What this score means (and what it doesn't)

What this score is

Your results come from how you answered scenarios — or, in the self-rating mode, how you rated yourself — in this web app. Each competency gets a model's best estimate of where you're at, on a 0–100% scale, with a band around it showing how sure the model is.

That's it. It's a snapshot of your answers in a tool — useful for deciding where to put your learning time, and for watching your own trend over repeated check-ins.

What this score is not

We have not checked these scores against what actually happens in a classroom. No one observed you with students, and no supervisor's rating went into this. So:

• This is not a performance evaluation, and it isn't designed to be used as one.
• A high or low score here is not proof of how skilled you are on the job — only of how you answered here.
• It should be paired with real observation, role-specific mentoring, and your district's professional development — not used in place of them.

If someone is reading your shared results, that's the first thing they should know.

How the tiers work — "where to focus," not a verdict

Each competency lands in a zone: Strength, Developing, Growth area, or Needs more data. Read these as where to spend your next hour of learning, not as a grade or a judgment about you. The exact line between zones is set by us, informed by the competency framework — it has not yet been endorsed by an outside panel of experienced supervisors (see below). Treating the tiers as a focus guide rather than a classification is the honest way to use a cut whose exact location is still author-defined.

Why we show a band, and why some areas say "Needs more data"

The band around each estimate is the model's uncertainty. We only call a competency a firm Strength, Developing, or Growth area when that whole band sits clearly on one side of a tier line. When the band straddles a line, we don't guess — we show "Needs more data" and ask for a few more scenarios.

This isn't decoration. It's a built-in consistency rule — how close an estimate is to a tier line determines how often a re-measurement would land you in a different tier:

We only show a firm tier once an estimate is at least one full band clear of the line — only when the chance of flipping on a re-measure is roughly 1 in 6 or lower. Closer than that, you see "Needs more data" instead.

In practice today, most stored estimates sit close enough to a line that we hold them as "Needs more data" rather than a firm tier — the firm tiers you see are the ones that sit comfortably clear of a line. As more people take the assessment, these estimates sharpen.

One honest caveat: the middle "Developing" zone has a line on both sides, so an estimate parked in its center can still carry a meaningful flip chance even when we show it. That's fine for choosing where to focus; it's a reason we don't put firm tier labels in front of employers or districts.

Content review — not done yet

A credible self-assessment should have experienced people confirm its questions actually cover the competencies they claim to. We have not run that review yet. It's planned: a small panel of experienced paraprofessional supervisors will review the question set against the seven competency definitions and the behavioral anchors behind each tier line. Until that's on record, treat the competency coverage as our best authoring judgment, not an endorsed standard.

Checked against real performance — not done yet

The biggest open question for any tool like this: do these scores line up with how someone actually performs with students? Answering it takes a study — paras taking the self-assessment while a supervisor independently rates the same competencies, then comparing. We haven't run that study. Until we do, the right word for these scores is unvalidated against observed performance — which is exactly why this page leads with what the score isn't.