Step 5: Determine success criteria for results from included measures of student learning.
In the previous steps, districts would have: identified expectations for student learning; conducted assessment inventories to find assessments teachers can use to measure student learning; classified educators into groups to determine the set of common assessments available for different teacher types; and identified which assessments would be included collectively and individually. In Step 5, educators work together (with their evaluator, team, or other staff) to determine, for each measure, the success criteria for the established performance categories. The Department has identified a rating scale for the state model system that has four performance categories: much less than expected, less than expected, expected, and more than expected.
When establishing success criteria for a measure of student learning it is important to consider baseline results and growth toward proficiency. Two examples for determining the success criteria for a sample measure included in an educator’s evaluation are included below.
Example 1: Colorado Growth Model
Depending on district size and school size, districts will need to choose an approach to using growth model results. For school-level collective attribution, districts may choose to use the median growth percentile (MGP) as reported on the School Performance Frameworks (SPF) for each available content area (ELA and math). Districts may also choose to use the median growth percentiles for disaggregated groups of students within a school that are also included in the SPF. For individual attribution, educators may have an MGP for each subject included, or all three. See the NCIEA/CADRE guidance on approaches for combining MGPs from multiple content areas.
In this example the district has decided to use results from the Colorado Growth Model as a collectively-attributed measure for all teachers within each school (districts may access school and district growth summary reports on SchoolView). Table 3 presents the performance category ratings associated with the MGP ranges defined in the SPFs.
Note that the SPF can include growth results for content areas (ELA and math) assessed in consecutive years depending on the size of the school. If a school does not have any growth scores reported on the SPF due to small N size, the district may want to include results from the District Performance Framework (DPF) for each included content area.
Table 3: Determining a rating using results from the Colorado Growth Model, when available