Skip to main content

Administrator Evaluation Requirements in Law

Administrator Requirements in Law

The following list can be used to review and design a local evaluation system to support compliance with state law. 

Evaluation Tool

  • Select one or more evaluation tools from the state-approved list or locally developed tools.
  • Adopt and implement a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system.
  • Evaluate administrators annually.
    • Exception: Administrators rated effective or highly effective on their three most recent consecutive evaluations may be evaluated biennially.
      • However, if the administrator is not rated as effective on one of these biennial or triennial evaluations, or the administrator’s evaluator changes, then the administrator must be evaluated annually.


  • Provide all evaluators of administrators training in the administrator evaluation tool by an individual who has expertise in the evaluation tool.
  • Provide all administrators training on the evaluation tool used in the performance evaluation system. 
  • Provide all evaluators of administrators Rater Reliability Training by September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter that includes:
    • Clear and consistent set of evaluation criteria that all evaluators can use when assessing teacher performance.
    • Clear expectations for what evaluators should look for when assessing teacher performance, including identifying key behaviors and practices that are associated with effective teaching.
    • Training on the evaluation process itself, including how to conduct classroom observations, collect data, and analyze results.
    • Calibration exercises that help evaluators practice using the evaluation criteria and establish consistency in the evaluator's evaluations.
    • Ongoing support for evaluators, including feedback and coaching to help the evaluators improve their skills and ensure they are consistently applying the evaluation criteria.

End of Year Evaluations

  • Provide each administrator who receives an end-of-year evaluation with a final summative rating of Needing Support, Developing, or Effective.  If a written evaluation is not provided, the administrator is deemed effective.
  • Designate an administrator as unevaluated who has worked less than 60 days, had their ratings vacated through grievance procedure, or had extenuating circumstances that prevented a year-end evaluation. If an administrator is designated unevaluated their most recent evaluation rating is used for purposes of consecutive years. 
  • Dismiss any administrator that is rated ineffective and/or needing support on 3 consecutive year-end evaluations is from employment.

Student Growth and Assessment Data

  • Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth for administrator evaluation purposes.
  • Develop multiple rating categories that consider student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics.
  • Ensure 20% of year-end evaluation is based on student growth and assessment data.

Other Objective Criteria

  • Consider the inclusion of additional objective criteria which must be locally bargained.  Note: There is no statutory or legal definition for “other objective criteria.”

Assignment of a Mentor

  • Assign a mentor to all administrators (except superintendent) in their first three years in a new administrative position.

Individualized Development Plans (IDPs)

  • Develop an IDP for all administrators rated less than effective.
  • Ensure IDPs include:
    • Specific performance goals to improve effectiveness.
    • Recommended training to assist in meeting goals.
    • Written improvement plan with any recommended trainings and supports.

Building Visits

  • Conduct a site visit in the building in which the administrator works as part of the evaluation process for building-level administrators; building visits must include classroom observations to collect evidence of the school improvement plan strategies being implemented and the impact the school improvement plan has on learning.

Midyear Progress Report

  • Provide a midyear progress report to all administrators in their year of evaluation. Midyear progress reports must provide a written improvement plan that includes specific performance goals for remainder of the year and includes any recommended training to meet those goals.

Review of Evaluation Rating

  • Establish a process allowing an administrator to request a review of the evaluation and rating by the District Superintendent within 30 calendar days after being informed of the rating.
    • Superintendent must provide a written response with their findings within 30 calendar days of request.  If review does not resolve the matter the administrator may request mediation within 30 days of response.
    • Ensure that policy allows an administrator that is rated “Needing Support” on 2 consecutive year-end evaluations to demand to use the grievance procedure in the administrator's CBA or employment contract that concerns the administrator’s second evaluation rating and the evaluation process.
    • If a collective bargaining agreement or employment contract does not contain a grievance procedure that ends in binding arbitration, the administrator may request binding arbitration by filing a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association within 30 calendar days after the administrator receives the written response from the district superintendent.

Public Posting and Assurances

  • Post the following information on the district website about the evaluation tool(s) used for administrator performance evaluation system: 
    • Research base for evaluation framework, instrument, and process.
    • Identity and qualifications of the evaluation tool’s author(s), or the identity and qualifications of the person(s) with expertise in administrator evaluation who has/have reviewed any adaptation(s) or modification(s) to the tool.
    • Evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy (or a plan for developing that evidence) of tool.
    • Assurance that any adaptations or modifications of the tool do not compromise the reliability, validity, or efficacy of the evaluation tool or the evaluation process.
    • Evaluation frameworks and rubrics with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators.
    • Description of processes for conducting classroom observations, collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing performance improvement plans.
    • Description of plan for providing training to evaluators and observers.