Office of Employee Performance and Evaluation

Teacher Evaluation - Data Overview

The following data and narrative are derived from the outcomes of the Teacher Evaluation for just

over 9400 staff for whom evaluation reports were generated in the spring of 2015. 

Table 1:  SY 2015 Teacher Evaluation Overall Ratings by Teacher Evaluation Type and Tenure Status; Percentage of Staff by Category

 Teacher Data 1

Table 1 shows the break-down of the ratings for Professional Practice, which constituted 50% of the evaluation score, for Student Growth Measures, which accounted for the remaining 50% of the evaluation score, and for the Overall Score. The Overall Score was used for the Final Evaluation Rating officially given to the teaching staff.

The determination of the ratings was made by reviewing the distribution of teachers’ scores across the entire district and converting the score to a standardized value “Z-Score.” Very low “Z-Scores” below -1.5 were deemed “Ineffective,” while very high “Z-Scores” 1.5 or above were assigned the “Highly Effective” rating.   In Table 1, “Not Eligible” includes such staff as ROTC Instructors and retired-rehires who instruct students but are not eligible to become tenured.

The data show that across all teachers, there was a normal distribution of scores for “Ineffective,” “Effective,” and “Highly Effective.” The higher distribution for SFE teachers toward “Highly Effective,” may be attributed to the difference in the observational model, which does not include a “Student Growth” component.  An additional factor may be the ratio of high performing staff members in SFE positions, such as Consulting Teacher, Mentor Teacher, and Instructional Lead Teacher.

Table 2: Comparison of Evaluation Data for SY 2014 and SY 2015

 Teacher Data Comparison

Table 2 indicates an increase of 5.25% in teacher evaluations from SY 2014 to SY 2015.  The data show a normal distribution of scores for “Ineffective,” “Effective,” and “Highly Effective.”  Some fine tuning in the process for identification and classification of teachers occurred from SY 2014 to SY 2015, which may have had some impact on evaluation outcomes.

Table 3:  SY 2015 Teacher Evaluation Mean Observation Raw and Weighted Professional Practice

Domain Scores by Tenure Status – (On-Cycle) Teachers

Domain Scores

Table 3 shows the average scores obtained by staff who received observations (on-cycle) during the SY 2015 evaluation period.  The “Raw” score represents the value obtained out of a possible 4 from the observation, while the “Weighted” score shows the prorated value actually used in the evaluation calculation.  The average raw score is close to 3.0, which is a “Proficient” score. 

Table 4:  SY 2015 Teacher Evaluation Mean Student Learning Objective (SLO) Average Score by Teacher Type and Tenure Status 

Teacher SLO data  

Thomas Claggett
Teacher Leadership Center
2001 Addison Road S
District Heights,  Maryland 20747

301-952-6240 phone
301-952-6199 fax 

Last modified: 6/8/2016 12:11:32 PM