Educator Evaluation

Educator Evaluation Public School Academies Unit

Topics • Introduction (presenter and unit) • Legislation (3) • Tools (3) w/MOECS slide • Responsibilities (teacher, admin & district) (4) • Student Learning Objectives (2) • Student Growth Percentages (4) • Quality Assurance System (6) • Appeals Process (2)

Introduction • Public Schools Academies Unit • Contract review • Monitoring • Technical assistance on various subjects • Professional Development • Partnerships

Legislation (1 of 3) Education Evaluation Legislation by Section • Section 380.1249Section 380.1249 establishes the requirements for teacher evaluations in the State of Michigan • Section 380.1249aSection 380.1249a establishes assignment of pupil to teacher rated as ineffective and notification

Legislation (2 of 3) • Section 380.1249bSection 380.1249b establishes the requirements for administrator evaluations in the State of Michigan • Section 380.1531jSection 380.1531j establishes the requirements of issuance of the initial professional teaching certificate • Section 380.1531kSection 380.1531k establishes requirements of issuance of initial or renewed advanced professional education certificate

Legislation (3 of 3) Requires that evaluations are annual, and that they incorporate student growth as a significant component • 25% in the 2015-2016 school year; • 40% in 2018-2019; • Beginning with the 2018-2019 SY, core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 50% of student growth must be measured using the state assessments (note); and • Midyear progress reports required for teachers (a) in the first year of the probationary period or (b) received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective on the most recent annual evaluation.

Tools (1 of 3) • Teachers: • Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching • Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model • Thoughtful Classroom • 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning • Administrators: • MASA’s School Advance Administrator Evaluation Instrument • Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric.

Tools (2 of 3) • Districts may modify approved tools or use tools not included on the state-approved list • Tools must meet requirements outlined in legislation and the district meets transparency and public reporting guidelines specified in the law • Teachers and administrators with three consecutive highly effective ratings may receive biennial reviews in place of annual reviews

Tools (3 of 3) • Professional Education and Advanced Professional Education Certificates are tied to effectiveness data collected at the state level • Evaluation results are housed on the Michigan Online Educator Certification System (MOECS)

MOECS Sample

Admin Responsibility • Conduct, or designate another person to conduct, at least annual evaluations of all teachers • Develop specific performance goals in the annual year-end evaluation and identify training to help meet those goals, in consultation with the teacher • Develop an individualized development plan (IDP) for any teacher in the first year of the probationary period (first full year of employment) or who received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective on his/her most recent annual year-end evaluation

Teacher Responsibility • Per annual, year-end evaluation, teachers consult with the building principal or designee to develop performance goals and recommend PD for the next school year • Teachers in the first year of probationary status, or who received an ineffective or minimally effective rating on most recent evaluation, consult with the evaluator to develop an IDP

District Responsibility (1 of 2) Information of each adopted observation or evaluation tool on district website • The research base for the evaluation framework, instrument, and process • The identity and qualifications of the author or authors • Evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence.

District Responsibility (2 of 2) • Evaluation framework and rubrics with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators • Description of the processes for conducting classroom observations, collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing performance improvement plans • Description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training

Student Learning Objectives (1 of 2) • Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) are measurable, long-term, academic goals, informed by available data, that a teacher or teacher team sets at the beginning of the year for all students; and • Legislation requires student growth and assessment component of a teacher's evaluation consist of the state student growth and assessment measurement standards and a local student growth assessment. Continued…

Student Learning Objectives (2 of 2) http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SLO_Template_11.25.15_507158_7.docx

Student Growth (1 of 4) • To calculate SGPs, students are grouped with peers throughout state who had comparable score patterns on past tests; • Students in each academic peer group are then ordered based on their score on the current year test; and • Receives a percentile rank, compared to their academic peers (note). http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5683_75438_78528-399514--,00.html

Student Growth (2 of 4)

Student Growth (3 of 4) https://youtu.be/ZjCvAgf6TXI

Student Growth (4 of 4) • MDE SGP Educator Evaluation Calculator Tool helps ensure adherence to policy recommendations while greatly decreasing the time required to use SGP scores to determine SG ratings when compared to manual calculation; and • MDE has an instructional video providing detailed direction for using the tool may be downloaded from the MDE educator evaluation student growth measurement resource website.

Quality Assurance System (1 of 6) Educator evaluation systems should provide guidance for continuous improvement: • Teacher evaluation is one component of an assurance system (school improvement plan) • A quality assurance system is comprised of valid data from multiple measures that evaluates the effectiveness of its students; and • The system uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhances program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve student learning and development.

Quality Assurance System (2 of 6) • Align content standards to the observation tool to build a more comprehensive picture • Observation data of comparison to determine the growth of teachers between evaluations (minimally two). • Alignment to assessment tools such as M-STEP, NWEA, etc.

Quality Assurance System (3 of 6) Appropriate Responsibility, Accountability, and Awareness: • The need for good quality data and how they can contribute to it; • Their responsibilities regarding data collection, storage, analysis and reporting; and • The implications of poor data quality in their area regarding internal and external accountability, including those affecting other departments and the school collectively.

Quality Assurance System (4 of 6) Appropriate Policies and Procedures • Define key data requirements and assurance arrangements (dates, deadlines, expectations for staff); • Local procedures must exist for all key activities that include major data collection exercises; • All policies and procedures should regularly be reviewed to consider their impact on data quality and to ensure they reflect any change in need; and • Departmental managers should ensure that all such policies and procedures are adopted, embedded within working processes and that compliance is achieved.

Quality Assurance System (5 of 6) Appropriate Systems and Processes • Clear systems and business processes should exist in which data collection and reporting are an integral part; and • Guidelines for all processes supporting key data requirements as defined by the State of Michigan and the district should exist and be followed consistently across the district, that is at each building and across the level (elementary, middle and high school).

Quality Assurance System (6 of 6) Appropriate Staff Development • All members of staff accessing, inputting and amending data on district-wide systems should have the appropriate knowledge, competencies, and capacity to carry out the activity and preserve data quality; and • All policies should be communicated effectively to relevant staff, and this will include policies on security and data protection as part of the wider consideration of data quality.

Appeals Process (1 of 2) • Ensuring Registry of Educational Personnel (REP) information is up to date or incorrect educator effectiveness labels are changed; • Appeals are done within the REP; • Educators in instructional assignments log into MOECS account (www.Michigan.gov/MOECS) and check the accuracy of your evaluation data;

Appeals Process (2 of 2) • Educators in non-instructional assignments – contact the district to obtain a printout or screenshot of the rating the district submitted to the REP; • there is a discrepancy, contact the district that reported the data to learn about the district process for submitting a data appeal; and • Be proactive and follow up to ensure that an appeal is submitted by your district during the September 1-December 1, 2017 appeals window. • http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5683_75438_79502-398427--,00.html

Questions

Contacts Charter School Contacts in Michigan: • MAPSA – Dan Quisenberry @ 517-374-9167 • MDE –Tammy Hatfield @ 517-373-4631 • National Charter School Institute –James Goenner @ 989-317-3510 • MDE – Brian Lloyd, Student Growth @ 517-373-0739 or LloydB@michigan.gov Useful Websites: • MCCSA –www.mccsa.us • MAPSA –charterschools.org • MACSB-www.macsb.org • MDE –www.michigan.gov/charters • National Charter School Institute -nationalcharterschools.org • NACSA -www.qualitycharters.org

Educator Evaluation