The data and analysis on this page is from 2019. View and download the most recent policy data and analysis on Linking Evaluation to Professional Growth in Maryland from the State of the States 2022: Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies report.
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 remained consistent between 2017 and 2019.
Evaluation Feedback: Maryland requires that teachers receive written evaluation reports following an evaluation.
Professional Development: Maryland's evaluation process does not specify that professional development be linked to evaluation findings.
Improvement Plans: Maryland requires that evaluation systems developed by districts include "focused professional development, resources, and a mentoring component" for teachers rated ineffective or nontenured teachers.
Evaluation Rating Categories: Maryland requires a minimum of three rating levels: highly effective, effective and ineffective.
COMAR 13A.07.09 Guidebook: http://archives.marylandpublicschools.org/tpe/TPE_Guidance_Version3_092013.pdf
Require that evaluation systems provide teachers with feedback about their performance.
Although Maryland requires teachers to receive copies of their evaluations, this only ensures that teachers will receive their ratings, not necessarily feedback on their performance. Maryland should specify that teachers should receive specific feedback on identified strengths and areas that need improvement.
Ensure that professional development is aligned with findings from teachers' evaluations.
Professional development that is not informed by evaluation results may be of little value to teachers' professional growth and the aim of increasing their effectiveness in the classroom. Maryland should make it mandatory that districts utilize teacher evaluation results in determining professional development needs and activities for all teachers. Professional development should be available to all teachers.
Maryland noted that it provides evaluator training that addresses actionable feedback and providing actionable feedback will be included as a requirement in revised regulations. With regard to linking professional development to evaluations, Maryland indicated that this will be addressed in revised regulations. Beginning in 2018-2019 school year, Maryland noted that in the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) rubric, a new category of "developing" was included.
NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's future progress in polices around Linking Evaluations to Professional Growth.
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. 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.
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.
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. More rating categories allow for more nuanced distinctions between levels of teacher performance.