1. Michigan’s Educator Evaluation Systems Reflecting Local System Determinations for 2011-12

2. Overview Current Legislative Timelines What we Know About MI Evaluation Systems Principal Training Grants Teacher-Student Data Link (TSDL)

3. Current Legislative Timeline School YearTool Type % of evaluation based on student growth & achievement data Reporting Requirement 2011-2012 locally determined Educator Evaluation Systems significant part* effectiveness labels in June REP collection 2012-2013 locally determined Educator Evaluation Systems & MCEE Pilot 2013-2014 MCEE’s Evaluation Tool 25% 2014-201540% 2015-201650%

4. Current Circumstances Our current legislation requires local systems of evaluations in 2011-12 & 2012-13 – Gives districts flexibility to design systems that work best for them – Over 800 systems across the state – Varying degrees of implementation across the state (in part due to resources and contracts) – Varying degrees of access to training for evaluators (principals)

5. Who MUST be evaluated? Based on the code used to report the employee in the REP. REP Details? Check out: www.michigan.gov/CEPIwww.michigan.gov/CEPI – Click on CEPI Applications on the left – Then, click on Registry of Educational Personnel on the left – Scroll down to EOY 2012 REP Preview – Click on EOY 2012 REP Data Descriptions and go to page 71.

6. Positive Outcomes How can this new legislation and change be a positive for educators and students? – Establishes targets for student achievement at the student, district, and building level. – Provides measurement of progress toward goals for teachers and students. – Allows teachers and administrators to focus on best practice and continuous improvement. – Helps reaffirm the profession by having a system in place to recognize excellence. – Helped secure Michigan’s approval of ESEA Flexibility which waived many of the unrealistic targets within No Child Left Behind

7. Current Circumstances: SFSF Requirements Public reporting of effectiveness labels – Scheduled for release in late fall via mischooldata.org – Teachers labels reported in aggregate by school (number of teachers in each of the four categories) – Principals/Administrators reported at the district level There are likely to be misunderstandings about the “results” this year and next year. – Beta year – Varying components – Varying percentages of growth – Some districts on prior contract (i.e. No new system, but reporting labels was required)

8. Current Circumstances: Beta Year While the legislation was in place for local systems of evaluation prior to the law changing in July 2011, the change made it such that the stakes were higher. And, legislation said systems had to be put into place by September 1, 2011—which meant quick turnaround for some districts who were less prepared or who were planning to use the year to further develop their system. Many districts were hoping/expecting the MCEE to have a system to put into place by April 30, 2012—so some districts did little to develop, not wanting to duplicate efforts or be told they had to change.

9. Current Circumstances: Varying Components The Law: MCL 380.1249 – While there is some definition, there is GREAT variability in terms of implementation – How multiple measures and other components are to be included are not prescribed – Districts made great efforts to update, revise, and/or overhaul their systems of evaluation to meet the requirements and improve their systems of evaluation to provide targeted feedback and support in order to improve student learning.

10. Current Circumstances: Varying % of growth Districts Interpreted “Significant” Differently! – Some have 0% growth because they were on prior contracts that did not require it. – Some chose 10% because their prior system included 0% growth, so 10% was a “significant” increase. Additionally, available measures of “growth” are not widely available for all teachers, so integration of these measures is challenging. – Some districts chose 25% since 25% will be the amount when the MCEE’s system goes into place in 2013-14. – Not only, the varying percentages—but evidences of growth vary greatly from district to district. – Common Assessments were retooled to function as pre and post tests. – MDE’s PLC tool results in applicable grades – Portfolio evidence

11. So what is MDE going to do? We want to avoid/limit inappropriate comparisons, which means analysis and briefing is critical—and being conducted now at MDE. Prior to release: – Analysis of labels and K-12 Survey in the form of a Policy Brief or Facts and Figures document by our Strategic Policy Evaluation and Research Unit – Communication to districts regarding the release with these limitations outline to assist in their own communications. – PPT presentation posted on our website for additional information or to by used by districts in their own presentations.

12. MCEE’s Charge The MCEE will submit to the State Board of Education, the Governor, and the state legislature a report that identifies and recommends all of the following: – A student growth and assessment tool. – A state evaluation tool for teachers. – A state evaluation tool for school administrators. – Changes to the requirements for a professional teaching certificate. – A process for evaluating and approving local evaluation tools for educators that are consistent with the state evaluation tool for teachers and administrators and the act.

13. MCEE’s Pilot Tools and Districts 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning – Clare Public Schools – Leslie Public Schools – Marshall Public Schools – Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching – Garden City Public Schools – Montrose Community Schools – Port Huron School District

14. MCEE’s Pilot Tools and Districts Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model – Big Rapids Public Schools – Farmington Public Schools – North Branch Area Schools The Thoughtful Classroom – Cassopolis Public Schools – Gibraltar School District – Harper Creek Community Schools – Lincoln Consolidated Schools

15. MCEE Resources Council Website: www.mcede.orgwww.mcede.org Council Members: – Deborah Loewenberg Ball, MCEE Chair – Joseph Martineau, MDE Designee (nonvoting) – Mark Reckase – David Vensel – Jennifer Hammond

16. Principal Training Grants Orientation, Process, & Timelines

17. Principal Training Grants – 2012-13 SY The Law: MCL 388.1695, Sec. 95 – $1.75 million allocated for Principal and Assistant Principal Training for Conducting Educator Evaluations – Assist principals and assistant principals with this work in the second year of educator evaluation implementation

18. Training Programs Applications for Training Programs were accepted in August Educator evaluation training programs had to meet the following statutory criteria to be considered for approval: Contain instructional content on methods of evaluating teachers consistently across multiple grades and subjects; Include training on evaluation observation that is focused on reliability and bias awareness and that instills skills needed for consistent, evidence-based observations; Incorporate the use of videos of actual lessons for applying rubrics and consistent scoring; Align with recommendations of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness; and Provide ongoing support to maintain inter-rater reliability.

19. Approved Training Programs A Framework for Teaching: Supporting Professional Learning (Lenawee ISD) Supporting Teacher Growth Through Evaluation (Kent ISD) Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching Proficiency Test Instrument (Teachscape) Teacher Evaluation System(s) CUES Model (Mid- continent Research for Education and Learning) Clarkston Community Schools Educator Evaluation Program (Clarkston Community Schools) Teacher Evaluation System(s) Standards-Based Model (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) Effective Evaluation for Educators (Jackson ISD)The Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning (The University of Washington, Center for Educational Leadership) Evaluation Collaboration and Feedback Training to be Consistent and Support Teachers (Airport Community Schools) The Marzano Observation Protocol (Marzano Research Laboratory) Educator Evaluation: Together We Make Each Other Better (Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals - MASSP) The Thoughtful Classroom (Silver Strong & Associates) Great Lakes Bay Instructional Leadership Series for Principals and Teacher Leaders (Bay-Arenac ISD) Training for Observers/Evaluators (Imlay City Community Schools)

20. Application & Award Process NOVEMBER MEGS+ will open for grant applications by district – Districts will select the training program that they have already signed up for in the 2012-13 school year or plan to sign up for in the 2012-13 school year – Districts will submit the PICs for all principals and assistant principals who have gone through selected training or who will go through the selected training.

21. Application & Award Process DECEMBER Grant submissions will be verified with the REP submission to ensure that Assignment Codes of those submitted are Principals and Assistant Principals (73100-73399, 74100-74399) Business rules applied to determine grantees JANUARY Awards disseminated through School Aid

22. TSDL Teacher-Student Data Link

23. Teacher/Student Data Link Data initiative to link each student to the courses he/she took and to the teachers who taught those courses Required under State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as a deliverable Will mature in the coming years to be able to provide measures and information over time Required as a compliance factor in the NEW School Accountability Scorecards for 2012-13

24. State-provided measures Extremely limited, so districts choose which “pieces” make sense in their local context Generated for each educator of students in tested grades, regardless of subject taught. BUT “growth”, or Performance Level Change (PLC), exists only for reading and mathematics for MEAP and MI-Access FI in grades 4-8

25. How does the TSDL Work? Teachers are linked to courses Students are linked to courses For each course taught, a teacher has a list of students who were reported as taking that course. Spring assessment data 2011 and fall assessment data 2011 will attribute to teachers from the 2010- 2011 school year “Feeder school” for fall assessment data

26. Course Student Information Student Assessment Data Teacher Information Course Student Information Student Assessment Data Teacher Information Course Student Information Student Assessment Data Teacher Information Teacher-Student Linked Assessment File (From BAA Secure Site)

27. Linking assessment data to students Once teachers are linked to students, the TSDL file provides: – Performance level change (PLC) for MEAP and MI- Access FI in reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught) in grades 4-8. – Performance level in writing, science, social studies, reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught) across all tested grades.

28. Performance Level Change “Growth” Year X Grade Y MEAP Performance Level Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance Level Not ProficientPartially ProficientProficientAdv LowMidHighLowHighLowMidHighMid Not Proficient Low MIISI Mid DMIISI High DDMIISI Partially Proficient Low SDDDMIISI High SD DDMIISI Proficient Low SD DDMIISI Mid SD DDMII High SD DDMI Advanced MidSD DDM

29. Access to TSDL data TSDL User role must be established in the Secure Site to access the data at the district or school level Spring Assessments/High school link available through the Secure Site as of January. Fall Assessments (Elementary and Middle) TSDL through the Secure Site as of March.

30. After downloading the TSDL File District/school performs roster verification on the TSDL file District/school needs to adjust each list based on rules like: – student attendance – subject taught match – grade taught – other local factors

31. Sample Components of Evaluation

32. Using PLC Data with MDE Tool This year, the TSDL provides PLC data linked to teachers to districts for integration into local systems along with an optional tool. These are general guidelines/suggestions— NOT requirements for reading and math in grades 4-8

33. One Possible Method: Using MDE Tool STEP #1 Download TSDL file through BAA Secure Site Apply rules regarding which students “count” toward a teacher’s evaluation (i.e. attendance rules) Consider de-duplication of records Paste your modified TSDL data into the Weighted PLC Tool

34. One Possible Method Using MDE Tool STEP #2 Determine/Adjust the Weight the PLCs in the tool (calculations automatically adjust/are calculated) Default weights in the MDE TSDL Weighted PLC Tool: Sig. ImprovImproveMaintainDeclineSig. Decline Proficient 211-2 Not Proficient 210-2

35. One Possible Method Using MDE Tool STEP #3 Look at the results at various levels: what is the Weighted PLC at the district, school, grade, and/or subject level? What is a reasonable Weighted PLC for teachers to show? Note: Possible range using this Weighted PLC method is from -2 to 2. The meaning of 0 here is that you’re, on average, maintaining your proficient students. If using a different weight, it’s necessary to determine the range & meaning of the results.

36. Example: Determining Thresholds In Sunshine School: – The weighted PLC is.643 for math at the school level – Considerations – Positive Weighted PLC = effective – Negative Weighted PLC = minimally effective – Determine threshold for highly effective or ineffective – Set the bar based on the school level—that teachers should at least meet the school level weighted PLC. – For example, for a teacher to be considered effective for this portion of the evaluation, he/she must have a Weighted PLC of.60 or greater.

37. Student Math PLPLCWeighted PLC Johnny3SI2 Tammy3I1 Chloe2M1 Jose1M1 Frank2D Sally2D Carla4M0 Martin3M0 Number of students: 8 Total WPLC: 3

38. Using weighted PLC and thresholds To calculate the teacher’s percent of students demonstrating growth, divide Weighted PLC by number of students: 3/8 =.375 If target for “effective” was.643, this teacher did not meet the “effective” threshold. BUT, if the target for effective was having a positive Weighted PLC (>0), this teacher would have met it. Use this as one “growth” component of a multi- measure evaluation system

39. Paste the modified* TSDL data into the Weighted PLC tool.

40. School Level Weighted PLC =.643

41. PIC (teacher) Level Weighted PLC = 1.33

42. Resource and Contact Information Check it out on the web: Go to www.michigan.gov/baa and click on the Educator Evaluations tab on the left hand side or click here.www.michigan.gov/baahere Contact Carla Howe with questions: howec2@michigan.gov or 517-241-2884 howec2@michigan.gov