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 remained consistent between 2017 and 2019.
Evaluation Feedback: Minnesota's evaluation default model provides ample opportunities for feedback between evaluator and teacher regarding evaluation results; however, the framework does not specify that teachers must receive copies of their evaluations or other feedback.
Professional Development: Minnesota requires that staff development activities be coordinated with "the evaluation process and teachers' evaluation outcomes."
Improvement Plans: Minnesota requires that teachers not meeting the standards evaluated under the state's evaluation framework are given "support to improve through a teacher improvement process that includes established goals and timelines."
Evaluation Rating Categories: Minnesota requires at least three performance levels.
Minnesota Statutes Section 122A.40 and Section 122A.41 Implementation Handbook: https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/edev/mod/
Require that evaluation systems provide teachers with feedback about their performance.
Minnesota should require that evaluation systems provide teachers with adequate feedback about strengths and areas that need improvement identified in their evaluations.
Minnesota added that its evaluation default model provides ample opportunities for feedback between evaluator and teacher regarding evaluation results. For example, "points of contact" must be 1) face-to-face, 2) documented, and 3) grounded in a teacher's individual growth and development plan.
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.