1. Before writing, read each standard and the criteria under it. What is the 'big picture'? What are they getting at? Keep the focus on the standard, but do mention or cite to the criteria where appropriate.

2. Know the outcome before you begin to write the evaluation. This means that you should have made your decision ("meets" "does not meet") prior to writing. The evaluation is not the place to 'think on paper.' The evaluation is the written support for your conclusion.

3. It should be clear to the reader what the problems were, what opportunities for growth were provided or what attempts were made previously to remedy those problems, and your conclusion about the ultimate outcome of those efforts. Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone reading it that you marked "does not meet" the standard. If it is a surprise, you haven't written convincingly.

4. Give credit where credit is due. Does the person do anything positive or well in regard to this standard? A credible evaluation is not one that is completely negative (or completely positive, for that matter), as seldom is a teacher all "good" or all "bad" in an area, and particularly not a beginning teacher.

5. Be as detailed as possible. Give examples from observation(s), evidence submitted, or documented incidents.

6. Do not routinely include rumors and reports (whether from parents, students, or other staff) unless you have already confronted the teacher and given him/her an opportunity to respond to the rumor or report AND you're satisfied that the explanation was insufficient to dispel the concern. If that exchange has occurred, include that fact in the evaluation.

7. Give dates and times whenever they are known. They give an additional aura of credibility.

8. Always include evidence of how and when the teacher was advised that this standard or criterion was in need of serious attention, and the teacher's response (verbal, written, or practice), if any.

9. Because your conclusion is that the teacher does not meet one or more standards, we recommend that you take time to discuss each criterion – something that's not necessary if you're giving the teacher a "thumbs up" on license and career status. Rather than discussing the number of criteria not successfully addressed, you could instead state how far the teacher was from meeting the standard. For example, being "close" would support a conclusion that the teacher should get an additional year of mentoring and induction to work on this standard in earnest. In contrast, if the teacher was far from attaining competence in the standard, state this also. It justifies a decision not to extend a third year of mentoring and induction.

10. Because your conclusion is that the teacher does not meet the standard in an area, mention or discuss the absence of evidence of a criterion as well as weak or ineffective evidence of a criterion.

11. Use the teacher's first name. The use of last names in an evaluation implies distance or possibly even a negative relationship.

12. Don't refer to yourself in the third person ("This evaluator believes . . .") Just say "I believe . . ." or, better yet, state your opinion as fact ("Mark didn't . . .").

13. Be objective but firm; clear, but not cruel. Don't be wishy-washy. For example, don't say, "Maybe with a little more time, Meredith would be able to . . ." unless you plan to recommend that Meredith be given one more year of mentoring or induction to meet the standards. If Meredith did not do what she was to have done, say, "Meredith failed to . . ." or "Meredith's performance in this area is unacceptable" or "she doesn't meet the district's expectations in this area."

14. Use correct grammar, check for spelling errors, and write in complete sentences. Paragraphs indicate the writer is well organized.

15. Write for a third party non-educator to read and understand; use educational lingo sparingly –- and only when appropriate (e.g., when discussing "standards and benchmarks"). If there's a choice of terms, use the one that is more easily understood by a lay person. For example, a judge doesn't know what an "entitled student" is. S/he is more likely to understand the term "special education student" or "special needs student."

16. Don't worry about being too wordy. Worry about not giving enough information.

17. Write a brief (2-3 sentence) summary of the standard at the end, so it's clear why you're making the (negative) determination you are making.

18. Have the superintendent or another evaluator within the district whose opinion you trust and value (or the school attorney) review your written evaluation.