Evanston/Skokie
School District 65
Professional Appraisal System
Presented by Hardy Murphy, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Two topics at the forefront of debate in public education reform have been (1) how to accurately measure
student growth (outcomes) and (2) how to effectively measure the teacher’s job performance (inputs).
The goal is to have all students achieving a very high levels; to overcome the gaps in education between
those who traditionally excel and those who traditionally struggle.
A successful approach looks at student performance (outcomes) as well as teacher professionalism
(inputs). It is founded upon the understanding that all students should grow at least a year given a year’s
instruction, and excellent teaching should result in more students achieving at higher levels.
The characteristics or components of an effective evaluation system must include (1) ongoing databased dialogue between teachers and evaluators about the teaching and learning process,
(2) establishing goals related to inputs (Danielson) common to the profession, (3) identifying agreed
upon measures of student growth that can validate teaching and learning, and 4) redefining criteria for
student progress so they are anchored in conceptual expressions to address growth for individual and
groups of students.
Concepts such as more, most, trend, improvement, grade level and growth over time are very
important as they facilitate the definition of student performance into metrics that can be used to
effectively measure student achievement in the evaluation system.
More students doing better in each of the classrooms in our schools is what we all desire. Creating a
culture where this can occur over time builds momentum in an instructional program that allows the
school to move forward.
The Evanston/Skokie District 65 performance appraisal system, developed through a collaborative,
problem solving process that included teachers, administrators and other educational professionals
addresses the concerns outlined above. And, I believe it can go a long way toward addressing the
concerns ever present in the debate over the relationship between student performance and teacher
evaluations.
Hardy Murphy, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools
Evaluation Side Letter
During the 2008 teacher contract negotiations, the
District Educators’ Council (DEC) and Board of
Education agreed to revise the professional
agreement and the professional appraisal system to
provide the ratings of Excellent, Satisfactory and
Unsatisfactory.
A Joint Teacher Evaluation Committee, assisted by
mutually agreed upon facilitators, came to
consensus and provided recommendations to
implement a new professional appraisal system for
the 2009-10 school year.
4
The Challenge
Develop a system built
with agreed-upon
student performance
criteria for determining
teacher performance
ratings, and
Find a solution that
incorporates agreedupon measures of
student growth.
The Solution
A performance model
defined around broad
conceptual indicators
of student growth that
encompass measures
within acceptable
parameters, e.g.,
more, the same,
less/fewer, trend, and
most.
5
Student Growth
Expected growth is a year’s increase in
achievement for one year in school.
(One year of academic growth for one year
of instruction should be a minimum
expectation.)
Improved growth is when student(s)
exceed a year’s growth for a year of attendance.
Grade level is defined as functioning
at the 50th percentile.
Improved student achievement is essential
to close the achievement gap.
6
Student Growth Measures
Student growth is assessed by using:
▫ Grade level expectations
▫ Content area expectations
▫ A mix of measures (e.g. more than one
assessment result should be used when
reviewing documentation relative to student
growth; may vary from grade to grade and by
subject)
7
Levels of Student
Performance and Trend
Student performance is either
▫ At and above grade level or
▫ Below grade level
An Upward Trend is achieved when most
students have grown a year, and at least
one student grows more than a year
A Downward Trend is when most
students have grown less than a year
8
Teacher rated Excellent
for student growth
More students at and above grade level
at the end of the year than at the
beginning.
However, in determining the performance
rating, the principal and teacher shall
discuss the growth trend of the class to
ensure that a fair and accurate
summative rating is given to the teacher.
9
Teacher Rated Satisfactory
for student growth
The same number of students at and
above grade level at the end of the year
as at the beginning.
However, in determining the performance
rating, the principal and teacher shall
discuss the growth trend of the class to
ensure that a fair and accurate
summative rating is given to the teacher.
10
Teacher rated Unsatisfactory
for Student Growth
Fewer students at and above grade level
at the end of the year as at the beginning
of the year.
However, in determining the performance
rating, the principal and teacher shall
discuss the growth trend of the class to
ensure that a fair and accurate
summative rating is given to the teacher.
11
Shared Responsibility
When more than one teacher is
significantly engaged in a student’s
education (general education, special
education, reading/learning specialists
and/or others), they will share responsibility
for the student’s growth.
These teachers will collaboratively develop
challenging standards-based goals and
jointly monitor student progress.
In the case of a student with an IEP, the
IEP can meet this requirement.
Extenuating Circumstances
A teacher is responsible for the growth of all students.
However, extenuating circumstances that impact the
achievement level of some students may be considered.
Extenuating factors include, but are not limited to:
•behavioral
•emotional
•health concerns
•family issues
•attendance
•enrollment date
The impact extenuating factors may have on student growth
should be identified by the teacher and addressed during
ongoing conversations throughout the year between the
teacher and evaluator, as well as at the summative
conference.
12
Summative Ratings
A summative conference is held at the end of
the year.
Teacher and evaluator discuss the teacher’s
performance related to:
•Danielson Framework (the teaching/instructional
process)
•Student Growth (the teaching/instructional outcomes)
Teacher and evaluator review trend* data,
extenuating circumstances and other
appropriate documentation.
*Upward or downward trend in student achievement can change a growth rating even
though there is no change in the number of students at and above grade level or below
grade level when comparing end of year to beginning of the year.
Arriving at the Summative Rating
Danielson
Growth
Summative
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Satisfactory
Excellent or Satisfactory*
Excellent
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory*
Satisfactory
Excellent
Excellent or Satisfactory*
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory*
Unsatisfactory
Excellent
Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory *
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory *
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
*The summative rating will be dependent upon discussion and review of
documentation at the summative conference.
Resolving Rating
Discrepancies
If a teacher should receive an excellent
rating in one area and unsatisfactory rating in
the other, the Framework and Student
Growth rating shall be carefully reviewed
before a final summative rating is
determined.
If additional anomalies should surface, they
can and will be addressed through the
continuing review during the implementation
process.
15
Joint Evaluation Committee
Monitoring
Each Districtwide programmatic anomaly will
be reviewed by the Joint Evaluation
Committee.
If a problem exists, corrective action will be
taken by the Committee.
When appropriate, summative ratings that
were affected by an identified problem will be
modified in keeping with the corrective action.
16