Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves refinements to teacher evaluation rubric, student‑growth survey and classroom-site fund allocations
Summary
The Governing Board approved updates to the district’s certified teacher evaluation rubric, handbook and the Classroom Site Fund (part of pay-for-performance), including continued use of a student‑growth survey and allocations tied to evaluation outcomes.
The Sunnyside Unified Governing Board voted to approve revisions to the certified teacher evaluation rubric, the certified evaluation handbook and the Classroom Site Fund process for the 2025–26 school year.
Pam Benton introduced the item and turned the presentation to Miss Gutierrez, who said she represented the evaluation committee and that the committee had refined 11 of 18 rubric descriptors across four domains: preparation and classroom culture, instruction, professional responsibilities and contributions. Gutierrez said the committee strengthened language around digital learning environments, communication with students and families, and the district’s emphasis on student agency.
Gutierrez summarized the committee’s recommendation to continue using a student survey as the student-growth measure. She said the survey is administered in fall and spring, compared for growth, and that Mr. Hanshaw compiles the comparisons used for the student-growth portion of the award. Gutierrez reported that of 748 eligible employees, 579 participated in the advisory vote (77% participation) and 98% of those voted to continue using the student survey; the committee required a 70% participation threshold.
On compensation structure, the committee described two parts of the Classroom Site Fund allocation: Part A tied to rubric ratings and Part B tied to student-growth measures. Gutierrez explained the student-growth component offers $300 when the class-level survey shows growth; Part A awards are scaled by rubric rating (the presentation cited $1,700 for effective/highly effective as part of the rubric allocation). The transcript included a figure for a developing rating that was unclear in the recording; the board packet should be used as the authoritative source for precise amounts.
Gutierrez said the evaluation handbook includes appendices with formative-assessment resources, onboarding guidance and a statement of evaluation purpose. She read from the handbook: “the evaluation process is more than a measure of performance, it is a catalyst for professional growth, collaboration, and self reflection.” The committee also described training and orientation procedures: principals must hold an orientation for evaluated staff within the first three weeks of school and qualified-evaluator training is conducted before evaluations begin.
Board member Mr. Stone thanked the team for incorporating teacher voice and said he felt the process was fair. On a motion to approve the rubric, the handbook and the 301 Classroom Site Fund for the 2025–26 school year, the board voted as recorded in the roll call: Mr. Bustamante — Aye; Ms. Hernandez — Aye; Mr. Jaramillo — Aye; Mr. Rodriguez — Aye; Mrs. Becky Quintero — Aye.
Board staff said they will continue evaluator training and site-level orientation, and that human resources will collect sign-ins to document orientation compliance. The approved materials will be used in the 2025–26 evaluation cycle.
