Governor's Educator Effectiveness Council begins work on evaluation

The new Governor's Council on Educator Effectiveness will begin meeting March 11 to work on a fair, effective, and improved teacher and principal evaluation system for Colorado K-12 educators.

CEA President Beverly Ingle, a Cherry Creek middle school teacher, applauded Governor Ritter for creating the new council. She said the Governor recognizes, as teachers do, how important a fair, effective system of evaluation is to improving teacher and principal effectiveness. Ingle said, "By creating the Governor's Council to examine this critical issue and make recommendations, Governor Ritter acknowledges that good evaluation is foundational and must be addressed carefully."

Ingle added, "We cannot move forward on other issues of teacher effectiveness if our evaluation system doesn't work properly. A recent report called 'The Widget Effect' pointed out the failures and fallacies of our current evaluation system. We in CEA believe we must get this right."

The New Teacher Project did the research for the Widget Effect report, studying 12 districts including Pueblo 60 (City) Schools and Denver Public Schools. The report is critical of both districts' teacher evaluation systems, but offers specific recommendations for improvement.

Governor Ritter created The Governor's Council on Educator Effectiveness by executive order. CEA is represented on the council by three teachers: Shelly Genereux, Brighton Education Association member; Amie Baca Oehlert, District Twelve Educators Association member; and Kerrie Dallman, Jefferson County Education Association member.

Teacher Evaluation in Colorado: A Backgrounder

K-12 public school teacher evaluation is covered by state statute in the Licensed Personnel Performance Evaluation Act (C.R.S. 22-9-101 et seq.). This a summary of the requirements of the Colorado statute. Individual district policies vary in scope and detail.

The Colorado General Assembly determined in the 1980s that a system of performance evaluation for all licensed school personnel is crucial to improving the quality of education in the state. The state requires each school district to have such a written system in place to:

• serve as a basis for the improvement of instruction;
• enhance the implementation of programs of curriculum;
• provide the measurement of satisfactory performance and serve as documentation for an unsatisfactory performance dismissal;
• serve as a measurement of the professional growth and development of educators;
• measure the level of performance of all educators.

In developing, implementing, and monitoring its system each school district is required to appoint and consult with an advisory performance evaluation council consisting of, at a minimum, one teacher, one administrator, one principal, one resident with a child in the district, and one resident without a child in the district. The council is to continuously evaluate the system and consult with the local board of education regarding the fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and professional quality of the evaluation system, its processes, and procedures.

Each district’s evaluation system must include, but shall not be limited to:

• the title or position of the evaluator of each position to be evaluated;
• the positions to be evaluated (i.e., all licensed personnel);
• the frequency and duration of the evaluations (at least two observations and one written evaluation per year for probationary teachers, and one observation per year and one written evaluation every three years for nonprobationary teachers);
• the standards and criteria for determining satisfactory performance (one of which must be related to classroom instruction and must include multiple measures of student performance);
• the methods of evaluation, including but not limited to, direct observation and a process of systematic data-gathering.

All evaluations must be conducted to observe the legal and constitutional rights of employees and no information may be gathered by electronic devices without the consent of the employee. Each evaluation must conclude with a written evaluation report containing an improvement plan with specific recommendations needed for improvement, if any, and recommendations for additional education or training. The report must also indicate specific strengths and weaknesses of the employee, list when direct observations of performance were made, and identify data sources. The report is to be discussed between and signed by the evaluator and the employee. The employee’s signature indicates review and receipt of a copy of the report, but does not necessarily indicate agreement with the contents of the report. If an employee disagrees with anything contained in the report he/she may attach a written explanation or other relevant documentation to the report. The final report must also be reviewed and signed by the supervisor of the evaluator.

The evaluation of a teacher may include peer, parent, or student input obtained from standardized surveys. The evaluation of a principal shall include input from the teachers in the principal’s school and may also include input from students in the school and their parents. Such input from teachers, students, and parents must remain anonymous and confidential. In addition, any principal or administrator responsible for evaluating other employees shall be evaluated as to how he/she carries out the evaluation responsibilities.

An employee whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory shall be given a notice of deficiencies and shall jointly, with the district, develop a remediation plan. The employee shall have a reasonable time to remediate the deficiencies and shall be provided a list of the resources and assistance available for correcting the deficiencies.

Following completion of the remediation plan, if an employee’s performance is deemed satisfactory, no further action is required. If the employee is still not performing at a satisfactory level, the evaluator may make additional recommendations for improvement or recommend dismissal in accordance with the state due process law.

The law requires that any person responsible for evaluating licensed personnel must have a principal or administrator license and must have received education and training in evaluation skills that enable him/her to make fair, professional, and credible evaluations.

District superintendents are exempt from evaluation under this law. Local school boards have exclusive authority for a superintendent’s evaluation.