If education in Indiana is to dramatically improve, the systems and policies that collectively shape the learning experiences for students must be re-imagined. In the spring of 2011, the Indiana legislature passed IC 20-28-11.5, a new law relating to the evaluation of all certified teaching staff and administrators. Prior to this legislation, evaluation systems around the state varied greatly in quality and consistency. The new law introduced three main requirements of all evaluation systems: (1) Every teacher must receive an evaluation annually; (2) Every evaluation system must include four performance categories: Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement Necessary, and Ineffective; and (3) Every evaluation system must incorporate measures of student growth and achievement as a "significant" portion of a teacher's evaluation. To support corporations in this work, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) created a model teacher evaluation system. This system, named RISE, was developed over the course of two years by the Indiana Teacher Evaluation Cabinet. The Cabinet is composed of a diverse group of educators and administrators from around the state, more than half of whom have won awards for excellence in teaching. In school year 2011-2012, the DOE, with the support of TNTP, is piloting RISE and following the implementation of other locally developed or purchased evaluation systems in order to test and gather feedback to share statewide. The pilot project presents an opportunity for school corporations to gain hands-on experience with the new process, recognize their best educators, and make sure that every classroom is led by a great teacher. Additionally, it offers the IDOE a valuable opportunity to gain feedback and insight from the field, which can be used to sharpen and refine RISE for the following year. This report will summarize lessons from the pilot project thus far, with a particular focus on planning, design, and initial implementation. The findings and recommendations are intended to guide corporations in developing evaluation plans for implementation in 2012-2013. Appended are: (1) Pilot Corporation Profiles; (2) Descriptions of Pilot Evaluation Systems; (3) TAP System (Beech Grove); (4) Bremen Evaluation System, Bremen; (5) MSD Warren Evaluation System (MSD Warren); and (6) Comparison of Systems.