How can AI help Washington evaluators write TPEP teacher evaluations?
How can AI help Washington evaluators write TPEP teacher evaluations?
Washington's teacher evaluation has a structure worth understanding before you reach for any tool. Every teacher is evaluated on the same eight state criteria, but each district scores them using one of three different instructional frameworks. The part an evaluator writes most is the observation write-up against those criteria, in the district's framework language. That's where AI can genuinely help: drafting the write-up, mapping evidence to the right criterion, and putting it in the framework's own words. What it can't do is set the student growth data or produce the summative rating. This post walks through where AI helps with TPEP, where it doesn't, and what to look for.
What TPEP is
Washington's Teacher and Principal Evaluation Program (TPEP) was created by the Legislature in 2010 and is administered by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). It rests on two things: a common set of eight state criteria, and a district's choice of instructional framework.
The State 8
Every Washington teacher is evaluated on eight criteria, set in law (WAC 392-191A-060) and often called the "State 8." They are the foundation of every TPEP framework:
Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement.
Demonstrating effective teaching practices.
Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address them.
Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum.
Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment.
Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning.
Communicating and collaborating with parents and the school community.
Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning.
Student growth data support criteria 3, 6, and 8. The rest are documented largely through observation and evidence.
Three approved frameworks
Here is what makes Washington distinctive. OSPI approves three instructional frameworks, and each district adopts one to provide the rubric language for the State 8: Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching, the Center for Educational Leadership's CEL 5D+ rubric, and the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. All three map to the same eight criteria; they differ in how they describe practice.
One current detail matters. Districts that use the Danielson framework are required to use the updated 2022 edition of the Framework for Teaching for the 2025-26 school year. A tool that still reaches for the older 2011 Danielson wording is out of date for those districts.
The rating scale
TPEP uses a four-level scale across all three frameworks: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. Proficient is the expected professional standard — consistent practice with engaged students. Distinguished reflects student-directed practice where the teacher acts as a facilitator.
Comprehensive and focused evaluation
TPEP uses two evaluation types. A comprehensive evaluation assesses all eight criteria; it is required annually for provisional teachers and at least once every four years for all classroom teachers. In the years between, teachers work through a focused evaluation, which addresses at least three of the eight criteria. The observation write-up is central to both.
After the observation: where the work piles up
The observation is familiar work for a Washington evaluator. The write-up that follows is where the hours go: taking fragmentary notes and organizing them as evidence against the right criterion, settling on a defensible rating, and writing feedback a teacher can act on — in the district's framework language, and across a caseload.
Where AI helps with the TPEP write-up
The strongest fit between current AI and Washington's system is that criteria-based documentation.
AI handles three parts of it reliably. First, it turns fragmentary notes into coherent, evidence-anchored prose in the framework's language — the difference between "kids used the data walls to set goals" and a sentence tied to Criterion 6 or Criterion 1. Second, it maps evidence to the right criterion, including evidence that supports more than one. Third, it holds consistency across a caseload, so the same quality of evidence lands in similar territory from teacher to teacher.
For Washington specifically, the value is drafting in your district's framework language and toward the four levels, so the write-up is ready to inform the summative evaluation rather than something you have to translate first.
Where AI doesn't help — and what stays with the evaluator
The honest scope follows from how TPEP is built.
AI cannot set or score the student growth data behind criteria 3, 6, and 8, and it cannot produce the summative rating. Growth data is set through the district's process, and the summative rating combines the criteria with that data.
AI cannot supply an evaluator's professional judgment — what the evidence really shows, how a lesson fit a longer arc, how a rating fits the teacher's year. That stays with the evaluator, who remains the last set of eyes on every rating and comment.
And general-purpose AI has no built-in understanding of TPEP. Paste notes into a consumer chatbot and it will ignore the State 8, assume a single framework, and reach for outdated Danielson wording. For a system tied to a formal summative rating, those errors surface at the worst possible moment.
What to look for in an AI tool for Washington
A few questions worth asking before committing a tool to this work.
Does the tool actually know the State 8 — and support your district's specific framework, whether that is Danielson, CEL 5D+, or Marzano?
For Danielson districts, does it use the 2022 edition required for 2025-26, not the older 2011 wording?
Does it stay in its lane, drafting the observation write-up and leaving student growth data and the summative rating to the district?
Where does your observation data live — on the vendor's servers, or used to train models?
How EvalScribe handles TPEP
EvalScribe is built around the eight State Criteria and supports all three approved frameworks — Danielson 2022, CEL 5D+, and Marzano. An evaluator captures notes by typing, dictating, or photographing handwriting (Smart Scan OCR converts it to text), EvalScribe maps that evidence to the criterion it supports, and drafts a rating and evidence-anchored feedback in your district's framework language across the four levels. Every rating and comment is fully editable before you finalize it, and the evidence stays traceable to the note it came from.
Two scope notes, because TPEP calls for them. First, EvalScribe drafts the observation-based write-up. Student growth data (criteria 3, 6, and 8) and the overall summative rating are determined by the district, not the app. Second, for Danielson districts EvalScribe uses the 2022 edition required for 2025-26; just tell us which framework your district uses.
Beta testers report saving 30 to 60 minutes per evaluation versus writing the documentation by hand. Across eight criteria and a full caseload, that adds up to dozens of hours back — hours that can go to the coaching conversation the system is built to support. More detail on the Washington workflow is available at evalscribe.com/washington.
Frequently asked questions about TPEP and AI
Does EvalScribe support Washington's TPEP? Yes — the eight State Criteria and all three approved frameworks (Danielson 2022, CEL 5D+, Marzano), on the four-level scale.
What is the State 8? The eight evaluation criteria in Washington law (WAC 392-191A-060) that every teacher is evaluated on. All three frameworks map to them.
Which framework does EvalScribe use? Whichever your district uses. For Danielson districts, the 2022 edition required for 2025-26.
What are the rating levels? Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished. Proficient is the expected professional standard.
Does EvalScribe handle student growth and the summative rating? No. Those are set through the district's process; EvalScribe drafts the observation write-up.
If you're evaluating teachers in Washington, see how EvalScribe drafts across the State 8 and your framework at evalscribe.com/washington. Questions, or a school or district license? Reach the team at [email protected].
References
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Frameworks and Rubrics (the State 8 criteria and the three approved instructional frameworks)
WAC 392-191A-060, Minimum evaluation criteria for certificated classroom teachers (the eight state criteria)
OSPI, Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching (the 2022 edition required for Danielson districts in 2025-26)
Related articles
Page maintained by Anthony D. Neely, Ph.D. — practicing K-12 educator with nearly 20 years in the classroom, 2025–2026 Walker County Distinguished Teacher of the Year, and co-founder of EvalScribe. Framework details verified against the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction's TPEP Frameworks and Rubrics and WAC 392-191A-060.
Last updated on August 6, 2026.
