1. Public School Academies Unit
Educator Evaluation
Public School Academies Unit

2. Topics Introduction (presenter and unit) Legislation (3)
Tools (3) w/MOECS slide
Responsibilities (teacher, admin & district) (4)
Student Learning Objectives (2)
Student Growth Percentages (4)
Quality Assurance System (6)
Appeals Process (2)
11/21/2018

3. Introduction Public Schools Academies Unit Contract review Monitoring
Technical assistance on various subjects
Professional Development
Partnerships
11/21/2018

4. Legislation (1 of 3) Education Evaluation Legislation by Section
Section Section establishes the requirements for teacher evaluations in the State of Michigan
Section a Section a establishes assignment of pupil to teacher rated as ineffective and notification
11/21/2018

5. Legislation (2 of 3)
Section b Section b establishes the requirements for administrator evaluations in the State of Michigan
Section j Section j establishes the requirements of issuance of the initial professional teaching certificate
Section k Section k establishes requirements of issuance of initial or renewed advanced professional education certificate
11/21/2018

6. Legislation (3 of 3)
Requires that evaluations are annual, and that they incorporate student growth as a significant component
25% in the school year;
40% in ;
Beginning with the SY, core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 50% of student growth must be measured using the state assessments (note); and
Midyear progress reports required for teachers (a) in the first year of the probationary period or (b) received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective on the most recent annual evaluation.
Districts may choose to use state assessment data prior to , but are not required to do so. The MDE will provide student growth percentiles (SGPs) as the state measure of student growth starting with the state assessments
11/21/2018

7. Tools (1 of 3) Teachers: Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model
Thoughtful Classroom
5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning
Administrators:
MASA’s School Advance Administrator Evaluation Instrument
Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric.
11/21/2018

8. Tools (2 of 3)
Districts may modify approved tools or use tools not included on the state-approved list
Tools must meet requirements outlined in legislation and the district meets transparency and public reporting guidelines specified in the law
Teachers and administrators with three consecutive highly effective ratings may receive biennial reviews in place of annual reviews
Biennial - taking place every other year.
11/21/2018

9. Tools (3 of 3)
Professional Education and Advanced Professional Education Certificates are tied to effectiveness data collected at the state level
Evaluation results are housed on the Michigan Online Educator Certification System (MOECS)
11/21/2018

10. MOECS Sample
11/21/2018

11. Admin Responsibility
Conduct, or designate another person to conduct, at least annual evaluations of all teachers
Develop specific performance goals in the annual year-end evaluation and identify training to help meet those goals, in consultation with the teacher
Develop an individualized development plan (IDP) for any teacher in the first year of the probationary period (first full year of employment) or who received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective on his/her most recent annual year-end evaluation
11/21/2018

12. Teacher Responsibility
Per annual, year-end evaluation, teachers consult with the building principal or designee to develop performance goals and recommend PD for the next school year
Teachers in the first year of probationary status, or who received an ineffective or minimally effective rating on most recent evaluation, consult with the evaluator to develop an IDP
11/21/2018

13. District Responsibility (1 of 2)
Information of each adopted observation or evaluation tool on district website
The research base for the evaluation framework, instrument, and process
The identity and qualifications of the author or authors
Evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence.
11/21/2018

14. District Responsibility (2 of 2)
Evaluation framework and rubrics with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators
Description of the processes for conducting classroom observations, collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing performance improvement plans
Description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training

15. Student Learning Objectives (1 of 2)
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) are measurable, long-term, academic goals, informed by available data, that a teacher or teacher team sets at the beginning of the year for all students; and
Legislation requires student growth and assessment component of a teacher's evaluation consist of the state student growth and assessment measurement standards and a local student growth assessment. 
Continued… 
11/21/2018

16. Student Learning Objectives (2 of 2)
11/21/2018

17. Student Growth (1 of 4)
To calculate SGPs, students are grouped with peers throughout state who had comparable score patterns on past tests;
Students in each academic peer group are then ordered based on their score on the current year test; and
Receives a percentile rank, compared to their academic peers (note).
Like other percentile scores, SGPs range from 0-99, where a SGP of 50 indicates that the student demonstrated growth in the content area equal or greater to half of the students with comparable score histories on that subject-matter test.
11/21/2018

18. Student Growth (2 of 4)
11/21/2018

19. Student Growth (3 of 4)
11/21/2018

20. Student Growth (4 of 4)
MDE SGP Educator Evaluation Calculator Tool helps ensure adherence to policy recommendations while greatly decreasing the time required to use SGP scores to determine SG ratings when compared to manual calculation; and
MDE has an instructional video providing detailed direction for using the tool may be downloaded from the MDE educator evaluation student growth measurement resource website.
11/21/2018

21. Quality Assurance System (1 of 6)
Educator evaluation systems should provide guidance for continuous improvement:
Teacher evaluation is one component of an assurance system (school improvement plan)
A quality assurance system is comprised of valid data from multiple measures that evaluates the effectiveness of its students; and
The system uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhances program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve student learning and development.
11/21/2018

22. Quality Assurance System (2 of 6)
Align content standards to the observation tool to build a more comprehensive picture
Observation data of comparison to determine the growth of teachers between evaluations (minimally two).
Alignment to assessment tools such as M-STEP, NWEA, etc.

23. Quality Assurance System (3 of 6)
Appropriate Responsibility, Accountability, and Awareness:
The need for good quality data and how they can contribute to it;
Their responsibilities regarding data collection, storage, analysis and reporting; and
The implications of poor data quality in their area regarding internal and external accountability, including those affecting other departments and the school collectively.
11/21/2018

24. Quality Assurance System (4 of 6)
Appropriate Policies and Procedures
Define key data requirements and assurance arrangements (dates, deadlines, expectations for staff);
Local procedures must exist for all key activities that include major data collection exercises;
All policies and procedures should regularly be reviewed to consider their impact on data quality and to ensure they reflect any change in need; and
Departmental managers should ensure that all such policies and procedures are adopted, embedded within working processes and that compliance is achieved.
11/21/2018

25. Quality Assurance System (5 of 6)
Appropriate Systems and Processes
Clear systems and business processes should exist in which data collection and reporting are an integral part; and
Guidelines for all processes supporting key data requirements as defined by the State of Michigan and the district should exist and be followed consistently across the district, that is at each building and across the level (elementary, middle and high school).
11/21/2018

26. Quality Assurance System (6 of 6)
Appropriate Staff Development
All members of staff accessing, inputting and amending data on district-wide systems should have the appropriate knowledge, competencies, and capacity to carry out the activity and preserve data quality; and
All policies should be communicated effectively to relevant staff, and this will include policies on security and data protection as part of the wider consideration of data quality.
11/21/2018

27. Appeals Process (1 of 2)
Ensuring Registry of Educational Personnel (REP) information is up to date or incorrect educator effectiveness labels are changed;
Appeals are done within the REP;
Educators in instructional assignments log into MOECS account ( and check the accuracy of your evaluation data;

28. Appeals Process (2 of 2)
Educators in non-instructional assignments – contact the district to obtain a printout or screenshot of the rating the district submitted to the REP;
there is a discrepancy, contact the district that reported the data to learn about the district process for submitting a data appeal; and
Be proactive and follow up to ensure that an appeal is submitted by your district during the September 1-December 1, 2017 appeals window.
11/21/2018

29. Questions
11/21/2018

30. Contacts Charter School Contacts in Michigan:
MAPSA – Dan
MDE –Tammy
National Charter School Institute –James
MDE – Brian Lloyd, Student or
Useful Websites:
MCCSA –
MAPSA –charterschools.org
MACSB-
MDE –
National Charter School Institute -nationalcharterschools.org
NACSA -
11/21/2018