NSSD Mission


NSSD Foundation

North Sanpete School District
Statement of .............

Board Policy with Guidelines

Policy Number: IV-28
Effective Date: 11/13/2012
Revised Date: 01/16/2018
pdfPDF Download

Subject:  Educator Evaluation Program Purpose

BOARD POLICY

The purpose of the North Sanpete School District Educator Evaluation Program is to recognize quality performance and promote professional growth for educators in the district.

Definitions:

Educator:  an individual employed by the District who is required to hold a professional license issued by the State board of education.

Career educator:  a licensed educator with three or more years in the district who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of the Board.  

Provisional educator:  an educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator within the District.

Probationary Educator:  an educator employed by the District who, under Board policy, has been advised by the District that the educator’s performance is inadequate.   

Administrator:  building principals, vice-principals, and district staff positions that require administrative certification.  

Student Learning Objective (SLO):  is a specific learning goal and a specific measure of student learning used to track progress toward that goal.

Student Growth Percentile (SGP):   describes a student's growth compared to other students with similar prior test scores on state assessments.

GUIDELINES

Components of the Evaluation Program

  1. Systematic evaluation procedures for both provisional and career educators.
  2. Self-evaluation and goal setting.
  3. For provisional educators, a minimum of two observations per year accompanied by follow-up discussions with administrator.
  4. For career educators, a minimum of one observation per year accompanied by follow-up discussions with administrator.   
  5. Valid and reliable data from measurable tools.
    • Observation of instructional quality (70% of evaluation)
      • Observation score will be multiplied by .7 and added to growth and input scores.
    • Evidence of student growth (20% of evaluation)
      • If SGPs are used to show growth, teachers whose progress score is in the 60th percentile or higher will receive a 4, 40th to 59th percentile a 3, 20th to 39th percentile a 2, below 20th percentile a 1.
      • If SLOs are used to show growth,  teachers who exceed their targets will receive a 4, teachers who meet their targets will receive a 3, teachers who are slightly below targets, a 2, well below targets, a 1
      • growth score will be multiplied by .2 and added to observation and input scores.
    • Parent and student input (10% of evaluation)
      • Teachers will be rated by district adopted rubric according to response from most recent stakeholder input survey.  Score will be multiplied by .1 and added to observation and growth scores.
  6. The use of multiple lines of evidence such as:
    • peer observation
    • evidence of professional growth
    • documents from the list of Performance Indicators of the Utah Effective Teaching/Leadership Standards

Timeline

Training meeting – administrator will notify teachers of evaluation process (including the tool used for evaluation)

1st two weeks of school

Self-assessment of performance using Utah Effective Teaching/ Leadership Standards

1st two weeks of school

Create a professional growth plan in collaboration with the designated supervisor

1st month of school

Provisional Educator Observations – two (2) formal observations and follow-up conferences with administrator

1st by December 1st
2nd by April 1st

Career Educator Observations – one (1) formal observation and follow-up conference with administrator

By April 1st

Formative rating – goal review, observation review, lines of evidence, submit rating to superintendent or designated appointee

By May 1st

Summative evaluation – Student growth, Observations, Parent/Student survey

By May 1st of educator’s relicensing year

Educator’s Eligibility for a Wage Increase

A teacher may not advance on an adopted salary schedule if the educator’s rating on the summative evaluation is at or below the second lowest level of an evaluation instrument that differentiates among four levels of performance as described in Section 53A-8a-405, unless the educator:

      1. is a provisional educator; or
      2. is in the first year of an assignment, including a new subject, grade level, or school.

If a career educator is found to be less than effective on a summative evaluation, therefore losing eligibility for advancement on the salary schedule, the educator will not be allowed to advance on the district salary schedule and will not receive any wage increase associated with advancement in the following year.  Educators will still be eligible for cost of living adjustments (COLAs).

Educators found to be less than effective will then receive a summative evaluation the following year.  If results of the evaluation show the teacher to be effective, placement on the salary schedule will be restored to step and lane the educator would have been on if there had been no freeze implemented.   

All administrators will be evaluated using the same process but will be accountable for the Utah Educational Leadership Standards.  Compensation will follow the administrative salary schedule with the following stipulations:  

      1. Beginning no later than the 2016-17 school year, a school or district administrator’s salary shall be based on the administrator’s most recent evaluation.
      2. The school district shall continue each year to award any salary increases to a school or district administrator based on an evaluation pursuant to Section 53A-8a-702 until at least 15% of the administrator’s salary is contingent upon the evaluation administered pursuant to said section.  53A-8a-703

Due Process for Summative Evaluation

An educator who is not satisfied with a summative evaluation has fifteen (15) days after receiving the written evaluation to request a review of the evaluation.  

If a review is requested, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall appoint a person, not an employee of the District, who has expertise in teacher or personnel evaluation to review and make recommendations to the superintendent regarding the educator’s summative evaluation.  A review of an educator’s summative evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with State Board of Education Rules.  Utah Code Ann. 53a-8a-406

Due Process for Formative Evaluation

An educator who is not satisfied with a formative evaluation has fifteen (15) days after receiving the written evaluation to request a review of the evaluation.  

If a review is requested, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall review the lines of evidence and make a recommendation.

Deficiency and Remediation

An inadequate performance or a performance in need of improvement is defined as being at or below the second lowest level of an evaluation instrument that differentiates among four levels of performance as described in Section 53A-8a-405.

The person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall give an educator whose performance is inadequate or in need of improvement a written document clearly identifying a plan of assistance that includes:

      1. specific, measurable, and actionable deficiencies
      2. the available resources that will be provided for improvement, including a mentor; and
      3. and a recommended course of action that will improve the educator’s performance.

The period of time for implementing the plan of assistance may not exceed 120 day.  However, it may continue into the next school year.

The educator is responsible for improving his or her performance, including using any resources identified by the District, and demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement in the designated areas of deficiencies; however, this along with points 2 and 3 above, does not apply if the educator’s unsatisfactory performance was documented for the same deficiency within the previous three years and a plan of assistance was implemented.

An employee whose performance is unsatisfactory may not be transferred to another school unless the Board specifically approves the transfer of the employee.