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.
Evaluation Feedback: Ohio requires that teachers receive written reports of their evaluation
results. A final review and conference is considered best practice but is not required.
Professional Development: Ohio requires evaluation systems to provide for "professional development to accelerate and continue teacher growth and provide support to poorly performing teachers."
Improvement Plans: Ohio requires that teachers with accomplished, skilled, and developing ratings are placed on professional growth plans; those with ineffective ratings are placed on improvement plans.
Evaluation Rating Categories: Ohio requires the following four-scale rating system: accomplished, skilled, developing and ineffective.
Teacher Performance http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Teacher-Performance-Ratings ORC 3319.112
Require that evaluation systems provide teachers with feedback about their performance.
Although Ohio requires teachers to receive copies of their evaluations, this only ensures that teachers will receive their ratings, not necessarily feedback on their performance. Ohio should specify that teachers should receive specific feedback on identified strengths and areas that need improvement.
Ohio was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis.
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.