity. The dignity and needs of students are not seriously compromised by the intervention/redirection.

The teacher rarely/never intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior in ways that preserve the student’s dignity. AND/OR The dignity and needs of students are seriously compromised by the intervention/redirection.

The teacher uses creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies to stop-redirect off-task and/or disruptive behavior.

Students are engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are occasionally engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

Students are rarely/never engaged in learning and behaving appropriately.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 31 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-6. The teacher reinforces desired behavior when appropriate. Things To Consider • Teacher offers accurate and specific feedback to individuals or the class. • Teacher does not reinforce inappropriate behavior. • [See NOTE (2).] Quality: Reinforcement results in desired change in behavior. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of teacher response with the exhibited behavior. Quantity: Focus on the appropriateness of reinforcement, not the number of times behavior is reinforced. Look for uniformity and consistency of reinforcement.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory

QUALITY Reinforcement results in desired behavior change or causes desired behavior to be repeated.

QUALITY Reinforcement results in desired behavior change or causes desired behavior to be repeated.

QUALITY Reinforcement occasionally results in desired behavior change or causes desired behavior to be repeated.

QUALITY Reinforcement rarely/never results in desired behavior change or causes desired behavior to be repeated.

Inappropriate behavior is rare because of the use of positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior.

Positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior is used as a method of encouraging/promoting and establishing models of appropriate behavior.

Positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior is occasionally used as a method of encouraging/promoting and establishing models of appropriate behavior.

Positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior is rarely/never used as a method of encouraging/promoting and establishing models of appropriate behavior.

Reinforcement of behavior is consistently used to encourage/promote appropriate behavior and not simply to redirect inappropriate behavior. Reinforcement is consistently specific to the student and specific to the behavior.

Reinforcement is specific to the student and specific to the behavior.

Reinforcement is occasionally specific to the student and specific to the behavior.

Reinforcement is rarely/never specific to the student and specific to the behavior.

Use of reinforcement of behavior consistently reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate level of intensity appropriate to the behavior.

Use of reinforcement of behavior reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate level of intensity appropriate to the behavior.

Use of reinforcement of behavior occasionally reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate level of intensity appropriate to the behavior.

Use of reinforcement of behavior rarely/never reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate level of intensity appropriate to the behavior.

Use of reinforcement of behavior consistently reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate frequency.

Use of reinforcement of behavior reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has an appropriate frequency.

The use of reinforcement of behavior occasionally reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has only a limited effect on the frequency of appropriate behavior.

The use of reinforcement of behavior rarely/never reflects an understanding of the unique needs/characteristics of students so that reinforcement has little/no effect on the frequency of appropriate behavior.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 32 Revised June 2004

Domain IV-6 Continued QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher reinforces desired behavior when appropriate.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher reinforces desired behavior when appropriate.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher reinforces desired behavior when appropriate.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher reinforces desired behavior when appropriate.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 33 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-7. The instructional materials selected by the teacher are equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students. Things To Consider • Teacher selects instructional materials that reflect ethnic diversity, gender equity and the learning needs of students. • Students have equal access to appropriate instructional materials. • [See NOTE (2).] Quality: Teacher is aware of resources available through the school, district, professional organizations and community. Teacher seeks out and evaluates materials needed to enhance instruction.

Instructional materials contribute to student success. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of instructional materials with goals and objectives. Quantity: Focus is on the consistent use of appropriate instructional materials.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher seeks out resources and instructional materials that are equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

QUALITY The instructional materials selected by the teacher are equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

QUALITY The instructional materials selected by the teacher are occasionally equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

QUALITY The instructional materials selected by the teacher are rarely/never equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The teacher utilizes unique and creative methods for including instructional materials aligned with the learning goals/ objective that reflect ethnic diversity, gender equality and learning needs of the students.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are occasionally equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are rarely/never equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The teacher utilizes unique and creative methods for including instructional materials aligned with the goals/objectives that engage students and ensure success.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are occasionally equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

The instructional materials selected by the teacher are rarely/never equitable and acknowledge the varied characteristics of all students.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher uses appropriate instructional materials.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher uses appropriate instructional materials.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher uses appropriate instructional materials.

QAUNTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher uses appropriate instructional materials.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 34 Revised June 2004

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials IV-8. The teacher effectively and efficiently manages time and materials. Things To Consider • Teacher has materials ready for instruction. • Academic learning time is maximized. • [See NOTE (2).] Quality: Routines for handling materials occur without loss of instructional time. Transitions are seamless. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of materials with student success in the learning. Quantity: Focus on the amount of time for teaching and learning.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher organizes and uses unique and creative instructional materials aligned with the learning goals/objectives that promote student success.

QUALITY The teacher has appropriate materials ready for instruction.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally has appropriate materials ready for instruction. Students frequently lose opportunities for learning.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never has appropriate materials ready for instruction. Students always/almost always lose opportunities for learning.

Transitions are seamless; routines for handling materials are effective and result in student success and maximum use of instructional time.

Transitions and routines for handling materials are appropriate for the learning.

Transitions and routines for handling materials are occasionally appropriate for the learning. Students frequently lose opportunities for learning.

Transitions and routines for handling materials are rarely/never appropriate for the learning. Students almost always/ always lose opportunities for learning.

The teacher consistently establishes routines and procedures that promote student responsibility for materials and transitions in the learning.

The teacher establishes routines and procedures that promote student responsibility for materials and transitions in the learning.

The teacher occasionally establishes routines and procedures that promote student responsibility for materials and transitions in the learning.

The teacher rarely/never establishes routines and procedures that promote student responsibility for materials and transitions in the learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher utilizes available time as “academic learning time.”

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher utilizes available time as “academic learning time.”

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher utilizes available time as “academic learning time.”

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher utilizes available time as “academic learning time.”

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in this Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures. NOTE: (2) The criteria in Domain IV relate to the MANAGEMENT of student discipline, instructional strategies, time, and materials which create an environment in which learning may take place. These criteria are to be evaluated in the context of student behavior as it impacts student success. The critical attributes of EACH criterion MUST be considered separately.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 35 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-1. The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students. Things To Consider • Teacher’s written communication is without significant error in content or presentation. • Errors are corrected. • Errors do not interfere with the ability of students to learn. Quality: Students are successful in the learning. Focus on the clarity of written communications. Written communications are legible. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the communication

with the learning objectives. Quantity: Focus on the extent to which written communication supports learning.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

QUALITY The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students. The teacher frequently uses inappropriate and inaccurate written communication with students.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students. The teacher almost always/always uses inappropriate and inaccurate written communication with students.

The teacher consistently utilizes unique and creative ways to provide students with clear/accurate information, specific directives, corrective and reinforcing feedback that facilitates/encourages learning.

The teacher utilizes ways to provide students with information, directives and feedback that facilitate learning.

The teacher occasionally utilizes ways to provide students with information, directives and feedback that facilitate learning. The teacher's written communication with students results in confusion that occasionally impedes learning.

The teacher never/rarely utilizes ways to provide students with information, directives and feedback that facilitate learning. The teacher's communication with students results in confusion that impedes learning.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 36 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-2. The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with students. Things To Consider • The teacher’s verbal and non-verbal communication establishes a learning climate that enhances student’s ability to learn. • Teacher’s verbal communication is without significant error in content or presentation. • Verbal and non-verbal errors are corrected. Quality: Students are successful in the learning. Focus on the clarity of oral communication. Oral communication is audible. Classroom environment is conducive to learning. Look for strength, impact, variety,

and alignment of the communication with the learning objective. Quantity: Focus on the extent to which oral communication supports learning.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication consistently establishes a positive learning climate that promotes student learning and student success.

QUALITY The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication establishes a learning climate that is positive and conducive to learning.

QUALITY The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication occasionally establishes a learning climate that is positive and conducive to learning. Errors are inadvertent and do not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of campus/district.

QUALITY The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication rarely/never establishes a learning climate that is positive and conducive to learning. AND/OR Errors seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of campus/ district.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication is consistently clear and audible.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication is clear and audible.

The teacher's verbal communication is occasionally clear and audible.

The teacher's verbal communication is rarely/never audible and clear.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication consistently encourages students to take responsible risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication encourages students to take responsible risks in responding, extending, questioning, and/or producing products.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication occasionally engages students in learning.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communication rarely/never engages students in learning.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications consistently assist in the alignment of instruction with learning objectives.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications assist in the alignment of instruction with learning objectives.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications occasionally assist in the alignment of instruction with learning objectives.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications rarely/never assist in the alignment of instruction with learning objectives.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications consistently contribute to the successful learning of students.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications contribute to the successful learning of students.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications occasionally contribute to the successful learning of the students.

The teacher's verbal and non-verbal communications rarely/never contribute to the successful learning of the students.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher's oral communication and non-verbal communication supports a positive learning climate that promotes student success.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher's oral communication and non-verbal communication supports a positive learning climate that promotes student success.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher's oral communication and non-verbal communication supports a positive learning climate that promotes student success.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher's oral communication and non-verbal communication supports a positive learning climate that promotes student success.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 37 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-3. The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty. Things To Consider • Teacher readily recognizes students who have difficulty in performance. • Teacher modifies and positively reinforces student-learning success. Quality: Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of teacher support and student success. Focus on appropriateness of the modification. Encouragement and support results in student success. Quantity: Look for uniformity and consistency of encouragement.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently identifies and assesses the needs of the students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher consistently encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

QUALITY The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of the students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally identifies and assesses the needs of the students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher occasionally encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never identifies and assesses the needs of the students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher rarely/never encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher consistently encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher occasionally encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher rarely/never encourages and supports students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher consistently uses creative and unique ways to encourage and support students who are reluctant and having difficulty, which results in students taking reasonable risks, reduced frustration and willingness to continue engagement in learning.

The teacher uses strategies to encourage and support students who are reluctant and having difficulty.

The teacher occasionally uses strategies to encourage and support students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher's communication / lack of communication with students who are reluctant and having difficulty frequently results in student frustration, unwillingness to take reasonable risks and/or disengagement.

The teacher rarely/never uses strategies to encourage and support students who are reluctant and having difficulty. The teacher's communication / lack of communication with students who are reluctant and having difficulty almost always/ always results in student frustration, unwillingness to take reasonable risks and/or disengagement.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant or having difficulty.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant or having difficulty.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant or having difficulty.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher encourages and supports students who are reluctant or having difficulty.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 38 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-4. The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members, and other professionals. Things To Consider • Teacher’s written communication is without significant error in content or presentation. • Written errors are corrected. • Written errors do not interfere with the intent of the communication to parents, staff, community members, and other professionals. • Communication reflects sensitivity to community standards. • [NOTE: The written responses on the Teacher Self-Report are NOT to be used in the evaluation of Domain V.] Quality: Focus on the clarity of written communication. Written communications are legible. Communication serves a purpose. Communication serves the purpose for which it was written. Look for strength,

impact, variety, and alignment of the communication with the intent. Quantity: Focus on the extent to which written communication is informative.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

QUALITY The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals. Errors in communication are inadvertent and do not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals. AND/OR Errors in communication seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals consistently results in positive responses that may include but are not limited to: increased collaboration with participants, increased involvement in the learning community.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals results in positive responses.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals occasionally results in positive responses. The teacher's written communication includes comments that are inaccurate, insensitive, or inappropriate.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals rarely/never results in positive responses. The teacher's written communication includes comments that are inaccurate, insensitive, or inappropriate.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate written communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 39 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-5. The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members, and other professionals. Things To Consider • Teacher’s verbal and non-verbal communication establishes a climate of trust and mutual respect. • Teacher’s verbal and non-verbal communication is without significant error in content or presentation. • Verbal and non-verbal errors are corrected. Quality: Focus on the clarity of oral communication. Oral communication is audible. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the communication with the intent. Quantity: Focus on the extent to which communication interferes with /supports interactions between parents, staff, community members, and other professionals.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

QUALITY The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals. AND/OR Errors in communication are inadvertent and do not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals. AND/OR Errors in communication seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of campus/district.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals consistently results in positive responses that may include but are not limited to increased collaboration, participation, and involvement in the learning community.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals results in positive responses.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals occasionally results in positive responses. AND/OR The teacher's use of inappropriate and/or inaccurate verbal and non-verbal communication is inadvertent and does not seriously interfere with trust and mutual respect with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

The teacher's written communication with parents, staff, community members and professionals rarely/never results in positive responses. AND/OR The teacher's use of inappropriate and/or inaccurate verbal and non-verbal communication seriously interferes with trust and mutual respect with parents, staff, community members and professionals.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 40 Revised June 2004

Domain V: Professional Communication V-6. The teacher’s interactions are supportive, courteous, and respectful with students, parents, staff, community members, and other professionals. Things To Consider • Teacher models courtesy and respect through patience and active listening. • Incorrect responses are handled with dignity. Quality: Teacher demonstrates support, courtesy and respect for students, parents, staff, community members, and other professionals that enhance student success. Quantity: Look for uniformity and consistency of interactions.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently models and teaches courtesy and respect by displaying patience and actively listening to students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUALITY The teacher models and teaches courtesy and respect by displaying patience and actively listening to students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally models and teaches courtesy and respect by displaying patience and actively listening to students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never models and teaches courtesy and respect by displaying patience and actively listening to students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

The teacher consistently establishes a climate that allows both other students and the teacher to provide corrective information for incorrect responses.

The teacher establishes a climate that allows both other students and the teacher to provide corrective information for incorrect responses.

The teacher occasionally establishes a climate that allows both other students and the teacher to provide corrective information for incorrect responses.

The teacher rarely/never establishes a climate that allows both other students and the teacher to provide corrective information for incorrect responses.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher demonstrates support, courtesy, and respect with students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher demonstrates support, courtesy, and respect with students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher demonstrates support, courtesy, and respect with students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher demonstrates support, courtesy, and respect with students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 41 Revised June 2004

Domain VI: Professional Development VI-1. The teacher successfully engages in professional development activities that positively correlate with the goals of the campus and district. Things To Consider • Professional development activities are directly related to the goals, the objectives and priorities of the campus or district. • Professional development activities correlate to subject matter and past performance appraisal. • Evidence of knowledge and skills from professional development activities are integrated in the instructional program. • The teacher uses a variety of professional development models appropriate to the needs of students. (See Commissioner's Rules 153.1011(d)). Quality: Look for evidence of alignment and strength through the Teacher Self-Report. How does the teacher make connections between goals and objectives, the professional development, and his/her own

practice? Quantity: Focus is on integrating practice, not the number of professional development activities. Information is primarily provided through the Teacher Self-Report.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Professional development activities consistently, thoughtfully, and positively correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

QUALITY Professional development activities correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

QUALITY Professional development activities occasionally positively correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and/or with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

QUALITY Professional development activities rarely/never positively correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and/or with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

Professional development activities consistently, positively and continuously correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities occasionally positively correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities rarely/never positively correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities consistently result in significantly different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Professional development activities result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Professional development activities occasionally result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Professional development activities rarely/never result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Teacher consistently, continuously seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning.

Teacher seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning.

Teacher occasionally seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning.

Teacher rarely/never seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning.

Teacher choices for professional development consistently and continuously focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development occasionally focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development rarely/never focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher provides formal/informal leadership in working constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher occasionally works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher rarely/never works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 42 Revised June 2004

Domain VI-1 Continued QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher successfully integrates professional development activities into instruction.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher successfully integrates professional development activities into instruction.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher successfully integrates professional development activities into instruction.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher successfully integrates professional development activities into instruction.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 43 Revised June 2004

Domain VI: Professional Development VI-2. The teacher successfully correlates professional development activities with assigned subject content and the varied needs of students. Things To Consider • Professional development activities are directly related to the assigned grade level and/or subject content. • Professional development activities are directly related to the needs of students. • Evidence that knowledge and skills from professional development activities are integrated in the instructional program. Quality: Look for evidence of strength, impact, variety and alignment through the Teacher Self-Report. The teacher makes connections between goals and objectives, the professional development, and his/her

own practice. Quantity: Focus is on integrating practice, not the number of professional development activities. Information is primarily provided through the Teacher Self-Report.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Professional development activities consistently result in significantly different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities occasionally result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities rarely/never result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Professional development activities consistently, thoughtfully correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

Professional development activities correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

Professional development activities occasionally correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and/or with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

Professional development activities rarely/never correlate with the Teacher Self-Report and/or with the teacher’s performance appraisal.

Teacher consistently and continuously seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning in the content area and grade, level at which the teacher teaches.

Teacher seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning in the content area and grade, level at which the teacher teaches.

Teacher occasionally seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning in the content area and grade, level at which the teacher teaches.

Teacher rarely/never seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning in the content area and grade, level at which the teacher teaches.

Teacher choices for professional development consistently and continuously focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development occasionally focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development rarely/never focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

The teacher takes a leadership role in working constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher occasionally works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

The teacher rarely/never works constructively with other professionals for continuous growth and development toward meeting the needs of students and the goals of the campus/district.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher engages in professional development activities that are related to the assigned grade level/subject area(s).

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%). The teacher engages in professional development activities that are related to the assigned grade level/subject area(s).

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher engages in professional development activities that are related to the assigned grade level/subject area(s).

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher engages in professional development activities that are related to the assigned grade level/subject area(s).

The teacher engages in professional development activities that are directly related to the needs/characteristics of students.

The teacher engages in professional development activities that are directly related to the needs/characteristics of students.

The teacher engages in professional development activities that are directly related to the needs/characteristics of students.

The teacher engages in professional development activities that are directly related to the needs/characteristics of students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 44 Revised June 2004

Domain VI: Professional Development VI-3. The teacher successfully engages in professional development activities that positively correlate with the prior performance appraisal. Things To Consider • Professional development activities directly relate to the teacher’s prior performance appraisal or analysis of needs. • Evidence that knowledge and skills from professional development activities are integrated in the instructional program. • Continuous improvement. Quality: Focus on how the teacher utilizes reflection and feedback for enhancing student learning. The teacher makes connections between prior performance/analysis of needs and his/her own professional

development, and practice. Look for evidence of strength, impact, variety, and alignment through the Teacher Self-Report. Quantity: Focus is on integrating practice, not the number of professional development activities. Information is primarily provided through the Teacher Self-Report.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Professional development activities consistently result in significantly different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities occasionally result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

QUALITY Professional development activities rarely/never result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher’s classroom.

Professional development activities consistently and continuously correlate with the goals of the campus and the district

Professional development activities correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities occasionally correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities rarely/never correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

The teacher consistently and continuously seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning based on prior performance appraisal.

The teacher continuously seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning based on prior performance appraisal.

The teacher occasionally seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning based on prior performance appraisal.

The teacher rarely/never seeks out professional development opportunities, which are designed to improve teaching and learning based on prior performance appraisal.

Teacher choices for professional development continuously focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development focus on better understanding of improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development occasionally focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

Teacher choices for professional development rarely/never focus on better understanding of and improved practices for the unique needs and characteristics of students.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher engages in professional development that is directly related to the teacher’s prior performance appraisal or analysis of needs.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89 %). The teacher engages in professional development that is directly related to the teacher’s prior performance appraisal or analysis of needs.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher engages in professional development that is directly related to the teacher’s prior performance appraisal or analysis of needs.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher engages in professional development that is directly related to the teacher’s prior performance appraisal or analysis of needs.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 45 Revised June 2004

Domain VI: Professional Development VI-4. The teacher works collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and other professionals toward the overall improvement of student performance. Things To Consider • Teacher actively engages with colleagues in professional activities. • Teacher engages in professional development activities in accordance with district/campus goals, objectives, policies, and directives. • Collaborative activities are focused on improvement of student performance. Quality: Look for evidence of strength, impact, variety, and alignment in implementation of knowledge and skills or collaborative activities, which impact overall student performance. Quantity: Look for repeated evidence of formal/informal membership in collaborative partnerships or groups. Focus is on the appropriate level of participation/collaboration, not the number of groups or number

of meetings. Evaluation Criteria

Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently works collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and other professionals toward the overall improvement of student performance.

QUALITY The teacher works collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and other professionals toward the overall improvement of student performance.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally works collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and other professionals toward the overall improvement of student performance.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never works collaboratively and constructively with colleagues and other professionals toward the overall improvement of student performance.

Continuous collaborative professional development activities of the teacher consistently result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher's classroom and in the school.

Continuous collaborative professional development activities of the teacher result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher's classroom and in the school.

Continuous collaborative professional development activities of the teacher occasionally result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher's classroom and in the school.

Continuous collaborative professional development activities of the teacher rarely/never result in different, improved teaching and learning in the teacher's classroom and in the school.

The teacher consistently encourages, fosters and participates in collaborative professional development that furthers campus and district goals.

The teacher encourages, fosters and participates in collaborative professional development that furthers campus and district goals.

Professional development activities of the teacher occasionally positively correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

Professional development activities of the teacher rarely/never positively correlate with the goals of the campus and the district.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) Teacher actively engages with colleagues in professional activities.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) Teacher actively engages with colleagues in professional activities.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) Teacher actively engages with colleagues in professional activities.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) Teacher actively engages with colleagues in professional activities.

Teacher engages in professional development activities in accordance with district/campus goals, objectives, policies and directives.

Teacher engages in professional development activities in accordance with district/campus goals, objectives, policies and directives.

Teacher engages in professional development activities in accordance with district/campus goals, objectives, policies and directives.

Teacher engages in professional development activities in accordance with district/campus goals, objectives, policies and directives.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in the Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 46 Revised June 2004

Domain VII: Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements VII-1. The teacher complies with all of the policies, operating procedures, and legal requirements (national, state, district, and campus). Any lack of compliance is rare, inadvertent, and does not seriously

compromise the needs of students or the effective operations of the campus/district. Things To Consider • Teacher complies with all policies. • Teacher complies with all procedures. • Teacher complies with all legal requirements. Quality: Look for impact and strength of non-compliance on the needs of the students. Look for impact and strength of non-compliance on the effective operation of the campus/district.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently provides formal/informal leadership in developing; communicating; interpreting; applying policies, operating procedures, and/or legal requirements (national, state, district, and campus).

QUALITY The teacher complies with all the policies, operating procedures, and legal requirements (national, state, district, and campus). Any lack of compliance is rare, inadvertent, and/or does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally complies with all the policies, operating procedures, and legal requirements (national, state, district, and campus). In instances of non-compliance, the needs of the students or the effective operations of the campus/district may be compromised.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never complies with all the policies, operating procedures, and legal requirements (national, state, district, and campus). The lack of compliance is frequent and/or seriously compromises the needs of students and/or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in the Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 47 Revised June 2004

Domain VII: Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements VII-2. The teacher generally complies with all of the verbal and written directives. Any lack of compliance is rare, inadvertent, and does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective operations

of the campus/district. Things To Consider • Teacher compliance with all verbal directives. • Teacher compliance with all written directives. Quality: Impact and strength of non-compliance on the needs of the students. Impact and strength of non-compliance on the effective operation of the campus/district.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory

QUALITY The teacher consistently complies with all verbal and written directives.

QUALITY The teacher complies with all verbal and written directives. Any lack of compliance with verbal and written directives is rare, inadvertent, and/or does not seriously compromise the needs of students or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally complies with all verbal and written directives. In instances of non-compliance, the needs of the students or the effective operations of the campus/district may be compromised.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never complies with all verbal and written directives. The lack of compliance with verbal and written directives is frequent and/or seriously compromises the needs of students and/or the effective and legal operation of the campus/district.

The teacher consistently provides formal/informal leadership in developing; communicating; interpreting; applying verbal and written directives.

The teacher provides formal/informal leadership in developing; communicating; interpreting; applying verbal and written directives.

The teacher occasionally participates in developing; communicating; interpreting; applying verbal and written directives.

The teacher rarely/never participates in developing; communicating; interpreting; applying verbal and written directives.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period.

NOTE: (1) The “Proficient” Standard in the Domain is HIGHER due to needs for consistency and safety. Exceeds Expectations requires participation in the development of discipline and other management procedures.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 48 Revised June 2004

Domain VII: Compliance with Policies, Operating Procedures, and Requirements VII-3. Apart from classroom responsibilities, the teacher generally contributes to making the whole school safe and orderly, and a stimulating learning environment for all children. Things To Consider • Teacher contributes to making the whole school safe. • Teacher contributes to making the whole school orderly. • Teacher contributes to creating a stimulating environment. Quality: Teacher contributes to establishing a secure and supportive environment. Teacher is highly visible. Teacher intervenes appropriately to maintain a safe, orderly school environment.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently and continuously contributes to making the school a safe and orderly environment for all students.

QUALITY The teacher contributes to making the school a safe and orderly environment for all students.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally contributes to making the school a safe and orderly environment for all students.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never contributes to making the school a safe and orderly environment for all students.

The teacher consistently and continuously contributes to making the school a stimulating environment for all students.

The teacher contributes to making the school a stimulating environment for all students.

The teacher occasionally contributes to making the school a stimulating environment for all students.

The teacher rarely/never contributes to making the school a stimulating environment for all students.

The teacher consistently takes appropriate, professional initiative to monitor and supervise students.

The teacher takes appropriate, professional initiative to monitor and supervise students.

The teacher occasionally takes appropriate, professional initiative to monitor and supervise students.

The teacher rarely/never takes appropriate, professional initiative to monitor and supervise students.

The teacher is consistently visible in areas of the school where students gather or are likely to gather.

The teacher is visible in areas of the school where students gather or are likely to gather.

The teacher is occasionally visible in areas of the school where students gather or are likely to gather.

The teacher is rarely/never visible in areas of the school where students gather or are likely to gather.

The teacher consistently takes appropriate initiatives to make the school a stimulating environment for students.

The teacher takes appropriate initiatives to make the school a stimulating environment for students.

Teacher occasionally takes appropriate initiatives to make the school a stimulating environment for students.

Teacher rarely/never takes appropriate initiatives to make the school a stimulating environment for students.

Teacher consistently takes actions, which make the school a positive environment for students.

Teacher takes actions, which make the school a positive environment for students.

Teacher occasionally takes actions, which make the school a positive environment for students.

Teacher rarely/never takes actions, which make the school a positive environment for students.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 49 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus (Based on Indicators included in the AEIS) VIII.A-1. The teacher aligns instruction to include appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives to support student achievement in all assigned classes. Things To Consider • Teacher instruction of TEKS/TAKS objectives connected to the subject matter and content. • Instructional planning reflects the inclusion of TEKS/TAKS objectives connected to the subject matter and content. Quality: Look for appropriate connections to the subject matter and content. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of instructional delivery to TEKS/TAKS objectives. Quantity: All classes receive instruction on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory

QUALITY There is consistent evidence of student success in using/applying the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives in the curriculum. TEKS/TAKS objectives are consistently integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

QUALITY There is evidence of student success in using/applying the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives in the curriculum. TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

QUALITY There is occasional evidence of student success in using/applying the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives in the curriculum.

QUALITY There is little/no evidence of student success in using/applying the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives in the curriculum.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher aligns instruction to appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives in all assigned classes.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher aligns instruction to appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives in all assigned classes.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher aligns instruction to appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives in all assigned classes.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher aligns instruction to appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives in all assigned classes.

TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated in to regular subject matter and content.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 50 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus (Based on Indicators included in the AEIS) VIII.A-2. The teacher analyzes TAKS performance data relevant to all students in assigned classes prior to beginning instruction. Things To Consider • Instructional planning reflects an analysis of TAKS performance data. • TAKS performance data is analyzed prior to beginning instruction. Quality: Individual student needs are addressed. Documentary evidence is used to support performance level. Quantity: TAKS performance data is relevant for all assigned students.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY Instructional planning consistently reflects that TAKS performance data has been analyzed in collaboration with other professionals prior to the beginning of instruction.

QUALITY Instructional planning reflects that TAKS performance data has been analyzed prior to the beginning of instruction.

QUALITY Instructional planning occasionally reflects that TAKS performance data has been analyzed prior to the beginning of instruction.

QUALITY Instructional planning rarely/never reflects that TAKS performance data has been analyzed prior to the beginning of instruction.

The teacher provides formal/informal leadership in instructional planning which consistently shows evidence of addressing individual student needs as identified in the campus improvement plan.

Instructional planning shows evidence of addressing individual student needs as identified in the campus improvement plan.

Instructional planning shows occasional evidence of addressing individual student needs as identified in the campus improvement plan.

Instructional planning shows little or no evidence of addressing individual student needs as identified in the campus improvement plan.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher analyzes TAKS performance data relevant to all students in assigned classes prior to beginning instruction.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher analyzes TAKS performance data relevant to all students in assigned classes prior to beginning instruction.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher analyzes TAKS performance data relevant to all students in assigned classes prior to beginning instruction.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher analyzes TAKS performance data relevant to all students in assigned classes prior to beginning instruction.

The teacher acts on the analyzed data by incorporating TEKS/TAKS objectives for remediation and/or reinforcement into all subject matter and content.

The teacher acts on the analyzed data by incorporating TEKS/TAKS objectives for remediation and/or reinforcement into all regular subject matter and content.

The teacher acts on the analyzed data by incorporating TEKS/TAKS objectives for remediation and/or reinforcement into all subject matter and content.

The teacher acts on the analyzed data by incorporating TEKS/TAKS objectives for remediation and/or reinforcement into all subject matter and content.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 51 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus (Based on Indicators included in the AEIS) VIII.A-3. The teacher adjusts the sequencing of classroom instruction to appropriately incorporate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Things To Consider • Instructional delivery shows evidence of task analysis of TAKS performance data. • Teacher adjusts the classroom content to include TEKS/TAKS objectives. • Teacher adjusts the sequence of instruction in response to the timing of the TAKS test administration. Quality: Look for the appropriateness of the sequence adjustment. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of the sequence with the TAKS test administration. Quantity: Adjustments are relevant for all students.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher collaborates and/or provides formal/informal leadership, which encourages other colleagues to align classroom content, and sequence of instruction with skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives across content areas and grade levels.

QUALITY The teacher aligns classroom content and sequence of instruction with the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally aligns classroom content and sequence of instruction with the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never aligns classroom content and sequence of instruction with the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

There is consistent evidence that indicates student success has resulted due to appropriate sequence and alignment of the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

There is evidence that indicates student success has resulted due to appropriate sequence and alignment of the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

There is some evidence that indicates student success has resulted due to appropriate sequence and alignment of the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

There is little/ no evidence that indicates student success has resulted due to appropriate sequence and alignment of the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Student needs as identified in the Campus Improvement Plan are consistently reflected in the sequence of instruction and instructional delivery.

Student needs as identified in the Campus Improvement Plan are reflected in the sequence of instruction and instructional delivery.

Student needs as identified in the Campus Improvement Plan are occasionally reflected in the sequence of instruction and instructional delivery.

Student needs as identified in the Campus Improvement Plan are rarely/never reflected in the sequence of instruction and instructional delivery.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher adjusts the sequencing of classroom instruction for all students to appropriately incorporate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher adjusts the sequencing of classroom instruction for all students to appropriately incorporate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher adjusts the sequencing of classroom instruction for all students to appropriately incorporate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher adjusts the sequencing of classroom instruction for all students to appropriately incorporate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated into all subject areas.

Skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated into all subject areas.

Skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated into all subject areas.

Skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives are integrated into all subject areas.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 52 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus (Based on Indicators included in the AEIS) VIII.A-4. The teacher selects/adapts instructional materials and activities that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Things To Consider • Teacher selects/adapts materials and techniques to support TEKS/TAKS objectives. • Teacher selects/adapts activities and strategies to support TEKS/TAKS objectives. • Teacher selects/adapts materials, techniques, activities, and strategies appropriate for the unique needs/characteristics of the students to support TEKS/TAKS objectives. Quality: Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of strategies/techniques with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of material with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of activities with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Quantity: All materials and activities are appropriate.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently utilizes a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative instructional materials and techniques that are supportive of the skills that are correlated to the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher utilizes instructional materials and techniques, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally utilizes instructional materials and techniques, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never utilizes instructional materials and techniques, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher consistently utilizes a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative instructional strategies and activities, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated to the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher utilizes instructional strategies and activities, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher occasionally utilizes instructional strategies and activities, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher rarely/never utilizes instructional strategies and activities, which are supportive of the skills that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher consistently utilizes a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative instructional materials and techniques that are selected because of their relevance to the unique characteristics of the students.

The teacher utilizes instructional materials and techniques that are selected because of their relevance to the unique needs/characteristics of the students.

The teacher occasionally utilizes instructional materials and techniques that are selected because of their relevance to the unique needs/characteristics of the students.

The teacher rarely/never utilizes instructional materials and techniques that are selected because of their relevance to the unique needs/characteristics of the students.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher selects/adapts instructional materials and activities that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher selects/adapts instructional materials and activities that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher selects/adapts instructional materials and activities that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher selects/adapts instructional materials and activities that are correlated with appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Students are successful in learning the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Students are successful in learning the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Students are successful in learning the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Students are successful in learning the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 53 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus VIII.A-5. The teacher provides feedback to all students regarding their learning progress on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives. Things To Consider • Teacher instruction demonstrates awareness of TEKS/TAKS objectives appropriate to the content, subject matter, grade level, and curriculum. • Feedback is provided and provisions made for students to use the feedback in their learning. Quality: Appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives are addressed. Students are aware of their learning progress on TEKS/TAKS objectives. Quantity: Feedback is consistently provided in a timely manner.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently provides a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative activities and opportunities for students to use feedback to help them improve their performance on the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher provides activities and opportunities for students to use feedback to help them improve their performance on the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally provides activities and opportunities for students to use feedback to help them improve their performance on the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never provides activities and opportunities for students to use feedback to help them improve their performance on the skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

The teacher consistently provides a variety of creative, unique, and/or innovative activities and strategies to help students understand their own strengths and weaknesses on skills supportive of TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Feedback on performance provided by the teacher helps students understand their own strengths and weaknesses on skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Feedback on performance provided by the teacher occasionally helps students understand their own strengths and weaknesses on skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

Feedback on performance provided by the teacher rarely/never helps students understand their own strengths and weaknesses on skills supportive of the TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher provides timely feedback to all students regarding their learning progress on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher provides timely feedback to all students regarding their learning progress on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher provides timely feedback to all students regarding their learning progress on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher provides timely feedback to all students regarding their learning progress on appropriate TEKS/TAKS objectives.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 54 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus VIII.B-6. The teacher monitors attendance of all students in assigned classes and contacts parents, counselors, and other school officials for students with serious attendance problems. Things To Consider (*) • Teacher maintains accurate attendance records and identifies chronic attendance problems that affect student learning. • Teacher works with appropriate staff to improve student attendance. • Teacher works with students and parents to improve student attendance. Quality: Teacher identifies and implements strategies/techniques that promote regular attendance. Quantity: Teacher monitors attendance of all students.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently identifies and implements creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies/techniques that promote attendance.

QUALITY The teacher identifies and implements strategies/techniques that promote attendance.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally identifies and implements strategies/techniques that promote attendance.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never identifies and implements strategies/techniques that promote attendance.

The teacher consistently establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve attendance.

The teacher establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve attendance.

The teacher occasionally establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve attendance.

The teacher rarely/never establishes partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve attendance.

The teacher consistently establishes appropriate relationships with individual students, which result in improved attendance.

The teacher establishes appropriate relationships with individual students, which results in improved attendance.

The teacher occasionally establishes appropriate relationships with individual students, which results in improved attendance.

The teacher rarely/never establishes appropriate relationships with individual students, which results in improved attendance.

There is consistent improvement in the attendance of significant number of students.

There is improvement in the attendance of significant number of students.

There is occasional improvement in the attendance of significant number of students.

There is little or no improvement in the attendance of significant number of students.

The teacher consistently modifies the classroom-learning environment to encourage student attendance. Improvement in attendance results.

The teacher modifies the classroom-learning environment to encourage student attendance. Improvement in attendance results.

The teacher occasionally modifies the classroom environment to encourage student attendance. Some improvement in attendance results.

The teacher rarely/never modifies the classroom environment to encourage student attendance. Little/no improvement in attendance results.

The teacher consistently modifies the curriculum and instruction to encourage student attendance. Improvement in attendance results.

The teacher modifies the curriculum and instruction to encourage student attendance. Improvement in attendance results.

The teacher occasionally modifies the curriculum and instruction to encourage student attendance. Some improvement in attendance results.

The teacher rarely/never modifies the curriculum and instruction to encourage student attendance. Little/no improvement in attendance results.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher monitors attendance of all students in assigned classes and contacts parents, counselors, and other school officials for students with serious attendance problems.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher monitors attendance of all students in assigned classes and contacts parents, counselors, and other school officials for students with serious attendance problems.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher monitors attendance of all students in assigned classes and contacts parents, counselors, and other school officials for students with serious attendance problems.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher monitors attendance of all students in assigned classes and contacts parents, counselors, and other school officials for students with serious attendance problems.

The teacher maintains accurate records and reports on student attendance.

The teacher maintains accurate records and reports on attendance.

The teacher maintains accurate records and reports on student attendance.

The teacher maintains accurate records and reports on student attendance.

* Although attendance is not a criteria indicator in the state accountability campus rating, the academic performance of students is largely dependent on being present in school.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 55 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus VIII.C-7. The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations. Things To Consider • Teacher assesses instructional needs of students in at-risk situations. • Teacher uses appropriate strategies to improve learning for students in at-risk-situations. Quality: Teacher ensures that all students in special populations are provided opportunities to succeed. Teacher monitors the progress of students in at-risk situations. Look for impact and alignment of strategies

with needs of students in at-risk situations. Quantity: Teacher consistently meets the needs of students in at-risk situations.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently identifies and assesses the needs of students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally identifies and assesses the needs of students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never identifies and assesses the needs of students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher consistently identifies and implements creative, unique, and/or innovative strategies/techniques that result in significant changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher identifies and implements strategies/techniques that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher occasionally identifies and implements strategies/techniques that result in some changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher rarely/ never identifies and implements strategies/techniques; there are almost no/no changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher consistently establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher occasionally establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials that result in some changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher rarely/never establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials that result in almost no/no changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher consistently establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher occasionally establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher rarely/never establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%)

The teacher identifies and assesses the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher takes action to meet the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher takes action to meet the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher takes action to meet the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher takes action to meet the needs of assigned students who are in at-risk situations.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 56 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus VIII.C-8. The teacher meets with students who are failing or in danger of failing and develops an appropriate plan for intervention. Things To Consider • Teacher meets with students who are experiencing failure. • Teacher develops short-term and long-term educational plans. Quality: Intervention plan meets the needs of individual students. Teacher meets individually with students who are experiencing failure. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of intervention plan

activities with student needs. Quantity: Focus on the results of interactions, not the number of interactions.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectation Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently works cooperatively with students who are failing/in danger of failing to develop and implement a plan for intervention that results in improved student performance.

QUALITY The teacher works cooperatively with students who are failing/in danger of failing to develop and implement a plan for intervention that results in improved student performance.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally works cooperatively with students who are failing/in danger of failing to develop and implement a plan for intervention that results in improved student performance.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never works cooperatively with students who are failing/in danger of failing to implement a plan for intervention.

Carrying out the plan consistently results in significantly improved performance for most students.

Carrying out the plan results in significantly improved performance for most students.

Carrying out the plan occasionally results in some improved performance for some students.

Carrying out the plan rarely/never results in little or no improvement in performance for most students.

The teacher consistently establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve student performance.

The teacher establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve student performance.

The teacher occasionally establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve student performance.

The teacher rarely/never establishes on-going partnerships with parents/other school officials to improve student performance.

The teacher consistently establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in improved performance.

The teacher establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in improved performance.

The teacher occasionally establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in improved performance.

The teacher rarely/never establishes appropriate relationships with individual students that result in improved performance.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher meets with students who are failing or in danger of failing and develops an appropriate plan for intervention.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher meets with students who are failing or in danger of failing and develops an appropriate plan for intervention.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher meets with students who are failing or in danger of failing and develops an appropriate plan for intervention.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher meets with students who are failing or in danger of failing and develops an appropriate plan for intervention.

SCORING CRITERIA GUIDE Performance at the “Proficient” Level is based upon documentary evidence, as appropriate.

Documentary evidence may be collected over the entire appraisal period. Performance at the “Proficient” Level MAY be inferred for a criterion if 80% of the criteria in the Domain ARE documented at the

“Proficient” or Exceeds Expectation Level and NO criteria are documented at Below Expectations or Unsatisfactory.

Professional Development and Appraisal System

Scoring Criteria Guide Page 57 Revised June 2004

Domain VIII: Improvement of Academic Performance for All Students on the Campus (*) VIII.C-9. The teacher modifies and adapts classroom materials and/or instruction for students in at-risk situations. Things To Consider • Teacher modifies/adapts materials for students in at-risk situations. • Teacher modifies/adapts instruction for students in at-risk situations. Quality: Materials and instruction are appropriate for students in at-risk situations. Teacher is proactive in seeking out resources. Look for strength, impact, variety, and alignment of materials/instruction with

specific risk factors and learning styles of students in at-risk situations. Quantity: Focus on the presence or absence of modifications/adaptations, when needed, for students in at-risk situations.

Evaluation Criteria Exceeds Expectations Proficient Below Expectations Unsatisfactory QUALITY The teacher consistently modifies the classroom learning environment; resulting in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher modifies the classroom learning environment; resulting in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher occasionally modifies the classroom learning environment; resulting in some success/behavior change for students who are in at-risk situations.

QUALITY The teacher rarely/never modifies the classroom-learning environment, resulting in little/no success/behavior change for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher modifies the curriculum, instruction, and materials that consistently result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in risk situations.

The teacher modifies the curriculum, instruction, and materials that result in changes in success/behavior for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher occasionally modifies the curriculum, instruction, and materials. There is some success/behavior change for students who are in at-risk situations.

The teacher rarely/never modifies the curriculum, instruction, and materials. There is little/no success/behavior change for students who are in at-risk situations.

QUANTITY ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME (90-100%) The teacher modifies and adapts classroom materials and/or instruction for students in at-risk situations when appropriate.

QUANTITY MOST OF THE TIME (80-89%) The teacher modifies and adapts classroom materials and/or instruction for students in at-risk situations when appropriate.

QUANTITY SOME OF THE TIME (50-79%) The teacher modifies and adapts classroom materials and/or instruction for students in at-risk situations when appropriate.

QUANTITY LESS THAN HALF OF THE TIME (0-49%) The teacher modifies and adapts classroom materials and/or instruction for students in at-risk situations when appropriate.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and using additional resources.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and using additional resources.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and using additional resources.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and using additional resources.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from other professionals.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from other professionals.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from other professionals.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from other professionals.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from parents/community.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from parents/community.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from parents/community.

The teacher is proactive in seeking out and acting on assistance from parents/community.

* Campus performance includes the most recent [a] Campus Performance Rating as reported in the State accountability system (AEIS) and [b] Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as designated in the campus AYP report.

181

Appendix C

Linear and Quadratic Regression Scatterplots

182

Figure 1. Domain I and Reading Scatterplot

183

Figure 2. Domain II and Reading Scatterplot

184

Figure 3. Domain I and Mathematics Scatterplot

185

Figure 4. Domain II and Mathematics Scatterplot

186

Appendix D

Statistical Components of the Study

187

Table 16

PDAS Domains I and II and Reading STAAR Scores

Research Questions Independent Variables Dependent Variables Statistics

Correlation between PDAS

Domain I and Students’

Reading STAAR Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain I Ratings

Students’ Reading

STAAR Scores

Pearson correlation

coefficient r

Correlation between each

PDAS Domain I Criteria and

Students’ Reading STAAR

Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain I Criteria 1

through 5 Ratings

Students’ Reading

STAAR Scores Multiple regression

Correlation between PDAS

Domain II and Students’

Reading STAAR Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain II Ratings

Students’ Reading

STAAR Scores

Pearson correlation

coefficient r

Correlation between each

PDAS Domain II Criteria

and Students’ Reading

STAAR Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain II Criteria 1

through 9 Ratings

Students’ Reading

STAAR Scores Multiple regression

188

Table 17

PDAS Domains I and II and Mathematics STAAR Scores

Research Questions Independent Variables Dependent Variables Statistics

Correlation between PDAS

Domain I and Students’

Mathematics STAAR Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain I Ratings

Students’

Mathematics

STAAR Scores

Pearson correlation

coefficient r

Correlation between each

PDAS Domain I Criteria and

Students’ Mathematics STAAR

Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain I Criteria 1

through 5 Ratings

Students’

Mathematics

STAAR Scores

Multiple regression

Correlation between PDAS

Domain II and Students’

Mathematics STAAR Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain II Ratings

Students’

Mathematics

STAAR Scores

Pearson correlation

coefficient r

Correlation between each

PDAS Domain II Criteria and

Students’ Mathematics STAAR

Scores

Teachers’ PDAS

Domain II Criteria 1

through 9 Ratings

Students’

Mathematics

STAAR Scores

Multiple regression

189

Appendix E

Raw Data

190

Table 18

Reading STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teachers’ PDAS Domain I Ratings

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

1 1406.65 15 3 3 3 3 3

2 1443.09 21 5 5 3 3 5

3 1446.54 15 3 3 3 3 3

4 1490 17 5 3 3 3 3

5 1483.31 9 1 1 1 3 3

6 1473 21 5 5 3 3 5

7 1534.87 19 3 5 3 5 3

8 1369.05 15 3 3 3 3 3

9 1436.25 15 3 3 3 3 3

10 1414.65 15 3 3 3 3 3

11 1393.41 19 3 5 5 3 3

12 1383.55 17 3 3 3 5 3

13 1411.44 25 5 5 5 5 5

14 1362.69 21 5 5 5 3 3

15 1463.2 21 5 5 3 5 3

16 1686.13 25 5 5 5 5 5

17 1515.81 17 3 3 5 3 3

18 1346 9 1 3 3 1 1

19 1340.92 25 5 5 5 5 5

20 1296.46 15 3 3 3 3 3

21 1449.46 15 3 3 3 3 3

22 1538.29 15 3 3 3 3 3

23 1321.68 17 3 5 3 3 3

24 1484.58 15 3 3 3 3 3

25 1351.47 17 3 3 3 5 3

26 1345.33 21 5 3 5 5 3

27 1306.6 23 5 5 5 3 5

28 1408.5 13 3 3 1 3 3

29 1447.74 15 3 3 3 3 3

30 1425.56 13 3 3 3 1 3

31 1484.26 23 5 5 5 3 5

32 1482.44 19 3 3 3 5 5

33 1476.17 25 5 5 5 5 5

34 1337.05 21 5 3 3 5 5

(continued)

191

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

35 1427.68 23 5 5 3 5 5

36 1477.34 19 5 3 3 3 5

37 1300.83 19 5 5 3 3 3

38 1455.32 21 5 5 3 5 3

39 1471.78 15 3 3 3 3 3

40 1482.56 19 5 3 3 5 3

41 1228 23 5 5 5 5 3

42 1535.7 25 5 5 5 5 5

43 1479.24 19 5 5 3 3 3

44 1346.88 25 5 5 5 5 5

45 1511.78 19 5 3 3 3 5

46 1426.46 19 5 3 3 5 3

47 1511 21 5 3 5 5 3

48 1441.59 15 3 3 3 3 3

49 1528.92 19 5 3 3 3 5

50 1567.35 19 5 3 3 3 5

51 1280.44 19 3 3 5 3 5

52 1420.94 21 5 5 3 5 3

53 1398.54 25 5 5 5 5 5

54 1405.29 21 5 5 3 3 5

55 1313.2 13 3 3 1 3 3

56 1367.67 23 5 5 5 5 3

57 1314.07 23 5 5 5 5 3

58 1349.71 21 5 5 3 3 5

59 1466.22 19 5 3 3 3 5

60 1560.66 15 3 3 3 3 3

61 1456.23 21 5 5 3 3 5

62 1398.56 15 3 3 3 3 3

63 1564.39 25 5 5 5 5 5

64 1442.88 21 5 3 3 5 5

65 1612.72 21 5 3 5 5 3

66 1350.09 21 5 3 3 5 5

67 1573.88 19 3 5 3 5 3

68 1410.32 15 3 3 3 3 3

69 1467.38 15 3 3 3 3 3

70 1507.55 15 3 3 3 3 3

71 1481.18 17 3 3 3 3 5

72 1553.65 19 3 5 3 5 3

73 1467.77 19 5 3 3 3 5

(continued)

192

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

74 1619.04 25 5 5 5 5 5

75 1467.74 15 3 3 3 3 3

76 1456.21 11 3 3 1 1 3

77 1642.5 21 5 5 5 3 3

78 1433 15 3 3 3 3 3

79 1426.47 21 5 5 3 5 3

80 1470.49 19 5 5 3 3 3

81 1499.98 19 5 3 3 5 3

82 1522.95 23 5 5 5 5 3

83 1368.13 23 5 3 5 5 5

84 1322.22 21 5 3 3 5 5

85 1543.82 17 3 3 3 3 5

86 1467.75 11 1 3 3 1 3

87 1343.59 17 3 3 3 3 5

88 1603.16 21 5 3 5 5 3

89 1326.07 7 1 1 1 1 3

90 1509.13 21 5 3 5 5 3

91 1494.1 25 5 5 5 5 5

92 1553.79 15 3 3 3 3 3

93 1467.77 25 5 5 5 5 5

94 1354.75 19 3 3 3 5 5

95 1403.83 21 5 3 3 5 5

96 1561.2 21 5 3 5 3 5

97 1290.1 13 3 1 3 3 3

98 1431.12 21 5 3 5 5 3

99 1400.49 21 5 3 3 5 5

100 1334 23 5 5 3 5 5

101 1507.67 17 5 3 3 3 3

102 1460.18 15 3 3 3 3 3

103 1473.86 17 3 5 3 3 3

104 1479.79 23 5 5 3 5 5

105 1571.36 25 5 5 5 5 5

106 1567.54 25 5 5 5 5 5

107 1455.2 21 5 5 3 3 5

108 1487.41 21 5 5 3 3 5

109 1462.38 15 3 3 3 3 3

110 1328.11 15 3 3 3 3 3

111 1431.5 19 5 3 5 3 3

112 1408.37 17 3 5 3 3 3

(continued)

193

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

113 1421.47 21 5 3 3 5 5

114 1609.21 17 3 3 3 5 3

115 1493.62 25 5 5 5 5 5

116 1385.31 7 1 1 1 1 3

117 1417.34 23 5 5 3 5 5

118 1642.2 15 3 3 3 3 3

119 1447.15 17 5 3 3 3 3

120 1392.26 15 3 3 3 3 3

121 1362.15 23 5 5 3 5 5

122 1261.14 15 3 3 3 3 3

123 1333.97 15 3 3 3 3 3

124 1300.73 17 5 3 3 3 3

125 1552.33 21 5 5 3 3 5

126 1395.09 9 1 1 1 3 3

127 1358.7 19 5 3 5 3 3

128 1493.47 21 3 5 3 5 5

129 1357.35 17 3 3 3 3 5

130 1567.08 21 5 5 3 3 5

131 1329.68 15 3 3 3 3 3

132 1309.8 19 5 3 3 3 5

133 1529.13 23 5 5 5 5 3

134 1534.72 15 3 3 3 3 3

135 1442 11 1 1 3 3 3

136 1413.62 19 5 3 3 3 5

137 1447.79 19 3 5 3 5 3

138 1531 19 5 3 3 3 5

139 1315.06 13 1 3 3 3 3

140 1489 15 3 3 3 3 3

141 1399.17 21 5 3 3 5 5

142 1466.58 19 5 5 3 3 3

143 1597.77 19 3 3 3 5 5

144 1569.18 19 5 3 3 5 3

145 1457.02 21 5 5 5 3 3

146 1509.73 23 5 5 3 5 5

147 1370.28 13 3 3 1 3 3

148 1609.55 23 5 3 5 5 5

149 1499.06 19 3 3 5 3 5

150 1312.1 15 3 3 3 3 3

151 1435.48 19 5 3 5 3 3

(continued)

194

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

152 1414.92 19 3 5 3 5 3

153 1343.25 13 3 3 1 3 3

154 1354.9 25 5 5 5 5 5

155 1297.7 21 5 3 5 5 3

156 1556.74 25 5 5 5 5 5

157 1377.14 17 3 3 3 3 5

158 1387.72 17 5 3 3 3 3

159 1219 19 5 5 3 3 3

160 1450.91 21 5 3 5 5 3

161 1514.26 13 3 3 1 3 3

162 1479.36 21 5 5 3 5 3

163 1384.06 15 3 3 3 3 3

164 1490.42 15 3 3 3 3 3

165 1480.72 15 3 3 3 3 3

166 1335.28 19 3 3 3 5 5

167 1299.45 19 5 3 5 3 3

168 1303.58 15 3 3 3 3 3

169 1425.43 21 5 5 3 5 3

170 1556.39 19 5 5 3 3 3

171 1597.84 15 3 3 3 3 3

172 1479.33 23 5 5 3 5 5

173 1303.6 15 3 3 3 3 3

174 1457.27 17 3 5 3 3 3

175 1354 19 5 5 3 3 3

176 1467.19 23 5 5 5 5 3

177 1418.89 15 3 3 3 3 3

178 1438.93 23 5 5 5 5 3

179 1689.67 15 3 3 3 3 3

180 1429.77 23 5 5 5 3 5

181 1442.67 15 3 3 3 3 3

182 1286.65 19 5 3 3 3 5

183 1445.92 21 5 5 3 3 5

184 1352.18 15 3 3 3 3 3

185 1324.89 19 5 5 3 3 3

186 1292 23 5 5 3 5 5

187 1405.28 19 5 3 3 3 5

188 1363.63 15 3 3 3 3 3

189 1404.91 17 5 3 3 3 3

190 1433.41 19 5 3 3 5 3

(continued)

195

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

191 1532 21 5 5 3 5 3

192 1481.69 15 3 3 3 3 3

193 1573.92 21 5 5 3 5 3

194 1456.15 21 5 5 3 5 3

195 1486.11 21 5 3 3 5 5

196 1390 15 3 3 3 3 3

197 1515.52 19 5 3 3 5 3

198 1548.33 23 5 5 5 3 5

199 1488.23 25 5 5 5 5 5

200 1486.97 19 5 5 3 3 3

201 1453.85 15 3 3 3 3 3

202 1411.23 21 5 5 3 3 5

203 1450.95 25 5 5 5 5 5

204 1462.55 21 5 5 3 3 5

205 1520.84 13 3 1 3 3 3

206 1431.18 15 3 3 3 3 3

207 1604.25 15 3 3 3 3 3

208 1533.17 21 5 5 3 3 5

209 1661.08 25 5 5 5 5 5

210 1387.59 17 3 3 5 3 3

211 1415.7 15 3 3 3 3 3

212 1488.74 25 5 5 5 5 5

213 1412.86 17 5 3 3 3 3

214 1360.94 17 3 3 3 3 5

215 1554.53 19 3 5 3 5 3

216 1442.47 23 5 5 5 3 5

217 1566.3 25 5 5 5 5 5

218 1319 15 3 3 3 3 3

219 1435.3 17 3 3 3 3 5

220 1502.74 25 5 5 5 5 5

221 1378.9 15 3 3 3 3 3

222 1459.82 19 5 3 5 3 3

223 1436.3 15 3 3 3 3 3

224 1406.14 19 5 5 3 3 3

225 1669.56 17 3 3 3 3 5

226 1382.64 19 3 5 3 3 5

227 1520.14 23 5 5 5 5 3

228 1543.64 21 5 3 5 5 3

229 1450.18 19 5 3 5 3 3

(continued)

196

Teachers

Reading

Avg Scale

Score

Domain

I

Domain I,

Criterion

1

Domain I,

Criterion

2

Domain I,

Criterion

3

Domain I,

Criterion

4

Domain I,

Criterion

5

230 1510.29 17 5 3 3 3 3

231 1486.42 21 5 5 3 3 5

232 1364.65 19 5 3 3 3 5

233 1301.5 19 5 5 3 3 3

234 1602.78 23 5 3 5 5 5

235 1596.25 19 5 3 3 5 3

236 1490.67 23 5 3 5 5 5

237 1537.06 17 3 3 3 3 5

197

Table 19

Reading STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teacher’s PDAS Domain II Ratings

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

1 1406.65 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 1443.09 37 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 3

3 1446.54 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 1490 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

5 1483.31 21 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3

6 1473 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

7 1534.87 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

8 1369.05 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

9 1436.25 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

10 1414.65 31 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

11 1393.41 33 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3

12 1383.55 33 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

13 1411.44 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

14 1362.69 39 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

15 1463.2 35 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

16 1686.13 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

17 1515.81 33 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 5

18 1346 21 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3

19 1340.92 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

20 1296.46 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

21 1449.46 29 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

22 1538.29 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

23 1321.68 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

(Continued)

198

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

24 1484.58 29 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

25 1351.47 33 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

26 1345.33 35 3 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3

27 1306.6 41 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5

28 1408.5 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

29 1447.74 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

30 1425.56 25 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3

31 1484.26 41 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

32 1482.44 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

33 1476.17 41 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

34 1337.05 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

35 1427.68 35 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 3

36 1477.34 35 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

37 1300.83 37 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

38 1455.32 35 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

39 1471.78 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

40 1482.56 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

41 1228 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

42 1535.7 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

43 1479.24 35 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5

44 1346.88 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

45 1511.78 37 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 3

46 1426.46 33 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

47 1511 39 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 5

48 1441.59 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

49 1528.92 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

50 1567.35 35 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3

51 1280.44 33 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

(Continued)

199

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

52 1420.94 29 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3

53 1398.54 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

54 1405.29 37 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

55 1313.2 23 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

56 1367.67 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5

57 1314.07 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

58 1349.71 37 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

59 1466.22 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

60 1560.66 33 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3

61 1456.23 37 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5

62 1398.56 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

63 1564.39 39 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

64 1442.88 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 5

65 1612.72 37 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5

66 1350.09 37 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 3

67 1573.88 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

68 1410.32 23 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

69 1467.38 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

70 1507.55 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

71 1481.18 33 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

72 1553.65 35 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

73 1467.77 35 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 3

74 1619.04 41 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3

75 1467.74 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

76 1456.21 21 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3

77 1642.5 37 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5

78 1433 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

79 1426.47 31 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 5

(Continued)

200

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

80 1470.49 31 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

81 1499.98 33 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 5

82 1522.95 37 5 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

83 1368.13 39 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5

84 1322.22 37 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3

85 1543.82 35 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

86 1467.75 25 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

87 1343.59 31 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

88 1603.16 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

89 1326.07 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3

90 1509.13 39 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5

91 1494.1 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

92 1553.79 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

93 1467.77 41 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5

94 1354.75 37 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3

95 1403.83 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

96 1561.2 35 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

97 1290.1 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

98 1431.12 35 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

99 1400.49 37 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

100 1334 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

101 1507.67 27 3 3 3 5 3 1 3 3 3

102 1460.18 31 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

103 1473.86 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

104 1479.79 41 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5

105 1571.36 39 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 3

106 1567.54 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

107 1455.2 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

(Continued)

201

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

108 1487.41 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

109 1462.38 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

110 1328.11 31 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

111 1431.5 35 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

112 1408.37 33 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3

113 1421.47 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

114 1609.21 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

115 1493.62 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

116 1385.31 21 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

117 1417.34 37 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

118 1642.2 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

119 1447.15 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

120 1392.26 29 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

121 1362.15 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

122 1261.14 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

123 1333.97 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

124 1300.73 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

125 1552.33 35 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3 3

126 1395.09 19 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3

127 1358.7 35 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

128 1493.47 33 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

129 1357.35 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

130 1567.08 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

131 1329.68 25 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3

132 1309.8 37 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 3

133 1529.13 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

134 1534.72 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

135 1442 21 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3

(Continued)

202

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

136 1413.62 33 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

137 1447.79 33 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

138 1531 31 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

139 1315.06 23 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3

140 1489 31 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

141 1399.17 35 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

142 1466.58 33 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

143 1597.77 37 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 5

144 1569.18 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

145 1457.02 39 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5

146 1509.73 31 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

147 1370.28 23 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3

148 1609.55 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

149 1499.06 37 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5

150 1312.1 23 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

151 1435.48 31 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5

152 1414.92 33 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

153 1343.25 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

154 1354.9 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

155 1297.7 37 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5

156 1556.74 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

157 1377.14 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

158 1387.72 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

159 1219 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

160 1450.91 37 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

161 1514.26 19 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 3

162 1479.36 35 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

163 1384.06 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

(Continued)

203

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

164 1490.42 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

165 1480.72 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

166 1335.28 35 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

167 1299.45 29 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3

168 1303.58 29 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

169 1425.43 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

170 1556.39 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

171 1597.84 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

172 1479.33 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

173 1303.6 31 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

174 1457.27 35 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

175 1354 35 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 3

176 1467.19 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

177 1418.89 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

178 1438.93 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

179 1689.67 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

180 1429.77 39 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3

181 1442.67 31 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3

182 1286.65 33 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

183 1445.92 37 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 1

184 1352.18 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

185 1324.89 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

186 1292 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

187 1405.28 35 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3

188 1363.63 35 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

189 1404.91 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

190 1433.41 33 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

191 1532 35 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

(Continued)

204

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

192 1481.69 33 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3

193 1573.92 37 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

194 1456.15 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

195 1486.11 37 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 5

196 1390 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

197 1515.52 35 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

198 1548.33 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

199 1488.23 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

200 1486.97 33 3 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 3

201 1453.85 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3

202 1411.23 37 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

203 1450.95 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5

204 1462.55 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

205 1520.84 19 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1

206 1431.18 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

207 1604.25 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

208 1533.17 39 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 3 5

209 1661.08 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

210 1387.59 27 3 3 5 3 3 1 3 3 3

211 1415.7 24 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

212 1488.74 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

213 1412.86 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

214 1360.94 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

215 1554.53 33 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

216 1442.47 39 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5

217 1566.3 35 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3

218 1319 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

219 1435.3 31 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

(Continued)

205

Teachers Reading Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

220 1502.74 35 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

221 1378.9 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

222 1459.82 33 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5

223 1436.3 33 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

224 1406.14 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

225 1669.56 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

226 1382.64 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

227 1520.14 39 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

228 1543.64 31 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3

229 1450.18 35 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

230 1510.29 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

231 1486.42 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

232 1364.65 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

233 1301.5 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

234 1602.78 37 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3

235 1596.25 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

236 1490.67 35 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

237 1537.06 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

206

Table 20

Mathematics STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teacher’s PDAS Domain I Ratings

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

1 1495.67 17 5 3 3 3 3

2 1442.25 21 5 5 3 3 5

3 1348.14 25 5 5 5 5 5

4 1473.23 21 3 5 5 5 3

5 1421.89 15 3 3 3 3 3

6 1398.55 17 3 3 3 5 3

7 1490.88 23 5 5 5 3 5

8 1500.5 19 5 3 3 5 3

9 1492.39 25 5 5 5 5 5

10 1473 17 5 3 3 3 3

11 1774 25 5 5 5 5 5

12 1511.19 17 3 3 5 3 3

13 1342.4 19 5 5 3 3 3

14 1393.43 17 3 3 3 5 3

15 1355 25 5 5 5 5 5

16 1412.52 23 5 5 3 5 5

17 1379.52 15 3 3 3 3 3

18 1560.84 15 3 3 3 3 3

19 1524.26 15 3 3 3 3 3

20 1355.23 23 5 5 5 3 5

21 1476.11 19 5 3 3 5 3

22 1452.45 13 3 3 1 3 3

23 1504.41 15 3 3 3 3 3

24 1442.61 15 3 3 3 3 3

25 1551.48 19 3 3 3 5 5

26 1384.56 19 5 3 3 5 3

27 1521.95 17 3 3 5 3 3

28 1519.8 25 5 5 5 5 5

29 1383.43 21 5 3 3 5 5

30 1384.15 19 5 5 3 3 3

31 1341.78 17 3 3 3 3 5

32 1345.11 19 5 5 3 3 3

33 1476.88 21 5 5 5 3 3

34 1343.65 19 3 5 3 5 3

(Continued)

207

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

35 1463.06 19 3 5 3 3 5

36 1509.41 19 5 3 3 5 3

37 1512.27 23 5 5 5 3 5

38 1472 23 5 5 5 5 3

39 1479.12 19 5 5 3 3 3

40 1378.19 25 5 5 5 5 5

41 1539.61 21 5 5 3 5 3

42 1508.86 17 3 3 3 5 3

43 1474.67 19 5 3 3 3 5

44 1421.88 13 3 3 3 3 1

45 1474.45 21 5 3 5 5 3

46 1530.98 19 3 3 3 5 5

47 1522.8 19 5 3 5 3 3

48 1575.92 19 5 3 3 3 5

49 1319.28 19 3 3 5 3 5

50 1351.58 21 5 5 3 3 5

51 1475.62 15 3 3 3 3 3

52 1531.06 17 3 3 3 3 5

53 1406.53 13 3 1 3 3 3

54 1398.81 13 3 3 1 3 3

55 1486.73 23 5 5 5 5 3

56 1511.87 25 5 5 5 5 5

57 1506.79 21 5 5 3 3 5

58 1367.93 19 3 5 3 3 5

59 1459.73 21 5 5 3 3 5

60 1581.03 21 5 5 3 3 5

61 1550.17 25 5 5 5 5 5

62 1467.94 21 5 3 3 5 5

63 1655.72 21 5 3 5 5 3

64 1557.56 19 3 5 3 5 3

65 1468.37 15 3 3 3 3 3

66 1477.48 15 3 3 3 3 3

67 1538.24 15 3 3 3 3 3

68 1597.95 19 3 5 3 5 3

69 1426.06 15 3 3 3 3 3

70 1583.81 19 5 3 3 3 5

71 1675.04 25 5 5 5 5 5

72 1521.79 19 5 5 3 3 3

73 1373 21 5 5 3 5 3

(Continued)

208

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

74 1732.29 21 5 5 5 3 3

75 1407.1 15 3 3 3 3 3

76 1477.19 15 3 3 3 3 3

77 1560.22 15 3 3 3 3 3

78 1529.19 21 5 5 3 5 3

79 1471.11 25 5 5 5 5 5

80 1350 21 5 3 3 5 5

81 1597.22 17 3 3 3 3 5

82 1427.44 11 1 3 3 1 3

83 1414.05 17 3 3 3 3 5

84 1451.02 21 5 5 3 3 5

85 1587.84 21 5 3 5 5 3

86 1482.73 21 5 5 5 3 3

87 1429.94 15 3 3 3 3 3

88 1335.85 7 1 1 1 1 3

89 1585.2 25 5 5 5 5 5

90 1425.57 15 3 3 3 3 3

91 1421.41 25 5 5 5 5 5

92 1404.31 21 5 3 5 3 5

93 1604.47 21 5 3 5 3 5

94 1601.94 21 5 5 3 5 3

95 1399.49 17 5 3 3 3 3

96 1449.11 15 3 3 3 3 3

97 1398.88 13 3 1 3 3 3

98 1446.83 21 5 3 5 5 3

99 1448 23 5 5 3 5 5

100 1486.05 19 5 3 5 3 3

101 1669.85 21 5 5 5 3 3

102 1364.08 23 5 5 3 5 5

103 1476.9 17 5 3 3 3 3

104 1498.02 13 3 1 3 3 3

105 1470.36 23 5 5 3 5 5

106 1529.81 15 3 3 3 3 3

107 1589.36 25 5 5 5 5 5

108 1567 25 5 5 5 5 5

109 1433.03 21 5 5 3 5 3

110 1444.63 19 5 3 5 3 3

111 1476.37 19 5 3 3 3 5

112 1470.4 17 3 5 3 3 3

(Continued)

209

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

113 1456.13 21 5 3 3 5 5

114 1596.43 17 3 3 3 5 3

115 1459.05 15 3 3 3 3 3

116 1422.7 13 3 1 3 3 3

117 1587.67 25 5 5 5 5 5

118 1660.4 15 3 3 3 3 3

119 1415.63 15 3 3 3 3 3

120 1461.05 17 3 3 3 3 5

121 1446.43 15 3 3 3 3 3

122 1391.5 17 5 3 3 3 3

123 1506.36 17 5 3 3 3 3

124 1379.82 15 3 3 3 3 3

125 1564.84 21 5 5 3 3 5

126 1494.87 15 3 3 3 3 3

127 1437.85 19 5 3 5 3 3

128 1513.83 23 5 5 3 5 5

129 1346.85 17 3 3 3 3 5

130 1665.77 21 5 5 3 3 5

131 1471.89 21 5 3 5 5 3

132 1496.27 25 5 5 5 5 5

133 1721.12 25 5 5 5 5 5

134 1373.04 19 5 3 3 3 5

135 1491.3 23 5 5 5 5 3

136 1442.85 19 3 5 3 3 5

137 1469.97 13 3 3 1 3 3

138 1465.22 17 3 3 3 3 5

139 1523.9 15 3 3 3 3 3

140 1423.33 11 1 1 3 3 3

141 1457.4 21 5 5 3 3 5

142 1488.55 25 5 5 5 5 5

143 1558.5 19 3 5 3 5 3

144 1442.93 19 5 3 3 3 5

145 1294.69 13 1 3 3 3 3

146 1513.7 15 3 3 3 3 3

147 1530.89 19 5 5 3 3 3

148 1587.73 19 5 3 3 5 3

149 1500.47 21 5 3 5 3 5

150 1575.17 23 5 5 3 5 5

151 1408.42 13 3 3 1 3 3

(Continued)

210

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

152 1612.9 23 5 3 5 5 5

153 1309.2 15 3 3 3 3 3

154 1456.87 23 5 5 5 3 5

155 1412.2 25 5 5 5 5 5

156 1380.21 21 5 3 5 5 3

157 1576.48 25 5 5 5 5 5

158 1432.37 23 5 5 5 5 3

159 1467.06 19 3 5 3 3 5

160 1377.86 17 3 3 3 3 5

161 1252 19 5 5 3 3 3

162 1322.62 15 3 3 3 3 3

163 1473.83 19 5 3 5 3 3

164 1375.9 19 5 3 5 3 3

165 1570.5 19 5 5 3 3 3

166 1637.83 15 3 3 3 3 3

167 1408.24 15 3 3 3 3 3

168 1391.81 12 3 3

3 3

169 1344.52 15 3 3 3 3 3

170 1428 19 5 5 3 3 3

171 1442.11 15 3 3 3 3 3

172 1583.58 23 5 5 5 5 3

173 1731.67 15 3 3 3 3 3

174 1499.43 23 5 5 5 3 5

175 1570.1 21 5 5 3 5 3

176 1433.13 19 5 5 3 3 3

177 1337.95 19 5 3 3 3 5

178 1369.62 15 3 3 3 3 3

179 1419.18 19 5 5 3 3 3

180 1402.97 15 3 3 3 3 3

181 1375.16 23 5 5 3 5 5

182 1348.52 15 3 3 3 3 3

183 1617.44 19 3 3 5 5 3

184 1396.61 17 3 3 3 3 5

185 1389.17 21 5 5 3 5 3

186 1504.32 21 5 5 5 3 3

187 1571.95 21 5 5 3 5 3

188 1492.49 11 3 1 1 3 3

189 1565.84 21 5 5 3 3 5

190 1565.75 21 5 5 3 5 3

(Continued)

211

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

191 1553.28 21 5 3 3 5 5

192 1584.43 19 5 3 3 5 3

193 1504.47 15 3 3 3 3 3

194 1544.27 23 5 5 5 3 5

195 1488.13 23 5 5 3 5 5

196 1419.61 15 3 3 3 3 3

197 1468.37 21 5 5 3 5 3

198 1475.93 21 5 5 5 3 3

199 1387.49 17 3 3 3 5 3

200 1469.77 11 3 1 1 3 3

201 1481.14 23 5 5 5 3 5

202 1558.62 21 5 5 3 3 5

203 1508.47 13 3 1 3 3 3

204 1424.83 19 3 5 5 3 3

205 1436.94 15 3 3 3 3 3

206 1604.25 15 3 3 3 3 3

207 1541.11 21 5 5 3 3 5

208 1536.42 15 3 3 3 3 3

209 1379.33 17 3 3 5 3 3

210 1617.25 19 5 3 5 3 3

211 1588.74 21 5 5 3 5 3

212 1446.22 21 5 3 5 5 3

213 1462.05 15 3 3 3 3 3

214 1374.67 11 3 1 1 3 3

215 1472.32 17 5 3 3 3 3

216 1401.86 21 5 5 3 3 5

217 1641.16 19 3 5 3 5 3

218 1322.94 21 5 5 3 3 5

219 1540.96 25 5 5 5 5 5

220 1316.7 21 5 5 3 3 5

221 1529.5 19 5 3 5 3 3

222 1555.81 21 5 5 5 3 3

223 1480.03 19 5 3 3 3 5

224 1469.08 21 5 5 3 5 3

225 1516.74 25 5 5 5 5 5

226 1384.3 15 3 3 3 3 3

227 1446.33 19 5 3 5 3 3

228 1444.28 15 3 3 3 3 3

229 1416.33 19 5 5 3 3 3

(Continued)

212

Teachers

Math Ave

Scale

Score

Domain I Domain I,

Criterion 1

Domain I,

Criterion 2

Domain I,

Criterion 3

Domain I,

Criterion 4

Domain I,

Criterion 5

230 1710.19 17 3 3 3 3 5

231 1402.91 19 3 5 3 3 5

232 1502.94 19 5 5 3 3 3

233 1496.39 21 5 3 5 5 3

234 1514.33 17 5 3 3 3 3

235 1341 17 5 3 3 3 3

236 1369.55 19 5 5 3 3 3

237 1611.61 23 5 3 5 5 5

238 1334.37 15 3 3 3 3 3

239 1594.8 19 5 3 3 5 3

240 1557.6 23 5 5 5 5 3

241 1521.78 17 3 3 3 3 5

213

Table 21

Mathematics STAAR Class Average Scale Scores and Teacher’s PDAS Domain II Ratings

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

1 1495.67 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

2 1442.25 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

3 1348.14 41 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

4 1473.23 35 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

5 1421.89 31 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

6 1398.55 33 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

7 1490.88 39 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3

8 1500.5 31 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

9 1492.39 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

10 1473 35 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

11 1774 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

12 1511.19 33 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 5

13 1342.4 35 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 5

14 1393.43 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

15 1355 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

16 1412.52 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

17 1379.52 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

18 1560.84 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

19 1524.26 29 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

20 1355.23 41 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5

21 1476.11 33 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

22 1452.45 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

23 1504.41 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

24 1442.61 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

25 1551.48 35 5 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

26 1384.56 31 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

27 1521.95 33 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

(Continued)

214

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

28 1519.8 41 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

29 1383.43 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

30 1384.15 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

31 1341.78 33 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

32 1345.11 37 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

33 1476.88 37 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

34 1343.65 31 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

35 1463.06 28 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 3

36 1509.41 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

37 1512.27 39 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

38 1472 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

39 1479.12 35 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5

40 1378.19 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

41 1539.61 33 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

42 1508.86 29 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

43 1474.67 37 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 3

44 1421.88 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3

45 1474.45 39 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 5

46 1530.98 29 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

47 1522.8 31 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3

48 1575.92 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

49 1319.28 33 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

50 1351.58 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

51 1475.62 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

52 1531.06 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

53 1406.53 23 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3

54 1398.81 23 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

55 1486.73 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5

56 1511.87 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

57 1506.79 37 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

58 1367.93 37 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

59 1459.73 37 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5

(Continued)

215

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

60 1581.03 37 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

61 1550.17 39 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

62 1467.94 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 5

63 1655.72 37 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5

64 1557.56 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

65 1468.37 23 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

66 1477.48 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

67 1538.24 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

68 1597.95 35 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

69 1426.06 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

70 1583.81 37 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

71 1675.04 41 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3

72 1521.79 35 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 5

73 1373 37 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

74 1732.29 37 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5

75 1407.1 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

76 1477.19 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

77 1560.22 33 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3

78 1529.19 31 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 5

79 1471.11 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

80 1350 37 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3

81 1597.22 35 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

82 1427.44 25 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

83 1414.05 31 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

84 1451.02 37 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 3

85 1587.84 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

86 1482.73 29 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3

87 1429.94 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

88 1335.85 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3

89 1585.2 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

90 1425.57 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

91 1421.41 41 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5

(Continued)

216

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

92 1404.31 35 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

93 1604.47 35 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

94 1601.94 37 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

95 1399.49 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

96 1449.11 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

97 1398.88 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

98 1446.83 35 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 3

99 1448 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

100 1486.05 31 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3

101 1669.85 39 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

102 1364.08 35 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

103 1476.9 27 3 3 3 5 3 1 3 3 3

104 1498.02 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

105 1470.36 41 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5

106 1529.81 29 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3

107 1589.36 39 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 3

108 1567 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

109 1433.03 37 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

110 1444.63 35 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

111 1476.37 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 3

112 1470.4 33 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3

113 1456.13 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

114 1596.43 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

115 1459.05 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

116 1422.7 23 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3

117 1587.67 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

118 1660.4 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

119 1415.63 29 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

120 1461.05 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

121 1446.43 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

122 1391.5 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

123 1506.36 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

(Continued)

217

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

124 1379.82 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

125 1564.84 35 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3 3

126 1494.87 33 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

127 1437.85 35 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

128 1513.83 37 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

129 1346.85 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3

130 1665.77 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

131 1471.89 39 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3

132 1496.27 41 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

133 1721.12 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

134 1373.04 37 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 3

135 1491.3 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

136 1442.85 35 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3

137 1469.97 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

138 1465.22 33 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 5 3

139 1523.9 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

140 1423.33 21 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3

141 1457.4 35 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 5

142 1488.55 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

143 1558.5 33 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

144 1442.93 31 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

145 1294.69 23 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3

146 1513.7 31 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

147 1530.89 33 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

148 1587.73 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

149 1500.47 39 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3

150 1575.17 31 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

151 1408.42 23 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3

152 1612.9 41 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3

153 1309.2 23 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3

154 1456.87 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

155 1412.2 43 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3

(Continued)

218

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

156 1380.21 37 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5

157 1576.48 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

158 1432.37 41 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

159 1467.06 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

160 1377.86 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

161 1252 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

162 1322.62 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

163 1473.83 37 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 3

164 1375.9 29 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3

165 1570.5 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

166 1637.83 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

167 1408.24 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

168 1391.81 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3

169 1344.52 31 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 3

170 1428 35 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 3

171 1442.11 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

172 1583.58 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

173 1731.67 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

174 1499.43 36 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 0 5

175 1570.1 35 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3

176 1433.13 33 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

177 1337.95 33 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

178 1369.62 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

179 1419.18 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

180 1402.97 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

181 1375.16 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

182 1348.52 35 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 3

183 1617.44 31 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 3

184 1396.61 27 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1

185 1389.17 37 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

186 1504.32 39 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 3

187 1571.95 35 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

(Continued)

219

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

188 1492.49 21 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 5

189 1565.84 35 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3

190 1565.75 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

191 1553.28 37 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 5

192 1584.43 35 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 3

193 1504.47 29 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

194 1544.27 37 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3

195 1488.13 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3

196 1419.61 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

197 1468.37 35 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

198 1475.93 41 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5

199 1387.49 31 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3

200 1469.77 23 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3

201 1481.14 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

202 1558.62 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

203 1508.47 19 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1

204 1424.83 39 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 5

205 1436.94 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

206 1604.25 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

207 1541.11 39 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 3 5

208 1536.42 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

209 1379.33 27 3 3 5 3 3 1 3 3 3

210 1617.25 33 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

211 1588.74 39 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 5

212 1446.22 35 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 3

213 1462.05 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3

214 1374.67 25 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

215 1472.32 31 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3

216 1401.86 35 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 3

217 1641.16 33 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

218 1322.94 37 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 3

219 1540.96 35 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3

(Continued)

220

Teachers Math Avg

Scale Score Domain II

Domain II,

Criterion 1

Domain II,

Criterion 2

Domain II,

Criterion 3

Domain II,

Criterion 4

Domain II,

Criterion 5

Domain II,

Criterion 6

Domain II,

Criterion 7

Domain II,

Criterion 8

Domain II,

Criterion 9

220 1316.7 37 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 3

221 1529.5 33 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 3

222 1555.81 41 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3

223 1480.03 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

224 1469.08 39 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 3

225 1516.74 35 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

226 1384.3 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3

227 1446.33 33 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5

228 1444.28 33 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

229 1416.33 33 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

230 1710.19 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

231 1402.91 33 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3

232 1502.94 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 3

233 1496.39 31 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3

234 1514.33 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

235 1341 29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

236 1369.55 33 3 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3

237 1611.61 37 5 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3

238 1334.37 27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

239 1594.8 31 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5

240 1557.6 35 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 3

241 1521.78 29 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Vita

Yanira Oliveras-Ortiz 503 Serenade Lane, Euless, TX 76039

(817) 706-9056

yoliveras@aol.com

Education

Ph.D. in Curriculum & Supervision, Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, May 2014

Dr. James Nolan, Dissertation Committee Chair

Dissertation: The empirical relationship between administrator ratings of teacher effectiveness

and student achievement on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness

78 Doctoral credit hours, All-But-Dissertation, Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, 1998-2002

Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction, Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, 1997

Bachelor of Science in Elementary & Kindergarten Education, Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, 1994

Other Educational Experiences

Texas Association of School Administrators Transformational Leadership Academy, 2012-2013

18 Doctoral credit hours, Dallas Baptist University, Dallas, Texas, 2012

Principal Certification & Internship, University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, 2002 & 2006

Work Experience

2011-Present Principal – Irving Independent School District, Brandenburg Elementary. Irving, Texas

2010-2011 District Translator – Irving Independent School District

2007-2010 Principal – Irving Independent School District, John R. Good Elementary. Irving, Texas

2005-2007 Assistant Principal – Irving Independent School District

2002-2004 John R. Good Elementary – Irving, Texas

2001-2002 Elementary Math Coordinator – Irving Independent School District

1999-2001 Bilingual Teacher - Irving Independent School District

1997-1998 John R. Good Elementary – Irving, Texas

1994-1995 Kindergarten Teacher, Colegio San Agustín. Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico