* * Scheduled System Maintenance: Tuesday, August 9 starting at 5pm and overnight through 7am* *
All single sign on applications including Pipeline, RANDA, LACES, UIP, ConsApp, ESSER, READ Budget and EASI will be unavailable.
You are here
The frequently asked questions are grouped into categories for easier navigation.
This section continues to be updated. Please check back often for additional information!
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.
How many times must educators be formally observed under Senate Bill 10-191?
Legislation requires that non-probationary teachers receive at least one observation each year and probationary teachers receive at least two observations each year.
What if I disagree with my performance evaluation rating? 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? Does EE information automatically get shared between districts?
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.
Educator evaluation information is not shared automatically between districts; it is the responsibility of the educator to CDE recommends you work with your district human resources office and district legal counsel to determine your local implementation policies related to this provision.
How long does an educator have to work in a year to receive an evaluation? Do part-time staff require an evaluation?
Legislation does not have a minimum amount of time for educators to receive an evaluation “with the exception of licensed personnel employed by a board of cooperative services for a period of six weeks or less” per state statute. However, the law does state that there should be enough data upon which to base a rating.
State Board rules do state that part-time staff should be evaluated.
How are different stakeholders engaged in the evaluation process?
Each district and BOCES should have an Advisory Personnel Performance Evaluation Council (formerly 1338). This council is made up of a variety of representatives including one teacher, one administrator, one principal, one resident who is a parent of a child attending a school from the district, or a participating district, and one resident who is not a parent of a child attending a school from the district, or a participating district. Additionally, BOCES must include a special services provider (SSP) educator for its organization.
Advisory Personnel Performance Evaluation Councils (1338) can be composed of any other school district committee having proper membership such as District Accountability Committees. This council must consult with the local school board as to the fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and professional quality of local evaluation systems, processes and procedures.
For more information, visit our Local Flexibility webpage about the council.
What are the requirements for adding evidence in evaluations? Do I, as the person being evaluated, need to add evidence/artifacts for each professional practice?
There is only one legislative requirement for using artifacts in evaluation, which states that school districts and BOCES shall collect teacher performance data related to Professional Practice using observations and at least one of the following measures: (a) student perception measures (e.g. surveys), where appropriate and feasible, (b) peer feedback, (c) feedback from parents or guardians; or (d) review of Teacher lesson plans or student work samples. No additional artifacts are required for evaluations and we recommend using the discrepancy model when requesting artifacts.
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) developed 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. For subjects with statewide summative assessment results available in two consecutive grades, results from the Colorado Growth Model are also required.
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 four professional practice Quality Standards: organizational leadership through strategic planning, inclusive leadership, instructional leadership, and professionalism. 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 measures of student learning for 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.
Are districts required to use the Colorado State Model Evaluation System? Can some schools be on the State Model Evaluation system and others use a locally-created 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.
The law requires comparability of like roles within a district, so all schools should use the same evaluation system within a district.
How can different types of teachers be evaluated using the same rubric?
The State Council for Educator Evaluation created State Quality Standards and Elements for three main types of licensed educators: teachers, principals, and special services providers. They also determined that the following types of teachers would be included in the same teacher quality standards: core and non-core teachers, special education teachers, and teacher librarians. While the State Model Evaluation system has one teacher rubric, groups of teachers and their evaluators with unique roles and responsibilities expressed concerns that the teacher materials didn't provide adequate guidance. They requested additional guidance regarding evidence/artifacts that may be used by such specialized teachers. In addition, they asked about specific practices to “look-for” to guide their classroom observations and help ensure that all licensed teachers receive fair, valid and reliable evaluations. In response, CDE initiated the development of a set of guides written by practitioners for practitioners. They are intended to provide informal advice to teachers and their evaluators to help them understand the evaluation process within their specific context. Visit the Practical Idea Guides.
Measuring the 50 Percent Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes in Evaluations
How much will the state assessment 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. State assessment 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 state assessment results; it does not require it to be a large portion if this does not align with the district values and priorities.
Will teachers in untested state assessment subject areas 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.
When should districts be able to measure student academic growth and incorporate it in their evaluation system?
By July 2013, all districts were required to 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 used pilot experience and feedback to improve this guidance over time. Per HB 15-1323, local boards may use statewide assessment data as an MSL for that year's evaluation rating only if the data is available two weeks prior to the last class day of the school year.
What is the overview of the new requirements for educator evaluations that I should be aware of from HB 15-1323?
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.
How are districts expected to measure academic growth effectively in time to meet the S.B. 10-191 timeline requirements?
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.
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 districts get better at developing measures and assessments that provide instructional guidance.
Where can I get assistance on creating MSLs? Are there state resources or a generic/standard template I can use for MSLs?
For more information about MSL and Student Learning Objectives (SLO) creation, using state assessments in MSLs, and MSL examples, please visit the resources available in our Measures of Student Learning Guidance. For stories of innovative ways to implement MSLs in your district/BOCES, please review Maximizing Measures of Student Learning and Outcomes in the Local Flexibility for Educator Evaluations section of our website. You may also contact your Regional Specialist for targeted support.
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 a designee can be selected. If a designee is selected that does not hold a principal or administrator license, 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.
Special Services Providers (currently referred to as Other Licensed Professionals in law)
Who is classified as a Special Services Provider?
Special Services Providers 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 special services providers be evaluated?
The State Council for Educator Effectiveness and the CDE 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 special services providers. View the state model evaluation rubrics for special services providers.
Can Special Services Providers earn nonprobationary status?
Many districts provide some or all of their SSP educators with the ability to earn nonprobationary status. Each district makes this decision independently. If nonprobationary status may be earned, then the provisions outlined under SB 191 would be in effect for those educators.
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, 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. Beginning in 2016, some of the metrics are 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 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 Performance Management System? How is this different than the State Model Evaluation System?
CDE, in partnership with RANDA Solutions, Inc. (RANDA), created 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 Performance Management System (COPMS) 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.
The Colorado Performance Management System is the online "file cabinet" for evaluations housing the State Model Evaluation System. The State Model Evaluation System is the philosophy and process for carrying out educator evaluation.
Are Colorado school districts required to use the Colorado Performance Management System?
No. RANDA hosts the State Model 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.
Can I evaluate some educators outside of the Colorado Performance Management System while others are evaluated using it? Can I house my unique evaluation system inside the COPMS?
Yes, you can use the Colorado Performance Management System for whichever educator groups you plan to use the Colorado State Model Evaluation System. If you are interested in housing a unique system on the COPMS platform, you will need to contact RANDA directly to see if they can accommodate the request and whether there is a charge associated.
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.
How can my district/BOCES/charter school sign-up to use the Colorado State Model Performance Management System?
Please view information for interested users of the Colorado State Model Performance Management System.
CDE Roles and Responsibilities
What resources are available to support districts in implementation?
- CDE has developed many 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 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 provides online web-based entry of educator evaluation data to make tracking and reporting a much more useful process. Districts may also work with any vendor that provides other technology solutions. To learn more, download the fact sheet.
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.