Logan City School District

Download PDF

Created Date: 20 May 2025
Adopted: 20 May 2025

DG- Employee Evaluation

1. The following outlines the procedures Logan City School District will follow in evaluating its educators.

   1. Definitions
      For purposes of this policy the following definitions apply:

      1. “Administrator” means an individual who holds an appropriate license issued by the State Board of Education and who supervises educators.

      2. “Career Educator” means a licensed employee who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of the board.

      3. “Educator” means an individual employed by the District who is required to hold a professional license issued by the State Board of Education, except:

         1. a superintendent, or

         2. an individual who:

            1. works less than three hours per day; or

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

      4. “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.

      5. “Provisional educator” means an educator who has not achieved status as a career educator in the District.

      6. “Rater” means a person who conducts an observation of an educator related to an educator’s evaluation.

      7. “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.

      8. “Temporary educator” means anyone hired after August 1st during any contract period. While temporary educators will be valuated annually, temporary Educators serve at the will of the district and may terminated at any time at the sole discretion of the District regardless of evaluation outcome.

      9. “Summative evaluation” means the annual evaluation that summarized an educator’s performance during a school year and this used to make decisions related to the educator’s employment.

      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, It occurs in any year an educator is not on a summative evaluation.

      11. “Committee” means the District’s Educator Evaluation Program Committee.

      12. “UETS” Utah Effective Teaching Standards
          Utah Code § 53G-11-501 (2020)
          Utah Admin. Rules R277-533-2(2) (June 7, 2018)

      13. “Letter of Expectation” is a letter outlining educator’s deficiencies in performance in any area, including instruction and expectations to reach expected Utah Educator Teaching Standards.

2. 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. The Board shall adopt an educator evaluation program in consultation with the Educator Evaluation Program Committee. 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 Sections 53G-11-507 through 53G-11-511 and rules adopted by the state board under Sections 53G-11-510.

      Utah Code § 53G-11-506 (2019)
3. 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.
   Utah Code § 53G-11-507(1)(a) (2019)
4. Mentor for New Educators
   The principal of a Provisional Educator shall assign a mentor teacher to work with the Provisional Educator. The mentor shall assist the Provisional Educator to become effective and competent in the teaching profession and school system. The mentor teacher shall not serve as an evaluator of the Provisional Educator. While the mentor teacher shall provide reasonable guidance and direction, based on observation and knowledge, it shall be the ultimate responsibility of the Provisional Educator to seek advice and assistance as necessary from the mentor teacher.
   Utah Code § 53G-11-509 (2019)
   Utah Admin. Rules R277-308-2(2) (February 7, 2019)
   Utah Admin. Rules R277-308-3 (February 7, 2019)
5. Evaluation Program Components
   The District’s evaluation program for educators adopted by the Board in consultation with 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:
   1. A systematic annual evaluation of all provisional, probationary, and career educators;
   2. The use of multiple lines of evidence, including:
      1. Self-evaluation (completed no later than October 1st of the current school year);
      2. Student and parent input;
      3. Employee input for an administration evaluation;
      4. A reasonable number of supervisor observations to ensure adequate reliability and consistent with 53G-110-507
      5. Evidence of professional growth and other indicators of instructional improvement based on educator professional standards established by the State Board of Education.
      6. Student academic growth data:
   3. A summative evaluation that differentiates among three levels of performance. Not Effective, Partially Effective, Effective. For provisional educators, “Not Evaluated” will be used to indicate standards that will be rated in future evaluations.
      1. One- (Not Effective) The educator did not meet performance expectations.
      2. Two- (Partially Effective) The educator partially met performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth or demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.
      3. Three- (Effective) The educator partially me performance expectations by demonstrating evidence of continued professional growth and demonstrating evidence of student academic growth.
   4. An educator is responsible for improving the performance, using resources provided by the district, and demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement in any designated areas of deficiency.
   5. An educator may contribute evidence to be considered in the evaluation ranking throughout the evaluation process. Evidence for consideration must be submitted at least ten school days prior to the end of year conference.
   6. Component ratings shall be based on evidence submitted by the educator. Administrator observations, and data gathered/calculated, or observed in alignment with Utah Effective Teaching Standards or Utah Educational Leadership Standards.
      1. The evaluation may provide for a reasonable number of peer observations.
   7. A formative evaluation for career educators will occur during the non-summative years and will include:
      1. A professional growth plan which will assist the educator in a planned ongoing process to engage in reflections and the development of professional skills related to Utah Effective Teaching Standards.
      2. Informal observations, student/parent input, and feedback by administration.

      3. All educators may request that individual sections of their evaluation be re-cassessed in the formative years. If the section re-assessed improves the teacher’s summative rating, it will be reported to the District in the next annual report.

      4. At the supervisor’s discretion, summative evaluation may be held at any time
         during the four-year cycle.

   8. Frequency of Evaluations

      1. A four-year evaluation cycle will be used for career educators incorporating a formative1, formative 2, formative 3, summative cycle.

      2. Provisional educators will receive a summative evaluation each school year.

         1. A mid-year progress conference, reviewing the provisional employees’ performance levels will be held with a draft copy of the Utah Educator Summative Evaluation Tool by December 15th

            1. a minimum of two, twenty-minute observations including feedback will occur prior to the mid-year progress conference.

            2. When concerns with the teacher’s performance are observed, a
                letter of expectation will be given. A letter of expectation may be provided at any time.

         2. A minimum of an additional two, twenty-minute observations including feedback will occur prior to the end of year final conference.

         3. By March 15th of each year an end of year conference finalizing the provisional employees’ performance levels will be held with a final, printed, signed copy of the Utah Educator Summative Evaluation Tool.

      3. Career educators will receive a summative evaluation once every four years.

         1. A mid-year progress conference with a draft copy of the Utah Educator Summative Evaluation Tool may be held for Career educators, but is not required.

         2. An end of year conference finalizing the career employees’ performance levels will be held no later than June 1st with a final, printed, signed copy of the Utah Educator Summative Evaluation Tool.

            1. A minimum of two, twenty-minute observations including feedback will occur prior to the end of the year final meetings.

         3. A final printed, signed copy of the summative evaluation tool will be given to the employee, and the original will be placed in the employee’s local file.

         4. The summative rating from the evaluation year will be the designated ranking during formative years.

6. Summative Evaluation and Review of Evaluation

   1. The person responsible for administering an educator’s summative 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.

   2. 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.

   3. Within fifteen (15) days after the evaluation process is completed, the person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall:

      1. Discuss the written evaluation with the educator; and

      2. Based on the educator’s performance, assign one of the three levels of performance described in R277-323-3.

   4. A career educator who is not satisfied with a summative evaluation has fifteen (15) days after receiving the written summative evaluation to request a review in writing of the evaluation.

      1. If a review is requested, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall appoint a person; not employed by the District who has expertise in teacher or personnel evaluation to review the evaluation procedures and make recommendations to the superintendent regarding
         the educator’s summative evaluation in accordance with USBE guidelines.
         Utah Code § 53G-11-508 (2020)

   5. 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.

   6. The educator evaluation system may not use an end of level student assessment scores.
      Utah Code § 53G-11-520 (2024)

7. Deficiencies and Remediation

   1. The school administrator, using the UETS standards as the tool, shall determine, for purposes of the educator evaluation program, what constitutes an inadequate performance or performance in need of improvement as demonstrated by an educator’s evaluation.

   2. The person responsible for administering an educator’s evaluation shall give an educator whose performance is unsatisfactory a written document clearly identifying a plan of assistance that includes:

      1. Specific, measurable, and actionable deficiencies;

      2. Available resources that will be provided for improvement, including a mentor; and

      3. A recommended course of action that will improve the educator’s performance.

   3. 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 (b) and (c) 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.

   4. An employee whose performance is unsatisfactory may not be transferred to another school unless the Board specifically approves the transfer of the employee.
      Utah Code § 53G-11-517 (2018)