Domain 4 of the new teacher evaluation system has been an elusive and sometimes nebulous component. Here is a list of suggested activities teachers engage in regularly that the AFT compiled. Please use this and share as you begin to work on TEVAL.
Per state law, the Bristol teachers are required to be a part of the district’s process in developing professional development and crafting teacher evaluation guidelines. The BFT is seeking Bristol teachers willing to be a part of this process. The commitment would entail attending about six meetings per year with a committee (PDEC) composed of teachers, building administrators, and central office administrators.
The BFT is asking that those who volunteer commit firmly to attend meetings and contribute ideas/feedback to this important process that significantly impacts all teachers. This is an excellent opportunity to steer PD and TEVAL in a more productive direction, demonstrate your own skills to colleagues and administrators, and elevate your own Domain 4 score.
Please email David Hayes at email@example.com or call/text 203 482 5087 if interested.
Taken from the district’s TEVAL plan submitted to the SDE.
Conversations between evaluators and teachers should foster collegiality and professional growth. In the event that there is a disagreement that cannot be resolved through discussions between the teacher and their union representative [if desired], and evaluator, either party may request that the superintendent of schools or designee mediate this dispute and make a decision that resolves this impasse.
When a teacher does not agree with the summative outcome ratings of the evaluation process, a letter clearly defining the teacher’s reasons for disagreement should be provided to the teacher’s supervisor and the Director of Human Resources. Upon receipt of the letter, administrators may schedule a meeting with the teacher to further discuss the dispute, identify an error made in computation that is changed, or respond to the teacher in writing that the previously discussed documentation is consistent with the summative rating presented.
In cases where the teacher and evaluator cannot agree on SLO’s and corresponding IAGD’s, feedback, or a teachers choice of Professional Practice Objective, using the “Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation (2012)”, a determination of such issues may be made by the superintendent of schools or designee.
President, AFT Connecticut
First Vice-President, AFT Connecticut
Second Vice-President, AFT Connecticut
Pre-K-12 Jurisdictional Vice-President, AFT Connecticut