Skip to content

  • Effective: 11/10/87
  • Revision: 4/5/16

  1. Board Directive
    The Board is committed to an on-going evaluation program for administrative personnel that is aligned to the Utah Educational Leadership Standards and that complies with Jordan District policy and state law.  (See Utah Code §53A-8a-7 and State Rule R277-531.)  The Board delegates to the District Administration responsibility for assuring that the evaluation program is reasonable and fair and based upon an evaluation instrument which is valid and reliable.It is the policy of the Board to require all administrative personnel to participate in the evaluation program for the following purposes:

    1. To promote the professional growth and development of educators.
    2. To recognize and encourage the use of effective administrative behaviors.
    3. To identify administrators according to their abilities with the performance expectation that administrators strive to receive an effective or highly effective rating.
    4. To provide a basis for decisions affecting employment.
  2. Administrative Policy
    The evaluation process for administrative personnel shall be administered according to the following administrative policy provisions:

    1. Definitions
      1. "Working days" means the days the administrator being evaluated is under contract to work.
      2. "Career administrator" means a licensed employee entitled to continued employment under the policies of the District.
      3. "Provisional administrator" means any administrator who is in his/her first year of employment.
      4. "Probationary administrator" means any administrator employed by the District whose performance is not satisfactory.
      5. "JAES evaluation" (Jordan Administrator Evaluation System) means the evaluation system for all certified administrators, which is completed on an electronic platform. The JAES will be the evaluation of professional performance and will be 70% of an administrator’s total effectiveness rating.
      6. A "summative evaluation" is an evaluation designed to present conclusions about the merit of a person's performance.  Employment decisions are made based on summative evaluations.  JAES is the District's summative evaluation tool.
      7. A "formative evaluation" is an informal evaluation designed and used to promote growth and improvement in a person's performance.
      8. "Other lines of evidence" used for evaluation may include documented concerns or positive written communications from parents, staff or immediate supervisor, awards and recognitions for outstanding administrative performance, and/or documented deficiencies in work habits.
      9. A "mentor" is an administrator assigned by the immediate supervisor to assist a provisional or probationary administrator to become informed about the administrative process and school system.
      10. A "consulting administrator" is an administrator who has completed special training in coaching and assisting administrators in improving administrative skills and effectiveness.  Consulting administrators are assigned to administrators by the immediate supervisor.
      11. A “student growth score” means a measurement of a student’s achievement towards educational goals in the course of a school year and will be 20% of an administrator’s total effectiveness rating.
      12. A “stakeholder input score” is input gathered annually from stakeholder groups and will be 10% of an administrator’s total effectiveness rating.
      13. A “total effectiveness rating” means the combination of the JAES rating (70%), student growth rating (20%), and stakeholder input rating (10%).
      14. “Performance Compensation” (See Utah Code 53A-8a-7-703) means a school district shall continue each year to award any salary increases to a school or district administrator based on an evaluation administered pursuant to Section 53A-8a-7-702 until at least 15% of a school or district administrator’s salary is contingent upon the evaluation administered
    2. The JAES is the District's tool for evaluating an administrator's performance, adapted from the Utah State Office of Education Leadership Observation Tool.
    3. The Administrator Interim Evaluation, based on the Utah Educational Leadership Standards, is the District’s tool for conducting interim evaluations of career administrators.
    4. Each administrative employee shall be evaluated by his/her immediate supervisor.
    5. The District Administration shall review the purposes and procedures of the evaluation program with all administrators at least once each contract year, and each administrator shall have access to the online evaluation instrument.  All administrators due to be evaluated shall be notified at least fifteen (15) working days prior to the evaluation process.
    6. All new administrators shall be assigned a mentor.  The mentor will assist the new administrator in becoming informed about the administrative profession and school system.
    7. Evaluation frequency
      1. Career administrators shall be evaluated annually.
      2. Provisional administrators shall be evaluated at least twice in their initial year.
      3. Probationary administrators shall be evaluated when necessary as determined by the immediate supervisor.
      4. The immediate supervisor may evaluate an administrator whenever it is deemed necessary.
    8. A JAES evaluation process shall include:
      1. An orientation meeting which is held for all administrators and immediate supervisors to provide a review of the JAES process and the specific dates and general procedures to be used.
      2. The administrator is notified at least fifteen (15) working days before the evaluation is to begin.
      3. The supervisor and the administrator jointly determine what lines of evidence will be shown to demonstrate performance levels of the leadership standards.
      4. Formative conferences with the supervisor and the administrator being evaluated shall take place to monitor lines of evidence of performance levels.
      5. The administrator being evaluated will rate themselves on the Utah Educational Leadership Standards, providing lines of evidence to support the rating.
      6. The supervisor completes the evaluation of administrator using the Utah Educational Leadership Standards and rubric.
      7. A summative conference will take place wherein the supervisor and the evaluated administrator will review the supervisor’s rating, the student growth rating, the stakeholder input rating, and the overall effectiveness rating.
      8. If the administrator does not agree with any portion of the JAES Evaluation, the administrator has the right to respond in writing stating his/her views.  This written report must be submitted to the Administrator of Human Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the Professional Development meeting.
      9. The evaluation is acknowledged by both the supervisor and the administrator.  The administrator’s acknowledgement does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation, but acknowledges that the administrator has met with the supervisor and has received the information.
    9. The remediation process for all administrators whose JAES Feedback Report total score is in the “Not Effective” range is as follows:
      1. A Professional Development Contract must be completed within ten (10) days of the professional development meeting.
        1. The Professional Development Contract must identify the performance expectations and/or standards which resulted in a "Not Effective" rating.
        2. A plan of action to correct these deficiencies must be developed which includes specific resources provided to the administrator, a schedule for periodic review of progress, the types of evidence required to demonstrate satisfactory progress, and the assignment of a "consulting administrator."
        3. The length of remediation cannot exceed six calendar months, excluding July.
        4. The immediate supervisor must meet at least monthly, and the consulting administrator at least twice monthly with the administrator to assess progress and to provide assistance.
        5. Administrators on remediation are required to compile documentation of progress and improvement in the specific goal areas.
      2. At the conclusion of the remediation period, a second Professional Development meeting is held.  At this meeting, the immediate supervisor reviews the administrator's documentation and determines the degree of progress made.
      3. The immediate supervisor confers with the Superintendent to determine the action to be taken.
        1. Remediation Completed:  If the administrator has demonstrated satisfactory progress, including successful completion of all goals, he/she is re-designated as a career administrator.
        2. Remediation Extended:  If the administrator has shown progress and has met some of the goals, the Professional Development Contract is revised and the remediation process is repeated.
        3. Probation:  If the administrator has not shown at least moderate improvement and has not met the majority of his/her goals, the administrator is placed on probation.
        4. Change in Assignment:  At the discretion of the Superintendent, a change in assignment may occur at any time during the remediation process.
      4. Probation Procedures
        When an administrator is placed on probation, the following process is implemented:

        1. The remediation process is repeated and a Professional Development Contract is negotiated and implemented.
        2. Near the end of the probationary period, a second JAES is completed.
        3. The designated status of an administrator on probation means that the continued employment of the administrator is in question and that termination may result if performance appraisal ratings are not raised to meet the standard.
        4. At the conclusion of the evaluation, a Professional Development meeting is held.  At the meeting, the immediate supervisor reviews the administrator's documentation, the results of the JAES and determines the degree of progress made.
        5. The immediate supervisor confers with the Superintendent to determine the action to be taken.  Possible actions include:
          1. Probation Completed:  If the administrator has demonstrated satisfactory progress, including successful completion of all goals, he/she is re-designated a career administrator.
          2. Change in Assignment:  At the discretion of the Superintendent, a change in assignment may occur at any time during this process.
          3. Termination:  The termination of an administrator follows the procedures as specified in District Policy DP316A—Orderly Termination Procedures.
    10. Right to Review and Appeal
      1. Administrators have fifteen (15) calendar days following the completion of the evaluation process to request a review of the evaluation findings.
      2. If an evaluation results in adverse employment action administrators have a right to appeal the procedure under District Policy DP315 NEG—Grievance Procedures.
    11. An Administrator Interim Evaluation shall be conducted as an evaluation for a career administrator each year a JAES evaluation is not administered; however, a JAES evaluation may be administered the same year an Administrator Interim Evaluation is administered, if requested by the principal, principal’s designee or immediate supervisor.  The Administrator Interim Evaluation shall be used by the administrator and immediate supervisor as a formative tool throughout the school year that the evaluation takes place.
      1. The Administrator Interim Evaluation shall be made available to the administrator by the supervisor within the first month of the school year that the evaluation takes place.
      2. The Administrator Interim Evaluation will be discussed and signed by both the administrator and the principal or immediate supervisor by the end of the school year that the evaluation takes place.  The administrator’s signature indicates receipt of the report but does not necessarily signify agreement with its contents.
      3. The performance rating on the Administrator Interim Evaluation is the total score from the administrator’s most recent JAES evaluation.
    12. Evaluation records are classified as “Private Records” and shall be managed according to the provisions of District Policy DP367 – District Records Management.
    13. Nothing in this Policy shall prevent the District from taking appropriate disciplinary action for cause as provided for by Utah law, the Utah Code, Utah Administrative Rule, or District Policy DP316A - Orderly Termination Procedure—Administrators.

  • Effective: 7/11/1974
  • Revision: 8/2/2011
  • Reviewed: 12/10/2013

  1. Board Directive
    The Board recognizes the need for periodic evaluation of all District personnel.  This evaluation shall be conducted by each employee's immediate supervisor.  The primary purpose of the evaluation shall be to assist each employee to improve his/her performance in his/her individual assignment.  The Board delegates the responsibility for the classified evaluations to the Administration.
  2. Administrative Policy
    The following provisions shall be used for administering the evaluation policy:

    1. The purposes of the evaluation are: (1) to assess and improve the personal and professional growth of each employee and thus insure a higher quality of service, and (2) to provide a basis for necessary administrative decisions.
    2. The Jordan Classified Evaluation System (JCES) is the District’s tool for conducting evaluations of contract classified employees.
    3. Evaluation is an ongoing process.  Suggestions and constructive criticism should take place whenever the need arises.  Written evaluation forms shall be completed for all first year provisional classified employees prior to the end of each six-month period of the first year.  Beyond the first year of employment, contract classified employees shall be evaluated annually, or more often if deemed necessary by the principal or administrator.
    4. An essential part of the evaluation is a conference between the contract classified employee and his/her immediate supervisor.  The purpose of the conference is to review areas of commendation or areas of concern and suggest goals for improvement.  Following the conference the contract classified employee shall sign the evaluation form indicating that a conference had been held and the evaluation form had been reviewed with him/her.  Signing the form does not necessarily indicate agreement.
    5. This evaluation shall be completed and one (1) copy shall be sent to the Human Resources Specialist, one (1) copy retained by the immediate supervisor, and one (1) copy given to the contract classified employee.  No changes in this evaluation will be made after the conference unless mutually agreed upon by the supervisor and employee.
    6. If the District intends to terminate a contract during its term or discontinue a contract classified employee’s contract beyond the current school year for reasons of unsatisfactory performance, the unsatisfactory performance must be documented in at least two (2) evaluations conducted at any time within the preceding three (3) years.
    7. Expunging items from classified employee records
      1. Employees may request to have a memorandum expunged from their individual employee files under the following conditions:
        1. Five (5) or more years have elapsed since the memorandum was placed in the file.
        2. The employee's work performance has been satisfactory from the time the memorandum was placed in the file.
        3. The employee's immediate supervisor and Human Resources Department administrator agree to the expungement.
      2. Evaluation reports and other items which are part of the permanent employee record shall not be expunged.
      3. Probation reports and negative evaluations older than five (5) years with no repeat violation as defined by DP 316B—Orderly Termination Procedures - Classified, shall not be considered in employee eligibility for promotion or transfer.

  • Effective: 10/30/1973
  • Revision: 4/5/2016

  1. Board Directive
    The Board is committed to an on-going evaluation program that is aligned to the Utah Effective Teaching Standards for licensed personnel, which complies with Jordan School District policy and state law.  (See Utah Code §53-8a-4 and State Rule R277-531.)  The Board delegates to the District Administration responsibility for assuring that the evaluation program is reasonable and fair and based upon an evaluation instrument which is valid and reliable.
    It is the policy of the Board to require all licensed personnel to participate in the evaluation program for the following purposes:

    1. To promote the professional growth and development of educators.
    2. To recognize and encourage the use of effective teaching behaviors which contribute to student progress.
    3. To identify teachers according to their abilities, with the performance expectation that educators strive to receive an effective or highly effective rating.
    4. To provide a basis for decisions affecting employment.
  2. Administrative Policy
    The evaluation program for licensed personnel shall be administered according to the following administrative policy provisions:

    1. Definitions
      1. "Working days" means the days the educator being evaluated is under contract to work.
      2. "Career educator" means a licensed employee entitled to rely upon continued employment under the policies of the District.
      3. "Provisional educator" means any educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator, other than a Temporary employee.
      4. “Retired provisional educator” means any educator who has retired from the profession and is returning to a licensed position.  The employee’s status is provisional for one year.
      5. "Probationary educator" means any educator employed by the District who has been advised that his/ her performance is inadequate.
      6. "Temporary employee" means an individual who is employed by the District on a temporary basis.  Temporary employees include but are not necessarily limited to the following:  substitute teachers, employees hired under contracts for one (1) year only or for less than one (1) year; employees whose positions are funded by grants and/or yearly allocated state or federal monies; and employees whose positions are authorized for no more than twelve (12) months.  A temporary employee also includes anyone who possesses a competency-based license as recommended by the local Board of Education and does not hold a level 1, 2, or 3 license as defined in Section 53A-6-103.
      7. “Jordan Performance Appraisal System (JPAS) evaluation” means the evaluation system for all groups including classroom teachers, special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, school psychologists, counselors, teacher specialists, library media, nurses, audiologists, occupational and physical therapists.  The JPAS will be the evaluation of professional practices for high quality instruction and will be 70% of an educator’s total effectiveness rating.
      8. "Utah Effective Teaching Standards-based Jordan Performance Appraisal System (UETS-based JPAS) evaluation" means two unscheduled observations and an interview completed using the UETS-based JPAS instrument. UETS-based JPAS is the summative evaluation tool to evaluate the performance of educators in a classroom setting.
      9. A "summative evaluation" means evaluations that are used to make annual decisions or ratings of educator performance and may inform decisions on salary and employment.
      10. A "formative evaluation" is an evaluation that provides educators with information and assessments on how to improve their instruction.
      11. "Other lines of evidence" used for evaluation may include documented concerns or positive written communications from parents, students or colleagues, documented deficiencies in work habits, and/or awards and recognitions for outstanding teaching performance.
      12. A "mentor" is an educator assigned by the immediate supervisor to assist a provisional educator to become effective and competent in the teaching profession.
      13. A “consulting educator” is an educator who has completed special training in coaching and assisting teachers in improving teaching skills and effectiveness.  Consulting educators are assigned to educators through the Curriculum Department.
      14. A “student growth score” means a measurement of a student’s achievement towards educational goals in the course of a school year and will be 20% of an educator’s total effectiveness rating.
      15. A “stakeholder input score” is input gathered annually from stakeholder groups and will be 10% of an educator’s total effectiveness rating.
      16. A “total effectiveness rating” means the combination of the JPAS rating (70%), student growth rating (20%), and stakeholder input rating (10%).
    2. The JPAS is the District's tool for evaluating an educator's performance.
    3. The Educator Interim Evaluation is the District’s tool for conducting interim evaluations of career educators.
    4. Each licensed employee shall be evaluated by his/her principal, principal's designee, or immediate supervisor.
    5. The principal and/or other licensed JPAS evaluator shall review the purposes and procedures of the evaluation program with all licensed educators at least once each contract year, and each licensed educator shall be provided a copy of the JPAS evaluation instrument.  The educator shall be notified of the evaluation process at least fifteen (15) working days prior to beginning the evaluation.  All provisional educators shall be assigned a mentor.  The mentor will assist the provisional educator in becoming effective and competent in the teaching profession.
    6. Evaluation frequency
      1. Career educators shall be evaluated annually.
      2. Provisional educators shall be evaluated at least twice each contract year.
      3. Probationary educators shall be evaluated when necessary but not fewer than twice each contract year.
      4. Each licensed educator may be evaluated by his/her principal, principal's designee, or immediate supervisor when necessary.
    7. A UETS-based JPAS evaluation shall include two unscheduled classroom observations, an interview, and professional development meeting.
      1. Two systematic, unscheduled classroom observations shall be conducted by the principal, principal's designee or immediate supervisor using the UETS-based JPAS observation instrument.
        1. Each classroom observation shall be 30 minutes or more of observable time (as defined in the UETS-based JPAS Domains Document) and the two classroom observations shall not be conducted more than fifteen (15) working days apart.  The second observation may not be conducted on the same day as the first observation. An educator may request a different observation time once during the evaluation cycle.
        2. The data collected from the first unscheduled observation is sent to the Jordan Evaluation Systems (JES) office as soon as it is completed.  The data collected from the second observation and the interview is sent to the JES office to be electronically scored within five (5) working days after completing the interview.
      2. An interview between the educator and principal, principal's designee, or immediate supervisor shall be held within five (5) working days of the second classroom observation.  During this interview, data are collected on indicators, which are not included in the UETS-based JPAS classroom observation.  The data collected from the classroom observations are not discussed during the interview.
      3. An individualized UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report will be produced and returned to the building administrator within five (5) working days of the receipt of the second UETS-based JPAS observation and interview form at the District Office.
      4. Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report, the principal or immediate supervisor shall hold a professional development meeting for the educator.
        1. The UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report and other lines of evidence shall be reviewed.
        2. Goals for a professional growth plan will be identified on the back of the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report.
        3. Professional growth activities shall be identified to assist educators whose total score on the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report is in the "Not Effective" range and a timeline for demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement shall be prepared on the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report Addendum.
        4. If the educator does not agree with any portion of the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report, other evidence, or professional growth activities as outlined, the educator has the right to attach a report to the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report stating his/her views.
        5. The UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report and Addendum, if any, shall be signed by both the educator and the principal, or immediate supervisor.   The educator's signature indicates receipt of the report but does not necessarily signify agreement with its contents.
        6. Copies of the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report and Addendum, if any, shall be given to the educator and principal or immediate supervisor, and the original(s) are sent to the Jordan Evaluation Systems (JES) office.
    8. Additional evaluations shall be scheduled for provisional educators whose JPAS total score is in the "Not Effective" range.  Additional evaluations shall be scheduled for career educators whose JPAS total score is in the "Not Effective" range. Career educators whose JPAS total score is in the “Minimally Effective” range may request an additional evaluation.
      1. A second evaluation for provisional educators shall begin twenty (20) working days or more following the professional development meeting.  The second evaluation must be completed sixty (60) working days prior to the end of the contract year.  In addition to the mentor, additional personnel resources may be used to assist the provisional educator whose total score was in the “Not Effective” range on the first evaluation. Procedures outlined in item G. shall be repeated.
        1. Provisional educators whose total score is in the "Not Effective" range shall be given twenty (20) working days or more to improve performance and then a third evaluation shall begin.  The educator shall be notified that continued employment with the District is in question.  The plan for improvement developed during the professional development meeting shall serve as the plan required in the Orderly Termination policy.  Request for an outside evaluator must be submitted in writing no later than ten (10) working days after the professional development meeting. The written request must be sent to the JES office. This second or third evaluation may be conducted by the building administrator or, at the request of the administrator or educator, may be conducted by another individual licensed in the use of the JPAS.
        2. Provisional educators whose total score remains in the "Not Effective" range on the third evaluation shall be subject to the provisions of Policies DP313—Provisional and Probationary Licensed Personnel, and DP316 NEG—Orderly Termination Procedures for Licensed Personnel.
      2. Career educators whose JPAS total score is in the "Not Effective" range shall be given access to resources to help improve performance, and a second evaluation shall begin twenty (20) working days or more following the professional development meeting.  The third evaluation must be completed thirty (30) working days prior to the end of the contract year.  If this evaluation cannot be completed thirty (30) days prior to the end of the contract year, the third evaluation will begin in the next contract year as soon as policy provisions allow.  Request for an outside evaluator must be submitted in writing no later than ten (10) working days after the professional development meeting. The written request must be sent to the JES office. This second or third evaluation may be conducted by the building administrator or, at the request of the administrator or educator, may be conducted by another individual certified in the use of the JPAS.
        1. Career educators whose total score improves to the "Minimally Effective, Effective, or Highly Effective" range on the second evaluation have met the evaluation requirements.
        2. Career educators whose total score remains in the "Not Effective" range on the second evaluation shall be placed on probation in accordance with Policy DP313—Provisional and Probationary Licensed Personnel, given access to resources to help improve performance, allowed twenty (20) working days or more to improve performance, and then a third evaluation shall begin.  The educator shall be notified that continued employment with the District is in question.  The plan for improvement developed during the professional development meeting will serve as the plan required in Policy DP316 NEG—Orderly Termination Procedures for Licensed Personnel.
        3. Career educators whose total score remains in the "Not Effective" range on the third evaluation shall be subject to the provisions of Policy DP316 NEG—Orderly Termination Procedures for Licensed Personnel.
      3. Career educators, whose JPAS total score is in the "Minimally Effective" range, shall be given access to resources to help improve performance and may request an additional evaluation within ten (10) working days of receipt of the UETS-based JPAS Feedback Report. Request for an outside evaluator must be submitted in writing no later than ten (10) working days after the professional development meeting. The written request must be sent to the JES office. This evaluation may be conducted by the building administrator or, at the request of the administrator or educator, may be conducted by another individual certified in the use of the JPAS. The additional evaluation will begin at least fifteen (15) working days after the request is received in the JES office.
    9. Right to review and appeal
      1. Educators have fifteen (15) calendar days following the completion of the evaluation process to request a review of the evaluation findings.
      2. Educators have the right to appeal decisions or implementations based on evaluations under Policy DP315 NEG—Grievance Procedures—Licensed.
    10.  An Educator Interim Evaluation shall be conducted as an evaluation for a career educator each year a JPAS evaluation is not administered; however, a JPAS evaluation may be administered the same year an Educator Interim Evaluation is administered, if requested by the principal, principal’s designee or immediate supervisor.  The Educator Interim Evaluation shall be used by the educator and principal or immediate supervisor as a formative tool throughout the school year that the evaluation takes place.
      1. The Educator Interim Evaluation shall be available electronically.
      2. The Performance Rating on the Educator Interim Evaluation is the total score from the educator’s last full JPAS evaluation.
      3. The Educator Interim Evaluation will be discussed and acknowledged by both the educator and the principal or immediate supervisor by the end of the school year that the evaluation takes place.  The educator’s acknowledgement does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluation, but acknowledges they have met with the evaluator and have received this information.
    11. Evaluation records are classified as "Private Records" and shall be managed according to the provisions of Policy DP367—District Records Management.
    12. Nothing in this policy shall prevent the District from taking appropriate disciplinary action for cause as provided for by Utah law, the Utah Code, Utah Administrative Rule, or District Policy DP316 NEG - Orderly Termination Procedures—Licensed.

  • Effective: 8/27/1969
  • Revision: 2/25/2014

  1. Board Directive
    The Board recognizes the need of a group testing program to gain information for use in individual student planning and to help evaluate the instructional programs of the District. Therefore, the Board charges the Administration with establishing a District-wide group testing program.
  2. Administrative Policy
    The Director of Evaluation, Research and Accountability, under the direction of the Administrator of Curriculum and Staff Development and in cooperation with the Administrators of Schools, shall be responsible for the general direction and administration of the District-wide group testing program.

    1. Group tests are administered to gain information about the achievement of individual students, to provide information used in the screening and placement of students and to help evaluate
      instructional programs.

      1. Achievement tests are to be used in the basic District-wide group testing program.
      2. Tests will also be administered to establish competency and mastery of core curriculum standards as directed by the Jordan School District Board of Education, Utah State Board of Education, and the U.S. Department of Education.
      3. Other tests may be administered to determine student aptitude, achievement and interest levels for vocational guidance, for placement of students in remedial classes and for grouping students in various academic courses.
    2. A Testing Advisory Committee, composed of staff members from Curriculum and Staff Development and Evaluation, Research and Accountability, shall periodically review the District-wide group testing program and make recommendations concerning test selection, testing procedures and the testing calendar.
    3. Procedures for administering the District-wide group testing program are to be established by Evaluation, Research and Accountability and include:
      1. The development and distribution of an annual group testing calendar and distribution of monthly updates to the group testing calendar.
      2. The ordering, distribution and security of test materials.
      3. The preparation of orientation programs and materials regarding the proper use, administration, interpretation and security of tests.
      4. The preparation and submission of electronic pre-print data requisite for online or computer-based assessment administrations.
    4. Principals shall be responsible for the administration of the District-wide group testing program at the local school level.  They are responsible for distribution and security of test materials and relaying test orientation information to the professional staff members within their building.  At the middle school and high school levels, an administrator or counselor shall be designated as the school testing coordinator.  Principals are responsible to oversee and ensure the standardized, ethical and efficient administration of all District-wide group testing including assessments administered in both paper-based and online or computer-based formats.  Utilizing resources provided by Evaluation, Research and Accountability, principals shall annually conduct professional development with their faculty and staff stipulating that all District-wide assessments are to be administered in a standardized and ethical manner, and of potential employee consequences if standardized and ethical procedures are not followed.
    5. Test scores shall be released to parents/guardians and to secondary students on appropriate occasions through (1) conferences in which test scores are interpreted by a professional educator, or (2) by other procedures deemed appropriate.
    6. Evaluation, Research and Accountability shall be responsible for preparation and distribution of test results and reports.
      1. It shall be each principal's responsibility to see that requisite test scores are maintained in each student's permanent record folder.
      2. Reports containing statistical summaries of test data shall be prepared as required by the Administration, and state and federal programs.
    7. The procedures for students/parents to appeal a given test score or scores are as follows:
      1. Within 60 days of receipt of test results, the parents or guardian shall notify the school principal in writing, detailing the specific testing irregularity or inaccuracy that has resulted in their appeal and their request for a remedy.
      2. Assisted by Evaluation, Research and Accountability, the principal will review the appeal in a timely manner.  In the case of students receiving special education services, the IEP team will be included in the review.
      3. The principal will notify the parent or guardian of the decision on the appeal.
      4. Should the parents or guardian disagree with the decision of the principal, they may appeal within 60 days to the Board of Education.
      5. The Administration will schedule such a hearing with the Board at the convenience of the parties directly concerned and shall notify those persons who will be in attendance at this hearing.
      6. The student, parents or guardian may exercise the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing.
      7. The Board must receive a notice ten (10) school days prior to the hearing if the student wishes to be represented by legal counsel in order that the Administration may exercise the same right.
      8. After the hearing, the Administration will inform the parents or guardian in writing of the Board’s decision.