District presents 2024-25 aggregate teacher and principal evaluation results; board asks to review data measures

The Creighton School District presented its required aggregate classification of teacher and principal effectiveness for the 2024-25 school year at a public board meeting.

Dr. Lohr (presenter) told trustees that teacher evaluations combine an observation component, scored on the Danielson rubric, with a data component that the presenter described as 67% observations and 33% data. Within the data portion staff said 70% of that 33% is growth and 30% is achievement on the district's chosen measures. For classrooms with state-linked assessments the district uses Illuminate DNA for grades 3—; other positions use locally developed academic progress plans and site-level measures where appropriate.

What the report showed: For the most recent year the presenter provided an aggregate breakdown (certified teachers): a share rated highly effective, a share rated effective, a small share developing and zero rated ineffective in the teacher aggregate presented. For principals the presenter said last year showed a different distribution: a majority rated effective, with a notable portion rated developing and a smaller share rated ineffective.

Board discussion: Trustees asked for procedural clarifications (who conducts observations, how many observations are required) and about the distribution of ratings. In response staff said qualified evaluators'typically principals or assistant principals trained on the rubric'conduct formal observations. Probationary teachers (those in their first three years) are required to receive two formal observations per year; continuing teachers receive a minimum of one, with additional observations available on request or at the evaluator's direction. The presenters noted that the district is reviewing the data measures used in evaluations and planned to bring recommended changes to the board in October, including possible adjustments to the growth/achievement weighting and expansion of interim measures such as FastBridge to cover earlier grades.

Why it matters: The evaluation framework both informs professional-development priorities and is tied to pay-for-performance and administrative evaluation processes. Board members raised questions about how evaluations reflect classroom practice and student growth and about consistency across schools.

Ending: The presentation was informational. Staff said the district will return with proposed adjustments to evaluation measures and with additional detail about non-state-assessed positions and the evaluation committee's work.