Research indicates the number one influence on student learning in a school is the teacher. Therefore, the 2017 ESSA legislation requires states to report if there is equity in the distribution of quality teachers in the state between high poverty and high minority schools and the rest of the schools. To determine equity, each state must report to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) a comparison of the number of “ineffective” teachers between high poverty schools and low poverty schools and high minority schools and low minority schools (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act Sec. 2104. [20 U.S.C. 6614] Reporting). North Dakota is not going to break out the report by teachers, but rather by teaching. Using ineffective teaching data based on the evaluation models, the NDDPI will determine an ineffective teacher equivalent.
Contact the Office of School Approval & Opportunity for additional information.
Teacher Evaluation Reporting in North Dakota: Frequently Asked Questions
Purpose and Background
Q: Why are school districts expected to report teacher evaluation information to the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction?
A: Research shows that teachers are the most important school-based factor in student learning. Under the 2017 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states must report whether students in high-poverty and high-minority schools have equitable access to effective teaching. North Dakota fulfills this requirement by reporting on ineffective teaching, not individual teachers.
Why Focus on Teaching, Not Teachers?
Q: Why has North Dakota decided to report out on “ineffective teaching” versus “ineffective teachers”?
A: The goal of North Dakota’s evaluation system is to support professional growth. Labeling teachers as “ineffective” could discourage honest feedback and shift the focus away from improvement. Reporting on teaching practices instead helps preserve the integrity of the evaluation process.
Defining and Reporting Ineffective Teaching
Q: Which teacher evaluation models may be used?
A: There are three approved teacher evaluation models listed below for use for the 2025-2026 school year. Each school may choose only one. NDDPI is not accepting teacher evaluation ratings from other models at this time. Find resources for these models further down this web page.
- Danielson
- Marshall
- Marzano
Q: Which components of the teacher evaluation models should be used for ratings?
A: It is encouraged that your school uses all components of your chosen model, or for your school to work closely with the corresponding organization to determine the components to be used. Most importantly, each evaluated teacher must be rated on the same number of factors, based on the same model. This number of factors rated per teacher will be reported.
Q: What counts as “ineffective teaching”?
A: Any rating at Level One or Level Zero on any factors of the approved evaluation models:
- Danielson Model: Level One = “Unsatisfactory”
- Marshall Model: Level One = “Does Not Meet Standards”
- Marzano Model:
- Level One = “Beginning”
- Level Zero = “Not Using”
Q: State law requires that teachers within the first three years of teaching are evaluated (via “performance review,” NDCC 15.1-15-01) at least twice per school year while more experienced teachers are to be evaluated at least once per school year. How does that impact this reporting?
A: While state law requires teachers within their first three years of teaching to be evaluated at least twice per school year, for the purpose of this reporting, each teacher is evaluated only once. Please report one overall evaluation of any teacher who was evaluated multiple times by your administration. It is also required that the same number of factors, based on the same model, be rated per teacher regardless of years of teaching experience.
Evaluation Models and Comparisons
Q: How can there be a comparison between different teacher evaluation models in the state?
A: All models define Level One as the lowest performance level. Level Zero (used in some models) is also counted as the lowest performing level. For example, one Level Zero and two Level One ratings would count as three lowest-performing ratings.
Data Collection and Reporting
Q: Will this data be reported out on the local school ESSA dashboard?
A: No. This data is reported only at the state level.
Q: Will the data collected on the percentage of teachers who are rated as “ineffective” be published?
A: No.
Q: Is the data collected and reported at the school or district level?
A: It is collected at the school level and is reported at a state level.
Q: When does this data get collected and how?
A: The report opens in mid-March and closes on June 30 each year. To submit:
- Log into STARS
- Click the Personnel folder
- Select Teacher Effectiveness
Additional Evaluation Data
Q: Will data be collected on the percentage of teaching at Levels Two, Three, and Four?
A: Yes. This helps with professional development planning and identifying strengths and areas for growth. However, only Level One and Zero data is reported to US ED.
Q: Will data be collected on the specific domains and components used to evaluate teachers?
A: At this time, only the number of factors rated per teacher are collected.
Q: Will this data be collected on principals?
A: No, not at this time. Districts are encouraged to collect this data locally for their own use.
Q: How is the number of ineffective teaching instances calculated?
A: Following is an example of where a school has 20 teachers who are each rated on 22 factors:
- Number of teachers rated for the year: 20
- Total number of factors rated for each teacher: 22
- Total Possible Ratings: 20 × 22 = 800
- Number of factors rated at Level One/Zero for all teachers evaluated: 48
- Percent of Level One/Zero Ratings = 48 ÷ 800 = 6%
- Teacher Equivalent Number: 6% × 20 = 1.2 teacher equivalents
ESSA Requirements and Definitions
Q: What are the requirements under ESSA for teacher reporting?
A: ESSA requires states to show that low-income and minority students are not disproportionately taught by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. North Dakota’s ESSA plan outlines how this data is collected and reported.
Q: What is considered a high-poverty school?
A: A school where 40% or more of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, based on the Title I definition.
NDDPI Contact Information:
If you have questions regarding this document, please contact the Office of School Approval & Opportunity.
Teacher Evaluation Reporting in North Dakota: Frequently Asked Questions
Approved Teacher Evaluation Models
Danielson Teacher Evaluation Model & Resources
Model Version
The most current version of the Danielson Group’s Framework for Teaching was published in 2022, and published within the book Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed. through ASCD in 2024. The Danielson Group will also support their 2013 Framework for Teaching.
Overview
Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed. is considered the best practice guide. It may be purchased individually through ASCD or in bulk (with significant discounts) through The Danielson Group by contacting Lindsay Prendergast.
Evaluation Components
The framework comprises 22 components across four domains, namely:
Planning & Preparation (6 components)
Learning Environments (5 components)
Learning Experiences (5 components)
Principled Teaching (6 components)
Schools may determine which of these components are required in their evaluations based on local context, in collaboration with the Danielson Group.
Rating Scale
Level One: Unsatisfactory
Level Two: Basic
Level Three: Proficient
Level Four: Distinguished
Additional Resources
Contact
For questions or for more information regarding the Danielson Framework for Teaching, please contact Dr. Lindsay Prendergast, Assistant Director of Strategy and Development at prendergast@danielsongroup.org
Marshall Teacher Evaluation Model & Resources
Model Version
Kim Marshall prefers that schools use the 2024 edition of the Marshall Teacher Evaluation Rubric.
Overview
The following rubric’s first page gives a brief overall description of the model.
Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation, 3rd ed. provides the fullest overview.
Evaluation Components
The rubric comprises 54 components across six domains, namely:
Planning and Preparation for Learning (9 components)
Classroom Management (9 components)
Delivery of Instruction (9 components)
Monitoring, Assessment, and Follow-Up (9 components)
Family and Community Outreach (9 components)
Professional Responsibilities (9 components)
Rating Scale
Level One: Does Not Meet Standards
Level Two: Improvement Necessary
Level Three: Effective
Level Four: Highly Ineffective
Contact
Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model & Resources
Model Version
The Marzano Resources team recommends using Dr. Marzano’s 2020 version of the model, Improving Teacher Development and Evaluation (ITDE), for optimal alignment with best practices in teacher development and evaluation.
Overview
The “Observational principles and categories” document provides an overview of the model's principles and categories. The document highlights six principles for effective classroom observations, aiming to make observations more efficient, valid, and useful for teachers and supervisors. These principles include focusing on a viable set of observational categories, using a conjunctive approach for summarizing competence, inviting non-observational evidence, continually updating teacher status, computing overall scores using self-ratings, and interpreting scores as teacher capacity indices.
Evaluation Components
The observational scales comprise 43 elements within 31 observational categories across ten domains, namely:
Providing and Communicating Clear Learning Goals (3 elements within 3 observational categories)
Using Assessments (2 elements within 2 observational categories)
Conducting Direct Instruction Lessons (3 elements within 3 observational categories)
Conducting Practicing and Deepening Lessons (3 elements within 3 observational categories)
Conducting Knowledge Application Lessons (3 elements within 3 observational categories)
Using Strategies That Appear in All Types of Lessons (8 elements within 4 observational categories)
Using Engagement Strategies (10 elements within 4 observational categories)
Implementing Rules and Procedures (5 elements within 4 observational categories)
Building Relationships (3 elements within 3 observational categories)
Communicating High Expectations (3 elements within 2 observational categories)
School administrators may use their discretion in determining whether their school’s evaluations will rely on the 43 elements or the 31 observational categories as the evaluation components.
Rating Scale
Level Zero: Not Using
Level One: Beginning
Level Two: Developing
Level Three: Applying
Level Four: Innovating
Additional Resources
Appendix B of the ITDE framework, titled “Design Area Observational Scales,” contains resources for each of the ten design areas. These resources include teacher evidence, student evidence, and an evaluation protocol to guide scoring decisions. See also MarzanoResources.com/reproducibles/ITDE.
Contact
Lindsay Asp at 952-956-2123.