UINTAH SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY ACTION REVIEW

 

 

1st Reading

9/27/16

New

2nd Reading

10/11/16

Revised

X

Approved

10/11/16

Substitute

 

005.1000 EVALUATION FOR LICENSED PERSONNEL

 

REVISES EVALUATION FOR LICENSED PERSONNEL POLICY (LAST APPROVED ON 8/9/16)

 

SUBJECT:  EVALUATION FOR LICENSED PERSONNEL

 

1.0  BOARD POLICY


The Board is committed to an on-going evaluation program for licensed personnel which complies with Uintah School District policy and state law. (See Utah Code 53A-8a) 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:

 

1.1  To promote the professional growth and development of educators.

1.2  To recognize and encourage the use of effective teaching behaviors which contribute to student progress.

1.3  To identify teachers according to their abilities.

 

1.4  To provide a basis for decisions affecting employment.

 

2.0  DEFINITIONS

 

2.1  “Days” means calendar days.

2.2  "Working days" means the days the educator being evaluated is under contract to work.

 

2.3  “Educator” means any employee required to hold a professional license issued by the Utah State Office of Education, except the superintendent or an individual who works fewer than three hours per day or is hired for less than half of a school year.

 

2.4  "Career educator" means a licensed employee who has a reasonable expectation of continued employment under the policies of the District.

2.5  "Provisional educator" means any educator employed by the District who has not achieved status as a career educator within the school district.

2.6  "Probationary educator" means any educator employed by the District who, under local school board policy, has been formally advised that his or her performance is inadequate.

2.7  “Professional growth plan” means a plan created and reviewed annually by an active educator and the educator’s direct supervisor that details the professional goals of the educator based on the Utah Effective Teaching and Educational Leadership Standards consistent with R277-520 and related to the educator’s self-assessment and formal evaluation required under Section 53A-8a. The professional growth plan shall be reviewed and signed annually by the educator and supervisor and may be adjusted as appropriate.

2.8  “Professional Learning Plan” is a subset of the active educator’s professional growth plan, which shall outline the professional learning activities in which the educator will participate during the educator’s current license renewal cycle, and which shall be developed by taking into account:

2.8.1        the educator's professional goals;

2.8.2        curriculum relevant to the educator's current or anticipated assignment;

2.8.3        goals and priorities of the LEA and school;

2.8.4        available student data relevant to the educator's current or anticipated assignment;

2.8.5        feedback from the educator’s yearly evaluation required under Section 53A-8a-301;

2.8.6        the requirements under R277-522 if the educator is a Level 1 licensed educator; and

2.8.7        the professional learning plan for active educators shall include two hours of professional learning on youth suicide prevention consistent with R277-500-3; and

2.8.8        the professional learning plan shall be reviewed and signed annually by the educator and supervisor and may be adjusted as appropriate;

2.8.9        The educator is responsible for creation of the professional learning plan in collaboration with the designated supervisor and for maintaining documentation associated with the plan and the annual review of the plan.

2.9  “Unsatisfactory performance” means a deficiency in performing work tasks which may be:

2.9.1        Due to insufficient or undeveloped skills, lack of knowledge or aptitude, poor attitude, or insufficient effort; and

2.9.2        Remediated through training, study, mentoring, practice, or greater effort.

2.9.3        “Unsatisfactory performance” does not include the following conduct that is designated as cause for termination under 53A-8a:

2.9.3.1  A violation of work rules;

2.9.3.2  A violation of local school board policies, State Board of Education rules, or law;

2.9.3.3  A violation of standards of ethical, moral, or professional conduct, or

2.9.3.4  Insubordination.

 

2.10          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. JPAS is the summative teacher evaluation tool; the educational leadership summative measurement tool developed by the Utah State Office of Education is the summative administrator evaluation tool.

2.11          "JPAS summative evaluation" means a summative teacher evaluation which incorporates two unscheduled observations, and an interview completed using the JPAS instrument.

2.12          “Professional Development Meeting” means a meeting scheduled by the evaluator, to be held within 15 days after a summative evaluation process is completed, to discuss the written evaluation with the educator.

2.13           A "formative evaluation" is an evaluation conducted while a creative process is underway, designed and used to promote growth and improvement in a person's performance.

 

2.14          “Interim Evaluation” means a formative educator evaluation conducted in a school year during which an educator is not summatively evaluated. Beginning on July 1, 2011, the Utah Public Education Human Resource Management Act (53A-8a) requires that career educators be evaluated annually. In order to be in compliance with Utah Law, career educators who are not scheduled to be summatively evaluated during an academic year must be formatively evaluated using USD board-adopted procedures.

2.15          "Other lines of evidence" used for evaluation may include, but are not limited to, documented concerns or positive written communications from parents, students or colleagues, documented excellence or deficiencies in work habits, documented progress or failure in meeting goals established in professional growth plans, and/or awards and recognitions for outstanding teaching performance.

2.16          A "mentor" is an educator assigned by the immediate supervisor or a district administrator to assist a provisional educator to become effective and competent in the teaching profession and school system.

2.17          A “consulting educator” is an educator who has completed special training in coaching and assisting educators in improving professional skills and effectiveness. Consulting educators are assigned to educators by the superintendent or his/her designee.

 

2.18          A “term” can be one, two, or three trimesters depending on the duration of the class (secondary schools) or over the course of the entire year (elementary schools).

3.0  GENERAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES

 

The evaluation program for licensed personnel shall be administered according to the following guidelines:

3.1  Each licensed educator shall be evaluated by his/her supervisor or supervisor’s designee.

3.2  Each licensed educator shall receive at least an annual rating which is based upon the educator’s most recent summative evaluation.

3.3  An educator may request a different formal observation time once during the summative evaluation cycle.

3.4  The person responsible for administering an educator’s summative evaluation shall, at least 15 days before an educator’s first evaluation, notify the educator of the evaluation process and give the educator a copy of the summative evaluation instrument.

3.5  The evaluator shall, within 15 days after the summative evaluation process is completed, discuss the written evaluation with the educator in a Professional Development Meeting and, following any revision of the written evaluation made after the discussion, file the evaluation and any related reports or documents in the educator’s personnel file and give a copy of the written evaluation and attachments to the educator.

3.6  The educator may make a written response to any part of the summative evaluation, and such a response will be attached to the copy of the evaluation filed in the educator’s personnel file.

3.7  An educator who is not satisfied with a summative evaluation may request a review of the evaluation within 15 days after receiving the written evaluation.

3.8  If a review is requested, the superintendent or his/her designee shall appoint a person not employed by the school district who has expertise in educator evaluation to review, in accordance with State Board of Education rules, the evaluation procedures and make recommendations to the superintendent regarding the educator’s summative evaluation.

3.9  Educators’ summative evaluations shall differentiate among four levels of performance.

3.10          Provisional educators shall be summatively evaluated at least twice each contract year.

3.10.1    The supervisor shall assign a person who has received training or will receive training in mentoring educators as a mentor to the provisional educator.

3.10.2    The first summative evaluation for provisional educators shall be completed by November 1.

3.10.3    A second summative evaluation for provisional educators shall begin twenty (20) working days or more following the professional development meeting.  The second evaluation shall be completed by February 1.

3.10.4    Exceptions to the evaluation completion deadlines may be approved by the superintendent or his/her designee (i.e., for educators hired after the start of the school year); however, a provisional educator’s second evaluation shall be completed at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the contract year, unless the educator was hired so late in the school year as to prohibit such.

3.11          Career educators shall be formatively or summatively evaluated annually.

3.11.1    Each career educator shall be summatively evaluated at least every third year; more frequent summative evaluations may be conducted when an educator’s principal or designee deems it necessary.

3.11.2    The first evaluation for non-probationary career educators shall be completed by February 1.

3.11.3    The deadline for completing the first summative evaluation for career educators who begin a school year on probationary status is November 1.

3.11.4    Additional evaluations shall be scheduled for all career educators whose summative evaluation total score is in the "Ineffective" range.

3.11.5    A career educator whose overall summative total score is in the “Ineffective” range shall be placed on probationary status.  A career educator whose summative score in any category of the summative evaluation tool is in the “Ineffective” range may be placed on probationary status.

 

3.12          Probationary educators shall be summatively evaluated when necessary but not fewer than twice each contract year.

3.13          Each licensed educator shall prepare a Professional Growth Plan, which establishes and guides the achievement of specific professional goals. The PGP shall be developed through the cooperation of a collaborative team, and shall articulate goals and planned activities for professional growth.

3.13.1    Each licensed educator shall submit a PGP to his/her supervisor at the beginning of the term, mid-term, and at the end of the term.

3.13.2    The supervisor shall review the beginning of term PGP’s of all licensed educators under their supervision and shall notify each educator of acceptance of the plan or of adjustments needed.

3.13.3    Professional Growth Plans shall be reviewed and possibly adjusted during a mid-term and end-of-term meeting between the educator and supervisor.

 

4.0  GUIDELINES FOR LICENSED TEACHER EVALUATION (OBSERVATION – 70% OF OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS RATING)

4.1  The Jordan Performance Appraisal System (JPAS) is the District's tool for summatively evaluating a non-administrative educator’s performance. JPAS is not used for formative evaluations. Each year, at least one-third of USD teachers will be evaluated using the JPAS tool.

4.2  All steps specified in General Evaluation Guidelines shall be followed.

4.3  Orientation and notification:  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 the first observation.

4.4  All provisional educators shall be assigned a mentor. The mentor will assist the provisional educator in becoming effective and competent in the teaching profession and school system.

4.5  A JPAS evaluation shall include two unscheduled classroom observations, an interview, and professional development meeting(s).

4.6  Two systematic, unscheduled classroom observations shall be conducted by the principal, principal's designee or immediate supervisor using the JPAS observation instrument.

4.7  Each classroom observation shall be 30 minutes or more of observable time (as defined in the 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.

4.8  The data collected from the first unscheduled observation is sent to the District Office as soon as it is completed.

4.9  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 JPAS classroom observation. The data collected from the classroom observations are not discussed during the interview.

4.10          The data collected from the second observation and the interview should be sent to the District Office to be electronically scored within five (5) working days after completing the interview.

4.11          An individualized JPAS Feedback Report should be produced and returned to the building administrator within five (5) working days of the receipt of the second JPAS observation and interview form at the District Office.

4.12          Within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of the JPAS Feedback Report, the principal or immediate supervisor shall hold a professional development meeting for the teacher.

4.12.1    The JPAS Feedback Report and other lines of evidence shall be reviewed.

4.12.2    Goals for professional development will be identified on the back of the JPAS Feedback Report.

4.12.3    Professional development activities shall be identified to assist educators whose total score on the JPAS Feedback Report is in the "Not Effective” range and a timeline for demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement shall be prepared on the JPAS Feedback Report Addendum.

4.12.4    If the educator does not agree with any portion of the JPAS Feedback Report, other evidence, or professional development activities as outlined, the educator has the right to attach a report to the JPAS Feedback Report stating his/her views.

4.12.5    The 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.

4.12.6    Copies of the JPAS Feedback Report and Addendum, if any, shall be given to the educator and principal or immediate supervisor, and the original(s) placed in the educator's personnel file in the Department of Human Resources.

4.13          Career educators whose total score is in the “Not Effective” range on the first summative evaluation shall be given access to resources to help improve performance.

4.13.1    A written probationary agreement/plan of assistance shall be developed by the supervisor, which shall include a statement clearly identifying (a) specific, measurable, and actionable deficiencies, (b) the available resources that will be provided for improvement, and (c) a recommended course of action intended to improve the educator’s performance.

4.13.2    An educator is responsible for improving performance, including using any resources identified by the school district, and demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement in the designated areas of deficiencies, along with successfully completing all terms of the probationary agreement.

4.13.3    Sections 4.12.1 and 4.12.2 above do not apply if the educator’s unsatisfactory performance was documented for the same deficiency within the previous three years and a written probationary agreement/plan of assistance was implemented.

4.13.4    A second summative evaluation for probationary educators shall begin twenty (20) working days or more following the professional development meeting.  The second evaluation must be completed by February 1; however, deadline adjustments may be made for educators hired after the start of the school year or for career educators assigned probationary status following the first summative evaluation.  NOTE: All second summative evaluations must be completed by March 15, or, with Superintendent’s approval, at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the contract year. Procedures outlined above shall be repeated.

4.13.5    Exceptions to the evaluation completion deadlines may be approved by the superintendent or his/her designee; however, a career educator’s second evaluation shall be completed at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the contract year.

4.13.6    Career educators whose total score improves to the “Minimally Effective” range or higher on the second evaluation have met the evaluation requirements.

4.13.7    Probationary educators whose total score on the second evaluation is in the “Not Effective" range shall receive written notification that continued employment with the District is in question, and shall be given twenty (20) working days or more to improve performance, and then a third evaluation shall begin.

4.13.8    The probationary agreement/plan of assistance developed earlier may be adjusted, and the probationary educator must successfully complete all terms of such. Request for an outside evaluator shall be submitted in writing no later than ten (10) working days after the professional development meeting. The written request shall be sent to the supervisor. This second or third evaluation may be conducted by the supervisor or, at the request of the supervisor or educator, may be conducted by another individual authorized by the superintendent of his/her designee to conduct the evaluation.

4.13.9    A third evaluation must be completed at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the contract year. If this evaluation cannot be completed sixty (60) days prior to the end of the contract year, the third evaluation will begin in the next contract year as soon as the guidelines allow.

4.13.10Career educators whose score remains in the "Not Effective" range on the third evaluation shall be subject to the provisions of Uintah School District Policy 005.1200 Standards of Conduct and Due Process.

4.14          Right to review and appeal: Educators have fifteen (15) calendar days following the (Professional Development Meeting and receipt of the JPAS Feedback Report) to request a review of the evaluation findings.

4.15          Formative Evaluation: Throughout the school year, each principal or his/her designee (1) shall conduct regular, formative walkthroughs/observations in classrooms to collect and record data related to teachers’ effectiveness in meeting their Professional Growth Plan goals and the Utah Effective Teaching Standards; and (2) shall engage in informal, ongoing dialogue with teachers regarding data collected during formative walkthroughs/ observations.

4.15.1    Each principal or his/her designee shall meet formally with each teacher at least twice yearly to discuss evidence of their level of effectiveness related to the standards, including their progress in utilizing their professional learning plan to accomplish their professional growth goals.

4.16          Each licensed teacher shall receive a rating of 0 (Not Effective), 1 (Minimally Effective), 2 (Effective), or 3 (Highly Effective) as determined by the educator’s JPAS report.

4.17          70% of the overall effectiveness rating for all educators shall be based on observation.

 

5.0  GUIDELINES FOR LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION (OBSERVATION – 70% OF OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS RATING)

5.1  The educational leadership measurement tool developed by the Utah State Office of Education is the District’s tool for evaluating an administrator’s performance.

5.2  An administrator evaluation process shall include all steps and processes required by state statute and state school board rule, along with any additional steps and processes required in the educational leadership measurement tool developed by the Utah State Office of Education.

5.3  All steps specified in General Evaluation Guidelines shall be followed.

5.4  Orientation and notification:  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 be provided a copy of the evaluation instrument. All administrators due to be evaluated shall be notified at least fifteen (15) working days prior to the evaluation process.

5.5  All provisional administrators shall be assigned a mentor. The mentor will assist the new administrator in becoming informed about the administrative profession and school system.

5.6  Each licensed administrator shall prepare an annual Professional Growth Plan, including a Professional Learning Plan, which is a work plan required of all licensed educators, which establishes and guides the achievement of specific professional educational objectives. The PGP shall be developed through the cooperation of a collaborative team, shall articulate goals and planned activities for professional growth, and shall be based upon the school’s learner centered problems and evidence based instructional strategy.

5.6.1        Each administrative team shall submit a PGP to his/her supervisor by October 31 each year.

5.6.2        By November 30 each year, review the PGP’s of all licensed educators under their supervision and shall notify each educator of acceptance of the plan or of adjustments needed.  Adjusted plans shall be submitted to supervisor by December 15 of each year.

5.6.3        Deadline adjustments may be made for educators hired later in the school year.

5.6.4        Professional Growth Plans shall be reviewed and possibly adjusted during a mid-year and end-of-year meeting between the administrator and supervisor.

5.7  Evaluation Frequency

5.7.1        Career administrators shall be evaluated annually.

5.7.2        Provisional administrators shall be evaluated at least twice each year.

5.7.3        Probationary administrators shall be evaluated at least twice each contract year.

5.7.4        The immediate supervisor may evaluate an administrator whenever it is deemed necessary.

5.8  Career administrators whose total score is in the “Not Effective” range shall be placed on probation and shall receive written notification that continued employment with the District is in question.

5.8.1        A written probationary agreement/plan of assistance shall be developed by the supervisor, which shall include a statement clearly identifying (a) specific, measurable, and actionable deficiencies, (b) the available resources that will be provided for improvement, and (c) a recommended course of action intended to improve the administrator’s performance.

5.8.2        An administrator is responsible for improving performance, including using any resources identified by the school district, and demonstrating acceptable levels of improvement in the designated areas of deficiencies, along with successfully completing all terms of the probationary agreement.

5.8.3        Sections.5.7.1 and 5.7.2 above do not apply if the administrator’s unsatisfactory performance was documented for the same deficiency within the previous three years and a written probationary agreement/plan of assistance was implemented.

5.8.4        A second summative evaluation for probationary administrators shall begin twenty (20) working days or more following the professional development meeting.  The second evaluation must be completed by March 1; however, deadline adjustments may be made for administrators hired after the start of the school year or for career administrators assigned probationary status following the first summative evaluation.  NOTE: All second summative evaluations must be completed by March 15, or, with Superintendent’s approval, at least ninety (60) days prior to the end of the contract year. Procedures outlined above shall be repeated.

5.8.5        Career administrators whose total score improves to the "Minimally Effective" range or above on the second evaluation have met the evaluation requirements.

5.8.6        Career administrators whose score remains in the "Not Effective" range on the second evaluation shall be subject to the provisions of Uintah School District Policy 005.1200 Standards of Conduct and Due Process.

5.9  Right to review and appeal: Administrators have fifteen (15) calendar days following the Professional Development Meeting and receipt of the summative evaluation to request a review of the evaluation findings.

5.10          Formative Evaluation: Throughout the school year, the superintendent or his/her designee (1) shall conduct, collect and record data related to administrators’ effectiveness in meeting their Professional Growth Plan goals and the Utah Effective Leadership Standards; and (2) shall engage in informal, ongoing dialogue with administrators regarding data collected throughout the school year.

5.10.1    The superintendent or his/her designee shall meet formally with each administrator at least twice yearly to discuss evidence of their level of effectiveness related to the Utah Effective Leadership Standards, including their progress in utilizing their professional learning plan to accomplish their professional growth goals.

5.11          Each administrator shall receive a rating of 0 (Not Effective), 1 (Minimally Effective), 2 (Effective), or 3 (Highly Effective). 

5.12          70% of the overall effectiveness rating for all administrators shall be based on observation.

6.0  GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION (STUDENT GROWTH – 20% OF OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS RATING)

6.1  The intent of the student growth component of educator evaluation is to encourage greater collaboration, facilitate reflection on student growth data, elicit action, and make it possible for teachers to use assessments that they already use to fulfil the requirements of policy.

6.2  Each educator will identify a specific learning objective and set a target goal for student growth associated with the learning objective.

6.3  Each educator will administer an assessment at the beginning of the instructional term for baseline data.  Teams will use a data analysis protocol to examine the data and determine action steps.  Individual educators will fill out a student growth documentation template and submit it to their supervisor.

6.4  Each educator will administer an assessment at the mid-point of the instructional term for mid-term data.  Teams will use a data analysis protocol to examine the data and determine action steps.  Individual educators will fill out a student growth documentation template and submit it to their supervisor.

6.5  Each educator will administer an assessment at the end of the instructional term for summative data.  Teams will use a data analysis protocol to examine the data, determine action steps, and declare whether or not the target goal was met.  Individual educators will fill out a student growth documentation template and submit it to their supervisor.

6.6  The following rubric will be used to determine a rating for student growth.

·         0 = Educator gave less than 3 assessments

·         1 = Educator gave 3 assessments

·         2 = Educator gave 3 assessments, used a data analysis protocol after each assessment, and committed to action after each assessment.

·         3 = Educator gave 3 assessments, used a data analysis protocol after each assessment, committed to action after each assessment, and reported on the target growth after the 3rd assessment.

6.7  The student growth component of the evaluation will account for 20% of the overall effectiveness rating for all educators.

7.0  GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION (STAKEHOLDER INPUT – 10% OF OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS RATING)

7.1  Stakeholder input surveys shall be made available to students, parents, and teachers during the months of January, February, and/or March in conjunction with SEP/SEOP conferences as scheduled by individual schools.

7.2  Stakeholder input survey reports shall be provided to all educators by April 1st of each school year.

7.3  Educators shall fill out the USD Stakeholder Input Reflection Form and submit it to their supervisor by April 20th of each school year.

7.4  Every educator shall receive a rating for stakeholder input.  A “0” shall be given to educators who do not turn in the reflection form.  A “1” shall be assigned to educators who turn in their reflection late and incomplete.  A “2” shall be assigned to educators who turn in their reflection late but complete.  A “3” shall be assigned to educators who turn in their reflection on time and complete.

7.5  10% of the overall effectiveness rating for all educators shall be based on stakeholder input.

8.0  GUIDELINES FOR CALCULATING THE EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS RATING

Click Here For More Information

8.1  Educators shall be awarded points based on their observation rating.  Educators receiving a “0” shall be awarded 175 points.  Educators receiving a “1” shall receive 350 points.  Educators receiving a “2” shall receive 525 points.  Educators receiving a “3” shall receive 700 points.

8.2  Educators shall be awarded points based on their student growth rating.  Educators receiving a “0” shall be awarded 50 points.  Educators receiving a “1” shall receive 100 points.  Educators receiving a “2” shall receive 150 points.  Educators receiving a “3” shall receive 200 points.

8.3  Educators shall be awarded points based on their stakeholder input rating.  Educators receiving a “0” shall be awarded 0 points.  Educators receiving a “1” shall receive 33 points.  Educators receiving a “2” shall receive 66 points.  Educators receiving a “3” shall receive 100 points.

8.4  Educators shall receive an overall effectiveness rating.  Educators awarded 0 to 250 points shall receive a “Not Effective” rating.  Educators awarded 251 to 500 points shall receive a “Minimal/Emerging Effective” rating.  Educators awarded 501 to 750 points shall receive an “Effective” rating.  Educators awarded 751 to 1000 points shall receive a “Highly Effective” rating.

9.0  GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR’S ELIGIBILITY FOR A WAGE INCREASE

9.1  An educator may not advance a step or a lane on the adopted salary schedule if the educator’s rating is “Not Effective”.

9.2  An educator may not advance a step or a lane on the adopted salary schedule if the educator’s rating is “Minimal/Emerging Effective” unless:

9.2.1        The educator is provisional.  In this case, the educator may not advance a step or a lane on the adopted salary schedule if the educator’s rating is “Not Effective”.

9.2.2        The educator is in the first year of his/her assignment, including a new subject, grade level, or school.  In this case, the educator may not advance a step or a lane on the adopted salary schedule if the educator’s rating is “Not Effective”.

9.3  An educator, upon improving their rating to “Effective” or “Highly Effective”, will be restored to the step/lane they would have been on had they maintained their step increase (as long as the board has approved steps for that school year) not to exceed one step.