State Criteria and Scoring Clause Samples

The State Criteria and Scoring clause defines the standards and methods by which proposals or submissions are evaluated and ranked. Typically, this clause outlines the specific criteria that will be used—such as technical merit, cost, experience, or compliance with requirements—and assigns weights or points to each factor to guide evaluators in scoring. By clearly establishing how decisions will be made, this clause ensures transparency and fairness in the selection process, reducing disputes and misunderstandings about how outcomes are determined.
State Criteria and Scoring. State Evaluation Criteria: 1. Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 2. Demonstrating effective teaching practices 3. Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 4. Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 5. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and managing a safe, positive learning environment 6. Using multiple data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 7. Communicating and collaborating with parents and the school community 8. Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practices and student learning An employee shall receive a summative performance rating for each of the eight (8) state evaluation criteria. The overall summative score is determined by totaling the eight (8) criterion-level scores as follows: Unsatisfactory (1) 8-14 Basic (2) 15-21 Proficient (3) 22-28 Distinguished (4) 29-32 The final score for each criterion will be based on a preponderance of evidence in each criterion. The individual criterion ratings from all eight (8) criteria will be used in achieving the overall “Summative Performance Rating” in the chart above.
State Criteria and Scoring. 8.4.1 The eight criteria of the evaluation system include: • Centering instruction high expectations for student achievement; • Demonstrating effective teaching practices; • Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs; • Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum; • ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and managing a safe, positive learning environment; • Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning; • Communicating and collaborating with parents and the school community. • Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning. 8.4.2 Criteria Performance Scoring 1. The following four-level rating system will be used to evaluate certificated classroom teachers and describes performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded. The performance ratings are: level 1 - unsatisfactory; level 2 - basic; level 3 - proficient; level 4 - distinguished. 2. A classroom teacher shall receive one of the four performance ratings for each of the eight criteria. (See appendix EVAL-#1 Criterion Chart, & appendix EVAL-#2 Criterion scoring methodology) 8.4.3 Student Growth Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter must be a factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. Student growth data elements may include the teacher's performance as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school when the use of this data is relevant and appropriate. Student growth data elements may also include the teacher's performance as a member of the overall instructional team of a school when use of this data is relevant and appropriate. (appendix EVAL-#3 student growth rubric) 8.4.4 Summative Performance Rating A classroom teacher will also receive an overall summative performance rating for the evaluation as a whole. This score is determined by totaling the eight (8) criterion-level scores as follows (See appendix EVAL-#4 Summative Score Spreadsheet & appendix EVAL-#4b Summative Score Chart) a. 8-14 – Unsatisfactory (1) b. 15-21 – Basic (2) c. 22-28 – Proficient (3) d. 29-32 – Distinguished (4) Certificated classroom teachers with a summative rating of distinguished will be recognized with a letter of congra...
State Criteria and Scoring. State Evaluation Criteria: Summative Performance Rating for Comprehensive Evaluation
State Criteria and Scoring 

Related to State Criteria and Scoring

  • Background Screening and Security All Contractor employees, Subcontractors and agents of the Contractor performing work under the Contract must comply with all background screening and security requirements of the Department, as detailed below.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference.

  • Geographic Area and Sector Specific Allowances, Conditions and Exceptions The following allowances and conditions shall apply where relevant. Where the Employer does work which falls under the following headings, the Employer agrees to pay and observe the relevant respective conditions and/or exceptions set out below in each case.

  • Background Screening VENDOR shall comply with all requirements of Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes, and all of its personnel who (1) are to be permitted access to school grounds when students are present, (2) will have direct contact with students, or (3) have access or control of school funds, will successfully complete the background screening required by the referenced statutes and meet the standards established by the statutes. This background screening will be conducted by SBBC in advance of VENDOR or its personnel providing any services under the conditions described in the previous sentence. VENDOR shall bear the cost of acquiring the background screening required by Section 1012.32, Florida Statutes, and any fee imposed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to maintain the fingerprints provided with respect to VENDOR and its personnel. The parties agree that the failure of VENDOR to perform any of the duties described in this section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling SBBC to terminate immediately with no further responsibilities or duties to perform under this Agreement. VENDOR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SBBC, its officers and employees from any liability in the form of physical or mental injury, death or property damage resulting from VENDOR’s failure to comply with the requirements of this section or with Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the ISO’s System Reliability Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standards can be met using, for example without limitation, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected, or a combination of the two. The Developer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Reliability Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.