APPENDIX A: HOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CO EVALUATE TEACHERS

Eagle County School District

 Implemented a pilot pay-for-performance program in 2002. By 2004, it was district-wide.
 Teachers' salaries are based on experience and skills, but they earn bonuses based on
performance. The bonuses are allocated based on two criteria:
(1) annual classroom evaluations (50%)
o Rated on a 5-point scale (1-low, 5-high). As ratings increase, so do bonuses.
o 60% principal evaluation, 35% master teacher evaluation, and 5% self-reflection.
(2) student achievement growth (50%), including –
o District's Index which discerns student achievement growth, based on district-wide
ACT and CSAP scores, and building-wide CSAP scores.
o NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) scores.
 Teachers also receive bonuses for working in high-poverty schools.
 Implemented a “Superstar Teacher” award. Teachers can earn $5,000 or $10,000 bonuses
for portfolios based on National Board Certification guidelines.
 Based on performance review, teachers are placed into Professional Development Clusters
which meet for a minimum of 70 minutes per week. Both Mentor and Master Teachers lead
these groups.

Harrison School District

 In 2009 approved Effectiveness & Results (E&R) Initiative; requires teachers' salaries to
reflect two factors – (1) Teacher Performance and (2) Student Achievement Data.
(1) Teacher Performance –
o Components for determining performance
 Professional Growth Plan with Goal Setting
 Spot Observations – Brief informal observations.
 Informal Observations – Longer unscheduled observations.
 Formal Observations – at least 1/year for Non-Probationary Teachers (those
who have taught for more than 3 years) and at least 2/year for Probationary
Teachers (those who are still in their first 3 years of teaching).
 The Written Summative Evaluation – summarizing the above components.
 (2) Student Achievement Data – CSAP results, CMB data, timed SCR data, and students'
grades. Each of these sources has a rubric.

 The rubrics are aggregated out of 48 points.

 Years of service will not be a determinative factor except for teachers who have already
 been in the district. No teachers will receive less than the amount they were making at the
time of program implementation for the remainder of their tenures.
 Continuing education will still be a small factor.

Denver Public Schools

Aligning DPS Teacher Performance Systems
 A comprehensive teacher evaluation system that effectively articulates a teacher’s
performance, beyond the current Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory ratings provided today.
o Based upon an agreed upon definition of effective teaching and grounded in student
achievement results.
o Multiple measures of effectiveness
 student achievement data
 student perceptions
 frequent observations of teacher performance by supervisors and by peers.
o Revised evaluation scale to enable a more differentiated performance management
system.
o Measures within the evaluation will be at the core of ongoing conversations around
student achievement and professional development.
 Professional Development tied to the information captured within the teacher evaluation
o PD driven by formative and summative student achievement data and skill gaps
identified through observations and student feedback
o Focus on improving performance of teachers against the effectiveness measures
within the evaluation as measured by student growth
o PD provided by Teacher Effectiveness Coaches and largely job embedded
 The performance elements of teacher compensation linked more directly to student
achievement.
o Compensation for (Professional Development Units) PDUs tied to demonstration of
improved effectiveness
o Compensation for achieving a Satisfactory evaluation and for meeting Student
Growth Objectives (SGOs) – classroom level goals each DPS teachers sets around
student growth – reflects the ability of a teacher to drive student achievement.
 Implemented ProComp, a multiple-indicator, incentive-based, pay program, in 2005. It was
voluntary for already working teachers but mandatory for all new hires since January 2006.

Indicator Description Approximate

Incentive
Professional Incentive for one completed unit per year. Additional $751 per year
Development Units units banked for future incentives
Advanced Degrees and Compensation for Graduate Degree or Advanced $3,380 per degree
Licensures Licenses and Certificates every 3 years
Tuition and Student Tuition reimbursement for approved line of coursework $1,000 per year
Loan Reimbursement or for outstanding student loans Max. $4,000.
Probationary Teacher Incentive for Satisfactory evaluation. Teachers are $376 per year
Evaluation evaluated as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.”
Non-Probationary Incentive for Satisfactory evaluation. Teachers are $1,127 every 3
Teacher Evaluation evaluated as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.” years
Working in a Hard to Schools with high percentage of students on free- or $2,403 per year
 Indicator Description Approximate
Incentive
Serve School reduced-lunch: 73 schools 09-10.
Working in a Hard to Teaching roles with high vacancy rate and turnover: $2,403 per year
Staff Assignment Math, ELA-S, SPED, MAST, Other Student Services
Student Growth Incentive for meeting student growth objectives $376 per year
Objectives
Exceeding CSAP Available only to 4th through 10th grade Math and $2,403 per year
Expectations Language Arts teachers. Teacher must see at least 50
percent of an eligible class attain the 55th percentile or
higher for statewide student growth using Colorado's
Student Growth Indicator.
Top Performing Schools Schools receive designation based on School $2,403 per year
Performance Framework at district level
High Growth Schools Schools receive designation based on School $2,403 per year
Performance Framework at district level

 Effectiveness of ProComp 2005-2006 school year through June 2009:

o Graduation – increased – 46.8% to 52%.
o Reading Proficiency – increased – 43% to 47%.
o Writing Proficiency – increased – 30% to 36%.
o Math Proficiency – increased – 36% to 37%.

Douglas County School District

 Differentiated and Weighted Tool
o Student Learning Focus
o Leadership Focus
o Staff Focus
o Stakeholder Focus
o Process Management
 21 Professional Indicators
 Aligned to Curriculum and Instruction
 Aligned to Robust Professional Development
 Potential Career Ladder and develop teacher leaders
 Inform Employment and Tenure decisions
 Multiple measures of Teacher Effectiveness
 Multiple measures of student growth and achievement
APPENDIX B: Measuring Student Growth in Untested Grades and Untested Subjects

Harrison School District

 Considers Student Grades and Teachers' Progress Reports for each student
 Common Assessment and Progress Monitoring Assessments - Teachers in non-core
subjects must also achieve progress monitoring targets or other performance
measurements. Teachers must develop goals at the beginning of the year which are tied
to district-approved assessments. These are graded according to a rubric.
 Individual Student Achievement – Developed and monitored by individual teachers.
 Assessments include: CSAP, common school- and district-assessments and progress
monitoring, curriculum based measures (CBM), Timed SCR, other student achievement
data
 Teachers can decide what form of growth they want to count for student achievement.
For example, a teacher can choose to have overall CSAP scores counted—what
percentage were proficient/advanced—or growth scores as per the Colorado Growth
model. These are chosen at the beginning of the year.
 Each performance review has 8 sections for a total of 48 points. For example, one area
looks at schoolwide results, rather than a single class, and other areas consider “academic
peer groups,” where students in a class are compared to other students with similar
academic progress.

Eagle County
 Because only 30% of teachers were eligible for individual payouts for student
achievement gains, Eagle County adopted a “team approach” to bonuses. Bonuses are
allocated on a schoolwide level based on analysis of all students’ scores in the building.
Philosophy behind this is partially that all subject areas can impact math, reading, and
writing performance, so all teachers should be rewarded for success of the school.

Adams County District 14

 Group bonuses for teachers, similar to Eagle County. Based on growth of all students in
the school.
 Matrix structured so that all teachers have opportunity to receive most bonuses;
however, only 30% of teachers are eligible for specific CSAP-related bonuses—an
acknowledged drawback to the current plan.
 All participating teachers, no matter the subject area, set two growth objectives per
year (with administrator approval) which are tied to curriculum and district-approved
assessments. Performance pay is allocated based on meeting one or both objectives.

Weld County RE-8 (Ft. Lupton)

 Bonuses allocated on a school-wide basis for improvement on CSAP in tested subjects
grades 3-10. Schools whose growth percentiles meet or exceeded the 50th percentile,
placing them in either of the Higher Growth categories on a CSAP test, will receive
incremental bonuses based on their growth percentile score. The formula: add a zero
to the school’s median percentile to calculate the bonus amount. If the school’s median
 percentile is 50, the bonus would be $500 for each teacher in the school. A percentile of
51 would receive a $510 bonus, etc.
 For teachers in other content areas, can receive bonuses based on school-wide
improvement OR by one of 3 “Voluntary Incentive Paths”:
a. Performing action research related to student achievement--$250 for research,
$750 more if research led to successful completion of a goal
b. Teacher sets student assessment target in relation to a district-approved
assessment—a prediction at beginning of year, made public, both prediction
and results. If target is met, $1,000 bonus.
c. Target related to school or district improvement plan—eg attendance. $1,000 if
met.
 Has created task forces to address the following issues: Student Achievement Measures
(SAM), Non-core Teacher Incentives, Quarterly Progress Reviews, Other Activities for
Compensation

Denver Public Schools

 School Performance Framework – Developed at district level to monitor growth in student
learning outcomes.
APPENDIX C: Impact of Effective Teachers

Within the same schools, individual teachers generate profoundly different learning gains, even
among students with similar prior test scores and demographic characteristics. Such research is
often referred to as “value-added” analysis, since it attempts to measure differences in
outcomes among students with similar baseline performance and characteristics. There is
growing evidence that value-added scores better predict future student achievement than
evaluations, qualifications, and experience. The observed range of teacher effectiveness is
striking. In elementary and middle school, assigning a teacher in the top quartile rather than a
teacher in the bottom quartile means that the average student in the class moves 6-10
percentile points further in a single year.1 This differential is 20-25 percent of the racial
achievement gap. The magnitude of the difference has been similar in the studies based on
random assignment. Although state governments have typically attempted to regulate teacher
quality by setting minimum qualifications, researchers have typically found little or no link
between teacher qualifications and teacher effectiveness.2

While four decades of research3 by scores of academics has failed to quell debate on optimal
policy for reform of the American public school system, one aspect of the school-reform debate
has remained remarkably consistent: the supreme importance of teacher performance as
compared to all other controllable variables:

“… We conclude that the most significant component is heterogeneity

among teachers. Even if teachers were randomly distributed among schools
… and all of the between school variation in achievement were to result
from other school inputs … differences in teacher quality would swamp all
other school inputs. The lower bound estimates suggest that differences in
teacher quality explain at least 7.5 percent of the total variation in measured
achievement gains, and probably much more.” 4P. 32

While factors like class size, heterogeneous vs. homogeneous class groupings, and curriculum
are surely relevant to the discussion of school policy reform, data from the academic literature5
has over and over again shown that the single most important factor controlling a student’s
performance in schools is the quality of their teacher:

…The results show large differences among schools in their impact

on student achievement. These differences are centered on the differential
impact of teachers, rather than the overall school organization, leadership,
or even financial conditio… All of this suggest that policy initiatives must

1
Gordon, Robert, Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger, “Identifying Effective Teachers Using
Performance on the Job.” Hamilton Project Discussion Paper, March 2006.
2
Ibid
3
The question of how significantly schools (and teachers) impact student performance was first analyzed
by James Coleman with his provocative (and still controversial) paper, “Equality of Educational
Opportunity,” better known as “The Coleman Report,” in 1966.
4
Hanushek, Rivkin, and Kain. 1998. “ Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.” National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper no. 6691, p. 32.
 reflect the substantial heterogeneity of teachers be it differences in effort
or skill, if they are to have a significant purpose.6

Put succinctly, if we are to attempt to improve the quality of our school system in the state of
Colorado, it is absolutely imperative that our reform efforts focuses above all else on the quality
of teachers in our schools.

6
Ibid, p. 5
APPENDIX D: High-Performing Schools Serving Students from Low-Income Families

George Hall Elementary School (Alabama)

 Located in one of the poorest parts of Mobile, Alabama.
 95% of students meeting grade-level standards in reading and math.

North Goodwin Elementary School (Michigan)

 Located in Grand Rapids, MI—severely affected by collapse of automobile industry.
 Almost all students meet or exceed state standards.
 “Teacher selection, induction, and evaluation are driving the school’s improvement. As
former principal Arelis Díaz says, “We know we have to put the best people before our
kids.” Today, Díaz is working at the district level to “scale up” the success she led at
North Godwin.”

Parks Middle School (Georgia)

 Atlanta, Georgia
 In 2006, only 44 percent of the school’s African-American sixth-graders met state math
standards; this year 88 percent met them.
 “We build the support,” Waller (principal) says of his approach.”

Imperial High School (California)

 Located a few miles from the Mexican border, 70 percent of Imperial High School’s
students are Latino, many with parents who did not graduate from high school.
 And yet it has built a college-going culture where almost all students graduate on time
and enroll in postsecondary education.
 About 20 to 25 percent of Imperial’s students go to a four-year college as soon as they
graduate from Imperial, and another 70 percent go to a community college, most of
them planning to transfer to a four-year college.
 Although national statistics show that transfers from two-year to four-year colleges are
not routine, Imperial students transfer with increasing frequency. Community College
president said that 75 percent of Imperial High School students arrive at his school
ready for college work and do not need any remedial classes—a far higher percentage
than for any other high school in the valley.
APPENDIX E: TNTP Recommendations
APPENDIX F: Estimated Numbers of Teachers Directly Placed in School Districts

District 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Totals

Jefferson Cnty 15 19 29 63
Denver 170 100 107 377
Douglas Cnty 7 43 47 97
Cherry Creek 1 4 2 7
Adams Five-Star 17 5 20 42
Aurora 2 9 11 22
Totals 212 180 216 608
*Source: Ed News Colorado

Denver Direct Placement

- 3yr totals
Non-probationary DPS 3-year
teachers 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 totals
First-time direct
placements 170 77 81 328
2-year - nonconsecutive 14 14
2-year - consecutive 23 7 30
3-year - consecutive 5 5
Totals 170 100 107 377
*Source: Ed News Colorado
APPENDIX G: Direct Placement Statute

Direct placement 1 - ILCS 5/34-8.1 – For Cities over 500,000

The principal shall submit recommendations to the general superintendent concerning the
appointment, dismissal, retention, promotion, and assignment of all personnel assigned to the
attendance center; provided, that from and after September 1, 1989: (i) if any vacancy occurs in
a position at the attendance center or if an additional or new position is created at the
attendance center, that position shall be filled by appointment made by the principal in
accordance with procedures established and provided by the Board whenever the majority of
the duties included in that position are to be performed at the attendance center which is under
the principal's supervision, and each such appointment so made by the principal shall be made
and based upon merit and ability to perform in that position without regard to seniority or
length of service, provided, that such appointments shall be subject to the Board's
desegregation obligations, including but not limited to the Consent Decree and Desegregation
Plan in U.S. v. Chicago Board of Education; (ii) the principal shall submit recommendations based
upon merit and ability to perform in the particular position, without regard to seniority or length
of service, to the general superintendent concerning the appointment of any teacher, teacher
aide, counselor, clerk, hall guard, security guard and any other personnel which is to be made by
the general superintendent whenever less than a majority of the duties of that teacher, teacher
aide, counselor, clerk, hall guard, and security guard and any other personnel are to be
performed at the attendance center which is under the principal's supervision;

Direct Placement 2 - 105 ILCS 5/34-84 – For cities over 500,000

Describes conditions for layoffs, and clarifies that principals retain authority for the school to
make appointments.
31. To promulgate rules establishing procedures governing the layoff or reduction in force of
employees and the recall of such employees, including, but not limited to, criteria for such
layoffs, reductions in force or recall rights of such employees and the weight to be given to any
particular criterion. Such criteria shall take into account factors including, but not be limited to,
qualifications, certifications, experience, performance ratings or evaluations, and any other
factors relating to an employee's job performance;

Direct Placement 3 - 105 ILCS 5/34-18, subsection 31 – For cities over 500,000
Gives the board authority to determine when tenured teachers can be laid off, and authority to
determine the process by which such layoffs happen. Note, however, that principals retain
teacher appointment authority (Mutual Consent) under this scheme.
The school principal shall make the decision in selecting teachers to fill new and vacant positions
consistent with Section 34-8.1.

The School Code does not exempt tenured teachers from layoff. Land v. Board of Educ. of City of
Chicago, 2002, 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249. Schools 147.6

Genuine issues of material fact as to whether tenured public school teacher obtained a teaching
position, as was required to avoid being laid off, precluded summary judgment in favor of board
of education in action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering board to reinstate teacher, a
permanent injunction restraining board from terminating his employment, and a declaratory
judgment invalidating the board's layoff policy as violative of teacher's statutory tenure rights.
Land v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, App. 1 Dist.2001, 259 Ill.Dec. 49, 325 Ill.App.3d 294,
757 N.E.2d 912, rehearing denied , appeal allowed 262 Ill.Dec. 620, 198 Ill.2d 593, 766 N.E.2d
240, affirmed in part , reversed in part 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249. Judgment
181(27)

The scheme is discussed in Land v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 757 N.E.2d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001),
rehearing denied, appeal allowed 262 Ill.Dec. 620, 198 Ill.2d 593, 766 N.E.2d 240, affirmed in
part, reversed in part 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 202 Ill.2d 414, 781 N.E.2d 249 (where teacher's position
was eliminated pursuant to reduction in force, teacher needed to find another teaching position
to avoid being laid off).