• Determining Performance Ratings

     
    Ratings Related to Professional Practice (Danielson)

    The District Evaluation Committee (DEC) recommended the use of the Decision Rules model for determining domain and summative ratings because this method encourages collaboration and dialogue among teachers and observers.  It is teacher-friendly and is consistent with PERA, IEA and Danielson.  This method is also consistent with the way in which a teacher’s Grouping is determined as a result of the evaluation process.  Lastly, this method is progressive in that it is a standards-based model for performance.

     

    The Decision Rules operates on a set of principles that set the parameters for determining a teacher’s practice rating.  These rules apply to both teachers and support staff frameworks.

     

    Domain Ratings – It Takes 3! Components

    The principles for determining each domain rating are outlined below.  Ratings are based on evidence and artifacts gathered during the evaluation process.

    • Excellent (E): An educator should receive a domain rating of “excellent” if the educator has received “excellent” ratings in at least half of the components of the domain, with the remaining components rated no lower than “proficient.
    • Proficient (P): An educator should receive a domain rating of “proficient” if the educator received no more than one component rated “needs improvement,” with the remaining components rated “proficient” or “excellent.
    • Needs Improvement (NI): An educator should receive a domain rating of “needs improvement” if the educator received more than one “needs improvement” component rating.
    • Unsatisfactory (U): An educator should receive a domain rating of “unsatisfactory” if one component in the domain is rated “unsatisfactory.”

     

    Excellent
    Proficient
    Half of the components rated excellent with rest proficient
    3/6  (Domains 1 and 4) or
    3/5 (Domains 2 and 3)
    Only one component rated needs improvement with rest proficient or excellent
    Needs Improvement
    Unsatisfactory
    More than one component rated needs improvement
    One or more components rated unsatisfactory
     
    Summative Practice Ratings
    It Takes 3! Domains

    The principles for determining a teacher’s overall performance are outlined below.  Ratings are based on evidence and artifacts gathered during the evaluation process.  A teacher's professional practice rating will comprise 70% of his/her overall evaluation rating, as determined by the PERA Joint Committee.

    • Excellent (E): A teacher should receive a final practice rating of “excellent” if three (3) out of four (4) domains are rated “excellent” with remaining domain rated “proficient.”
    • Proficient (P): A teacher should receive a final practice rating of “proficient” if no more than one domain is rated “needs improvement,” with remaining domains rated at “proficient” or “excellent.”
    • Needs Improvement (NI): A teacher should receive a final practice rating of “needs improvement” if one domain is rated “unsatisfactory” or if more than one domain is rated “needs improvement."
    • Unsatisfactory (U): A teacher should receive a final practice rating of “unsatisfactory” if more than one domain is rated “unsatisfactory.”

     

    Excellent

    Proficient

    3 out of 4 domains rated excellent with rest rated proficient

    One domain rated needs improvement with rest proficient or excellent

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

    One domain rated unsatisfactory OR

    More than one domain rated needs improvement

    More than one domain rated unsatisfactory

     
    Ratings Related to Student Growth 
    The PERA Joint Committee determined how a teacher's performance is calculated based on the percentage of students showing growth in both Type I/II and Type II Assessments.  The Joint Committee also determined a teacher's overall Student Growth rating by combining results from the Type I/II and Type III Assessments.  A teacher's performance related to student growth will comprise 30% of his/her overall evaluation rating with each type of assessment making up half of the total performance.
     
    Illustrated below are the performance ratings based on the percentage of students showing growth.  These performance ratings are the same for Type I/II and Type III Assessments. 
     

    Performance Rating:

    Percentage of Students Showing Growth:

    Excellent

    80% - 100% of students met the growth target(s).

    Proficient

    60% - 79% of students met the growth target(s).

    Needs Improvement

    40% - 59% of students met the growth target(s).

    Unsatisfactory

    Less than 40% of students met the growth target(s).


    Combining Data to Determine the Student Growth Rating 
    The Performance Evaluation Reform Act (2010) requires districts to combine student achievement results from two types of assessments in order to determine a teacher’s overall student growth rating, which will make up 30% of a teacher’s performance evaluation.  The following matrix will be used to determine a teacher’s overall student growth rating.  

    Note: For the first two years of implementation, 2015-16 and 2016-17, a teacher may choose to give only one Type III assessment.  If only one (1) assessment is used, that assessment will count for the 30% Student Growth Rating.  If this is the case, the teacher should refer to the chart above for his/her overall student growth rating.
     

    Second Assessment (Type III) (15%)

     

    First Assessment (Type I/II or Type III) (15%)

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

    Excellent

    Excellent

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

     
    Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (Danielson + Student Growth)
    The Performance Evaluation Reform Act (2010) requires districts to combine a teacher’s professional practice with student growth data in order to determine a teacher’s overall performance rating.  As part of District 228’s Performance Evaluation Plan, student growth will account for 30% of the overall summative rating while the remaining 70% will come from a teacher’s performance on the Danielson Framework for Professional Practice.
     

    Student Growth Data (30%)

     

    Professional Practice – Danielson (70%)

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

    Excellent

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Proficient

    Excellent

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Proficient

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory

    Unsatisfactory

    Proficient

    Needs Improvement

    Needs Improvement

    Unsatisfactory