| SEED Portfolio Summary Spring 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| SEED Task 1 |
Criteria 1 |
Criteria 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
Criteria 8 |
Criteria 9 |
|
|
|
| SEED
N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
31 |
35 |
22 |
26 |
31 |
40 |
25 |
23 |
31 |
264 |
68.22% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
12 |
8 |
20 |
17 |
12 |
3 |
17 |
20 |
12 |
121 |
31.27% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.52% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
72.09% |
81.40% |
51.16% |
60.47% |
72.09% |
93.02% |
58.14% |
53.49% |
72.09% |
387 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
27.91% |
18.60% |
46.51% |
39.53% |
27.91% |
6.98% |
39.53% |
46.51% |
27.91% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
0.00% |
2.33% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
2.33% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
| SEED Task 2 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
| SEED
N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
28 |
19 |
29 |
25 |
25 |
126 |
58.60% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
15 |
22 |
11 |
18 |
18 |
84 |
39.07% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
2.33% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
65.12% |
44.19% |
67.44% |
58.14% |
58.14% |
215 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
34.88% |
51.16% |
25.58% |
41.86% |
41.86% |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
4.65% |
6.98% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
| SEED Task 3 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
Criteria 8 |
Criteria 9 |
Criteria 10 |
Critera 11 |
Criteria 12 |
Criteria 13 |
Criteria 14 |
Criteria 15 |
|
|
| SEED
N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
24 |
26 |
26 |
26 |
32 |
28 |
33 |
19 |
25 |
29 |
29 |
23 |
27 |
32 |
26 |
405 |
62.89% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
18 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
10 |
12 |
10 |
22 |
18 |
14 |
14 |
18 |
16 |
11 |
17 |
231 |
35.87% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
1.24% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
55.81% |
60.47% |
60.47% |
60.47% |
74.42% |
65.12% |
76.74% |
44.19% |
58.14% |
67.44% |
67.44% |
53.49% |
62.79% |
74.42% |
60.47% |
644 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
41.86% |
39.53% |
39.53% |
39.53% |
23.26% |
27.91% |
23.26% |
51.16% |
41.86% |
32.56% |
32.56% |
41.86% |
37.21% |
25.58% |
39.53% |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
2.33% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
2.33% |
6.98% |
0.00% |
4.65% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
2.33% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
| SEED Task 4 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
Criteria 6 |
Criteria 7 |
|
|
| SEED
N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
24 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
28 |
27 |
29 |
190 |
63.12% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
19 |
16 |
15 |
16 |
13 |
11 |
13 |
103 |
34.22% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
8 |
2.66% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
55.81% |
62.79% |
65.12% |
62.79% |
65.12% |
62.79% |
67.44% |
301 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
44.19% |
37.21% |
34.88% |
37.21% |
30.23% |
25.58% |
30.23% |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
4.65% |
11.63% |
2.33% |
|
|
|
| SEED Task 5 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
|
| SEED N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
26 |
23 |
25 |
21 |
29 |
124 |
57.67% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
15 |
16 |
13 |
18 |
13 |
75 |
34.88% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
2 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
16 |
7.44% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
60.47% |
53.49% |
58.14% |
48.84% |
67.44% |
215 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
34.88% |
37.21% |
30.23% |
41.86% |
30.23% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
4.65% |
9.30% |
11.63% |
9.30% |
2.33% |
|
|
|
|
| SEED Task 6 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
|
|
|
| SEED
N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
28 |
20 |
31 |
79 |
61.24% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
15 |
21 |
11 |
47 |
36.43% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2.33% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
65.12% |
46.51% |
72.09% |
129 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
34.88% |
48.84% |
25.58% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
4.65% |
2.33% |
|
|
|
|
| SEED Task 7 |
Criteria 1 |
Critera 2 |
Criteria 3 |
Criteria 4 |
Criteria 5 |
|
|
|
| SEED N= |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
43 |
Total Count |
% Rating |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
29 |
24 |
28 |
24 |
26 |
131 |
60.93% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
14 |
16 |
13 |
17 |
16 |
76 |
35.35% |
|
| # of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
3.72% |
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Highly Effective |
67.44% |
55.81% |
65.12% |
55.81% |
60.47% |
215 |
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Acceptable |
32.56% |
37.21% |
30.23% |
39.53% |
37.21% |
|
|
|
| % of
Candidates Rated Unacceptable |
0.00% |
6.98% |
4.65% |
4.65% |
2.33% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|