Updated on: October 15, 2013
 Category 1
 Score
and 2 teachers
does not compute into the Summative Evaluation
 Designed
to give feedback on Instructional Practice and
IPDP status
 Informs
professional development and support needed
 Provided
to state and teacher will receive notification
from the state
3 days in advance of
Prior to November 22
Within 10 days of
Prior to December 14th
Pre-conference with administrator
Post-conference with administrator
Mid-Year Conference
Review collected evidence, artifacts and data regarding the ten Key Components
of the Framework for Teaching and determine formative Instructional Practices
Review teacher’s progress relative to the IPDP and assign a formative IPDP rating
Assign a formative evaluation overall rating based on the Formative Evaluation
Readdress the teacher’s IPDP as appropriate and as needed
See Project 8 website for Detail and Yearly Calendars: http://www.bay.k12.fl.us/rttt/Project8.aspx
Ten Key Components
o A portion of the rubric you used to self-assess
o Taken from Charlotte Danielson’s research
Observation Cycle
o Pre-Conference, Observation, Post-Conference
Collection of evidence and artifacts
o Consistency and quality over time
o No number
• Most evidence will demonstrate multiple components
• Consistency and quality over time
• Vary based on type of evidence and what administrative team already collects
o Administrative team will provide guidance
Mid-year conference
o Evaluation of Instructional Practice
To which part of your curriculum does this lesson relate? (1e)
How does this learning fit in the sequence of learning for this class? (1a, 1c, 1e)
Briefly describe the students in this class, including those with special needs.
What are your learning outcomes for this lesson? What do you want the
students to understand? (1c)
How will you engage the students in the learning? What will you do? What will
the students do? Will the students work in groups, or individually, or as a large
group? Provide any worksheets or other materials the students will be using.
(1d, 1e)
How will you differentiate instruction for different individuals or groups of
students in the class? (1b, 1d)
How and when will you know whether the students have learned what you
intend? (1f)
Is there anything that you would like me to specifically observe during the
In general, how successful was the lesson? Did the students learn what you
intended for them to learn? How do you know? (3d, 4a)
If you have samples of student work, what do they reveal about the students’ levels
of engagement and understanding? Do they suggest modifications in how you
might teach this lesson in the future? (3d, 3c)
Comment on your classroom procedures, student conduct, and your use of physical
space. To what extent did these contribute to student learning? (2c, 2d, 2e)
Did you depart from your plan? If so, how and why? (3e)
Comment on different aspects of your instructional delivery (e.g., activities,
grouping of students, materials, and resources). To what extent were they
effective? (2c, 3c, 3e, 1d, 1e)
If you had an opportunity to teach this lesson again to the same group of students,
what would you do differently? (4a)
Consider different aspects of your planning and execution of the lesson in light of
the domains and components on the following pages. Determine evidence, if any,
for each of the components, and what that evidence demonstrates about your
level of performance.
 10
Key Components
 Pre-conference, observation, post-conference
and other evidence
 Basic information
 Enhancing Professional Practice by Charlotte
 Evidence added to based on school’s strengths,
initiatives, etc.
 Complete rubric available on the RTTT Website:
Background Information:
 Based on standards and course descriptions
 Able to be assessed
 Includes needs of group as well as individual students
 Clear to stakeholders in language appropriate to the learner
 Pre-conference questions
Other evidence:
 Lesson plans
Background Information:
 Alignment to standards and correspondence cognitive complexity
 Formative and summative
 Groups and individuals
 Rubrics
 Authentic, real-world application
 Exact items not provided to students; similar items are presented
for student review
 Pre-conference questions
 Other evidence:
 Lesson Plans
Background Information:
 Teacher-student and student-student interactions
 Teacher cares enough to insist on high standards of work and conduct
 Student understands there are ground rules and standards of conduct or
routines that may be different than those at home
 Classroom observation
Words and actions that show teacher-student and student-student interactions.
How does the teacher speak to students and allow them to speak to each other?
How does the teacher respond to off-task behavior and redirect behavior?
Does the teacher greet students as they enter the room and ask questions or
show concern about things beyond the classroom?
Other evidence
o Lesson Plans showing how the environment was created or how the teacher
allowed students to assist in any procedural creation that is posted in the room.
o Handouts? Posters created by students?
Background Information
 Students and teachers
o Engaged in pursuits of value with cognitive complexity
o Take pride in work and give best efforts
o High energy and high expectations
 Classroom Observation
o Look of the room –is student work displayed, for example? What is the
nature of interactions and tone of conversations from teacher-student and
 Other evidence
o Lesson plans with instructional outcomes and activities demonstrating high
o Conversations reveal they value learning and hard work
Background Information:
 Standards of conduct are clear, communicated to students, and posted
in the classroom
 Monitoring is subtle and preventative-the teacher goes to stand next to
off-task students
 Student behavior indicates standards established at the beginning of
the year and have been maintained consistently
 Classroom Observation and Post-Observation Conference
 Other evidence
o Lesson plans showing how standards were developed or posters of the
classroom standards (rules, procedures, etc.).
o Students themselves explain the agreed-upon standards of conduct
Kagan, Fred Jones, Harry Wong, RtI strategies
Background Information:
 Mix of cognitively complex questions related to lesson objectives
 ALL students involved in questioning and discussion- no single student dominates and
teacher calls on those who don’t initially volunteer
 Students initiate higher order questions
o Note: Developmentally appropriate. IB or AICE versus ESE-Autistic class; Kindergarten
versus 12th grade. All students should be asked questions that are cognitively complex.
 Classroom observation
o A class session demonstrating questioning and discussion (CRISS strategies )
 Other evidence
o Planning for cognitively complex questions; training students to answer complex
questions or participating in a discussion
o Lesson plans, student samples, handouts used with students, or procedural information
placed in the room that students reference during discussions
Background Information:
 Clear structure and objectives
 ALL students mentally involved, actively participate, and make genuine
 Students have choice task completion- activities are differentiated for
learners and students are grouped accordingly
 Classroom observation and Post-Conference
o Students given an opportunity to engage with the material
Other evidence:
o Lesson plans showing how the teacher planned for student engagement, student
samples and classroom evidence of differentiated instruction
CRISS strategies, Reading Framework strategies such as guided reading,
learning stations, etc. can use these as evidence of student engagement
Background Information:
 Reflection is the mark of a true professional
 Able to assess effectiveness of work and can take steps to improve
 Teaching, given its complexity, can never be perfect
 No matter how good a lesson, it can always be improved
 This is not to suggest a lesson is of poor quality and must be fixed, but
because quality teaching is so hard, some aspect can always be improved
 Post-conference questions
 Additional discussion will help in understanding how the teacher reflects
and what they do with that knowledge
 Other evidence:
o Lesson study or any other reflection activities
Background Information:
 Records are an important aspect of teaching
 Informs student-teacher interactions and enables teachers to respond to
individual needs
 Aware of which assignments have been completed and which are still
 Students contribute to design and implementation (where appropriate),
because of exposure to many different systems over the course of their
educational career
 Post Conference
Other Evidence:
 Use of online gradebook, RtI folders, assessment results, and record
keeping systems of non-instructional activities (such as field trip forms,
lunch records, etc.)
Background Information:
 Most parents care deeply about the progress of their child and
appreciate meaningful participation in the process
 Just as students should not be surprised about an assessment or the
procedures of the class, parents also need information that will not
make the teacher’s approach to learning a surprise
 Post-Conference
Other evidence:
 Written information, web site, Open House information, regular
newsletters, phone calls, formalized procedures (progress reports,
report cards), notes, emails
Pre-conference, Observation, Post-conference
Review additional evidence
Balance of information
Instructional Practice
All teachers
Greater than or
equal to 50% at
Level 1 and/or
Level 0
If not meeting
or U, then
Highly Effective
At least 75% at
Level 3 and/or
Level 2 and 0% AT
Level 0
At least 80% at
3 and 0% at Level 1
and/or Level 0
Mid-year conference
IPDP review
Review IPDP and assign a score to each section of the IPDP
o Student Baseline Data
o Needs-Based Question
o Student Goal
o Professional Development Objectives
o Professional Development Training/Activities
o Classroom Implementation
Ratings Used for
All categories
Highly Effective
1 or more rated
1 or more
rated 1
If not meeting
or U, Effective
6/6 rated
3 (Highly
Instructional Practice Level______X 70%=___________
IPDP Level_______X 30%=______________
Total Evaluation Level_______________
Ratings Used for
Each Section
All Categories
Less than or
to .75
Greater than .75
Highly Effective
Greater than or
equal to 1.5
Greater than or
equal to 2.40
The results of the Formative Evaluation score will be used to
guide category 1 and 2 teacher professional development
and support
The Formative Evaluation score does NOT compute into the
Summative Evaluation score
Allows the Category 1 and 2 teacher to know where they
need to improve PRIOR to the summative evaluation
This concludes the review of the Formative Evaluation
Please remember all materials are placed on the Race to
the Top website:
Thank you

Formative Evaluation - Bay District Schools