Educator Effectiveness FAQs

This section continues to be updated. Please check back often for additional information.

Jump to a topic: 

• Statutory Requirements for Educator Evaluations in Colorado
• Colorado State Model Evaluation System (SMES)
• Professional Practices Rubrics within the Colorado State Model Evaluation System (SMES)
• Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) in Educator Evaluations
• Evaluator Training
• Highly Effective Evaluation Process
• Data Reporting

Statutory Requirements for Educator Evaluations in Colorado

1. Why are updates happening to educator evaluations in Colorado for the 2023-24 school year?

A.     Starting in the 2023-24 school year, updates to educator evaluations in Colorado are the result of the Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade Licensed Personnel Performance Evaluations Act, Senate Bill 22-070, which was passed and signed into law during the 2022 legislative session.

2. Is Senate Bill 22-070 an overhaul of educator evaluations and the evaluation system in Colorado?

A.     No. While the new statutory requirements in S.B. 22-070 update existing areas of educator evaluations in Colorado, e.g., shift in composition of the final effectiveness rating, the majority of existing statutory requirements remain in place.

3. What will be updated in educator evaluations because of Senate Bill 22-070?

A.     Senate Bill 22-070 directs CDE to develop and provide guidance and support for the following areas.

• Update the composition of final effectiveness ratings.
  • Shift composition of final effectiveness ratings from 50% professional practices and 50% measures of student learning/outcomes to 70% professional practices and 30% MSL/MSO.
• Refine aspects of the MSL/MSO portion of an educator’s final effectiveness rating, including:
  • Collective measure(s) within the MSLs/MSOs cannot exceed 10%.
  • Collective measure(s) within the MSLs for teachers and principals can only use data based on the performance of students enrolled at their school.
  • Any educator who is new to a district/BOCES cannot have data from before they were employed used in the collective measure(s) of their MSL/MSO.
• Develop and make available an evaluation process for educators rated Highly Effective for three consecutive school years.
• Develop and make available new rubrics for licensed personnel in a limited number of specialized teacher or principal roles.
• Develop and require training for evaluators of licensed personnel – training to be provided or approved by CDE.
• Adjust the timing for reporting of final effectiveness ratings (FERs).
  • Requires that all FER data is reported to CDE annually by Oct. 15, i.e., FER data will no longer be collected within the HR data collection.
  • For the 2022-23 school year, the new Staff Evaluation Snapshot to collect FER data will open in spring 2023 (due by Oct. 15, 2023). Additional details will be forthcoming.

4. Are the requirements within Senate Bill 22-070 only applicable to districts/BOCES using the state model evaluation system?

A.     No. All Local Education Agencies (LEAs), school districts and BOCES must meet or exceed the statutory requirements (now including Senate Bill 22-070) and the related State Board of Education rules for evaluations for all licensed personnel (i.e., teachers, special services providers (SSPs) and principals.

5. Is the shift from 50 percent Professional Practices and 50 percent measures of student learning/outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) to 70 percent Professional Practices and 30 percent MSLs/MSOs required for all school districts/BOCES?

A.     Yes.

6. Who is required to be evaluated under the statutory requirements for educator evaluations in Colorado?

A.     All licensed personnel employed by school districts and BOCES, including all teachers, special services providers (SSPs) and principals, are required to receive an evaluation each academic year, with the exception of personnel employed by a BOCES for a period of six weeks or less.

7. Does Senate Bill 22-070 change the requirement that all licensed educators be evaluated and receive a final effectiveness rating every school year?

A.      No. Per existing statute, all licensed personnel employed by school districts and BOCES, including all teachers, special services providers (SSPs) and principals, are required to receive an evaluation each academic year, with the exception of personnel employed by a BOCES for a period of six weeks or less.

8. What role does the State Board of Education play related to the statutory requirements for educator evaluations in Colorado?

A.     Under Colorado law, the State Board of Education has a duty to promulgate and adopt policies, rules and regulations concerning general supervision of the public schools and the Department of Education. Once the Colorado General Assembly passes legislation authorizing the Board to implement the legislation through rule, the State Board initiates a rulemaking process.

All rules adopted by the State Board are officially published in the Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR). The rules for educator effectiveness are 1 CCR 301-87  Rules for the Administration of a Statewide System to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Licensed Personnel Employed by School Districts and Boards of Cooperative Education Services.

9. What is the portability of nonprobationary status? Is Educator Effectiveness information and ratings automatically shared between districts?

A.     Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, a nonprobationary teacher who chooses to seek employment in another Colorado school district and has earned a final effectiveness rating of Effective or Highly Effective in the two consecutive years prior, and provides the hiring district evidence of those ratings, shall be granted nonprobationary status by a hiring school district per C.R.S. 22-63-203.5. Portability of status is not addressed for probationary teachers in statute.

Educator evaluation information, including ratings, is not shared automatically between school districts and/or BOCES. It is the responsibility of the educator to keep records of their evaluation ratings and to work with the district human resources office as needed.

---

Colorado State Model Evaluation System

1. Will the scoring change in the state model evaluation system because of the shift to 70:30 composition of final effectiveness ratings for the 2023-24 school year?

A.   Yes. The scoring system in the state model evaluation system will be revised to align with the requirements outlined in the new statute to shift the composition of final effectiveness ratings from 50 percent professional practices and 50 percent measures of student learning/outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) to 70 percent and 30 percent respectively.

The revision will adjust the total available points for an educator’s final rating to 1000 (from the current total of 1080) and will seek to increase transparency in the scoring process as well as solidly reflect earned scores. Additional information can be found on the State Model Evaluation System: Scoring Revisions webpage.

2. Will the cut points change for the scoring ratings within the state model evaluation system for the 2023-24 school year?

A.   Yes. With revision to the state model evaluation system scoring system, the cut points for scoring the components, i.e., Professional Practices rating, MSL/MSO rating and final effectiveness ratings, also will be revised. Additional information can be found on the State Model Evaluation System: Scoring Revisions webpage.

---

Professional Practices Rubrics within the Colorado State Model Evaluation System

1. What new rubrics will be available starting in the 2023-24 school year?

A.     In the state model evaluation system for the 2023-24 school year, there will be three new rubrics available for use in the Colorado Performance Management System (COPMS) in RANDA – specifically, Special Education (SPED) Teacher, Teacher Librarian and Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA).

2. Will districts need to pay a fee to use the new rubrics in the Colorado Performance Management System (COPMS) in RANDA?

A.     No. The new rubrics will be available in COPMS/RANDA at no cost to districts/BOCES.

3. Are districts using locally created evaluation systems required to use the new rubrics in the state model evaluation system?

A.     No. Districts that have a locally created evaluation system can use the new rubric(s), create a new rubric(s) within their system and align to the new rubric(s), and/or continue to evaluate educators in the way they are already being evaluated.

---

Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) in Educator Evaluations

1. How much of an educator’s evaluation will be from Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) starting in the 2023-24 school year?

A.     Per Senate Bill 22-070 starting in the 2023-24 school year, MSLs/MSOs will make up 30 percent of evaluations for all licensed educators (i.e., teachers, SSPs and principals). This is a reduction from 50 percent which was established in statute by Senate Bill 10-191. In addition, MSLs/MSOs must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the licensed personnel (i.e., teacher, SSP or principal) commenced employment with the school district or BOCES, and the collective measure(s) for teachers and principals must not exceed 10 percent.

2. What is required to include in the 30% measures of student learning (MSL) portion of a teacher’s evaluation?

A.     Student Academic Growth must be measured using multiple measures. When compiling these measures to evaluate performance, school districts and BOCES must consider the relative technical quality and rigor of the various measures. MSLs for teachers must include the following:

•  A measure of individually attributed student academic growth (individual measure)
• A measure of collectively attributed student academic growth (collective measure)

When available, statewide summative assessment results may be used.

Beginning with the 2023-24 school year, collective measures within a teacher’s MSL must not exceed 10 percent. MSLs for teachers must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the teacher started employment with the district/BOCES.

3. What is required to include in the 30% measures of student outcomes (MSO) portion of a special services provider’s (SSP’s) evaluation?

A.     Evaluating SSPs related to student outcomes must meet the following criteria:

• Be based on a minimum of two (2) measures.
• Measures must be aligned to the specific role and duties of the individual SSP.

Data used in evaluating SSPs shall be collected from the site(s), or a representative sample of the site(s), at which the SSP provides services.

Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, MSOs for SSPs must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the SSP started employment with the district/BOCES.

4. What is required to include in the 30% measures of student learning (MSL) portion of a principal’s evaluation?

A.     The Measures of Student Learning used for evaluating principals’ performance must meet the following criteria:

• When available, data included in the school performance framework (SPF).
• Minimum of one measure of student academic growth that is aligned with the measures used in the teacher evaluations for the principal's school.
• Measures that reflect subjects beyond those in state assessments and reflect the growth of students in all subject areas and grades in the principal’s school.

MSLs for principals must correspond to the implementation benchmarks and targets included in their school’s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP).

Beginning with the 2023-24 school year, collective measures within a principal’s MSL must not exceed 10 percent. MSLs for principals must not include data that was created prior to the date on which the principal started employment with the district/BOCES.

5. Are districts required to include state assessment data in MSLs for the 2023-24 school year?

A.     No. School Districts and BOCES may use state assessment results when available.

6. Are districts required to include Colorado Growth Model data in MSLs for the 2023-24 school year?

   1. The use of Colorado Growth Model data is required in MSLs for principals only, per C.R.S. 232-9-106(7)(a). Per C.R.S. 22-9-104 (3)(b)(c), districts may use school performance data in collective measures for teachers, provided the data was not created prior to the date on which the teacher commenced employment and that the collective measure does not exceed 10 percent. District performance data can no longer be used in an educator’s MSL/MSO.

7. Are collective measures required for all licensed educators?

A.     No. The inclusion of collective measures in an educator’s evaluation is required for teachers and principals only and must not exceed 10 percent of their evaluation. Special services providers (SSPs) are not required to include a collective measure(s) within their evaluation, although a collective measure may be included. If a district/BOCES includes a collective measure in the MSO for SSPs, it must adhere to the requirements for MSLs, e.g., must not exceed 10 percent.

8. What is a collective measure?

A.     A measure of collectively attributed growth, also referred to as a collective measure, comes from results of student growth on a measure that is attributed to more than one licensed person. For example, this could mean two educators, a team, a PLC, a content team, a grade level team, or a school. District-wide data such as the District Performance Framework (DPF) is no longer allowed to be used in educators’ MSLs/MSOs per S.B. 22-070.

Collective measures can be an opportunity to ensure a focus on a team or school initiative. For example, if the effective implementation of PLCs across all schools is a district priority and/or initiative, each school might focus a collective measure on the effectiveness of their PLCs as measured by related student growth.

9. Are educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process required to include measures of student learning/outcomes (MSLs/MSOs) in their evaluation and final rating?

A.     Yes.

10. Will the Colorado Performance Management System (COPMS) in RANDA be updated to reflect the refinements to MSLs/MSOs from Senate Bill 22-070?

A.     Yes. COPMS in RANDA will be updated prior to the 2023-24 school year and will include all updates to the state model evaluation system per S.B. 22-070, including all refinements to MSLs/MSOs. Additional details and explanation of all updates in the system will be shared as soon as possible, including new resources and supports for using the system for the 2023-24 school year.

     11. Are districts required to include state assessment data in teacher MSLs?

A.    No. Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, districts and BOCES may use state assessment results when available.

     12. Are districts required to include Colorado Growth Model data in MSLs for the 2023-24 school year?

A.    The use of Colorado Growth Model data is required in MSLs for principals only, when available, per state statute and State Board rule. Districts may use school performance data in collective measures for teachers, provided the data was not created prior to the date on which the teacher commenced employment and that the collective measure does not exceed 10 percent. District performance data can no longer be used in MSLs/MSOs.

     13. What does “when available” mean?

1. Data used in an educator’s MSL/MSO must be available a minimum of two weeks prior to the last class day of the school year, or evaluation cycle, to be included in the educator’s final evaluation rating. If the data comes in after that timeframe, it is considered not available for use in the educator’s MSL/MSO for that school year.

     14. Are MSLs supposed to cover everything that students are learning?

A.    No. The identified measure is a snapshot and provides a representation of student learning and growth.

     15. What stakeholder values can be reflected in the MSLs/MSOs?

A.    Ideally, the MSLs/MSOs reflect the shared local values among stakeholders in a district/BOCES. The Educator Effectiveness Values Activity Guide can prompt discussion and exploration to ensure alignment of local values and stakeholder points-of-view in the creation of MSLs/MSOs.

     16. What options exist if a standardized assessment is not available for an educator’s content area?

A.    When standardized assessments are not available or selected for use in an MSL/MSO, other assessments (either vendor-based or teacher/provider-developed) may be used. Utilizing the steps outlined within this guide, to identify expectations for student learning and the available and relevant evidence to demonstrate that learning, will support the process to determine the potential assessments that may be selected as measures for use within an educator’s MSL/MSO.

     17. What options exist for collective measures for itinerant teachers?

A.    For itinerant teachers a collective measure can be made with another classroom teacher with whom the itinerant teacher spends a significant portion of their time, and the selected data/assessment and success criteria reflective of the students shared between the teachers. Alternatively, a collective measure could be created among a group of itinerant teachers in similar roles, for whom there would be an opportunity to collect the same type of data from their respective students and identify the applicable shared success criteria. Districts/BOCES are encouraged to contact their Educator Effectiveness Regional Specialist for additional guidance and support.

     18. What is considered a collective measure for principals?

A.    A collective measure for principals includes data attributed to two or more principals, APs, Deans, and/or administrators. If due to the district’s size there is only one administrator for the district, please contact your Educator Effectiveness Regional Specialist for additional guidance and support related to the principal’s MSL.

     19. Where can I find additional support for creating MSLs/MSOs?

A.    Please contact your Educator Effectiveness Regional Specialist for additional guidance and support related to creating MSLs/MSOs aligned with local evaluations systems, values, and goals.

---

Evaluator Training

1. Is this new training required per Senate Bill 22-070 just for principals?

A.     No. Per statute and State Board rule (C.R.S. 22-9-104 (1)(c) and C.C.R. 5.3(H)(1) respectively), beginning Aug. 1, 2024, any person who is responsible for the evaluation of a licensed educator (i.e., Principal, Teacher or SSP) must complete the training provided by or approved by the department prior to obtaining an initial principal/administrator license or prior to renewing an existing license. All evaluators should take the required training, even if they do not hold a principal or administrator license. This could include directors or evaluator designees who are responsible for observing and providing feedback used in a licensed educator’s evaluation.

2. How is the new required training different from annual training already provided to evaluators?

A.     Districts and BOCES are expected to provide an annual orientation (that may or may not include training) for evaluators that provides an overview of the local evaluation practices, the evaluation process and sets expectations for the school year. The new required evaluator training will focus on the knowledge and skills to be an effective evaluator, and it will align with the evaluator training standards outlined in State Board rule (C.C.R. 5.3(H)).

3. Can the completion of an existing training satisfy the new requirement?

A.     No. Districts and BOCES will have the option to provide the new required training for their evaluators following approval of their training program by CDE. The training program must meet or exceed the evaluator training standards and elements included in State Board rule. An application and review process will be available on the CDE website in spring 2023.

4. Will districts/BOCES be able to provide the new required training for their own evaluators?

A.     Yes. The required training will be offered by CDE or by an approved provider. The Educator Effectiveness Office will open a process for districts/BOCES to apply and be approved as a provider for the evaluator training for fall 2023. Any training programs will have to demonstrate they meet or exceed the training standards and elements in State Board rule.

5. How long will the training take for evaluators to complete?

A.     The training from CDE will be offered in two parts for a total of approximately 12 hours. Part I will be available in four asynchronous, online modules and Part II will be a full-day, in-person training that will be offered regionally during the school year.

6. When will the CDE training be available?

A.     Part I is anticipated to be available starting summer 2023, with Part II available starting fall 2023.

---

Highly Effective Evaluation Process

1. Who is eligible to use the Highly Effective evaluation process?

   1. Any licensed educator (i.e., teacher, SSP or principal) who has received a rating of Highly Effective for at least three consecutive school years (C.R.S. 22-9-104 (1.5)).

2. When does the Highly Effective evaluation process begin?

   1. The Highly Effective evaluation process can be available to educators who meet the eligibility criteria beginning in the 2023-24 school year, i.e., earned a rating of Highly Effective for the school years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.

3. Do educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process still have to be evaluated each year?

   1. Yes. Per state statute, school districts and BOCES must complete evaluations for all licensed personnel (i.e., teachers, SSPs, and principals) employed by the district or BOCES (C.R.S. 22-9-106 (3)(a) and (3)(b)). Also, per State Board of Education rules, all licensed educators must receive a final evaluation rating of Ineffective, Partially Effective, Effective or Highly Effective (C.C.R. 2.3, 3.3, and 4.3).

4. Are MSLs/MSOs still required for educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process?

   1. Yes.

5. Who decides who gets to use the Highly Effective evaluation process?

   1. Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, school districts and BOCES may choose to offer a Highly Effective evaluation process to educators who have earned a Highly Effective rating for the previous three consecutive years. Once a district/BOCES elects to offer a Highly Effective evaluation process to eligible educators, the district/BOCES must create guidance for implementation and will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process. Ideally, eligible educators and their evaluators will discuss and select use of the modified evaluation process during the initial (e.g., goal-setting) conversations at the beginning of the school year. For example, a district may determine that the Highly Effective evaluation process is open to all eligible educators and include exceptions to be made in specific circumstances, in which case the direction may be to use the standard evaluation process for those educators, e.g., a teacher teaching a new grade level/content area or a principal new to a building.

6. Is using the Highly Effective evaluation process required?

   1. No, nor is it automatic once an educator meets the eligibility criteria of earning a rating of Highly Effective for three consecutive school years.

Each district/BOCES may choose to offer an optional Highly Effective evaluation process for principals, teachers, and special services providers (SSPs) who have earned a rating of Highly Effective for a minimum of three consecutive years (C.C.R. 5.1 (H)). To ensure decisions align with local values, districts/BOCES are strongly encouraged to engage with stakeholders (such as the Advisory Personnel Performance Evaluation Council (1338 Council) in the decision-making process.

7. Will there be a new rubric used in the Highly Effective evaluation process?

   1. Beginning in the 2023-24 school year, a modified rubric within the state model evaluation system will be available for measuring the performance of those educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process and will be embedded within the Colorado Performance Management System (COPMS) in RANDA. The modified rubric will not be a new rubric, simply a modification of the existing rubric used by the educator based on role, e.g., teacher, SSP or other role.

8. Is the Highly Effective evaluation process portable between school districts?

   1. The criteria to use a Highly Effective evaluation process is the same for all school districts and BOCES (i.e., three consecutive years of Highly Effective ratings), and each district/BOCES will determine the process for eligible educators to use the modified evaluation process. Therefore, an educator joining a new district will need to provide documentation of their eligibility to their new district. The hiring district can determine what evaluation process educators new to the district will follow. For example, a district may decide that any educator new to the district, who was using the Highly Effective evaluation process in their previous district, will be evaluated using a standard evaluation process for their first year, and then have the Highly Effective evaluation process open for their second year in the district.

9. Does the use of the Highly Effective evaluation process transfer between schools in the same district?

   1. Each district will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process including and not limited to, how use of the evaluation process may or may not transfer between schools within the same district.

10. When does the decision to use the Highly Effective evaluation process need to be made and communicated to the person being evaluated?

    1. Per state statute and State Board of Education rule, districts/BOCES must clearly communicate to all licensed educators the tools that will be used to measure their performance, and all educators should be aware of what is included in their evaluation and how they will be evaluated for the school year (C.R.S. 22-9-106(1)(e)(II) and C.C.R. 5.3(D)(E)(F)). Therefore, decisions to offer a Highly Effective evaluation process will need to be settled as the school year gets underway, ideally before the initial evaluation orientation takes place.

11. Is the Highly Effective evaluation process only available to teachers?

    1. No. Any licensed educator who earns a rating of Highly Effective for three (3) consecutive school years is eligible to use the Highly Effective evaluation process – this includes teachers, SSPs and principals

12. How long can an educator use the Highly Effective evaluation process?

    1. Each district/BOCES will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process. Current draft State Board of Education rules state that the modified evaluation process must identify “the conditions in which an educator will return to using the standard evaluation process and includes a formal review process a minimum of every three years to determine if the educator will continue to use the modified evaluation process.” (Draft C.C.R. 5.1 (H) (1) I)

13. What data will CDE collect regarding who is using the Highly Effective evaluation process?

    1. Per State Board of Education rules, all licensed educators must receive a final evaluation rating of Ineffective, Partially Effective, Effective or Highly Effective (C.C.R. 2.3, 3.3, and 4.3). School districts and BOCES must submit educator evaluation data to CDE, including final performance evaluation ratings assigned to each principal, teacher, and SSP, as well as the ratings for principals, teachers and SSPs on each of the applicable Quality Standards and Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes (C.C.R. 6.1 (B)).

14. Does the frequency of observations change when using the Highly Effective evaluation process?

    1. Each district/BOCES will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process, including and not limited to, the number and frequency of observations for those educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process. Districts/BOCES are encouraged to explore/expand options for how to conduct observations for educators using the Highly Effective evaluation process, e.g., use of peers/mentors as observers to supplement and/or replace observations from the evaluator.

15. What will prompt an educator returning to the standard evaluation process after they start using the Highly Effective evaluation process?

    1. Each district/BOCES will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process. Current draft State Board of Education rules state that the modified evaluation process must identify “the conditions in which an educator will return to using the standard evaluation process and includes a formal review process a minimum of every three years to determine if the educator will continue to use the modified evaluation process” (Draft C.C.R. 5.1 (H) (1) (e)). For example, a district policy or evaluator decision could determine that an educator returns to using the standard evaluation process due to a shift in grade level or content area for a new year.

16. How is this process different from how a district might already be working with their Highly Effective educators within the evaluation cycle/process?

    1. Given that each district/BOCES will determine the exact process for using the Highly Effective evaluation process, ideally, a district/BOCES that is already working with their educators who are consistently rated Highly Effective to create meaningful experiences in the evaluation process will continue and possibly expand that work.

17. What happens if an educator earns a rating of less than Highly Effective when using the Highly Effective evaluation process?

    1. State statute defines the criteria to use the Highly Effective evaluation process as any licensed educator (i.e., teacher, SSP or principal) who has received a rating of Highly Effective for three consecutive school years (C.R.S. 22-9-104 (1.5)). Therefore, the year following a rating of less than Highly Effective disrupts the criteria of three consecutive years of Highly Effective ratings, and the educator would return to using a standard evaluation process.

---

Data Reporting

1. What changes to the collection of educator evaluation data are happening because of Senate Bill 22-070?

A.     Beginning with the 2022-23 evaluation ratings, educator evaluation data will no longer be collected through the annual HR Data Collection. It will now be collected through a new Staff Evaluation Snapshot that will open each spring and must be completed by Oct. 15 each year. There is no impact to educators or to timing for educators’ final effectiveness ratings from this change in reporting.

2. When will the new data collection begin?

A.     The new Staff Evaluation Snapshot will be open for data collection beginning in late April 2023 (specific date to be announced) for data from final effectiveness ratings from the 2022-23 school year.

3. What evaluation data is reported to CDE by districts and BOCES?

A.     Colorado school districts and BOCES annually report which evaluation system is used by the district/BOCES for educator evaluations (i.e., the state model system or a locally created system) through the Educator Effectiveness Assurances, and report evaluation ratings from each academic year through the Staff Evaluation Snapshot beginning with the 2022-23 school year (this data was previously collected through the HR Data Collection.) The evaluations ratings reported to CDE continue to include the final effectiveness rating, rating for each Quality Standard, and rating for the Measures of Student Learning/Outcomes (MSL/MSO) portion of each licensed educator’s evaluation (i.e., teachers, SSPs and principals).

4. Will districts/BOCES still report evaluation data through the HR Data Collection report?

A.     No. Educator evaluation ratings will only be collected through the new Staff Evaluation Snapshot starting with data from the 2022-23 school year.

5. Will the new data report be available in the Colorado Performance Management System (COPMS) in RANDA?

A.     Yes. A new report template for the Staff Evaluation Snapshot will be available to districts/BOCES that use the COPMS.