For the next 30 days, we’re providing free access to non-subscribers so you can see what we have to offer. And if you subscribe by June 1, you’ll get a 25% discount on your subscription!
We hope you’ll like what you see and want to support local media.
Click here to start a new subscription
Douglas County School District introduced a revised CITE rubric in the 2017-18 school year, in which the order and language of standards is different. Used to evaluate the teacher, “climate and culture” and “professionalism” went from being the last two standards listed on the rubric to the first two. The latter three standards — “planning,” “assessment” and “instruction” — evaluate the teaching.
The language of the revised rubric is broader to consider the different instructional styles of teachers and schools, according to Erica Mason, the district’s director of educator effectiveness.
Deanne Kirby, principal of Trail Blazer Elementary School in Highlands Ranch: “The way we rolled it out brought a different style of competition. It wasn’t a healthy way to compete against other teachers. It really took the focus off of what was important. I think there is a way to do it right, but it wasn’t that one.”
Kimberly Seefried, principal of Frontier Valley Elementary in Parker: “Anytime you have pay-for-performance, it’s one of those things that makes the evaluation system feel more high-stakes. I think in terms of suspending it for the year, as teachers and administrators delve in the new rubric, it gives them the opportunity to work through those pieces without feeling that stress and pressure of having it tied to pay.”
Mike Carlson, co-principal Eldorado Elementary School, Highlands Ranch: “As a former teacher, I am a fan of pay-for-performance. I found that it was recognizing hard work and dedication and professionalism. With that being said, it can be a little tricky from one year to the next. It does need to incorporate more than one test score. A more comprehensive breakdown would lead to a more ideal pay-for-performance system.”
Gary Colley, retired DCSD teacher: “We pull back pay-for-performance, that’s a start, but what do you do in the meantime?”
Turnover rates in the Douglas County School District have improved but remain higher than neighboring districts, according to a presentation made at the Sept. 5 school board meeting.
“We have work to do,” said Steve Colella, chief human resources officer, “but the trend is very positive.”
DCSD’s turnover rate for total staff in 2016 was 21.1 percent, compared to Cherry Creek School District’s 17.5 percent and Littleton Public Schools’ 13.9 percent. The state’s average turnover rate was 20.4 percent.
The state considers all teachers in its turnover calculations, regardless of the type of contract, according to the presentation. DCSD includes all licensed staff and doesn’t include charter school teachers, one-year contracts or teachers that move within the district. The district doesn’t include charter school employees because it does not oversee them, interim Superintendent Erin Kane said at the board meeting.
The district’s calculation of resignations (including retirements) shows:
• Principal turnover dropped from 10 people in the 2015-16 school year to two in the 2016-17 school year.
• Assistant principal turnover increased from seven people in the 2015-16 school year to 10 in the 2016-17 school year.
• Licensed teacher turnover decreased from 464 people in the 2015-16 school year to 348 in the 2016-17 school year.
• Classified — positions including secretaries, bus drivers and instructional assistants — employee turnover increased from 528 in the 2015-16 school year to 574 in the 2016-17 school year.
Other administrator turnover dropped from 42 people in the 2015-16 school year to 24 in the 2016-17 school year.
— Alex DeWind
The Douglas County School District may suspend the differentiated pay structure for licensed teachers and administrators, replacing it for one year with uniform pay raises while it reassesses the evaluation and salary systems that many community members say spurred an exodus of quality educators.Interim Superintendent Erin Kane pointed out at the Board of Education's Sept. 5 meeting that no one is talking about moving away from pay-for-performance, but rather honoring what employees want and restructuring the pay-for-performance system.“We want to talk to our employees about what it is that motivates them and makes them want to bring their A-game every day,” she said. “Because at the end of the day bringing their A-game is what makes our kids winners. That is what is behind this. Not any kind of movement away from differential pay.”The recommendation to put the differentiated pay system on hold for the 2017-18 school year came from Steve Colella, the district's chief of human resources, who said doing so gives teachers and administrators the chance to review and share their opinions about a revised teacher evaluation rubric developed over the past year. A group of teachers and administators worked with the district on the revisions."Let's ... allow participants to weigh in and have robust discussions without worrying about the impact on the raises," Colella said.The seven-member board will vote on the recommendation at its Sept. 19 meeting, beginning at 6 p.m., in the boardroom of Wilcox Administration Building, 620 Wilcox St. in Castle Rock.Douglas County parent Darien Wilson, who attended the Sept. 5 meeting, talked before the recommendation was presented about how teacher turnover following implementation of the pay-for-performance structure has affected her three children.“I hope you never have to dry the tears of a 5-year-old when she learns that her beloved teacher is leaving,” Wilson said through tears herself to board members. “You should be doing everything possible to retain teachers, so that they can maintain the relationships they have with the children of Douglas County.”Evaluation systems 'created challenges'Teacher and principal evaluations are required in all Colorado school districts under 2010's Senate Bill 191, also called the Educator Effectiveness Bill. Districts were allowed to adopt either the state's teacher-evaluation program or create their own. DCSD is among six districts that designed its own for teachers and administrators, along with a differentiated pay structure based on those evaluation rubrics. They were both implemented in the 2012-13 school year.CITE, Continuous Improvement Effectiveness, has six components for measuring teacher effectiveness: Outcomes, Assessment, Instruction, Culture and Climate, Professionalism and Student Data. Each of those categories contains a number of standards against which teachers are evaluated.LEAD is a rubric used to evaluate administration, including principals, deans and directors.Based on the results of evaluations based on those rubrics, teachers and administrators are rated as highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective. They then receive differentiated raises based on the ratings.“The district implemented a new CITE rubric and a LEAD rubric for our administration and a pay-for-performance, or a differentiated pay structure, based on those brand-new evaluations,” Colella said. “We know that the simultaneous implementation created challenges."Over the past years, many teachers have expressed dissatisfaction with salaries, competition among teachers because salaries are tied to subjects they teach,and hours of time spent on evaluations.If the board of directors approves the recommendation, the district would suspend the differentiated pay structure for employees evaluated with CITE and LEAD and instead provide flat pay raises for the 2018-19 school year for those rated“partially effective” and above. All other employee groups — including classified staff, which includes secretaries, instructional assistants and food service workers — will continue with the current differentiated pay system.Board member Wendy Vogel asked why only half of employees would be included in the suspension of differentiated pay, saying it seems to pit classified and licensed employees against each other.But Kane said the goal is to revise CITE and LEAD evaluations, which must comply with Senate Bill 191."The big difference is the legislative structure," Kane said. "It has nothing to do with what system, and has more to do with the basis of the evaluation being from the state legislature versus being from your job responsibility."Developing a new rubricThe human resources department met with a group of teachers and administrators during the 2016-17 year to revise the CITE and LEAD rubrics. Colella said it took into consideration several factors in developing a new CITE rubric for this school year and interrupting the pay-for-performance structure, including the district's value of incentivizing “great work” through differentiated pay increases.“From a competitive perspective, I can tell you anecdotally I have had teachers come to me and say `I really like what Douglas County does,' ” Colella said. “Maybe you don't get paid as much some districts, but the concept of being paid more for doing better appeals to a lot of people.”On the other hand, Colella pointed out that factors besides performance should be considered. Stakeholder input is essential, and the previous implementation of evaluation rubrics and differentiated pay structure led to confusion for many people, he said.Although the LEAD rubric remains the same for nowbased on feedback from LEAD participants revisions are “probably warranted,” Colella said.Before explaining the pay-for-performance recommendation, Colella gave the board updated figures on the district's teacher turnover rate, which improved over the previous year, but remains higher than neighboring districts. Colorado Department of Education data shows DCSD's teacher turnover rate was 19 percent in 2016, compared to Littleton Public Schools at 8.7 percent and Cherry Creek School District at 10.4 percent. The state average was 17 percent.But board member Jim Geddes called the reported increases in teacher turnover rates over the past years a “myth.”“The question is, if you want to just coast and not be evaluated and be paid on some salary scale, based on seniority, that is not the kind of person I want in my organization,” Geddes said. “Whether we are taking care of sick people or teaching our children.”Board member Anne-Marie Lemieux said she would like to hear from principals and teachers to see if they are on board with the recommendation. That could be completed in a survey format or a question sent out over Facebook, she said.“I think it would be easy to send that question out so that when you come back to the board for a vote on it, we can say, `yes, we support the needs of the employee,' " Lemieux said.
Other items that may interest you
We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.