In what may be a sign that the legislature is gaining a better understanding of the problems with implementing the new Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES), the Ohio Senate introduced a bill this week that reduces the impact of student achievement scores on a teacher’s evaluation while also reducing the amount of time principals would waste continually re-evaluating good teachers.

Senator Randy Gardner, along with co-sponsors including Senator Peggy Lehner, the chair of the Senate Education Committee, introduced Senate Bill 229 this week that contains three significant changes to the evaluation process.

The first important change is a reduction in the required percentage that student growth (as measured by standardized tests) would be applied to a teacher’s overall evaluation.  Current law requires that student test results (based on a couple of tests given a few days out of the entire year) contribute 50% of a teacher’s final rating.  Additionally, if the teacher only teaches math or reading in grades 4-8, that 50% would be comprised entirely of value-added data — based on assessments that the Ohio Department of Education stated are not intended to be used for teacher evaluation (this FAQ has since been removed from the ODE site).  The bill proposes to cut that requirement down to 35%, a fairly significant drop.  Considering the fact that the new evaluation system hasn’t even completed its first full year of implementation, this change must be reflective of conversations and, dare we say it, perhaps even some rational thinking on the part of the legislators.  The bill does allow a school district to add the additional 15% back into the process, but seeing as how most professional educators, and even Battelle for Kids, the state’s value-added experts, recognize the flaws of using standardized tests for evaluative purposes and the fact that less than half of Ohio’s educators actually have standardized test data (i.e., math and reading in grades 4-8), we consider it highly unlikely that districts will be anxious to up the percentage.

The next two changes would also seem to benefit districts while honoring teachers who are performing their jobs at a high level.

Teachers who receive the highest rating available, Accomplished, were originally given the benefit of being evaluated every other year, but the new bill increases that to once every three years.  This change reduces the amount of time principals will have to spend completing the laborious and time-intensive evaluation process for teachers who have demonstrated that they are, as the title of the rating clearly states, doing a fantastic job.  Accomplished teachers, based on the OTES rubric, typically are demonstrating leadership qualities that go above and beyond their classroom duties, so this change should also free up some time for these teachers to better exercise their leadership abilities within their schools.

In another positive step, SB 229 changes the requirement for a Skilled teacher from an annual evaluation to one that would occur every other year.  Skilled is the second highest overall rating a teacher can receive, which basically means they are performing their duties as a classroom teacher at a high level as expected, though they may not be described as a leader in their school.  This rating is what the majority of Ohio’s hard-working teachers are expected to receive, as the criteria on the OTES rubric essentially describe everything a classroom teacher should be doing.    Again, this change honors the work of teachers who are doing a great job and further frees up school administrators from the absurdly time-intensive process of continually evaluating these great teachers every single year.

Time has been one of the major criticisms of this new system.  With the evaluation process expected to add an additional five hours of time to a principal’s work schedule for each teacher being evaluated, districts were already trying to figure out how to support principals who would now be spending weeks on the process of conducting evaluations and completing paperwork for teachers that have demonstrated that they are practicing their craft at a high level.  Others have estimated that the new process would triple the amount of time a principal must spend exclusively on teacher evaluations — a clear waste.

It’s encouraging to see these types of reasonable changes occurring in the Senate Education Committee where much of the process has been driven legislatively, as it reflects a willingness to dial back some of the overbearing requirements in a manner that benefits schools, even if only for correcting the ridiculous amount of time principals and teachers would have spent on the process.

If the new evaluation system is truly going to be accepted as a model for helping teachers improve their practice and not as a “gotcha” system seeking to catch teachers doing something wrong and trying to fire them, then modifications like this must continue to occur at the legislative level, and it’s our experience that Senator Lehner is one of the few who may be willing to listen to reasonable arguments and even modify laws that she helped to initially create (as is the case here).

We encourage you to read SB229, consider its changes to the OTES, and then contact Senator Lehner with your feedback and/or support of these changes, as well as your experiences with the new evaluation system so far this school year.

Senator Lehner’s contact information can be found on her website:


Tagged with:
  • calas500

    Yes, it’s ALL ABOUT helping legislators, PARENTS, school boards, etc. to GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the real issues. On the surface, things like school choice, teacher accountability, charters, and standards all sound like wonderful ideas to a lay person. The devil is in the details. What does that look like? How does this really work? Stakeholders need to educate themselves, and fast.

  • Sarah Shu

    Now… If they could just provide a video of at least one teacher rated “Accomplished” for us to watch teaching a lesson, that would be swell. When I went through the OTES training last year, I was told they didn’t have footage of that.

  • hawleyla

    Actually, the difference between an “Accomplished” and “Skilled” teacher is based entirely on the student growth measure, under the current law. If you download the training materials, you will see on the “Look up” table for the final rating that the only way to get an “Accomplished” rating is if the students make more than 1 year’s growth – it has nothing to do with the teacher’s leadership ability. Now, I am assuming that this would change with the new law, but I’m not sure how that would happen. I would guess that they would have to make a new “Look Up” table to determine the final rating.

  • gregmild

    You are correct about that in the final rating and the apparent need to revise the final table if this bill becomes law. I was referring to the main teacher performance rubric differences between skilled and accomplished.

  • hawleyla

    Oh, I see. I thought that the timetable in the new bill for re-evaluating skilled and accomplished teachers was based on the overall rating, not just the teacher performance portion. It doesn’t help that they use the same labels for teacher performance and for overall rating.

  • ohiomom

    So if a student in grade 3 gets a perfect or close OAA score, how is the 4th grade teacher showing one year growth? Is some other student growth measure used? I know the evals have taken so much principal time that could be better spent on so many other things directly affecting the kids. Just curious.

  • gregmild

    The calculation of growth is based on the average of the entire group of students, not just one. Essentially, the teacher has to maintain the overall group’s place on the normal curve equivalent based on their overall mean score. By maintaining their position on the curve on the next year’s (higher grade) test, the teacher is labeled as having moved the group one year in one year’s time. That’s the basic mathematical perspective.

    Since it is always based on a curve of statewide results, there will always be students at the top and students at the bottom, meaning that even if the lowest performing students begin to exceed, if the upper students progress at the same pace, the bottom students (and their teachers and schools) will always be at the bottom of the curve. It’s this aspect of VA being based on a normal curve that essentially undermines the use of the calculations as a legitimate tool for evaluation. The bottom line is that it’s a system that does not allow everyone to excel — it’s always based on a curve.

  • Kelly Ann Lough Braun

    Join us @BadassTeachersA #evaluatethat ……. to hear the things teachers are doing that CAN NOT be evaluated….. it is inspiring and AMAZING… is JUST a sample…..

  • carrieee4

    However my school used map scores for our student growth portion of the evaluation. All students could show a years growth. The growth was a projected rate of growth each student needed to meet so that even if the student was at the lowest end of the scores and was considered at the lowest category they could still show a years growth even though they remained at that low end. That only works that way I think for grades K-2 because 3 and up had to use OAA scores from last year. However I do not feel that even this is right or good. We were to have our end of the year tests for this in March The beginning of March. No matter how they adjust for the rate of improvement I do not feel you should evaluate a student for end of year growth until the end of the year. We lucked out and used last years Value Added for 40% of our score. We just took our end of year tests and I will tell you my kids scored better than if we would have done the test In March almost less than 6 weeks between the winter test and what would have been our end of year test. There is just so much wrong with this portion of teacher evaluations. Have evaluations but lets do it right and with respect to the profession. Really do lawyers and Doctors get evaluated? Like this? No? Huh?

  • carrieee4

    Teaching the lesson is only a part really I feel a very small part of
    the evaluation. Watching a lesson I do not feel would do what you
    would want…Look at the rubric…. Most of the stuff has to be in your
    lesson plans and how you do other things then just a lesson.And the OTES training I got was about 1 hour long and we were told very few would get accomplished and it was written to be that way… This was from the guy from the state!

  • Sarah Shu

    My point was really more about them rolling out a scoring system that even they had trouble explaining and showing examples of. I did a day long training and had to dissect a few videos of lessons being taught – but none were at the top “accomplished” level rating. I felt like they had thrown the paper airplane before they folded the paper!

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!