Policy DG - Certified Employee Evaluation
Policy DG - Certified Employee Evaluation (PDF)
Issue Date: July 15, 2020
Updated: October 23, 2024
Definitions
For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:
- “Administrator” means an individual who holds an appropriate license and who supervises educators.
- “Career educator” means a licensed employee who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of the Board.
- “Educator” means an individual employed by the District who is required to hold a professional license issued by the State Board of Education, except:
- a superintendent, or
- an individual who:
- works less than three hours per day; or
- is hired for less than half of the school year.
- “Evaluator” means a person who is responsible for an educator’s summative evaluation.
- "Provisional educator” means an educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator within the District.
- “Certified evaluator” means an educator who has been trained in evaluating educator performance and has demonstrated competency in using an educator evaluation tool to rate educator performance according to established standards.
- “Performance” means the combination of an educator’s professionalism consistent with:
- The Utah Effetive Educator Standards (R277-330)
- Student academic growth, and
- Continued professional growth as an educator.
- “Formative evaluation” means a planned, ongoing process which allows educators to engage in reflection and growth of professional skills as related to the Utah Effective Teaching Standards.
- “Summative evaluation” means an evaluation conducted by a supervisor that summarizes an educator’s performance during an evaluation cycle that is used to make decisions or ratings of an educator’s performance and that may inform decisions related to the educator’s salary, continued employment, personnel assignment, transfer, or dismissal.
- “Summative evaluation rating” means a rating of an educator’s performance that assigns one of three levels, which are:
- One: The educator did not meet performance expectations. (This is also what is meant by “unsatisfacoty performance.”)
- Two: The educator partially met performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth or demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.
- Three: The educator met performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth or demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.
- “Chronically absent” means a student who was enrolled in the District for at least 60 calendar days and missed 10% or more days of instruction (whether the absence was excused or not).
- “Academic Growth” means demonstration of student learning through formative assessment measures identified by the District, school, or educator within the school year.
- “Continued professional growth” means incremental measures of improvement relevant to the Utah Effective Educator Standards.
- “Observation” means a formal or informal visit made by an administrator to an educator’s classroom for the purpose of gathering formative information, providing feedback for growth, and informing decisions related to the educator’s summative evaluation.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-2 (July 8, 2024)
Educator Evaluation Program Committee
To develop, support, monitor and maintain an educator evaluation program, the Board shall establish a committee comprised of an equal number of classroom teachers, parents, and administrators. Nominees for classroom teacher members shall be voted upon by the District’s classroom teachers and a list of those individuals nominated shall be given to the Board. Nominees for administrator members shall be voted on by the District’s administrators and a list of those individuals nominated shall be given to the Board. Nominees for parent representatives shall be submitted by community councils within the District. The Board shall appoint committee members from the nomination lists. The committee may:
- adopt or adapt an evaluation program for educators based on a model developed by the State Board of Education; or
- create its own evaluation program for educators.
The evaluation program developed by the committee must comply with the requirements of Utah Code Title 53G, Chapter 11, Part 5 and rules adopted by the State Board of Education.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-3(1), (8) (July 8, 2024)
Adoption of Educator Evaluation Program
The Board of Education shall adopt an educator evaluation program in consultation with the Educator Evaluation ProgramProgram Committee. The Board of Education shall review and approve the educator evaluation program in an open meeting.
Utah Code § 53G-11-520(4) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-3(1), (2) (July 8, 2024)
Periodic Evaluations
The District shall have an evaluation program that provides systematic and fair evaluations of educators of the District. Evaluations of educators shall occur annually. If the District establishes an alternative educator evaluation program as permitted under Utah Code § 53G-11-520, the program shall include an annual formative evaluation of each educator and shall include a summative evaluation for each educator that occurs at least once every four years. Otherwise, all educators will receive formative evaluations each year and a summative evaluation each year. Such evaluations may be considered by the Board prior to any Board action concerning the individual’s employment.
Utah Code § 53G-11-507(1)(a) (2024)
Utah Code § 53G-11-520(9)(a) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-3(3), (4) (July 8, 2024)
Evaluation Program Components
The District’s evaluation program for educators adopted by the Board in consultation with the Educator Evaluation Program Committee shall be a reliable and valid educator evaluation program that evaluates educators based on educator professional standards established by the Utah State Board of Education and includes:
- annual evaluation of all provisional, probationary, and career educators, including formative and summative evaluations on the cycle established in the evaluation program;
- the use of multiple lines of evidence, including:
- self-evaluation of performance in relation to the Utah Effective Educator Standards;
- student and parent input;
- results of multiple observations done with tools aligned to the Utah Effective Educator Standards;
- evidence of student academic growth as specified by the District;
- other indicators of professional improvement as specified by the District;
- a summative evaluation that differentiates among the three levels of performance.
The evaluation may provide for a reasonable number of peer observations.
For an administrator, the evaluation shall consider feedback from teachers, including input on the effectiveness of the administrator evaluating employee performance in a school for which the administrator has responsibility or within the District.
The educator evaluation system may not use end-of-level student assessment scores and may not use the data of a student that is chronically absent.
Utah Code § 53G-11-520(9), (10) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-3(3), (5), (6) (July 8, 2024)
Summative Evaluation and Review of Evaluation
The person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall, at least fifteen (15) days before an educator’s first evaluation, notify the educator of the evaluation process, give the educator a copy of or access to the evaluation instrument, if an instrument is used, and give the educator notice of potential consequences (including discipline and termination) if an educator fails to meet performance expectations.
The person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall allow the educator to respond to any part of the evaluation and, if the response is written, attach the educator’s responses to the evaluation.
Within fifteen (15) days after the evaluation process is completed, the person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall:
- Discuss the written evaluation with the educator;
- Based on the educator’s performance, assign one of the four levels of performance.
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 is a certified evaluator and has experience in evaluating educators to review the evaluation. The reviewing evaluator conducts the review in accordance with the Utah Effective Eduactor Standards. The reviewing evaluator shall review (1) the District’s educator evaluation policies and procedures, (2) the evaluation process for the educator, (3) the evaluation data from the professional performance, student academic growth, and stakeholders input components, and (4) any written response to the evaluation submitted by the educator. The reviewing evaluator will provide the superintendent with a written report of findings regarding the initial evaluation. The superintendent will then determine if the initial evaluation was issued in accordance with (1) the District’s educator evaluation policies, (2) the requirements of the Utah Effective Educator Standards, (3) Utah Code Title 53G, Chapter 11, and Utah Admin Rules 277-323.
Utah Code § 53G-11-520(11), (12) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-5 (July 8, 2024)
Support for Educators
If an educator receives an unsatisfactory performance rating, the District shall provide the educator with support for academic impact improvement consistent with Utah Code Title 53G, Chapter 11, Part 5, including:
- Assessing the professional needs of the educator and
- Providing mentors, coaches, or instructional specialists to assist the educator in establishing timelines and benchmarks for improving academic impact.
The District also may provide assistance to any educator in need of support with professional growth as an educator or with student tacademic growth.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-6 (July 8, 2024)
Restriction on Salary Adjustments
An educator who has received an unsatisfactory rating on any of the educator’s three most recent evaluations (either formative or summative) is not eligible for a bonus under Utah Code § 53F-2-405.
Utah Code § 53F-2-405(4)(c) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-110-3(1)(e) (August 8, 2023)
Educator Evaluation Data
Educator evaluation records are private and are classified as private for purposes of the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act and shall only be accessed by the educator’s principal or immediate supervisor, by those who need the information in those records in considering employment decisions, or by the superintendent or designee. Employees shall be trained regarding the confidential nature of employee evaluations and the importance of securing those evaluations and records. The District may not release or disclose student assessment information which reveals educator evaluation information or records.
Utah Code § 53G-11-520(3)(d) (2024)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-487-6 (November 8, 2019)
Evaluation System Reliability
Educator evaluations must be performed by certified raters and shall maintain high standards of rater accuracy. To that end, the District shall:
- Identify criteria for use in assigning evaluation ratings;
- Provide professional development opportunities to all evaluators of licensed educators to:
- Assure evaluators understand the Utah Effective Educator Standards;
- Improve proficiency in recognizing the criteria used in assigning evaluation ratings; and
- Give the evaluator an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to rate an educator in accordance with the Utah Effective Educator Standards;
- Designate qualified raters as certified;
- Assure that educators are rated by a certified evaluator; and
- Establish a process for a certified evaluator to maintain the evaluator’s skills.