Criteria for a Strong Evaluation

This document is intended to help evaluators review and improve the quality and consistency of written evaluation feedback. It can be used individually or in groups to review one or more formative or summative evaluations.

The criteria listed below are based on the following expectations outlined in theSchool-Based Administrator Rubric:

  • I-D-3. Ratings: Exercises sound and reliable judgment in assigning ratings for performance, goal attainment, and impact on student learning and ensures that educators understand why they received their ratings.
  • I-D-4. Alignment Review: Consistently reviews alignment between judgment about practice and student learning data and makes informed decisions about educator support and evaluation based upon this review.

Step 1: Read through the evaluation to identify whether the rationales for goal and standard ratings contain the following components:

Ratings on Goals
For each goal, does the rationale include… /
  • Claim:include a statement about the educator’s progress toward completing the goal
  • Evidence:cite 1-3 pieces of evidence, including artifacts, observations, and/or completion of action steps
  • Synthesis: synthesize evidence to interpret the educator’s progress and/or impact on student learning
  • Next steps:provide related suggestions or questions about next steps, when appropriate

Ratings on Standards
For each standard, does the rationale include … /
  • Claim:include a statement about the educator’s performance compared to a standard, indicator, or element in the rubric
  • Evidence:cite 2-3 pieces of evidence, including both artifacts and observations
  • Synthesis:synthesize evidence to interpret the educator’s impact on student learning
  • Next steps:provide related suggestions or questions about next steps, when appropriate

Step 2: Considering the evaluation as a whole, use the following criteria to evaluate the quality of the evidence, prescriptions, and writing overall:

Is the evidence… /
  • Aligned: directly related to claims about performance, as well as any previous prescriptions
  • Low-inference:factual information that is not based on interpretation
  • Specific: referring to artifacts by name and observations by date
  • Representative: reflecting the educator’s performance as a whole

Are the prescriptions…
(if applicable) /
  • Aligned: related directly to the stated problems of performance
  • Actionable: written as concrete, measureable steps
  • Practical: focused on a manageable amount of changes for the given timeframe

Considering the evaluation as a whole… /
  • Coherence:specific pieces of evidence are used effectively to convey a cohesive assessment of the educator’s practice
  • Professionalism:the tone is appropriatelyrespectful
  • Clarity:the writing is clear and easy to follow

Step 3: Based on Steps 1 & 2, identify areas of strength in this to continue and areas to develop further in future evaluations.

  • Areas of strength:
  • Areas for growth: