Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy
The state should ensure that teachers receive feedback about their performance and should require professional development to be based on needs identified through teacher evaluations. This goal was reorganized in 2017.
Louisiana, New York, and North Carolina all sufficiently link teacher evaluation to professional growth. In Louisiana, all teachers are required to participate in post-observation conferences with their evaluators, and districts are required to provide teachers with multiple opportunities for feedback throughout the school year. New York's evaluation feedback includes data on student growth as well as training on how teachers can use these data to improve instruction. North Carolina requires feedback following each classroom observation as well as summary evaluation conferences. All three states require that professional development be linked with evaluation results and that teachers rated less than effective be placed on improvement plans. Louisiana and New York require four rating categories; North Carolina requires five.
Yes. State requires that teachers receive formal, substantive feedback. : AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV
No. State does not require formal, substantive feedback; however, teachers receive copies of their evaluations.: AK, ID, MD, NV, OH, PA, WY
No. State does not require formal, substantive feedback.: AL, DC, IA, MN, MT, NE, NH, VT
Yes: AK, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, WA, WV
No : AL, AR, CA, DC, KS, KY, MT, ND, NH, NV, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY
Footnotes
AZ: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
FL: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
IL: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
ME: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
MS: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
NM: Does not require improvement plans for all less-than-effective teachers; just those in the lowest rating category.
SD: South Dakota requires improvement plans only for teachers rated unsatisfactory who have been teaching for four years or more.
Yes. State requires that evaluations inform professional development for all teachers.: AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV, WY
Partially. State requires that evaluations inform professional development for teachers who earn unsatisfactory evaluation ratings. : IL, IN, TX
No. State does not require that evaluations inform professional development.: AK, AL, CA, DC, ID, KS, MD, MO, MT, NE, NH, NV, OK, PA, UT, VT, WA, WI
Less than three or unspecified: AL, CA, DC, MT, NE, NH, VT, WI
Three : ID, KS, MD, MN, MO, SD
Four : AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MS, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY
Footnotes
MO: "Multiple" rating categories are required.
WI: None; reports a teacher's practice and student outcomes scores on a graph, with the axes representing these two scores.
7D: Linking Evaluation to Professional Growth
Professional development should be connected to needs identified through teacher evaluations. The goal of teacher evaluation systems should be not just to identify highly effective teachers and those who underperform but to help all teachers improve. Even highly effective teachers may have areas where they can continue to grow and develop their knowledge and skills.[1] Rigorous evaluations should provide actionable feedback on teachers' strengths and weaknesses that can form the basis of professional development activities. Too often professional development is random rather than targeted to the identified needs of individual teachers. Failure to make the connection between evaluations and professional development squanders the likelihood that professional development will be meaningful.[2]
Many states are only explicit about tying professional development plans to evaluation results if the evaluation results are bad. Good evaluations with meaningful feedback should be useful to all teachers, and if done right should help design professional development plans for all teachers—not just those who receive poor ratings.[3]
To further increase the utility and validity of evaluation systems, states should require that evaluation instruments differentiate among various levels of teacher performance rather than only giving binary satisfactory/unsatisfactory ratings. Binary rating systems often offer little meaning because virtually all teachers receive satisfactory ratings.[4] More rating categories allow for more nuanced distinctions between levels of teacher performance.