​​Marion County Instructional Evaluation System    
Philosophy:  Educating others is a complex task that is both physically and emotionally demanding. Education, according to Danielson (2007) is a thinking person’s job.  Individuals who enter the education profession, whether as a teacher or administrator, do so with the full knowledge that the work extends beyond the day and that each day will bring new and more difficult challenges; added to this already stressful mix is the critical task of providing educational experiences to students that help to develop them socially and emotionally and provide the instruction necessary to insure proficiency in content area standards and skills.  In this age of accountability, through governmental controls, legislative regulation, community expectations, and parental demands, the stakes are higher for students, teachers , and administrators to meet high standards of learning and instruction. 

The United States Department of Education (2010) released the underlying beliefs of educational reform and focus in A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The primary tenet of this report is the charge to states and districts to develop and implement teacher and administrator evaluation systems which identify effective and highly effective teachers on the basis of research based teaching practices but, more importantly, on the basis of student growth in measurable learning gains (US Department of Education, 2010).  Based on mandates and legislation, and founded on current educational research surrounding instruction, Marion County has adopted and developed a comprehensive instructional evaluation system based on the model developed by Charlotte Danielson and described in detail in her book, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2007). 

The Marion County Instructional Evaluation System (MCIES) for teachers and instructional personnel is structured on the premise that a teacher’s effectiveness must be measured in part (50%) by evidence of research based teaching practices and in part (50%) by the evidence provided in assessment data of the growth, proficiency, and skill attainment of the students the professional  educator instructs.  In teaching practices, the MCIES is broken down into 4 domains: (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) The Classroom Environment, (3) Instruction, and (4) Professional Responsibilities.   Each domain is broken down further into observable components that describe critical attributes of teaching behavior.  These behaviors are described in the MCIES Rubrics under 4 levels of teacher effectiveness: Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement/Developing, and Unsatisfactory.  Formative observation evidence is gathered throughout the year and collected for the summative evaluation rating for each educator.  The teaching practices aggregated data comprises 50% of the final instructional evaluation.

In student growth data, the MCIES utilizes both district assessments, common end of course exams, and the State growth model with FCAT data.  Percentages for each assessment vary by instructional level, dependent on the direct connection of the level to FCAT.  FCAT data accounts for a minimum of 40% in each evaluation to the maximum of 50%.  Growth data comprises 50% of the final instructional evaluation