At the central level, teacher evaluation relies on the competencies of several agencies that co-operate regularly so as to assure the quality of the process. While the Ministry of Education holds the political and management responsibility for teacher evaluation, the technical co-ordination of the process is exercised by a dedicated unit within the Ministry (CPEIP), which in turn is required to receive independent scientific advice from universities with expertise in the area. In particular, the close association with the Docentemás team, located at the Measurement Centre of the Catholic University of Chile, ensures that the system is based on scientific advice as well as national and international research evidence. There is a perception that the Docentemás system is run with strong technical capacity. Also, the management of public schools by the municipalities offers the potential for closer monitoring of teacher evaluation practices than a centralised system would allow while also providing opportunities to recognise local realities and constraints. However, it appears that there are large variations in the extent to which municipalities have the capacity to fulfil their roles in teacher evaluation effectively. A positive development has been the considerable attention given to school leadership. However, a range of concerns remain about whether school leaders have the competencies necessary to lead the effective implementation of teacher evaluation at the school level. One of the strengths of the Docentemás teacher evaluation approach is the high involvement of practising teachers as evaluators in two main roles: as markers of teacher portfolios; and as peer evaluators who conduct peer interviews and participate in the Municipality Evaluation Commissions. For both roles, intensive preparation processes have been set up to build the capacity of those selected. However, there are a number of areas where there is room for improvement of teachers’ evaluation competencies (e.g. capacity of teachers to undertake effective self-evaluation; teachers’ limited understanding of the Docentemás system). Another concern is that there is little trust in the competencies of portfolio markers among evaluated teachers.