Teacher and Administrator Evaluation Update Before The Board of Education By Ms. Christine Sipperley, Mr. Brian Whiston, and Dr. Glenn Maleyko. February 24, 2014

Important Changes  2005 Dearborn brought in a researched based model and abandoned the checklist evaluation system  2010 State Law Changed requiring all teachers to receive evaluations  2011 Major Changes to the State Law on Evaluations. Student Growth Data included for teachers and administrators. Went to a four category scale:  Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, and Ineffective.

Teacher Evaluation Committee  Bill Tucker Mark Palise  Jill Chochol Shannon Peterson  Andrew Denison Linda Salamey  Fatme Faraj Robert Seeterlin  Hassane Jaafar Gail Shenkman  Julia Maconochie Chris Sipperley  Wyatt David Steve Salah  Glenn Maleyko Nicole Chubb

A High Level of Collaboration  A High Level of Collaboration among the teacher evaluation committee as well as the administrator evaluation committee. The union is part of both committees

Administrator Evaluation Committee Patty Buoy Youssef Mosallam Jill Chochol Shannon Peterson Andrew DenisonGail Shenkman Glenn Maleyko

Teachscape  We are ahead of the game and leaders with the training that we have been providing  We are requiring all administrators that evaluate teachers to take the teachscape class and Test.  Average about practice hours on-line  The assessment takes between 5-7 hours to complete  14 started in a new cohort this year.

Weighted Formula  75% will be based on Observation Protocol and the 5 Standards for Effective Teaching.  This includes observations (formal and not formal), walkthroughs, other performance measures that are related to the teacher evaluation rubric which includes all 5 standards. Professional Responsibilities are included as one of the standards.

25% Growth Data  5% District growth based on state accountability measures  10% Building Growth  10% Classroom Growth

10% Building Growth Data  Elementary -SRI, DRA & DRA task analysis, Star Math, 6 plus 1 traits, Building/District Common Assessments, NWEA, MEAP, Art, Music and & PE common Assessments.  Middle School -SRI, DRA, Star Math, 6 plus 1 traits, Building/District Common Assessments, NWEA, MEAP, Art, Music and & PE common Assessments, and Explore.  High School- Explore, Plan, MME, MEAP, SRI, Star Math, Common Assessments, AP exams, and Departmental Assessments.

10% Classroom Growth Data  10% Classroom Growth based on State Assessments, District Common Assessments or Classroom Assessments (ex. Performance or product measures or other formative assessments, pre and post tests are required).

Proposed Legislation in Lansing To Administrator and Teacher Evaluations  House Bill 5223 (MCL & j)  Would revise current evaluation requirements for teachers, and require that school districts meet new requirements for school administrator evaluations, as described in detail in House Bill 5224.

Other Proposed Requirements  A teacher be must observed at least two times each year, unless the teacher had received a rating of effective or highly effective on the two most recent evaluations. Using the same evaluation tool.

Student Growth and Assessment Component  House Bill 5223 requires that the student growth and assessment component of a teacher's evaluation consist of the state student growth and assessment measurement standards  40% of the teacher Growth Data Component would be based on state provided data

Proposed Growth Data Continued  Assuming that the state-provided growth data was available in the content areas and in the grades where the teachers provide instruction.  A local student growth assessment can be included and must be where state data is not available  School Level Aggregate Data can be part of the evaluation.

Student Growth Data Included in Evaluations by State Mandate

March 1 st, 2014 Deadline  Under the bill, the Michigan Department of Education would be required to develop state student growth and assessment measurement standards not later than March 1, The measurement standards would have to meet all of the following requirements:

4 Tools To Choose From  Council for Educator Effectiveness, including:  1. Charlotte Danielson's Framework for  Teaching;  2. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation  3. Five Dimensions  4. Thoughtful Classroom

HB 5224 Administrator Evaluation  Schools may use one of the following frameworks:  1. The school advance administrator evaluation instrument developed by Reeves and McNeill for the Michigan Association of School Administrators;  2. The Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric;  3. The Marzano tool

Questions or Comments?  Thank you for your support.