Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan
A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans.
B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below.
C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows:
i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus.
ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school
iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals.
D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.
Evaluator Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory responsibility for observation and evaluation. The superintendent is responsible for ensuring that all Evaluators have training in the principles of supervision and evaluation. Each Educator will have one primary Evaluator at any one time responsible for determining performance ratings.
i) Primary Evaluator shall be the person who determines the Educator’s performance ratings and evaluation.
ii) Supervising Evaluator shall be the person responsible for developing the Educator Plan, supervising the Educator’s progress through formative assessments, evaluating the Educator’s progress toward attaining the Educator Plan goals, and making recommendations about the evaluation ratings to the primary Evaluator at the end of the Educator Plan. The Supervising Evaluator may be the primary Evaluator or his/her designee.
Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.
Evaluators The success of a program of evaluation depends upon a high level of skill and training of all participants in the process. The District shall provide annual training on the Colorado State Educator Evaluation System and ongoing training on inter-rater reliability using approved materials from the Colorado Department of Education. As required by Colorado law, all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by the Department of Education.
Evaluation Committee 16.2.1 The Association and the Board agree to establish a standing joint Evaluation Development Committee for the purpose of regularly reviewing the effectiveness of the policy, procedure and process, including the evaluation instrument, for the evaluation of teachers in the District and to provide recommendations to the Superintendent and Board by April 30.
Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)
Independent Evaluation Buyer is experienced and knowledgeable in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, accounting, marketing, land, engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Subject Property and value thereof.
Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.
Evaluation Process
A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.
B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as:
1. Reviewing the employee’s performance;
2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance;
3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary;
4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and
5. Identifying employee training and development needs.
C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file.
D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal.
E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure.
F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement which conform with and provide specificity to the statutory obligations established by Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 and § 3319.112.
