School Improvement Network conducted study of 50 state department of education officials who are responsible for implementing teacher evaluation policy to better understand state teacher evaluation policy and how much flexibility districts have at the local level to implement state requirements. The goal was to inform ourselves, school districts and local schools how much freedom and flexibility, or lack thereof, they have to innovate on behalf of their own teachers and students particularly when it comes to using technology to achieve their professional development needs.

1. Teacher evaluations
and local flexibility:
Burden or benefit?
Research Report
School Improvement Network believes that by providing
November 2013
teachers with quality, differentiated training based on
Sponsored by: School Improvement Network
best practices from master teachers, they will be better
equipped to help students master skills essential to their
Researched and Authored by:
preparation towards college or a meaningful career and
Christina E. Culver and Kathleen T. Hayes
their growth as individuals and contributors to society.
CH Global Strategies, LLC
With this training, teachers find increased capacity to
personalize their teaching, and meet the growing needs
of students, no matter their race, origin, language, or
socioeconomic status.
About this Report
The Educator Effectiveness System (EES), School Improvement Network’s premier online, on-demand professional
This independent study, conducted by CH Global Strate-
development platform, offers thousands of tools and
gies, was sponsored by School Improvement Network to
resources that increase teacher effectiveness through
better understand state teacher evaluation policy and how
solving professional development needs, providing com-
much flexibility districts have at the local level to imple-
plete support for Common Core implementation challeng-
ment state requirements. School Improvement Network’s
es, and deliver powerful observation and evaluation tools.
goal was to inform school districts and local schools how
EES includes the following key products:
much freedom and flexibility, or lack thereof, they have
to innovate on behalf of their own teachers and students,
PD 360
particularly when it comes to using technology to achieve
their professional development needs.
PD 360, the flagship product in EES, is the most widely
used online professional development solution in the US
School Improvement Network is the world’s largest pro-
and offers the largest library of expert-produced train-
vider of online, on-demand professional development and
ing videos, powerful support tools and resources, and
training resources for educators and partners with schools,
an online professional learning community of nearly one
districts, states throughout the US, Canada, and overseas to
million educators. PD 360 has earned over 70 awards for
increase teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
professional video quality, innovation, and excellence in its
technology platform.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
1

2. Observation 360
School Improvement Network has been recognized by
many national and state organizations, including Ernst and
Observation 360 is a suite of products that turns the
Young, for the company’s leadership in education, innova-
observation and evaluation process into a meaningful
tion, and growth.
educator growth experience. It offers administrators
every tool they need to conduct effective observations
For more information on this report, contact Christina
and evaluations, create personalized professional
Culver, President, CH Global Strategies, LLC, 202-538-9031.
learning plans, and track results.
For more information on School Improvement Network,
go to www.schoolimprovement.com or call toll-free at
Common Core 360
800-572-1153 to speak to a sales representative.
Common Core 360, School Improvement Network’s
comprehensive training on the Common Core State
Standards Initiative, walks educators through every step
of Common Core implementation, with standard-specific
video instruction, downloadable lesson plans, crosswalking tools, a learning progressions guide, a roadmap to the
standards, and more.
LumiBook
LumiBook is the first truly interactive, multimedia, cloudbased e-reading platform. It surpasses the static information of any other reading experience, enabling real-time
author updates, collaborative conversations between
readers and authors, and a rich content experience that is
enhanced by all the resources available on the web.
Learning 360 Framework
Learning 360 Framework is the key research on teacher
effectiveness aggregated into a framework for powerful
student learning. It offers student-friendly learning targets
that are standards based and relevant, assessment that is
aligned and growth producing, and learning strategies that
are rigorous and engaging.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
2

3. Introduction
instruction is the first priority for states and districts,
meeting the requirements of the ESEA Flexibility Waivers
In the last few years, the majority of states have moved
that the majority of states have received is currently
toward overhauling their teacher evaluation systems –
the driving force behind the development or revision of
a monumental, often onerous endeavor. Several new
teacher evaluation systems at the state and district levels.
federal education policies and recent research on teacher
Both states and districts have to ensure that any system
evaluation have incited states to take on the task:
they develop is valid and reliable, along with being legally
defensible in arbitration, and most districts are challenged
•
A recent shift in focus from highly qualified to highly
by the time and resources it takes to do this,” says Janice
effective teachers
Poda, strategic initiative director, education workforce,
Council of Chief State School Officers.
•
Financial incentives such as the federal American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the
Utilizing flexibility in developing rubrics at the local level
Race to the Top (RTT) program, which encourage
is important for ensuring teacher professional growth that
states to create rigorous and more comprehensive
leads to long term student academic achievement. In a
systems for evaluating teachers
corresponding survey School Improvement Network conducted with teachers nationally, teachers whose districts
•
use the state developed or chosen rubric expressed they
offer to exempt states from some of the law’s
do not believe the evaluation process in their school works
strictest requirements if they developed their own
effectively, and most of those educators say the chief
accountability standards, including those that
reason is that evaluations are neither individualized nor an
focus on teacher quality
honest reflection of their work.
Recent evidence suggesting that an overwhelming
If teacher evaluations are to be truly effective at improving
majority of teacher evaluation systems were assign-
teaching and student achievement, the evaluation rubrics
ing most teachers the highest possible rating and
need to reflect local teaching practices and provide indi-
offering little to no support for teachers who need
vidual feedback and professional development supports
improvement
•
NCLB waivers, the U.S. Department of Education’s
for improvement.
The result: an array of new or radically modified systems,
The State Teacher Evaluation Policy Scan
along with a continued emphasis in most states on
local control. The vast majority of states still offer local
From November 2012 through February 2013, CH Global
education agencies (LEAs) flexibility in developing a
Strategies administered a survey by phone and email to all
teacher practice evaluation rubric. At the same time,
50 states’ departments of education about their teacher
as a recent policy scan sponsored by the Utah-based
evaluation policies (see Appendix A for survey protocol).
School Improvement Network suggests, an unintended
The survey responses indicate that, except for California,
consequence has emerged: a communication gap between
all states are in the process of redesigning or have rede-
states and local education agencies (LEAs) that has led a
signed their teacher evaluation systems.
significant percentage of LEAs to misunderstand the level
of autonomy they have in designing their own teacher
Further, the survey revealed that the majority of states –
practice evaluation frameworks. Further, the emphasis
37 – offer flexibility to local education agencies for design-
on compliance at both the state and local levels – often
ing the rubrics they will use to evaluate teachers in their
accompanied by tight timelines – is leaving many LEAs
schools. Eleven states have developed and mandated a
little room to ensure that locally developed teacher
specific program for teacher evaluations. (See Appendix
evaluation rubrics are aligned with teacher practice to
A for a breakdown of states and flexibility options.)
help ensure instructional improvement. “While improving
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
3

4. School Improvement Network (SINET) followed up on the
SINET’s Delaware school district liaison, as of June 2013,
state teacher evaluation survey by surveying its 50 SINET
only one school district in the state had considered devel-
school district liaisons, who work directly with more than
oping its own teacher practice evaluation rubric.
4500 LEAs across the country. Forty-three SINET school
district liaisons responded. Among the survey’s findings:
Similarly, SINET’s Wisconsin district liaison reported that
vague policy language has led some LEAs in that state to
•
In the 37 states where teacher evaluation legislation
believe that they must choose between Teachscape or
gives districts flexibility in designing or selecting a
CESA’s 6 model when, in fact, the state’s policy allows
teacher-practice evaluation framework, that flexibility
LEAs total flexibility in selecting an alternate rubric as long
is often not clearly communicated to districts or clear-
as it adheres to state teacher evaluation policy guidelines.
ly understood at the district level – either because of
unclear communication from the state to the local level
Failure on the part of LEAs to thoroughly review
or a lack of thorough LEA review of the state’s written
written policy
policy, or both.
Specifically,
Despite the lack of clarity in some states’ written teacher
evaluation policies, some LEAs also may not be doing
73 percent of SINET’s school district liaisons report
their homework. SINET’s Kansas district liaison reported
their local education agencies are not at all or
that many LEAs there have relied solely on information
only vaguely aware of the flexibility they have in
posted on the state DOE’s website instead of thoroughly
designing alternate teacher-practice evaluation
reading the state’s teacher evaluation policy. Consequently,
rubrics; and
o
many LEAs there believe they must use one of two
state-approved rubrics when, in fact, the state’s teacher
o
74 percent of SINET’s school district liaisons say
evaluation policy allows LEAs to develop alternate
that they are somewhat likely, very likely or cer-
rubrics as long as they adhere to the state’s Educator
tain to be the primary source of LEAs’ information
Effectiveness Guidelines.
about their state’s teacher evaluation policy.
Onerous alternate-rubric approval processes that often
Further, the survey’s findings suggest three reasons for the
demand a quick turnaround
confusion:
SINET’s Kansas district liaison added that LEAs that are
Vague or dense policy language
aware of the flexibility option more often than not still chose
one of the two state-approved rubrics – either because the
Some states’ written teacher evaluation policies either
approval process for alternate rubrics was daunting, or the
do not clearly state flexibility options or are written using
LEAs lacked the capacity to develop an alternate, or both.
elaborate or dense language. For example, although
The liaison said that although one of the two state-approved
Delaware’s teacher evaluation policy allows districts to
rubrics – KEEP -- was developed and posted on the DOE’s
propose alternate teacher practice evaluation rubrics,
website approximately 18 months before the LEA rubric-
LEAs there have indicated to SINET district liaisons that
selection deadline, the second rubric (McREL) was
the state policy’s language seems to mandate use of
approved and posted just several months before the dead-
DPASS II, the state-developed rubric. Compounding the
line – leaving LEAs little time to properly review that option.
confusion, LEAs said, is that all LEA support and training
Consequently, concerns about compliance became the
offered by Delaware’s Department of Education is aligned
LEAs’ priority, and most selected KEEP or McREL. The
with DPAS II, even though the policy contains a provision
SINET district liaison added that many of the LEAs that
that allows LEAs flexibility. Consequently, according to
chose one of the two state-approved rubrics are using the
state’s 2013-14 teacher evaluation pilot year to carefully
review alternate rubrics and might propose alternate rubrics
during the next year’s approval process window.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
4

5. SINET’s Wisconsin district liaison also reported a tight
Implications and questions for further exploration
approval process timeline for LEAs who wanted approval
on an alternate rubric. LEAs there had two weeks from the
Policy implementation research teaches several key les-
time the equivalency process was announced to submit
sons: The devil is in the details, and the success of any
their alternate choices.
policy depends on the bottom-line implementers . Therefore, clear, consistent and regular communication between
The Teacher Survey
policymakers and policy implementers is crucial, as is local
capacity. But as SINET’s research has suggested, weak
These findings coincide with a 2013 SINET quantitative
communication about teacher evaluation policy, along
study conducted in 46 states that examined nearly 2000
with complicated state-level approval processes for locally
educators’ attitudes toward current teacher evaluation
developed rubrics, has clouded already-overburdened
practices (see Appendix B for survey protocol).
LEAs’ understanding of and, in many cases, desire to take
Among the study’s findings:
advantage of policy flexibility.
•
The SINET surveys prompt three overarching questions:
Nearly half of evaluations use state-developed frameworks.
1.
•
Are states and districts grappling with too many
70 percent of the educators surveyed do not believe
teacher effectiveness policies, thereby compromising
the evaluation process in their school works effectively,
their capacity to clearly and faithfully implement these
and most of those educators say the chief reason is
policies?
that evaluations are neither individualized nor do they
provide more than a snapshot of their practice, and
often are too detailed.
2. Does teacher evaluation policy implementation occur
too quickly to allow both local compliance and alignment to local practice?
•
67 percent believe their evaluations do not provide a
fair and honest reflection of their work.
3. Given the large number of states with local control
over teacher evaluation, can quality and effectiveness
•
46 percent of those surveyed say that their evaluations
of teacher evaluation systems be guaranteed?
are not accompanied by professional development or
Specifically,
other support that is aligned with the evaluation criteria.
•
Are school leaders and teachers part of the policy-
This data suggests that despite the recent push for new
making process so that these bottom-line imple-
teacher evaluations to be more thoughtfully aligned to
menters’ views on effective evaluation are incorpo-
individual teachers’ practice, both states and LEAs have
rated into the policies?
work to do before evaluations truly reflect teacher practice. Further, data from the SINET state teacher evaluation
•
How are evaluation policies unfolding at the
policy scan suggests that technicalities – chiefly, state-level
principal level? What support are states and LEAs
processes for approving alternate frameworks that often are
offering their principals so they can effectively
cumbersome, time-consuming or both – are hindering LEAs’
implement new evaluation systems?
desire and capacity to craft teacher practice rubrics that are
closely aligned with teacher practice. The result: LEAs are
•
Similarly, how are evaluation policies unfolding at
likely to stick with the state-developed or state-supported
the teacher level? What, if any, professional de-
teacher practice evaluation rubric instead of expending
velopment guidelines are states calling for in their
time and other resources to develop a rubric that’s more
evaluation policies? If such guidelines are absent
locally appropriate and meets compliance criteria.
at the state level, what professional development
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
5

6. are local education agencies offering to teachers to
support their learning about new evaluation systems and tools?
•
How are local education agencies building teacher
capacity – especially for educators in low-performing schools – around mastery of instructional practices that will help them not only earn a
successful evaluation rating but, more importantly,
help them increase their effectiveness so that
they can move students toward higher levels of
achievement?
Recommendations
In light of these findings, we recommend the following
actions to teacher evaluation policymakers:
•
State departments of education should provide clear,
direct and continuous communication about teacher
evaluation policy (especially regarding policy components that might otherwise be complex or seem
ambiguous) to LEAs.
•
State departments of education should allot more time
for local implementation and offer more assistance in
building LEA capacity to help ensure that LEAs develop teacher practice evaluation rubrics that are both
compliant and effective.
•
LEAs should exercise their leadership role by carefully
considering local educator needs when it comes to
evaluation and building capacity that allows for better
feedback.
•
LEAs should provide thoughtful, judicious review of
and feedback to the state about their teacher evaluation policy.
•
Both states and LEAs should develop policies that
include thoughtfully crafted professional development
components so that principals and teachers are supported in their work and thereby can provide highly effective
school experiences for all students.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
6

7. Appendix A:
Teacher Evaluation Flexibility by State
States whose policies
offer LEAs flexibility
regarding type of
teacher practice
evaluation instrument
States with mandated
instrument(s)
Alabama
DC
Alaska
Georgia
Arizona
Hawaii
Arkansas
Idaho
California**
Mississippi
Colorado
Nebraska
Connecticut
New Mexico
Delaware*
North Carolina
Florida
Oklahoma
Illinois*
Washington
Indiana
West Virginia
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts*
Michigan
Minnesota*
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey*
New York*
Nevada
North Dakota
Ohio*
Oregon
Pennsylvania*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
*collective bargaining state
** As of May 2013, proposed legislative changes to
teacher evaluation in California failed to advance in
the state senate; California LEAs currently can use any
teacher practice evaluation instrument.
SINET’s state teacher evaluation system policy scan
revealed that Iowa’s state legislature in Spring 2013
approved new teacher evaluation guidelines, but as
of Fall 2013, the newly created Council on Educator
Development is only in very nascent stages of
Wisconsin
developing a new teacher evaluation system; therefore,
Wyoming
Iowa is not included in the chart.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
7

8. Appendix B:
SINET State Teacher Evaluation Policy
Scan Protocol
Appendix C:
SINET Teacher Survey Protocol:
Evaluation and Observations
1.
1.
Does your state have an approved teacher evaluation
Are you formally evaluated in your work?
system?
a. If yes, does this include walkthrough observations?
2. Does the system include an approved teacher-practice
If so, how often?
evaluation rubric/framework?
b. If yes, does this include informal observations? If
3. If yes, is that rubric/framework mandated?
4. If no, what flexibility do LEAs have for adapting that
rubric/framework or using an alternate?
so, how often?
2. When you are observed, does the process include
the following (check all that apply): Pre-observation
conference; post-observation conference; suggestions
5. If there is flexibility, what is the state-level process for
LEAs (e.g., a link on the state’s DOE website? Contact
for professional development; support for growth in
teaching effectiveness?
an individual at the DOE?) to propose an alternate or
adapted rubric/framework?
3. Is professional development part of the observation
process? If yes, is/does the professional
6. Does the state’s policy require third-party (e.g., union)
development
buy-in at the local level? If yes, what is the process?
•
personalized to your needs as identified in the
observation?
•
provided in whole-group workshops and other
traditional means?
•
provided through digital means, such as online or
on-demand PD?
•
include modeling of best practices, such as
7. What is the timeline for implementation of your new
or modified teacher evaluation system?
through videos?
4. Is the evaluation based on a state-/district-/system-mandated framework? If so, what framework
is used?
o Marzano
o Danielson
o State-developed
o Other
5. Has the framework been adequately explained
to you?
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
8

9. 6. Does it clearly inform your work as a teacher?
11. Rate how much the following evaluation practices
would help improve the evaluation process for you:
7. Is the framework intuitive and reflective of what you
do daily as a teacher?
8. Regarding the framework used to evaluate your practice, indicate which framework it is (e.g., Danielson,
o
The ability to identify specific practices you want
to be observed
o
The opportunity to submit evidence and artifacts
that show your proficiency in certain domains
o
The chance to receive professional development
that is directly derived from your evaluations
o
An evaluation process that occasionally substitutes
peer observations in place of administrator observations
o
The opportunity to explain and/or justify student
data if student achievement data is included in the
evaluation
state-developed) and whether it works for you or does
not work for you.
9. If you indicated “does not work for me,” indicate from
the following list the reason(s) why:
o
Not individualized
o Snap-shot
o Evaluator
o
Too many details
o
Not focused on teacher’s efforts
12. Do you believe the evaluation process benefits you as
a professional educator?
o Pointless/impractical
o
Vague criteria
o
Not informed
o
Lack of post-evaluation benefits
13. Do you believe the evaluation process works
effectively?
14. Do you believe the evaluation process is fair and honestly reflects on you as an educator?
15. Is the evaluation process focused on your growth and
effectiveness as an educator?
o Unrealistic
16. Do you like being evaluated?
o Time
o Other
o
Figuring out new system
10. Does the evaluation process incorporate student
achievement data?
a. If yes, is this a fair practice?
17. What would you suggest could be done to improve
the evaluation process?
18. Do you feel that the evaluators are well-trained, qualified and objective?
19. Do you feel that the evaluators should be formally
trained and certified?
b. From where is the data derived (state standardized tests; baseline leveling assessments; ongoing
formative assessments; student evidence and
artifacts of learning)? What does the data reflect
(student growth over time, student grade-level
proficiency, or both)?
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
9

10. i The New Teacher Project. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our
National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences
in Teacher Effectiveness.
Interview with Janice Poda, strategic initiative director,
ii
education workforce, Council of Chief State School Officers, September 26, 2013.
SINET’s state teacher evaluation system policy scan
iii
revealed that Iowa’s state legislature in Spring 2013 approved new teacher evaluation guidelines, but as of Fall
2013, the newly created Council on Educator Development is only in very nascent stages of developing a new
teacher evaluation system; therefore Iowa is not included
in the charts in Appendix A; the policy scan also found
that as of May 2013, proposed legislative changes to
teacher evaluation in California failed to advance in the
state senate; LEAs there currently can use any teacher
practice evaluation instrument.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of
iv
the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation;
Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153
10