This paper reports on a study of the current state of the art in teaching assessment. The major goal of the study was to examine a sample of assessment systems and then develop a specification for a state-of the art performance assessment system to be used for human capital management functions. The authors hope was that this specification would (a) provide a guidepost for working on a coherent instructional vision and devising methods to assess the alignment of actual instruction with that vision and (b) help states and districts think about how they want to develop their own teaching competency model and what assessment approaches fit best with different uses of this model. To that end, the paper concludes with an initial specification for a high-quality, multiuse assessment system and a preliminary road map for developing such a system. To inform their thinking, they began by reviewing several prominent assessment systems. The eight systems selected for this study are: (1) The "PRAXIS III" teacher performance assessment, developed by the Educational Testing Service for use in teacher licensure; (2) The Performance Assessment for California Teachers ("PACT"), developed by a consortium of California teacher training institutions, led by Stanford University, and used for initial teacher licensure; (3) The Formative Assessment System Continuum of Teacher Development ("FAS Continuum"), developed by the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz; (4) The Framework for Teaching, as originally developed by Charlotte Danielson ("original FFT"); (5) The version of the FFT adapted for teacher evaluation by the Cincinnati Public Schools ("Cincinnati TES"); (6) The teacher evaluation process used by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching's Teacher Advancement Program ("TAP"); (7) The assessment system developed for certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ("NBPTS"); and (8) The Classroom Assessment Scoring System ("CLASS") developed by Robert Pianta and his colleagues at the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning at the University of Virginia. Based on their review of the competencies covered by the eight systems, their assessment procedures, and the evidence for the reliability and validity of assessment scores, they propose a preliminary set of specifications that states or districts may want to consider when deciding what approach to take to their own assessment of teaching. Developing a teaching assessment for use in a strategic human capital management system is a complex undertaking. The authors outline a process that they believe can help districts and states think about how to get started and what resources are needed. Using Value-Added and Instructional Practice Measures Together for Human Capital Management Decisions is appended. (Contains 7 tables, 1 figure and 10 footnotes.)