What types of feedback do states require for evaluations?
Written feedback only: AR, IL, MD, NE, NM, PA, WY
In-Person Feedback only: CT, DE, GA, HI, KY, LA, ME, MS, NC, TN, TX, WI
Written and In-Person Feedback: AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN, KS, NV, NJ, OH, OK, OR, SC, UT, VA, WA, WV
Feedback required but not specified: ID, MA, MI, MO, NY, ND, RI, SD
No feedback required: AL, AK, DC, IA, MN, MT, NH, VT
Footnotes
AR Teachers are offered the opportunity for in-person feedback, but it is not required.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
OK Feedback must be provided "in-person or virtually to match the structure of the school day."
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
WV The teacher reviews the evaluation online.
Do states require teachers with less-than-effective ratings to be placed on improvement plans?
Yes: AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, UT, VA, WA, WV
No: AL, CA, DE, DC, KS, KY, MT, NH, NM, ND, OK, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY
Footnotes
AK Districts must provide support for rating of basic on two or more content standards or other criteria, unless the district is "non retaining" the teacher.
DE Professional growth goals are now embedded in the evaluation system for all teachers. New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
MA Educators rated Needs Improvement are placed on a Directed Growth Plan and educators rated Unsatisfactory are placed on an Improvement Plan.
MO Although the state does not specify an evaluation rating, state policy indicates, "Ineffective educators are those demonstrating sustained periods lacking desired growth as documented by unsatisfactory evaluations. These educators receive targeted interventions and support to encourage ongoing formative development."
NV Although Nevada does not utilize improvement plans, state statute indicates that evaluations systems must include, "Recommendations for improvements in the performance of the teacher and a description of the action that will be taken to assist the teacher…"
OR State policy indicates that a program of assistance to remedy a deficiency such as "inadequate performance." But does not specify a specific performance level.
SC Any indicators rated "Unsatisfactory" must be addressed in the following year in an annual or continuing contract teacher's professional growth and development plan. But it is not based on an overall evaluation rating.
SD Although the state does not use evaluation ratings for improvement plan determinations, state policy stipulates that plans of assistance are required for any non-probationary teacher "whose performance does not meet the school district's standards."
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
WA Teachers with more than five years of experience who have received a Basic level rating in two years are put on an improvement plan.
DO STATES REQUIRE THAT TEACHER EVALUATIONS INFORM TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
Yes. State requires that evaluations inform professional development for all teachers.: AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WV, WY
Partially. State requires that evaluations inform professional development for teachers who earn unsatisfactory evaluation ratings.: IL, IN, WA
No. State does not require that evaluations inform professional development.: AL, AK, CA, DC, ID, KS, MD, MO, MT, NE, NH, ND, PA, TX, VT, WI
Footnotes
AK Districts have the option to develop professional growth plans in consultation with teachers. Teachers receiving a rating of basic on two or more standards may be placed on a professional growth plan.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
UT While the state stipulates professional development for all teachers based on evaluation results, the state also provides support to educators "who do not meet expectations" which may include, "setting timelines and benchmarks to assist educators toward greater improved instructional effectiveness and student achievement."
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
How many evaluation rating categories do states' systems require?
Less than three or unspecified: AL, CA, DC, IA, MN, MO, MT, NE, NH, ND, TX, VT, WI, WY
Three : ID, MD, SD
Four : AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, WA, WV
Five: NC, OK, TN
Footnotes
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
ID A fourth rating of "distinguished" is optional
MD The state explicitly allows four ratings categories.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
Updated: November 2022
Select another topic
Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Requirements
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Requirements
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Teacher Diversity
Hiring
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Early Childhood Preparation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Research rationale
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.
[1] For evidence of the benefits of feedback from evaluation systems, and the potential for professional development surrounding that feedback, see: Kane, T. J., Wooten, A. L., Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness. Education Next, 11(3). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_20113_research_kane.pdf; Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2011). The effect of evaluation on performance: Evidence from longitudinal student achievement data of mid-career teachers (No. w16877). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16877
[2] Much professional development, particularly those that are not aligned to specific feedback from teacher evaluations, has been found to be ineffective. For evidence see: Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., Walters, K., ... & Sepanik, S. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114024/pdf/20114024.pdf
[3] For additional evidence regarding best practices for professional development, see: Neville, K. S., & Robinson, C. J. (2003). The delivery, financing, and assessment of professional development in education: Pre-service preparation and in-service training. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482979
[4] Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf