Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates–

1. Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation –Updates– MASPA December 2013 Conference December 5, 2013 Lansing, Michigan

2. Overview Michigan State Law requires evaluation of • Teachers • School administrators Evaluation systems • Established and implemented locally • Ratings reported to state Legislature to review recommendations made by Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness (MCEE)

3. Why Educator Evaluations?

4. Current Model • Evaluate teachers annually • Conducted by school administrator or other designee • Year-end evaluation (at minimum) and mid-year progress reports for educators in probationary period • Based on most recent 3 consecutive years of student growth and assessment data -OR- all available data measures when 3 consecutive years not present • Student growth and assessment data included in evaluation • 25% for the 2013-14 school year • Multiple growth measures recommended for best practice • Four evaluation ratings: • Ineffective • Minimally effective • Effective • Highly effective

5. Current Model • Evaluate administrators annually • Conducted by superintendent or district designee, school board or designee • Student growth included in evaluation • Multiple growth measures recommended for best practice • Aggregate building-level data for administrators • Aggregate district-level data for the superintendent • Proficiency with evaluation tool to be part of admin’s evaluation • Include progress toward school or district improvement plans • Four evaluation ratings: • Ineffective • Minimally effective • Effective • Highly effective

6. Current Year-End Evaluations • What constitutes the year-end evaluation? • Many districts have asked if the effectiveness label can only be determined by the year-end evaluation. • Local authority can define the year-end evaluation as one that includes other evaluation outcomes from throughout the school year. • Ultimately, local school boards should ensure the evaluation system complies with state law as outlined in MCL 380.1249 • Who conducts the year-end evaluations? • School principals/administrators or others as designated by the school or district for educators • District superintendent or other designee determined by the superintendent or local school board for school principals • Local school boards or other designee determined by the local school board

7. Year-End Evaluation Results • Should be shared by the district with their educators and administrators. MDE does not provide individual effectiveness ratings. • Should be reviewed and appealed within the district before the closeout of the end-of-year REP collection so that effectiveness ratings reported in the REP reflect the outcome of in district evaluation appeals. • MDE does not update or correct effectiveness ratings beyond the close of the REP collections. Any further changes to effectiveness ratings should be documented by the district and staff. • Currently, effectiveness outcomes not monitored for consecutive ineffective ratings of individuals and associated HR actions.

8. 2011-12 Survey: Growth Measures Number of districts Other ways growth data are measured include: Combination of data from multiple assessments, pre/post test data, combination of local, state, and national measures, benchmark testing, and several sources as agreed upon in the professional growth plan

9. 2011-12 Statewide EvaluationEffectiveness Ratings • IMPORTANT NOTES: • Based on the labels as determined by the local evaluation system; rigor of label designation is not consistent across districts • THERE is differentiation in label reporting  now, 22% of teachers are reported as “highly effective”  moving away from a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system • We do not believe that 1% of teachers labeled as “ineffective” is unreasonable in the first year

10. 2011-12 Survey: Decisions Informed Number of districts Others types of decisions include: Assignment to committees or roles beyond the classroom, classroom support and assistance, layoff/recall/transfer, mentoring, staff placement, scheduling, setting improvement goals, and merit pay

11. 2012-13 Survey • Results currently being analyzed and compiled. • Will be provided on MISchoolData.org with educator and administrator effectiveness results for the 2012-13 school year. • Effectiveness reports will sport a new look and download functionality like other areas of MISchoolData.org. • Individual staff ratings will not be displayed, even to logged in users.

12. 2012-13 Statewide Evaluation Effectiveness Ratings • Distribution of results very similar to that of the 11-12 school year. • Slightly more highly effective, less effective and other labels roughly the same. • Detailed results and policy briefing to come soon!

14. MCEE Recommendation Overview • More comparable system across schools and districts • Use of analogous observation tools • More similar weighting of evaluation components • Greater emphasis on value added growth models • Training and support for implementation • Stronger consequences for ineffective educators

15. MCEE Recommendation Overview Professional Practice (50%) Professional 3 consecutive = advanced role (teachers only) 3 consecutive = may be evaluated biennially Provisional 3 consecutive = counseled out of role Student Growth/VAM (50%) Ineffective 2 consecutive = terminated from role in LEA

16. Timeline on MCEE Recommendation 2013-14 school year • Legislation and RFP/contract development 2014-15 school year • Systems and training development 2015-16 school year • Implementation of the new statewide system Continue existing local systems until 2015-16

17. Key Take Aways Support districts in refining system • Observations • Growth measures Promote the use of evaluation data in decision making • Professional development • Rewards and recognition • Career planning • Stay tuned! Legislature expected to take up initiative in April of 2014!

18. Teacher-Student Linked Assessment Data Files (“TSDL” Files) • Formerly provided to authorized individuals in the old BAA Secure Site. • New TSDL file download functionality will be developed and provided to authorized users of the new BAA Secure Site or MISchoolData portal (contract permitting). • Data reporting and download functionality a requirement of ARRA. • OESRA will be announcing that we will be able to provide secure TSDL files manually via emails until new website functionality is developed.

19. Principal Training Grants • Memo will soon be sent to superintendents and the Education Alliance requesting groups to apply for their principal training programs to be approved for grant use. • Groups will have roughly a month to apply for their program to be approved for principals to use grant funds with them. • After approved training programs are determined, principal training grants will open up in MEGS+ to schools and districts. • Schools and district MEGS+ users should submit PIC codes (from REP) for principals they wish to receive training grant funds.

20. Principal Training Grants • Applications for principals in MEGS+ will be available in January. • OESRA will process applications, giving preference to principals that have not previously received training grant funds. • We encourage all districts to apply for each of their principals! Last year we had a large portion of the training funds not awarded or returned. • Only administrators with “principal” or “assistant principal” type assignment codes in REP can be awarded the training funds. This assures that only principals receive the training as it is defined in 2012 PA 201. • Grants will be awarded in February or March state aid payments.

21. Resources Michigan Department of Education Educator Evaluations Website http://www.michigan.gov/educatorevaluations MI School Data Portal https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/StaffingInformation/EducatorEffectiveness/Ratings.aspx Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness Website http://www.mcede.org/

22. Contact Matt Gleason or Jacqueline Dannis Office of Evaluation, Strategic Research, and Accountability MDE-Accountability@michigan.gov 877-560-8378