1. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 1
Teacher evaluations
and local flexibility:
Burden or benefit?
Research Report
November 2013
Sponsored by: School Improvement Network
Researched and Authored by:
Christina E. Culver and Kathleen T. Hayes
CH Global Strategies, LLC
About this Report
This independent study, conducted by CH Global Strate-
gies, was sponsored by School Improvement Network to
better understand state teacher evaluation policy and how
much flexibility districts have at the local level to imple-
ment state requirements. School Improvement Network’s
goal was to inform 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.
School Improvement Network is the world’s largest pro-
vider of online, on-demand professional development and
training resources for educators and partners with schools,
districts, states throughout the US, Canada, and overseas to
increase teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
School Improvement Network believes that by providing
teachers with quality, differentiated training based on
best practices from master teachers, they will be better
equipped to help students master skills essential to their
preparation towards college or a meaningful career and
their growth as individuals and contributors to society.
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.
The Educator Effectiveness System (EES), School Improve-
ment Network’s premier online, on-demand professional
development platform, offers thousands of tools and
resources that increase teacher effectiveness through
solving professional development needs, providing com-
plete support for Common Core implementation challeng-
es, and deliver powerful observation and evaluation tools.
EES includes the following key products:
PD 360
PD 360, the flagship product in EES, is the most widely
used online professional development solution in the US
and offers the largest library of expert-produced train-
ing videos, powerful support tools and resources, and
an online professional learning community of nearly one
million educators. PD 360 has earned over 70 awards for
professional video quality, innovation, and excellence in its
technology platform.

2. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 2
Observation 360
Observation 360 is a suite of products that turns the
observation and evaluation process into a meaningful
educator growth experience. It offers administrators
every tool they need to conduct effective observations
and evaluations, create personalized professional
learning plans, and track results.
Common Core 360
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, crosswalk-
ing tools, a learning progressions guide, a roadmap to the
standards, and more.
LumiBook
LumiBook is the first truly interactive, multimedia, cloud-
based e-reading platform. It surpasses the static informa-
tion 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.
School Improvement Network has been recognized by
many national and state organizations, including Ernst and
Young, for the company’s leadership in education, innova-
tion, and growth.
For more information on this report, contact Christina
Culver, President, CH Global Strategies, LLC, 202-538-9031.
For more information on School Improvement Network,
go to www.schoolimprovement.com or call toll-free at
800-572-1153 to speak to a sales representative.

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

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

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

6. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 6
are local education agencies offering to teachers to
support their learning about new evaluation sys-
tems and tools?
• How are local education agencies building teacher
capacity – especially for educators in low-per-
forming schools – around mastery of instruction-
al 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 com-
ponents 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 devel-
op 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 evalua-
tion policy.
• Both states and LEAs should develop policies that
include thoughtfully crafted professional development
components so that principals and teachers are support-
ed in their work and thereby can provide highly effective
school experiences for all students.

7. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 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
Wisconsin
Wyoming
*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
developing a new teacher evaluation system; therefore,
Iowa is not included in the chart.

8. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 8
Appendix B:
SINET State Teacher Evaluation Policy
Scan Protocol
1. Does your state have an approved teacher evaluation
system?
2. Does the system include an approved teacher-practice
evaluation rubric/framework?
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?
5. If there is flexibility, what is the state-level process for
LEAs (e.g., a link on the state’s DOE website? Contact
an individual at the DOE?) to propose an alternate or
adapted rubric/framework?
6. Does the state’s policy require third-party (e.g., union)
buy-in at the local level? If yes, what is the process?
7. What is the timeline for implementation of your new
or modified teacher evaluation system?
Appendix C:
SINET Teacher Survey Protocol:
Evaluation and Observations
1. Are you formally evaluated in your work?
a. If yes, does this include walkthrough observations?
If so, how often?
b. If yes, does this include informal observations? If
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
for professional development; support for growth in
teaching effectiveness?
3. Is professional development part of the observation
process? If yes, is/does the professional
development
• 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
through videos?
4. Is the evaluation based on a state-/district-/sys-
tem-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?

9. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 9
6. Does it clearly inform your work as a teacher?
7. Is the framework intuitive and reflective of what you
do daily as a teacher?
8. Regarding the framework used to evaluate your prac-
tice, indicate which framework it is (e.g., Danielson,
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
o Pointless/impractical
o Vague criteria
o Not informed
o Lack of post-evaluation benefits
o Unrealistic
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?
b. From where is the data derived (state standard-
ized 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)?
11. Rate how much the following evaluation practices
would help improve the evaluation process for you:
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 obser-
vations
o The opportunity to explain and/or justify student
data if student achievement data is included in the
evaluation
12. Do you believe the evaluation process benefits you as
a professional educator?
13. Do you believe the evaluation process works
effectively?
14. Do you believe the evaluation process is fair and hon-
estly reflects on you as an educator?
15. Is the evaluation process focused on your growth and
effectiveness as an educator?
16. Do you like being evaluated?
17. What would you suggest could be done to improve
the evaluation process?
18. Do you feel that the evaluators are well-trained, quali-
fied and objective?
19. Do you feel that the evaluators should be formally
trained and certified?

10. www.schoolimprovement.com | 801-572-1153 10
i The New Teacher Project. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our
National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences
in Teacher Effectiveness.
ii
Interview with Janice Poda, strategic initiative director,
education workforce, Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers, September 26, 2013.
iii
SINET’s state teacher evaluation system policy scan
revealed that Iowa’s state legislature in Spring 2013 ap-
proved new teacher evaluation guidelines, but as of Fall
2013, the newly created Council on Educator Develop-
ment 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.
iv
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of
the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation;
Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.