Colorado Education Association v. Colorado State Board of Education, 2025 COA 56

The Colorado State Board of Education (Board) adopted two rules in 2012: Rule 3.3 introduced a "partially effective" teacher performance rating (in addition to "highly effective," "effective," and "ineffective"), counting "partially effective" as demonstrating ineffectiveness.
Rule 5.4 established the appeals process for nonprobationary teachers receiving two consecutive ineffective (or partially effective) ratings, restricting appeals to procedural errors or misattribution of data.
The Colorado Education Association (CEA) challenged these rules, alleging the Board exceeded its statutory authority from the Licensed Personnel Performance Evaluation Act.
Both challenged rules survived legislative review and have not been substantially amended since their adoption in 2012.
The district court upheld the rules, and the CEA appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to define "partially effective" as ineffective	The Board cannot create a new category of ineffectiveness leading to loss of nonprobationary status.	The Act lets the Board establish new performance standards and designate their consequences.	Board did not exceed its authority; rule upheld.
Limits on grounds for appeal	Limiting grounds for appeal violates statutory requirement that teachers have a fair opportunity to prove they deserve an effective rating.	Statute grants broad discretion to Board to devise process; limitations are within this scope.	Board's chosen limits are permissible.
Deference to agency's interpretation post-Loper	Recent federal precedent (Loper) requires less deference to agency rules.	Loper does not affect Colorado's standard for deference to state agencies.	Colorado courts' deference standard remains unchanged.
Delegation to local districts for appeals	Only Board may create appeals procedures; cannot delegate to local districts.	Statute allows school districts to develop local processes via collective bargaining.	Board's delegation to districts is proper.

Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 P.3d 174 (Colo. 2018) (discussing the legislative changes leading to the current teacher evaluation and tenure system)
Nieto v. Clark's Mkt., Inc., 488 P.3d 1068 (Colo. 2021) (Colorado courts give due consideration, but not binding deference, to state agency interpretations)
City of Aurora v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 785 P.2d 1280 (Colo. 1990) (policy judgments in agency rulemaking within agency expertise are given substantial weight)