Teacher and Administrator Evaluation

The Leman Academy of Excellence Model for Measuring Educator Effectiveness and Growth

A.R.S. §15-189.06 - This legislation repeals the requirement that the State Board of Education provide teacher and principal evaluation frameworks and instruments for school districts (previously A.R.S. §15-203). School districts and charter schools are now required to establish their own evaluation systems and policies.

State Statute

Specifically, charter school governing boards must:

1. Establish a teacher evaluation system that includes at least one evaluation by a “qualified evaluator” each year. The teacher evaluation system must:

  • Be designed to improve both teacher performance and scholar achievement;
  • Consist of between 20% and 33% quantitative scholar performance data; and
  • Designate teachers as “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” or “ineffective.”

2. Adopt “in a public meeting” policies for principal evaluations. Before adopting such policies, the governing board must provide opportunities for public input on the policies.

3. The principal evaluation policies must:

  • Be designed to improve both teacher performance and scholar achievement;
  • Consist of between 20% and 33% quantitative scholar performance data; and
  • Designate administrators as “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” or “ineffective;”
  • Describe the method used to evaluate administrator performance, including the data used in the evaluation and the formula used for the final classifications.

Use the 10 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and award points on the following system:

  • Highly Effective - 8 points
  • Effective - 6 points
  • Developing - 4 points
  • Ineffective - 2 points
  • Scores can range from 20 to 80 points, based on this rubric.

Scholar performance data will be measured by proficiency and growth, each worth 10 points.

  • High proficiency - 10 points
  • Average Proficiency - 7 points
  • Low Proficiency - 4 points
  • High Growth - 10 points
  • Average Growth - 7 points
  • Low Growth - 4 points
  • High proficiency and growth is more than 4 points above the state average, measured by AzM2 data.
  • Average proficiency and growth is ± 4 points when compared to the state average, measured by AzM2 data.
  • Low proficiency and growth is more than 4 points below the state average, measured by AzM2 data.
  • Highly Effective - 88-100 total points
  • Effective - 74-87 total points
  • Developing - 60-73 total points
  • Ineffective - Below 60 total points

Please submit your feedback below:

TOP