CDE Revised Teacher Rubric Pilot Information
Many aspects of the State Model Evaluation System have undergone significant revisions, informed by multiple stakeholder groups including a rubric Technical Working Group, a scoring Technical Working Group, and 30 focus groups conducted throughout the state during the 2016-17 school year. It is the expectation that all aspects of the pilot rubric are implemented during the 2017-18 school year by pilot districts.
END OF YEAR REVIEW:
The District, as part of its agreed upon Memo of Understanding (MOU) with the Colorado Department of Education has agreed to complete the “End of Year” link by April 15th as part of CDE’s data collection about the revised teacher rubric. This is NOT the End of Year Connection meeting and Final Effectiveness discussion meeting which is required and must take place by the regularly scheduled May 1, 2018 deadline.
The End of Year Connection meeting will be the discussion of the “End of Year” growth plan, the discussion of the evaluator assessment rubric, the discussion of the MSL/MSO link (SLOs/SOOs) and review of the final effectiveness rating. The “End of Year” growth plan link can be opened during the End of Year Connection Meeting for any adjustments that need to be made at that time.
Please help us support the MOU as agreed upon with the Colorado Department of Education. If you have questions please contact Erin Brophy, Human Resources Director email@example.com.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE TEACHER RUBRIC?
Understanding the Rubric Revision Shifts in the State Model Evaluation System 2017-18 Pilot: This document details the overall changes to the rubric. Excellent resource to see what elements and practices have been changed and the explanation of those changes.
Reduction in Quantity
The revised teacher rubric to be piloted during the 2017-18 school year has undergone significant reductions in Standards, Elements and Professional Practices. The chart here highlights the reductions at all levels.
A primary goal of this revision was to maintain the rubric’s conceptual integrity.
CDE's Technical Working Group was determined to reduce redundancies of similar practices by focusing on the high leverage practices identified in quantitative and qualitative data from the initial State Model Evaluation System teacher pilot and incorporating feedback from educators.
In addition, the group focused on clarifying language, ensuring that practices appeared in the appropriate rating levels and considered current research on best practices to modify, add, or delete professional practices. Thus similar elements were combined and rewritten to reflect changes made to professional practices. As a result, major shifts in the location of elements and professional practices occurred.
Category Labels Change
In addition to reducing and changing rubric content, feedback from the field also indicated a negative impression of the label “Basic” on the lowest rating level. With the help of focus group and Technical Working Group feedback, the five categories used to identify a rating have been changed to better reflect a focus on educator instructional practices. This shift in labeling will allow evaluators to better focus feedback conversations on instructional practices rather than “labeling” a teacher with a rating. The current teacher rubric rating levels of Basic, Partially Proficient, Proficient, Accomplished, and Exemplary, will still be utilized to determine element, standard, and overall professional practice ratings. The chart highlights these changes.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE SCORING?
Understanding the Scoring Shifts in the State Model Evaluation System 2017-18 Pilot: This document explains the adjustments to the scoring of the rubric. From the preponderance of evidence to the changes in the cut points for the professional practices and how it affects the cut points for the overall final effectiveness rating of an evaluation.
Professional Practice Scoring Revisions
In the current professional practice rubric, the scoring reflects a “rounding up” approach in that half of the elements in a Standard need to be of a certain rating in order to earn that rating. In the revised professional practice rubric there must be a “preponderance of evidence” in order for an educator to receive the higher of two ratings within a standard. If there are 4 elements in a standard, then the educator must receive 3 out of 4 elements at the higher rating in order to earn the higher rating. Previously only 2 of the 4 elements would have to be scored at the higher rating to earn that rating on the standard. This example is illustrated in the table.
The preponderance of evidence approach will be used for scoring at the standard level and the Overall Professional Practice Score. At the standard level, the educator will need to earn the higher rating on more than half of the elements to earn the higher rating on that standard. At the overall professional practice level, the educator will need to earn the higher rating on 3 of the 4 standards to earn the higher rating on the Overall Professional Practice Score. Note that the rating cut points were established based on the standards being weighted equally. Districts and BOCES may still choose their own custom weights in order to emphasize specific standards based on local values and context.
Final Effectiveness Rating Scoring Revisions
The revised State Model Evaluation System also involves an adjustment of cut points at the Final Effectiveness Rating level in order to set a higher expectation to earn a Highly Effective rating.
Previously, the minimum cut point for Highly Effective was determined by adding the minimum score for Accomplished (on Overall Professional Practice) to the minimum score for More than Expected (on Measures of Student Learning).
The minimum cut point for Highly Effective is now determined by adding the midpoint score for Accomplished to the minimum score for More than Expected. The current cut point is represented with the dashed line in the image here. The solid lines represent the cut points that are being used in the pilot.