Building Better Teachers

Districts make their choices on evaluation methods

A wide majority of Colorado’s school districts have chosen to use the state’s model principal and teacher evaluation system as the state heads into the first year of evaluations that meet requirements mandated by a 2010 law.

IllustrationHowever, some districts with the largest teacher work forces, such as Denver, Douglas County and Jefferson County, will be using local evaluation systems.

Districts had an Aug. 1 deadline to file “assurances” with the Colorado Department of Education specifying which evaluation systems they would use. (The online assurance form merely asked a district to specify that it was using the model system or, if not, that their local system “meets, or … is in progress towards meeting, the requirements” set by the state.)

Of the state’s 178 districts, 160 will use the model system for principals and assistant principals and for teachers. State officials long had expected that many districts, unable or disinclined to spend the time and money to develop their own systems, would use the state model.

Who’s doing whatTop 10 districts by enrollment
  • Adams 12 – Model for both
  • Aurora – Model for principals, slightly modified model for teachers
  • Boulder – Local system for both
  • Cherry Creek – Model for both
  • Co Springs District 11 – Model for both
  • DPS – Local system for both
  • Dougco – Local system for both
  • Jeffco – Model for principals, local for teachers
  • Poudre – Model for both
  • St. Vrain – Model for both

Others using both local systems

  • Academy
  • Granada
  • Harrison
  • Kim

Eagle and Mapleton are among other districts using local systems only for teachers

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Another 10 districts will use a “hybrid” – usually the model system for principals and their own systems for teachers.

Seven districts, some of which already had their systems in place, will use their own methods for both principals and teachers. The landmark evaluation law, Senate Bill 10-191, allows districts to use their own systems as long as they meet certain standards set by CDE. (See this checklist for details on the requirements that local systems have to meet.)

Overall, at least 18,000 of the state’s approximately 50,000 teachers will be cover by local evaluation systems.

(One small district, Kit Carson on the eastern plains, is not subject to SB 10-191 requirements because of an innovation-district waiver granted in 2011. Teachers who work for boards of cooperative educational services are covered by the new system. Most BOCES have indicated they’ll use the state model system.)

While there will be variations, Katy Anthes, CDE executive director of educator effectiveness, noted that all districts have to meet certain high-level requirements:

  • All principals and teachers will have to be evaluated annually starting this year.
  • Half of an evaluation has to be based on student academic growth and the other half on professional practice, with those two combined to yield a rating of highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective.

Under SB 10-191, ratings have consequences. New teachers will have to gain three highly effective or effective ratings in a row to qualify for non-probationary status. Experienced teachers who receive two annual partially effective or ineffective ratings in a row will return to probationary status.

The 2013-14 school year is a “practice” year in the sense that while effective ratings will count towards non-probationary status, the clock won’t start on ineffective ratings until the 2014-15 school year.

New evaluations will be familiar to some

Elements of the new system have been pilot tested in selected districts over the last two school years. And some districts, like Denver, Douglas County, Eagle and Harrison, have had sophisticated systems in place for some time. Between them, Denver and Dougco have about 8,500 of the state’s approximately 50,000 teachers.

But Anthes noted that in many cases only groups of principals and teachers have been exposed to new systems. In Denver, for instance, the district’s LEAP program started as a pilot in a handful of schools. (See this EdNews story for a look at the DPS system now.)

The state model system

Under the state system, evaluation is envisioned as a yearlong process, not just a quick classroom observation and a principal-teacher interview. Rather, evaluation is supposed to include an annual orientation, educator self-assessment, review of goals and performance plan, mid-year review, assessment by and evaluator, end-of-year review, final rating and planning for the next school year.

The model system includes five quality standards for teachers, including content knowledge, classroom environment, facilitation of learning, reflection on practice and leadership.

There are six quality standards for principals: Strategic leadership, instructional leadership, school cultural and equity leadership, human resource leadership, managerial leadership and external development leadership.

Each standard includes several specific elements on which educators will be evaluated. Districts have flexibility in weighting of the different standards and elements.

The rubrics – scoring sheets – used in the evaluation have five rating levels – basic, partially proficient, proficient, accomplished and exemplary.

Professional practice has been the part of evaluation that’s been most extensively tested before this year. Anthes said that measuring student growth and applying it to teacher performance is the area that will require more work and fine-tuning in 2013-14.

The state calculates student growth based on TCAP scores. (Learn more about the Colorado Growth Model here.) But evaluations won’t be based just on those standardized tests, which aren’t given in all grades and which cover only reading, writing, math and science right now.

Districts have flexibility in choosing what others kinds of tests and student performance can be used to measure academic growth, although CDE has developed a long list of suggested measures. (Get more information here.)

How the state will monitor districts

The assurances filed by districts don’t provide details of local evaluation systems, and the state doesn’t have to pre-approve local plans.

“We may do some looking and checking” of local systems, Anthes said. But CDE’s emphasis will be on reviewing the results of those systems. “We will be checking data as it comes in to see if the systems are operating as we would expect.”

power players

Who’s who in Indiana education: House Speaker Brian Bosma

PHOTO: Sarah Glen

Find more entries on education power players as they publish here.

Vitals: Republican representing District 88, covering parts of Marion, Hancock and Hamilton counties. So far, has served 31 years in the legislature, 9 of those as Speaker of the House. Bosma is a lawyer at the firm Kroger, Gardis & Regas.

Why he’s a power player: Bosma was House Speaker in 2011, when the state passed its large education reform package, creating the first voucher program for students from low-income families. Along with Rep. Bob Behning, Bosma helped develop the state’s voucher program bill as well as the bill that expanded charter school efforts that year. As a party and chamber leader, he plays a major role in setting House Republicans’ legislative agendas.

On toeing the party line: With the debate over state-funded preschool front and center during this year’s session, Bosma has expressed far more enthusiasm than his fellow Republicans for expanding the state’s program. Indeed, Bosma has long been a supporter of state-sponsored preschool. Currently, low-income families in five counties can apply for vouchers to use at high-quality preschool providers. Bosma has said he’d like to see that number triple, if not more.

Recent action: In 2016, Bosma ushered through one of the few teacher-focused bills that became law in the wake of news that some districts in the state were struggling to hire teachers. The bill created a state scholarship fund for prospective teachers, and began awarding money to students this year.

A perhaps little-known fact: In the late 1980s, Bosma worked at the Indiana Department of Education as the legislative adviser to H. Dean Evans, the state superintendent at that time. Then, as with this year’s House Bill 1005, lawmakers advocated to make the state superintendent an appointed position, a bill Bosma is carrying this year.

Who supports him: In past elections, Bosma has received campaign contributions from Education Networks of America, a private education technology company; Hoosiers for Quality Education, an advocacy group that supports school choice, charter schools and vouchers; Stand for Children, a national organization that supports education reform and helps parents to organize; K12, one of the largest online school providers in the country.

Conversely, given his support for choice-based reform, the Indiana Coalition for Public Education gave Bosma an “F” in its 2016 legislative report card highlighting who it thinks has been supportive of public schools.

Legislative highlights via Chalkbeat:

Bills in past years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

Also check out our list of bills to watch this year.

getting to know you

Colorado Sen. Nancy Todd is making up for all the times she was quiet in school

PHOTO: Sarah Glen

Throughout the legislative session, Chalkbeat is asking members of the House and Senate education committees to share a little bit about themselves — and their legislative priorities. In this installment, meet Sen. Nancy Todd.

Nancy Todd, an Aurora Democrat, is a former social studies teacher who has spent her retirement — if you want to call it that — at the Capitol helping shape education policy.

Since 2005, Todd has played a role supporting — and opposing — some of the state’s most ambitious education policies as a member of both the state House and Senate.

One of her earlier bills created a stipend for teachers who earned National Board certification, a rigorous and widely respected training program for educators. More recently, Todd has been focused on reducing standardized testing and curbing the state’s teacher shortage.

Todd was a vocal opponent of Senate Bill 191, the state’s controversial 2010 teacher evaluation law. She has regularly supported reversing provisions of the law, including a failed attempt this year to create more flexibility in how student data is used to evaluate teachers.

Get to know a little more about Todd here:

What is your favorite memory from school?

PHOTO: Nancy Todd
State Sen. Todd in the first grade.

I think one of my favorite memories was my fifth grade teacher. He was my first male teacher, and he inspired me to be creative and think outside the box. Being the daughter of a superintendent, I always appreciated those teachers who treated me as an individual, not their “boss’s daughter.”

Were you the teacher’s pet or class clown?
Neither. I was actually pretty quiet and followed the rules. Guess I’m making up for it now.

What was your favorite subject and why?
I loved American Government because I had a great teacher who was unconventional and allowed different views and lively discussions. He taught me a lot about respecting others’ opinions and how different leaders of our country were all instrumental in doing good for our citizens, using different approaches.

If you could give yourself one high school superlative it would be:
I was considered “Miss Priss” because I didn’t wear jeans like some of my friends did. I was kidded for being “prim and proper.”

What clubs or sports did you participate in high school?
Pep club, journalism, Quill & Scroll, girls sports

What would your perfect school look like?
An ideal school is where there is a high level of innovation, creativity, opportunity for teachers and students to interact with authentic and respectful relationships. Where learning is based on relevant learning environment and a balance of technology, live role models teachers who are highly qualified and LOVE working with students.

What are you legislative priorities?
Resolve ninth-grade testing question; expand counseling; reasonable school finance proposal.