Nearly 99% of public school teachers graded ‘proficient’ or better – Idaho Education News

Report on Idaho Teacher Performance Evaluations and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the 2024-25 teacher performance evaluation data for the state of Idaho, with a specific focus on its implications for achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education). Data released by the Idaho State Board of Education indicates that 98.7% of the 20,327 public school teachers evaluated were rated as “proficient” or “distinguished.” This high level of reported teacher competency is a critical indicator for ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education. However, the report also examines systemic factors within the evaluation process that impact SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

2024-25 Evaluation Data Overview

Annual performance evaluations are mandatory for teachers in Idaho’s school districts and charter schools. These assessments are integral to professional certification, salary advancements, and state funding allocations. The evaluation framework assesses educators across multiple domains, including instructional planning, classroom environment, and professional responsibilities, using a four-tier rating system.

Statewide Performance Ratings

The comprehensive results for the 2024-25 school year are as follows:

• Distinguished: 8,844 teachers (43.5%)
• Proficient: 11,213 teachers (55.2%)
• Basic: 247 teachers (1.2%)
• Unsatisfactory: 23 teachers (0.1%)

District and Charter School Proficiency Levels

Analysis of the 188 districts and charters with available data reveals a consistent trend of high performance ratings:

• 179 institutions reported at least 90% of teachers as proficient or better.
• 162 institutions reported at least 95% of teachers as proficient or better.
• 98 institutions reported 100% of teachers as proficient or better.

The state’s five largest school districts demonstrated similarly high proficiency rates:

• West Ada: 99%
• Boise: 99.4%
• Bonneville: 99.3%
• Nampa: 99.1%
• Pocatello: 99.4%

Analysis of Findings in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

The evaluation outcomes have significant implications for several key SDGs.

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   The overwhelmingly positive evaluation results suggest that Idaho possesses a highly qualified teaching workforce, which is fundamental to achieving Target 4.c: increasing the supply of qualified teachers. A proficient educator base is the primary driver of quality learning outcomes. However, concerns have been raised that the direct link between positive evaluations and state funding may lead to inflated ratings. Such inflation could mask underlying challenges and hinder authentic progress toward ensuring a truly high-quality education for all students.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   The evaluation system is intrinsically linked to teachers’ career progression and remuneration, which are core components of decent work. The structure is intended to reward performance and support professional growth. A significant challenge arises when performance ratings are uniformly high, as this diminishes the evaluation’s utility as a tool for meaningful salary differentiation. This can impact the goal of providing fair compensation and recognizing outstanding professional merit, which are essential for retaining a motivated and effective workforce.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   The consistent high proficiency rates across Idaho’s diverse school districts, including the largest urban centers, point toward a standardized level of teaching quality. This uniformity is crucial for providing equitable educational opportunities to all students, regardless of their geographic or socioeconomic background, thereby contributing to the reduction of inequalities in educational outcomes. To fully realize this goal, it is imperative that the evaluation system accurately reflects teacher effectiveness and supports targeted professional development where it is most needed.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   The article is fundamentally about the quality of education in Idaho’s public schools. It focuses on the performance evaluations of teachers, which is a primary mechanism for assessing and ensuring the quality of instruction. The entire discussion revolves around the proficiency and effectiveness of educators, which is a cornerstone of providing quality education to students.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article connects teacher performance directly to their economic conditions. It states that “Performance evaluations affect teachers’ ability to maintain a certificate and get raises.” The tension described, where high proficiency rates for everyone make individual raises less likely, touches upon fair compensation and the economic incentives tied to their work, which are key components of decent work.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This goal is relevant because the article examines the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the institutions responsible for education. It highlights systemic issues within the teacher evaluation process, such as the incentive for administrators to “hand out positive grades” to increase state funding. Furthermore, it mentions past instances where superintendents were “reprimanded for submitting inaccurate evaluation data,” pointing directly to issues of accountability and the need for strong, transparent institutions.

2. Specific SDG Targets

1. Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers…

   The article directly addresses the “qualified” aspect of this target. The evaluation system, which grades teachers on instruction, planning, and professional responsibilities, is a tool to measure and maintain the quality of the teacher workforce. The data showing that “98.7% earned grades of proficient or better” is presented as a measure of the current qualification and performance level of teachers in Idaho.

2. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all… and equal pay for work of equal value.

   This target is relevant through the article’s discussion of teacher pay. The evaluation system is intended to link performance (a measure of the “value” of work) to compensation (“raises”). However, the article suggests this link is flawed, noting that “when almost everyone gets the same grade, a positive evaluation is less likely to result in a raise.” This points to a challenge in achieving pay structures that reflect the value of work, a key element of decent work.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article critiques the effectiveness and transparency of the teacher evaluation system. The concern that ratings “will likely be inflated as long as raises are tied to evaluations” questions the system’s effectiveness. The mention of superintendents being reprimanded for “submitting inaccurate evaluation data” is a clear example of a breakdown in accountability and transparency, highlighting the need to develop more robust and honest institutional processes.

3. Mentioned or Implied Indicators

1. Indicator for Target 4.c: Percentage of teachers rated as ‘proficient’ or ‘distinguished’.

   The article is built around this specific indicator. It explicitly states the statewide totals and percentages for each performance grade: “Distinguished — 8,844 (43.5%)” and “Proficient — 11,213 (55.2%).” The combined figure, “98.7% earned grades of proficient or better,” is used throughout the text as the primary metric for measuring teacher quality.

2. Indicator for Target 8.5: The link between performance evaluation results and salary increases.

   While not a formal metric with a number, this is an implied indicator of the system’s success. The article suggests this link is weak or non-functional, stating a positive evaluation is “less likely to result in a raise” due to the high number of teachers receiving top grades. The effectiveness of this link is a key measure of whether the system provides decent work incentives.

3. Indicator for Target 16.6: Incidents of inaccurate data submission and institutional reprimands.

   The article provides a concrete indicator of institutional failure by mentioning that “the Idaho Professional Standards Commission reprimanded two past superintendents for submitting inaccurate evaluation data.” This serves as a direct measure of a lack of accountability and transparency within the educational institutions being discussed.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: idahoednews.org