What is Indiana's RISE 3.0 teacher evaluation rubric, and how is it scored?
What is Indiana's RISE 3.0 teacher evaluation rubric, and how is it scored?
August 1, 2026• ~7 min read
Short answer: RISE 3.0 is Indiana's model teacher-evaluation system, built around a Teacher Effectiveness Rubric with three domains — Purposeful Planning, Effective Instruction, and Teacher Leadership — scored on a four-point scale: Highly Effective (4), Effective (3), Improvement Necessary (2), and Ineffective (1). The domains are not weighted equally: Effective Instruction carries the majority of the professional-practice score. Evaluators gather evidence across a required cycle of extended and short observations, then use professional judgment to assign a rating per competency. Understanding how those pieces combine is what makes a RISE evaluation defensible rather than arbitrary.
What RISE 3.0 actually is
RISE is the teacher evaluation model developed by the Indiana Department of Education. Corporations can adopt RISE as-is or build a locally developed system that meets the same statutory requirements, so a large share of Indiana teachers are evaluated on RISE or a close derivative of it. Version 3.0 is the current iteration of the model, and its heart is the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric — the instrument an evaluator actually scores.
The rubric organizes teaching into three domains, and the distribution of competencies tells you where the model puts its attention.
The three domains and their competencies
Domain 1 — Purposeful Planning covers the work that happens before the lesson: using assessment data to plan, setting ambitious and measurable achievement goals, developing standards-based unit plans and assessments, creating objective-driven lesson plans, and tracking student data to analyze progress. Five competencies in all.
Domain 2 — Effective Instruction is the largest domain by far, with nine competencies: developing student understanding and mastery of lesson objectives, communicating content knowledge clearly, engaging students in academic content, checking for understanding, modifying instruction as needed, developing higher-order understanding through rigorous work, maximizing instructional time, creating a classroom culture of respect and collaboration, and setting high expectations for academic success. This is the domain most of a walkthrough will touch.
Domain 3 — Teacher Leadership covers the professional work beyond a single classroom: contributing to school culture, collaborating with peers, seeking professional skills and knowledge, advocating for student success, and engaging families in student learning. Five competencies.
There is also a separate Core Professionalism rubric — attendance, on-time arrival, policy compliance, and respect for expectations — scored not on the four-point scale but as a simple "Meets Standard" or "Does Not Meet Standard." It functions as a floor, and it can pull a final score down, which we'll come back to.
The rating scale, and why the weighting matters
Each competency is scored on the four-point RISE scale: Highly Effective (4), Effective (3), Improvement Necessary (2), Ineffective (1). Effective (3) is the expectation for a solid, experienced teacher — not a ceiling to apologize for, and not the default for "nothing went wrong."
The part evaluators most often miss is that the domains are weighted, and heavily. When the professional-practice score is calculated, Purposeful Planning counts for roughly 10 percent, Effective Instruction for about 75 percent, and Teacher Leadership for about 15 percent. In other words, three-quarters of a teacher's practice rating rides on what happens during instruction. A leader who spends equal energy scoring all three domains is misallocating attention relative to how the model actually adds up.
Core Professionalism sits outside that weighting. If a teacher does not meet the Core Professionalism standard, the model applies a one-point deduction to the summative professional-practice score. A strong instructor can lose a full rating band on attendance or policy compliance alone — which is exactly why it's worth naming to teachers up front rather than surfacing it at the summative conference.
The observation cycle RISE requires
RISE is specific about the evidence an evaluator has to gather, and the minimums are worth knowing cold:
Extended observations: a minimum of two per year, at least one per semester, each lasting at least 40 minutes. These may be announced or unannounced. A post-conference is required within five school days.
Short observations: a minimum of three per year, at least one per semester, each lasting at least 10 minutes, and not announced. Written feedback is required within two school days.
The primary evaluator must personally conduct at least one extended and one short observation. Those response timelines — five days after an extended, two days after a short — are where the workload actually lives, and where it tends to slip.
What each domain looks like in the room
RISE is an evidence-based instrument, which means a rating has to rest on what you observed, not on an impression. In Domain 2, "Check for Understanding" is not a teacher asking "everyone got that?"; it's the teacher gathering evidence from all students and adjusting based on what that evidence shows. "Maximize Instructional Time" is visible in transitions, pacing, and how bell-to- bell the room runs. "Set High Expectations" shows up in what students are asked to produce, not in a poster on the wall. The rubric language for each competency gives you the observable markers; your notes should quote what you actually saw against them.
Common RISE scoring mistakes
A few recur often enough to name. Treating Effective as a disappointment — inflating toward Highly Effective because a lesson was pleasant — erodes the scale for everyone. Scoring all three domains as if they weigh the same, when Instruction is 75 percent of the picture. Rating from impression rather than evidence, which is the fastest way to lose a rating in a growth conference. And forgetting Core Professionalism until the summative, when its one-point deduction can undo a semester of strong instruction that the teacher was never warned about.
Indiana in context
What distinguishes RISE from a generic framework is that lopsided instructional weighting and the local-flexibility design. Because corporations can adopt RISE or a locally developed equivalent, two Indiana teachers can be evaluated on rubrics that share DNA but differ in the details — so "we use RISE" is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. Confirm which version, and which weighting option (the rubric can stand as 100 percent of professional practice, or 90 percent alongside other components), your corporation actually adopted before you calibrate.
What this means for you
If you evaluate teachers in Indiana, the practical takeaway is that RISE rewards precision: evidence tied to the right competency, scored honestly against a four-point scale, weighted the way the model actually weights it. The burden isn't the observing — being in rooms two-plus times a semester per teacher is the job, and it's the part that helps a teacher grow. The burden is the turnaround: a post-conference write-up within five days, short-observation feedback within two, across every teacher on your roster. Miss those windows and the feedback loses its coaching value and its defensibility at once. A reasonable next step is to audit your own turnaround honestly — how many minutes each RISE write-up actually takes you, times your teachers, times the required observations. Most Indiana leaders are surprised by the total.
How EvalScribe fits
EvalScribe supports the Indiana RISE model: it takes the observation evidence you already gathered and drafts a RISE-aligned write-up against the rubric's competency language, so the five-day and two-day turnarounds stop eating your evenings. It doesn't observe, and it doesn't assign the rating — you make every call, RISE's professional-judgment step stays yours, and you edit and sign. What changes is the time between the observation and the finished, defensible document. If you want to put a number on that turnaround, the district capacity calculator runs the arithmetic for your building. Adoption is simple — no long training, no consultant — but the job of evaluating well on RISE is not, and no tool should pretend otherwise.
Frequently asked questions
What are the three domains of the RISE 3.0 rubric? Purposeful Planning, Effective Instruction, and Teacher Leadership. Effective Instruction is the largest domain and carries roughly 75 percent of the professional-practice weight. See the RISE Teacher Effectiveness Rubric.
How is RISE 3.0 scored? Each competency is rated Highly Effective (4), Effective (3), Improvement Necessary (2), or Ineffective (1). Domain scores are weighted (Planning ~10%, Instruction ~75%, Leadership ~15%), and a Core Professionalism shortfall applies a one-point deduction. Details are in the RISE handbook.
How many observations does RISE require? At minimum, two extended observations (40+ minutes, at least one per semester) and three short observations (10+ minutes, unannounced, at least one per semester) per year, per the RISE handbook.
Is RISE the same in every Indiana corporation? Not necessarily. Corporations may adopt RISE as-is or use a locally developed system that meets the same requirements, so verify your corporation's exact version and weighting.
RISE gives Indiana evaluators a precise instrument. The open question it leaves on every leader's desk is how much of the week the paperwork after the observation is allowed to take.
About the author
Anthony Neely is the Founder of EvalScribe, a veteran educator, an AI integration consultant for teaching & learning, researcher, & author.
Related articles
How can AI help Indiana evaluators write RISE teacher evaluations? — the direct Indiana RISE companion post
AI for Indiana teacher evaluations (RISE) — EvalScribe's Indiana state landing page
How can AI help Illinois evaluators write teacher evaluations under PERA?
