The frequently asked questions are grouped into categories for easier navigation. If you don't see your question, please submit it and we will add it 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 state rule)
- School Districts and Accountability for Implementing a New Evaluation System
- Inter-rater Agreement
- CDE Roles and Responsibilities
- State Model Online 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 both principals and teachers 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 and at least 50 percent of a principal's evaluation be determined by the academic growth of the students in the principal's school. 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 and principals. Also, statewide Quality Standards defining what it means to be an effective teacher or principal have been developed and must be implemented. Additionally, 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 being 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. CDE will provide an “assurance” template for districts in January 2013 or earlier.
- 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.
- 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.
What is meant by "hold harmless year" for the 2013-14 school year?
The 2013-14 school year is the first year the new evaluation requirements are in effect. It is very important to note that this first year is a hold harmless year meaning a final rating of partially effective or ineffective will not count towards the loss of non-probationary status. This gives all districts the opportunity to adjust to the new evaluation requirements in a low-stakes environment.
However, hold harmless does not mean that the law doesn’t have to be adhered to. For the 2013-14 school year, all districts are required to evaluate all of their principals and teachers on both the professional practices (50 percent) and measures of student learning/growth (the other 50 percent). Additionally, all principals and teachers must receive a final rating combining both the professional practices and student learning outcomes/growth scores into a final rating of either: highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective. The evaluation process for the other licensed personnel, or specialized service professionals, is being piloted in the 2013-14 school year and evaluations for these individuals will not be required this year.
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 nonprobationary teacher. In the case of SB 10-191, an appeal is a specific request by a nonprobationary 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 SB 10-191 appeal process is enacted only by a nonprobationary teacher who has received a second consecutive rating of ineffective or partially ineffective and wishes to appeal that rating. SB 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.
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.
Currently, the Council is monitoring the new Colorado Model Evaluation System and identifying improvements based on results of the two-year pilot period that started during the 2011-2012 school year. The Colorado Model Evaluation System will be implemented in school districts in the fall of 2013. For more information, click here.
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:
- The Commissioner of Education, or his or her designee
- The Executive Director of the Department of Higher Education, or his or her designee
- Four teachers, selected with the advice of the Colorado Education Association
- Two public school administrators and one local school district superintendent, each selected with the advice of Colorado Association of School Executives
- Two members of local school boards, selected with the advice of Colorado Association of School Boards
- One charter school administrator or teacher, selected with the advice of the Colorado League of Charter Schools
- One parent of a public school student, selected with the advice of Colorado Parent Teachers Association
- A current student or recent graduate of a Colorado public school, selected with the advice of a statewide student coalition
- One at-large member with expertise in education policy.
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 and principal evaluations. The Colorado Model Evaluation System uses a meaningful process for educator evaluation. The year-long cycle 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 five Quality Standards that measure professional practice: content knowledge, establish classroom environment, facilitate learning, reflect on practice and demonstrate leadership. The Quality Standards can be measured using the state-developed rubric that identifies the practices necessary to achieve the standards. The sixth Quality Standard, student growth, will account for the other half of the evaluation. The standard will be based on multiple measures of student growth or measures of student learning, not a single assessment. Teachers must have a team attribution student growth score and at least one individual attribution student growth score. 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 seven Quality Standards. 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
How many districts are piloting the Colorado State Model Evaluation System?
Twenty-seven districts are piloting the Colorado Model Evaluation System. CDE has selected 15 pilot districts, based on a public application process, to test the state model of evaluation. The 15 districts are: 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 have already begun this work and will “partner” with CDE to align and map their current evaluation systems to the rules and expectations from S.B. 10-191. Current partner districts are Harrison and Brighton. A third opportunity for collaboration comes from a grant opportunity secured by the Colorado Legacy Foundation. Five “Integration” districts and one BOCES have been selected by the Colorado Legacy Foundation to implement both the evaluation system and the new Colorado Academic Standards. Those districts and BOCES are 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 is informing improvements to the model system prior to implementation.
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 will pilot the teacher rubric and evaluation matrix in the 2012-13 school year. The Colorado Content Collaboratives, P-12 educators from around the state coming together to identify and create high-quality assessments, which are aligned to the new Colorado Academic Standards and may be used in educator effectiveness evaluations. The Collaboratives are working with a Technical Steering Committee to ensure that these assessments are fair, valid and reliable. Measures for each content area will begin to be piloted for use in an educator evaluation system in 2012-13. (For more information, click here).
Will the pilot address evaluation systems for the other categories of licensed personnel?
CDE will identify and develop tools and rubrics for the evaluation of other categories of other licensed personnel. Other licensed personnel include school audiologists, nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers, speech-language pathologists, counselors and teachers on special assignment. However, these categories of personnel will not be included in the initial piloting process.
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 (Growth) in Evaluations
How much will the TCAP 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. TCAP 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 TCAP results.
Will teachers in untested TCAP 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 over time 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 TCAP subjects and grades.
We don’t get our TCAP scores until the summer. How will that work if they are supposed to be part of the evaluation?
Current year TCAP data may not be available before the end of the school year. There are a few options to deal with this challenge and we continue to explore the best option. One option is that prior year TCAP data could be used in current year calculations (In essence, it becomes the first data point of a teachers evaluation for that year). Another option is to shift the evaluation cycle from May-to-May to September-to-September. Districts would need to consider how this affects their hiring cycles. A third option is to average several years of statewide summative data together into one score. This has an added benefit in that research has shown that student growth outcomes can vary widely from year to year even in classrooms of highly effective teachers. In order to soften the effect of this student growth variance, districts could also consider allowing for a combining of student growth scores over multiple (typically three) years. In this way, student learning outcomes become more consistent over time resulting in more fair and reliable educator evaluations.
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 student academic growth, 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 student growth measures for a final measures of student learning rating. This initial draft 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. Models on how to combine ratings for all Quality Standards into a final rating of either highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective are forthcoming and will be shared on this website when avaialble.
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. The intent is to create a resource bank for districts to share tools and learnings. 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. CDE will provide these criteria to assist districts in assessing the fairness and validity of student growth measures.
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 for the 2012-13 school year?
The goal of the first year of the Colorado Content Collaboratives work is 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 is to gather sample measures in each grade for each subject and establish the beginning of an on-going build out of an assessment Resource Bank.
What will the Colorado Content Collaboratives do from 2013-2015?
The Colorado Content Collaboratives will continue to refine and build the assessment 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 assessment 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.
Specialized Service Professionals (currently referred to as Other Licensed Professionals in law and state rule)
Who is classified as a Specialized Service Professional?
Specialized Service Professionals include school audiologists, psychologists, nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, counselors, social workers, speech language pathologists, and orientation and mobility specialists.
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 aligns to the statewide Quality Standards for teachers and what changes, if any, need to be made to ensure their evaluations are meaningful and provide feedback 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 will move through the State Board of Education and legislature for approval. The new evaluations for other licensed personnel will not take effect into the 2014-15 school year (one year after the teacher and principal evaluations are implemented). For more, download the fact sheet on specialized service professionals. To view the pilot rubrics for specialized service professionals, click here.
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. The Colorado Department of Education is conducting sessions to inform the possible creation of addendum or revisions to the teacher rubric in order to make the rubric more applicable to early childhood educators. 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 for these varied roles, pulling appropriate parts of the teacher and principal rubric may also capture performance while providing feedback.
How will instructional coaches be evaluated?
The State Council for Educator Effectiveness has been discussing the role of instructional coaches and is looking at providing guidance in the future. The big challenge is that the instructional coach role varies from district to district so defining an evaluation rubric is difficult. For the 2013-14 implementation year, instructional coaches should be evaluated according to what works best for the district. More recommendations will be coming in time.
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 (from the State HR collection) to assess fidelity of evaluation system implementation for each district. The results of many of these metrics will be available for the public (in aggregate) in SchoolView. The results of these analyses will be used 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 ensure and support fidelity of implementation. 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 is developing tools to promote common interpretations of teacher quality and help evaluators provide useful and actionable feedback to educators. One such tool is Elevate Colorado, an online inter-rater agreement training system that is being developed in partnership with My Learning Plan. Elevate Colorado will allow evaluators to log onto a website, view a number of short videos of practicing teachers, rate those videos according to the Colorado State Model Evaluation System rubric and receive a score that shows how close they are to rating the videos in accordance with “master scorer” ratings. Educators who receive scores within an approved range will know they are evaluating professionals within an acceptable, comparable and fair manners.
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 growth. 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.
- CDE is developing systems to encourage common interpretations of teacher quality and enhance inter-rater agreement (extent to which two or more evaluators using the same observation tool give the same rating to an identical observable situation), and help evaluators provide useful and actionable feedback to educators. CDE is developing an online inter-rater agreement training system called Elevate Colorado in partnership with My Learning Plan. The system will allow educators from across the state to view short videos of practicing teachers, rate the videos according to the state rubric, and receive a “score” of how close they rated the videos to the master ratings. Educators who receive scores within an approved range will know they are evaluating professionals within an acceptable, comparable and fair manner. To learn more, download the fact sheet.
- 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 Colorado's online system during the 2013-14 school year. The system is expected to be available for beta tests in early 2014 and then available to all districts by the 2014-15 school year. Details on beta testing the RANDA technology platform will be released this fall. 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. RANDA will be able to extract all the data from the Excel tools in a batch upload so districts will not have to duplicate work when the RANDA system is ready. This option ensures that districts can focus on implementing the new educator evaluation requirements and providing meaningful feedback to their educators in this first year of implementation. Districts may also work with any vendor that provides other technology solutions. To learn more, download the RANDA 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?
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.
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.
S.B. 10-191 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.,
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, CDE 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.]
- The school is able to report to the department information about each administrator’s and teacher’s performance on the standards used for evaluating these individuals, including providing the data for the Human Resources and Special Education December 1st counts that the Department collects, and that is required from all schools, including charter and innovation schools.
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.