Evaluation Bills Introduced

After months of meetings and collecting input from stakeholders, State Representatives Margaret O'Brien (R), Portage and Adam Zemke (D), Ann Arbor) have introduced a pair of carefully crafted bills to implement the recommendations of the Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness (MCEE). While the legislation does not exactly mirror the Council's final recommendation, it captures all of the important elements and provides an excellent starting point for a legislative debate. HB 5223 is the main bill and deals primarily with teacher evaluation, while HB 5224 deals with administrator evaluation. The bills amend the current evaluation sections of the School Code which means that significant parts of current law remain in effect. Here is a summary of the changes.

Teacher Evaluation
1. Effective with the 2014-15 school year. 2. For the first three years the evaluation is based 25% on student growth and 75% on teacher practice, which is a huge improvement on the current requirements. 3. In years four (2017-18) and beyond, the evaluation is based 50% on student growth and 50% on teacher practice. 4. Student growth is measured as follows: a. For core subject teachers with state assessment data: i. At least 40% (of the 25% or 50% above) based on state assessment data ii. No more than 10% based on building growth goals iii. The remainder based on local growth data including student learning objectives (SLO). b. For all other teachers: i. No more than 10% based on building growth goals ii. The remainder based on local growth data including SLOs 5. Teacher practice would be measured as follows: a. At least 80% based on classroom observations by a trained observer made using an approved framework b. Not more than 20% based on locally determined factors

6. All four MCEE recommended evaluation frameworks are pre-approved a. Danielson Framework for Teaching and Learning b. Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model c. The Thoughtful Classroom d. 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning 7. MDE will maintain a list of the approved frameworks and may add or subtract evaluations using criteria that are in the bill and based on MCEE recommendations 8. Districts may use other frameworks, adapt one of the approved models, or develop a local framework provided that these alternatives meet the same series of criteria 9. There is an appeals process for teachers who feel that the evaluation is not fair. 10. The bill mandates a mentor for any teacher rated as ineffective 11. All observers must be trained in the following: a. The district's selected framework. This training must be delivered by the vendor. b. Providing coaching and feedback. c. Rater reliability. 12. The bill also recommends retraining every 3 years in coaching/feedback and rater reliability. 13. Elements from the current law that remained: a. Four rating categories (highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective) b. Automatic dismissal for teachers with 3 consecutive ineffective ratings c. Optional biennial evaluation for teachers with 3 consecutive highly effective ratings d. Midyear progress reports for probationary teachers and those who received a minimally effective or ineffective on their most recent evaluation

Administrator Evaluation
1. 2. 3. 4. Would take effect in the 2014-15 school year. For the first three years the evaluation is based 25% on student growth and 75% on practice. In years four and beyond, the evaluation is based 50% on student growth and 50% on practice. Student growth would be measured as follows: a. At least 40% based on state assessment data b. The remainder based on local growth data

5. Administrator practice would be measured as follows: a. At least 80% based on classroom observations by a trained observer made using an approved framework b. Not more than 20% based on locally determined factors c. One criterion for administrator evaluation is how well the administrator conducts teacher evaluations. 6. Three preapproved frameworks: a. School Advance Administrator Evaluation Instrument b. Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric c. Marzano School Leadership Evaluation 7. MDE will maintain a list of the approved frameworks and may add or subtract evaluations using criteria in the bill that are based on MCEE recommendations 8. Districts may use other frameworks, adapt one of the approved models, or develop a local framework provided that these alternatives meet the same series of criteria 9. All observers must be trained in the following: a. The district's selected framework. This training must be delivered by the vendor. b. Providing coaching and feedback. c. Rater reliability. 10. The bill also recommends retraining every 3 years in coaching/feedback and rater reliability. 11. Elements from the current law that remained: a. Four rating categories (highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective) b. Automatic dismissal for administrators with 3 consecutive ineffective ratings c. Optional biennial evaluation for administrators with 3 consecutive highly effective ratings Funding for the implementation and ongoing support of this new evaluation process is not identified in these bills. Appropriations for school operations is not part of this package and will be dealt with in the State School Aid bill which is to be moved through the Legislature starting in two or three weeks. The workgroup that put these bills together also included Rep. Bill Rogers (R)

As part of their work on this issue, MEA lobbyists met with members from eight of the pilot districts in the MCEE study regarding their experience with the various models. Several things stood out about the process that have been addressed in the bills, including: 1. Administrators who were trained by the vendors did a better job of evaluating and had a higher level of support by their employees 2. Student growth needs to be measured by more than just standardized tests, including local assessments and student learning objectives 3. An appeal process need to be part of any evaluation model 4. Use of student growth for evaluations needs to be pushed back from the currently scheduled implementation date of 2014-15. The bills received a hearing on January 22nd before the House Education Committee which is chaired by Rep. Lisa Lyons (R), Alto. Considerable work needs to be done on the bills before they become law, and to this end, further hearings will be held in the coming weeks.