Common use of Review Panel and Process Clause in Contracts

Review Panel and Process. The Colorado Department Education has included in the State Model System a model appeal process for a nonprobationary Teacher to appeal a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective. The Weld Re-5J School District has adopted the State Model System and has agreed to use the model appeal process that incorporates the use of a review panel which shall include the following components: a. The review panel shall serve in an advisory capacity to the superintendent. The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining the Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating. b. The review panel shall be comprised of members that were not directly involved in the evaluation process for the appealing Teacher, employed at the appealing Teacher’s school, nor related to the appealing Teacher. The superintendent will not be a member of the review panel. c. All panelists appointed by the district and association (administrators and teachers) shall be trained regarding the evaluation and appeal procedure. The panel shall be comprised of three teachers and three administrators. The association will select the teachers to serve on the panel. d. The appealing Teacher shall be given the opportunity to address and provide evidence to the review panel in person or in writing. The review panel shall review any written information provided by the appealing Teacher prior to meeting to render a recommendation. e. The review panel may invite the Teacher or Teacher’s Principal to present in person or in writing where clarification is necessary; however, the Teacher and Principal shall have the right of refusal without prejudice. f. In the model process, in order to overturn a rating of ineffective or partially effective, the panel must unanimously find that the rating of ineffective or partially effective was inaccurate, with the potential for submission of a majority opinion to the superintendent if the panel is not able to reach unanimous consent. g. The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining a Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating and whether a nonprobationary Teacher shall lose his or her nonprobationary status. The superintendent shall provide a written rationale for his or her final determination. If the superintendent determines that a rating of ineffective or partially effective was not accurate but there is not sufficient information to assign a rating of effective, the Teacher shall receive a “no score” and shall not lose his or her nonprobationary status. However, if in the following academic school year that Teacher receives a final Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective, this rating shall have the consequence of a second consecutive ineffective rating and the Teacher shall be subject to loss of nonprobationary status. The appeal process shall be the final determination in regard to the final Performance Evaluation Rating and loss or retention of nonprobationary status.

Review Panel and Process. The Colorado Department Education has included in the State Model System a model appeal process for a nonprobationary Teacher to appeal a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective. The Weld Re-5J School District has adopted the State Model System and has agreed to use the model appeal process that incorporates the use of a review panel which shall include the following components: a. The review panel shall serve in an advisory capacity to the superintendent. The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining the Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating. b. The review panel shall be comprised of members that were not directly involved in the evaluation process for the appealing Teacher, employed at the appealing Teacher’s school, nor related to the appealing Teacher. The superintendent will not be a member of the review panel. c. All panelists appointed by the district and association (administrators and teachers) shall be trained regarding the evaluation and appeal procedure. The panel shall be comprised of three teachers and three administrators. The association will select the teachers to serve on the panel. d. The appealing Teacher shall be given the opportunity to address and provide evidence addressand provideevidence to the review panel in person or in writing. The review panel shall review any written information provided by the appealing Teacher prior to meeting to render a recommendation. e. The review panel may invite the Teacher or Teacher’s Principal to present in person or in writing where clarification is necessary; however, the Teacher and Principal shall have the right of refusal without prejudice. f. In the model process, in order to overturn a rating of ineffective or partially effective, the panel must unanimously find that the rating of ineffective or partially effective was inaccurate, with the potential for submission of a majority opinion to the superintendent if the panel is not able to reach unanimous consent. g. The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining a Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating and whether a nonprobationary Teacher shall lose his or her nonprobationary status. The superintendent shall provide a written rationale for his or her final determination. If the superintendent determines that a rating of ineffective or partially effective was not accurate but there is not sufficient information to assign a rating of effective, the Teacher shall receive a “no score” and shall not lose his or her nonprobationary status. However, if in the following academic school year that Teacher receives a final Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective, this rating shall have the consequence of a second consecutive ineffective rating and the Teacher shall be subject to loss of nonprobationary status. The appeal process shall be the final determination in regard to the final Performance Evaluation Rating and loss or retention of nonprobationary status.

Review Panel and Process. The Colorado Department Education has included in the State Model System a model appeal process for a nonprobationary Teacher to appeal a second consecutive Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective. The Weld Re-5J School District has adopted the State Model System and has agreed to use the model appeal process that incorporates the use of a review panel which shall include the following components: a. : The review panel shall serve in an advisory capacity to the superintendent. The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining the Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating. b. . The review panel shall be comprised of members that were not directly involved in the evaluation process for the appealing Teacher, employed at the appealing Teacher’s school, nor related to the appealing Teacher. The superintendent will not be a member of the review panel. c. . All panelists appointed by the district and association (administrators and teachers) shall be trained regarding the evaluation and appeal procedure. The panel shall be comprised of three teachers and three administrators. The association will select the teachers to serve on the panel. d. . The appealing Teacher shall be given the opportunity to address and provide evidence to the review panel in person or in writing. The review panel shall review any written information provided by the appealing Teacher prior to meeting to render a recommendation. e. . The review panel may invite the Teacher or Teacher’s Principal to present in person or in writing where clarification is necessary; however, the Teacher and Principal shall have the right of refusal without prejudice. f. . In the model process, in order to overturn a rating of ineffective or partially effective, the panel must unanimously find that the rating of ineffective or partially effective was inaccurate, with the potential for submission of a majority opinion to the superintendent if the panel is not able to reach unanimous consent. g. . The superintendent shall be the final decision-making authority in determining a Teacher’s final Performance Evaluation Rating and whether a nonprobationary Teacher shall lose his or her nonprobationary status. The superintendent shall provide a written rationale for his or her final determination. If the superintendent determines that a rating of ineffective or partially effective was not accurate but there is not sufficient information to assign a rating of effective, the Teacher shall receive a “no score” and shall not lose his or her nonprobationary status. However, if in the following academic school year that Teacher receives a final Performance Evaluation Rating of ineffective or partially effective, this rating shall have the consequence of a second consecutive ineffective rating and the Teacher shall be subject to loss of nonprobationary status. The appeal process shall be the final determination in regard to the final Performance Evaluation Rating and loss or retention of nonprobationary status.