1 ScIP Workshop Data Resource *All data in this workshop is fictitious. It was created solely for this activity and is not copied from or based on any district or educator data.

2 Table of Contents Page 3District Profile Page 4District Data Page 5District Observation Insights Page 6K-6 School Data Page School Data

3 District Profile Summative Evaluation Results Number Highly Effective9 Effective234 Partially Effective15 Ineffective2 District Component DataMean Summative Rating Mean2.89 Observation Mean2.81 Student Growth Objective Mean 3.45 Student Growth Percentile Mean Buildings – 1 K-6 – Educators 3 Administrators

4 District Data Summative Rating by Years of Experience Years of Experience Summative Rating Mean 1-4 Years Years Years2.93 Summative Rating Mean by Administrator AdministratorSummative Rating Mean Admin Admin Admin “Teachers were able to see that evaluators were consistent with ratings, and that added more value to what we had to say. It was important for them to see that we were consistent.” ~Ms. Corie Gaylord, Assistant Principal Montgomery High School “We customize the district mentoring policy and personalize it to our school, considering anomalies of process and culture. The ScIP chunks information that new teachers need to know and communicates pieces of it on a monthly basis so that it is not overwhelming.” ~Dr. Linda Eno, Principal, Biotechnology High School, Monmouth County Vocational

5 Highest and Lowest Observation Indicators Highest Observation Instrument Elements Professional Responsibilities (Domain Mean)3.30 Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness2.87 Organizing Physical Space2.85 Managing Classroom Procedures2.81 Lowest Observation Instrument Elements Questioning and Discussion Techniques2.48 Knowledge of Students2.47 Engaging Students in Learning2.44 Knowledge of Resources2.43

6 K-6 School Data (Summative Mean = 2.88) Grade LevelSummative Mean Observation Mean SGO MeanSGP Mean K , Component Mean

7 K-6 Observation Data Observation Indicator Data by Grade Level Questioning & Discussion Mean Student Engagement Mean Knowledge of Resources Mean Knowledge of Students Mean K

8 K-6 Observation Data Evaluation Results by Years Experience Years/ Component Questioning & Discussion Mean Student Engagement Mean Knowledge of Resources Mean Knowledge of Students Mean

9 K-6 Mentorship Program Survey Results Mentees were asked to rate the following components on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best rating. These are the cohort averages. Quality of mentor Frequent support The program was organized The program was relevant The program supported pedagogical needs The program assisted in building and district protocols Communication of program was clear

School Data (Summative Mean = 2.93) Subject AreaSummative MeanObservation MeanSGO Mean Business Career & Tech Ed English/Lang Arts Fine Arts Math Performing Arts Physical Education Science Social Studies World Language Other Electives Component Mean * For the purposes of this workshop, SGP was not included in this data set for grades 7-8 Math and ELA

Observation Data (By Department) Observation Indicator Data by Grade Level Questioning & Discussion Mean Student Engagement Mean Knowledge of Resources Mean Knowledge of Students Mean English/Lang Arts Fine Arts Math Performing Arts Physical Education Science Social Studies World Language *Some departments were excluded for the sake of this activity

Observation Data Evaluation Results by Years Experience Years/ Component Questioning & Discussion Mean Student Engagement Mean Knowledge of Resources Mean Knowledge of Students Mean

Mentorship Program Survey Results Mentees were asked to rate the following components on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best rating. These are the cohort averages. Quality of mentor Frequent support The program was organized The program was relevant The program supported pedagogical needs The program assisted in building and district protocols Communication of program was clear