Common use of Distinguished Clause in Contracts

Distinguished. Professional practice at Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. To achieve this rating, a teacher would need to have received a majority of distinguished ratings on the criterion scores. A teacher at this level must show evidence of average to high impact on student growth. Ongoing, reflective teaching and leading is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative practice. The intention of this section is to mirror the requirements of RCW 28A-405.100. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every six (6) years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following categories of classroom teachers shall receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220; Any classroom teacher who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 1 or level 2 in the previous school year. In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year may move to the focused evaluation track. See definition for classroom teacher RCW 28A.405.100. For classroom teachers, the parties have agreed to the instructional framework developed by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as approved by OSPI. Student growth goals will be determined by the teacher based on student needs. The principal will collaborate with the teacher to ensure the goal or goals meet the criterion as outlined in the framework. There will be a maximum of three (3) student growth components selected for comprehensive evaluations and a maximum of one (1) student growth component selected for focused evaluations. The monitoring of data from the assessments will be discussed and monitored as part of the school improvement plan process and professional learning communities. Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: • Examine student growth data in conjunction with other evidence including observation, artifacts and other student and teacher information based on appropriate classroom, school, school district and state-based tools and practices; • Examine extenuating circumstances which may include one or more of the following: Goal setting process; content and expectations; student attendance; extent to which standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned; • Schedule monthly conferences focused on improving student growth to include one or more of the following topics: Student growth goal revisions, refinement, and progress; best practices related to instruction areas in need of attention; best practices related to student growth data collection and interpretation; • Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing (i.e. eVal or other written format), and shall provide the employee with a copy thereof within three (3) days after such report is prepared or within five (5) workdays of the observation. If the evaluator believes a teacher is progressing towards an overall rating of basic or less for the year, an observation report/progress report shall be provided. The report shall note the evaluation criterion and related components at risk of a rating of basic or below. The purpose of this report is to ensure the employee is aware of the deficiencies and can work toward the needed corrections. Any teacher, including those at risk of receiving less than proficient rating, may request an additional meeting to discuss areas of concern and possible remedies. Recognizing this evaluation as a growth model, the previous year’s evaluation shall be used as a starting point. This rating remains the same throughout the year in the absence of evidence indicating a higher or lower rating. The teacher and administrator discuss and collaborate on the “areas of strength”, “areas of growth” of the teacher’s practice and “next steps”. In the event that the administrator and teacher cannot come to agreement, the teacher will be given an opportunity to provide additional evidence of the teaching experience. If both the teacher and the evaluator agree on the score for a criterion, no evidence is required to be submitted for that criterion. When there is a disagreement on a scoring criterion, it is the responsibility of the teacher and evaluator to provide evidence to prove otherwise. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the administrator’s assessment will be recorded. The employee may submit a rebuttal, which shall be attached to the report in his/her personnel file. Upon request, teachers shall be granted a(an) additional observation(s) to provide evidence of proficiency.

Distinguished. Professional practice at Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. To achieve this rating, a teacher would need to have received a majority of distinguished ratings on the criterion scores. A teacher at this level must show evidence of average to high impact on student growth. Ongoing, reflective teaching and leading is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative practice. The intention of this section is to mirror the requirements of RCW 28A-405.100. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every six (6) years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following categories of classroom teachers shall receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220; Any classroom teacher who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 1 or level 2 in the previous school year. In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year may move to the focused evaluation track. See definition for classroom teacher RCW 28A.405.100. For classroom teachers, the parties have agreed to the instructional framework developed by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as approved by OSPI. The purpose of these Student Growth Goal rubrics is to promote instructional practice that is culturally responsive, socially, and emotionally literate, and inclusive of each and every student. Between setting the goal and determining student growth is where the instructional frameworks can be useful in supporting effective instruction that moves student learning forward. Student growth goals will be determined by the teacher based on student needs. The principal will collaborate with the teacher to ensure the goal or goals meet the criterion as outlined in the framework. There will be a maximum of three (3) student growth components selected for comprehensive evaluations and a maximum of one (1) student growth component selected for focused evaluations. The monitoring of data from the assessments will be discussed and monitored as part of the school improvement plan process and professional learning communities. Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: • ● Examine student growth data in conjunction with other evidence including observation, artifacts and other student and teacher information based on appropriate classroom, school, school district and state-based tools and practices; • ● Examine extenuating circumstances which may include one or more of the following: Goal setting process; content and expectations; student attendance; extent to which standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned; • ● Schedule monthly conferences focused on improving student growth to include one or more of the following topics: Student growth goal revisions, refinement, and progress; best practices related to instruction areas in need of attention; best practices related to student growth data collection and interpretation; • ● Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing (i.e. eVal or other written format), and shall provide the employee with a copy thereof within three (3) days after such report is prepared or within five (5) workdays of the observation. If the evaluator believes a teacher is progressing towards an overall rating of basic or less for the year, an observation report/progress report shall be provided. The report shall note the evaluation criterion and related components at risk of a rating of basic or below. The purpose of this report is to ensure the employee is aware of the deficiencies and can work toward the needed corrections. Any teacher, including those at risk of receiving less than proficient rating, may request an additional meeting to discuss areas of concern and possible remedies. Recognizing this evaluation as a growth model, the previous year’s evaluation shall be used as a starting point. This rating remains the same throughout the year in the absence of evidence indicating a higher or lower rating. The teacher and administrator discuss and collaborate on the “areas of strength”, “areas of growth” of the teacher’s practice and “next steps”. In the event that the administrator and teacher cannot come to agreement, the teacher will be given an opportunity to provide additional evidence of the teaching experience. If both the teacher and the evaluator agree on the score for a criterion, no evidence is required to be submitted for that criterion. When there is a disagreement on a scoring criterion, it is the responsibility of the teacher and evaluator to provide evidence to prove otherwise. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the administrator’s assessment will be recorded. The employee may submit a rebuttal, which shall be attached to the report in his/her their personnel file. Upon request, teachers shall be granted a(an) additional observation(s) to provide evidence of proficiency.

Distinguished. Professional practice at Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. To achieve this rating, a teacher would need to have received a majority of distinguished ratings on the criterion scores. A teacher at this level must show evidence of average to high impact on student growth. Ongoing, reflective teaching and leading is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative practice. practice.‌ The intention of this section is to mirror the requirements of RCW 28A-405.100. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every six four (64) years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following categories of classroom teachers shall receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220; Any classroom teacher who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 1 or level 2 in the previous school year. In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year may move to the focused evaluation track. See definition for classroom teacher RCW 28A.405.100. For classroom teachers, the parties have agreed to the instructional framework developed by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as approved by OSPI. Student growth goals will be determined by the teacher based on student needs. The principal will collaborate with the teacher to ensure the goal or goals meet the criterion as outlined in the framework. There will be a maximum of three (3) student growth components selected for comprehensive evaluations and a Growth‌ maximum of one (1) student growth component selected for focused evaluations. The monitoring of data from the assessments will be discussed and monitored as part of the school improvement plan process and professional learning communities. communities.‌ Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: • Examine student growth data in conjunction with other evidence including observation, artifacts and other student and teacher information based on appropriate classroom, school, school district and state-based tools and practices; practices;‌ • Examine extenuating circumstances which may include one or more of the following: Goal setting process; content and expectations; student attendance; extent to which standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned; aligned;‌ • Schedule monthly conferences focused on improving student growth to include one or more of the following topics: Student growth goal revisions, refinement, and progress; best practices related to instruction areas in need of attention; best practices related to student growth data collection and interpretation; interpretation;‌‌ • Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing (i.e. eVal or other written format), and shall provide the employee with a copy thereof within three (Observation Report‌ 1. Self Assessment‌‌‌ 2. Bethel Teacher Evaluation Process‌ 3) days after such report is prepared or within five (5) workdays of the observation. If the evaluator believes a teacher is progressing towards an overall rating of basic or less for the year, an observation report/progress report shall be provided. The report shall note the evaluation criterion and related components at risk of a rating of basic or below. The purpose of this report is to ensure the employee is aware of the deficiencies and can work toward the needed corrections. Any teacher, including those at risk of receiving less than proficient rating, may request an additional meeting to discuss areas of concern and possible remedies. Recognizing this evaluation as a growth model, the previous year’s evaluation shall be used as a starting point. This rating remains the same throughout the year in the absence of evidence indicating a higher or lower rating. The teacher and administrator discuss and collaborate on the “areas of strength”, “areas of growth” of the teacher’s practice and “next steps”. In the event that the administrator and teacher cannot come to agreement, the teacher will be given an opportunity to provide additional evidence of the teaching experience. If both the teacher and the evaluator agree on the score for a criterion, no evidence is required to be submitted for that criterion. When there is a disagreement on a scoring criterion, it is the responsibility of the teacher and evaluator to provide evidence to prove otherwise. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the administrator’s assessment will be recorded. The employee may submit a rebuttal, which shall be attached to the report in his/her personnel file. Upon request, teachers shall be granted a(an) additional observation(s) to provide evidence of proficiency.Goal Setting Conference Document‌

Distinguished. Professional practice at Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. To achieve this rating, a teacher would need to have received a majority of distinguished ratings on the criterion scores. A teacher at this level must show evidence of average to high impact on student growth. Ongoing, reflective teaching and leading is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative practice. The intention of this section is to mirror the requirements of RCW 28A-405.100. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every six (6) years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following categories of classroom teachers shall receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220; Any classroom teacher who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 1 or level 2 in the previous school year. In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year may move to the focused evaluation track. See definition for classroom teacher RCW 28A.405.100. For classroom teachers, the parties have agreed to the instructional framework developed by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as approved by OSPI. Student growth goals will be determined by the teacher based on student needs. The principal will collaborate with the teacher to ensure the goal or goals meet the criterion as outlined in the framework. There will be a maximum of three (3) student growth components selected for comprehensive evaluations and a maximum of one (1) student growth component selected for focused evaluations. The monitoring of data from the assessments will be discussed and monitored as part of the school improvement plan process and professional learning communities. Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: • Examine student growth data in conjunction with other evidence including observation, artifacts and other student and teacher information based on appropriate classroom, school, school district and state-based tools and practices; • Examine extenuating circumstances which may include one or more of the following: Goal setting process; content and expectations; student attendance; extent to which standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned; • Schedule monthly conferences focused on improving student growth to include one or more of the following topics: Student growth goal revisions, refinement, and progress; best practices related to instruction areas in need of attention; best practices related to student growth data collection and interpretation; • Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing (i.e. eVal or other written format)through eVal, and shall provide to the employee with a copy thereof through eVal within three (3) days after such report is prepared or within five (5) workdays of the observation. If the evaluator believes a teacher is progressing towards an overall rating of basic or less for the year, an observation report/progress report shall be provided. The report shall note the evaluation criterion and related components at risk of a rating of basic or below. The purpose of this report is to ensure the employee is aware of the deficiencies and can work toward the needed corrections. Any teacher, including those at risk of receiving less than proficient rating, may request an additional meeting to discuss areas of concern and possible remedies. Recognizing this evaluation as a growth model, the previous year’s evaluation shall be used as a starting point. This rating remains the same throughout the year in the absence of evidence indicating a higher or lower rating. The teacher and administrator discuss and collaborate on the “areas of strength”, “areas of growth” of the teacher’s practice and “next steps”. In the event that the administrator and teacher cannot come to agreement, the teacher will be given an opportunity to provide additional evidence of the teaching experience. If both the teacher and the evaluator agree on the score for a criterion, no evidence is required to be submitted for that criterion. When there is a disagreement on a scoring criterion, it is the responsibility of the teacher and evaluator to provide evidence to prove otherwise. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the administrator’s assessment will be recorded. The employee may submit a rebuttal, which shall be attached to the report in his/her personnel file. Upon request, teachers shall be granted a(an) additional observation(s) to provide evidence of proficiency.

Distinguished. Professional practice at Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. To achieve this rating, a teacher would need to have received a majority of distinguished ratings on the criterion scores. A teacher at this level must show evidence of average to high impact on student growth. Ongoing, reflective teaching and leading is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment to all students' learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative practice. The intention of this section is to mirror the requirements of RCW 28A-405.100. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every six (6) years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following categories of classroom teachers shall receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220; Any classroom teacher who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 1 or level 2 in the previous school year. In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year may move to the focused evaluation track. See definition for classroom teacher RCW 28A.405.100. For classroom teachers, the parties have agreed to the instructional framework developed by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as approved by OSPI. The purpose of the Student Growth Goal rubrics is to promote instructional practice that is culturally responsive, socially and emotionally literate, and inclusive of each and every student. Between setting the goal and determining student growth is where the instructional frameworks can be useful in supporting effective instruction that moves student learning forward. Student growth goals will be determined by the teacher based on student needs. The principal will collaborate with the teacher to ensure the goal or goals meet the criterion as outlined in the framework. There will be a maximum of three (3) student growth components selected for comprehensive evaluations and a maximum of one (1) student growth component selected for focused evaluations. The monitoring of data from the assessments will be discussed and monitored as part of the school improvement plan process and professional learning communities. Within two months of receiving the a low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: • Examine student growth data in conjunction with other evidence including observation, artifacts and other student and teacher information based on appropriate classroom, school, school district and state-based tools and practices; • Examine extenuating circumstances which may include one or more of the following: Goal setting process; content and expectations; student attendance; extent to which standards, curriculum and assessment are aligned; • Schedule monthly conferences focused on improving student growth to include one or more of the following topics: Student growth goal revisions, refinement, and progress; best practices related to instruction areas in need of attention; best practices related to student growth data collection and interpretation; • Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing (i.e. eVal or other written format), and shall provide the employee with a copy thereof within three (3) days after such report is prepared or within five (5) workdays of the observation. If the evaluator believes a teacher is progressing towards an overall rating of basic or less for the year, an observation report/progress report shall be provided. The report shall note the evaluation criterion and related components at risk of a rating of basic or below. The purpose of this report is to ensure the employee is aware of the deficiencies and can work toward the needed corrections. Any teacher, including those at risk of receiving less than proficient rating, may request an additional meeting to discuss areas of concern and possible remedies. Recognizing this evaluation as a growth model, the previous year’s evaluation shall be used as a starting point. This rating remains the same throughout the year in the absence of evidence indicating a higher or lower rating. The teacher and administrator discuss and collaborate on the “areas of strength”, “areas of growth” of the teacher’s practice and “next steps”. In the event that the administrator and teacher cannot come to agreement, the teacher will be given an opportunity to provide additional evidence of the teaching experience. If both the teacher and the evaluator agree on the score for a criterion, no evidence is required to be submitted for that criterion. When there is a disagreement on a scoring criterion, it is the responsibility of the teacher and evaluator to provide evidence to prove otherwise. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the administrator’s assessment will be recorded. The employee may submit a rebuttal, which shall be attached to the report in his/her their personnel file. Upon request, teachers shall be granted a(an) additional observation(s) to provide evidence of proficiency.