Yearly Evaluation
I recently sat with the Executive Director of the MEA, Lou Battaglieri, for some information sharing and friendship renewal. Lou wanted me to know what he, the MEA, was doing in regard to MOU issues. I wanted to listen and learn, and share with him what our association was saying.
The conversation took place during the closing hours of negotiation between MEA and the MI Department of Education regarding MI’s application for RTTT funds. The topic was the linking of student performance and teacher evaluation to be used in the application. “Significant” is the point of contention. Four pages of the application are required to explain the concept of this link.
MASSP supported the link. I reminded Lou that his associations, along with others, were willing to have this linkage be in place for the evaluation of the building principal. I didn’t feel we had the ability to have the linkage removed for principals, so we pushed to have everyone else to join us on this performance evaluation vessel. So we now welcome teachers, curriculum leaders, directors of programs, and superintendents with us.
Yearly evaluations are unreasonable! If they are to be done with the process now in place within the Tenure law – absolutely! But, the time now requires multiple processes for employment evaluation be used. We talk about data. Let’s take the yada, yada, out of using the word and put execution of what it gives us to the fore front.
The how performance will be determined will need to be settled at the local bargaining table. We, the association, have a responsibility to develop models to be considered. We’re working on them.
Lou made a great point, after the MOU, and if the state is successful in getting money, then comes a district-by-district application. At this phase of the RTTT process is where the “rubber meets the road.” The MOU should be nothing more than “if we get the money,” we’ll decide, or not, to meet the process the Department is developing. At this point in the process, the Department has every right to set their expectations.
After the above meeting I was visiting with two of our members who were angry about the yearly evaluation that is being discussed. They questioned me “with passion” why I wasn’t more angry about it. I asked them how many pages were in the teachers’ contract they had to administer. One said 73, the other 143. “And, in all those pages is the expectation of performance ever mentioned?” Never.
Then I asked, “How long is your employment contract to be a principal.” Two pages they both answered. “And, how many times is student performance mention?” Four. Welcome aboard everyone.
