CCEA Evaluation Committee
Andrew Burns (West)
Gerry Camilli (CTHS)
Jeri-Sue Dean (PEA)
Lisa Farley (EHS)
Maria Heymans (SHHS)
Robin Lopez (Ponderosa)
Patricia McConaghy (CIM)
Monte Reynolds (Estate)
Tim Reyes (OHS)
Kim Sakowsky (EHS)
Shelley Stancer (PMS)
2012-2015 Work of Content Collaboratives
2012
2013
• Researchers offer assessments for consideration to the Content
Collaboratives
• Cohorts I & II of Content Collaboratives review/create/recommend
assessments for piloting & peer review, based on technical criteria
provided by the Technical Steering Committee
• Cohort I assessments begin piloting in Fall 2012 to determine its utility
within educator effectiveness evaluations
• Guiding principles and criteria posted on the website for designing
and vetting assessments to be used in ed. Effectiveness evaluations
• Continue piloting of Cohort I assessments & begin peer review of
assessments in terms of how the assessments function for the
purposes of educator effectiveness evaluation
• Begin piloting of Cohort II assessments in January 2013, with peer
review in summer 2013
• Begin populating Resource Bank with assessments in August 2013
• Content Collaboratives, using identified measures, begin working on
instructional practice aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards
2012-2015 Work of Content Collaboratives
2014
• Continue to refine and build the Resource
Bank
• Build out sophisticated instructional
lessons that respond to gaps in student
learning
2015
• Continue to refine and build the Resource
Bank
• Continue to build statewide capacity
• Continue build-out of the bank in regards
to instructional practices
State law requirements:
• Conduct performance evaluations for all
teachers and principals at least once each
school year starting in 2012-13 school year
• Base at least half of each teacher’s and
principal’s evaluation on multiple
measures of students’ academic growth
(TCAP, as appropriate, plus other growth
data).
State law requirements:
• Requires all teachers and principals in
one of the performance standards,
“highly effective”, “effective”, “partially
effective”, or “ineffective”.
• Award non-probationary status to
teachers with three consecutive years of
“effective” performance and remove it
for those who are not “effective” for two
consecutive years.
State law requirements:
• Consider factors such as student mobility
and the numbers of students with disabilities
or at risk of failing school.
• Require mutual consent of teachers and
principals to teacher assignments.
• Factor in teacher effectiveness before
seniority when considering district-level
layoffs.
All districts shall evaluate the performance
of teachers using an evaluation system
that includes the components of the State
Framework for Teacher Evaluation
Systems:
1. Definition
2. Quality Standards and elements
3. Measuring Performance and
Weighting Results
4. Scoring Framework
5. Performance Standards
6. Appeals
Must meet or
exceed SB
191
requirements

Current law 22-9-107 school district personnel evaluation councils
require every school district to have an advisory school district
personnel evaluation council.

Since SB 191 requires districts to implement the evaluation system
created by the State Council for Educator Effectiveness, this means that
your district will need a functioning council to do this work.

Many districts combined this council with other existing committees or
this council existed on paper but was not functioning. Implementation
of 191 can be done using your 1338 council, but it may require an
expansion of that council’s roles/charges beyond the current law.

Or, you may have a separate council that will deal with implementation
of 191, but your 1338 council still should exist and meet the
requirements of the law stated below.
At a minimum, as appointed by the BOE, said council shall consist of:
 One teacher;
 One administrator;
 One principal from the school district;
 One parent with a child in the school district; and
 One resident of the district who does not have a child in the school
district
 The council may be composed of any other school district
committee having proper membership (i.e. District Accountability
Committee, Evaluation Task Force, Professional Concerns…).
Duties of the council:
 Shall consult with local board as to fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and
professional quality of the licensed personnel performance evaluation system.

Shall conduct a continuous evaluation of the system
STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers
Definition of Teacher Effectiveness
Quality Standards
I. Know Content
II. Establish
Environment
III. Facilitate
Learning
50% Professional Practice Standards
Observations of
Teaching
Other Measures
Aligned with
CDE Guidelines
IV. Reflect on
Practice
V. Demonstrate
Leadership
VI. Student
Growth
50% Student Growth Measures
Weighting: How Much
Does Each Standard Count
Towards Overall
Performance?
State
Other Assessments Other Measures
Summative
for Non-tested
Aligned Assessments
Areas
CDE Guidelines
Match of test to teaching assignments
Weighting:
Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards
Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?
Performance Standards
Ineffective
Partially Effective
Effective
Appeals Process
Highly Effective
I: Teachers demonstrate
mastery of and
pedagogical expertise in
the content they teach.
II: Teachers establish a
safe, inclusive, and
respectful learning
environment for a diverse
population of students.
III: Teachers plan and
deliver effective
instruction and create an
environment that
facilitates learning for
their students.
The elementary teacher is an
expert in literacy and mathematics
IV:isTeachers
reflect
and
knowledgeable
in on
all other
their practice.
content
that he or she teaches.
The secondary teacher has
knowledge of literacy and
mathematics and is an expert in his
or her content endorsement area
V: Teachers demonstrate
leadership.
VI: Teachers take
responsibility for student
academic growth.
STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers
Definition of Teacher Effectiveness
Quality Standards
I. Know Content
II. Establish
Environment
III. Facilitate
Learning
50% Professional Practice Standards
Observations of
Teaching
Other Measures
Aligned with
CDE Guidelines
IV. Reflect on
Practice
V. Demonstrate
Leadership
VI. Student
Growth
50% Student Growth Measures
Weighting: How Much
Does Each Standard Count
Towards Overall
Performance?
State
Other Assessments Other Measures
Summative
for Non-tested
Aligned Assessments
Areas
CDE Guidelines
Match of test to teaching assignments
Weighting:
Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards
Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?
Performance Standards
Ineffective
Partially Effective
Effective
Appeals Process
Highly Effective
VI. Responsibility for student
academic growth
Refers to outcomes on a
measure that are
attributed to an individual
licensed person,
e.g. DRA2 growth
measures for a 1st Grade
Teacher’s students
Refers to outcomes on a
measure are attributed to
two or more licensed
personnel,
e.g. 10th gr. Math TCAP –
All Secondary math
teachers in school
50% Student
Academic
Growth
Evaluated using the following:
(1) a measure of individuallyattributed growth,
(2) a measure of collectivelyattributed growth;
(3) when available, statewide
summative assessment results;
and
(4) for subjects with statewide
summative assessment results
available in two consecutive
grades, results from the
Colorado Growth Model.
Need to have
everything in
each column to
move up
Quality Standard II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of
students.
Proficient
Not Evident
Partially Proficient
(Meets State
Standard)
Accomplished
Exemplary
Element d: Teachers adapt their teaching for the benefit of all students, including those with special needs across a range of
ability levels.
There is inadequate
evidence that the teacher:
Designs instruction to
address individual student
learning needs.
Collaborates with
specialists, colleagues and
parents to provide
understand student needs.
Not evident. This
describes practices of a
teacher who does not meet
state performance
standards and is not making
progress toward meeting
them.
The teacher:
Designs instruction to
address specific learning
needs of some groups of
students (e.g., ELL, LD,
special needs, gifted and
talented).
Challenges all students
with the same frequency
and depth and monitors
the quality of participation.
. . . and
The teacher:
Solicits input from
parents, colleagues,
specialists, and others to
understand students’
learning needs.
Implements
individualized plans for the
content and delivery of
instruction.
Uses multiple strategies
to teach and assess
students.
Adapts instructional
strategies to meet student
needs.
The focus of Partially Proficient and
Proficient levels is what teachers do on
a day to day basis to achieve state
performance standards and assure that
students are achieving at expected
levels.
. . . and
Students:
Actively participate in all
classroom activities.
Articulate an awareness
of their learning needs.
Reflect about their
learning and make
adjustments to
accommodate their
learning needs.
. . . and
Students:
Seek out ways to cope
with learning differences
and apply coping skills to
classroom situations.
Share coping strategies
and with fellow students.
The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary
ratings shifts to the impact of the teacher’s
practices on student outcomes.
1. Training
9. Goal-Setting &
Perf. Planning
•Reliability, Validity, Same
Foundational Knowledge
•Prior to start of school
•Teacher develops a
professional growth plan
•End of June
8. Final Ratings
•If not in agreement, take
two weeks to collect
additional evidence
•Mid-June
7. End-of-Year Review
•Ratings, self-assessment,
artifacts an evidence
•End of May
2. Annual Orientation
•Forum to review system
and changes
•Within first week
Teacher
Evaluation
Cycle
3. Self-Assessment
• Completed and reflect
on past year
•Within first two weeks
4. Review of Annual
Goals & Performance
Plan
•School annual goals and
performance plan
•End of September
6. Evaluator
Assessment
•Rubric used in an ongoing
and consistent manner
•Mid-May
5. Mid-Year Review
•Clear understanding of
potential effectiveness
rating
•Prior to 2nd semester
Districts decide…
measures
Standards I-V: use observation plus at least one other
method
Standard VI: select multiple measures appropriate to
teaching assignment
weights
On each Standard I-V districts may weight priority
standards more
Standard VI must count for at least 50% of total score
data collection procedures
Standards I-V: Must occur with enough frequency to create a
credible body of evidence
Standard VI: Must occur with enough frequency to create a
credible body of evidence
aggregate measures
Aggregate professional practice scores into a single
score on Quality Standards I-V
Aggregate student growth measures into a single
score on Quality Standard VI
District uses State Scoring Framework Matrix to determine Performance Standard
SB-191 allows individual school
districts decision making power on:
How much weight or value each of the
five teaching standards has.
How teachers with multiple preps or
endorsements be evaluated for student
growth
Who will be included as evaluators.
(SB-191 does allows for peer evaluators)
What the remediation process will be for
a teacher who is deemed ineffective in
one or more areas of the observation tool
or student growth.
How artifacts of student growth regarding
student/family accountability
(ex: attendance, lack of student motivation
or performance despite documented
interventions) will be factored into the
evaluation equation.
Setting up school district personnel councils
(1338’s) and determining what role they
play in determining how teacher
evaluations and student performance
will be measured district-wide or
school-based.