School leadership ranks second only to classroom instruction among school-based factors that influence student achievement, according to Wallace Foundation research. Many of the things that happen inside school buildings, when examined separately, affect learning in small ways. But a strong principal can create an environment in which individual factors have a synergistic effect when blended, producing considerably better results. Recognizing the importance of school leadership, federal and state policymakers a few years ago began to push for reforms aimed at ensuring that each public school has an effective principal. The Colorado General Assembly passed legislation in 2010 that thoroughly overhauled the evaluation process for both principals and teachers. The bill was designed to increase educator effectiveness by making evaluations more meaningful and the feedback from them more useful, with the end goal of improving student achievement. SB-191 goes into effect statewide in the 2013-14 school year and requires that at least half of a principal's evaluation be based on the academic growth of students in that principal’s school and that at least half of a teacher’s evaluation be based on the academic growth of his or her students. The remaining portions measure how well they meet the new standards that define what it means to be an effective principal or teacher. The law also mandates that evaluations be conducted annually, promotes new opportunities for professional development and requires that teachers and principals be rated in one of four categories: highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective. To get or keep non-probationary status (tenure), teachers must show that they are effective or better. This issues brief from the Colorado Association of School Executives (CASE) is the first in a series of briefs that will begin to explain the new rules and how they are being implemented. The paper focuses on how principals are to be evaluated. It also provides an overview of the new law, some history behind the legislation and a short guide to similar reforms in other states. In addition, it offers some perspective and advice from administrators in Colorado school districts that are piloting the revamped system.

1. • History and context
• Main provisions
• Reforms in other states
• Framework to evaluate principals
• Affecting student achievement
• Timeline
HIGHLIGHTS
SB-191
ISSUES BRIEF VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1
AN OVERVIEW TO IMPLEMENTING
EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
SEPTEMBER
2013
DISCOVER LESSONS LEARNED ON
SB-191 WITH THIS PANORAMIC BRIEF

2. AUTHOR:
Jeffrey A. Roberts
EDITORS:
Greg Benchwick and
Bruce Caughey
PEER REVIEW:
CASE and CDE
GRAPHIC DESIGN:
FiG Advertising
PROOFREADER:
Kris Kitto
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeffrey A. Roberts has worked in journalism and public policy
for more than 30 years at The Denver Post, the Fort Myers (Fla.)
News-Press and the Center for Colorado’s Economic Future at the
University of Denver. He recently was named Executive Director of
the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Colorado
Association of School Executives (CASE), its donors, members
or departments. The contents of this publication, including all
figures, tables, and drawings, are the intellectual property of
CASE, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Removal or
alteration of copyright notices or trademarks is not permitted.
Forwarding or reproduction of this publication or parts thereof
for commercial use is not permitted without the explicit written
authorization of CASE. All program names or services of CASE
used in this publication as well as corresponding logos are
trademarks or registered trademarks of CASE in the United States.
CASE does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of
information, text, graphics, links, or other elements contained in
this publication. This publication is provided without any warranty,
whether explicit or implicit. This applies in part but not exclusively
to a warranty of marketability and suitability for a particular
purpose as well as a warranty of non-violation of applicable law.
Copyright © 2013 CASE/Jeffrey A. Roberts
THIS ISSUES BRIEF WAS
PREPARED BY THE COLORADO
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
EXECUTIVES (CASE) WITH
FUNDING FROM THE BILL AND
MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION.

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from CASE Executive Director 1
Introduction 4
Overview 5
Defining Expectations Under the Seven Quality Standards 6
Background 7
Main provisions of SB-191 10
SB-191 Timeline 11
Reforms in Other States 13
National Trends in Effectiveness Implementation 15
Principal Effectiveness in Colorado 17
Framework for System to Evaluate Principals 18
Steps in the Year-Long Principal Evaluation Process (State Model): 19
Understanding the Rubrics for Success 21
Measures of Student Learning 23

4. As this is the first in a series, we
have not discussed the time
and money that will be required
to effectively implement these
school improvement initiatives.
But we know it’s important.
We know that implementing
SB-191 will certainly require a lot
of both: more time for principals
to properly evaluate teachers,
more time for administrators to
properly evaluate principals, and
more money – or a reallocation
of existing resources – for start-
up costs and on-going annual
expenses.
In its final report, the
State Council for Educator
Effectiveness acknowledged that
“these costs will be a burden to
districts at a time when districts
are already under severe financial
pressure.“We understand that
and will continue to advocate for
more comprehensive financing
for these initiatives.
Welcome to the new world.
Colorado’s education
system is changing, and
one of the primary drivers
of this change will be the
successful understanding and
implementation of SB-191.
This issues brief provides
us with a broad framework
to understand the new law,
looking at the background,
historic context, lessons
learned from other states
and more.
DIRECTOR
EXECUTIVE
FROM CASE
Colorado Association of
School Executives
BRUCE
CAUGHEY
LETTER
1

5. The state is helping districts
with some non-cash assistance,
as well. Using a Round 3 Race
to the Top federal grant, CDE
has developed the Colorado
State Model Evaluation Systems
for teachers and principals,
the CDE Resource Bank of
assessments and assessment
review tools, training
opportunities and professional
development materials. The
five integration pilot districts
and one integration BOCES
are receiving additional help
from the Colorado Legacy
Foundation to implement both
the new evaluation systems
and the updated Colorado
Academic Standards.
But that’s not enough. One-time
start-up costs for districts were
estimated at $53 per student
in a 2011 study commissioned
by the Council on Educator
Effectiveness. That figure, which
was not adjusted for district
size, includes training on the
new system for educators
and evaluators, setting up
data systems, selecting
evaluation measures and
creating an appeals process.
Major ongoing costs
include the conducting of
evaluations, the regular
analysis of student data
and the identification of
ineffective teachers who will
need improvement plans and
related support.
As a part of this statewide
push to successfully
implement SB-191, CASE has
established the Leadership
Academy for Principals, an
ongoing seminar series that
delivers robust learning
opportunities centered
on the Principal Quality
Standards, and helps
principals and other leaders
unravel the complexities of
the law.
It’s a complicated system,
but one that, if properly
implemented, will provide for
a better education future for
Colorado’s students. As we
roll up our sleeves and get to
work, I think it’s important that
we recognize the commitment,
sacrifice and amazing work
Colorado educators are putting
into this process of change.
Bob Dylan was right, the
“waters around us have grown...
the old road is rapidly rising,”
and if we aren’t careful it very
well could shake our windows
and rattle our walls.
Know this, no matter where
these changing times take us,
CASE will be there, walking
the path with you, as we come
together to step into the
challenging and important
task of improving Colorado’s
education system, one Quality
Standard, one student, one
teacher, one principal at a time.
2

7. development and requires that
teachers and principals be rated
in one of four categories: highly
effective, effective, partially
effective or ineffective. To get
or keep non-probationary status
(tenure), teachers must show
that they are effective or better.
This issues brief from the
Colorado Association of
School Executives (CASE) is
the first in a series of briefs
that will begin to explain the
new rules and how they are
being implemented. The paper
focuses on how principals
are to be evaluated. It also
provides an overview of the new
law, some history behind the
legislation and a short guide to
similar reforms in other states.
In addition, it offers some
perspective and advice from
administrators in Colorado
school districts that are piloting
the revamped system.
School leadership ranks
second only to classroom
instruction among school-based
factors that influence student
achievement, according to
Wallace Foundation research.
Many of the things that happen
inside school buildings, when
examined separately, affect
learning in small ways. But a
strong principal can create an
environment in which individual
factors have a synergistic effect
when blended, producing
considerably better results.
Recognizing the importance of
school leadership, federal and
state policymakers a few years
ago began to push for reforms
aimed at ensuring that each
public school has an effective
principal. The Colorado General
Assembly passed legislation in
2010 that thoroughly overhauled
the evaluation process for both
principals and teachers.
The bill was designed to
increase educator effectiveness
by making evaluations more
meaningful and the feedback
from them more useful, with the
end goal of improving student
achievement.
SB-191 goes into effect
statewide in the 2013-14
school year and requires that
at least half of a principal’s
evaluation be based on the
academic growth of students
in that principal’s school and
that at least half of a teacher’s
evaluation be based on the
academic growth of his or
her students. The remaining
portions measure how well
they meet the new standards
that define what it means to
be an effective principal or
teacher. The law also mandates
that evaluations be conducted
annually, promotes new
opportunities for professional
INTRODUCTION
4

8. district’s superintendent,
who is advised by a review
panel. Mutual consent hiring
also is part of SB-191. District
administrators no longer will
be allowed to “force place” a
teacher into a school without
the principal’s approval.
Teaching positions will be filled
with the consent of both the
teacher and principal, with
input from other teachers at the
school.
Twenty-seven school districts
piloted the model system,
including 15 selected by CDE
and others that are partnering
with the state to map their own
systems to the expectations
in SB-191. Five districts and
one BOCES received grant
money from the Colorado
Legacy Foundation to be
“integration” pilots, meaning
they are implementing both the
evaluation system and updated
Colorado Academic Standards.
Feedback from the pilots, which
began testing the principal
rubric and evaluation matrix
during the 2011-12 school
year, is being used to make
improvements as the law takes
full effect.
With SB-191 in effect, Colorado
school districts and Boards
of Cooperative Education
Services (BOCES) must assure
the Colorado Department of
Education (CDE) that they are
implementing new evaluation
systems that align with the
Quality Standards written by
the State Council for Educator
Effectiveness and rules
approved by the State Board
of Education. A district may
develop its own system, as
long as it submits a crosswalk
of locally developed standards
to the state Quality Standards,
or it may use the Colorado
State Model Evaluation System
developed by CDE. Hybrids
are allowed, such as using the
state model for principals and
a different aligned system for
teachers.
The Colorado State Model
Evaluation System is designed
to be a continuous process
of regular conversations,
observations and feedback
involving the evaluator and
the teacher or principal being
evaluated. A year-long cycle
starts with an orientation to
make sure the system is
understood. Educators assess
themselves and set goals that
are reviewed by their evaluators.
Their progress is checked mid-
year, giving them opportunities
to improve before they are
evaluated again at least two
weeks prior to the end of the
school year. Year-end ratings
lead to additional goal setting
and performance planning.
For teachers, SB-191 will
fundamentally change the
concept of tenure in Colorado
once it takes full effect. Under
the existing system, teachers
who have three years of
satisfactory performance on
the job and are re-employed
for a fourth year automatically
earn non-probationary (tenured)
status, making it difficult for
them to be fired later if they
perform poorly. Under the new
process, tenure is no longer
tied to length of service. Non-
probationary status is earned
after three straight years of
effective ratings and it can be
revoked after two consecutive
years of ineffective or partially
effective ratings. Teachers can
appeal a second consecutive
ineffective rating to their
OVERVIEW
5

9. Principals and assistant principals under the state model are rated on six Quality Standards pertaining
to professional practices, and a final Quality Standard pertaining to measures of student learning. To
determine how well principals meet these standards, the administrators evaluating them use their
own observations, input from teachers in that principal’s school, those teachers’ ratings and how
much those teachers have improved. As with professional-practice standards for teachers, districts
have some flexibility in determining the weight of each professional-practice standard for principals,
but each standard must account for no less than 7.5 percent of the total.
1. Strategic leadership
2. Instructional leadership
3. School culture and equality
leadership
4. Human resources leadership
5. Managerial leadership
6. External development
leadership
7. Leadership as it pertains to the academic growth of students
in a principal’s school. At least one other measure of student
academic growth also is required. To make this determination,
the state model calls for using CDE’s School Performance
Framework, a snapshot of a school’s academic achievement,
academic growth, growth gaps and post-secondary readiness.
At least one other measure of student academic growth is also
required. According to CDE, this measure should be aligned
to the goals and expectations of the teachers in the school.
For example if the school has a particular focus on third-grade
reading (maybe identified in their School Improvement Plan),
the principal could have the school’s third grade reading TCAP
scores count as a portion of their evaluation. This measure
should highlight the focus of school-wide collaborative efforts.
The academic growth standard accounts for at least half of a
principal’s total rating.
6
DEFINING
UNDER THE
QUALITY
STANDARDS
EXPECTATIONS
7

10. critical, cannot fully ensure
effectiveness.
There also was a perception
that, in many school districts,
teacher and principal
evaluations were pro forma
exercises focused mostly on
complying with minimum
requirements. Reform
advocates argued that
evaluations should have
consequences and provide
meaningful feedback. What
was needed, they said, was
an evaluation system tied to
research-driven definitions
of educator quality and
determined in part by an
educator’ s impact on their
students’ progress toward
gaining the necessary
knowledge and skills to succeed
beyond high school. “If you take
a student who is already two or
Measures of quality for public
school educators historically
have emphasized indicators
of professionalism such as
certification, years of service and
postgraduate credentials. To be
considered a “highly qualified
teacher” under the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
a core-content teacher must
hold a degree, be fully licensed
(unless granted a waiver) and
demonstrate subject-matter
competency, typically by
passing at least one exam
required by the state. In the
2000s, with research showing
that student learning is closely
tied to teacher performance
in the classroom and the
leadership of school principals,
many began to reconsider what
makes an effective educator. It
was now thought that a depth
of knowledge, while
three grade levels behind and
you put them in the classroom
of an ineffective teacher or an
ineffective principal, we know
that … you make that gap so
wide it’s almost un-closable,”
says State Senator Mike
Johnston, the primary sponsor
of SB-191, in a video posted on
his website.
The genesis of Colorado’s
educator effectiveness law can
be traced to state legislative
efforts in the 1990s to foster
greater accountability in primary
and secondary education. Four
years before the passage of
the No Child Left Behind law,
which mandated model content
standards and assessments for
all states, the Colorado Student
Assessment Program (CSAP)
began phasing in a series of
tests designed to measure
BACKGROUND
7

11. students’ grasp of reading,
writing, math and other
subjects as they moved toward
graduation. The CSAP was
intended to provide information
on the effectiveness of teachers,
schools and districts as well as
student performance, but for
the first several years it showed
only an aggregated percentage
of proficient or non-proficient
students at certain grade levels.
In 2006, the creation of a
statewide data system that
assigned a unique identification
number to each student
allowed for tracking the
performance of public school
children from year to year, even
if they moved to a different
school in another Colorado
district. This longitudinal
approach to collecting and
analyzing standardized test
to the success, or lack thereof,
of individual students.
Legislation in 2009 added
an identifier system for
teachers, initially as a way to
collect information on the
“teacher gap” problem, where
inexperienced teachers are
disproportionately placed in
low-performing schools. Once
fully implemented, matching
educators with the longitudinal
growth of their students also
will provide valuable data for
improving instruction and allow
for teachers to be evaluated
in part on the progress of their
students, as specified in SB-191.
Reforms approved at the local
level in Colorado also helped
set the stage for changes
eventually mandated by the
state. The Eagle County School
data led to the adoption in
2008 of the Colorado Growth
Model, a statistical method
of comparing the long-term
academic achievement of
individual students and groups
of students. Instead of point-in-
time information, a calculated
growth percentile could now
describe how much a student
had progressed during the
previous year. The data also are
used to determine whether a
student is on track to reach or
maintain proficiency.
Other legislation sought to
improve workforce readiness in
Colorado by aligning the state’s
preschool-to-postsecondary
education systems and by
expanding and refining
model content standards and
assessments. A critical technical
step involved linking educators
8

12. and former principal of a
Mapleton high school noted
for sending all 44 members
of a senior class to four-
year colleges. Johnston is a
Democrat, and many members
of his party joined with the CEA
in opposing his legislation,
while most Republicans favored
it. Democratic Governor Ritter
and the state’s three previous
governors, Democrats Richard
Lamm and Roy Romer and
Republican Bill Owens, all
pushed for SB-191’s approval,
writing in a joint letter that “no
proposal has greater promise
for transforming education in
Colorado.” Eight Democratic
representatives voted for the
bill as midnight approached
on the second-to-last day of
the 2010 legislative session,
ensuring its passage in the
House. In the Senate, 13 of 21
Democrats voted yes.
Ritter signed SB-191 on May
20, 2010. The bill codified the
15-member State Council
for Educator Effectiveness,
which then worked to develop
detailed definitions of teacher
and principal effectiveness
and the Colorado State Model
Evaluation System. The State
Board of Education adopted
the Council’s recommendations
in November 2011, and the
General Assembly approved
the new rules during its 2012
session. Rules governing some
aspects of the new law are still
being developed, such as rules
regarding the evaluation of
school professionals other than
principals and teachers.
District in 2001 became one of
the first school systems in the
nation to pay teachers based
on improved instruction and
student achievement rather
than years of experience and
advanced degrees. Denver
Public Schools and the Denver
teachers’ union agreed in 1999
on a pay-for-performance
pilot that became ProComp,
a performance-based teacher
compensation system funded
by a voter-approved mill levy.
Goals set forth in the school
district’s “Denver Plan” led
to LEAP (Leading Effective
Academic Practice), a teacher
evaluation and professional
development program now
being piloted. The Brighton,
Jefferson County, Harrison and
Douglas County school districts
also pioneered new systems
for evaluating and providing
incentives for teachers.
The Race to the Top initiative, a
$4.35 billion competitive federal
grant program announced
by the White House in 2009,
sparked a fevered push by
Colorado and other states to
impose state-level reforms.
Among the criteria for winning
millions of dollars in education
grant money, states were
to “design and implement
rigorous, transparent, and
fair evaluation systems for
teachers and principals that
… differentiate effectiveness
using multiple rating categories
that take into account data on
student growth as a significant
factor.” Colorado’s bid was
thought to be strong, based
on reforms already underway in
the state. But when first-round
winners were announced in
March 2010, Johnston had not
yet introduced SB-191 and
Colorado finished 14th out of
16 finalists, losing points for
lacking enough union support
for its application, failing to
narrow achievement gaps and
an inability to create systems
that ensure “great teachers and
leaders.”
Despite efforts at consensus
building, the many education
leaders in the state were
divided on SB-191. The primary
opposition to Johnston’s bill
came from the state’s largest
teacher’s association. The
40,000-member Colorado
Education Association (CEA)
launched a radio ad campaign
that criticized the legislation
as “too much, too fast and
too costly.” The CEA argued
that SB-191 circumvented
work already being done
by the Council on Educator
Effectiveness appointed by
Governor Bill Ritter, saddled
cash-strapped school districts
with unfunded mandates and
ignored the responsibilities of
students and parents. Union
concerns about due process
prompted the amendment
requiring an appeals procedure
for teachers facing a second
consecutive ineffective rating.
Teachers also complained
that academic growth models
used in the evaluation process
did not capture some of the
subjects they taught.
The debate over SB-191 blurred
traditional party politics in the
Colorado General Assembly.
The bill was written and
shepherded by Johnston, a
freshman lawmaker at the time
9

13. MAIN
• Teacher effectiveness is factored in before
seniority if district-level layoffs are being
considered.
• Teachers and principals are evaluated annually.
• Student learning over time accounts for at least
half of an evaluation.
• Professional practice Quality Standards,
which define what it means to be an
effective teacher or principal, account for the
remainder of an evaluation.
• Non-probationary status (tenure) for teachers
is earned after three consecutive years of
demonstrated effectiveness rather than after a
certain length of employment.
• Non-probationary status for teachers may be
lost after two consecutive years of ineffective or
partially effective ratings.
• Forced placement of teachers is prohibited.
• Non-probationary teachers can move to
another district and retain their status.
• Teachers and principals rated ineffective must be
provided with a remediation plan that includes
professional development opportunities.
• Teachers may appeal a second consecutive
rating of ineffectiveness to the district
superintendent.
10
PROVISIONS
OF
SB-191

14. SB-191 TIMELINE
2014-15 school year
• Evaluations based on the Quality
Standards continue to be implemented.
• Final ratings of partially effective or
ineffective begin to be considered in the
loss of non-probationary status for
teachers (after two consecutive years
of similar ratings).
• CDE continues to collect feedback
and adjust the state model.
2012-13 school year
• The Colorado State Model
Evaluation System for principals and
teachers is piloted.
• CDE collects data and feedback from
pilot districts, shares lessons learned
and makes adjustments to the system
as needed.
• Criteria are determined for specialized
service professionals (other licensed
school personnel) such as nurses,
audiologists and psychologists.
2013-14 school year
• On July 1, 2013, every school district
is required to submit assurances to
CDE that they are implementing the
Colorado State Model Evaluation
System or a locally developed system
that meets statutory and regulatory
requirements.
• New evaluation requirements, based
on Quality Standards, are
implemented statewide. In the first
year, a final rating of partially effective
or ineffective does not count toward
the loss of non-probationary status
for teachers.
• Rubrics for evaluating specialized
service professionals are tested.
• CDE continues to collect feedback
and adjust the state model.
2011-12 school year
• The Colorado State Model Evaluation
System for principals is piloted.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
11

16. 13
REFORMS IN OTHER STATES
While passage of SB-191
cemented Colorado’s status as
a leader in the movement to
reform teacher tenure, other
states also have changed their
educator evaluation policies to
varying degrees. From 2009 to
September 2012, according to
the National Council on Teacher
Quality, 36 states and the
District of Columbia enacted
reforms.
Colorado is now one of 25
states requiring that teacher
ratings include multiple
categories, not just “effective”
or “not effective.” It is also one
of 39 states requiring annual
observations of classroom
instruction as part of the teacher
evaluation process. Twenty-two
of those states require teachers
to be observed several times
each year.
As in Colorado, the new
wave of legislation in many
states also addressed
the accountability and
performance of school
principals. Before Race to
the Top incentivized states to
redesign principal evaluation
systems, most states required
school districts to have
some process for evaluating
principals.

17. 14
NEW PRINCIPAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS
At least 34 states since 2009 have passed legislation requiring school districts to adopt new principal
evaluation systems. A study of states that won Race to the Top grants found that four impose state
systems on school districts, four mandate state systems with local control over some components and
10 set a minimum framework for districts to base their own models. Some examples:
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
Uses a state-created appraisal system for
administrators with five components: vision
and goals, culture of learning, management,
professional responsibilities, and student
improvement. Student growth is a critical part
of principal evaluations.
Made districts responsible for developing their own principal evaluation
systems, although 50 percent of an evaluation must be based on
student performance, with instructional leadership and professional
responsibilities making up the other half.
MINNESOTA
The evaluation of principals must meet eight
criteria that include on-the-job observations, the
use of longitudinal student-growth data as 35
percent of the evaluation, surveys to identify
strengths and weaknesses in exercising leadership,
and improvement plans for principals who do not
meet standards of professional practice.

18. • The number of states factoring any sort
of evidence of student learning into the
evaluation of teachers increased from 15
to 30. In 2009, just four states considered
student achievement an important criterion
in rating teacher performance. By 2012,
student achievement/academic growth
had been made the preponderant factor
in 11 states and a significant factor in nine
other states.
• The number of states requiring annual teacher
evaluations rose from 14 to 23, with 43 states by 2012
requiring annual evaluations for all new teachers.
• The number of states making teacher effectiveness
central to the awarding of tenure went from zero
to nine (including Colorado). The vast majority
of states, however, still grant tenure with little
consideration given to teacher performance.
NATIONAL TRENDS IN
BETWEEN
2009 & 2012
EFFECTIVENESSI M P L E M E N T A T I O N
15

20. As defined by the State Council
for Educator Effectiveness:
“Effective principals in the state
of Colorado are responsible for
the collective success of their
schools, including the learning,
growth and achievement of
both students and staff. As the
school’s primary instructional
leader, effective principals
enable critical discourse and
data-driven reflection about
curriculum, assessment,
instruction and student
progress, and create structures
to facilitate improvement.
Effective principals are adept
at creating systems that
maximize the utilization of
resources and human capital,
foster collaboration and
facilitate constructive change.
By creating a common vision
and articulating shared values,
effective principals lead and
manage their schools in a
manner that supports the
school’s ability to promote
equity and to continually
improve its positive impact on
students and families.”
Principals are held accountable
for the successes or failures of
the schools they lead. Under
the state model, principals
and assistant principals are
measured against the state
definition of effectiveness using
a rubric that guides evaluators
through each standard.
The rubric is available as an
Excel spreadsheet while the
state works with RANDA to
develop an online performance
management system for the
model system. Pilot districts
have used the new rating
system for principals since the
2011-12 school year, and CDE
is working with them to identity
and fix problems before
the system is fully in place
statewide.
CDE asked principals and
principal evaluators (mostly
superintendents) involved in
the pilots to compare their
districts’ previous evaluation
systems to the state model
after using it for a year. They
said the state model was
significantly better at guiding
professional growth, serving as
a basis for improved teaching
and learning, providing
actionable feedback to the
person being evaluated and
setting high standards for the
person being evaluated. They
were somewhat less positive
– but positive nonetheless
– that the state model,
compared with their previous
evaluation systems, would
do a better job of improving
student growth, providing an
accurate assessment of their
performance and identifying
areas needing improvement.
PRINCIPAL EFFECTIVENESS IN COLORADO
17

21. QUALITY STANDARDS
1. Strategy 2. Instruction 3. Culture 4. Human Resources 5. Management 6. External
Development
Professional
Practice
Standards
• Number and Percentage
of Teachers
• Other Measures Aligned
with CDE Guidelines
Student
Growth
Measures
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective
Framework for System to Evaluate Principals
7. Student Growth
STATE COUNCIL FOR
50% 50%
DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL
EFFECTIVENESS
• Number and Percentage
of Teachers
• Other Measures Aligned
with CDE Guidelines
WEIGHTING
WEIGHTING
How Much Does Each
Standard Count Towards
Overall Performance?
Scoring Framework: How Do Measures
of Quality Standards Result in a
Determination of Individual Performance?
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
18

22. 1. Training – Everyone involved
in using the Colorado State
Model Evaluation System
must be trained by personnel
approved by CDE.
2. Orientation – At the start of
each school year, each district
provides an orientation to
make sure new principals/
assistant principals understand
the system and to review any
changes made to the system
since the previous year.
3. Self-Assessment – Each
principal/assistant principal
uses the state-provided
rubric to complete a self-
assessment at the beginning
of the school year.
4. Review of Goals and
Performance Plan – Once the
self-assessment is completed,
the evaluator and principal/
assistant principal review the
school’s annual goals and the
7. End-of-Year Review – The
evaluator and principal/
assistant principal discuss
the performance ratings,
self-assessment ratings and
supporting documentation.
8. Final Ratings – If the
evaluator and principal/
assistant principal do not
agree on the final rating,
a suggested two-week
period is provided to collect
and summarize additional
evidence needed to arrive at
the correct rating.
9. Goal-Setting and
Performance Planning – The
principal/assistant principal
develops a professional
performance plan to
address identified growth
areas and the training/
resources required to make
improvements.
19
STEPS IN THE YEAR-LONG PRINCIPAL
EVALUATION PROCESS (STATE MODEL)
principal’s performance plan,
taking into account unique
circumstances regarding the
school’s culture, student body
and community as well as
changes in district initiatives.
5. Mid-Year Review – The
evaluator and principal/
assistant principal review
progress made toward
achieving school and
personal goals. The principal
is given a clear understanding
of his or her potential
effectiveness rating based on
evidence available to date.
6. Evaluator Assessment
– Evaluators review the
performance of principals/
assistant principals
throughout the year and
record their ratings on
the rubric as they collect
information.

23. The state model rubric describes each of the six professional practices standards used to determine
principal effectiveness, and each standard is subdivided into elements. For example, the Strategic
Leadership standard includes the element School Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals, defined as:
“Principals collaboratively develop the vision, mission, values, expectations and goals of the school,
collaboratively determine the processes used to establish these foundations, and facilitate their
integration into the life of the school community.” Principals are rated on this and other elements on
the following levels:
20
Ratings for each element are tallied, using a point system, to get overall ratings for each standard. Those
ratings determine the overall rating on professional practices. There is space on the rubric for evidence
used to support the ratings, evaluator comments and responses from the principal being evaluated.
Although the technical nature of the rubric might give the impression that evaluations are a scientific
process relying solely on data, CDE guidelines stress the importance of human judgment in the process.
What matters most in this regard, the guidelines say, is that evaluators are properly trained to exercise
their judgment in ways that minimize error and bias.
BASIC
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
PROFICIENT
ACCOMPLISHED
EXEMPLARY
Educator’s performance on professional
practices is significantly below the state
Quality Standard.
Educator’s performance on professional
practices is below the state Quality Standard.
Educator’s performance on professional
practices exceeds state Quality Standard.
Educator’s performance on professional
practices significantly exceeds state
Quality Standard.
Educator’s performance on professional
practices meets state Quality Standard.
STEPS IN
THE YEAR
Long Principal Evaluation Process
(State Model)

24. For the process to work as
intended, evaluators must fully
understand each element of the
rubric, says Margaret Crespo,
executive director of secondary
education for the Thompson
School District in Loveland and
a member of the State Council
for Educator Effectiveness.
Crespo is responsible for
evaluating 20 principals and
assistants in her district, which is
an integration pilot.
Because the evaluation
process is continuous – not
based merely on one or two
conversations – it is important
for evaluators to keep the
standards in mind whenever
they interact with or observe
principals in their purview, she
says. Her job regularly requires
meetings inside school
buildings, and she takes
advantage of these
opportunities to think about
how her principals stand up to
elements of the rubric. Doing
so has made Crespo a more
effective coach, she says, and
conversations with principals
have become “much more
pointed, more directly based
on the quality standards and
specific to strategies within the
rubric.”
The rubric itself makes it easier
to have what Crespo calls
“courageous conversations”
with principals, “open and
honest conversations about
growth, and I don’t just mean
the academic growth of kids.”
The standards provide a
guideline for moving a principal
from ineffective to the next
category without making it
seem personal.
George Welsh, superintendent
of the small Center school
district in the San Luis Valley,
says that his district’s previous
form for evaluating principals
was “virtually useless. I had a
principal say to me that a blank
sheet of paper would have
been more effective.” Under
the state model system, which
Center is piloting, the evaluator
can clearly see what a principal
must do to meet a standard.
“It’s evidence-based,” he
notes. “You can’t check the box
because you think (a principal)
does something. You can’t
check the box until you see
evidence that they do it.”
21
UNDERSTANDING THE RUBRICS FOR SUCCESS

25. community support for a school.
“A lot of principals don’t do that
naturally.”
During the pilot, Eagle County
has used teams of three
administrators from its central
office to evaluate each principal.
Each administrator concentrates
on two standards in his or her
area of expertise. Dividing
up the process makes it less
overwhelming for the evaluator
while still providing meaningful
feedback for those being
evaluated, Smyser says.
State Board rules require that
principals also be evaluated on
the first six Quality Standards
using input from teachers at
a principal’s school and the
number and percentage of
teachers in the school who
are rated effective, highly
effective, partially effective
and ineffective, as well as the
number and percentage of
It may not be necessary,
however, to thoroughly
document evidence for
every element of the rubric,
says Sandra Smyser, a State
Council member who was
superintendent of the Eagle
County School District, an
integration pilot.
Smyser was appointed in
March as Superintendent of
the Poudre School District.
She worries that in the quest
to meet the requirements of
the new law, “people will do
meaningless work putting
together enormous portfolios of
data representing everything”
on the matrix. “If you’re looking
for ineffectiveness, you can
look on the rubric and find
something missing. But if
you’re looking for evidence of
effectiveness, it doesn’t take
long to find it as long as you’ve
got good principals … You
might be missing a few blocks,
but it doesn’t matter, you’re still
a good principal.”
As a pioneer in teacher pay for
performance, Eagle County has
had a comprehensive system for
evaluating teachers for several
years. But a separate method
of evaluating other district
employees, including principals
and assistant principals, was
“very un-comprehensive,”
according to Smyser. She
says her principals seem to
appreciate the breadth of
attention afforded to them
under the state model process,
“that it’s not just problem-based
supervision.” The standards are
“forcing conversations on topics
that we didn’t really talk about
before,” such as building
teachers who are improving
their performance. Optional
evidence used to measure a
principal’s professional practices
might include the perceptions
of students, parents and
other administrators, teacher
retention data, budgets or
school website pages.
The Colorado Legacy
Foundation is developing
a survey to let teachers
anonymously give feedback
about a principal’s performance
and how it impacts student
learning. Pilot districts are
testing the survey, which is
designed to help evaluators
address portions of the
state model rubric that are
observable by teachers, such
as whether a principal has
put systems in place to keep
parents informed. The survey
is not intended to measure
how well a principal is liked by
teachers at his or her school.
22

26. The seventh standard
that determines principal
effectiveness is directly tied to
data on measures of student
learning, with the goal to ensure
that students make at least
a year’s progress in a year’s
time, regardless of the level at
which they begin. This factor, as
previously mentioned, makes up
at least half of the overall rating
given to a principal or assistant
principal.
Districts have some flexibility
in determining the calculation
of student progress but it must
reflect data from the School
Performance Framework, with
student longitudinal growth
carrying the greatest weight of
any framework component. That
includes results from the
Transitional Colorado
Assessment Program (TCAP)
in subjects such as math
that generate year-to-year
comparisons for individual
students (from fourth through
10th grade). Districts must use
at least one other measure
of student academic growth,
according to State Board rules,
that reflects “the growth of
students in all subject areas
and grades, not only those
in subjects and grades that
are tested using Statewide
Summative Assessments.”
This other measure should
also reflect “the broader
responsibility a principal has for
ensuring the overall outcomes
of students in the building.”
CDE has developed an Excel
spreadsheet to help districts
determine whether a particular
assessment is a proper
measure of student growth that
aligns to Colorado Academic
Standards, and whether it is
fair and unbiased. Working
with the Colorado Content
Collaboratives, a group of
P-12 educators from across the
state, CDE also is building a
Resource Bank of “high-quality”
assessments for all grades and
content areas. Districts are
advised to select assessments
“that will have the greatest
impact on student learning
and are the most appropriate
for measuring student learning
impacted by an educator.”
Chosen assessments may
already be given in a district.
23
MEASURES OF STUDENT LEARNING

27. Acuity tests and the EXPLORE
exam for middle schools; and
the ACT for high schools.
For its principal evaluations,
Center is using building-level
growth data from the School
Performance Framework
and the results of nationally
normed MAP (Measures of
Academic Progress) tests from
the Northwest Evaluation
Association. The district already
was administering MAP tests,
which are designed to measure
growth during a school year
and can be linked to proficiency
levels from state assessments.
Other data may be factored into
the equation eventually, Welsh
says, but Center will “keep it
simple for now.”
“We’re not in a position
financially to go out shopping
for more assessments, so it
would be convenient to use
assessments that are already
validated and reliable,” says
Patrick Mount, a former high
school math teacher who is
working on the Thompson
District’s integration pilot as a
strategic data fellow. To help
determine which additional
growth measures to use for
both teacher and principal
evaluations, Thompson has
asked its teachers to inventory
the assessments they currently
use, review CDE information on
other possible assessments, fill
out a survey with their thoughts
and recommendations, and take
part in focus groups.
Picking the right assessments
for evaluating teachers is trickier
than picking assessments for
evaluating principals because
teacher evaluations must
include measures of student
learning attributed directly to
their teaching. “Principals are
responsible for everything that
occurs in the building,” notes
Mount, so their evaluations
are based on collectively
attributed growth, how all
students in a school have fared
over time. Additional measures
of collectively attributed
growth under consideration
in Thompson include: the
Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA2) and Acuity
math and reading assessments
for elementary schools; the
24

28. Colorado Association of School Executives
4101 South Bannock Street
Englewood, CO 80110
www.co-case.org