contact us: gse-csail@gse.upenn.edu
State Teacher Evaluation Policies and the Features that Make Their Implementation Successful
Alabama |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Alaska |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Arizona |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Arkansas |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
California |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The SBE adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula Evaluation Rubrics (September 2016) provides districts with wide latitude in the creation and implementation of many parts of their evaluation system. |
1 |
Colorado |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The State Model Evaluation System is optional for any district. Districts must meet or exceed the expectations outlined in S.B. 191 if they choose to use their own system. |
2 |
Connecticut |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Districts must create an evaluation system that meets all state minimum requirements and submit it to the Connecticut State Department of Education for approval. |
2 |
Delaware |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
District of Columbia |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All district must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
Florida |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides guidance/requirements through statutory language and administrative codes (State Board of Education rule) and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Georgia |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Hawaii |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Hawaii is a single LEA/SEA. Therefore as a single district, the evaluation system is one in the same for all schools. |
3 |
Idaho |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Illinois |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Indiana |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Iowa |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Kansas |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Kentucky |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state, along with steering committees of educators, have guided the creation and pilot of the professional growth and evaluation system; the state provides general guidance for implementation and assists and approves each district’s certified evaluation plan (CEP). |
1 |
Louisiana |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
Maine |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Maryland |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
With consensus agreement from the LEAs, Maryland exercises a moderate degree of control through the use of State evaluation frameworks, the collection of data, and the application of a State-level approval process. With these in mind, LEAs may in turn exercise a great deal of discretion and autonomy within the design and implementation of their local models. |
1 |
Massachusetts |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain requirements and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Michigan |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Minnesota |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Mississippi |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
Missouri |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Montana |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Nebraska |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Nevada |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. Nevada Revised Statute 391.465 allows districts to apply to use a performance evaluation system. Proposed system must apply standards and indicators that are equivalent to those prescribed by the State Board. |
3 |
New Hampshire |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
New Jersey |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
New Mexico |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
New York |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
North Carolina |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
North Dakota |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Ohio |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Oklahoma |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
Oregon |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Pennsylvania |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Rhode Island |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
South Carolina |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Districts must follow evaluation guidelines issued by the state. Districts may choose to use the state model, or apply for approval to use an aligned, alternative model. |
3 |
South Dakota |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Tennessee |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
All districts must implement a strict model in accordance with state and federal law. |
3 |
Texas |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has certain mandates and provides models but allows flexibility in some areas. |
2 |
Utah |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Vermont |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Virginia |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Washington |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. The state determined 8 evaluation criteria and a methodology and rubrics for including student growth. Districts were allowed to choose from among three different instructional frameworks (Danielson, Marzano, and the Center for Educational Leadership 5D), which were cross-walked to the state’s 8 criteria. The state determined a summative scoring methodology for the 8 criteria and student growth; districts decided how to score each criterion. WA has trained over 150 instructional framework specialists (teacher leaders, administrators, etc.) to deliver training to teachers and principals in the three frameworks and the state system, and continues to support their growth and development. The state funds this with $5.7m in grants to districts and another $2m in grants to regional educational service districts. For a complete list of district vs state implementation decisions, please see: http://k12.wa.us/TPEP/pubdocs/State_vs_Local_decisions.pdf |
2 |
Virginia |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Wisconsin requested that we not publish its state data.
Wyoming |
|||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Specificity |
Is state control over district flexibility in creating and implementing their own evaluation system low, moderate, or high? Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state provides only general guidance and plays a small role in design and implementation. |
1 |
Alabama |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional teacher preparation standards are partially or fully aligned in elementary, middle and secondary teacher preparation. |
4 |
Alaska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional teacher preparation standards are not aligned. |
0 |
Arizona |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional teacher preparation standards are partially or fully alignment in elementary, middle, and secondary teacher preparation. |
3 |
Arkansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional teacher preparation standards are aligned in middle and secondary levels but more moderately aligned in elementary teacher preparation. |
3 |
California |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Aligned with secondary teacher preparation - revised July 2013 to align with the CCSS in Mathematics and ELA/literacy. Aligned with elementary/multiple subject—updated July 2016 to align with the CCSS and the California’s Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS). |
4 |
Colorado |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional teacher preparation standards are moderately aligned at elementary and secondary levels but not middle school. |
3 |
Connecticut |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment between professional teacher preparation standards and CCR goals. |
1 |
Delaware |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment with only teaching informational texts incorporated. |
1 |
District of Columbia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment with only teaching informational texts incorporated. |
1 |
Florida |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is partial or full alignment at all grade levels in all domains. |
4 |
Georgia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment at middle school level but not at elementary or secondary. |
2 |
Hawaii |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
An alternative route to Licensure Career and Technical Education License Fields was approved on January 24, 2011.
On February 21, 2014 there was affirmation of Hawaii Provisional License, Standard License, Advanced Licenses, Added Fields to Existing Licenses, Renewed Licenses, and Career and Technical Education Special Permits.
The Hawaii Teachers Standards Board includes the following standards that address college and career goals: ● A crosswalk could easily be made between the College- and Career-Readiness definition mentioned above and the Teacher Performance Standards. ● Librarians are expected to collaborate with teachers to provide knowledge and experiences that help students make life and career decisions. (Standard 6: Designs and Provides Meaningful Learning Experiences). ● Counselors are expected to guide individuals and groups of students and their parents or guardians through the development of educational and career plans. (Standard 3: Individual Student Planning). |
3 |
Idaho |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at every level. |
2 |
Illinois |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment at middle school but limited alignment at other levels. |
2 |
Indiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Partial or full alignment at every level in every domain. |
4 |
Iowa |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is no known alignment. |
0 |
Kansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that only incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Kentucky |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Kentucky has Kentucky Teacher Standards that have been in effect since February, 2008. New standards have been proposed by the Education Professional Standards Board for approval February, 2017. |
1 |
Louisiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment except in teaching literacy for all subjects |
3 |
Maine |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Maryland |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts and support for struggling readers. |
2 |
Massachusetts |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Professional Standards for Teachers used by MA prep programs are fully aligned with the Standards for Effective Practice that align with the state frameworks |
4 |
Michigan |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is now known alignment. |
0 |
Minnesota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment at every level in every domain. |
4 |
Mississippi |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Missouri |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at the middle and secondary level but not at the elementary level. |
2 |
Montana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is no known alignment. |
0 |
Nebraska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is no known alignment. |
0 |
Nevada |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
New Hampshire |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is partial or full alignment in every domain at every level. |
4 |
New Jersey |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is partial or full alignment at every domain and level. |
4 |
New Mexico |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is no known alignment. |
0 |
New York |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment except for incorporating literacy in all subjects. |
3 |
North Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is some alignment at middle and secondary level but not at all elementary level. |
2 |
North Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Ohio |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Oklahoma |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is no known alignment. |
0 |
Oregon |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that only incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Pennsylvania |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment at middle and secondary levels but not at elementary. |
3 |
Rhode Island |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment that does not incorporate literacy in every subject. |
2 |
South Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
All teacher preparation programs are required to align standards to state CCR Pk-12 standards. |
4 |
South Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment that incorporates the teaching of informational texts. |
1 |
Tennessee |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is partial or full alignment in every domain at every level. |
4 |
Texas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is strong alignment at middle and secondary level but not at elementary. |
3 |
Utah |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at middle and secondary but not elementary. |
2 |
Vermont |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at middle and secondary but not elementary. |
2 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at every level except for incorporating literacy in every subject. |
3 |
Washington |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is limited alignment with support for struggling readers at some levels. |
1 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
There is fair alignment at every level except for incorporating literacy in every subject. |
3 |
Wisconsin requested that we not publish its state data.
Wyoming |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Consistency |
Are the state’s professional teacher preparation standards aligned to CCR goals?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook |
Not specified |
0 |
Alabama |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Not specified |
0 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning. |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Alaska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state involves stakeholders as advisors in the creation of the teacher evaluation system. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance |
1 |
Arizona |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Arizona’s Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness was developed by a task force made up of teachers, administrators, community leaders, and policy makers before its adoption by the State Board of Education. Meetings are open to the public and considerable commentary was sought before and during the writing process. When the Framework needs revision or updating, SBE rules call for the reforming of the Task Force. |
2 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Improvement plans can be designed as part of the professional development opportunities outlined in ARS 15-537: Arizona’s Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness encourages the use of evaluation results to inform professional development for both teacher and administrators. It is also required in statute (ARS 15-537). |
1 |
Arkansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
California |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in the creation of the teacher evaluation system in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Colorado |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
S.B. 191 considers that school accountability committee’s is an advisory committee. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
S.B. 191 states that “each teacher is provided with an opportunity to improve his or her effectiveness through a teacher development plan that links his or her evaluation and performance standards to professional development opportunities.” |
1 |
Connecticut |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in the creation of the teacher evaluation system in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Delaware |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in the creation of a teacher evaluation system in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
District of Columbia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance. |
0 |
Florida |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Georgia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Yes, in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Hawaii |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
For Strive HI we convene a few groups (Technical Advisory Group and more recently an Accountability Design Work Group—specifically to discuss possibilities for change under ESSA) to discuss and make recommendations on Strive HI measures.
For EES (teacher evaluations), see the groups listed under the “Feedback groups” section on this page: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/EducatorEffectiveness/EducatorEffectivenessSystem/Pages/home.aspx |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Yes, for all teachers.
Hawai‘i State Board of Education Policy: Teacher Performance Evaluation Policy http://boe.hawaii.gov/policies/Board%20Policies/Teacher%20Performance%20Evaluation%20Policy.pdf |
1 |
Idaho |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Yes, in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Illinois |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Indiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Iowa |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Kansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Kentucky |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Yes, in an advisory role. Link to Kentucky's PGES Steering Committees |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based holistically on the multiple sources of evidence submitted in growth and effectiveness system process. |
1 |
Louisiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Maine |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Maryland |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Maryland identifies a performance rating based on effectiveness levels: highly effective, effective, and ineffective. Evaluation should result in the identification of professional development that increases the instructional craft of the teacher and the leadership skills of the principal. The individual design of this process should provide appropriate continuous professional development in response to evaluation for all teachers and principals, regardless of their effectiveness rating. |
1 |
Massachusetts |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
All educators must always be working on an educator plan. The type of educator plan the educator develops is based on his/her last evaluation rating. Educators rated Exemplary or Proficient are placed on self-directed growth plans of up to two years in length. Educators rated Needs Improvement are placed on directed growth plans of up to one year in length that are developed jointly by the educator and evaluator. Educators rated Unsatisfactory are placed on improvement plans ranging from 30 days to one year in length developed by evaluators to target the areas in which the educator’s practice is unsatisfactory. |
1 |
Michigan |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an authoritative, appointed role (Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness). |
2 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Minnesota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Mississippi |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Missouri |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Montana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Nebraska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Nevada |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Teacher improvement plans are embedded within the evaluation process. See Nevada Revised Statute 391.695
|
1 |
New Hampshire |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
New Jersey |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base teacher improvement plans on poor performance.
|
1 |
New Mexico |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
New York |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
North Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Not specified |
0 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance
|
1 |
North Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance. |
0 |
Ohio |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Oklahoma |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Oregon |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Pennsylvania |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance. |
1 |
Rhode Island |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
South Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders were engaged in system feedback Feb-April 2016 through focus groups and statewide survey. Additionally, an advisory group meets 2 or 3 times annually, and working groups are in session to develop new system guidelines. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state requires that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
South Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Tennessee |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Texas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Utah |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an authoritative, appointed role (Educator Evaluation Advisory Committee). |
2 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state requires that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Vermont |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
0 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Washington |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Yes, in an advisory role. Teachers whose practice has been rated at the “proficient” (3) or “distinguished” (4) level of performance on the Comprehensive evaluation are moved to a Focused evaluation for the ensuing three years, where they focus on one specific criterion. The rules encourage teachers to pursue professional growth in an area in which they struggle for the Focused evaluation. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance. |
0 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance.
|
1 |
Wisconsin requested that we not publish its state data.
Wyoming |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Authority |
Does the states mandate or recommend stakeholder involvement in the creation of the teacher evaluation system?
Source: American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Stakeholders are involved in an advisory role. |
1 |
Does the state require teacher improvement plans to be based on poor evaluation results? .
Source: National Council of Teaching Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not require that teacher improvement plans be based on their performance. This is a local district decision.
|
0 |
Alabama |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning. |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance. |
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Alaska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs. |
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance. |
1 |
Arizona |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
ARS 15-537 outlines requirements for dismissal of teachers receiving the lowest performance rating (as defined in ARS 15-203) for two or more consecutive years. |
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Performance based compensation systems for districts are governed by ARS 15-977. Arizona voters passed a citizen initiative in 2000 to fund teacher performance based compensation from an increase in the state sales tax.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
ARS 15-503 removed tenure protections and prohibits LEAs from providing retention priority based on seniority. |
0 |
Arkansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
California |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance
|
0 |
Colorado |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
S.B. 191 refers to status (probationary or non-probationary) based on consecutive years of effectiveness or ineffectiveness. |
1 |
Connecticut |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Delaware |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs. |
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation structure.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
District of Columbia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
OSSE does not have a policy that bases dismissals and layoffs based on teacher performance, though DCPS does. |
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
OSSE does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy but DCPS does. |
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
DCPS has eliminated teacher tenure. |
0 |
Florida |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Georgia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Hawaii |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs. There is a school code that outlines procedures for the termination of different employee types. Layoffs (i.e. staff reduction), on the other hand, are regulated by the HSTA (teachers union) contract and are not tied to performance, but rather the school’s academic and financial plans. |
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
Probationary teachers must be rated as Effective on the teacher performance evaluation for two consecutive years to receive tenure. For new hires, probation lasts for three years. Teachers have a maximum of five years to achieve tenure. 2013 Teacher Contract Highlights: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Press%20Release%20items/TeacherContract.pdf
The current contract will expire at the end of this fiscal year. The renegotiated new contract will take effect July 1, 2017. |
0 |
Idaho |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs. |
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance. |
1 |
Illinois |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance. |
1 |
Indiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance
|
1 |
Iowa |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance. |
0 |
Kansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Kentucky |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance. Teachers must complete 4 years of successful classroom experience in order to achieve tenure. Although evaluations from the professional growth and effectiveness system are not tied to tenure decisions by statute and/or regulation, evidences gathered during this process are nonetheless informative to principals. The state, however, does not have a role in the process; tenure decisions are made locally. |
0 |
Louisiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance |
1 |
Maine |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Maryland |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Massachusetts |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance
|
1 |
Michigan |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Minnesota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Mississippi |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy, but the state recommends, not requires, student growth on CCR assessments to be included as an indicator in the evaluation system
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Missouri |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher layoffs based on their performance but no such policy for dismissals. However, the state recommends, not requires, teacher evaluations to include student growth on CCR assessments as an indicator of performance. |
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Montana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Nebraska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Nevada |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher layoffs based on their performance but no such policy for dismissals.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
New Hampshire |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
New Jersey |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal based on performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
New Mexico |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance
|
0 |
New York |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
North Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
North Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Ohio |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Oklahoma |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Oregon |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Pennsylvania |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher dismissal based on their performance but no such policy for layoffs.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Rhode Island |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher layoffs based on their performance but no such policy for dismissals.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
South Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
South Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Tennessee |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Texas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher layoffs based on their performance but no such policy for dismissal.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Utah |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state has a policy for teacher layoffs based on their performance but no such policy for dismissal.
|
1 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
1 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Vermont |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
0 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Washington |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does have a policy for teacher dismissal or layoffs based on teacher performance.
|
2 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance.
|
1 |
Wisconsin requested that we not publish its state data.
Wyoming |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Power |
Does the state require teacher dismissals and/or layoffs to be based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
There is no state policy–local district decision.
|
0 |
Does the state require teachers to be compensated based on their effectiveness?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does not have a teacher performance-based compensation policy.
|
0 |
|
Does the state require tenure decisions to be based on evidence of classroom effectiveness, rather than the number of years in the classroom?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning |
The state does base tenure decisions on teacher performance. Local district decision.
|
1 |
Alabama |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included. |
2 |
Alaska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state has not required student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system.
|
0 |
Arizona |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Arkansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
California |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The State Board of Education adopted individual student growth for grades 3-8, when feasible, as a state indicator in the LCFF evaluation rubrics (July 2016). These scores will be used for accountability and continuous improvement and will not be linked to teacher evaluation. |
2 |
Colorado |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. S.B. 191 requires 50% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student growth. In 2014, the legislature gave some flexibility to districts to weigh the student learning portion of the final evaluation rating anywhere from 0-50%. |
1 |
Connecticut |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Delaware |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
District of Columbia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
DCPS has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems as early as 2009. |
1 |
Florida |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Georgia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Hawaii |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system.
On May 17, the HSTA-HIDOE Joint Committee presented recommendations, approved by the Superintendent, to the Board of Education to remove student test scores [measured in the previous version of the evaluation system as median Student Growth Percentiles (SPG)] as required for teacher performance evaluation. The Board approved. http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/Pages/BOE-approves-policy-changes.aspx |
0 |
Idaho |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Illinois |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Indiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Iowa |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
Kansas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Kentucky |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. Link to Summative Decision Rules Matrix |
0 |
Louisiana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Maine |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Maryland |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Massachusetts |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Michigan |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Minnesota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Mississippi |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
0 |
Missouri |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
Montana |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state indirectly mandates that teacher effectiveness in helping students meet rigorous learning goals be included in the teacher evaluation.
|
1 |
Nebraska |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
Nevada |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
New Hampshire |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
New Jersey |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system.
|
0 |
New Mexico |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
New York |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
North Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
North Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
Ohio |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Oklahoma |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Oregon |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Pennsylvania |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Rhode Island |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
South Carolina |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Board of Education Approved System Guidelines were approved March 2015 requiring student growth be a significant part of teacher evaluation. Those guidelines are in the process of revision to reflect ESSA related, Board approved changes to include the removal of the requirement for test-score based measures to be included in teacher evaluation. SC will continue to incorporate student growth within teacher evaluations but will do so through SLOs. |
0 |
South Dakota |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Tennessee |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years.
|
1 |
Texas |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Utah |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
Vermont |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
From 2011 to 2015, the state has not required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems. As of 2015, the state merely recommends that student growth measures be included.
|
2 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system.
Section 22.1-253.13.5 of the Code of Virginia states, in part, the following: B. Consistent with the finding that leadership is essential for the advancement of public education in the Commonwealth, teacher, principal, and superintendent evaluations shall be consistent with the performance standards included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents. Evaluations shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. Teacher evaluations shall include regular observation and evidence that instruction is aligned with the school's curriculum. Evaluations shall include identification of areas of individual strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for appropriate professional activities. |
0 |
Washington |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system. |
0 |
Virginia |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
Though the state did not require student growth criteria indicators to be significant criteria in 2011, they have since then required it in their teacher evaluation system.
Section 22.1-253.13.5 of the Code of Virginia states, in part, the following: B. Consistent with the finding that leadership is essential for the advancement of public education in the Commonwealth, teacher, principal, and superintendent evaluations shall be consistent with the performance standards included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents. Evaluations shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. Teacher evaluations shall include regular observation and evidence that instruction is aligned with the school's curriculum. Evaluations shall include identification of areas of individual strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for appropriate professional activities. |
0 |
Wisconsin requested that we not publish its state data.
Wyoming |
|
||
Supporting and Evaluating Teachers |
Strength of Attribute |
||
Stability |
Did the state change the teacher evaluation system by adding a student growth indicator as a significant criterion over the past several years?
Source: National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading, and learning; and American Institutes for Research (AIR) Center on Great Teachers & Leaders Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies |
The state has required student growth indicators to be significant criteria in teacher evaluation systems for at least the past 5 years. |
1 |
In today’s era of college- and career- ready (CCR) standards, most states and D.C. have enacted policies to support and evaluate teachers’ implementation of these standards in their classrooms. The policies range from state policies that prescribe the teacher evaluation systems that districts must implement to policies that tie tenure or compensation to teacher effectiveness.
Our organizing framework is the policy attributes theory which hypothesizes that there are five components to successful policy implementation: specificity, consistency, authority, power, and stability. We use the five different components to describe how states developed an ecosystem of teacher policies as states transitioned to CCR-aligned instruction and assessments. We draw from the databases compiled by American Institutes of Research (AIR) and the National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ) to juxtapose policies to support and evaluate teachers. There are many more published and unpublished policies that C-SAIL has not documented in the below interactive maps. Our hope is to display examples of how all 50 states and D.C. compare across a small sample of relevant actions to support and hold teachers accountable to their implementation of CCR standards.
Below are the five attributes associated with effective policy designs and implementation. We demonstrate the connection between each attribute and the policy activity of interest. We also explain the scale that indicates how strongly linked the policy activities are to the attributes. Please note that the scales are not intended to be evaluative—they merely highlight differences in the ways states have undergone implementation of teacher policies as they undertake CCR standards-based reform.
Notes on Methodology:
- We asked all the 50 states and D.C. to verify the information in our maps, giving each state one month to review the information and respond with edits. We specified that we would follow up with them weekly and if we do not hear back by the deadline, we would take their silence as approval of the data. Forty-six percent of the states and D.C. responded to our requests. If your state requires corrections, please email us at gse-csail@gse.upenn.edu.
- The data for D.C. includes policies from both the Office of State Superintendent for Education (OSSE) and the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) Central Office, since D.C. only has one district and DCPS policies largely affect school and teacher performance.
- Wisconsin officials requested that we not publish their state data.
Mean = 7.84
SD = 2.60
Overall
The Overall score associated with each state is the sum of all the other scores that the state received regarding specificity, consistency, authority, power, and stability.
Rating KeyMean = 1.80
SD = 0.78
Feature:
Specificity
Specificity describes how extensive, detailed, and/or prescriptive a policy is. The explicitness of the goals, guidelines, and resources may help schools implement policies with a greater degree of fidelity.
Specificity Rating KeyMean = 1.98
SD = 1.38
Feature:
Consistency
Consistency describes the extent to which various policies are aligned and how policies relate to each other (or support each other).
Consistency Rating KeyMean = 1.59
SD = 1.40
Feature:
Power
Power describes how policies are reinforced and enacted through systems of reward/sanction.
Power Rating KeyMean = 0.76
SD = 0.71
Feature:
Stability
Stability describes the extent to which policies change or remain constant over time.
Stability Rating Key