1 / 35

Politics for Principals

Politics for Principals. EdCon 2014. Educator Evaluation. HB 5223-24 , Sec. 1249 & MCEE. How We Got Here. May 2014: H ouse passes HB 5223-24. Sept 2013–April 2014: Stakeholders group meets to develop bills. July 2011: Gov. Snyder Signs tenure reform law.

shiela
Download Presentation

Politics for Principals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Politics for Principals EdCon 2014

  2. Educator Evaluation HB 5223-24, Sec. 1249 & MCEE

  3. How We Got Here May 2014: House passes HB 5223-24 Sept 2013–April 2014: Stakeholders group meets to develop bills July 2011: Gov. Snyder Signs tenure reform law June 2012–June 2013: MCEE Pilot Study Sept 2011 – June 2013: MCEE Works to Develop Recommendations June 2014: K-12 budget funds evals pending bills becoming law Aug 2014: MCEE Recommendation Released Jan 2014: First Draft of HB 5223-24 Introduced

  4. Where We Stand • HB 5223-24 passed the House • 2014-15 School Aid Fund budget funds evaluation tools and training, pending passage of HB 5223-24 in Senate • MCL 380.1249 still in effect, BUT… • SB 817 passed on last day of session • Temporarily delayed implementation of new 1249 sections • Including ramp up of growth and use of state approved observation tools • This makes September CRUCIAL for Principals…

  5. HB 5223 & 5224 • Mechanics of evaluation are largely unchanged from MCL 380.1249 • What are the big changes? • Research-Based Evaluation Tools • Training for Evaluators • Growth Based on Multiple Measures • Implementation is Phased-In Over Several Years • Lots of Local Flexibility

  6. Teacher Evaluation

  7. Growth Measured Using State Assessment & Other Measures • Practice Measured Through Observation Using an Approved Tool • Multiple observations at Least 1 Unscheduled • Observers Must Be Trained • Trained in the district-selected framework. • Trained in coaching/feedback & rater reliability. • Suggested retraining every 3 years in coaching/feedback & rater reliability. SEC 1249 HB 5223-24 • Annual Evaluations Based on a Combination of • Student growth • Teacher practice • Other factors (flexible) • Growth Measured Using State Assessment • Practice Measured Through Observation • Multiple observations • Do not have to be for an entire class period • Mid-Year Progress Report • 4 Rating Categories • 3 Consecutive Ineffective Ratings = Termination

  8. 2014-15

  9. 2015-16 through 2016-17

  10. 2017-18 and Beyond

  11. Student Growth • “Other Measures of Growth” • Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) • Local Assessments • IEP Goals (where applicable) • Districts may chose to use a building-level growth goal (e.g. a bldg. literacy goal), but are not required to do so. • BEGINNING IN 2015-16, state data will be used for half of total growth data in grades/subjects where state growth data exist

  12. Teacher Practice • Portion of eval not based on growth must be based “primarily” (more than half) on evaluation framework. • Districts may choose 1 of 4 piloted frameworks: • Danielson; • Marzano; • District may also (subject to limitations) • Build its own model, • Adapt an approved framework, or • Adopt a model not on the list. • Thoughtful Classroom; or • 5 Dimensions.

  13. Other Measures • Portion of eval not based on either growth or framework (anywhere from 0-29% of evaluation) must be based on: • Student and parent feedback • Any factors used for making layoff and recall decisions (MCL 380.1248) not otherwise accounted for (e.g. rapport with parents, attendance and discipline record, relevant accomplishments and contributions, special training, etc.) • This section is very flexible and is left largely up to the district to account for local needs.

  14. Administrator Evaluation

  15. Growth Measured Using State Assessment & Other Measures • Practice Measured Using District-Chosen, State-Approved Tool • Evaluators Must Be Trained • Trained in the district-selected framework. • Trained in coaching/feedback & rater reliability. • Suggested retraining every 3 years in coaching/feedback & rater reliability. SEC 1249 HB 5223-24 • Annual Evaluations Based on a Combination of • Student growth • Administrator practice • Other factors • Growth Measured Using State Assessment Data • Practice Measured Using “State Evaluation Tool” • 4 Rating Categories • 3 Consecutive Ineffective Ratings = Termination

  16. 2014-15 GROWTH (25%) PRACTICE (75%)

  17. 2015-16 through 2016-17 GROWTH (25%) PRACTICE (75%)

  18. 2017-18 and Beyond GROWTH (40%) PRACTICE (60%)

  19. Student Growth • Percentage of Evaluation Based on Growth • 2014-15 through 2016-17: 25% • 2017-18 and beyond: 40% • State growth data would be aggregated on a building or districtlevel as appropriate • BEGINNING IN 2015-16, state data will be used for half of total growth data in grades/subjects where state growth data exist.

  20. Administrator Practice • Portion of evalnot based on growth data must be based “primarily” (more than half) on district selected evaluation framework. • Districts may choose 1 of 3 frameworks for evaluating administrators: • MASA’s School Advance; • Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric; or • Marzano School Leadership Evaluation. • District may also (subject to limitations) • Build its own model, • Adapt an approved framework, or • Adopt a model not on the list.

  21. Other Measures • Portion of evaluation not measured using either growth data or evaluation framework (anywhere from 0-29% of evaluation) must be based on at least: • Proficiency or skill in evaluating teachers; • Progress made in the school improvement plan; • Attendance rates; and • Student, parent, and teacher feedback.

  22. Which observation framework to use. • What local factors the district will use to measure practice. • Which local growth measures(s) the district will use. • Whether to have a building level growth score. (teachers only) • How to weight the different components. Local Decisions

  23. Local Frameworks • Districts may chose to use state-approved models or build or adapt one for their local purposes • No waiver is necessary, districts must simply post information about their local models or adaptations on their websites. • For adaptations, districts must provide assurance that the changes made do not compromise the validity of the model, including a review by a qualified person. Evaluators must still be trained in the framework the district is adapting. • For locally developed models districts must provide information about the model on their website, including such things as: • The research base for the model and identity of the authors, • Evidence of reliability and validity or a plan for collecting this evidence, • A description of the evaluation process including copies of the rubric, and • A plan for training evaluators.

  24. What’s Next? Sept 2014: Senate passes HB 5223-24 Beginning of SY 15-16: Districts have fully or partially implemented new frameworks & training SY 2015-16 & 2016-17: Evaluators have 2 years to get additional training in coaching/feedback & rater reliability (state funded) SY 2017-18: 2nd year w/ system, evaluators fully trained, growth moves to 40% SY 2016-17: 1st full year w/ eval. systems in place, last year of 25% growth SY 2014-15: Districts adopt & begin training/implementation of new eval. systems SY 2015-16: 1st year of new state tests, districts finish eval system implementation

  25. What To Do for Fall 2014 • Plan Ahead - Core of the system has not changed since MCEE report. • Pick 1 of 4 models and plan for training. • Identify local measures of student growth (including SLOs). • Figure out local priorities & discuss how to weight components. • Help MASSP get HB 5223-24 passed in the Senate. TAKE ACTION THROUGH ENGAGE!!! • Things to keep in mind • Local flexibility is different from lack of direction and support • Parameters = appropriate state funding (no parameters could mean an unfunded mandate)

  26. MI’s Next State Assessment

  27. 2014-15 School Aid Budget • MDE instructed to retool MEAP for the 2014-15 school year • MDE must issue a new RFP for a statewide student assessment system by September 1, 2014 and seek an amendment to its NCLB waiver to reflect the change in direction on assessment. • The new assessment must meet a series of criteria, including • Not take any longer to administer than the current test or 9 hours, which ever is shorter. • Assess all pupils each year in grades 3-10in ELA and math (grade 11 is covered in another section of law). • Provide reports that include domain and standard level performance data including representative sample questions • Be able to test students in science in at least grades 4 and 7

  28. Michigan Merit Curriculum Changes

  29. Core MMC Requirements • Algebra II: Students may fulfill this requirement w/ a course or courses which cover the MME assessed benchmarks of Algebra II • Foreign Language: • 2 credits of grade-appropriate language anytime during grades K-12. • Classes of 2015-2020: May substitute CTE or addtnl.arts course for 1 credit. • Science: • 3 credits still required for most students. Biology required for all students. • Students have a choice of chemistry, physics, anatomy, agscience, or a course that covers the MME assessed benchmarks of chemistry or physics • May substitute a CTE course (regardless of content) for 3rd credit of science.

  30. Personal Curriculum • Schools required to write a PC if requested by the parent (or by the student if he or she is 18 years old or an emancipated minor).  The school would still have the right to reject the PC once written. • Three simplifications were made to the PC process. • Only one school employee would now have to be involved. • No requirement for an in-person meeting to develop the PC. • No requirement for quarterly progress meetings. • Under a PC students/schools may now make additional modifications: • For Algebra II: students may substitute technical math or may take a class that covers at least the MME assessed benchmarks of algebra 2. • Students may substitute CTE courses (regardless of content) for up to 1 credit of social studies; 1 credit of health and physical education; and 1 credit of visual, performing, or applied arts.

  31. Personal Curriculum (contd.) • The law would now expressly state that no limitation may be put on the number of PCs a school is allowed to have. • Schools must notify parents and students annually that they are entitled to pursue a PC.  This may be done in the school newsletter, handbook, or similar communication sent to the pupil's home. • Pupils must be informed of the option to take CTE during their education development plan (EDP) development process.

  32. A Quick Look Back • The first MMC bill that got legislative attention would have: • Reduced math to 2 required credits: algebra and geometry • Reduced social studies to 2 credits and eliminated the world history, geography, and economics requirements • Reduced science to 2 credits and eliminated chemistry or physics as requirements. • Eliminated the arts course requirement entirely. • Eliminated the foreign language requirement entirely. • BOTTOM LINE: MASSP made a LOT of progress during this process from beginning to end.

  33. MASSP Legislative Day “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ~Thomas Jefferson MARCH 2015

  34. Help Us Help You WITH YOUR HELP, MASSP will be working to… • Secure funding for a consistent statewide data management system that will combine evaluation and student growth data for ease of use. • Ensure state testing is a reasonable length, has value to students, and provides actionable data for schools. • Ensure that students get credit for the post-secondary classes they complete during high school without burdening schools with extra costs. • Provide for a smooth transition into the new evaluation system including ensuring adequate funding, time, and support for schools to make these new systems work. • Guard against any potentially damaging legislation and help Principals to do their jobs by keeping the ill-advised politics at bay.

  35. Questions? Bob Kefgen Assistant Director for Government Relations bobk@michiganprincipals.org

More Related