For the 2013-14 school year, School District 65 teachers were evaluated based on 1) professional practice using the Danielson model, and 2) student growth using a growth model developed by ECRA.
Teachers were rated as follows on the two components:
• On the Danielson professional practice component, 72% of the teachers rated, were found to be “excellent;” 25% were found to be “proficient;” and 4% were found to “need improvement.” No teacher was rated “unsatisfactory.”
• On the ECRA growth component of the appraisal system, 8% were rated “excellent” and 92% were rated “proficient.” No teacher was rated “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.”
A matrix was used to combine the professional practice rating and the student growth rating into a summative rating. Under the matrix, if the teacher’s rating was different using the professional practice and the student growth components, the teacher received the higher rating if the ratings were one level apart. For example, if a teacher was given a rating of “proficient” in the student growth component and “excellent” in the professional practice component, the teacher’s summative rating was “excellent.”
On the final summative ratings, 73% of the teachers were rated “excellent,” 26% were rated “proficient,” and 1% were rated “needs improvement.” No teacher received a summative rating of “not qualified.”
The District is continuing discussions on the teacher appraisal system.
For a detailed article on the teacher appraisal system in effect last year, see “A Look at the Model Used by School District 65 to Measure Student Growth as Part of Its Teacher Evaluation System, What Propensity Scores, Z Scores and the Teacher Safeguards Mean,” available at evanstonroundtable.com.