1 Colo. Code Regs. § 301-87-5.00

Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 22, November 25, 2024

Section 1 CCR 301-87-5.00 - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS: DUTIES AND POWERS OF LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS AND BOARDS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION SERVICES

5.1Required Components of Written Local Evaluation System. Every school district and BOCES must adopt either the State Model System or a locally-developed evaluation system that includes the following components of the State Model System:

5.1 (A) The purposes of the evaluation system, including, but not limited to, the following:

5.1 (A) (1) providing a basis for the improvement of instruction;

5.1 (A) (2) enhancing implementation of programs of curriculum;

5.1 (A) (3) providing the measurement of satisfactory performance for individual licensed personnel and serving as documentation for an unsatisfactory performance dismissal proceeding under article 63 of title 22; and

5.1 (A) (4) serving as a measurement of the professional growth and development of licensed personnel.

5.1 (B) The licensed personnel positions to be evaluated, which includes all teachers, including part-time as defined in section 22-63-103(6), C.R.S., SSPs, administrators, and principals;

5.1 (C) The title or position of the evaluator for each position to be evaluated;

5.1 (D)Evaluating Licensed Personnel. The standards set by the local school board or BOCES for effective performance for licensed personnel and the criteria to be used to evaluate the performance of each licensed person against such standards, consistent across types of licensed personnel. Though the selected criteria may vary among categories of personnel, to reflect the diversity of students, the evaluation system must apply consistent criteria to each category of personnel, including the various categories of principals, teachers, and SSPs;

5.1 (D) (1)Principal Effectiveness and Principal Quality Standards. The definition of principal effectiveness, included in section 2.1 of these rules, and either the Principal Quality Standards and associated Elements, included in section 2.2 of these rules, or locally adopted standards that meet or exceed the Principal Quality Standards and Elements.

5.1 (D) (2)Method for Evaluating Principal Performance on Professional Practice. A description of the method for evaluating principals' Professional Practice, which method must include data collection for multiple measures on multiple occasions.

School districts and BOCES are encouraged to experiment, with agreement from their personnel performance evaluation councils, with innovative methods of observation, which may include and not be limited to the use of observations by mentors and peers.

5.1 (D) (2) (a) Required Measures of Principal Professional Practice. School districts and BOCES must measure principal performance against Quality Standards I-IV using tools that capture information about the following:

(i) input from teachers employed at the principal's school, provided that clear expectation is established prior to collection of the data that at least one of the purposes of collecting the input is to inform an evaluation of the principal's performance and provided that systems are put in place to ensure that the information collected remains anonymous and confidential; and

(ii) the percentage and number of teachers in the school who are rated as: highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective; and the number and percentage of teachers who are improving their performance, in comparison to the goals articulated in the principal's Professional Performance Plan.

5.1 (D) (2) (b)Additional Measures of Principal Professional Practice. In addition to the required measures of Professional Practice, school districts and BOCES may also use other sources of evidence regarding a principal's Professional Practice. School districts and BOCES are strongly encouraged to use measures, where appropriate, that capture evidence about the following:

(i) student perceptions;

(ii) parent/guardian perceptions; and

(iii) perceptions of other administrators about a principal's professional performance. Other measures may include the following:

(i) direct observations; and

(ii) examination of a portfolio of relevant documentation regarding the principal's performance against the Principal Quality Standards, which may include, but need not be limited to, professional development strategies and opportunities, evidence of team development, staff meeting notes, school newsletters; content of website pages, award structures developed by the school, master school schedule, or evidence of community partnerships, parent engagement and participation rates, "360 degree" survey tools designed to solicit feedback from multiple stakeholder perspectives, examination of a Unified Improvement Plan, teacher retention data, external review of budgets, and school communications plan.

5.1 (D) (3)Method for Evaluating Principal Performance Related to Student Academic Growth. A description of the method for evaluating principals' performance related to Student Academic Growth. The Measures of Student Learning used for evaluating principals' performance must meet the following criteria:

5.1 (D) (3) (a) When available, school districts and BOCES must ensure that data included in the school performance framework, required pursuant to section 22-11- 204, C.R.S., is used to evaluate principal performance. School districts and BOCES may choose to weight specific components of the school performance framework differently than they are weighted in the school performance framework, depending on the principal's responsibilities and the performance needs of the school, so long as student longitudinal growth carries the greatest weight.

5.1 (D) (3) (b) School districts and BOCES must incorporate at least one other Measure of Student Learning and must ensure that the Measures of Student Learning selected for principal evaluations are consistent with the Measures of Student Learning used for the evaluation of teachers in each principal's school, as described in section 5.1 (D) (7) of these rules.

5.1 (D) (3) (c) School districts and BOCES are strongly encouraged to involve principals in a discussion of which of the available Measures of Student Learning are appropriate to the principals' schools and school improvement efforts.

5.1 (D) (3) (d) Measures of Student Learning must reflect the growth of students in all subject areas and grades, not only those in subjects and grades that are tested using statewide summative assessments and must reflect the broader responsibility a principal has for ensuring the overall outcomes of students in the building.

5.1 (D) (3) (e) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that Measures of Student Learning correspond to implementation benchmarks and targets included in the Unified Improvement Plan for the school at which a principal is employed.

5.1 (D) (3) (f) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that Measures of Student Learning are valid, meaning that they measure growth towards attainment of the academic standards adopted by the local school board pursuant to section 22-7-1013, C.R.S. and that analysis and inferences from the measures can be supported by evidence and logic.

5.1 (D) (3) (g) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that Measures of Student Learning are reliable, meaning that the measures should be reasonably stable over time and in substance and that data from the measures will be sufficient to warrant reasonably consistent inferences.

5.1 (D) (3) (h) Early Childhood - Grade 3. For those principals responsible for students in early childhood education through grade 3, evaluation measures must be consistent with outcomes used as the basis for evaluations for teachers teaching these grade levels, which may include, and are not limited to, assessments of early literacy and/or mathematics shared among members of the school community that may be used to measure student longitudinal growth.

5.1 (D) (3) (i) Grades 4-8. For those principals responsible for students in grades 4-8, a portion of the evaluation for Measures of Student Learning must be based on the results of the Colorado longitudinal growth model, calculated pursuant to section 22-11-203, C.R.S., for subjects tested by statewide summative assessments. The weight of this measure may be increased to reflect the increased proportion of subjects covered by statewide summative assessments over time. A portion of the principal's evaluation also must be based on other appropriate Measures of Student Learning for students in grades 4-8, which may include, but are not limited to, Measures of Student Learning shared among the evaluated personnel in the school.

5.1 (D) (3) (j) Grades 9-12. For those principals responsible for students in grades 9-12, a portion of the evaluation must be based on the results of the Colorado longitudinal growth model, calculated pursuant to section 22-11-203, C.R.S., for subjects tested by state summative assessments. To account for the portion of teachers without direct or indirect results from the Colorado longitudinal growth model, a portion of a principal's growth determination may be based upon appropriate Measures of Student Learning for personnel teaching in subjects and grades not tested by statewide summative assessments, which may include, but are not limited to, Measures of Student Learning shared among evaluated personnel in the school.

5.1 (D) (3) (k) For the evaluation of principals responsible for students in multiple grade spans, school districts and BOCES must select a combination of Measures of Student Learning reflecting the grade levels of all students in the school.

5.1 (D) (3) (l) When compiling Measures of Student Learning to evaluate performance, school districts and BOCES must give the most weight to those measures that demonstrate the highest technical quality and rigor.

5.1 (D) (3) (m) For the evaluation of a principal who has been employed by a school district or BOCES for one school year or less, Measures of Student Learning must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the principal commenced employment with the school district or BOCES.

5.1 (D) (4)Weighting of Performance on Principal Quality Standards. A description of the manner in which performance on each of the Principal Quality Standards will be weighed in assigning a Performance Evaluation Rating. Measures of Principal Professional Practice must determine seventy percent of a principal's overall Performance Evaluation Rating, and Measures of Student Learning must determine the other thirty percent of the overall Performance Evaluation Rating. Each of the Principal Quality Standards I-IV (Professional Practice) must have a measurable influence on the overall Performance Evaluation Rating.

5.1 (D) (4) (a) A measure of collectively attributed Student Academic Growth, whether on a school-wide basis or across grades or subjects, must not exceed ten percent of the principal's evaluation.

5.1 (D) (5)Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Quality Standards. The definition of teacher effectiveness, included in section 3.1 of these rules, and either the Teacher Quality Standards and associated Elements, included in section 3.2 of these rules, or locally adopted standards that meet or exceed the Teacher Quality Standards and Elements.

5.1 (D) (6)Method for Evaluating Teacher Professional Practice. A description of the method for evaluating teachers' Professional Practice, which method must include data collection for multiple measures on multiple occasions. School districts and BOCES must 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.

The method for evaluating teachers' Professional Practice may include additional measures.

In determining how to use the data collected about teacher performance, whether for written evaluation reports or for informal feedback and identification of appropriate professional development, school districts and BOCES must consider the technical quality and rigor of the methods used to collect the data, and the technical quality of the data itself.

School districts and BOCES are encouraged to experiment, with agreement from their personnel performance evaluation councils, with innovative methods of observation, which may include and not be limited to the use of observations by mentors, teaching coaches, peers, department leaders, and video or digital recording.

5.1 (D) (7)Method for Evaluating Teacher Performance Related to Student Academic Growth. A description of the method for evaluating teachers' performance related to Student Academic Growth.

School districts and BOCES must categorize teachers into appropriate categories based on the availability and technical quality of student assessments available for the courses and subjects taught by those teachers. School districts and BOCES must then choose or develop appropriate Measures of Student Learning to be used in the evaluation of each personnel category.

Student Academic Growth must be measured using multiple measures. When compiling these measures to evaluate performance, school districts and BOCES must consider the relative technical quality and rigor of the various measures.

Measures of Student Learning must include the following:

5.1 (D) (7) (a) A measure of individually attributed Student Academic Growth, meaning that outcomes on that measure are attributed to an individual Teacher;

5.1 (D) (7) (b) A measure of collectively attributed Student Academic Growth, whether on students within a grade level or within the school in which the Teacher is employed, meaning that outcomes on that measure are attributed to at least two licensed personnel which must not exceed ten percent of the teacher's evaluation;

5.1 (D) (7) (c) When available, statewide summative assessment results may be used for teachers. For the evaluation of a teacher who has been employed by a school district or BOCES for one school year or less, Measures of Student Learning must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the teacher commenced employment with the school district or BOCES; and

5.1 (D) (7) (d) School districts and BOCES are strongly encouraged to involve teachers in a discussion of which of the available measures of Student Academic Growth are appropriate to the teacher's role and student growth goals.

5.1 (D) (8)Selection of Measures for Evaluating Teacher Performance Related to Student Academic Growth. The method for evaluating Teachers' performance related to Student Academic Growth is described in section 5.1 (D) (7) of these rules. These measures must meet the following criteria:

5.1 (D) (8) (a) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that Measures of Student Learning are valid, meaning that the measures are aligned with the academic standards adopted by the local school board pursuant to section 22-7-1013, C.R.S. and that analysis and inferences from the measures can be supported by evidence and logic;

5.1 (D) (8) (b) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that Measures of Student Learning are reliable, meaning that the measures should be stable over time and in substance and that data from the measures will be sufficient to warrant reasonably consistent inferences;

5.1 (D) (8) (c) In the effort to ensure that Measures of Student Learning are comparable among teachers of similar content areas and grades, school districts and BOCES are strongly encouraged to include teachers in a discussion of which measures are most appropriate to the teachers' classrooms; and

5.1 (D) (8) (d) For teachers teaching two or more subjects, individual Measures of Student Learning must include Student Academic Growth scores from all subjects for which the teacher is responsible.

5.1 (D) (9)Weighting of Performance on Teacher Quality Standards. A description of the manner in which performance on each of the Teacher Quality Standards will be weighted in assigning teachers to a Performance Evaluation Rating.

Measures of Teacher Professional Practice must determine seventy percent of a teacher's total overall Performance Evaluation Rating, and Measures of Student Learning must determine the other thirty percent of the overall Performance Evaluation Rating. Each of the Teacher Quality Standards I-IV (Professional Practice) must have a measurable influence on the final Performance Evaluation Rating.

5.1 (D) (10) Special Services Providers Effectiveness and Quality Standards.

The definition of Special Services Providers effectiveness, included in section 4.1 of these rules, and either the Special Services Providers Quality Standards and associated Elements, included in section 4.2 of these rules, or locally adopted standards that meet or exceed the SSP Quality Standards and Elements.

5.1 (D) (11)Method for Evaluating Special Services Providers Professional Practice. School districts and BOCES must include a description of their method for evaluating SSPs in the written local system for the evaluation of licensed personnel. This method must meet the following criteria:

5.1 (D) (11) (a) School districts and BOCES must ensure that the person or persons responsible for supervising each SSP's work is clearly identified to the SSP at the beginning of each contract year. The supervisor(s) is responsible for the SSP's evaluation;

5.1 (D) (11) (b) School districts or BOCES must select evaluation measures for each of the nine licensure categories of SSPs employed by the school district or BOCES, which measures must reflect varying assignments and job duties;

5.1 (D) (11) (c) The evaluation of SSPs must incorporate multiple measures to evaluate SSPs against the SSP Quality Standards, which measures must be gathered using multiple formats and occasions;

5.1 (D) (11) (d) Data used in evaluating SSPs must be collected from the sites, or a representative sample of the sites, at which the SSP provides services;

5.1 (D) (11) (e) At least one of the evaluation measures must be an observation by the SSP's supervisor(s) or a trained evaluator with relevant professional expertise. The supervisor(s) is encouraged to consult with the SSP in determining the appropriate approach and timing of the observation, based on the SSP's role and duties;

5.1 (D) (11) (f) In addition to an observation, evaluations of SSP's must be based on at least one of the following performance measures, when appropriate to the SSP's assigned duties: student perception measures (where appropriate and feasible), peer feedback, feedback from parents or guardians, review of student support documentation, and/or any other evidence relevant to the SSP's assigned duties;

5.1 (D) (11) (g) School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that measures to evaluate SSPs against the SSP Quality Standards are valid, meaning that the measures are aligned with the professional services that the SSP provides and that analysis and inferences from the measures can be supported by evidence and logic, and that the measures are reliable, meaning that the measures are stable over time and in substance and that data from the measures will be sufficient to warrant reasonably consistent inferences;

5.1 (D) (11) (h) In making decisions about how to use data collected about SSP performance, school districts and BOCES must consider whether the data collected are better suited for use within the final written evaluation report or for the purpose of providing feedback and professional development opportunities for the individual professional, or for both purposes provided they are appropriately weighted. In making this decision, school districts and BOCES must consider the technical quality and rigor of the methods used to collect the data, and the technical quality of the data itself.

School districts and BOCES are encouraged to experiment, with agreement from their personnel performance evaluation councils, with innovative methods of observation, which may include and not be limited to the use of observations by mentors, coaches, peers, department leaders, subject matter expert(s) in the content area of the SSP being evaluated and video or digital recording.

5.1 (D) (12)Method for Evaluating Special Services Providers Related to Student Outcomes. A description of the method for evaluating SSPs performance related to Student Outcomes. This method must meet the following criteria:

5.1 (D) (12) (a) Thirty percent of the evaluation must be based on at least two measures of student outcomes, and the measures must be aligned with the role and duties of the individual SSP being evaluated.

5.1 (D) (12) (b) For the evaluation of an SSP who has been employed by a school district or BOCES for one school year or less, Measures of Student Learning must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the SSP commenced employment with the school district or BOCES

5.1 (D) (13)Weighting of Performance on Special Services Providers Quality Standards. A description of the manner in which performance on each of the Special Services Providers Quality Standards will be weighted in assigning SSPs a Performance Evaluation Rating.

Measures of Special Services Providers Professional Practice must determine seventy percent of a SSP's total overall Performance Evaluation Rating, and Measures of Student Outcomes must determine the other thirty percent of the overall Performance Evaluation Rating. Each of the Special Services Providers Quality Standards I-IV (Professional Practice) must have a measurable influence on the final Performance Evaluation Rating.

5.1 (E)Evaluation Process. The process to evaluate Principals, Teachers, and Special Services Providers should include observations and feedback that result in a final Performance Evaluation Rating and a written report. The frequency and duration of the observations, which must be on a regular basis and of such frequency and duration as to ensure the collection of a sufficient amount of data from which fair and reliable conclusions may be drawn, and which meet the following requirements:

5.1 (E) (1)Principals. Principals must receive at least one observation and a written evaluation report each academic year. The written evaluation report, informed by a body of evidence collected systematically in the months prior, must provide a final Performance Evaluation Rating that rates a Principal as highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective.

5.1 (E) (2)Teachers. Probationary teachers must receive at least two documented observations and a written evaluation report each academic year. Nonprobationary teachers must receive at least one documented observation and a written evaluation report each academic year.

The written evaluation report, informed by a body of evidence collected in the months prior, must include fair and reliable measures of the teacher's performance against the Teacher Quality Standards and be used to determine a final Performance Evaluation Rating that rates a teacher as highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective. Teachers must receive the written evaluation report at least two weeks before the last class day of the school year.

5.1 (E) (3)Special Services Providers. A final Performance Evaluation Rating must be assigned once a year, using a body of evidence collected systematically in the months prior. School districts and BOCES must seek to ensure that the complete body of evidence leads to a valid and reliable measure of each professional's performance against the SSP Quality Standards and provides the SSP with a written evaluation report.

5.1 (E) (4)Educator Evaluation Scoring System. School districts and BOCES must use the State Model scoring system or develop a locally created system to determine how the multiple measures of educator performance will be aggregated to provide a single rating for Professional Practice on the applicable Quality Standards I-IV (Professional Practice), which will then be combined with a single rating for Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes to determine a final Performance Evaluation Rating. In developing its weighting policies, each school district or BOCES must ensure that Quality Standards I- IV are aggregated in such a way that each standard has a measurable influence on the rating for Professional Practice. Each school district or BOCES must ensure that the weight assigned to each particular measure is consistent with the measure's technical quality and rigor.

5.1 (E) (5) Prior to and multiple times throughout the evaluation process, the supervisor(s) for each principal, teacher, and SSP must engage in professional dialogue with the educator focused on their Professional Practice and growth for the course of the year.

5.1 (E) (6)Ongoing Data Collection and Analysis. School districts and BOCES must collect and analyze data on multiple occasions, in order to provide actionable feedback and support to educators on a regular basis in an effort to make evaluation an ongoing process rather than an event and to facilitate continuous improvement.

5.1 (E) (7)Differentiated Evaluation and Support Needs. District evaluation policies may reflect a determination that different categories of educators require varying degrees of evaluation and support.

5.1 (F) A description of the process that the school district or BOCES used for validating its evaluation methods. Such process must address:

5.1 (F) (1) consistency among the multiple measures used for evaluations;

5.1 (F) (2) inter-rater agreement when the measures are applied by different evaluators; and

5.1 (F) (3) consistency of data used to evaluate performance (i.e., observation, surveys, Measures of Student Learning) and the Performance Evaluation Ratings that are assigned.

5.1 (G) A description of the school district's or BOCES' system for ensuring that every Principal is provided with a Principal Professional Performance Plan.

5.1 (G) (1) This Principal Professional Performance Plan must be developed in collaboration with the individual Principal and must outline annual goals for the Principal with respect to their school's performance and the resources and supports which will be made available to support the Principal in achieving the outlined goals. A Principal's Professional Performance Plan must be consistent with the measures that are used to evaluate that principal and how the Principal Quality Standards are weighted for that principal's evaluation. School Districts and BOCES are encouraged to include goals related to a Principal's and their designee's ability to conduct meaningful evaluations of licensed personnel.

5.1 (G) (2) Principals must be held accountable for progress against the goals laid out in the Principal Professional Performance Plan and school districts or BOCES must continually monitor performance goals, provide feedback and adjust support for the principal as needed.

5.1 (G) (3) The Principal Professional Performance Plan must include the following:

5.1 (G) (3) (a) Goals addressing the number and percentages of effective teachers in the school, and the number and percentage of teachers who are improving, in a manner consistent with the goals for the school outlined in the school's Unified Improvement Plan; and

5.1 (G) (3) (b) Goals addressing school climate and working conditions, developed with reference to a working conditions or school leadership survey (for example, the state-funded biennial Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado (TLCC) Survey, required pursuant to section 22- 2-503, C.R.S.), and other appropriate data, including conditions highlighted in comprehensive appraisal for district improvement (CADI) and school support team (SST) diagnostic reviews facilitated by the Department.

5.1 (G) (4) School districts and BOCES are also strongly encouraged to include in Principal Professional Performance Plans goals related to staff participation in the Teaching and Learning Conditions in Colorado (TLCC) Survey, administered by the Department pursuant to section 22-2-503, C.R.S., or other working conditions, culture and climate, or school leadership surveys, and use of survey results to guide improvement efforts.

5.1 (H)Evaluation Process for Highly Effective Educators. School districts and BOCES may offer an optional modified evaluation process for principals, teachers, and special services providers who have received a rating of highly effective for at least three consecutive years. If offered, the modified evaluation process must provide an opportunity for the educator to continue to grow professionally as well as deepen and refine their professional practices.

5.1 (H) (1) When offered, the modified evaluation process must meet the following criteria:

5.1 (H) (1) (a) Becomes an available option after the educator earns a highly effective final Performance Evaluation Rating for three consecutive years;

5.1 (H) (1) (b) Eligible educators and their evaluators discuss and select use of the modified evaluation process no later than one month from the start of the school year. The school district or BOCES must provide guidance and parameters for selecting the modified evaluation process and for implementation once selected;

5.1 (H) (1) (c) Includes a modified rubric that maintains the established Quality Standards and Elements outlined in sections 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2 of these rules;

5.1 (H) (1) (d) The modified evaluation process must result in a final Performance Evaluation Rating of highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective as outlined in sections 2.3 , 3.3 , and 4.3 of these rules and provide feedback to the educator.

5.1 (H) (1) (e) Identifies the conditions in which an educator will return to using the standard evaluation process and includes a formal review process a minimum of every three years to determine if the educator will continue to use the modified evaluation process.

5.1 (H) (2) School districts and BOCES are strongly encouraged to include input from educators and members of their advisory councils described in section 5.2 of these rules in the decision to offer the modified evaluation process for highly effective educators, as well as in the creation and implementation of this modified evaluation process when offered.

5.1 (H) (3) The Department will ensure that the State Model System is updated to support districts/BOCES using the system to meet the criteria listed in section 5.1 (H) (1) of these rules.

5.2Process for Developing Local Evaluation System. Colorado statute outlines requirements for various entities to be involved in the development of local personnel evaluation systems. School districts and BOCES must collaborate with these entities in developing systems that meet the minimum requirements for evaluation systems described in section 5.1 of these rules.

5.2 (A) Each school district must have an advisory personnel performance evaluation council, which, at a minimum, consists of the following members appointed by the local school board:

5.2 (A) (1) One teacher;

5.2 (A) (2) One administrator;

5.2 (A) (3) One principal from the school district;

5.2 (A) (4) One school district resident who is a parent of a child attending a school within the school district; and

5.2 (A) (5) One school district resident who is not a parent with a child attending school within the school district.

5.2 (B) The council for a school district may be composed of any other school district committee having proper membership, as defined in section 5.2 (A) of these rules.

5.2 (C) Each BOCES that employs licensed personnel must have a BOCES advisory personnel performance evaluation council, which, at a minimum, consists of the following members to be appointed by the BOCES:

5.2 (C) (1) One teacher;

5.2 (C) (2) One administrator;

5.2 (C) (3) One principal representative of the school district or districts participating in the BOCES;

5.2 (C) (4) One person employed by the BOCES who is defined as licensed personnel pursuant to section 22-9-103 (1.5), C.R.S.;

5.2 (C) (5) One resident who is a parent of a child attending a school within the participating school district(s); and

5.2 (C) (6) One resident who is not a parent of a child attending a school within the participating school district(s).

5.2 (D) These advisory personnel performance evaluation councils must consult with the local school board or BOCES as to the fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and professional quality of the licensed personnel performance evaluation system and its processes and procedures and must conduct continuous evaluation of the system.

5.2 (E) Additionally, each local school board, pursuant to section 22-11-301, C.R.S., must appoint or create a process for the election of a district accountability committee that consists of:

5.2 (E) (1) At least three parents of students enrolled in the school district public schools;

5.2 (E) (2) At least one teacher who is employed by the school district;

5.2 (E) (3) At least one school administrator who is employed by the school district; and

5.2 (E) (4) At least one person who is involved in business in the community within the school district boundaries.

5.2 (F) Among the other powers and duties outlined in section 22-11-302, C.R.S., a district accountability committee is responsible for providing input and recommendations on an advisory basis to principals concerning the development and use of assessment tools used for the purpose of measuring and evaluating Student Academic Growth as it relates to teacher evaluations.

5.2 (G) Each public school, pursuant to section 22-11-401, C.R.S., must establish a school accountability committee that consists of at least the following members:

5.2 (G) (1) the principal of the school or the principal's designee;

5.2 (G) (2) at least one teacher who provides instruction at the school;

5.2 (G) (3) at least three parents of students enrolled in the school;

5.2 (G) (4) at least one adult member of an organization of parents, teachers and students recognized by the school; and

5.2 (G) (5) at least one person from the community.

5.2 (H) Among the other powers and duties outlined in section 22-11-402, C.R.S., a school accountability committee is responsible for providing input and recommendations on an advisory basis to district accountability committees and school district administration concerning the Principal Professional Performance Plan for the principal of their school and principal evaluations.

5.3Training for Evaluators and Educators

5.3 (A) School districts and BOCES must provide training to all evaluators and educators to provide an understanding of their local evaluation system and to provide the skills and knowledge needed for its implementation.

5.3 (B) As required by section 22-9-106(4)(a), C.R.S., all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a Department-approved training in evaluation skills. Teachers may fill the role of an evaluator if they are a designee of an individual with a principal or administrator license and have completed a Department- approved training on evaluation skills. The Department must develop a process for approving education and training programs for evaluators that is consistent with the approval process previously developed pursuant to section 22-9-108, C.R.S.

5.3 (C) School districts and BOCES are encouraged to provide training to teachers, so that teachers may conduct peer coaching observations in order to support other teachers by providing actionable feedback on Professional Practice.

5.3 (D) School districts and BOCES must clearly communicate to all teachers the tools that will be used to measure their performance of the Teacher Quality Standards and Measures of Student Learning prior to their use, and how these will be weighted and aggregated to determine final Performance Evaluation Ratings. School districts and BOCES must clearly articulate to each educator the personnel category into which they are assigned, and how the growth of the students they teach will be measured for the purpose of informing their Performance Evaluation Rating. If measures are altered any time through an evaluation cycle, School districts/BOCES must clearly communicate with educators on the need and reason for these changes and how they will impact the Performance Evaluation Ratings. School districts and BOCES that elect to adopt their own locally developed quality standards for evaluating teachers must clearly communicate how those local standards align with the state's Teacher Quality Standards. School districts and BOCES must clearly communicate to teachers the consequences of each category of Performance Evaluation Rating, including how each teacher's assigned rating contributes to the loss or gain of nonprobationary status.

5.3 (E) School districts and BOCES must clearly communicate to all principals the tools that will be used to measure their performance on the Principal Quality Standards and Measures of Student Learning prior to their use, how the selected measurement tools will be used to determine performance on each Principal Quality Standard, the party or parties responsible for making decisions, and how these multiple measures will be weighted and aggregated to determine final ratings. School districts and BOCES must clearly articulate to principals how Student Academic Growth for principals will be measured and delineate the manner in which these measures are aligned with the Measures of Student Learning for teachers. School districts and BOCES that elect to adopt their own locally developed quality standards for evaluating principals must clearly communicate how those local standards align with the state's Principal Quality Standards. School districts and BOCES must clearly communicate to principals the consequences of each category of Performance Evaluation Rating.

5.3 (F) School districts and BOCES must clearly communicate to the SSP the tools that may be used to measure performance against the SSP Quality Standards prior to their use and the weighting policies that will be used to aggregate data for each SSP Quality Standard into a final Performance Evaluation Rating. Supervisors must clearly articulate for each SSP the category or categories of personnel into which they are assigned. School districts and BOCES that elect to adopt their own locally developed set of SSP quality standards must clearly communicate how those local standards align with the state's SSP Quality Standards.

5.3 (G) School districts and BOCES must provide training to educators to help them understand how the growth of the students for which they are responsible will be measured for their performance evaluation, and to assist educators in responding to Student Academic Growth data.

5.3 (H) The Department will provide training, directly and through approved training providers (e.g., school districts or BOCES), for all persons who are responsible for the evaluation of licensed personnel (i.e., principals, teachers, and SSPs) that is focused on the skills and knowledge necessary to provide observation and feedback in support of the overall evaluation process and the educator's ongoing professional growth and development.

5.4 (H) (1) Beginning August 1, 2024, any person who is responsible for the evaluation of a licensed educator (i.e., Principal, Teacher, or SSP) must complete the training provided by or approved by the department prior to obtaining an initial principal/administrator license or prior to renewing an existing license.

5.3 (H) (1) (a) Completion of the training will result in a licensure designation.

5.3 (H) (2) School districts, BOCES, or other entities interested in gaining approval from CDE to provide this training for evaluators of licensed personnel must meet or exceed the following standards:

5.4 (H) (2) (a) Evaluator Training Standard I: Evaluators will be able to identify the connection points within the evaluation cycle.

5.3 (H) (2) (a) (i) Element A: Evaluators understand the timing and purpose of the connection points within the evaluation cycle.

5.3 (H) (2) (a) (ii) Element B: Evaluators understand the observation and feedback cycle within the evaluation process.

5.3 (H) (2) (a) (iii) Element C: Evaluators can connect the evaluation cycle to their local evaluation system and influence on students' educational experience.

5.3 (H) (2) (b) Evaluator Training Standard II: Evaluators will be able to apply observation and feedback best practices to their evaluation process.

5.3 (H) (2) (b) (i) Element A: Evaluators understand best practices for observations and feedback.

5.3 (H) (2) (b) (ii) Element B: Evaluators are aware of the Quality Standards and Elements for the educators' role(s) they are evaluating.

5.3 (H) (2) (b) (iii) Element C: Evaluators understand the connection between observations, feedback, and educators' professional growth and development.

5.3 (H) (2) (c) Evaluator Training Standard III: Evaluators will be able to identify potential for bias in observations and data collection.

5.3 (H) (2) (c) (i) Element A: Evaluators understand the types of observational bias.

5.3 (H) (2) (c) (ii) Element B: Evaluators understand how bias can influence observation, data collection, and the evaluation process.

5.3 (H) (2) (d) Evaluator Training Standard IV: Evaluators will obtain strategies for interpreting observation data and preparing for meaningful feedback and follow-up for educators.

5.3 (H) (2) (d) (i) Element A: Evaluators understand strategies to differentiate observations.

5.3 (H) (2) (d) (ii) Element B: Evaluators understand the steps to create meaningful feedback based on observation data.

5.3 (H) (2) (d) (iii) Element C: Evaluators can identify strategies for supporting low-performing educators.

5.3 (H) (2) (e) Evaluator Training Standard V: Evaluators will be familiar with resources to support the evaluation process and educators' ongoing professional growth and development.

5.3 (H) (2) (e) (i) Element A: Evaluators are aware of available options to share evaluation responsibilities and how to leverage those options in the evaluation process.

5.3 (H) (2) (e) (ii) Element B: Evaluators are aware of resources and supports for evaluators and the evaluation process.

5.4Process for Nonprobationary Teacher to Appeal Second Consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of Ineffective or Partially Effective.

5.4 (A)Requirements for All School Districts. The following requirements apply to the appeal process developed by school districts for a nonprobationary teacher to appeal a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective. For purposes of the appeal process, a rating of ineffective and a rating partially effective carry the same consequence; a teacher loses nonprobationary status after receiving two consecutive ratings of either ineffective or partially effective. The appeal process must allow for a final determination of the appealing teacher's Performance Evaluation Rating and a final determination of whether that teacher retains nonprobationary status; it does not serve the purpose of determining employment and/or termination.

5.4 (A) (1) Each school district must ensure that a nonprobationary teacher who objects to a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective has an opportunity to appeal that rating.

5.4 (A) (2) The appeal process must adhere to the following principles:

5.4 (A) (2) (a) the appeal process must be appropriate to the size and location of the school district;

5.4 (A) (2) (b) the appeal process must be fair and clearly communicated to teachers, evaluators, principals, and, where appropriate, students and parents of students;

5.4 (A) (2) (c) the appeal process must be a component of a larger system designed to increase the number of educators able to be successful rather than provide excuses for failure;

5.4 (A) (2) (d) the appeal process must be clearly connected to the school district's educator evaluation process; and

5.4 (A) (2) (e) the appeal process must be constructed to produce appeal decisions in a timely and decisive manner;

5.4 (A) (3) The appeal process must be developed, where applicable, through collective bargaining.

5.4 (A) (4) The appeal process must be voluntary for a teacher and initiated only if they choose to file an appeal. As required by section 22-9-106 (4.5)(b), C.R.S., at a minimum, the appeal process provided must allow the nonprobationary teacher to appeal the rating of ineffectiveness to the superintendent of the School District and place the burden upon the nonprobationary teacher to demonstrate that a rating of effective was appropriate.

5.4 (A) (5) The appeal process begins on the date that a teacher receives their second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective and concludes no more than forty-five (45) calendar days after they receive the Performance Evaluation Rating. A teacher must file an appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving their rating. These time requirements may be waived, by mutual agreement of both the teacher and the school district.

5.4 (A) (6) A teacher is permitted only one appeal for the second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective. A teacher filing an appeal must include all grounds for the appeal within a single written document. Any grounds not raised at the time the written appeal is filed are deemed waived.

5.4 (A) (7) The grounds for an appeal are limited to the following:

5.4 (A) (7) (a) The evaluator did not follow evaluation procedures that adhere to the requirements of statute and rule and that failure had a material impact on the final Performance Evaluation Rating that was assigned (e.g., an observation was never completed, or feedback was never shared with the teacher); and/or

5.4 (A) (7) (b) The data relied upon was inaccurately attributed to the teacher (e.g., data included in the evaluation was from students for whom the teacher was not responsible).

5.4 (A) (8) Any documents and/or proceedings related to the appeal process must be deemed confidential.

5.4 (A) (9) The superintendent, or their designated individual, is the final decision- making authority in determining a teacher's final Performance Evaluation Rating and whether a nonprobationary teacher loses their nonprobationary status. The superintendent must provide a written rationale for their final determination.

5.4 (A) (10) The appeal process is final in regard to the final Performance Evaluation Rating and loss or retention of nonprobationary status.

5.4 (A) (11) If the superintendent determines that a rating of ineffective or partially effective was not accurate but there is not sufficient information to assign a rating of effective, the teacher must receive a "no score" and must not lose his or her nonprobationary status. The assignment of a "no score" shall not interrupt the count of consecutive years towards earning or loss of nonprobationary status.

5.4 (B)State Model System. The Department must include in the State Model System a model appeal process for a nonprobationary teacher to appeal a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective.

Each School District that adopts the State Model System may choose either of the following options:

(1) to use the model appeal process that incorporates the use of a review panel; or

(2) to develop its own distinctive appeal process that adheres to the requirements in section 5.4 (A) of these rules.

In addition to meeting the requirements outlined in section 5.4 (A) of these rules, the Department's model appeal process must include the following components.

5.4 (B) (1) The review panel must serve in an advisory capacity to the superintendent. The superintendent must be the final decision-making authority in determining the teacher's final Performance Evaluation Rating.

5.4 (B) (2) The review panel must be comprised of members that were not directly involved in the evaluation process for the appealing teacher. The superintendent may appoint himself or herself to the review panel.

5.4 (B) (3) Panel members must be selected and trained in a manner designed to ensure the credibility and expertise of the panel members. The panel must be comprised of equal numbers of teachers and administrators, with no more than six panel members total. A process must be developed to ensure continuity of the review panel members.

5.4 (B) (4) The appealing teacher must be given the opportunity to address and provide evidence to the review panel in person or in writing. The review panel must review any written information provided by the appealing teacher prior to meeting to render a recommendation.

5.4 (B) (5) The review panel may invite the teacher or teacher's principal to present in person or in writing where clarification is necessary; however, the teacher and principal have the right of refusal without prejudice.

5.4 (B) (6) To overturn a rating of ineffective or partially effective, in accordance with the board policy or collective bargaining agreement, the panel must unanimously find that the rating of ineffective or partially effective was inaccurate, with the potential for submission of a majority opinion to the superintendent if the panel is not able to reach unanimous consent.

5.4 (C)Continuous Improvement. As a part of its review of local personnel evaluation systems and implementation of the State Model System, the Department must report on the role of the model system appeals process as a lever to ensure broader system accountability. Specifically, the Department must report on how the appeals process supports the following:

5.4 (C) (1) early identification to teachers of any performance deficiencies, well in advance of a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of partially effective or ineffective;

5.4 (C) (2) the provision of targeted and timely opportunities, including resources and training, to teachers to address any identified areas of deficiency promptly after they receive an initial Performance Evaluation Rating of partially effective or ineffective and throughout the following school year;

5.4 (C) (3) a process to ensure that effective teachers are not inappropriately rated as ineffective or partially effective; and

5.4 (C) (4) the completion of performance evaluations only by individuals who have completed a Department-approved training in evaluation skills, as required by section 22-9-106(4)(a), C.R.S.

5.5Appeals Process for Special Services Providers

SSPs who receive a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective and who are not employed with a district or BOCES that provides the ability to earn non- probationary status may appeal their rating using the process described in section 5.4 of these rules. School districts and BOCES may choose to, and are not required to, provide this appeal process for SSPs who are employed with the ability to earn non-probationary status.

1 CCR 301-87-5.00

41 CR 14, July 25, 2018, effective 8/14/2018

42 CR 09, May 10, 2019, effective 5/30/2019

46 CR 11, June 10, 2023, effective 6/30/2023