Educator Performance Evaluation

State boards of education have varying degrees of authority over performance evaluations for teachers and leaders. Policies governing performance standards are customized for state context, work in tandem with school and district accountability systems, and are reflective of federal regulations.

State Board of Education has the authority to make rules surrounding teacher training and certification due to its own executive order.

EDUCATEAlabama is Alabama's educator evaluation system.

Under statute, school districts are responsible for developing educator evaluation systems, but are guided by the Board of Education. The Board must follow the provisions provided in statute, but provides further guidance to local districts on the topic.

Under statute, school districts are responsible for developing educator evaluation systems, but are guided by the Board of Education. The Board must follow the provisions provided in statute, but provides further guidance to local districts on the topic.

Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-203(A)(38), first adopted in 2010 and subsequently amended. The Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness complies with all legal requirements of ARS § 15-203 (A)(38) while also providing LEAs with as much flexibility as possible to develop evaluation systems that meet their individual needs.

Arizona Revised Statute § 15-203(A)(38): The State Board of Education shall…”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty per cent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.

Under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-2801. Each public school shall implement the Teacher Excellence and Support System for all teachers employed at the public school under rules established by the State Board of Education. The Arkansas Department of Education Rules Governing the Teacher Excellence and Support System are enacted pursuant to the authority of the State Board of Education under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1504, 6-17-2804, and Act 709 of 2013.

The 2011 Arkansas General Assembly introduced and passed legislation to standardize comprehensive evaluation and support for licensed educators and non-licensed teachers employed in public charter schools under a waiver of teacher licensure requirements granted by the State Board of Education in the schools’ charters. In the 2013 Legislative Session the Teacher Excellence and Support System was amended. TESS provides statutory direction for reform of teacher and leader evaluation systems.

California doesn't have statewide comprehensive teacher evaluation system, due to EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44660-44665. 44660. "It is the intent of the Legislature that governing boards establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state, including schools conducted or maintained by county superintendents of education.

The Framework comes from the work of the CTA Teacher Evaluation Workgroup, which includes a broad cross section of local educators throughout California, State Council members, chapter presidents, higher education faculty and CTA staff. The Workgroup was created by the CTA Board of Directors upon recommendation of the CTA ESEA Workgroup in February 2010. The Workgroup was appointed by the CTA Board of Directors. It includes a cross section of local educators throughout California, State Council members, chapter presidents, higher education faculty and CTA staff. It also includes the Chairs and staff consultants from seven State Council committees.

According to C.R.S. 22-9-104, the Colorado State Board of Education is tasked with promulgating guidelines relating to the planning, development, implementation, and assessment of a licensed personnel performance evaluation system that may be followed by each school district and board of cooperative services within the state. In promulgating said guidelines, the state board shall allow each school district and board of cooperative services to involve and consult with the licensed personnel and citizens of the school district or districts.

These rules are promulgated pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 22-2-107 (1) (c), section 22- 9-104 (2) and section 22-9-105.5 (10). Senate Bill 10-191, codified at section 22-9-101, C.R.S., et seq. creates a system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel in school districts and boards of cooperative services throughout the state as a means of improving the quality of education in Colorado.

Public Act 12-116, An Act Concerning Education Reform, was pivotal in defining an annual performance evaluation system for administrators and teachers, based upon a new standard of effective practice. (a) The superintendent of each local or regional board of education shall continuously evaluate or cause to be evaluated each teacher, in accordance with guidelines established by the State Board of Education, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, [for the development of evaluation programs] and such other guidelines as may be established by mutual agreement between the local or regional board of education and the teachers' representative chosen pursuant to section 10-153b.

Beginning in November 2010, a Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) was formed to establish the CT Guidelines for Educator Evaluation. These Guidelines were approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) on June 27, 2012 and inform implementation of model teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems being piloted in districts throughout the state during the 2012-13 school year. CT’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED) is a model evaluation system that is aligned to the Guidelines. The new model defines four categories of teacher performance: student learning (45%), teacher performance and practice (40%), parent feedback (10%) and school-wide student learning or student feedback (5%). This model system is used annually to evaluate teachers.

General Assembly created the Delaware Professional Standards Board to work in conjunction with the Department of Education and the State Board of Education toward full implementation.

Department of Education. DPAS II is Delaware’s annual statewide educator evaluation system. As a statewide system, DPAS II establishes consistent educator and student performance expectations and outcomes across all schools. There are three versions of DPAS II: DPAS II for Teachers; DPAS II for Specialists; and DPAS II for Administrators. 50% of DPAS II is based on student performance measures.

IMPACT is the evaluation system for the nearly 6,500 school-based personnel in the DC Public Schools. DC Public Charter Schools are responsible for their own evaluation systems.

First introduced in 2009, IMPACT (DC Public Schools only) is designed to help staff become more effective by: Clarifying Expectations – IMPACT outlines clear performance expectations that are tailored to staff members’ specific job responsibilities. Providing Feedback and Support – Quality feedback is a key element to the improvement process, which is why IMPACT provides staff members with multiple opportunities to engage in conversations with their managers about strengths and areas for growth. IMPACT also provides data that helps instructional coaches, mentors, and other support personnel be more effective in their work. Retaining Great People – Having highly effective staff members in our schools helps everyone improve.

As set forth by the "Student Access Act" and the states' Race to the Top application, Florida teacher evaluations are designed to support effective instruction and student learning growth. The results from teacher evaluations are used when developing district and school level improvements plans. Also, the results are used to identify professional development and other human capital decisions for instructional personnel and school administrators. In order to reach the state-wide educational objectives, the law sets forth that teacher evaluations are to be based on sound educational principles and contemporary researched in effective practices in three major areas: the performance of students, instructional practice, and professional/job responsibilities.

As part of the Race to the Top Initiative (RT3), Georgia, in collaboration with RT3 Districts, educational partners, and the Evaluation Task Force Committee, developed a new effectiveness system for teacher evaluation and professional growth. In Spring 2012, Race to the Top Districts participated in a pilot of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. These 26 districts provided critical feedback and data that was used to revise and improve a new system designed for building teacher effectiveness throughout Georgia. The new Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) consists of multiple components, including the Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (TAPS), Surveys of Instructional Practice, and measures of Student Growth and Academic Achievement.

Requires Department to develop and implement an evaluation system. The state board has the authority to delegate responsibilities as noted in its powers and duties.

In collaboration with educators, the Department developed the Educator Effectiveness System (EES), a comprehensive evaluation system that sets clear expectations for effective teaching, provides educators with quality feedback and support, and informs professional development. The Department devoted extraordinary resources to develop the EES, which was designed with best practices in mind. At its core, the EES is designed to help teachers succeed, thereby elevating their profession, and ultimately, public education in Hawaii. 50% of the annual evaluation is based on student performance measures.

Requires assessment systems to be developed by local school districts, approved by State Boards of Education. The Legislature has the authority to assign tasks by law to the State Board in accordance with the State Board of Education's powers and duties.

The educator evaluation systems are to be developed by the districts of the state based upon guidance issued by the Department, and must be in compliance with the law passed by the legislature and rules passed by the SBE. 33% of the annual evaluations are to be based on student performance measures.

Requires State Board to report back to legislature the status of the evaluation system. The Legislature has the authority to prescribe duties to the State Board of Education as defined in the powers and duties of the State Board of Education.

The Teacher Performance Evaluation system intends to do the following: Apply best practices of teacher evaluation to the key parts of the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 and Senate Bill 7, as well as general requirements of Articles 24A and 34 of the Illinois School Code. PERA requires districts to design and implement performance evaluation systems. The Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC), is charged with providing input from educators to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and monitoring PERA's development and implementation. [The Illinois Framework for Teacher Performance Evaluation based 30% of the evaluation on student performance measures, and varies in frequency depending on the rating of the teacher.]

With the help of teachers and leaders throughout the state, the Indiana Department of Education has developed an optional model evaluation system named RISE. Whether or not corporations choose to implement RISE, the Department’s goal is to assist corporations in developing or adopting models that comply with Public Law 90 and are fair, credible, and accurate. Regardless of model or system, evaluations must: Be Annual: Every teacher, regardless of experience, deserves meaningful feedback on their performance on an annual basis; Include Student Growth Data: Evaluations should be student-focused. First and foremost, an effective teacher helps students make academic progress.

The State Board of Education is required to adopt standards and assessments to evaluate educators. Local boards of education and bargaining units may alter the standards and evaluations as determined to be reasonable. The legislature may delegate responsibilities to the State Board of Education in accordance to the powers and duties of the State Board.

Teachers are evaluated using a system developed on the local level. The annual teacher evaluation system must be aligned to and support the established criteria for the Iowa Teaching Standards. LEAs and AEAs must to determine what policies, procedures and processes are needed to support the Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria. A teacher evaluation system should be built around a range of sources of data, information, and processes that will demonstrate the teacher's mastery of the Iowa Teaching Standards.

The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and the Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards provide some guidance on what can be measured and a charge to remain focused on the educator’s responsibility in promoting the success of all learners. Using the InTASC and ISLLC standards as the foundation, the Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol System has identified key areas, or constructs, for evaluation of district leaders, building leaders and teachers. The evaluation of licensed personnel in Kansas is governed by KSA 72-9001 through 9006. The statute requires each local board of education to adopt written policies of personnel evaluation procedure.

Districts can use the Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP) or a locally developed tool. The system should be rigorous, transparent and equitable for all educators. Rigorous evaluation systems provide multiple opportunities for teacher or leader observations and data collection. The instrument mandates evidenced-based performance decisions described in judgment rubrics including: observations, valid/reliable student achievement data, artifacts and evidence of teaching and learning. Transparent systems require multiple opportunities for input by evaluator and staff being evaluated. The process of evaluation is collaborative. It includes self-reflection and goal setting, and it is reflective of a continuous improvement model.

Senate Bill 1 (2009) mandated change in Kentucky public school education including teacher evaluations. The Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) set the vision to have every student taught by an effective teacher and every school led by an effective principal and subsequently, every district led by an effective superintendent. To that end, the board established a goal to create a fair and equitable system to measure teacher and leader effectiveness. It is also a requirement under Kentucky's ESEA waiver.

Kentucky developed an educator evaluation system to help teachers reach their highest potential, meeting the INTASC-aligned Framework for Teaching Standards. The Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (TPGES) combined multiple measures to guide teachers to meet goals and improve their skills.

Requires the State Board of Education to promulgate rules around educator evaluation. The legislature has the authority to assign duties to the State Board of Education in accordance with the SBE's powers and duties.

Compass is Louisiana’s educator support and evaluation system designed to provide all educators with regular, meaningful feedback on their performance. This system promotes a cycle of continuous improvement by providing aligned resources that guide educators throughout the year. The annual evaluations are based 50% of student performance measures. Act 54 of the 2010 Regular Legislative Session revamped the process for evaluating teachers and Act 1 of the 2012 Regular Legislative Session built upon that progress with requirements that teachers be paid and retained based on their performance.

Passed by legislature, gives power to the State Board to adopt educator evaluation system

Maine developed the Model Teacher Performance Evaluation and Professional Growth (T- PEPG) in order to guide LEAs in the teacher evaluation process. LEAs may adopt the model system and use it as their own, modify it in some way, or use it to guide in the development in it's own system.

State Board of Education has full authority to adopt educator evaluations.

As part of Maryland’s third wave of School Reform and aligned to Race to the Top (RTTT) grant application guidance (Section D), Maryland identifies “Great Teachers and Leaders” as a centerpiece of this agenda. Maryland’s Teacher Principal Evaluation (TPE) initiative is a professional development strategy with the explicit aim to enhance and support the cadre of educators in the State who make college and career readiness a reality for Maryland students. Twenty to thirty percent of this annual evaluation is based on student performance measures.

State statute authorizes the state board of education to promulgate regulations related to educator evaluation. The MA Educator Evaluation Framework is set forth in regulations.

Educator evaluation policy is largely laid out in regulations promulgated by the MA Board of Education

Section 380.1249 of Michigan Statutes outlines policies for teacher evaluations.

Michigan is working to develop and approve educator evaluation systems after assessments finding that the existing systems found most of the teachers to be effective or highly effective, while the student test scores did not reflect the same. These systems will be developed on the local level and 50% should be based on student performance data.

Minnesota requires districts to develop and evaluate principals and teachers to improve leadership and instruction, as well as to increase student learning and success. Minnesota charter schools must also evaluate teachers with evaluation and development processes that meet guidelines in statute (Minn. Stat,, §§ 123B.147 and 122A.40, Subd. 8, and § 122A.41, Subd. 5).

Minnesota requires districts to develop and evaluate principals and teachers to improve leadership and instruction, as well as to increase student learning and success. Minnesota charter schools must also evaluate teachers with evaluation and development processes that meet guidelines in statute (Minn. Stat,, §§ 123B.147 and 122A.40, Subd. 8, and § 122A.41, Subd. 5). 35% of these annual evaluations should e based on student performance data.

The Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) is an evaluation process designed to improve the professional performance of all educators. M-STAR provides a system of performance assessments based on common standards to gauge teacher effectiveness, help track educational progress, identify areas of need, and improve performance throughout a teacher’s career.

The Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) is an evaluation process designed to improve the professional performance of all educators. M-STAR provides a system of performance assessments based on common standards to gauge teacher effectiveness, help track educational progress, identify areas of need, and improve performance throughout a teacher’s career. 50% of the annual evaluation is based on student performance measures.

State Board of Education. Initially passed by legislature, gives power to LBE to require evaluations and gives power to Department to develop a model system. SBE ultimately approves evaluation system. In 2013, the model evaluation system for educators was adopted in over 100 school districts. It includes that evaluation processes are formative in nature and lead to continuous improvement; are aligned to standards that reflect excellence; build a culture of informing practice and promoting learning; and are multiple, balanced measurements that are fair and ethical. Districts are encouraged to collectively establish basic beliefs that serve as the foundation of their local evaluation process.

Missouri’s Educator Evaluation System has been designed and created by many of the state’s educators to improve practice in order to create environments where students can accelerate learning and experience academic success.

The Accreditation and Educator Preparation Division provides leadership, oversight, and support of elementary, secondary and postsecondary education in Montana. The Montana Educator Performance Appraisal System (Montana-EPAS) is the state model for the evaluation of teachers and school leaders. This standards-based evaluation system is designed to encourage professional learning through a continuum of career development. The Montana-EPAS provides useable tools for school districts to pilot the state model or use a common framework to begin aligning local systems of evaluation to the state standards. Improving professional practice of educators will help to assure student success.

The primary purpose of the model Montana Educator Performance Appraisal System (MONTANA-EPAS) for evaluation of teachers is to foster continuous professional growth, enabling success for all students. The model state evaluation system is based on three core concepts: professional growth, continuous improvement and quality assurance.

Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model. As outlined by the board, the new evaluation systems would be weighted with student test outcomes for an accurate measure of whether student learning was improving under the new system.

The committee’s development of Effective Practices and Example Indicators was informed by the profession’s national standards. For teachers, these include the 2010 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards and the Framework for Teaching developed by Charlotte Danielson.

State Board of Education. Passed by Legislature. Requires the Teachers and Leaders Council to make recommendations to the State Board of Education for the establishment of a statewide performance evaluation system for teachers and administrators employed by school districts. The new evaluation system was proposed to begin in the 2014-15 school year, but the Legislature’s Interim Finance Committee was told it is not ready to be implemented. The Teacher Framework assesses teacher performance across the two overarching categories of Educational Practice and Student Performance. The two domains that make up Educational Practice are: Instructional Practice band Professional Responsibilities.

The goals of a new system are to: foster student learning and growth; improve educators' effective instructional practices; improve human capital decisions based on a professional growth system; and engage stakeholders in the continuous improvement and monitoring of a professional growth system. 50% of the annual evaluations are based on student performance measures.

Phase II of the New Hampshire Task Force on Effective Teaching has developed a state model for teacher performance evaluation that includes a component to measure student outcomes.

Phase II of the New Hampshire Task Force on Effective Teaching has developed a state model for teacher performance evaluation that includes a component to measure student outcomes.

Since 2010, the New Jersey Department of Education has been working to improve educator evaluation and supports. The New Jersey Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report, released in March 2011, outlines several steps for implementing an improved evaluation system. These steps included a two-year pilot that involved more than 15,000 teachers and principals. Building on this work, New Jersey's historic 2012 TEACHNJ Act — unanimously approved by the State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Christie — mandates many requirements for the new statewide educator evaluation system and links tenure decisions to evaluation ratings.

Spurred by legislature and overseen by Department. The evaluation portion of the NMTEACH Educator Effectiveness System is comprised of 3 categories: Observations, locally adopted Multiple Measures and Improved Student Achievement

The evaluation portion of the NMTEACH Educator Effectiveness System is comprised of 3 categories: Observations, locally adopted Multiple Measures and Improved Student Achievement The NMTEACH Educator Effectiveness system was developed with direct input and guidance from the New Mexico Effective Teaching Task Force, the NMTEACH advisory committee, and the input of legislators, union leaders, parents and teachers. Using extensive research regarding student achievement, teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation, the stakeholders recommended the 3-area approach adopted by NMTEACH. 50% of this evaluation is based on student performance measures.

Required by legislature. Proposed by Chancellor and Union. Approved by Commissioner. Monitored by Department. Advance was formally established on June 1, 2013 in alignment with the New York State Education Department's education law 3012-c on teacher and school leader performance reviews, its design was informed by three years of pilot work in New York City’s schools. Advance uses multiple measures – including observations of classroom practice, review of teachers’ artifacts, student outcome data, and student feedback – to provide teachers, school leaders, and families with a more accurate understanding of teacher effectiveness than ever before.

Advance, New York City’s new system of teacher evaluation and development, was designed to provide the City’s teachers with accurate feedback on their performance and the support necessary to improve their practice, with the goal of improved student outcomes to ensure all students graduate college and career ready. Though Advance was formally established on June 1, 2013 in alignment with the New York State Education Department's education law 3012-c on teacher and school leader performance reviews, its design was informed by three years of pilot work in New York City’s schools.

Adopted by State Board. In October 2008, the NC State Board of Education approved the policy adopting the Rubric for Evaluating North Carolina Teachers and the Teacher Evaluation Process. In September 2011, the policy was updated to include abbreviated evaluations for Career-Status Teachers.

Effective with the 2011 – 2012 school year, Teachers are to be evaluated annually using the North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Rubric in its full or abbreviated form. The intended purpose of the teacher evaluation process is to provide teachers with meaningful feedback on their performance while assessing their performance in relation to the Professional Teaching Standards.

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. In 1995, the ESPB became an independent board with the responsibility of teacher licensure, teacher education program approval, professional development and professional practices. As an independent board, no state dollars are received and the board carries out its duties funded by the licensure fees of the educators in North Dakota. The state's authorized an independent board of ten educators, administrators, school board members, and teacher educators. The board is appointed by the Governor to two 3-year terms. (As of 1/20/15 new teacher evaluation guidelines were listed as "coming soon" on state website.

The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction developed an educator evaluation system that may be used by districts, or districts may develop their own.

Required by Legislature. Each teacher will be evaluated according to Ohio Revised Code and an evaluation framework that is aligned with the Standards for the Teaching Profession adopted under state law. State law (Ohio House Bill 362) brought changes to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System for the 2014-2015 school year and beyond. The first change will allow less frequent evaluation of teachers receiving skilled and accomplished ratings, while still providing them with feedback on their work.

Ohio school districts are allowed to choose between two evaluation systems, one being the previous statewide system, and one being a new system developed to include an additional alternative component. The Original/Alternative Ohio Teacher Evaluation Systems require 42.5 to 50% of the annual evaluation to be based on student performance measures.

In 2011, Oklahoma state law (70 O.S. § 6-101.16) established the Oklahoma Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation System (TLE). Every policy of evaluation adopted by a board of education shall be based upon a set of minimum criteria developed by the State Board of Education, which by no later than 2013-14 school year, shall be revised and based upon the Oklahoma Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation System (TLE) developed by the State Board of Education.

The Teacher and Leader Effectiveness evaluation system was developed by the Department of Education in conjunction with the TLE Commission. Evaluations are required by the State Board of Education, and requires that 35% of the annual evaluation is based on student performance measures.

Regarding Teacher Evaluation, SB 706 requires two separate ratings, a qualitative and a quantitative. The quantitative rating is to be made up of 50% student academic growth using student test scores where available.

During 2011-12, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) and the Educator Effectiveness Workgroup, established through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver process, developed state guidelines for local evaluation and support systems in Oregon, referred to as the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems (Oregon Framework). The Oregon Framework outlines requirements for local evaluation and support systems aligned to state legislation (Senate Bill290) and the ESEA Waiver criteria. Oregon’s ESEA Waiver was conditionally approved by the US Department of Education (USED) and endorsed by the Oregon State Board of Education in July 2012.

The Oregon Legislature, as a part of its ESEA waiver, adopted a model educator evaluation system. The Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems required evaluations to be annual, and to base some portion to be decided on the local level of the evaluation on student performance measures.

Department of Education was given authority to develop regulations from the Legislature in Act 82. On June 22, 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) published regulations pertaining to the new teacher evaluation system. The regulations clarify several issues related to the new system, including the implementation timeline and the weights of specific data elements. These regulations apply to all non-charter public school classroom teachers working on Instructional I and II certificates. Regulations pertaining to the evaluation of education specialists must be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by June 30, 2014.

The Pennsylvania Educator Evaluation System was required by the Legislature by Act 82 to develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way schools evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth. 50% of the annual evaluations should be based on student performance measures.

RIDE--The Rhode Island Department of Education has reviewed recommendations from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, which was launched with a focus on identifying strategies, policies, and practices to “attract, deploy, develop, incentivize, and retain top teaching, leadership and management talent,” and from the Rhode Island Urban Education Task Force, which has recommended the development and implementation of a statewide educator performance management system to improve educator quality.  Anticipating the development of a performance management system that addresses the human capital cycle of acquisition through development, deployment, and advancement to accountability and exit.

The Rhode Island Department of Education adopted standards for educator evaluation systems developed on the local level. Districts may choose to develop their own system that meet the standards, or may choose to simply use the RIDE Model system.

ADEPT is South Carolina's system for assisting, developing, and evaluating professional teaching. Based on state expectations (i.e., the ADEPT Performance Standards) that are aligned with nationally recognized professional standards, the ADEPT system forms a seamless continuum for educators throughout the entirety of their careers. On June 11, 2014, the State Board of Education approved this new educator evaluation system. Local education agencies (LEAs) had the option of continuing to use the current ADEPT evaluation tool (SAFE-T) for one last year, or one of the two pilot rubrics, South Carolina Teaching Standards or Enhanced ADEPT, or any other pre-approved rubric via the normal SCDE waiver process.

ADEPT is South Carolina's system for assisting, developing, and evaluating professional teaching.

Legislature passed law requiring State Board to develop and pass standards, model system. Beginning in the 2014-15 school year, South Dakota public school districts will be required to have teacher effectiveness systems in place. The South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning (CTL) has developed a model system that meets ESEA flexibility requirements and encourages meaningful evaluation and development of effective teaching. The CTL’s work builds on that of work groups that started this process in the summer of 2012. However, at its Oct.

The purpose of the Teacher Effectiveness Pilot Project in South Dakota is to continually improve instruction and student learning.

In July 2011, Tennessee implemented a student outcomes-based, statewide educator evaluation system: the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM). This implementation was a key tenet of Tennessee’s First to the Top Act, adopted by the General Assembly with bipartisan support during 2010’s extraordinary session under the backdrop of the federal Race to the Top competition. This landmark legislation established the parameters of a new teacher and principal evaluation system and committed to implementation during the 2011-12 school year

Required by law as part of its Race to the Top application, Tennessee was one of the first states in the nation to implement a comprehensive, outcomes-based evaluation system. The Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) requires that 40-50% of annual educator evaluations are based on student performance measures. The Tennessee Teaching Evaluation Enhancement Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-302) adjusts the current weighting of student growth data in an educator’s evaluation to lessen the evaluation score impact of new assessments in English language arts and math (called TNReady), as well as social studies and science.

T-TESS is the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System. It is a new teacher evaluation system for the state of Texas designed to support teachers in their professional development and help them grow and improve as educators. It is being piloted by approximately 60 districts in the 2014-2015 school year, will be implemented as a refined system in the 2015-2016 school year in approximately 200 districts, and is scheduled to be rolled out statewide in the 2016-2017 year. The rules adopted by the State Board of Education (SBOE) and the Commissioner of Education are part of a larger body of state agency rules that are collected and published by the Office of the Secretary of State as the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).

Texas is working to develop a new educator evaluation system, as teachers and principals alike gave feedback saying the current system, PDAS, is not conducive to continual professional growth. T-TESS is the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System. It is a new teacher evaluation system for the state of Texas designed to support teachers in their professional development and help them grow and improve as educators. It is being piloted by approximately 60 districts in the 2014-2015 school year, will be implemented as a refined system in the 2015-2016 school year in approximately 200 districts, and is scheduled to be rolled out statewide in the 2016-2017 year.

Public Educator Evaluation Requirements (PEER)- State Board Rule R277-531; Board rule R277-531 was adopted September 2011, outlining the parameters that every district must incorporate into new or existing evaluation systems in order to be in compliance. The Public Education Employment Reform Act of 2012, known as Senate Bill 64, requires a “valid and reliable” evaluation tool in each school district no later than 2015-16. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) is working with several pilot school districts to develop a model evaluation system that meets requirements established in both USBE rule and state code.

Rules have been updated and the evaluation system is in place.

In March 2011, the State of Vermont Department of Education created the Vermont Task Force on Teacher & Leader Effectiveness to develop guidelines for teacher and leader evaluation. Knowing and respecting the fiercely independent nature of Vermonters, Task Force members were committed to developing these guidelines for creating and assessing evaluation systems and not creating a plan or template for school districts to adopt. The Task Force developed standards for evaluation based on the InTASC standards for teachers. These standards were adopted by the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators in 2011.

In March 2011, the State of Vermont Department of Education created the Vermont Task Force on Teacher & Leader Effectiveness to develop guidelines for teacher and leader evaluation. Knowing and respecting the fiercely independent nature of Vermonters, Task Force members were committed to developing these guidelines for creating and assessing evaluation systems and not creating a plan or template for school districts to adopt. The Task Force developed standards for evaluation based on the InTASC standards for teachers. These standards were adopted by the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators in 2011.

On April 28, 2011, the Board of Education approved the revised documents, Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers and the Virginia Standards for the Professional Practice of Teachers. The guidelines and standards became effective on July 1, 2012. The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria set forth seven standards for all Virginia teachers. The model calls for 40 percent of teachers’ evaluations to be based on student academic progress, as determined by multiple measures of learning and achievement, including, when available and applicable, student-growth data from VDOE.

The State Board of Education set forth standards for all Virginia teachers and called for educators to be evaluated using several mechanisms, including student growth measures and professional knowledge. The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents call for educators be evaluated annually, and 40% of the evaluation be based on student performance measures.

The assessment department of the Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) manages all mandated educator assessments. The Washington State Legislature directed the PESB to establish the educator assessment system.

Washington State began developing Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) as a part of it's Race to the Top application. It moved the state from an unsatisfactory two-tier system to a four-tier system, with new criteria for teachers and principals to be evaluated upon.

Required by legislature. Supported by State Board, developed by Department. During the 2012 Legislative Session, House Bill 4236 was enacted and requires the implementation of a statewide teacher evaluation system that includes student learning as an indicator among extensive measures of educator performance. Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, the new evaluation system will be used in all public schools statewide.

Wisconsin created the Educator Effectiveness System to improve support, practice, and outcomes. It serves as a roadmap to assist teachers in moving professional practice from Point A to Point B, through a fair, valid, reliable, and manageable process using multiple measures across two main areas: educator practice and student outcomes. 50% of this evaluation should be based on student performance measures.

The Advisory Committee to the Wyoming Select Committee on Educational Accountability was charged with carrying out the recommendations put forth in the Wyoming Accountability in Education Act of 2012 (WEA 65) and House Bill 0072 (2013 Chapter 167). The specific charge for the Advisory Committee was to design a State Model for educator evaluation in Wyoming.

The Wyoming State Model Educator Support and Evaluation System was developed in response to the Accountability in Education Act of 2012 and House Bill 0072 (2013 Chapter 167). It is intended for local districts to use as a starting point, to be tailored to use in districts across the state, in order to ease the difficult process of developing an annual educator evaluation system. At least 20% of the educator evaluation should be based on student performance measures.