Every state runs its own evaluation model. These guides break down the standards, observation requirements, and scoring, and show how to run them in one configurable system.
State evaluations are one part of the educator experience: in EX in Education, they connect to coaching, goals, PD, and retention, across every school in your district.
Each guide covers the standards, domains, and observation requirements for that state, and how districts run the same model alongside coaching, goals, PD, and recognition, on the way from hired to thriving.
Alabama's Teacher Growth Program on the 10 Alabama Core Teaching Standards, observed with the ATOT.
Alaska's eight Professional Teaching Standards, with locally designed district evaluation systems.
Arizona's Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness, with the TAP rubric and student academic progress.
Arkansas's Teacher Excellence and Support System (TESS), built on the Danielson framework.
California's Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): six standards, with 28 elements in the current 2024 version.
Colorado's State Model under SB 10-191: the quality standards, measures of student learning, and the 70/30 weighting.
Connecticut's 2023 Guidelines and the CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching: four domains and twelve indicators.
Delaware's Teacher Growth and Support System (DTGSS): three observation performance areas with nine indicators, plus student learning goals.
Florida's district-adopted systems under Statute 1012.34, aligned to the FEAPs.
Georgia's Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES): five domains and ten performance standards.
Hawaii's Educator Effectiveness System: Danielson-based observations plus student growth.
Idaho's Danielson-aligned evaluation under IDAPA 08.02.02, with district implementation.
Illinois PERA evaluations on the Danielson Framework: four domains and 22 components.
Indiana's RISE 3.0 model: the teacher effectiveness rubric across planning, instruction, and leadership.
Iowa's eight Teaching Standards and 42 criteria under Iowa Code 284.
The Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP): four constructs and four performance levels.
Kentucky's local certified evaluation plans and the Kentucky Framework for Teaching.
Louisiana's LEADS system: the Louisiana Educator Rubric and Student Learning Targets.
Maine's locally designed Performance Evaluation and Professional Growth systems under Chapter 180.
Maryland's evaluation under COMAR: Danielson-aligned professional practice paired with student growth measures.
The Massachusetts DESE model: four standards, the 2024 classroom teacher rubric, and the five-step cycle.
Michigan's 5D+ framework: the five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning and the observation cycle.
Minnesota's teacher development and evaluation: a three-year cycle and Standards of Effective Practice.
Mississippi's Teacher Growth Rubric: four domains and nine standards.
Missouri's Network for Educator Effectiveness (NEE): seven standards and 36 indicators.
Montana's local evaluation systems under Chapter 55, with the optional Montana-EPAS model.
Nebraska's state model evaluation framework, with locally implemented district systems.
The Nevada Educator Performance Framework: instructional practice, professional responsibilities, and student performance.
New Hampshire's locally designed evaluation systems and the state's recommended model.
New Jersey's AchieveNJ: four domains and 22 components of the teaching practice framework.
New Mexico's Elevate NM system, built on an adapted Danielson framework.
New York's APPR under Education Law 3012-d: Danielson observations, HEDI ratings, and student performance measures.
North Carolina's Educator Evaluation System: professional teaching standards and the evaluation process.
North Dakota's district-adopted evaluation models under NDCC 15.1.
Ohio's OTES 2.0: four domains and 19 components across the observation and evidence cycle.
Oklahoma's Teacher and Leader Effectiveness (TLE): a qualitative five-dimension framework, with optional quantitative measures.
Oregon's Framework under SB 290: three measures combined through the Oregon Matrix.
Pennsylvania's Act 13 Educator Effectiveness system: the Danielson framework, observation and practice, and student performance data.
Rhode Island's RIDE model: professional practice standards and Student Learning Objectives.
South Carolina's Expanded ADEPT with the SCTS 4.0 rubric: four domains and 23 indicators.
The South Dakota Framework for Teaching: Danielson domains plus Student Learning Objectives.
Tennessee's TEAM model: the rubric, observation requirements, and growth scoring.
The Texas Teacher Evaluation & Support System: dimensions, domains, and the observation cycle.
A complete guide to T-TESS walkthroughs, required observations, and what evaluators look for.
Utah's Effective Teaching Standards (UETS) and LEA-designed evaluation under R277-323.
Vermont's Core Teaching Standards, with locally designed supervision and evaluation.
Virginia's eight Uniform Performance Standards, including culturally responsive teaching and student academic progress.
Washington's TPEP with the CEL 5D+ framework: the eight state criteria and the comprehensive and focused cycles.
West Virginia's Policy 5310: five professional teaching standards and four performance levels.
Wisconsin's EE System using the 2022 Danielson framework and Student/School Learning Objectives.
Wyoming's district-designed evaluation systems under W.S. 21-3-110, approved by the State Board.
More state guides are being added. Ask us about your state.
Part of EX in Education
State teacher evaluations are one part of how districts support educators. In EX in Education, they connect to the bigger picture: walkthroughs, coaching, evaluations, goals, PD, recognition, surveys, and retention. Bring your own process, or start from a template, then run it across every school so every educator moves from hired to thriving.
A printable, framework-neutral observation form you can use on your next visit: evidence areas, a four-level scale, and space for commendations and next steps. Use it alongside your state's model.