Frequency of Evaluations: Oregon
Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Oregon's policies
Oregon does not ensure that all teachers are evaluated annually.
Guidelines endorsed as part of the ESEA waiver process require summative evaluations every year for probationary teachers and at least every two years for contract teachers.
Regulations also require new teachers in Oregon to be formally evaluated once a year. As part of the state's process, they must be observed at least twice annually; however, Oregon does not indicate when these observations should occur or whether teachers are offered any immediate feedback regarding their performance.
Recommendations for Oregon
Require annual formal evaluations for all teachers.
All teachers in Oregon should be evaluated annually. Rather than treated as mere formalities, these teacher evaluations should serve as important tools for rewarding good teachers, helping average teachers improve and holding weak teachers accountable for poor performance.
Base evaluations on multiple observations.
To guarantee that annual evaluations are based on an adequate collection of information, Oregon should require multiple observations for all teachers, even those who have nonprobationary status.
Ensure that new teachers are observed and receive feedback early in the school year.
It is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers. Oregon should ensure that its new teachers get the support they need, and that supervisors know early on which new teachers may be struggling or at risk for unacceptable levels of performance.
State response to our analysis
Oregon asserted that all teachers must have their two student learning and growth goals evaluated annually. Further, the two-year cycle requires formative evaluation and ongoing feedback. The state also noted that student learning and growth are incorporated into the summative evaluation using Oregon's matrix.
Last word
It does not appear that teachers are rated annually on student growth. According to the citation submitted by the state: "The evaluator and educator review the educator’s progress toward goals and/or performance against standards. This step includes three interdependent and critical parts: analysis of evidence, professional conversations, and professional growth. Both the educator and the observer analyze the evidence leading into a collaborative professional conversation. Feedback through professional conversations promotes awareness of growth that has occurred, and highlights professional growth needs. These conversations help the educator make adjustments in his/her practice and select relevant professional learning opportunities." Although ongoing feedback is certainly necessary, so, too, is an annual evaluation rating.
-
Oregon
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Annual evaluations
are standard practice in most professional jobs.
Although there has been much progress on this front
recently, about half of the states still do not mandate annual evaluations of
teachers who have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular
evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little to advance the
notion that teachers are professionals.
Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere
formalities rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, helping
average teachers improve and holding weak teachers accountable for poor
performance. State policy should reflect the importance of evaluations so that
teachers and principals alike take their consequences seriously.
Evaluations are
especially important for new teachers.
Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced
responsibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are
demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision decreases. Such is
seldom the case for new teachers, who generally have the same classroom
responsibilities as veteran teachers, including responsibility for the academic
progress of their students, but may receive limited feedback on their
performance. In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an
effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical that schools
and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers.
The state should specifically require that districts observe
new teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure that new
teachers get the support they need early and that supervisors know from the
beginning of the school year which new teachers (and which students) may be at
risk. Subsequent observations provide important data about the teacher's
ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the teacher's early years of
teaching can then be used as part of the performance-based evidence to make a
decision about tenure.
Frequency of Evaluations: Supporting Research
For
the frequency of evaluations in government and private industry, see survey
results from Hudson Employment Index's report: "Pay and Performance in
America: 2005 Compensation and Benefits Report" Hudson Group (2005).
For
research emphasizing the importance of evaluation and observations for new
teachers in predicting future success and providing support for teachers see,
D. Staiger and J. Rockoff, "Searching for Effective Teachers with Imperfect Information." Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 24, No. 3, Summer 2010, pp. 97-118.