Educator Evaluation Mary K. Bradley, Associate Director for School Operations Mark J. Weinberg, Director of Academic Performance & Accountability The Center for Charter Schools Central Michigan University September 28,

HOW MANY GREAT TEACHERS DID YOU HAVE? 2

THE WIDGET EFFECT “<1% of teachers receive unsatisfactory ratings, even in schools where students fail to meet basic academic standards.” "[Teacher evaluation] policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers but they have produced an industrial factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets. A recent report from TNTP found that almost all teachers are rated the same. Who in their right mind really believes that? We need to work together to change this..." Arne Duncan U.S. Secretary of Education 3

ARE TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS TALKING ABOUT THE NEW EVALUATIONS? 4

THESE NEW LAWS APPLY TO ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Revised School Code -Section 1249 Evaluation -Section 1249a Notice State School Aid Act -Section 94a 5

6 “Making staffing decisions based on merit and performance encourages good teachers to keep doing what they are doing and helps ensure students receive the highest quality education. This long overdue reform will protect outstanding teachers who are enthusiastic about the material and able to connect with students in a way that makes them want to learn.” Governor Rick Snyder July 19, 2011

Educator Evaluation System Requirements “Not later than September 1, 2011 and subject to subsection 9 [CBA expiration], with involvement of teachers and school administrators, the board…shall adopt and implement for all teachers and school administrators a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system that does all of the following…” MCL (1) 7

ANNUAL EVALUATION “Evaluates the teacher’s or school administrator's job performance at least annually while providing timely and constructive feedback.” MCL (1) 8

STUDENT GROWTH “Establishes clear approaches to measuring student growth and provides teachers and school administrators with relevant data on student growth.” MCL (1)(b) “Shall be measured by -National, -State, or -Local assessments And other objective criteria” MCL (1)(c) 9

STUDENT GROWTH MDE will provide measures for every educator, regardless of subject taught, based on and data: Student growth in reading and math Percent of students proficient in math, reading, writing, science, and social studies Foundational measure of student proficiency and improvement Understanding Michigan’s Educator Evaluations MDE (December 2010) 10

STUDENT GROWTH ASSESSMENT DATA Percentage of evaluation tool that will be based on growth: % % % To be measured using the student growth assessment tool that is required under future legislation MCL (2)(a)(i) 11

DATA TO BE USED “If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation shall be based on the student growth and assessment data for most recent 3- consecutive-school year period.” If not, “…shall be based on all student growth and assessment data that are available for the teacher.” MCL (2)(a)(ii) 12

SPECIFIC GOALS/TRAINING & CORRELATION TO IDP Annual Evaluation shall include: -Specific performance goals to improve effectiveness for the next school year, and -Recommended training identified by the school administrator Developed by administrator conducting the evaluation, in consultation with the teacher An Individualized Development Plan (IDP) shall be developed for teachers described in subsection (b) that includes these goals and training and is designed to assist the teacher to improve his or her effectiveness MCL (2)(a)(iii) 13

MIDYEAR PROGRESS REPORT Making adjustments at half-time Required for: teacher who is in their first year of probation or who received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective in most recent annual year-end evaluation. Purpose: Supplemental tool to gauge and assist in a teacher’s improvement from the preceding school year. 14

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Requirements 1.Observations as prescribed in the evaluation tool as described in subsection (d) 2.Review of lesson plan, state curriculum standard being used, and review of pupil engagement in the lesson 3.Full class period not required 4.Multiple classroom observations each school year unless a teacher has received a rating of effective or highly effective on his or her 2 most recent annual year-end evaluations. MCL (2)(c) 15

ADOPT STATE EVALUATION TOOL State Evaluation Tool The school shall adopt the state evaluation tool for teachers that is required under legislation enacted by the legislature based on the recommendations contained in the report of the governor’s council on educator effectiveness Local Evaluation Tool However, if a school has a local evaluation tool for teachers that is consistent with the state evaluation tool, the school may conduct annual year-end evaluations for teachers using that local evaluation tool MCL (2)(d) 16

EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS The performance evaluation system shall assign an effectiveness rating to each teacher of: -Highly Effective -Effective -Minimally Effective -Ineffective Based on his or her score on the annual year-end evaluation described in this subsection. MCL (2)(e) 17

BIENNIAL EVALUATION 18 Highly Effective Rating—3 Consecutive Years The school may choose to conduct a year-end evaluation biennially (every 2 years) instead of annually End of Biennial Evaluations If an administrator is not rated Highly Effective on 1 of these biennial year-end evaluations, the administrator shall again be provided with annual year-end evaluations MCL (3)(h)

MENTOR OR COACH A school is encouraged to assign a mentor or coach to each teacher who is described in subsection (b) MCL (2)(f) 19

DISMISSAL Mandatory Dismissal The performance evaluation system shall provide that, if a teacher is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations, the school shall dismiss the teacher from employment. 20

EVALUATION REVIEW Evaluation Review Evaluation system provides that, if a teacher who is not in a probationary period is rated ineffective on an annual year-end evaluation, the teacher may request a review of the evaluation and rating by the superintendent or chief administrator as applicable. MCL (2)(i) 21

REVISED SCHOOL CODE │ SEC. 1249(3) Administrator Evaluation 22

ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION 23 “Beginning with the school year, the board…shall ensure that the performance evaluation system for building-level school administrators and for central office-level school administrators who are regularly involved in instructional matter meets all of the following…” MCL (3)

ANNUAL EVALUATION 24 “The performance evaluation system shall include at least an annual year- end evaluation for all school administrators described in this subsection by the…superintendent or his or her designee…except that a superintendent or chief administrator shall be evaluated by the board…” MCL (3)(a)

STUDENT GROWTH ASSESSMENT DATA 25 To be measured by “aggregate student growth and assessment data that are used in teacher annual year-end evaluations in each school in which the school administrator works as an administrator or, for a central office-level school administrator, for the entire school district.” % % % MCL (3)(b)

NON-GROWTH DATA CRITERIA EVALUATION PROFICIENCY 26 If School Administrator Conducts Teacher Performance Evaluations The evaluation system must include the school administrator’s training and proficiency in using the evaluation tool for teachers described in subsection (2)(d), including a random sampling of his or her teacher performance evaluations to assess the quality of the school administrator's input in the teacher performance evaluation system If School Administrator Designates Another Person To Conduct Teacher Evaluations The evaluation system must include the designee’s performance on the above to be counted as if it were the school administrator personally conducting the teacher performance evaluations MCL (3)(c)(i)

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 27 “The progress made by the school…in meeting the goals set forth in the school’s school improvement plan or the school district’s school improvement plans.” MCL (3)(c)(ii)

PUPIL ATTENDANCE 28 “Pupil attendance in the school or school district.” MCL (3)(c)(iii)

FEEDBACK/PERTINENT INFORMATION 29 “Student, parent, and teacher feedback, and other information considered pertinent by the superintendent or other school administrator conducting the performance evaluation or the board…” MCL (3)(c)(iv)

STATE EVALUATION TOOL 30 State Evaluation Tool The school shall adopt the state evaluation tool for administrators that is required under legislation enacted by the legislature based on the recommendations contained in the report of the governor’s council on educator effectiveness Local Evaluation tool However, if a school has a local evaluation tool for administrators that is consistent with the state evaluation tool, the school may conduct annual year-end evaluations for administrators using that local evaluation tool MCL (3)(d)

ADMINISTRATOR EFFECTIVENESS RATING 31 The performance evaluation system shall assign an effectiveness rating to each administrator of: -Highly Effective -Effective -Minimally Effective -Ineffective Based on his or her score on the annual year-end evaluation described in subdivision (d). MCL (3)(e)

ADMINISTRATOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN 32 Required Improvement Plan If a school administrator is rated as minimally effective or ineffective: The person or persons conducting the evaluation shall develop and require the school administrator to implement an improvement plan to correct the deficiencies The improvement plan shall recommend professional development opportunities and other measures designed to improve the rating of the next annual year-end evaluation MCL (3)(f)

DISMISSAL 33 Mandatory Dismissal The performance evaluation system shall provide that, if an administrator is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations, the school shall dismiss the administrator from employment MCL (3)(g)

BIENNIAL EVALUATION 34 Highly Effective Rating—3 Consecutive Years The school may choose to conduct a year-end evaluation biennially (every 2 years) instead of annually End of Biennial Evaluations If an administrator is not rated Highly Effective on 1 of these biennial year-end evaluations, the administrator shall again be provided with annual year-end evaluations MCL (3)(h)

REVISED SCHOOL CODE │ SEC. 1249(7) Exemption 35

EXEMPTION FROM SUBSECTION (2) & (3) “If all of the following apply for a public school…, then the school…is not required to comply with subsection (2) or (3) for that public school: (a) As of July 19, 2011, the school…has already implemented and is currently using a performance evaluation system for that public school that meets all of the following requirements” MCL (7) 36

EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS 37 Evaluation Exemption Requirements 1.Based on Student Growth- the most significant portion of the evaluation is based on student growth and assessment data 2.Research-Based Measures- the system uses research- based measures to determine student growth, which may be measured by standards-based, nationally normed assessments 3.Multiple Observations- the system determines professional competence through multiple direct observations of classroom and professional practices throughout the school year 4.Ratings Drive Decisions- Teacher effectiveness and ratings, as measured by student growth data, are factored into teacher retention, promotion and termination decisions

EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS 38 Evaluation Exemption Requirements 5.Inform PD- teacher and school administrator performance evaluation results are used to inform teacher professional development for the succeeding year. 6.Evaluate Annually- ensures teachers and school administrators are evaluated at least annually. MCL (7)

EXEMPTION NOTICE 39 Evaluation Exemption Notice Requirements 1.The school notifies the council by November 1, 2011 that the school is exempt under this subsection 2.The school posts a description of its evaluation system on its website MCL (7)(b)

REVISED SCHOOL CODE │ SEC. 1249a Ineffective Teacher Notice 40

INEFFECTIVE TEACHER NOTICE 1.Beginning in The school shall notify the pupil’s parent or legal guardian that the pupil has been assigned to a teacher who has been rated as ineffective on his or her 2 most recent annual year-end evaluations 3.The notification shall be in writing and delivered to the parent or legal guardian not later than July 15 immediately preceding the beginning of the school year for which the pupil is assigned to the teacher, and shall identify the teacher who is the subject of the notification. MCL a 41

STATE SCHOOL AID ACT │ SEC. 94a Data Collection 42

CEPI DATA-GATHERING ACTIVITIES 1. Link teacher/student data through district submission of student course-taking and academic progress data and a reported “teacher of record” 2. Add field to REP to report results of annual educator evaluations 3. Principals evaluations reported in the end-of- year 2011 collection of the REP 4. Data on the results of evaluations for teachers will be collected beginning April 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012 MDE Memorandum 1/06/11 43

REVISED SCHOOL CODE │ SEC Timeline 44

TIMELINE Early fall 2011: MDE provides the following measures to districts for every educator, regardless of subject taught, based on and 2010-­11 data: Student growth in reading & math Percent of students proficient in math, reading, writing, science, and social studies Foundational measure of student proficiency and improvement (same for each teacher in a school) Fall 2011-­Winter 2012: Districts implement their locally-­determined educator evaluation systems of all educators, using the data provided by MDE when appropriate. Spring 2012: Districts conduct educator evaluations. End of year 2012: Districts report effectiveness ratings for all principals, administrators, and teachers. Source: Michigan Department of Education, April 2011, 45