Teacher Evaluation System - Polk County School District
Teacher Evaluation System - Polk County School District
Teacher Evaluation System - Polk County School District
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
adjustments in system processes that pertain to student performance measures applicable to teacher<br />
evaluation may need to be made during the initial year of implementation due to unknown factors<br />
related to the stability and reliability of student achievement data. TEAC may make related<br />
recommendations pertaining to system processes if that occurs. Any changes in system processes<br />
during any year will be submitted to the FDOE for review and approval.<br />
Peer Review Option<br />
At this time, the district <strong>Teacher</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>System</strong> does not include the application of a peer review<br />
process as a formal element of the system that include the application of that process as one of the<br />
metrics in the teacher evaluation process. The TEAC may review the peer review option during year<br />
two of system implementation and make related recommendations as may be appropriate. Formal and<br />
informal peer support processes are established in the district particularly as they related to Category I<br />
classroom teachers.<br />
<strong>Evaluation</strong> by the Supervisor<br />
The evaluator in <strong>Polk</strong> has been determined to be the school principal and/or the school assistant<br />
principal. That specific determination is delineated in Article 15 of the <strong>Teacher</strong> Collective Bargaining<br />
Agreement. An observer in relation to the performance evaluation who may contribute information<br />
pertaining to the evaluation of a teacher may also be the principal/immediate supervisor or an<br />
assistant principal designated by the principal. In rare and usual circumstances should the principal be<br />
unable to perform the role of the evaluator, the Superintendent will designate a certified<br />
administrative evaluator who meets the criteria to perform the evaluations. All personnel that perform<br />
the evaluation and/or observation function must be trained and certified pertaining to the skills and<br />
knowledge base to perform that function. It is noted here also that the performance evaluation criteria<br />
for principals and assistant principals include language related to their quality of implementation of the<br />
teacher evaluation system processes.<br />
Input into <strong>Evaluation</strong> by Trained Personnel other than the Supervisor<br />
Other than as described in the section above pertaining to the <strong>Evaluation</strong> by the Supervisor process,<br />
typically, no other personnel will have direct input into the evaluation of a classroom teacher. It is<br />
possible that input could be provided by district level staff pertaining to the evaluation procedure as it<br />
would be related to a formal Professional Development Plan process or other disciplinary process<br />
pertaining to teachers on Continuing or Professional Services contract status as outlined in the <strong>Teacher</strong><br />
Collective Bargaining Agreement or delineated in Florida Statute.<br />
<strong>District</strong> or school support staff that work with a teacher concerning professional development and<br />
learning may provide feedback as it pertains to deliberate practice to the teacher in a supportive or<br />
developmental role. That feedback from school or district support staff may not be provided as a part<br />
of the performance evaluation of the teacher. Only the evaluating administrator may provide<br />
evaluative feedback to the teacher.<br />
Timeline for Developing/Selecting Growth Measures for Additional Grades and Subjects<br />
Type Subjects/Grades Growth Measure Year<br />
FCAT State assessed courses/grades State Growth Model 2011‐2012<br />
Non‐FCAT All grades and subjects Application of growth model data By July 1, 2015<br />
38