Lisa L. Swem

1. Legal and Practical Aspects of Teacher Evaluation December 3, 2010 Lisa L. Swem

2. Education Reform in Michigan "It's going to take Michigan some time to grow into education reform. But I firmly believe that, when we look back in 20 years, our newest reforms will be viewed as a defining moment in public education." Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland Grand Rapids Press (July 28, 2010)

3. Evaluation Practices Are Inadequate “Evaluations are short and infrequent,…conducted by untrained administrators, and influenced by powerful cultural forces – in particular, an expectation among teachers that they will be among the vast majority rated as top performers.” The Widget Effect (June, 2009)

4. Sec. of Education Arne Duncan “These policies were created over the past century to protect the rights of teachers, but they have produced an industrial, factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets.” July 2, 2009 Remarks to NEA

5. Reversing the Widget Effect “Improved evaluation will not only benefit students by driving the systematic improvement and growth of their teachers, but teachers themselves, by at last treating them as professionals, not parts.” The Widget Effect June, 2009

6. Evaluation and Student Achievement “Adopt a comprehensive performance evaluation that fairly, accurately and credibly differentiates based on their effectiveness in promoting student achievement.” The Widget Effect June, 2009

7. Implementation Timeline • Effective January 4, 2010 • Unlike § 1250 (compensation), § 1249 (evaluation) does not expressly condition duty to adopt and implement a performance evaluation system upon compatibility with, or expiration of, applicable CBA

8. Senate Bill No. 1509 • 09/23/10: introduced • 11/04/10: passed Senate (38-0) • Amends Sec. 1249 to address implementation: • Not later than Sept. 1, 2011 • Not required until CBA expires (if CBA in effect on 01/04/10 would prevent compliance)

9. School Code Sec. 1249Decisionmaking Framework Use “rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures” to determine • “Whether to grant tenure or full certification, or both” to teachers and administrators • Remove “ineffective” tenured and untenured teachers and administrators after “ample opportunities to improve” MCL 380.1249(d)

10. Evaluations Inform Decisions About • The “effectiveness” of teachers and administrators “ensuring that they are given ample opportunities for improvement” • “Promotion, retention, and development” of teachers and administrators, including providing “relevant coaching, instruction support, or professional development” MCL 380.1249(d)

11. Performance Evaluation System “With the involvement of teachers and school administrators, the board…shalladopt and implement for all teachers and school administrators a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system that does all of the following….” MCL 380.1249

12. Tenure Act Definition of “Teacher” • “Certificated individual employed for a full school year” • Non-certificated individual employed for a full school year pursuant to: • School Code Sec. 1233b • Vocational authorization • Temporary approval • See MCL 38.71

13. School Code and “Administrator” • Sec. 1246 (CEU Requirement): Superintendent, Principal, Ass’t Principal, “other person whose primary responsibility is administering instructional programs or as a chief business official” • Sec. 1536 (Certification): Superintendent, Principal, Ass’t Principal, “other administrators whose primary responsibility is administering instructional programs”

14. Annual Evaluation “Evaluates the teacher’s and administrator’s job performance at least annually while providing timely and constructive feedback.” MCL 380.1249(a)

15. Michigan’s RT3 Application • Annually convert state-produced individual growth data to preliminary educator effectiveness measures • Annually review correlation among local evaluations and preliminary educator effectiveness • Input annual educator evaluation outcomes in REP database at end of each school year Appendix A – p 12

16. Student Growth “Establishes clear approaches to measuring student growth and provides teachers and school administrators with relevant data on student growth.”MCL 380.1249(b)

17. “Growth” ≠ Proficiency • Section 1249 addresses growth, not proficiency • Look for assessment tools that provide baseline and growth data • National • State • Local • And “other objective criteria”

18. “Student Growth” Measurement • “Shall be measured by • National, • State, or • Local assessments • And other objective criteria” MCL 380.1249(c)

19. What Is a “Significant Factor”? • Phrase used in both Sections 1249 and 1250 • Not defined by statute • Some state laws provide that 50% of evaluation criteria be based on student achievement data, e.g. • Colorado • New York • Tennessee

20. “Data on Student Growth as a Significant Factor” “[W]e will be looking for a definition of ‘significant’ to be 40-60 percent of the overall evaluation. Of that 40-60 percent, 20-30 percent should be based on existing state student growth measures, with the remaining half based on growth measures developed and collectively bargained locally.” Supt of Pub Instruction Michael P. Flanagan Feb. 8, 2010 Memo: RT3 Phase I Application

21. School Code Section 1250Performance-Based Compensation A district shall implement a compensation method for teachers and administrators that includes “job performance and job accomplishments as a significant factor” to determine “compensation and additional compensation.” MCL 380.1250(1)

22. Job Performance Assessment “The assessment of job performance shall incorporate a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system that evaluates a teacher’s or school administrator’s performance at least in part based upon data on student growth as measured by assessments and other objective criteria.” MCL 380.1250(1)

23. Don’t “Throw Out the Baby with the Bath Water” • Analyze existing CBA • What works? • What doesn’t work? • Recognize • Fairness factors • Cost concerns • Comply with legal standards • Identify roadmap for “best practices”

24. Section 1249 “Fairness” Factors • “Transparent” • “Fair” • “Timely/constructive feedback” • “Ample opportunities for improvement” • “Clear approaches” to measure student growth • “Relevant coaching, instruction support, or professional development”

25. Roadmap for “Best Practices” • Determine where you: • Are currently, • Need to be this year, and • Want to be in the future • Learn from others • Bargain in good faith, but recognize that “cost concerns” are frequently disguised as “fairness factors”

26. Watch for “Gotcha” Language • Limited number of • Evaluations • Observations • Unreasonable • Timelines • Intervals • Designated evaluators • Mandatory training • Erosion of managerial rights