The frequently asked questions are grouped into categories for easier navigation. If you don't see your question, please submit it and it will be added to the page.
This section continues to be updated. Please check back often for additional information!
- Specialized Service Professionals (referred to as Other Licensed Personnel in law)
- Educators in Unique Roles
- School Districts and Accountability for Implementing a New Evaluation System
- Inter-rater Agreement
- CDE Roles and Responsibilities
- Colorado State Model Performance Management System
- Charter and Innovation Schools
- Teacher Student Data Link
Senate Bill 10-191
What is Senate Bill 10-191?
In May 2010, the Colorado Legislature passed and Gov. Bill Ritter signed S.B. 10- 191, which changes the way principals, teachers and specialized service professionals are supported and evaluated in Colorado. Among other requirements, the bill requires that at least 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation be based on the academic growth of their students, at least 50 percent of a principal's evaluation be determined by the academic growth of the students in the principal's school and at least 50 percent of a specialized service professional's evaluation be based on measures of student outcomes. Additionally, the new requirements include opportunities for reflection, review, professional development and growth. As a result, annual evaluations will now be required for all teachers, principals and specialized service professionals. Also, statewide Quality Standards defining what it means to be an effective educator have been developed and must be implemented. For teachers, non-probationary status will now be earned after three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness and non-probationary status will be lost after two consecutive years of ineffective ratings.
What is the timeline for implementing Senate Bill 10-191?
2012-13 school year
- The Colorado Model Evaluation System for teachers and principals is piloted (the Colorado Evaluation System for principals was also piloted in the 2011-12 school year).
- CDE will collect data, information and feedback and meet with pilot districts to share lessons learned, analyze data and make adjustments to the system as needed.
- Criteria for evaluating specialized service professionals (currently referred to as other licensed personnel in state rule) will be determined. Other licensed personnel include school audiologists, nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers, speech-language pathologists and counselors.
2013-14 school year
- Beginning on July 1, 2013 every school district in Colorado will be required to provide an annual assurance that shows they are implementing the Colorado Model Evaluation System or a locally developed system that meets all statutory and regulatory requirements.
- The new evaluation requirements, based on the Quality Standards, will be implemented statewide. Because it’s the first year (a hold harmless year), a final rating of partially effective or ineffective will not count towards the loss of non-probationary status.
- Rubrics for evaluating specialized service professionals (currently referred to as other licensed personnel in state rule) will be tested. To learn more about the pilot, click here.
- CDE will continue to improve the Colorado Model Evaluation System based on feedback and educator experience.
2014-15 school year
- Evaluations based on the Quality Standards continue to be implemented.
- Districts had flexibility in the 2014-15 school year when determining how much weight the measures of student learning/outcomes standards counts in the educator's final evaluation rating.
- This will be the first year that a final rating of partially effective or ineffective will be considered in the loss of non-probationary status (after two consecutive years of similar ratings).
- CDE will continue to improve the Colorado Model Evaluation System based on feedback and educator experience.
2015-2016 and moving forward
- Districts fully implement S.B. 191 based on all Quality Standards
What is the difference between an appeals process and a grievance?
An appeal and a grievance are different processes designed to address different concerns. A grievance is a complaint filed by an employee covered by the local educational association regarding an adverse employment action. The grievance process follows the district’s grievance policy. A grievance is usually initiated based on contractual agreements made between the educational association (union) and the district board of education and can be filed by the local education association, a probationary or a non-probationary teacher. In the case of S.B. 10-191, an appeal is a specific request by a non-probationary teacher for a review of his/her evaluation rating when he/she has received a second consecutive rating of ineffective or partially effective and may lose his/her non-probationary status as a result.
The S.B. 10-191 appeal process is enacted only by a non-probationary teacher who has received a second consecutive rating of ineffective or partially effective and wishes to appeal that rating. S.B. 10-191 and the accompanying rules outline a process for appeals. Districts are required to adopt an appeals process that is aligned to the law. Additionally, if a collective bargaining unit exists, the district is required to collaborate with them on the appeals process, which could include designing a local process that meets the law or adopting the process outlined in the Rules (PDF).
What is the portability of non-probationary status?
Senate Bill 10-191 includes a provision (22-63-203.5) of non-probationary portability. Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, a non-probationary teacher who chooses to seek employment in another Colorado school district and has received effective or higher ratings in the two years prior shall be granted non-probationary status by a hiring school district if the teacher can provide the hiring district evidence of his/her effectiveness ratings through his/her measures of student learning and performance evaluations. The portability provision in statute does not address portability for probationary teachers.
CDE recommends you work with your district human resources office and district legal counsel to determine your local implementation policies related to this provision.
State Council for Educator Effectiveness
What is the State Council for Educator Effectiveness?
The Council was formed as a result of Senate Bill 10-191 and has four main roles:
- Define teacher and principal effectiveness
- Establish levels of effectiveness and performance standards
- Develop guidelines for a fair, rigorous and transparent system to evaluate teachers and principals
- Recommend state policy changes to prepare, evaluate and support teachers and principals
In April 2011 the Council recommended a new, comprehensive educator evaluation system to the State Board of Educator that is uniquely Colorado and based on best practices and proven research. The Council strives to balance the diverse needs of Colorado’s 178 school districts with state requirements. Ultimately, districts will be required to ensure their educator evaluation system adheres with the state’s requirements.
Who is included on the State Council for Educator Effectiveness?
The State Council was appointed by the governor in January 2010, by executive order, and was codified by S.B. 10-191. It includes the following 15 members:
- Matthew Smith, Vice President, Engineering & IT Systems, United Launch Alliance — Chair
- Katy Anthes, Executive Director of Educator Effectiveness, Colorado Department of Education — Vice Chair
- Amie Baca-Oehlert, Vice President, Colorado Education Association
- Jo Ann Baxter, Former Member, Board of Education, Moffat County School District RE-1
- Bill Bregar, Former Member, Board of Education, Pueblo County School District 70
- Dr. Margaret Crespo, Director Secondary Education, Thompson School District
- Kerrie Dallman, President, Colorado Education Association
- Tracy Dorland, Chief Academic Officer, Adams 12 Five Star Schools
- Lorrie Shepard, Dean, School of Education, University of Colorado-Boulder
- Jim Smyth, Teacher, Mesa County Valley School District
- Sandra Smyser, Superintendent, Poudre School District
- Kim Ash, Principal, Littleton Preparatory Charter School
- Mandi Marcantonio, Student Representative, Colorado State University
- Kimba Rael, Teacher Representative
- MiDian Holmes, Parent Representative
Colorado State Model Evaluation System
What is the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
To support school districts in implementing the new evaluation requirements, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) is developing a Colorado Model Evaluation System as an option for districts to use for teacher, principal and specialized service professionals evaluations. The Colorado Model Evaluation System uses a meaningful process for educator evaluation. The year-long process includes regular conversations between the evaluator and evaluatee and is not a one-time event or observation, but rather a process that focuses on continuous improvement of the skills, knowledge and student outcomes of the person being evaluated.
How is a teacher rated under the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
Educators will be rated on Quality Standards that measure professional practice and student learning over time. Half of the evaluation will be based on the Teacher Quality Standards identified by the State Board of Education that measure professional practice: content knowledge, establish classroom environment, facilitate learning, and professionalism. The Quality Standards can be measured using the state-developed rubric that identifies the practices necessary to achieve the standards. Measures of Student Learning will account for the other half of the evaluation. These measures will be based on multiple measures of student learning, not a single assessment. Teachers must have a team attribution measure and at least one individual attribution measure. If a teacher teaches a subject that takes the statewide summative exam, it must be used as one of the multiple measures.
How is a principal rated under the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
Principals will be evaluated on the Principal Quality Standards identified by the State Board of Education. Half of the evaluation will be based on the six professional practice Quality Standards: strategic leadership, instructional leadership, school cultural and equity leadership, human resource leadership, managerial leadership and external development leadership. The Quality Standards can be measured using the state-developed rubric that identifies the practices necessary to achieve the standards. The other half of a principal’s evaluation will be based on the seventh Quality Standard which measures the academic growth of the students in their school. Principals must have a team attribution student growth score and student growth scores that are aligned to their teachers. The score on the School Performance Framework would be applicable.
Will districts be required to use the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
No. To support school districts in implementing the new evaluation requirements, CDE is developing the Colorado Model Evaluation System as an option for districts to use for teacher and principal evaluations. However, districts do not have to adapt the Colorado Model Evaluation System. If a district chooses to create their own system, it must meet or exceed the requirements in State Board Rules.
Colorado State Model Evaluation System Pilot
During the creation of the State Model Evaluation System, how many districts piloted the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
Twenty-seven districts are piloted the Colorado Model Evaluation System. CDE selected 15 pilot districts, based on a public application process, to test the state model of evaluation. The 15 districts included: Jefferson County, St. Vrain, Moffat, Platte Canyon, South Routt, Eads, Crowley, Custer, Miami-Yoder, Salida, Center, Del Norte, Mountain Valley, Wray and Valley RE-1. In addition to the 15 pilot districts, several districts had already begun this work and “partnered” with CDE to align and map their current evaluation systems to the rules and expectations from S.B. 10-191. Partner districts included Harrison and Brighton. A third opportunity for collaboration comes from a grant opportunity secured by the Colorado Education Initiative. Five “Integration” districts and one BOCES were selected by the Colorado Education Initiative to implement both the evaluation system and the new Colorado Academic Standards. Those districts and BOCES included Centennial, San Juan BOCES (Archuleta, Bayfield, Durango, Dolores RE-2, Dolores RE-4, Ignacio, Mancos, Montezuma-Cortez, and Silverton), Thompson, Eagle County and Denver Public Schools. All of these efforts align and work together to help us learn and make necessary mid-course corrections during the two- year pilot phase of the Colorado Model Evaluation System. Educator feedback from these pilot districts informed improvements to the model system prior to implementation.
During the creation of the State Model Evaluation System, what is the timeline for the pilot?
The pilot and pilot-integration districts tested the principal rubric and evaluation matrix during the 2011-12 school year, and piloted the teacher rubric and evaluation matrix in the 2012-13 school year. The Colorado Content Collaboratives, P-12 educators from around the state, have identified and created high-quality assessments, which are aligned to the new Colorado Academic Standards and may be used in educator effectiveness evaluations (For more information, click here).
Will the pilot address evaluation systems for other categories of licensed personnel?
Nineteen sites across the state also piloted the Colorado State Model Evaluation System for specialized service professionals during the 2013-14 school year. Feedback from pilot schools, districts and BOCES informed improvements to the model system prior to the statewide implementation in the 2014-15 school year.
What are we learning from the pilot districts?
- There are challenges – such as the resources and time required to complete annual evaluations for all licensed educators.
- Being part of the pilot has increased conversation and focus on instructional effectiveness and has also provided concrete ideas for areas of growth.
- The model process creates more of a partnership between principals and teachers. It is focused on the professional needs and aspirations of teachers rather than a compliance exercise for human resources.
- Teachers in the pilot report that evaluation feels less subjective with the new rubric and process; they greatly appreciate receiving actionable feedback.
- The self-assessment step gives the district information on where to focus their energy (e.g. professional development needs).
- The new evaluation process has the opportunity to change the way professional development is approached. The observations and coaching conversations become the professional development instead of all-day ‘one-size fits all’ professional development.
- The new evaluations are connecting the work from students to teachers to principals to schools to districts in a much more meaningful way. It also helps to focus discussions on alignment of standards, curriculum and assessments from preschool through twelfth grade.
- In general, the new evaluations bring a shift in roles at every level. Teachers own their professional growth more than in years past, principals focus on their role as instructional leaders, districts focus resources to support principals and the state shifts to being more supportive (vs. compliance driven) by providing models, tools, trainings and overall guidance as to how to implement the requirements of S.B. 10-191.
Measuring the 50 Percent Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes in Evaluations
How much will the CMAS count on teachers' evaluations?
While student academic growth must comprise 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, that growth must be evaluated based on multiple valid and reliable measures. CMAS results, when available, must be used as a portion of how student growth is measured. Districts and BOCES will make their own decisions about how much weight to give the CMAS results.
Will teachers in untested CMAS subjects and grades be evaluated under the new system?
Yes. S.B. 191 requires that all school districts adapt a performance evaluation system to evaluate all licensed personnel. At least 50 percent of an educator's evaluation must be determined by the academic growth of the teacher's students, and measures of student learning may include the results of interim assessment or evidence of student work. The Colorado Content Collaborative project is building an assessment Resource Bank consisting of assessments - for all grade levels and content areas - which are aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards. These assessments will provide an option for measuring student learning for teachers in untested CMAS subjects and grades.
When should districts be able to measure student academic growth and incorporate it in their evaluation system?
By July 2013, all districts must have an evaluation system that evaluates teachers and principals with 50 percent based on measures of student learning, including statewide summative assessments, where available, and any data available from the Colorado Growth Model. Districts are encouraged to begin thinking about which measures of student growth they have available, and how they will combine multiple measures to assess performance on the student growth quality standard. CDE has released guidance on how to select and combine measures of student learning. This guidance is intended to give districts and BOCES a starting point for determining the 50 percent student growth portion of teacher and principal evaluations. CDE is using pilot experience and overall feedback to improve this guidance over time.
How are districts expected to measure academic growth effectively in time to meet the S.B. 10-191 timeline requirements?
Through the use of Content Collaboratives, CDE will work with Colorado educators who are leaders in their content areas and assessment experts from Colorado and around the nation to develop examples of student academic learning measures in all content areas and all grades based on the Colorado Academic Standards. Districts can choose to use their own measures, so long as they meet the requirements outlined in the State Board’s rules, as well as the fair, valid and reliable criteria set forth by the Technical Steering Committee working with the Content Collaboratives.
To what extend do districts need to work with psychometricians as they create their multiple measures for evaluation?
The department will provide access to the guidelines and protocol established by the Technical Steering Committee, which is working with the Content Collaboratives and consists of state and national experts, in addition to other statewide assistance opportunities.
Will there be an overarching framework for what "good enough" assessments or other growth measures look like? How will the reliability and quality of the assessments and other measures be ensured?
The rules approved by the State Board of Education require CDE to develop guidance that will help districts identify measures that meet minimum standards of credibility, validity, and reliability. CDE is tasking the Content Collaboratives with providing initial guidance in regards to content credibility and utility for each content area on this topic. The department and collaboratives are working with the Center for Assessment and the Technical Steering Committee to develop criteria for districts to use to assess the fairness of their own growth measures.
How can measures for assessment be developed to ensure that the focus is on improving instructional practice of all teachers?
One of the purposes of using measures of student growth is to provide information that, if used effectively, will improve instruction. The evaluation system will be a work in progress as we get better at developing measures and assessments that provide instructional guidance. In addition, the Content Collaboratives’ work does not end with identifying and creating measures over time; future years of the collaboratives’ work include using these measures to develop instructional practices for best teaching mastery of the Colorado Academic Standards.
Colorado Content Collaboratives
Who are the Colorado Content Collaboratives?
They are a groups of Colorado educators brought together to identify and create high-quality assessments, which are aligned to the new Colorado Academic Standards. For more information, visit the Content Collaborative website.
What is the goal of the Colorado Content Collaboratives?
The goal of the first year of the Colorado Content Collaboratives was to identify an initial bank of student assessments which can be used to measure student learning over time for purposes of educator evaluation (as required by Senate Bill 10-191). The intent was to gather sample measures in each grade for each subject and establish the beginning of an on-going build out of the CDE Resource Bank.
From 2013-15, The Colorado Content Collaboratives will continue to refine and build the CDE Resource Bank and will work to fill any content or grade-level gaps that may exist when the bank initially launches. However, the work of the Colorado Content Collaboratives does not stop with identifying measures for the CDE Resource Bank. The vision is for the collaboratives to become networks for creating and disseminating innovative teaching practices. Long term goals include:
- Building instructional tools aligned to the standards and responsive to gaps in student learning
- Increasing student achievement through improved instructional and assessment practices
- Establishing authentic and active participation in reform efforts by educators across Colorado
- Implementing more effective use of district professional development budgets and time
The ongoing work of the Colorado Content Collaboratives will help to build statewide capacity and also ensures that Colorado educators continue to be highly involved in the state’s reform efforts.
Who can evaluate educators?
All educators deserve a quality evaluation process with feedback for continuous improvement. With that in mind, Senate Bill 10-191 explains that all evaluators of teachers, principals, and specialized service professionals must complete a training approved by the CDE in evaluation skills. In addition to being trained on the art and skill of being an evaluator, they also need to be trained on the evaluation system that they will be using to evaluate educators.
To conduct evaluations a person either needs to currently hold a principal or administrator license from CDE or they need to be certified and approved through one of the State Model Approved Evaluator Training Providers from across the state. CDE's training providers are able to approve evaluator designees to conduct evaluations.
Can candidates in licensure programs evaluate educators prior to obtaining their initial license from CDE?
All evaluators of educators must currently hold a principal or administrator license from CDE or they need to be certified and approved through one of the State Model Approved Evaluator Training Providers from across the state. Being currently enrolled in an Institute of Higher Education principal or administrative program does not constitute the ability to evaluate educators. For example, if a person was in the middle of a principal licensure program they would need to be certified by one of the Approved Training Providers during their time in the principal program if they are intending to evaluate educators prior to receiving their license from CDE.
Participants in alternative principal licensure programs do have the ability to serve as a building administrator, but legislation around teacher evaluation requires principals/evaluators to be properly certified and approved to conduct educator evaluations. During the time that the principal is in the alternative licensure program but still hasn’t earned their initial principal licensure from the state, the participant must attend and be certified by one of the Approved Training Providers to conduct evaluations of their educators.
Below are frequently asked questions related to the impact HB 15-1323 has on educator evaluations. View a PDF of these FAQs.
What is the overview of the new requirements for educator evaluations that I should be aware of from this law?
Beginning with the 2015-16 school year, and in subsequent years, local boards may use statewide assessment data as a measure of student learning for that year’s evaluation rating only if the data is available two weeks prior to last class day of the school year. If the local board does not receive the data in time to use it in the evaluation report prepared for the school year in which the assessments are administered, the local board must use alternate measures of student learning. If growth, based on state assessments, is not available prior to the last two weeks of the school-year, the local board must then use that statewide assessment data as a measure in the educator’s evaluation the following school year. For educators who are new to a district, state growth measures from the prior year will not be available.
As a reminder, in 2015-16 and in subsequent years, 50% of an educator’s evaluation must be based on multiple measures of student learning.
How can we use state assessment results (CMAS) in educator evaluations?
Beginning with the 2015-16, local boards may use statewide assessment results in educator evaluations in two ways: First, to use the results in evaluations in the same year that the assessment was administered, the results must be available at least two weeks prior to the last class day of the school year. Second, districts may use the results from the prior assessment year in educator evaluations. When districts use prior year results, it means that state assessment results are the “first data point in” to an educator’s evaluation at the beginning of the year, rather than the “last data point in” at the end of the year.
Specialized Service Professionals (currently referred to as Other Licensed Professionals in law)
Who is classified as a Specialized Service Professional?
Specialized Service Professionals include audiologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, school counselors, school nurses, school orientation and mobility specialists, school psychologists, school social workers and speech language pathologists.
How will specialized service professionals be evaluated?
In 2012, the State Council for Educator Effectiveness and the Colorado Department of Education formed nine work groups with experts from the field from each professional group (listed above) to make recommendations regarding their evaluation. Each work group was charged with identifying how their licensed category align to the statewide Quality Standards for teachers and what changes, if any, needed to be made to ensure their evaluations were meaningful and feedback was provided to inform their professional practice. Standard and element recommendations for professional practices were made to the State Council for Educator Effectiveness from the work groups and were approved by the State Board of Education in December of 2013. For more information, download the fact sheet on specialized service professionals. To view the state model evaluation rubrics for specialized service professionals, click here.
Educators in Unique Roles
How will you evaluate licensed educators in early childhood?
Early childhood educators are included in S.B. 10-191 to ensure that they, too, benefit from opportunities for meaningful feedback and professional development. The teacher evaluation requirements apply to any early childhood educator whose position requires a license from the state. This includes some, but not all early childhood educators. District or BOCES policies can have an impact on how early childhood professionals are evaluated. For example, if a district or BOCES requires a certain position to be licensed (that isn’t required to be licensed by the state), then it is a district or BOCES decision if those professionals are evaluated under S.B. 10-191. For more, download the fact sheet.
How will Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSAs) be evaluated?
Districts use their TOSAs in lots of different ways and in different capacities. Because of this flexibility, districts are encouraged to use whatever evaluation tool is most appropriate based on the role and responsibility of the TOSA. For example, if you have a TOSA that’s school based and is working more as an instructional coach, modeling and preparing lessons with teachers in classrooms, the teacher rubric might make the most sense. If they are serving more as an instructional leader in their building or district, parts of the principal rubric might make sense. District-level folks should be evaluated as they have been prior, because the roles and responsibilities vary greatly across districts, using the job description as a guidepost. Because TOSAs deserve meaningful evaluations, pulling appropriate parts of the teacher and principal rubric may also capture performance while providing feedback.
Do teachers that are employed by districts/BOCES on a 110 day contract have to be evaluated annually?
Yes, all licensed staff, except for BOCES employees who are employed less than six weeks must be evaluated annually. The spirit of this requirement is to ensure that all students have effective teachers, all teachers have effective leaders, and all staff is provided meaningful feedback about their practice in order to continuously improve.
How will all other individuals who perform unique and specialized roles be evaluated?
CDE has created high level guidance for districts regarding how to evaluate individuals serving in a dual or specialized role. This is not a fully comprehensive document but, rather, offers ideas and points of consideration for districts as they identify and implement the tenets of S.B. 10-191. This guidance may be revised as we learn more about what works best for districts.
School Districts and Accountability for Implementing a New Evaluation System
How will districts be held accountable for implementation of local evaluation systems?
Beginning July 2013, the department began collecting and reviewing assurances from each district indicating whether the district is implementing the state model evaluation system, or has designed its own evaluation system that meets the requirements outlined in statute and rule. Districts that revise the state Quality Standards or develop their own quality standards are required to submit data to CDE in the HR collection based on a crosswalk of their standards to the state Quality Standards. In addition to the assurances, in the spring of 2013, the legislature adopted H.B. 13-1257 which further codified the support and monitoring functions of the department, including the responsibility of CDE to respond to requests for review of local educator evaluation systems. The statute provides an avenue for interested parties who are affected by the evaluation system to submit requests to the department to review a district’s locally-developed educator evaluation system for adherence to the law. Each year CDE will also conduct data analysis on educator effectiveness metrics (based on performance ratings submitted through the Department's HR collection) to assess evaluation system implementation statewide and for individual districts. The results of these analyses will be used to provide districts with useful information about their systems and to identify districts that may need assistance or be struggling with implementation. CDE staff will then conduct a review process with any identified district to support fidelity of implementation and the continuous improvement of evaluation systems. All of these metrics are currently available to superintendents through a semi-private version of SchoolView. In the fall of 2016 some of the metrics will also be available to the public through SchoolView. The metrics are always aggregated to the school, district, or state level and the identity of individual educators is protected. Additionally, the Department may develop methods for integrating information about evaluation systems into accountability and improvement efforts, potentially including school and district performance reports, and incorporating monitoring data into school and district unified improvement plans.
What is inter-rater agreement?
Inter-rater agreement is the extent to which two or more evaluators, using the same evaluation tool, give the same rating to an identical observable situation, such as a classroom lesson or a video. It is a measure of consistency to support fair evaluations from evaluators.
What is CDE doing to promote inter-rater agreement?
CDE has tools to promote common interpretations of teacher quality and help evaluators provide useful and actionable feedback to educators including an IRA Guidance document and The Resource Guide for Deepening the Understanding of Teacher's Professional Practices.
What is the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
CDE is working in partnership with RANDA Solutions, Inc. (RANDA) to create an online performance management system to support districts in the implementation, data collection and effective use of the Colorado State Model Evaluation System. The Colorado State Model Performance Management System launched in the 2014-2015 school year. The performance management system includes electronic interfaces and data collection tools for the state model evaluation rubrics, measures of student learning/outcomes, final effectiveness ratings, and aggregate reports to support principals and district leaders to provide useful and actionable feedback and possible professional development opportunities for educators.
How did CDE decide to invest in the development of the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
Pilot districts of the Colorado State Model Evaluation System revealed the challenges of managing paperwork inherent in implementing new educator evaluation system and asked CDE if a data management system, that would streamline this paperwork burden, could be made available. As a result, in March 2013, CDE conducted an open bid and review process for selection of the vendor to create an online performance management system. RANDA was selected through that competitive process. RANDA is a private corporation. It is not affiliated with nor has it received funding from the Gates Foundation.
How much will this system cost my district/BOCES/charter school?
The Colorado State Model Performance Management System (as designed) is free for districts/BOCES/charter schools using the state model system. CDE plans to sustain the licensing costs to support districts/BOCES/charter schools that adopt the RANDA Solutions, Inc. (RANDA) powered system. However, if a district/BOCES/charter school wants to further customize elements of the system beyond the state contract, they will need to work with RANDA directly to determine pricing for local enhancements.
How was RANDA chosen to power the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
In March 2013, CDE conducted an open bid and review process for selection of the vendor to create an online performance management system. RANDA was selected through that competitive process. The system was built to Colorado specifications and informed by an advisory group comprised of Colorado educators. RANDA is a private corporation. It is not affiliated with nor has it received funding from the Gates Foundation.
Are Colorado school districts required to use the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
No. RANDA powers the State Model Online Performance Management System and is entirely optional for districts. Each district has the autonomy to select a vendor or design a performance management system locally that best meets their needs.
Do I have to use the Colorado State Model Performance Management System for all educators in my district/BOCES/charter school?
No, you can use the Colorado State Model Performance Management System for whichever educator groups you plan to use the Colorado State Model Evaluation System.
Can my district/BOCES/charter school upload historical evaluation data into the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
Currently, the Colorado State Model Performance Management System is not designed to include historical evaluation data from other sources. If a district wants to upload historical evaluation data, they would need to work with RANDA directly to do so.
How is personnel information in the Colorado State Model Performance Management System protected and used?
The Colorado Department of Education Identity Management System maintains user IDs to protect sensitive information which is proprietary and as such requires protection under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The purpose of this policy is to establish a standard to protect information received; collected, and developed or used by CDE information systems in order to protect this information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of information stored therein. All data in the Colorado State Model Performance Management System belongs to the district/BOCES/charter school in which it is generated. Data may be used to provide individualized reports accessible only to that district/BOCES/charter school and aggregated state reports. For more information, please visit the Acceptable Use Policy.
Furthermore, RANDA provides additional protections as the hosts of the data contained in the Colorado State Model Performance Management System.
What training is available on the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
The Colorado State Model Performance Management System includes instructional videos for completing each step in the evaluation process.
When can a district/BOCES/charter school begin using the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
The system currently has more than 24,000 users in the system. For districts/BOCES/charter schools wishing to enter the system for the 2016-17 school year, there will be a rolling cycle to be added to the system. Please let CDE know as soon as possible if your district/BOCES/charter school would like to use the system.
How can my district/BOCES/charter school sign-up to use the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
For more information, please contact email@example.com.
How did CDE engage with educators in the development of the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
- RANDA Development Advisory Council - The council is comprised of practitioners and administrators to inform the development of the solution. The council provided feedback to CDE and RANDA at key points in the development process. All educators with a desire to join the advisory council had the opportunity to do so. The council was and is comprised of a mix of teachers, principals, HR staff and EE representatives, superintendents, charter school leaders, and BOCES executive directors. To learn more about this group, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Beta Testers - Beta-testing began in early 2014.
CDE Roles and Responsibilities
What resources will be available to support districts in implementation?
- CDE is developing a Colorado State Model Evaluation System that districts may choose to implement to meet the requirements of S.B. 10-191. Resources for the Colorado State Model Evaluation System include rubrics, user guides and training materials for the trainers in school districts.
- CDE has released guidance for putting together multiple measures of student learning. This guidance is intended to give districts and BOCES a starting point for determining the 50 percent student growth portion of educator evaluations. CDE is using pilot experience and overall feedback to improve this guidance over time.
- CDE has tools to promote common interpretations of teacher quality and help evaluators provide useful and actionable feedback to educators including an IRA Guidance document and The Resource Guide for Deepening the Understanding of Teacher's Professional Practices.
- CDE has selected RANDA Solutions, Inc. to create an online performance management system as an optional technology platform at no cost to districts. This tool will provide online web-based entry of educator evaluation data and make tracking and reporting a much more useful process. RANDA will be creating the Colorado State Model Performance Management System during the 2013-14 school year. The system will be available for beta tests in early 2014 and then available to all districts in the 2014-15 school year. For the 2013-14 school year, districts can administer their performance management with the Excel rubrics or with any other system that works for the district. Districts may also work with any vendor that provides other technology solutions. To learn more, download the fact sheet.
- The CDE Resource Bank is populated with assessments aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards and suitable for use in educator evaluations. CDE is working to build a video library with examples of exemplary teaching practice tagged to each standard in the teacher rubric.
- A communications toolkit has been released for district leadership and principals to use when training their staff or community about educator effectiveness. Resources include: customizable "101" PowerPoints with talking points, fact sheets, drop-in articles (pre-written updates that can be personalized and used for electronic communication), and more.
How does S.B. 10-191 apply to charter and innovation schools?
CDE has received inquiries from the field regarding how the Educator Effectiveness legislation, S.B. 10-191, applies to charter and innovation schools. In response to these questions, CDE staff has prepared this document for your information. This document will be updated again when the rules and procedures for automatic waivers are updated to align with statute changes in the 13-14 legislative session.
In Colorado, both charter schools and innovation schools may apply for waivers from state statutes, rules of the state board of education, and local district policies and procedures. The state board, in rule, has outlined several statutes that may be automatically waived for charter schools, though a school district may also apply to the state board for a waiver of a state statute or state rule that is not automatically waived for charter schools.
In order to receive waivers from state statute and rules, charter schools and innovation schools must submit applications that explicitly request these waivers. Each charter school’s contract must include a statement specifying the manner in which the charter school will comply with the intent of the state statutes, state board rules, and district rules that are waived for the charter school either automatically or by application. Section 22-30.5-105 (2) (a), C.R.S. Similarly, innovation schools must submit an application that specifies the statutes or rules for which the school is seeking a waiver, and that application must specify the manner in which the innovation school will comply with the intent of the waived statutes or rules and will be accountable to the state for such compliance. Section 22-32.5-109 (4), C.R.S.
S.B. 10-191 (The Great Teachers and Leaders Bill), included revisions to several already-existing state statutes. Three of the statutes that were amended by S.B. 10-191 are statutes that are automatically waived for charter schools: (1) section 22-9-106, C.R.S., which outlines requirements for local personnel evaluation systems, (2) section 22-63-202, C.R.S., which outlines requirements for teacher employment contracts, and (3) section 22-63-203, C.R.S., which outlines requirements for the renewal and nonrenewal of teacher employment contracts.
Although charter schools and innovation schools may waive section 22-9-106, C.R.S., which outlines requirements for local personnel evaluation systems, they also must specify in their charter contract or innovation application how they will comply with the intent of the waived statute by including a rationale and replacement plan with the waiver requests. In order to assist schools and districts in identifying the “intent” of the provisions of S.B. 10-191 that apply to evaluation systems, the department has identified the following essential components of that statute. Schools are not required to develop replacement policies that meet all of the requirements below, but the department recommends these requirements as guidance for the development of innovation and charter applications.
- The methods used for evaluating administrators and teachers include quality standards that are clear and relevant to the administrators’ and teachers’ roles and responsibilities, have the goal of improving student academic growth, and meet the intent of the quality standards established by state board rule.
- One of the standards for measuring teacher performance is linked to classroom instruction and ties at least fifty percent of the evaluation to the academic growth of the teacher’s students. One of the standards for measuring administrator performance associates at least fifty percent of the evaluation to the academic growth of the students enrolled in the administrator’s school. Academic growth can be evaluated using multiple measures, including statewide summative assessment results.
- The charter or innovation school’s personnel evaluation policy includes clearly defined criteria for assigning educators to evaluation categories or otherwise communicating to them about their performance.
- The performance of administrators and teachers is evaluated annually, and the results of that evaluation clearly set forth recommendations for improvements and identify professional development opportunities. [Please note that this policy should not be construed to superimpose or negate the nature of at-will employment at charter schools.]
- Charter schools with a waiver to these areas of statute do not need to submit final teacher or principal ratings in the annual data collection.
Questions about this document or about charter or innovation schools can be directed to SOC@cde.state.co.us.
Teacher Student Data Link
How do districts ensure an accurate link between teachers and students?
CDE is developing reliable and accurate teacher student data links to fairly and accurately connect students with the educators responsible for their learning. The aim for the system is to provide dynamic data that enables users to learn from the past and understand the present so they can take appropriate actions to impact the future. Learn more by visiting the TDSL website.