TEACHER/EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST EVALUATION
POLICY
Recognizing that our school
district’s most valuable asset are its educators, the Board of Education of
Ashland Greenwood Public Schools acknowledges the need for the continuing
evaluation of the performance of teachers and educational specialists employed by
Ashland-Greenwood Public Schools and requires the Superintendent to ensure that
such evaluation is carried out as outlined in this policy. It shall be the responsibility of the
Superintendent to develop appropriate regulations, procedures, and forms to
implement this policy and to ensure that the policy, regulations, and
procedures comply with Nebraska law and Nebraska Department of Education
regulations regarding the evaluation of certificated personnel.
District Mission: Our School with family and community cooperation, promotes lifelong learning to awaken, develop, and enhance the individual potential.
A.
Purposes. The Board recognizes two major purposes for
the evaluation of the performance of teachers and educational specialists:
(1) To assist teachers and educational
specialists in developing their knowledge and skills in order to improve
teaching and learning in the district’s schools.
(2)
To assess the performance of teachers
and educational specialists so that the Board may make employment decisions as
provided in state law.
B.
Applicability. This policy is applicable to the following
categories of certificated employees:
(1)
Teachers, defined as those certificated
employees whose primary assignment is the direct teaching of students.
(2)
Educational specialists, defined as
certificated employees whose primary assignment is to provide instructional
support or special services to teachers and students and whose job assignment
requires a Nebraska teaching or special services certificate. This category includes, but is not limited
to, instructional support teachers, library-media specialists, technology
coordinators, curriculum coordinators, school activity coordinators, guidance
counselors, speech/language therapists, physical and occupational therapists, and
certificated school nurses.
Administrators, defined as those
employees whose primary assignment requires them to hold a Nebraska
administrative and supervisory certificate, are not covered by this
policy.
C. Definitions. For purposes of this policy, these terms
are defined as follows:
(1)
Evaluation
Cycle. The evaluation cycle is the
period of time during which a full summative evaluation of an employee’s performance
takes place. The evaluation cycle of
probationary teachers/educational specialists shall be one school year. The evaluation cycle for permanent (tenured)
teachers/educational specialists covered by this policy may be up to three
school years.
(2)
Summative
Evaluation. Summative evaluation
takes place at the end of the evaluation cycle and includes the assessment of
all components of the evaluation process.
(3)
Formative
Evaluation. Formative evaluation
takes place at specified points within the evaluation cycle and includes the
rating of some components of the evaluation process and may include a
non-summative review of other components.
(4)
Formal Observation. The formal observation of a teacher or
educational specialist shall include:
(1) advance notice to the
employee of the time and date of the observation; (2) a
pre-observation conference with the observer;
(3) observation for a full
instructional period in the case of probationary employees and for a duration
determined by the observer in the case of permanent employees; (4) a
post-observation conference with the observer, and (5) a written report summarizing strengths and
suggestions for improvement.
(5)
Informal Observation. Informal observations are less than a full
instructional period in duration, but somewhat longer than a walk-through
observation. A duration of 15-20 minutes
may be appropriate. Informal
observations may be pre- announced or unannounced. They must include some oral or written
feedback to the employee, but a formal post-conference and written observation
report are not required unless specific deficiencies are noted. For example, a brief, informal conversation
or e-mail exchange would suffice to meet this requirement.
(6)
Walk-through Observation. Walk-through observations are brief classroom
or work space visits, generally 5 to 10 minutes in duration for the purpose of
monitoring the teaching and learning process.
Such observations are generally unannounced and do not include a conference
or required written report. Brief oral
or written feedback to the employee may be provided at the observer’s
discretion, but is not required unless specific deficiencies are noted.
(7)
Full instructional period. For purposes of required classroom
observations, a full instructional period shall be defined as the full duration
of the class or subject period in which the observation is taking place on the
day that the observation is taking place.
For the observation of the work of probationary educational specialists,
the duration of the observation should be for the equivalent of a typical
instructional period as listed on the normal daily schedule of the school in
which he or she is being observed.
(8)
Instructional
Framework. For purposes of
gathering data on teaching practices and the analysis of such practices, the
district shall use the following instructional framework: Robert Marzano’s Causal Teacher Evaluation Model.
(9)
Student Learning Objectives/Specialist
Program Objectives.
For purposes of teacher and educational specialist evaluation, student
achievement and program performance results shall be assessed through the use
of Student Learning Objectives or Specialist Program Objectives. In collaboration with his/her evaluator,
each teacher or educational specialist shall develop Student Learning
Objectives or Specialist Program Objectives each school year. The teacher/specialist will receive an
annual evaluation rating based on his/her implementation of strategies designed
to achieve these objectives and his/her results in achieving the objectives.
(10)
Individual
Professional Development Plan. On
an annual basis, beginning the second year of implementation each
teacher/educational specialist shall develop an Individual Professional Development
Plan based on the results of his/her most current evaluation. The plan is to be developed in collaboration
with his/her evaluator and consist of one or more professional development
goals, strategies to achieve each of the goals, and a means of measuring
success. The teacher/educational
specialist will receive an evaluation rating each year (beginning the 2nd
year of implementation) on his/her success in implementing the professional
development strategies and achieving the goals.
(11)
Student
Perception Data. Student perception
data shall be collected via student surveys at least once during each
evaluation cycle for each teacher/educational specialist. The teacher/educational specialist will not
receive an evaluation rating based on the survey results, but the results will
provide data to assist the evaluator and teacher/educational specialist in
identifying areas of strength and areas for professional growth.
(12)
Primary and Complementary Evaluators. All
evaluators of teachers and educational specialists employed by the district
shall be certificated administrators.
The primary evaluator for each teacher/educational specialist is that
employee’s supervisor. In the case of
teachers/educational specialists who are supervised by more than one supervisor,
the Superintendent shall designate one supervisor as the primary
evaluator. Complementary evaluators are
certificated administrators, such as assistant principals or district-level
administrators, who have been designated to assist the primary evaluator.
(13)
Peer Assistance. By mutual agreement of the teacher/educational
specialist and his/her primary evaluator, a peer observer may be asked to
observe and provide feedback to the teacher/educational specialist as part of a
Plan for Improvement or Plan of
Assistance. However, the results
of such observation may not be used for evaluative purposes.
(14)
Plan for Improvement. A rating of “Basic” in any component of a teacher/educational
specialist’s formative or summative evaluation will lead to a specific Plan for
Improvement in that component. The Plan
for Improvement will outline the reason(s) for the rating of “Basic” and
provide recommendations for improvement and a timeline for implementing such recommendations. The employee and his/her evaluator shall
review progress on the Plan for Improvement at least once per semester.
(15)
Plan of Assistance. A rating of “Unsatisfactory” in any component of a
teacher/educational specialist’s formative or summative evaluation will result
in the development of a Plan of Assistance. The plan will include a description
of the deficiencies that led to the “Unsatisfactory” rating, specific means for
the correction of the deficiencies, and an adequate timeline for implementing
the required improvements. As
appropriate, the plan may also include resources and sources of assistance to
help the employee make the necessary corrections. The Plan of Assistance shall be reviewed at
least quarterly by the teacher/educational specialist and the evaluator.
D. Evaluative
Criteria. By adopting the
evaluative criteria listed below, the Board ensures that all teachers/education
specialists are evaluated on instructional performance and classroom
organization and management and are evaluated on personal and professional
conduct in accordance with Nebraska Department of Education Rule 10.
(1) Teacher/Educational
Specialist Practice. Teacher
practice will be evaluated based on the Effective Practices cited in the Nebraska Teacher Performance Framework. In
order to develop appropriate evaluative criteria for educational specialists, the
Superintendent shall review the Nebraska Framework’s Effective Practices and make
such additions, deletions, or revisions as are necessary.
(2) Classroom
Practice. The analysis of classroom
practice for teachers shall be based on the district’s chosen instructional framework. The Superintendent shall designate Robert
Marzano’s Causal Evaluation Model as the district’s instructional
framework. The analysis of practice for
educational specialists shall be based on specialist rubrics designated by the
Superintendent. The results of the
assessment of classroom or educational specialist practice shall comprise data
for the evaluative ratings within the Nebraska Frameworks Effective
Practices.
(3) Student Learning Objectives/Specialist
Program Objectives. Student
achievement or program performance shall be evaluated based on Student Learning
Objectives or Specialist Program Objectives, as appropriate. The Superintendent shall develop or adopt
appropriate rubrics to assess teacher/educational specialist performance on
such objectives.
(4) Professional
Development. Professional
development of teachers/educational specialists shall be evaluated through an
annual rating of the employee’s Individual Professional Development Plan. The Superintendent shall develop or adopt
appropriate rubrics to assess performance on such plans.
(5) (Optional).
Additional Local Standards.
The Superintendent may propose to the Board for adoption such additional
local standards for teachers/educational specialists as may be
appropriate.
(6) Overall
Performance. Based on the criteria
above, an overall performance rating shall be determined by the evaluator of
each teacher/educational specialist as part of the employee’s summative
evaluation.
E. Levels
of Performance. The performance of
teachers/educational specialists shall be rated at four levels of performance
on the evaluative criteria listed below.
The ratings terms and general criteria for their application are:
(1) Exemplary—In the judgment of the
evaluator, the teacher/educational specialist meets district performance
standards for all evaluative criteria and exceeds expected performance in many
respects. He/she takes a leadership role
in professional development and school leadership activities.
(2) Proficient—In the judgment of the
evaluator, the teacher/educational specialist meets district performance
standards for the evaluative criteria on an overall basis and is actively
engaged in professional development and school leadership efforts.
(3) Basic—In the judgment of the evaluator,
the teacher/educational specialist meets district performance standards for
most evaluative criteria and is satisfactorily participating in an improvement
plan for those criteria rated below “Proficient”.
(4) Unsatisfactory—In the judgment of the
evaluator, the teacher/educational specialist does not meet district
performance standards for a significant segment of the evaluative criteria and
improvement efforts have been inadequate.
F. Evaluation
Procedures.
1. Annual
Notice. The Superintendent shall
annually ensure that teacher/educational specialists are made aware of the evaluation
policy and procedures in writing by including it in the Faculty Handbook or
other notice to employees.
2. Evaluation
Cycle/Sequence of Evaluation Activities.
A Teacher/Educational Specialist Evaluation Procedures Sequence is
included as an Appendix to this policy.
(a)
Probationary Teachers/Educational
Specialists.
Teachers and educational specialists in probationary status shall have
an annual evaluation cycle consisting of a formative evaluation during the
first semester and a summative evaluation during the second semester. Each semester’s evaluation shall include a
formal observation for a full instructional period as described in this policy
and ratings based on the Nebraska Effective Practices and the district’s local
standards. In addition, the summative
evaluation shall include ratings on Student Learning Objectives/Specialist
Program Objectives performance and, in the second probationary year and
subsequently, a rating on Individual Professional Development Plan performance
as well as an overall rating based on the evaluator’s judgment of performance
on all components of the evaluation process.
(b)
Permanent (Tenured) Teachers/Educational
Specialists. Teachers
and educational specialists in permanent status may have up to a three-year
evaluation cycle as determined by his/her evaluator. At any point, the evaluator can return the
teacher/specialist to an annual or more frequent evaluation cycle if the
employee’s performance warrants. A
three-year evaluation cycle shall include two years of annual formative
evaluations and one year of summative evaluation. The formative years shall include
informal/walk-through observations with the number and duration of observations
to be determined by the evaluator, a rating on Student Learning Objectives/Specialist
Program Objectives performance, a rating on Individual Professional Development
Plan performance, and a rating on the district’s local standards, if
applicable. The summative year shall
include, in addition to the ratings described above, at least one formal
observation and conference with the duration of the observation to be
determined by the evaluator, ratings on the Nebraska Effective Practices, and
an overall rating based on the evaluator’s judgment of performance on all
components of the evaluation process.
3. Gathering Evaluation data. The district’s evaluation system is based on
data gathered from multiple measures of teacher and educational specialist
performance, including but not limited to the following:
(a)
Direct observation of work performance. The evaluation of all
teachers and educational specialists covered by this policy will be based in
part on direct observation of the staff member performing his/her duties. The Board encourages multiple observations of
teacher and educational specialist performance throughout the school year,
including formal, informal, and
walk-through observations. For probationary teachers, each semester’s evaluation process will
include at least one formal observation as defined in this policy for a full
instructional period. For probationary
educational specialists for whom classroom observation is not possible, direct
observation of employee performance will be for the equivalent of a full
instructional period for the school in which the specialist serves. For permanent teachers and educational
specialists, at least one formal observation of employee performance with the
duration to be determined by the evaluator shall be conducted during the summative
year of the evaluation cycle. Informal
and walk-through observations with the frequency and duration to be determined
by the evaluator shall be conducted during the formative years of the
evaluation cycle.
Per Nebraska law, if deficiencies are noted in the work
performance of any probationary or permanent employee, the evaluator shall
provide the employee at the time of the observation with a list of
deficiencies, a list of suggestions for improvement, and assistance in
overcoming the deficiencies, and follow-up evaluations and assistance when
deficiencies remain.
(b)
The collection of data/artifacts. Evaluators shall endeavor to collect a wide
variety of data regarding employee performance including artifacts such as
lesson plans, student work, and similar data.
(c)
Student
perception data. At
least once during the evaluation cycle, typically during the summative year,
the evaluator shall arrange for the sampling of student perception via a
student survey which may be developed by the district or other entities. The Superintendent shall approve the
specific surveys to be administered and shall approve the procedures for
administration of the student surveys.
The size and composition of the sample shall be determined by the
evaluator after consultation with the teacher/educational specialist. Survey
procedures must ensure the privacy and confidentiality of student responses and
the results of the survey shall remain confidential as part of the
teacher/educational specialist’s employee record. The teacher/educational specialist will not
be rated on the survey results. Rather,
the information gathered shall be used to help the evaluator identify areas of
strength and areas for professional development.
(d)
Student
achievement/program performance data. On an annual basis, teachers and educational
specialists shall develop and implement either a Student Learning Objectives
(SLO) plan or, if student achievement is not an appropriate measure of a
specialist’s performance, a Specialist Program Objectives (SPO) plan. For the 2013-14 school year, each
teacher/educational specialist participating in the Nebraska Evaluation Model
Pilot Project shall develop and implement one Student Learning Objective or
Special Program Objective. For
subsequent years, each teacher/educational specialist shall develop and
implement Student Learning Objectives or Special Program Objectives for the
school year. The Superintendent shall
develop procedures for creating, implementing, and evaluating SLO’s and SPO’s
and shall ensure that all teachers and evaluators have received training in the
SLO/SPO process. The evaluation of
SLO’s/SPO’s shall include an assessment of the quality and rigor of the
objective, the implementation of strategies designed to achieve the objective,
and the achievement results.
(e)
Evidence
of professional development. On an annual basis, teachers and educational
specialists shall develop and implement an Individual Professional Development
Plan based on the results of the employee’s most recent summative
evaluation. The rationale for this
component is that the professional development goals and activities should
arise out of professional development needs identified during the evaluation
process and which are closely linked to the evaluation process. The development of an Individual Professional
Development Plan directly linked to the summative evaluation, does not preclude
the existence of schoolwide professional development activities in which
teachers and educational specialists are expected to participate or the
creation specific individual professional development goals and activities that
are not a formal part of the evaluation process.
In the initial two years of implementation
of this evaluation system, those teachers/educational specialists in the
formative year(s) of the cycle shall develop Individual Professional
Development Plans in collaboration with their evaluators. These plans will be reviewed annually, but
will not receive an evaluative rating.
Following the teacher/educational specialist’s first summative
evaluation year, he/she will develop an Individual Professional Development
Plan in collaboration with his/her evaluator and will receive an evaluative
rating on progress in achieving the goals contained in the plan at the end of
the following year and each year subsequently.
The Plan will be revised annually based on evaluation results.
The Superintendent shall develop
procedures for creating, implementing, and evaluating IPD Plans and shall
ensure that all teachers and evaluators have received training in the IPD Plan
process. The evaluation of the IPD
Plan shall include an assessment of the quality and rigor of the professional
development goals, the implementation of strategies designed to achieve the
goals, and the achievement results.
(f)
Self-assessment/reflection. Self-assessment
and reflection is a component of the evaluation system. The Superintendent shall develop or adopt
appropriate procedures and documents for such a process for teachers/educational
specialists.
4. Conferences and Reports. The Board encourages frequent conferences
and the sharing of both oral and written feedback between teachers/educational
specialists and evaluators. Formal
observations require a pre-conference, post-conference, and written observation
report; informal observations require some type of oral or written feedback but
not a full post-conference and report, and walk-through observations do not
require feedback. For any observation,
a conference and written report is required if specific deficiencies are
noted. Conferences to review progress on
Student Learning Objectives/Specialist Program Objectives and conferences to
reviewing progress on each teacher/specialist’s Individual Professional
Development Plan should be held at intervals throughout the year. The Procedures Sequence (Appendix I) suggests
appropriate times for these. For
probationary teachers/educational specialists, a formative evaluation
conference and the completion of the formative evaluation document is to be
held at the end of the first semester of each probationary year. A summative evaluation conference and
completion of the summative evaluation document is to be held during the second
semester of each probationary year. For
permanent teachers/educational specialists, formative evaluation conferences
and the completion of the formative evaluation document are to be held at the
end of each formative evaluation year; a summative evaluation conference and
the completion of the summative evaluation document is to be held during the
second semester of the summative evaluation year. A copy of any written feedback prepared in
conjunction with observations and conferences shall be shared with the
teacher/educational specialist and retained as part of the employee’s
evaluation file. However, this
provision shall not require evaluators to share notes or other work product
which do not become part of the employee’s evaluation file.
5. Procedures
for addressing deficiencies in performance. If deficiencies are noted in any observation,
the evaluator is to provide the teacher/educational specialist at the time of
the observation with a list of the deficiencies, a list of suggestions for
improvement, and assistance in overcoming the deficiencies, and follow-up
evaluations and assistance when deficiencies remain. A description of the
deficiencies and suggestions for improvements shall be provided both orally and
in writing by the evaluator in a timely fashion following the observation and a
copy of this report shall be retained as part of the employee’s evaluation
file. The teacher/specialist shall
acknowledge receipt of the evaluator’s report.
A
rating of “Basic” in any component of a teacher/educational specialist’s
formative or summative evaluation will lead to a specific Plan for Improvement
in that component. The Plan for
Improvement will outline the reason(s) for the rating of “Basic” and provide
suggestions for improvement and a timeline for implementing such suggestions. The Plan for Improvement shall be reviewed by
the teacher/educational specialist and his/her evaluator at least once per
semester. An overall rating of “Basic”
on a summative evaluation will require, in addition to an overall Plan for
Improvement, that the teacher/educational specialist be placed on an annual
summative evaluation cycle.
A rating of “Unsatisfactory”
in any component of a teacher/educational specialist’s formative or summative
evaluation will result in the development of a Plan of Assistance. The plan
will include a description of the deficiencies that led to the “Unsatisfactory”
rating, specific means for the correction of the deficiencies, and an adequate
timeline for implementing the required improvements. As appropriate, the plan may also include
resources and sources of assistance to help the employee make the necessary
corrections. The Plan of Assistance
shall be reviewed at least quarterly by the teacher/educational specialist and
the evaluator to determine progress in correcting the deficiencies noted. Teachers/educational specialists
participating in a Plan of Assistance shall receive a summative evaluation
based on the relevant components once per semester.
The
Superintendent shall develop or adopt procedures and documents to be used for
implementing Plans of Assistance and Plans for Improvement.
6. Written response. Teachers/educational specialists may
submit a written response to any formative or summative evaluation document,
observation report, or any other written report which has become part of their
evaluation file. Such responses shall be
attached to the document being responded to and shall be retained in the
evaluation file. Responses shall be
filed within 60 days of the receipt of the original evaluation document.
7. Training
of Evaluators. All of the
district’s evaluators shall possess a valid Nebraska Administrative and
Supervisory Certificate and be trained in the use of the evaluation system and
its forms and procedures. The
Superintendent shall determine the nature of appropriate training for
evaluators and arrange for all evaluators to receive such training prior to
participating in evaluations.
8. Development and revision of documents. The Superintendent shall be responsible for
the development and revision of forms and documents necessary to implement this
policy. The development and revision of
such forms and procedures will not require Board approval.
9. Appendices:
Appendix I:
Teacher/Educational Specialist Evaluation Procedures Sequence
APPENDIX I
TEACHER/EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST EVALUATION PROCEDURES SEQUENCE
The Nebraska Leadership Committee has recommended a teacher/educational
specialist evaluation cycle of up to three years. Below are the sequences of activities
required to evaluate probationary teachers/specialists twice per year and
permanent (tenured) employees on a two- or three-year cycle. Note that teachers/specialists performing at
a less than proficient level can be moved to a semester-long or year-long cycle
at any time by making the sequence adjustments accordingly. Note that Individual Professional
Development Plans (IPDP) are developed at the end of the year following a
summative evaluation and evaluated at the end of the following year. This is because IPD plans are linked to the result
of the previous evaluation. Student
Learning Objectives are developed near the beginning of the year and evaluated
in the same year.
|
PROBATIONARY
TEACHERS (One-Year Cycle) |
|
|
Semester 1 Activities: |
Semester 2 Activities: |
|
|
|
TENURED
TEACHER FORMATIVE YEAR(S) |
TENURED
TEACHER SUMMATIVE YEAR |
|
|
|
|
RULE
10 CERTIFICATED EMPLOYEE EVALUATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Checklist
The written procedures for the certificated evaluation school board policy includes:
_____ 007.06A1a Provide for communicating the evaluation procedure annually, in writing, to those being evaluated
_____ 007.06A1b A description of the duration and frequency of observations and written evaluations for probationary and permanent certificated employees
_____ Duration of observation for probationary certificated employees
_____ Frequency of observations and evaluations for probationary certificated employees
_____ Duration of observation for permanent certificated employees
_____ Frequency of observations and evaluations for permanent certificated employees
_____ Superintendent evaluation twice during the first year of employment and at least once annually thereafter pursuant to §79-8828(2)
_____ 007.06A1c Contain criteria for certificated employee evaluation which includes:
_____ 007.06A1c(1) instructional performance (applicable to teachers only)
_____ 007.06A1c(2) classroom organization and management (applicable to teachers only)
_____ 007.06A1c(3) personal and professional conduct
_____ 007.06A1d Provide for written communication to the teacher specifying:
_____ (1) deficiencies
_____ (2) a means for correcting the deficiencies
_____ (3) a timeline for implementing the
suggested improvements
_____ 007.06A1e Provide for a written certificated employee response to the evaluation
_____ 007.06A1f A description of the district plan for training evaluators
_____ Copies of the board certificated employee evaluation policy, the evaluation model (procedures), and the board minutes approving the policies and procedures have been submitted.
Adopted: June 17, 2013