GCO - Evaluation of Professional Staff

Date Adopted: 17 August 1988             

Current Review / Revision: 12 March 2025

In order to assure a high quality of teacher and administrator performance, and to advance the instructional programs of the public schools, the Board requires regular periodic evaluations of all professional staff members.

Each educator’s performance and effectiveness will be assessed within the scope of that person’s area of responsibility, system-wide goals and objectives, and individual performance objectives.

Major areas of responsibility in which individuals will be appraised are established in their job description.

Details of the Educator Evaluation process are found in the Educator Performance Evaluation Program document. http://evaluations.emeryschools.org/

Definitions—

For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:

1.      “Administrator” means an individual who holds an appropriate license and who supervises educators.

2.      "District administrator" means an individual who:

(a) serves in a position that requires an educator license with an administrative area of concentration, except as provided in Utah Code 53G-4-301 or 53E-6-304; and

(b) supervises school administrators.

3.      "School administrator" means an individual who:

(a) serves in a position that requires an educator license with an administrative area of concentration, except as provided in Utah Code 53E-6-304; and

(b) supervises teachers.

4.      “Career educator” means a licensed employee who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of the Board.

5.      “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. a superintendent, or

b. an individual who:

i. works less than three hours per day; or

ii. is hired for less than half of the school year.

6.      “Evaluator” means a person who is responsible for an educator’s summative evaluation.

7.      “Provisional educator” means an educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator within the District.

8.      “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.

9.      “Performance” means the combination of an educator’s professionalism consistent with:

a. The Utah Effective Educator Standards (R277-330),

b. Student academic growth, and

c. Continued professional growth as an educator.

10.  “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.

11.  “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.

12.  “Summative evaluation rating” means a rating of an educator’s performance that assigns one of three levels, which are:

a. One: The educator did not meet performance expectations. (This is also what is meant by “unsatisfactory performance.”)

b. Two: The educator partially met performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth or demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.

c. Three: The educator met performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth or demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.

13.  “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).

14.  “Academic growth” means demonstration of student learning through formative assessment measures identified by the District, school, or educator within the school year.

15.  “Continued professional growth” means incremental measures of improvement relevant to the Utah Effective Educator Standards.

16.  “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 Code § 53G-11-501 (2024)

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:

1. adopt or adapt an evaluation program for educators based on a model developed by the State Board of Education; or

2. 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 Code § 53G-11-506 (2019)

Utah Code § 53G-11-520 (2024)

Utah Admin. Rules R277-323-3(1), (8) (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)

Educator Evaluation Overview

Career Educators will be evaluated at least once annually prior to March 15 of the school year. Educators will also receive ongoing informal formative observations and conferences as appropriate and outlined in the Evaluation Tool.

Evaluations of educators will be conducted by their immediate Supervisor (Principal, Assistant Principal, District Supervisor or Superintendent).

The evaluation of all educators will follow the process as outlined in the District Educator Performance Evaluation Program adopted by the Board of Education. http://evaluations.emeryschools.org/

The annual evaluation document will be signed by the evaluator and reviewed with the educator being evaluated. A copy of the evaluation will be given to the educator and a copy will be submitted to the appropriate district supervisor or the superintendent to be reviewed and placed in the educator’s personnel file. 

Educators may request a procedural review of their evaluation process by submitting such request in writing to the Superintendent within 15 days after receiving the written summative evaluation.

An educator whose evaluation shows deficiencies that need to be remediated will be placed on Individualized Assistance (probation) and will receive written notice of such from their immediate supervisor. If a probationary educator fails to correct deficiencies found in their performance evaluation as outlined in their Individualized Assistance plan within the time-line specified, that person’s employment will be terminated according to district termination policies. Remediation time-lines will be established by the District but cannot exceed 120 school days. Also, if through the ongoing evaluation process, a deficiency for which there was an Individualized Assistance Plan completed, reoccurs within a three-year time period, the educator’s employment with the District may be terminated as per the District orderly dismissal policy. https://policies.emeryschools.org/gcq-professional-staff-orderly-dismissal

Performance Compensation and Educator Evaluation (Utah Code 53G-11-518)

An educator may not advance on the District salary schedule if the employee’s rating on the most recent evaluation is at the lowest level of an evaluation instrument unless the educator is a provisional educator or is in the first year of an assignment, including a new subject, grade level, or school.

An educator is not eligible for the supplementary salary appropriation from the legislature if the educator’s rating is at the lowest level of the most recent evaluation instrument.

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)

Evaluation and Compensation of Administrators (Utah Code 53G-11-518)

Definitions

 Evaluation of school and district administrators shall follow the process for other educators and shall also include:

(a)  student achievement indicators emphasizing learning growth and proficiency;

(b) the results of an evaluation tool utilized by the local school board that includes input from employees, parents, and students;

(c) the effectiveness of evaluating employee performance in a school or district for which the school or district administrator has responsibility; and

(d) other factors as outlined in the District evaluation program adopted by the Board of Education and in state law and State Board of Education rules; and

Educator evaluations must be performed by certified raters and shall maintain high standards of rater accuracy. To that end, the District shall:

1. Identify criteria for use in assigning evaluation ratings;

2. Provide professional development opportunities to all evaluators of licensed educators to:

(a) Assure evaluators understand the Utah Effective Educator Standards;

(b)  Improve proficiency in recognizing the criteria used in assigning evaluation ratings; and

(c) Give the evaluator an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to rate an educator in accordance with the Utah Effective Educator Standards;

3. Designate qualified raters as certified;

4. Assure that educators are rated by a certified evaluator; and

5. Establish a process for a certified evaluator to maintain the evaluator’s skills.

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.

Since the quality of instruction in the classroom is the most important factor in student success, any increase in a school or district administrator's salary, shall be based on the school or district administrator's effectiveness as an evaluator, as evidenced on their most recent evaluation.

The District shall continue each year to award any salary increases to a school or district administrator based on their annual evaluation as described above.

Previous Revision: 19 July 2017