2017 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: Oregon requires that teachers discuss the results of their evaluations in "post-evaluation interviews."
Professional Development: Oregon requires professional growth plans based on its summative evaluation matrix from the state's teacher evaluation system. Depending on a teacher's rating, he or she is assigned one of four plans: facilitative, collegial, consulting, or directed. The direction of each plan is aligned with findings from the evaluation.
Improvement Plans: Oregon requires that if a teacher's Student Learning and Growth (SLG) performance was rated a 1 or 2 (the lowest two ratings), the professional growth plan must "also include a focus on increasing the educator's overall aptitude in this measure."
Evaluation Rating Categories: Oregon requires four performance levels: Level 1 (lowest) to Level 4 (highest).
ORS 342.850, -.856 Oregon Matrix Model http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/educatoreffectiveness/oregon-matrix-model-for-educator-evaluation.docx
As a result of Oregon's strong linking of evaluation to professional growth policies, no recommendations are provided.
Oregon noted that it has changed its policy on use of SLG scores in determining the rating. Districts now have discretion to determine how SLGs are considered in determining the overall rating for an educator.
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.