The System should:

1. Conform to state statutes concerning educator evaluation.

2. Be understood, credible, valued, and used by District personnel, Board, and community.

3. Supply information about educator quality for accountability, educator planning, retention decisions, and public and professional dissemination.

4. Recognize and acknowledge good teaching, reassure practitioners and audiences, highlight exemplary practices for emulation, inform hiring practices, and foster improvement.

5. Include formative, summative, and monitoring functions.

6. Be based upon the best objective evidence available, control bias, and involve the interested audiences. Value the use of multiple and variable data sources.

7. Promote equality of opportunity for student learning.

8. Include the central involvement of individual educators and their responsi-bility for their own professional evaluation. Promote equality of opportu-nity for professional practice and documentation of merit, value, and impact.

9. Be based on role expectations derived from national professional standards.1

10. Meet professional standards for sound evaluation, including propriety (ethical and legal), utility (useable and effective), feasibility (practical, effi-cient, and cost-effective), and accuracy (valid and reliable).2

11. Support fairness and the rights of both educators and the institution.3

12. Include all categories of personnel, and be supported by assessment of other educational components that influence student achievement (e.g., curricu-lum, facilities, materials, technology, resources, community support). The District should show balance in assessing students, staff, and programs, and reciprocity and parallelism in rigor and frequency of assessment.

13. In cases of poor practice, to supply specific information for effective remediation, or to make a case for dismissal.

14. Be subject itself to evaluation, validation, refinement, and updating.
1National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1996). What teachers should know and be able to do. Detroit, MI: NBPTS.
2Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). D.L. Stufflebeam (Chair),The personnel evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
3 Strike, K. & Bull, B. (1981). Fairness and the legal context of teacher evalua-tion. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 301-343). Beverly Hills: Sage.