TEACHER CENTER APPLICATION REVIEWER RATING COMMENT SHEETS & RUBRIC: 2007-2008
TEACHER CENTER: ____________________________________________________ APPLICATION REVIEWER: _____________________________ OVERALL RATING: ___4/Outstanding ___3/Good ___2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement Areas to consider: The plan satisfactorily addresses the requirements of this application, supports the achievement of the Teacher Center Standards, proposed programs or processes have the potential to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers and achievement of students, plan serves high need schools/districts. An application with a generally satisfactory plan but with some major weakness will be rated as “Needs Improvement.” COMMENTS: OVERALL PROPOSAL STRENGTHS (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
COMMENTS: OVERALL AREAS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC)
Application reflects the spirit and letter of the Legislation: ___4/Outstanding ___3/Good ___2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement Areas to consider: Support from teachers and integration with district goals and other planning documents/processes. COMMENTS:
Application serves NYSED Identified high need schools/districts: ___4/Yes ___0/No Areas to consider: Description of district(s) to be served.
PART I. REQUIRED SIGNATURE and INFORMATION SHEETS _____ Signatures from All Participating LEA's _____ Statement of Assurances Signed by LEA Superintendent _____ Verification of Policy Board Composition Areas to consider: Applications lacking signatures on any of these parts will not be read or rated. COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED STATUS ____TO BE FUNDED ______ NOT TO BE FUNDED A Center whose plan has serious deficits will be recommended "Not to be Funded." AMOUNT REQUESTED: $______________________
PROGRAM NARRITIVE PART A. ABSTRACT: CENTER and PROGRAM DESCRIPTION RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Description of district(s) served, strength/depth of program activities, reasonableness of budget, effectiveness of evaluation plan. COMMENTS:
PART B. BY-LAWS RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Ares to consider: Policy Board members appointed as required by legislation, overlapping terms of service, quorum description, schedule of meetings. COMMENTS:
PART C. CENTER STAFF: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Methods and criteria for selection. COMMENTS:
PART D. RESOURCESES AND FACILITIES: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Space/supplies/equipment/facilities provided for Center, in-kind support from LEA. COMMENTS:
PART E. POLICY BOARD INVOLVEMENT: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Creation of Policy Board to develop application, relationship of Policy Board and other professional development planning staff/teams. COMMENTS:
PART F: NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND RESULTS: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Adequacy of evidence, use of on-going needs assessment processes, relationship to other district planning processes, prioritizing needs for program interventions. COMMENTS:
PART G: EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR PARTICIPANTS: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Extent to which standard is meet, potential to enhance program goals, appropriateness of programs or processes. COMMENTS:
PART H: ACTIVITIES: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Depth and breath of program activities, potential to enhance program participant’s knowledge and skill, match of needs to activities and program, linkage of program to Teacher Center Standards. COMMENTS:
PART I: EVALUATION PROCESS: and Collaborations: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Ares to consider: Use of formative and summative processes, focus on major program elements, potential to enhance operations and program, support Standards. COMMENTS:
PART J: COLLABORATIONS: RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Areas to consider: Links to higher education and community based educational and cultural organizations, representation on Policy Board, sharing resources and joint sponsorship of programs. COMMENTS:
PART II. BUDGET RATING: ___4/Outstanding 3/Good 2/Satisfactory ___1/Needs Improvement ___0/Missing Ares to consider: Relationship of budget to program plan, adequacy of staffing, relationship of administrative costs to program costs, in-kind support. Required element: Indicate if budget is Reasonable and Necessary. COMMENTS:
Rubric for Scoring the Teacher Center Program Narrative and Budget
Section Score (0 - 4) Program Narrative A. Abstract B. By Laws C. Center Staff D. Resources And Facilities E. Policy Board Involvement F. Needs Assessment Process And Results G. Expected Outcomes For Participants H. Activities I. Evaluation Process J. Collaborations Budget Review Summary Overall Rating Does this application reflect the spirit and letter of the Teacher Center legislation? Does the proposed Center serve high need school(s)? Do you recommend that this application be funded? Total Score See below
X Weight
= Score
x x x x x x x x x x
1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1
= = = = = = = = = =
x 5 = See below x 2 = x 1 = x 1 = x 1 = XXX XXX See below