2

Alabama is a right to work state; there are no state statues regarding public sector collective bargaining. Teachers have the right to join or refuse to join a labor organization.

2

Alaska requires districts to "consider information" from collective bargaining units in the design and development of evaluation systems, but evaluation is not explicitly subject to collective bargaining. Alaska could ensure that districts are not negotiating against quality evaluation systems by prohibiting evaluations from being subject to collective bargaining.

2

Arizona's law does not require or prohibit that evaluation is subject to collective bargaining. Arizona is also a right to work state. However, there is a current bill, SB 1485, which would prohibit government entities, such as school districts, from engaging in collective bargaining. To ensure that districts are able to implement meaningful evaluations, Arizona should mandate that teacher evaluation not be subject to collective bargaining.

2

Arkansas is a right to work state, and law is silent on whether evaluation can be a component of collective bargaining agreements. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Arkansas should clearly stat that evaluation is not subject to collective bargaining.

0

California explicitly requires that evaluation procedures be collectively bargained.

2

Colorado state law is silent on evaluation being subject to collective bargaining, however, the state articulates that educators may utilize collective bargaining to challenge ratings of "ineffective." It is worth noting that Colorado neither requires nor prohibits collective bargaining in school districts; according to the state, only 41 of Colorado's 178 districts have master collective bargaining agreements governing their personnel systems. To ensure that evaluation quality is not negotiated through any contract agreement, Colorado should explicitly remove evaluation as a part of collective bargaining.

0

Connecticut's policy is that evaluations are subject to collective bargaining at the district level. However, within the Commissioner's Network, negotiations may be limited only to the financial impact of certain components. The state could strengthen its evaluation system by completely removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

4

Teacher evaluation in Delaware is not subject to collective bargaining.

4

State law specifically excludes evaluation from collective bargaining for DCPS. All other LEAs are charter schools and not subject to collective bargaining.

2

Florida's law is silent on how collective bargaining affects the evaluation process. Districts establish evaluation procedures pursuant to Florida law and the Department of Education approves each district's evaluation system. To strengthen the state's ability to measure teacher and principal effectiveness, Florida should explicitly prohibit evaluation from being subject to collective bargaining, through state law.

4

As part of Georgia State Education Code, Chapter 2 Article 17, under "Teachers and Other School Personnel," collective bargaining is not permitted, allowing districts to develop evaluation systems outside of the contract process.

4

Hawaii's public employee collective bargaining law expressly excludes evaluations from the list of mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. The Board of Education requires the department to consult and confer with collective bargaining representatives on the design of the system, and allows the department to negotiate certain elements, but the state does not require that evaluation systems be collectively bargained.

0

In 2011, Idaho passed innovative legislation through Senate Bill 1108, which encompassed strong evaluation systems and policies to support performance-based personnel decision-making. In November 2012, however, these reforms were repealed through the defeat of Proposition 1, a state ballot initiative. SB 1108 proposed limiting collective bargaining negotiations to matters of compensation and benefits, effectively separating the criteria of it teacher evaluation systems from the bargaining process. However, with the defeat of Proposition 1, negotiations subject to collective bargaining include “those matters specified in any such negotiation agreement between the local board of trustees and the local education organization.” Evaluation criteria, therefore, is a subject of negotiation for districts in Idaho. To strengthen the quality of a teacher evaluation system, Idaho must work to ensure that the evaluation criteria are not subject to this process.

2

Illinois limits the evaluation criteria that may be subject to collective negotiations. The state should completely remove evaluations from collective negotiations.

4

Indiana state law establishes that evaluation of certified employees can not be subject to collective bargaining.

0

In Iowa, evaluation procedures may be negotiated as long as they are not in conflict with collective bargaining regulations. Iowa can strengthen its evaluation system by removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

2

Kansas law is silent regarding whether district development and adoption of evaluation systems is subject to collective bargaining. A state-level memorandum with the union representing state employees has broad requirements for evaluations, but also does not require that district-level systems to be subject to negotiation. In order to ensure that districts can develop and implement meaningful evaluation systems, Kansas should explicitly exempt evaluation criteria and design from the collective bargaining process.

2

Kentucky's evaluation laws are silent regarding collective bargaining. Instead, Kentucky should prohibit evaluations from being subject to collective bargaining agreements.

2

Louisiana is a right to work state, and while it has teacher unions, state law is silent on collective bargaining as it pertains to evaluation. To increase teacher effectiveness and ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Louisiana should explicitly remove evaluation as a component of collective bargaining.

2

In Maine, evaluation is neither explicitly listed as a subject of collective bargaining, nor is it exempted. The state should clarify that the design and development of evaluation systems, including the criteria, are considered "educational policies" and are therefore specifically exempt from the scope of collective bargaining.

2

Maryland requires districts to negotiate with local bargaining representatives in the development of evaluation systems, but stipulates that if the local representative and the district fail to agree, that the state model shall be used as the district evaluation system.

0

The state’s policy is that evlauation is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. The department of education provides model contract language, but districts are free to adopt it in full, modify it, or negotiate their own language. There are no limitations that require bargaining scope to only apply to process issues. The department also must approve elements of evaluation systems, but districts are not free to develop these systems without making them part of the bargaining process. Massachusetts should protect district ability to develop rigorous evaluation systems free from negotiation and trade-offs at the bargaining table.

4

In Michigan, collective bargaining between a public school employer and a bargaining representative of the school's employees shall not include decisions about the development, content, standards, procedures, adoption, and implementation of a public school employer's performance evaluation system.

0

Minnesota law states that a school board and an exclusive representative of the teachers in the district may develop a teacher evaluation and peer review process for probationary and continuing contract teachers through joint agreement. In order to help increase the quality of teaching in Minnesota, the state should require that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

2

Mississippi law is silent as to whether evaluation procedures are subject to collective bargaining. However, Mississippi is a "right to work state," which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, the collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Mississippi should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

2

Missouri state law is silent on whether evaluations are subject to collective bargaining; the decision is left to the local district. The state could strengthen its evaluation system by prohibiting evaluation as a subject of collective bargaining.

0

Montana law is silent as to whether evaluation is subject to collective bargaining. State policy is that it is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. To increase teacher quality, Montana should ensure teacher evaluation is separate from the collective bargaining process.

0

Nebraska's policy is that that evaluation is fully subject to collective bargaining.

0

State law implicitly makes evaluation a component of collective bargaining by allowing a collective bargaining agreement to supersede state laws on teacher evaluation. To strengthen its teacher quality and evaluation measures, Nevada law should explicitly prohibit an evaluation from being subject to the collective bargaining process.

2

New Hampshire state law is silent on whether teacher evaluations are subject to collective bargaining. In order to increase teacher effectiveness, New Hampshire law must explicitly state that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

2

New Jersey limits the use of collective bargaining on evaluations. Evaluations rubrics that have been approved by the Commissioner are not subject to collective negotiations. However, aspects of evaluation not superseded by statute or regulation must continue to be mandatory subjects of collective negotiations. The State could strengthen its evaluation system by completely removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

0

New Mexico state law requires that all public employers and representatives bargain on terms of employment. This expansive scope would include development of evaluation systems used to evaluate employees and inform personnel decisions. In order to give districts the authority to improve their teacher and principal evaluations, New Mexico should require that those evaluations not be subject to collective bargaining.

0

In New York, evaluation criteria are subject to collective bargaining, except for the 20 to 25% based on student growth on state assessments (a component of the 40% student growth measure). Evaluation criteria should be matters of public policy, not contract negotiations.

4

North Carolina state statute prohibits collective bargaining by all public employees. As a result, evaluations cannot be subject to negotiations under collective bargaining.

2

State policy is silent on required scope of collective bargaining agreements, including evaluation. It is a right to work state.

4

In Ohio, principal and teacher evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining agreements; boards of education are required to adopt an evaluation policy that meets the state criteria and any collective bargaining agreements are required to include that policy.

2

Oklahoma law is silent as to whether evaluation is subject to collective bargaining at the district level. Evaluations are left up to districts, but state law requires districts and the collective bargaining contract to comply with the minimum standards set by the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness statute requirements and the State Board of Education minimum standards prior to the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year. To further strengthen teacher evaluation systems, Oklahoma should mandate that evaluations not be subject to collective bargaining.

4

Oregon state law exempts teacher evaluations from mandatory subjects for collective bargaining agreements. School districts have the power to do create their own evaluation criteria.

4

Pennsylvania requires that collective bargaining agreements must be in line with the mandated teacher evaluations.

2

Rhode Island state law is silent, as evaluation criteria are not specifically mentioned as within the scope of collective bargaining. To build teacher effectiveness, Rhode Island should ensure implementation of the state's evaluation standard is not subject to delays due to the collective bargaining process.

4

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and teachers may choose to join professional associations. However, the South Carolina State Supreme Court has held that public employees do not have a right to collective bargaining.

2

Current state law is silent on evaluation being subject to collective bargaining. To ensure that evaluation quality is not negotiated through any contract agreements, South Dakota should explicitly remove evaluation as a part of collective bargaining.

4

Collective bargaining was removed completely from the realm of education negotiations with the passage of SB113.

2

Texas law is silent as to whether evaluation procedures are subject to collective bargaining. However, Texas is a right-to-work state, which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Texas should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

2

Utah is silent on collective bargaining on evaluation. However, Utah is a right-to-work state, which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, the collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Utah should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

0

Vermont's state law allows for any issue to be negotiated at the local level. To strengthen teacher quality in Vermont, the state should ensure that a framework for a strong evaluation system that incorporates objective measures of student growth couldnt be subject to the collective bargaining process.

2

Virginia is a right-to-work state, but state law is silent on evaluation as a component of collective bargaining agreements for those teachers who do belong to the Virginia branch of the National Education Association. While collective bargaining is limited in these cases, Virginia should ensure evaluations are free from collective bargaining by making the distinction explicit in state law.

2

Washington state law does not enumerate evaluation as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining for teachers. Still, the state could ensure that districts are able to implement robust, meaningful evaluations by explicitly exempting evaluation system criteria and design from collective bargaining.

2

West Virginia state law is silent on the scope of collective bargaining. In order to recognize the importance of evaluations to good teaching, West Virginia should set as law that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

4

In 2011, Wisconsin repealed the statutory provision requiring evaluation to be subject to collective bargaining.

0

Wyoming's policy is that evaluation is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. To ensure better teachers for students, the state should mandate that evaluations are separate from the collective bargaining process.

4

Teacher evaluation in Delaware is not subject to collective bargaining.

4

State law specifically excludes evaluation from collective bargaining for DCPS. All other LEAs are charter schools and not subject to collective bargaining.

4

As part of Georgia State Education Code, Chapter 2 Article 17, under "Teachers and Other School Personnel," collective bargaining is not permitted, allowing districts to develop evaluation systems outside of the contract process.

4

Hawaii's public employee collective bargaining law expressly excludes evaluations from the list of mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. The Board of Education requires the department to consult and confer with collective bargaining representatives on the design of the system, and allows the department to negotiate certain elements, but the state does not require that evaluation systems be collectively bargained.

4

Indiana state law establishes that evaluation of certified employees can not be subject to collective bargaining.

4

In Michigan, collective bargaining between a public school employer and a bargaining representative of the school's employees shall not include decisions about the development, content, standards, procedures, adoption, and implementation of a public school employer's performance evaluation system.

4

North Carolina state statute prohibits collective bargaining by all public employees. As a result, evaluations cannot be subject to negotiations under collective bargaining.

4

In Ohio, principal and teacher evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining agreements; boards of education are required to adopt an evaluation policy that meets the state criteria and any collective bargaining agreements are required to include that policy.

4

Oregon state law exempts teacher evaluations from mandatory subjects for collective bargaining agreements. School districts have the power to do create their own evaluation criteria.

4

Pennsylvania requires that collective bargaining agreements must be in line with the mandated teacher evaluations.

4

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and teachers may choose to join professional associations. However, the South Carolina State Supreme Court has held that public employees do not have a right to collective bargaining.

4

Collective bargaining was removed completely from the realm of education negotiations with the passage of SB113.

4

In 2011, Wisconsin repealed the statutory provision requiring evaluation to be subject to collective bargaining.

2

Alabama is a right to work state; there are no state statues regarding public sector collective bargaining. Teachers have the right to join or refuse to join a labor organization.

2

Alaska requires districts to "consider information" from collective bargaining units in the design and development of evaluation systems, but evaluation is not explicitly subject to collective bargaining. Alaska could ensure that districts are not negotiating against quality evaluation systems by prohibiting evaluations from being subject to collective bargaining.

2

Arizona's law does not require or prohibit that evaluation is subject to collective bargaining. Arizona is also a right to work state. However, there is a current bill, SB 1485, which would prohibit government entities, such as school districts, from engaging in collective bargaining. To ensure that districts are able to implement meaningful evaluations, Arizona should mandate that teacher evaluation not be subject to collective bargaining.

2

Arkansas is a right to work state, and law is silent on whether evaluation can be a component of collective bargaining agreements. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Arkansas should clearly stat that evaluation is not subject to collective bargaining.

2

Colorado state law is silent on evaluation being subject to collective bargaining, however, the state articulates that educators may utilize collective bargaining to challenge ratings of "ineffective." It is worth noting that Colorado neither requires nor prohibits collective bargaining in school districts; according to the state, only 41 of Colorado's 178 districts have master collective bargaining agreements governing their personnel systems. To ensure that evaluation quality is not negotiated through any contract agreement, Colorado should explicitly remove evaluation as a part of collective bargaining.

2

Florida's law is silent on how collective bargaining affects the evaluation process. Districts establish evaluation procedures pursuant to Florida law and the Department of Education approves each district's evaluation system. To strengthen the state's ability to measure teacher and principal effectiveness, Florida should explicitly prohibit evaluation from being subject to collective bargaining, through state law.

2

Illinois limits the evaluation criteria that may be subject to collective negotiations. The state should completely remove evaluations from collective negotiations.

2

Kansas law is silent regarding whether district development and adoption of evaluation systems is subject to collective bargaining. A state-level memorandum with the union representing state employees has broad requirements for evaluations, but also does not require that district-level systems to be subject to negotiation. In order to ensure that districts can develop and implement meaningful evaluation systems, Kansas should explicitly exempt evaluation criteria and design from the collective bargaining process.

2

Kentucky's evaluation laws are silent regarding collective bargaining. Instead, Kentucky should prohibit evaluations from being subject to collective bargaining agreements.

2

Louisiana is a right to work state, and while it has teacher unions, state law is silent on collective bargaining as it pertains to evaluation. To increase teacher effectiveness and ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Louisiana should explicitly remove evaluation as a component of collective bargaining.

2

In Maine, evaluation is neither explicitly listed as a subject of collective bargaining, nor is it exempted. The state should clarify that the design and development of evaluation systems, including the criteria, are considered "educational policies" and are therefore specifically exempt from the scope of collective bargaining.

2

Maryland requires districts to negotiate with local bargaining representatives in the development of evaluation systems, but stipulates that if the local representative and the district fail to agree, that the state model shall be used as the district evaluation system.

2

Mississippi law is silent as to whether evaluation procedures are subject to collective bargaining. However, Mississippi is a "right to work state," which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, the collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Mississippi should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

2

Missouri state law is silent on whether evaluations are subject to collective bargaining; the decision is left to the local district. The state could strengthen its evaluation system by prohibiting evaluation as a subject of collective bargaining.

2

New Hampshire state law is silent on whether teacher evaluations are subject to collective bargaining. In order to increase teacher effectiveness, New Hampshire law must explicitly state that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

2

New Jersey limits the use of collective bargaining on evaluations. Evaluations rubrics that have been approved by the Commissioner are not subject to collective negotiations. However, aspects of evaluation not superseded by statute or regulation must continue to be mandatory subjects of collective negotiations. The State could strengthen its evaluation system by completely removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

2

State policy is silent on required scope of collective bargaining agreements, including evaluation. It is a right to work state.

2

Oklahoma law is silent as to whether evaluation is subject to collective bargaining at the district level. Evaluations are left up to districts, but state law requires districts and the collective bargaining contract to comply with the minimum standards set by the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness statute requirements and the State Board of Education minimum standards prior to the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year. To further strengthen teacher evaluation systems, Oklahoma should mandate that evaluations not be subject to collective bargaining.

2

Rhode Island state law is silent, as evaluation criteria are not specifically mentioned as within the scope of collective bargaining. To build teacher effectiveness, Rhode Island should ensure implementation of the state's evaluation standard is not subject to delays due to the collective bargaining process.

2

Current state law is silent on evaluation being subject to collective bargaining. To ensure that evaluation quality is not negotiated through any contract agreements, South Dakota should explicitly remove evaluation as a part of collective bargaining.

2

Texas law is silent as to whether evaluation procedures are subject to collective bargaining. However, Texas is a right-to-work state, which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Texas should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

2

Utah is silent on collective bargaining on evaluation. However, Utah is a right-to-work state, which means that individuals may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Thus, the collective bargaining power is very limited and any portion of the evaluation process that was subject to negotiation may apply only to a few individuals. To ensure that no part of the evaluation process is subject to collective bargaining, Utah should explicitly amend its to law to except evaluations from any negotiation.

2

Virginia is a right-to-work state, but state law is silent on evaluation as a component of collective bargaining agreements for those teachers who do belong to the Virginia branch of the National Education Association. While collective bargaining is limited in these cases, Virginia should ensure evaluations are free from collective bargaining by making the distinction explicit in state law.

2

Washington state law does not enumerate evaluation as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining for teachers. Still, the state could ensure that districts are able to implement robust, meaningful evaluations by explicitly exempting evaluation system criteria and design from collective bargaining.

2

West Virginia state law is silent on the scope of collective bargaining. In order to recognize the importance of evaluations to good teaching, West Virginia should set as law that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

0

California explicitly requires that evaluation procedures be collectively bargained.

0

Connecticut's policy is that evaluations are subject to collective bargaining at the district level. However, within the Commissioner's Network, negotiations may be limited only to the financial impact of certain components. The state could strengthen its evaluation system by completely removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

0

In 2011, Idaho passed innovative legislation through Senate Bill 1108, which encompassed strong evaluation systems and policies to support performance-based personnel decision-making. In November 2012, however, these reforms were repealed through the defeat of Proposition 1, a state ballot initiative. SB 1108 proposed limiting collective bargaining negotiations to matters of compensation and benefits, effectively separating the criteria of it teacher evaluation systems from the bargaining process. However, with the defeat of Proposition 1, negotiations subject to collective bargaining include “those matters specified in any such negotiation agreement between the local board of trustees and the local education organization.” Evaluation criteria, therefore, is a subject of negotiation for districts in Idaho. To strengthen the quality of a teacher evaluation system, Idaho must work to ensure that the evaluation criteria are not subject to this process.

0

In Iowa, evaluation procedures may be negotiated as long as they are not in conflict with collective bargaining regulations. Iowa can strengthen its evaluation system by removing evaluation criteria as a subject of collective bargaining.

0

The state’s policy is that evlauation is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. The department of education provides model contract language, but districts are free to adopt it in full, modify it, or negotiate their own language. There are no limitations that require bargaining scope to only apply to process issues. The department also must approve elements of evaluation systems, but districts are not free to develop these systems without making them part of the bargaining process. Massachusetts should protect district ability to develop rigorous evaluation systems free from negotiation and trade-offs at the bargaining table.

0

Minnesota law states that a school board and an exclusive representative of the teachers in the district may develop a teacher evaluation and peer review process for probationary and continuing contract teachers through joint agreement. In order to help increase the quality of teaching in Minnesota, the state should require that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.

0

Montana law is silent as to whether evaluation is subject to collective bargaining. State policy is that it is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. To increase teacher quality, Montana should ensure teacher evaluation is separate from the collective bargaining process.

0

Nebraska's policy is that that evaluation is fully subject to collective bargaining.

0

State law implicitly makes evaluation a component of collective bargaining by allowing a collective bargaining agreement to supersede state laws on teacher evaluation. To strengthen its teacher quality and evaluation measures, Nevada law should explicitly prohibit an evaluation from being subject to the collective bargaining process.

0

New Mexico state law requires that all public employers and representatives bargain on terms of employment. This expansive scope would include development of evaluation systems used to evaluate employees and inform personnel decisions. In order to give districts the authority to improve their teacher and principal evaluations, New Mexico should require that those evaluations not be subject to collective bargaining.

0

In New York, evaluation criteria are subject to collective bargaining, except for the 20 to 25% based on student growth on state assessments (a component of the 40% student growth measure). Evaluation criteria should be matters of public policy, not contract negotiations.

0

Vermont's state law allows for any issue to be negotiated at the local level. To strengthen teacher quality in Vermont, the state should ensure that a framework for a strong evaluation system that incorporates objective measures of student growth couldnt be subject to the collective bargaining process.

0

Wyoming's policy is that evaluation is fully subject to collective bargaining at the district level. To ensure better teachers for students, the state should mandate that evaluations are separate from the collective bargaining process.