Skip to main content

My project 1 2

Teacher Evaluation Model

Approved:    6-9-04
Revised:       10-18-05; 1-8-08; 9-9-09; 8-11-10; 6-15-11; 6-11-14, 2-9-16, 5-10-17, 12-14-22

Philosophy—

The Board recognizes that the quality of Public Education can be improved and enhanced by providing a systematic, fair, consistent, and competent evaluation of educators and remediation of those whose performance is inadequate.

The purpose of the evaluation system is (1) to ensure that the best possible instruction and learning environment is provided to all students in the District and (2) to allow the teacher and the District to promote the professional growth of the teacher by identifying and encouraging quality instruction to improve student achievement.

The South Sanpete School District has adopted the Utah Model Educator Evaluation System, which is aligned to the Utah Effective Teaching Standards in accordance with:
       Utah Code 53A-­8a, R277-­531, and R277-­530-5

Appraisal of professional staff services should serve these purposes:

  1. To serve as a learning experience for the teacher in order to improve the quality of instruction;
  2. To elevate the standards of the teaching profession as a whole;
  3. To aid the individual teacher to grow professionally;
  4. To help the employee improve effectiveness in the performance of duties and establish specific goals to stimulate improvement and professional growth and thereby strengthen and improve the instructional program;
  5. To help the employee gain a better understanding of the duties and responsibilities of their contractual obligation;
  6. To identify leadership qualities and potential; and
  7. To help employees recognize strengths and possible areas for further growth. 

In addition to the above purposes, staff evaluations may assist in separating from employment with the District those employees who do not meet minimal requirements of professional standards of teaching competency.

The Board delegates to the administrative staff the responsibility of developing, organizing, and implementing a system of evaluation that will ensure a quality instructional program.

Teacher performance will be evaluated using the Utah Effective Teaching Standards adopted by the Utah State Office of Education. 

Definitions—

  1. Teacher/Educator - A classroomteacher employed by a school district who holds a professional license issued by the Utah State Board of Education. A teacher does not include individuals who work less than three hoursper day or are hired less than half of a school year.
  2. Career Teacher - A licensed employee who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of a local board. A career teacher may be an educator who has completed three or extended to four or five full years of successful teaching in the South Sanpete School District and has been officially approved by the Board for tenure status.
  3. Provisional Teacher - Any teacher employed by a school district who has not achieved status as a career teacher within the school district. An educator in their first, second, third, or extended to a fourth or fifth year of teaching in South Sanpete School District, regardless of whether they have had previous teaching experience in other districts. Provisional educators will be assigned a mentor for provisional years.
  4. Probationary Teacher - Any educator employed by a school district whom the Board has advised that their performance is inadequate under local school board policy. A teacher advised that their performance is inadequate shall be involved in a remediation programinitiated by the District involving the Corrective/Remediation Model Procedure.
  5. Evaluator - The teacher's principal or designee.An evaluator may make multiple visits during the evaluation process, announced and unannounced, to a teacher's classroom.
  6. Days - The reference of days used in this Policy refers to Work Days.
  7. Formative Evaluation - Aninformal evaluation process designed to provide feedback to educatorson how toimprove their performance; it is used to promote reflection and professional growth.
  8. Summative Evaluation - An evaluation designed to determine an educator’s effectiveness rating based on standards of instructional quality and classroom performance observation data, student growth data, and stakeholder input data. Summative evaluations may affect decisions on salary and employment.
  9. Summative Overall Rating- The effectiveness rating assigned to an educator (Not Effective, EmergingEffective/Minimally Effective, Effective, or Highly Effective).
  10. Satisfactory Performance - Defined as an overall summative rating that is Emerging Effective (for provisional teachers), Effective, or Highly Effective for Career teachers.
  11. Unsatisfactory Performance – Defined as an overall summative rating that is Not Effective for provisional teachers, Minimally Effective, or Not Effective for Career teachers.
  12. Teacher Improvement Plan (TIPs)- A plan written as a recommendation or plan of action to help a teacher with unsatisfactory performance as defined in the evaluation plan. TIPs are to be developed by the district in consultation with the teacher found to have unsatisfactory performance.
  13. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) - Content and grade/course-specificmeasurable learning objectivescan be used to document student learning in a defined period.
  14. Growth Percentiles (GPs) - An analytic approach (statistical method) for transforming student assessment results into an accountability metric.
  15. Multiple Lines of Evidence - Additional documentation of an educator’s performance and effectiveness submitted during an evaluation cycle.

Policy—

All teachers have an ongoing responsibility to engage in the process of continuous professional development, consistent with R277-531 and “Educator Evaluation.” Formal and informal evaluations of teaching performance are critical in providing feedback to the educator that can be utilized in refining their teaching performance. Continuation in teaching from year to year shall be contingent upon satisfactory teaching performance, measured using the educator evaluation program as outlined in this Policy.

Evaluation Process—

  1. Orientation
    1. Each year, before any evaluations, the principal of each school shall orient all teachers assigned to the school concerning the District’s evaluation program, including the purpose of the evaluation and the method used to evaluate. They will conduct a pre-evaluation conference with teachers to approve, sign, and date the Teacher Professional Growth Plan (TPGP)formGCNA-3. Evaluations may not occur before the orientation by the principal. Also, a personal notice shall be given to the teacher of the evaluation process at least fifteen (15) days before the first evaluation and receipt of a copy of the evaluation instrument if an instrument is to be used.
  2. Observations (Formative) and District Summative Evaluation
    1. Once the orientation and pre-conference are completed, the principal or designee shall conduct 3-5 Observations Evaluations using the District Observation Tool. The classroomvisits (announced and unannounced)ensure adequate opportunity for evaluation.
    2. Once the 3-5 Observations have been completed, the principal or designee shall complete the South Sanpete Evaluation Model and the Summative Evaluation Tool (GCNA-1)using the USOE All Formative and Summative evaluations will be based on the Utah Effectiveness Teacher Standards. Some parts of this evaluation will be completed in the pre-and post-evaluation interview between the educator and the principal.
    3. One or more types of evaluation and lines of evidence such as self-evaluation, student evaluation, parent surveys,peer evaluation, evidence of professional growth, student achievement data, SLOs, supervisory observations, or systematic observations may evaluate teachers.
    4. The teacher may make a written response to all or a part of the evaluation, and that response will be attached to the evaluation.
  3. Summative Evaluation
    1. Within fifteen (15)days after the completed evaluation process, the principal or designee shall conduct a post-conference interview with the teacher and discuss the evaluation findings. Following any revisionsmade after the discussion, a copy of the evaluation shall be filed in the teacher's personnel file and any related reports or docum A copy of the evaluation and attachments shall be given to the teacher.
    2. The principal and the teacher shall both sign the summative evaluation docum A signature means that the evaluation process has been completed and not necessarily that the educator agrees with it. If an educator elects not to sign the document, it will be acknowledged as such by a third party. A copy of the signed evaluation and attachments shall be given to the educator, and a copy will be placed in their personnel file.
  4. Review
    1. After receiving the written evaluation, a teacher who is not satisfied with a formal evaluation has fifteen (15) days to request a review of the evaluation. If a review is requested, the District Superintendent, or the Superintendent's designee, shall appoint a person, not an employee of the School District, who has expertise in teacher or personnel evaluation to review and make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the teacher’s evaluation.

Remediation Process of the Evaluation—

  1. Remediation
    1. A career teacher whose performance is inadequate or in need of improvement shall be provided with a written document identifying deficiencies, the available resources for improvement, and a recommended course of action to improve the educator's perform A TIPs plan could be created to assist in the educator's improvement. An educator is responsible for improving performance, including using any resources identified by the School District and demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement in the designated areas of deficiencies.
  2. Remediation Summative Evaluation
    1. At least thirty (30)days before the end of the educator’s contract school year, the principal, immediate supervisor, or appointed evaluator of an educator whose performance has been determined to be inadequate or in need of improvement shall complete all written evaluations and recommendations regarding the educator evaluated during the contract year. The evaluation shall contain only the data previously considered and discussed with the individual teacher as required in Section 53G­11-506.

Parameters of the Evaluation Process—

  1. Provisional Teachers - The evaluation process for Provisional Teachers will be as follows:
    1. Provisional Teachers shall receive multiple formative/walk-through observations throughout the school year and one summative evaluation using Policy GCNA-1. The summative evaluation should be completed by January 30. The principal and teacher shall sign a copy of the evaluations and keep a copy in the teacher’s file.
    2. Complete a self-evaluation each year usingthe District-approved Self-Evaluation FormGCNA-4 and review it with the principal at the end of the year. The principal or designee shall review the self-evaluation with the teacher and initiate a written improvement plan if needed. A copy of the self-evaluation shall be signed by the principal and teacher and kept in the teacher’s file.
    3. Participate in at least one professional development activity each year. It is the responsibility of the teacher to have these pre-approved, keep a record of themusing the TPGPForm GCNA-3, report themto their principal at the end of the school year, and provide information to the Utah State Office of Education as required for renewal of license.
    4. The principal or immediate supervisor of a provisional teacher shall assign a mentor who has received training or will receive training in provisional mentoring teachers. Still, the mentor teacher may be given to the remediation committee if one is needed.
      1. Where possible, the mentor shall be a career teacher who performs substantially the same duties as the provisional teacher and has at least three years of educational experience.
      2. The mentor shall assist the provisional teacher in becoming effective and competent in the teaching profession and school systembut may not serve as an evaluator of the provisional teacher. Still, the mentor teacher may be assigned to the remediation committee if one is needed.
      3. A teacher assigned as a mentor may receive compensation for those services and the educator’s salary.
  1. Probationary Teachers
    1. Probationary teachers shall be evaluated at least twice each school yearusing Policy GCNA.
  2. Career Teachers - The evaluation process for career teachers shall be ongoing and consist of the following:
    1. Complete a self-evaluation annually using District approved Self-Evaluation formand reviewed this information with the principal before the end of the school year.
    2. Be evaluated annually using lines of evidence, District Walk-Throughs, and Evaluations. District Policy GCNA-1.
    3. Participate in at least two professional development activities each year. It is the responsibility of the teacher to have these pre-approved, keep a record of themusing the District-approved TPGP, report them to their principal at the end of the school year, and provide information to the Utah State Office of Education as required for renewal of license.
  3. Teacher Professional Growth Plan (TPGP)
    1. Provisional teachers shall participate in at least one professional development activity each year, and career educators shall participate inat least two each year.
    2. All educators shall provide documentation of completed professional development activities to their supervising principal or designee on or before each school year usingthe TPGPForm GCNA-3. The TPGP Form lists the teachers’ instructional goals, goals supporting school/District goals, and personal and professional goals. Also included are specific activities/projects the educator will be involved with throughout the year and their progress to date. This is reviewed and signed at the beginning of each school year before September 1 and in May during principal/teacher check-out.
    3. The following is a list of recommended professional development activities. This list is not all-inclusive.
      1. For improvement, conduct a self-evaluation using a video recording of teaching a lesson; 
      2. Participate in curriculum development or course development for the District;
      3. Complete college classes for advanced degrees and/or for professional development;
      4. Do individual enrichment by reading and summarizing professional books, articles, journals, magazines, etc.;
      5. Attend a conference, in-service or educational workshop and then provide in-service to other staff members;
      6. Mentor a provisional educator and/or participate in peer observations;
      7. Visit other schools and/or class rooms and share with staff members;
      8. Attend teacher instructional academies;
      9. Conduct an action research project, e.g., evaluating student progress through statistical measurements or benchmarks and/or providing evidence of student achievement;
      10. Design and implement technology activities for your classroom;
      11. Participate in professional technology development;
      12. Serve on a District or school education committee;
      13. Participate in community service that is educationally focused;
      14. Take part in teaming or collaborative school projects;
      15. Receive educational recognition or an award for outstanding performance;
      16. Participate ineducationalactivities that count towards license renewal; and
      17. Complete other development activities that are pre-approved by the principal or district adm
  1. Assessment of Student Progress,Proficiency, and Growth 
    1. Annually, a teacher’s student achievement data (proficiency and growth) shall be reviewed, evaluated, and incorporated as a part of the teacher evaluation process.

Computing the Annual Summative Rating—

  1. Component ratings shall be based on actual observations and data gathered, calculated, or observed in alignment with the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and rubrics.
  2. Component ratings shall include: 
    1. Professional Performance 
    2. Student Growth
    3. Stakeholder Input
  3. Summative scores shall be reported annually for all educators using the approved terminology for reporti
    1. Not Effective = 0
    2. Emerging Effective /Minimally Effective= 1
    3. Effective = 2
    4. Highly Effective = 3

Right to Review a Summative Overall Rating—

  1. An educator who is not satisfied with a summative evaluation may request a review within 15 days after receiving the evaluation document. The following USOE standards shall conduct the review of the educator’s summative evaluation:Utah Code 53G­11-508, R277-­531, and R277-­533.
  2. Certified raters shall conduct the reviewwith experience rating educators by the Utah Effective Teaching Standards.
  3. A qualified panel of reviewers shall:
    1. Review the District Educator Evaluation policies and procedures.
    2. Review the evaluation process conducted for the educator.
    3. Review the evaluation data from the professional performance, student growth, and stakeholder input components.
    4. Report recommendations in writing to the Superintendent for action.
  1. Nothing in this Policy shall prevent the District from taking appropriate disciplinary action for misconductdefined in District policy DHA, the Utah Code, or Utah Administrative Rule.

Remediation Philosophy—

Within the South Sanpete School District, there are two primary reasons for evaluation of teachers: to assist teachers in continually improving the skills of their profession and provide evidence sufficient to terminate teachers who will not or cannot perform the teaching role (53-A-8-104-2). Consistent with these two reasons for evaluation, the South Sanpete School District has developed the Teacher Evaluation Model (GCNA and GCNA-1) and the Teacher Evaluation: Corrective/Remediation Model Procedure.

Remediation Procedure—

If an educator’s performance is inadequate through the Teacher Evaluation Model (GCNA/GCNA-1) or other substantiated evidence, that educator shall be placed on informal remediation.

Informal Remediation—

An educator will receive informal remediation if the principal observes emerging or below standard instruction and determines intervention is necessary.  

  1. Informal remediation could include, but is not limited to:
    1. Training and professional development tied tostudentdata
    2. Read aprofessional bookand discuss the application
    3. Observe ahighly-effective teacher and discuss the application
    4. Workwithpeers in a Professional Learning Community (PLC)

When the principal determines an educator is not meeting or demonstrating expected performance standards and the suggested interventions during informal remediation have not been effective, the principal shall informthe educator that they are being placed in formal remediation. This will occur when an educator receives a combined score of 1.5 or 1 (Minimal/Emerging or Not Effective) in any ten teaching standards.

Formal Remediation—

  1. If informal remediation is unsuccessful, the educator will be placed on formal remediation with a TIPs plan.The principal shall meet with and informthe educator in writing, stating why they are being placed on formal rem  The principal will form a remediation committee including (the principal, teacher, and an agreed-upon education mentor). The educator being placed on formal remediation may request a member of the South Sanpete Education Association or staff member be present at any or all conferences and meetings conducted in connection with the remediation process.  The principal will chair the remediation committee and continue to observe, evaluate, and recommend the instructional and performance standard improvements needed throughout the formal remediation process.
  2. Within five (5) instructional days after initiation of formal remediation, the Remediation Committee shall meet to review the principal's written statement of concerns fromthe Walk-Throughs and Summative Evaluations, which may include notes and information fromthe Post-Conference For It will select a Remediation Specialist to assist the educator. The Remediation Specialist will be an experienced educator with similar training. The Remediation Specialist may or may not be a member of the Remediation Committee at the time of selection; however, they will become part of the Remediation Committee if not previously a member.
  3. Within three (3) instructional days after the assignment of the Remediation Specialist, the principal will meet with the Specialist and the educator needing assistance to review the concerns fromthe evaluation process and to facilitate the scheduling of times for the Specialist to observe the performance of and to consult with the educator.
  4. The Remediation Specialist will conduct a preliminary review period for no lessthan five (5) and no more than ten (10) instructional days. The Remediation Specialist will prepare, in written form, a summary of their findings regarding the observations on the area(s)of concern. This summary will be submitted to the Remediation Committee and the identified educator by this review period.
  5. Within three (3) instructional days following the receipt of the findings of the Remediation Specialist, the principal will schedule a conference with the educator and Remediation Specialist. All written statements regarding the area(s) of concern will be reviewed and discussed during this conference. In consultation with the principal and the educator being remediated, the Remediation Specialist will develop a written plan designed to assist the educator in reaching acceptable performance standards.
  6. Forthe next twenty (20) instructional days, the Remediation Specialist and principal will work with the educator to ensure the established plan conducts remediation activities. The principal will ensure that adequate time is provided during contract hoursto observe and consult between the educator and Remediation Specialist.
  7. Within three (3) instructional days following the above 20-day implementation period, the principal will hold a conference with the Remediation Committee and the identified educator to evaluate progresstowardsimprovem If the Committee determines that satisfactory performance has been obtained, the principal will terminate the formal remediation process and inform the Superintendent of their action. If satisfactory performance has not been obtained, the remediation plan will be reviewed and may be adjusted as recommended by the principal, Remediation Specialist, or identified educator. An additional twenty (20) instructional days of remediation assistance will be conducted as outlined in Steps 5 and 6 of "Formal Remediation."
  8. If the Committee finds satisfactory performance has not been obtained after the second twenty (20) instructional days of remediation assistance, the educator will be placed on probation.
  9. After the Corrective/Remediation Model Procedure, the principal or designated administrator shall make a recommendation to the Superintendent and/or School Board to (1)remove the probationary status, (2)continuation of the re-mediation Corrective Model Procedure and probationary status, or (3) recommend suspension, dismissal, or non-renewal.
  10. This process shall be discussed with the educator, and due process shall be granted by District policy and Utah law.
  11. The probationary educator may petition the Board at the successful completion of the remediation process to be reinstated as a Career Educator.
  12. Personnel File - all information will be placed in the teacher's personnel file beginning at the status change notice. It will remain in the file for one year after the teacher is reinstated as a Career Educator.
  13. Nothing in this policy shall prevent the District from taking appropriate disciplinary action for misconduct defined in District policy, the Utah Code, or Utah Administrative Rule