Close to Proficient
(Skill is emerging, but not yet to ideal proficiency. Coaching is
recommended.)
<80% of teachers administer common formative assessment and
use common scoring method to evaluate student proficiency.
<80% of teachers share charted class data with the data team.
Sums and percentages are calculated, but contain errors.
Results are not disaggregated.
Results are available only to team members present for the
meeting.
Data is not triangulated.
Team lists strengths, misconceptions, inferences, and prioritized
needs for most proficiency groups.
Strengths and misconceptions are mostly related to the preassessment and targeted standard(s).
Pre-requisite skills are not considered.
SMART goals are written and mostly meet the criteria of SMART
goal.
Goal percentage is not correctly calculated.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice(s)/strategy(s)
target prioritized needs and are research based.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice(s)/strategy(s)
chosen have moderate potential to impact student growth.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice(s)/strategy(s) lack
a full description to allow for replication.
Semi-annually, team discusses expected implementation data
(teacher behavior) related to expected student results, with
sufficient detail for replication.
Implementation data indicated fidelity occurs at less than a
desired rate.
Semi-annually, discrepancies in student results are examined in
related to difference in implementation data.
Annually, based on data, improved implementation processes
are recommended or alternative effective teaching/learning
practice is chosen.
Visual representation of growth is included in results once postassessment is scored.
Some or few reflection questions are discussed and recorded
using the visual representation.
Far from Proficient
(Follow-up professional development and
coaching is critical.)
Few or no teachers administer common
formative assessment and use common
scoring method to evaluate student
proficiency.
Class data is not charted and/or shared.
Strengths and misconceptions, if listed, are
not related to the pre-assessment and
targeted standard(s).
Learning needs are not prioritized.
Pre-requisite skills are not considered.
If complete, SMART goals lack important
criteria.
Goal percentage is not correctly calculated.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice
(s)/strategy(s) do not target prioritized
needs and are not research based.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice
(s)/strategy(s) chosen do not have
potential to impact student growth.
Selected effective teaching/learning practice
(s)/strategy(s) lacks a description to allow
for replication.
Team discussion about expected
implementation data and students occurs
but is limited by team understanding of
cause/effect or incomplete data.
Fidelity of implementation is less than
desired.
Hypothesizing improved implementation
processes or needs or alternative effective
teaching/learning practices is limited by
team understanding of