The contract cites the goal of building “principals’ and/or teacher leaders’ expertise in observing and analyzing instruction and supporting teacher development;” engaging “teachers in reflection and self-assessment; and providing “teachers with information and guidance to inform their development.” It requires that evaluators complete training and establishes a summative teacher evaluation system that leverages multiple measures of performance, including student growth scores, which must comprise 30% of a teachers’ rating. It contemplates year-to-year improvement of the teacher evaluation system through a joint district-union teacher evaluation committee, which studies implementation and recommends changes. It’s worth noting that researchers have found evidence of racial bias in Chicago’s evaluation system, primarily as a result of teachers of color being concentrated in the most challenging school settings, indicating that improvement to the system is still needed.

San Diego’s teacher evaluation approach considers not only traditional instructional strategies but a suitable learning environment and student progress. It also requires that teachers who do not achieve satisfactory ratings receive access to resources such as peer coaching, assistance from a mentor teacher, or release time to observe other teachers.

A stated goal of performance evaluations is to “provide feedback in order to drive continuous improvement to instruction and enable educators to develop as professionals.” It requires the creation of an annual “Fairness Guide” meant to make the process transparent for teachers. It also encourages continuous improvement through an annual teacher survey about the process. A Council advises the District on the evaluation system’s “fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and professional quality.”

Teachers’ performance on their annual evaluation is used to determine advancement on a career ladder that compensates teachers based on their development and impact on students.

Teachers’ performance on their annual evaluation is used to determine advancement and compensation on a five-tier career ladder.

The contract includes a career ladder that connects evaluation to both compensation and teacher leadership opportunities. Teachers’ summative evaluation ratings from the prior year determine advancement on the salary scale. In addition, teacher leadership roles are created for instructional coaching and are compensated and evaluated in alignment with additional responsibilities.

Baltimore’s career pathways system links advancement directly to a teacher’s annual performance evaluation. Teachers who receive a highly effective rating can earn an extra year’s worth of credit on the salary schedule, moving from the “Standard Pathway” to the “Professional Pathway.” Additionally, Model Teachers who receive “Developing” or “Ineffective” evaluations are not eligible for interval movement until they have proficient/highly effective evaluations for 3 out of 5 years.

DC law prohibits bargaining over teacher evaluation, and the contract notes that the district has express authority over the process. The contract’s provisions around performance-based compensation touch on evaluation, while leaving the creation of the evaluation system to the discretion of the district in collaboration with the union. It notes that the performance-based pay system must be created to support improved academic achievement, and must set instructional and performance standards. It notes that, “The best programs are easily understood and focus on causal effect,” thus indicating that the district and union should create a pay structure that clearly connects to teacher impact in the classroom.