1. LEGAL ASPECTS of EVALUATION CSMEES, LEAP and S.B. 10-191 Prepared by Cori Herbst-Loehr Creative Arts Academy at Kunsmiller Developing People

2. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION Colorado State Model Educator Evaluation System (CSMEES) To ensure that all licensed personnel are evaluated using multiple, fair, transparent, timely, rigorous and valid methods, 50 percent of which is determined by the academic growth of their students To ensure that all licensed personnel receive adequate feedback and professional development support to provide them a meaningful opportunity to improve their effectiveness To ensure that all licensed personnel are provided the means to share effective practices with other educators throughout the state Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP) Before LEAP, our teachers told us the previous evaluation system wasn’t working – it wasn’t helpful, differentiated or frequent enough, and only about a third of teachers said their evaluation was accurate. Today, teachers utilize the data gathered through LEAP to engage in dialogue about their practice, reflect on feedback and seek personalized growth opportunities. LEAP also helps school leaders provide more informed feedback and make more effective decisions about how to support our teachers. Ultimately, the goal of LEAP is to provide meaningful feedback that will empower teachers to reflect upon and enhance their instruction, which will move us toward our vision, Every Child Succeeds. GREAT PEOPLE TO DRIVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS: Development of a multiple-measure teacher evaluation and feedback system that meaningfully differentiates the performance of teachers. (LEAP) FOCUS ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE: Create conditions to ensure educator effectiveness. This will require us to develop a shared definition of effective teaching (DPS Framework for Effective Teaching), do more to support teachers in becoming effective teachers and continue to develop principals to be effective leaders.

3. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In a side-by-side comparison the CSMEES clearly outlines the purpose of evaluation in alignment with S.B. 10-191 by using both similar language and format. The CDE overview of S.B. 10-191 indicates that the purpose of the bill is to: Emphasize that a system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel is crucial to improving the quality of education in Colorado. Ensure that one of the purposes of evaluation is to provide a basis for making decisions in the areas of hiring, compensation, promotion, assignment, professional development, earning and retaining non-probationary status, and nonrenewal of contract. Ensure that educators are evaluated in significant part based on the impact they have on the growth of their students. LEAP addresses the purpose of evaluation in a less clearly outlined manner. The LEAP Handbook addressed the purpose of evaluation by acknowledging the weaknesses of the previous evaluation system. Using the Denver Plan’s core elements as the outline and purpose for evaluation we are able to crosswalk connections to S.B. 10-191. S.B. 10-191 impact is immediately apparent in the development of a clear outline for the purpose of evaluation. Whether it is LEAP or CSMEES that is used at the local level both the principal and teacher are able to access purpose and make a common connection to the key purposes of S.B. 10-191. The outline of purpose lays the groundwork for creating the systems of evaluation that the bill calls for. This impacts how teachers are hired, compensated, promoted, education and developed into highly effective educators.

4. KEY PRIORITIES Colorado State Model Educator Evaluation System (CSMEES) PRIORITY ONE: Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations. PRIORITY TWO: The implementation and assessment of the evaluation system must embody continuous improvement. PRIORITY THREE: The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance. PRIORITY FOUR: The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process. PRIORITY FIVE: Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive. Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP) GREAT PEOPLE TO DRIVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS: Development of a multiple-measure teacher evaluation and feedback system that meaningfully differentiates the performance of teachers. (LEAP) FOCUS ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE: Create conditions to ensure educator effectiveness. This will require us to develop a shared definition of effective teaching (DPS Framework for Effective Teaching), do more to support teachers in becoming effective teachers and continue to develop principals to be effective leaders. LEAP’s Multiple Measures: In the beginning, DPS and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) recognized that the components of a successful evaluation system must be informed by the ideas and experiences of our practitioners. It also needed to be comprised of multiple measures in order to provide a more complete, fair and accurate picture of a teacher’s performance. Therefore, LEAP was designed from the ground up with input from our teachers and school leaders, national research, national consultants and feedback from the field. In accordance with Senate Bill 10-191**, DPS has identified the following measures to comprise LEAP:

5. KEY PRIORITIES ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In a side-by-side comparison of CSMEES and LEAP we see that CSMEES uses similar language to S.B 10-191 directly addressing SECTION 1 and 2 of the bill. LEAP does not outline key priorities in a way that makes it easy to see how it will prioritize and address S.B. 10-191. The use of the Multiple Measures graph in the LEAP Handbook does, however, clearly answer how the bill impacts and thus defines the elements of evaluation. In accordance with S.B. 10-191 LEAP has identified that Professional Practice and Student Outcomes provide a complete, fair and accurate picture of teacher performance. Whether LEAP or CSMEES S.B. 10-191 has forced a dialogue around how educator effectiveness is measured, and also how districts prioritize or value the measures. This dialogue has allowed for stakeholders to align the measures and also align how the measures are prioritized.

6. EVALUATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS Colorado State Model Educator Evaluation System (CSMEES) The Statewide Definition of Effectiveness Colorado Educator Quality Standards and Their Related Elements Measures Used to Determine Overall Effectiveness Rating Procedures for Conducting Evaluations Performance Standards Appeals Process Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP) Observation Professionalism Student Perception Survey Student Outcomes

7. EVALUATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In a side-by-side comparison of CSMEES and LEAP the language of CSMEES echoes the language of the Critical Effects of S.B. 10-191 whereas LEAP offers concise language that requires unpacking to discover the alignment of the Critical Effects of S.B. 10-191. The Critical Effects of S.B. 10-191 as outlined by the CDE overview are: Requires statewide minimum standards for what it means to be an “effective” teacher or principal Requires that all teachers and principals be evaluated at least 50 percent on the academic growth of their students Prohibits forced placement of teachers Makes non-probationary status “portable” Requires annual evaluation of all teachers and principals Changes non-probationary status from one that is earned based upon years of service to one that is earned based upon three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness Provides that non-probationary status may be lost based upon consecutive years of ineffectiveness. The impact of this legislation on the evaluation and support of teachers is perhaps most apparent in these Critical Effects. This is where we see the requirement for systemic change to long-held ideas around teacher tenure, how student growth and achievement is determined and how to manage ineffective teachers or teaching practices. The Critical Effects require the creation of the components of evaluation because districts and school leaders are now legally bound to address the purpose and priorities of evaluation through a common lens. The impact of this policy must influence how districts allocate funds, personnel and local policy in every department. For DPS it has created the need for comprehensive overhaul of many of the district’s policies. I’ve observed over the last three years that many departments within DPS have undergone revisions in how they operate to include more transparent practice and increased accountability. The impact of S.B. 10-191 on the evaluation and support of teachers doesn’t stop at the school level, it appears to reverberate outward to impact many facets of district policy.

8. EVALUATION PROCESS Colorado State Model Educator Evaluation System (CSMEES) Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP)

9. EVALUATION PROCESS ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In a side-by-side comparison of the evaluation process CSMEES has developed a clear 9 step process that includes components to address SECTIONS 1-3 and 7 of S.B. 10-191. LEAP has an annual timeline that incorporates elements of these sections, but focus primarily on the observation cycle leaving out training and orientation and performance planning. That being stated my evaluation of this is that LEAP may accommodate for a more realistic implementation of the evaluation process considering man-power and budget. S.B. 10-191 was written to require implementation of a teacher evaluation system that emphasizes and ensures the effectiveness of licensed personnel. It was also created to inform district policy on developing these effective evaluation practices. The impact S.B. 10-191 has also had on the evaluation and support of teachers and district policy is to create systems of compliance. CSMEES carefully addresses all language of S.B. 10-191, while LEAP appears to be in a more organic state, sometimes interpreted as ambiguous or unclear. My observation is that CSMEES outlines systems and structures that not all districts will be able to fully comply in an authentic manner. Although not written anywhere I would conclude that LEAP is a more practical evaluation system that meets the requirements of S.B. 10-191, but is also open-ended or organically crafted to allow it to shrink or grow as the language of S.B. 10-191 demands.

10. QUALITY STANDARDS vs. LEAP INDICATORS Colorado State Model Educator Evaluation System (CSMEES) Quality Standard I. Mastery of and pedagogical expertise in the content they teach Quality Standard II. Safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for diverse population of students Quality Standard III. Effective instruction and an environment that facilitates learning Quality Standard IV. Reflections on practice Quality Standard V. Leadership Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP) INDICATOR LE.1: Demonstrates knowledge of, interest in, and respect for diverse students’ communities and cultures* in a manner that increases equity INDICATOR LE.2: Fosters a motivational and respectful classroom environment INDICATOR LE.3: Implements high, clear expectations for student behavior and routines INDICATOR LE.4: Classroom resources* and physical environment** support students and their learning INDICATOR I.1: Clearly communicates the standards-based* content- language objective(s)** for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s) INDICATOR I.2: Provides rigorous tasks* that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure student success INDICATOR I.3: Intentionally uses instructional methods* and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s) INDICATOR I.4: Ensures all students active and appropriate use of academic language* INDICATOR I.5: Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s) INDICATOR I.6: Provides differentiation* that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objective(s) INDICATOR I.7: Provides students with academically focused descriptive feedback* aligned to content-language objective(s) INDICATOR I.8: Promotes student communication* and collaboration** utilizing appropriate digital and other resources***

11. QUALITY STANDARDS vs. LEAP INDICATORS ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In a side-by-side comparison CSMEES and LEAP, CSMEES implements S.B. 10-191 common language in the evaluation and rating system, while LEAP chooses distinctly different language. LEAP has adopted 2 Domains, 4 Expectations areas and Indicators. In each indicator there are Student Behaviors, Teacher Behaviors and examples of evidence. While S.B. 10-191 clearly impacted the development of the LEAP framework for effective teaching it appears to be a more complex document for use in evaluation. Evaluation of the two rating systems (CSMEES and LEAP) caused me to reflect on how S.B. 10-191 has forced the development of how affective practice is identified and judged. This area is one where S.B. 10-191 creates room for subjectivity. Clearly the Quality Standards Evaluation Tool and LEAP Framework look immediately different. When we unpack each evaluative tool to define their common practices it is my observation that CSMEES looks ‘easier’ to use. The LEAP Framework is complex and is not meant to be used as a checklist. The rating system language differs from most common rubrics and is sometimes ambiguous. The impact of S.B. 10-191 on the actual evaluation tools is diverse, and my big question is whether language – for example Quality Standards vs. Indicators creates unnecessary confusion and complexity? CSMEES, because of its more simplistic format, appears as though it would require fewer financial resources to meet the training requirements and consequent demands of S.B. 10-191. The evaluation of the LEAP Framework feels like it might require more support resources for it to accurately and adequately meet the purpose of evaluation laid out in S.B. 10-191.

12. FINAL REFLECTION

13. ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND IMPACT In order to discuss the impact on the evaluation and support of teachers and district policy I compared and contrasted the language of LEAP with CSMEES and then drew connections back to S.B. 10-191. My understanding of the language of 191 has allowed me to understand that this bill carries a significant and long lasting effect on how students in Colorado are educated. The reach of the impact is not exclusive to the classroom, but extends out into the community. The resources required to become fully compatible with S.B. 10-191 in the timeline that is outlined requires districts to rethink how they’ve structured their budgets and personnel. At the end of this very tightly stretched rope of resources we find school leaders and teachers. While I’m confident that S.B. 10-191 will result in positive outcomes for students, I do wonder whether it encourages sustainable practices? When we look back in 10 years will we have developed highly effective educators who are committed to education and students for the long term, or will we have moved towards creating a revolving door system of educators who burn out before they can be fully developed into highly effective practitioners? There are many immediate and tangible impacts that can be observed as a result of S.B. 10-191. The defining of the purpose of, development of key priorities, and common components of evaluation as well as how we define the quality standards of education. These have also caused districts to develop stronger systems of PD and feedback, common data tools and better supports for ineffective teachers as well as opportunity for distributive leadership. It is my belief after reviewing the complexities of this bill that S.B. 10-191 will yield many long term effects that we are not yet aware of. FINAL REFLECTION