Am I nervous? Nope. Not because I'm confident, but because the system is pretty well rigged so that (almost) all teachers will end up with a 2, aka proficient. Our building level data is good, though not amazing, our observations are solid, though not perfect, and while close to 90% of my students "met the goal" of the SLO...the magic number for a "3" is 95%. Talking to my colleagues, many are in the same situation as well. I don't know a teacher out there who doesn't have a failure rate of 5%-10%. If you only have three kids in a class of 30 coming up short, then you're still doing pretty well. (Disclaimer: this blog post is not advocating that failing kids is good...but it happens.)
Besides all of that, the notion that teacher-quality can be quantified at all is ridiculous. I don't mean that in a "no one can possibly understand that passion and dedication we poor meager teachers pour into our craft daily!" way, but in a strictly logical way. The percentages, calculations, algorithms, spreadsheets, and "data" all designed to arrive a single number for each teacher isn't based on science...but convenience. There's no scientific consensus that, on a daily basis, 15% of a teacher's worth can be measured by their students' ability to score well on a standardized exam. It's just a number that sounded nice, was negotiated by committees and politicians, and put into practice. While it is the "law" and the reality of the situation, I think we all take comfort in knowing that it doesn't really have any true meaning.
So let's see what happens! Time to go plug in some SLO numbers. Who knows, maybe I'll sneak away with a 3...but if not, I'll be comfortable at "Proficient". Everyone else will be too.