Understanding Michigan's Educator Evaluations

Ballard's picture

UNDERSTANDING MICHIGAN’S EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS
DECEMBER 2010

Michigan school reform law provides that districts adopt and implement an annual performance evaluation system for teachers and administrators. The federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) grant required districts, as a condition of receiving funds, to sign assurances that included agreement to report on the results of these
evaluations.

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) will support districts in their implementation of these evaluations. The purpose of this document is to clarify the roles of districts and MDE and provide a high-level timeline for implementation of educator evaluations.

What are districts required to do?
• Conduct annual educator evaluations.
• Include state and local measures of student growth as a significant factor in those educator evaluations.
• Locally determine the details of the educator evaluations, the consequences, and the timeline for implementation.
o This includes identifying which measures of student growth and
proficiency are appropriate to include in educator evaluations, and the extent to which this varies by educator role.
• Tie these educator effectiveness labels to decisions regarding promotion and
retention of teachers and administrators, including tenure and certification
decisions.
• Use a performance-based compensation method that evaluates performance
based at least in part on student growth data.
• Report an educator effectiveness label for all teachers and administrators,
beginning with principals in 2011 and extending to all educators in 2012.

What are districts encouraged to do?
• Use the Framework for Educator Evaluations to guide the development of a system of educator evaluation. This Framework, developed by the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP), Michigan Education Association (MEA), American Federation of Teachers-Michigan (AFT-MI), and the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association (MEMSPA), can serve as a model for educator evaluations.
• Identify ways to measure student growth and progress toward proficiency
using local measures and data.
• Include data from multiple sources as measures of educator performance
whenever possible.
• Collaborate with each other and with the state to identify “best practices” for
evaluation methods, for metrics in currently non-assessed content areas
and/or grades, and to identify key data sources.
• Begin reporting educator effectiveness labels for all other school and district
administrators at the same time as for principals if the evaluation system is in
place.

What are MDE and/or Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) required to do?
• Submit the statewide percentage of educators rated as highly effective,
effective, and ineffective beginning with principals in 2011 and for all educators by 2012.
• Link student data with the teacher of record beginning in 2010-2011.
• Provide districts and schools with measures of student growth in reading and
mathematics for each.
• Provide districts with measures of student proficiency in writing, science,
social studies, and reading and mathematics for each teacher (regardless of
subject taught).
• Report the proportion of educators rated as highly effective, effective, and
ineffective in the state.
• Report the type of factors used in educator evaluations statewide, and the
proportion of evaluations which included student growth as a significant
factor.

What are MDE and/or CEPI planning to do or currently doing in support of
educator evaluations?
• Collect evaluation data for principals in the end-of-year 2011 Registry of
Educational Personnel (REP) submission and for all educators in the end-of-
the year 2012 REP submission. Districts can choose to either report the
labels from the Framework for Educator Evaluations (exceeds goals, meets
goals, progressing toward goals, and does not meet goals) OR to report the
three labels required by the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (highly effective,
effective, ineffective).
o MDE will crosswalk with Framework for Educator Evaluation ratings into
the required effectiveness ratings as follows:
Exceeds goals = Highly effective
Meets goals or progressing toward goals = Effective
Does not meet goals = Ineffective
• Collaborate with groups to identify and/or develop guidelines and a “toolbox”
of possible models and methods for including student growth data in an
evaluation system.
• Convene groups to identify reasonable metrics and methods for evaluating
educators in currently non-assessed content areas and/or grades, and provide
samples of those metrics and methods to districts.
• Collaborate with groups as they develop models of evaluation systems,
models of collective bargaining agreements, and models of best practices and
assist in making those available to the field.
• Convene groups to discuss the use of state assessment data and state-
produced measures of student growth in “value-added models” and develop a
recommended model that will be used to generate state-determined
measures of educator effectiveness for internal validation studies.
• Collaborate with external researchers to identify how student growth data is
being used in evaluations.
• Inventory current practices related to educator evaluations and provide
information to stakeholders.
• Participate in nationwide consortia to gain from the experience of other states
and to share Michigan’s experience and best practices.

EDUCATOR EVALUATION TIMELINE

June 2011: Teacher/student data link is available in the Michigan
Student Data System (MSDS) (End-of-School Year [EOY]
collection).

April - June 2011: Principal effectiveness ratings based on district evaluations
are required to be reported in the Registry of Educational
Personnel (REP) collection
• Under SFSF, only principal evaluations are required
to be reported in 2011.
• Under MCL 380.1249, annual educator evaluations
should be conducted for all educators and CAN be
reported into the system.
• This year, principal evaluations should be reported
based on the most recently completed evaluation,
and in subsequent years, should be based on annual
evaluations. MDE and CEPI encourage reporting the
results of other administrator evaluations at the
same time as principal evaluations.

April – June 2011: Survey of current practices of each school district related
to educator evaluations.

Early fall 2011: MDE provides the following measures to districts for every
educator, regardless of subject taught, based on 2009-10
and 2010-11 data:
• Student growth in reading
• Student growth in math
• Percent of students proficient in math
• Percent of students proficient in reading
• Percent of students proficient in writing
• Percent of students proficient in science
• Percent of students proficient in 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.

AttachmentSize
Evaluation Timelines.pdf55.57 KB
Share this