Certified Employee Evaluation
For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:
- “Administrator” means an individual who holds an appropriate license issued by the State Board of Education 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 overall evaluation, including professional performance, student growth, stakeholder input, and other indicators of professional improvement.
- “Provisional educator” means an educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator within the District.
- “Rater” means a person who conducts an observation of an educator related to an educator’s evaluation.
- “Certified rater” means an educator who has been trained in evaluating educator performance and has demonstrated competency in using an educator evaluation tool to rate educator effectiveness according to established standards.
- “Summative evaluation” is an annual evaluation that summarizes an educator’s performance during a school year and that is used to make decisions related to the educator’s employment.
- “Committee” means the District’s Educator Evaluation Program Committee.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-2(2), (3), (4), (5) (June 7, 2018)
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 parent representatives shall be submitted by community councils within the District. The Board shall appoint committee members from the nomination lists. The Board shall adopt an educator evaluation program in consultation with the Educator Evaluation Program Committee. 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.
Periodic Written Evaluations—
The District shall have an evaluation system that provides systematic and fair written evaluations of educators of the District. Evaluations of educators shall occur annually. Such evaluations may be considered by the Board prior to any Board action concerning the individual’s employment.
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:
- a systematic annual evaluation of all provisional, probationary, and career educators
- the use of multiple lines of evidence, including:
- student and parent input;
- for administrator evaluation, employee input;
- a reasonable number of supervisor observations to ensure adequate reliability and consistent with Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-4;
- evidence of professional growth and other indicators of instructional improvement based on educator professional standards established by the State Board of Education;
- student academic growth data;
- a summative evaluation that differentiates among the four levels of performance.
The evaluation may provide for a reasonable number of peer observations.
For an administrator, the evaluation shall consider 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.
Deficiencies and Remediation—
The committee shall determine, for purposes of the educator evaluation program, what constitutes an inadequate performance or a performance in need of improvement as demonstrated by an educator’s evaluation.
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:
- specific, measurable, and actionable deficiencies;
- the available resources that will be provided for improvement, including a mentor; and
- a recommended course of action that will improve the educator’s performance.
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 (3) 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.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-3(4) (June 7, 2018)
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 and give the educator a copy of the evaluation instrument, if an instrument is used.
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 rater and has expertise in teacher or personnel evaluation to review and make written findings reported to the superintendent regarding the educator’s summative evaluation. A review of an educator’s summative evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-8.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-8 (June 7, 2018)
Mentor for New Educators—
Provisional educators and educators who meet the qualifications set out in Policy DFA shall be assigned a mentor who satisfies the requirements for mentors in Policy DFA
The educator shall be provided services by the mentor as set out in Policy DFA. A mentor assigned to an educator may not serve as an evaluator of that educator
Utah Admin. Rules R277-301-8(2), (3) (June 7, 2022)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-308-2(2) (February 7, 2019)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-308-3 (February 7, 2019)
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 Admin. Rules R277-487-6 (November 8, 2019)
Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-9 (June 7, 2018)
Rater Reliability Process—
Educator evaluations must be performed by certified raters and shall maintain high standards of rater accuracy. To that end, the District shall:
- Create standardized ratings established by a committee of expert raters to be used for rater professional development and certification;
- Provide professional development opportunities to all raters and evaluators of licensed educators to:
- Improve a rater or evaluator’s abilities; and
- Give the rater or evaluator an opportunity to demonstrate the rater’s abilities 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 rater; and
- Offer a rater opportunities to improve the rater’s skills through instruction and practice.
Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-4(4) (June 7, 2018)