# data[].attributes.body
electronic platform

# data[].attributes.body
Focuses on 3 standards per evaluation cycle, and includes quite a bit of writing and preparation that the teacher needs to do.

# data[].attributes.body
Really like the partner summary option for perm employees. Speaks to collective efficacy and collaboration.

# data[].attributes.body
UDL lens of providing multiple options for evaluation, including observation, partner collaboration or portfolio

# data[].attributes.body
weighted components that contribute to the final outcome

# data[].attributes.body
Short form and long form look the same. Evaluation categories: strengths, challenges, recommendations are very broad.

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting partner option to promote collaboration

# data[].attributes.body
online with links

# data[].attributes.body
Doesn't look like they use Smart goals, so goals may be hard to measure.

# data[].attributes.body
Includes "school performance measure" as 15% of score in past, but says that this score is not included in the evaluation now due to school changes. Transfers that 15% to formal observation and professional expectations.

# data[].attributes.body
A rubric that shows the continuum of expectations

# data[].attributes.body
unclear process; just a checklist; no rubric for growth

# data[].attributes.body
SMART-E Goal, self-assessment, goal setting, proposed evidence, optional pre-observation outline for teacher, summative reflection for teacher

# data[].attributes.body
straightforward and simple

# data[].attributes.body
Seems like so many components, and parts, does it really work better than a more streamlined process?

# data[].attributes.body
Multiple voices are included to provide feedback to teachers: self, peers, principal, students, and parents.

# data[].attributes.body
lost in the sauce of a long document

# data[].attributes.body
Opportunities for self-reflection, emphasizes professional growth, more so, than evaluation.

# data[].attributes.body
clear with evidence of what they are doing well

# data[].attributes.body
online system

# data[].attributes.body
feels very combative with admin. admin seems to owe a lot to teachers in this, and require a lot of notice before entering classroom, which seems inauthentic

# data[].attributes.body
35% of a teacher's score is based on student's growth, and 15% is based on student growth school-wide.

# data[].attributes.body
self assessment prior to eval

# data[].attributes.body
Observation Timeline allows for reflection & growth.

# data[].attributes.body
you work with a "partner" to reflect on your practices and then bring those reflections to an administrator

# data[].attributes.body
time consuming

# data[].attributes.body
Don't like the look of the evaluation form. Not detailed enough.

# data[].attributes.body
documents easy to look at and use

# data[].attributes.body
The website has a lot of information and clarity in regards to what is involved in the evaluation process and on which components teachers are evaluated. The evaluation process is presented as part of all teacher's ongoing development.

# data[].attributes.body
Includes student learning objectives (SLO) as 35% of evaluation. Teacher submits SLO target and data to meet goal.

# data[].attributes.body
narrative focused

# data[].attributes.body
comprehensive process; very detailed

# data[].attributes.body
I like the teacher reflection piece

# data[].attributes.body
Seems like a quick checklist

# data[].attributes.body
User friendly forms, Smart Goal incorporated, specifies if there is anything the teacher would like the evaluator to look for. I like this question!

# data[].attributes.body
clear rubric

# data[].attributes.body
Extremely basic. Open to a wide range of interpretation. No goals mentioned

# data[].attributes.body
complicated

# data[].attributes.body
step 4 --> professional growth plan; accountability

# data[].attributes.body
I like the look & layout of the form. . .very concise. I like the choice between one formal versus 3 informal observations. I like the timeline of receiving all written observations within 3 days, 2 days fro self-reflection, and follow-up discussion within 6 days of observation.

# data[].attributes.body
4 domains: professional practice, profesisonal growth, student learning, student perception (student feedback on learning - super cool)

# data[].attributes.body
Is there enough time for all the coaching.

# data[].attributes.body
Many opportunities to be coached throughout the year.

# data[].attributes.body
The evaluation process is very involved and detailed, but if our goal is an evaluation process that is timely as well as meaningful and collaborative, this wouldn't be it.

# data[].attributes.body
Requires admin. to have a pre-lesson observation conference to have the teacher give context of the lesson and any prior information that would be helpful for the observer

# data[].attributes.body
comprehensive process explained in writing

# data[].attributes.body
Opportunity for teacher input

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers can choose a self-evaluation instead of a formal evaluation; if they are denied that option, it must be presented to them in writing, and they can appeal it.

# data[].attributes.body
There is quite a bit the teacher has to provide and might make sense to create a form for the teacher to fill out instead of providing so many independent docs, feels like teacher credentialing program.

# data[].attributes.body
Two full observation/feedback/coaching cycles during school year. Four observation/feedback/coaching sessions during each cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no form to see and assess

# data[].attributes.body
Unclear if teacher or evaluator submits evidence and the role of the teacher in the evaluation process.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a detailed flow chart with dates, roles, and tasks specified for the teacher and the evaluator. "Drop in" evaluations in addition to formal evaluations ensure a more realistic picture of the classroom environment and everyday teaching.

# data[].attributes.body
detailed instructions of the process

# data[].attributes.body
teachers are choosing 1 or 3 evaluation time (may not see enough in 1 lesson)

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and structured.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers showing evidence of CSTPs in the evaluation form.

# data[].attributes.body
requires evaluators to be trained

# data[].attributes.body
Decent process for SMART goals

Aligns with credential program

# data[].attributes.body
I like the idea of the evaluation being called a "Teacher Success Plan" and the goal is to retain teachers. I like the self-monitoring piece.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on multiple observations

# data[].attributes.body
Use of SMART-E (equity) goals

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of evaluation/time spent for meetings

# data[].attributes.body
Includes several subcategories for each standard, adding more detail to the evaluation process. Notes section for evidence, commendations, and recommendations.

# data[].attributes.body
There's a lot to read through, in terms of the Standards Tables

# data[].attributes.body
Three different options for evaluation (once permanent). Portfolio Option; Partner Option; traditional Administrator evaluation Option.

# data[].attributes.body
5 different levels on the rubric- 1. emerging 2. exploring 3. applying 4. integrating 5. innovating

# data[].attributes.body
Allows for more than just the Admins. perspective on the evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
pre-determined skills for probationary teachers; allow for collaboration and building skills together

# data[].attributes.body
Could be too specific, not comprehensive enough.

# data[].attributes.body
Includes family survey responses/data as evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Format of evaluation forms is well-organized & easy to follow. Smart Goals ar organized in an easy to read table.

# data[].attributes.body
formalizes coaching model

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson template is outdated

# data[].attributes.body
Goal oriented, in that you need to create a Smart Goal that I assume would go with 1 of the CSTP standards.

# data[].attributes.body
time consuming for admin; depending on size of school may be challenging to complete

# data[].attributes.body
Simple

# data[].attributes.body
No detail in observation report. Includes only checkboxes for each standard, with lots of room for notes.

# data[].attributes.body
observation, feedback, coaching - by November.

Explicit growth for next steps and opportunity for modeling

# data[].attributes.body
There is not a timeline noted, nor follow-ups and clarification on what the rating system involves. A lot of the form seems to be up to the evaluator's interpretation and preference; the teacher does not seem to have input.

# data[].attributes.body
First observation occurs before winter break. Offers opportunity to reflect and grow before second observation in March.

# data[].attributes.body
Includes self evaluation/reflection. Teacher uploads evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
All standards are evaluated; there is opportunity to rate quantitatively as well as add descriptions in form of "commendations, evaluations, and evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Long form view of descriptions (more narrative); includes recommendations

# data[].attributes.body
Observation dates are built into the timeline.

# data[].attributes.body
More of a checklist

# data[].attributes.body
Multiple opportunities to observe (4 on the document)