Michigan law governs educator evaluations. Below, please find Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Educator Evaluation Law.
Effective July 1, 2024: The system must evaluate job performance while providing timely and constructive feedback, establish clear approaches to measuring student growth, using multiple rating categories of effective, developing, and needing support, and inform decisions regarding effectiveness and development of teachers and school administrators.
Primarily on a teacher’s performance as measured by the evaluation tool developed or adopted by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, or other objective criteria.
For the purposes of evaluation required by Public Act 170 of 2016, “teacher” is defined as an individual who has a valid Michigan teaching certificate or authorization; who is employed, or contracted for, by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy; and who is assigned by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to deliver direct instruction to pupils in any grades K to 12 as a teacher of record.
For the purposes of required evaluation, “administrator” is defined as an individual holding a valid Michigan administrator’s certificate (unless exempted by MCL 380.1536) and who is employed (or contracted) and assigned by an ISD, LEA, or PSA to administer instructional programs. PA 173 further clarifies that only those administrators who are “regularly involved in instructional matters” need to receive annual year-end evaluations.
Effective July 1, 2024: The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a teacher who is not in a probationary period and is rated as highly effective or effective on the 3 most recent consecutive year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may conduct a year-end evaluation biennially or triennially instead of annually. However, if a teacher is not rated as effective on 1 of these biennial or triennial year-end evaluations, the teacher must again be provided with year-end evaluations.
The performance evaluation system must include classroom observations to assist in the evaluation process.
An observation is an exercise that is conducted as prescribed by a local district’s observation tool, usually for one class period or portion thereof. An observation must minimally consider the teacher’s lesson plan, the state content standard being addressed in the lesson, and students’ engagement in instruction. An observation is one component that provides data for the annual year-end evaluation of the educator. The evaluation considers observations, student growth measures, and other factors in providing a summary of actionable feedback on a teacher’s performance over the course of a full school year.
Effective through June 30, 2024: Teachers must be observed at least two times per year. At least one observation must be unscheduled. There is no time-based requirement for an observation. The law specifically states that “A classroom observation does not have to be for an entire class period”.
Effective July 1, 2024:
Administrators conducting observations should follow the recommendations and/or requirements of the district-adopted observation tool(s) related to the duration and frequency of observations.
At least one observation annually must be conducted by the building administrator responsible for the teacher’s year-end evaluation. Other observations may be conducted by individuals trained in the use of the district’s adopted observation tool(s). This could include, but is not limited to, teacher leaders, master teachers, instructional specialists, and/or other district administrators.
Effective July 1, 2024: By not later than September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, each individual who conducts evaluations shall complete a rater reliability training provided by the school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or the entity that employs the individual.
A classroom observation must include a review of the teacher’s lesson plan and the state curriculum standard being used in the lesson and a review of pupil engagement in the lesson. These items must be discussed during a post-observation meeting between the school administrator conducting the observation and the teacher.
Effective July 1, 2024: Yes. A classroom observation must include a review of the teacher’s lesson plan and the state curriculum standard being used in the lesson and a review of pupil engagement in the lesson. These items must be discussed during a post-observation meeting between the school administrator conducting the observation and the teacher.
A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall ensure that, within 30 calendar days after each observation, the teacher is provided with written feedback from the observation.
Yes. Observers are required to be trained in the observation tool(s) used by the district but are not required by law to be employees of the district.
Effective July 1, 2024: By not later than September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, each individual who conducts evaluations shall complete a rater reliability training provided by the school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or the entity that employs the individual.
No. A teacher may be observed by any number of different observers. However, each observer must have received adequate training in the observation tool(s) in use and should work with other trained observers to maximize the reliability of observation feedback and its use in improving instruction.
Effective July 1, 2024: By not later than September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, each individual who conducts evaluations shall complete a rater reliability training provided by the school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or the entity that employs the individual.
There is no required deadline by which the first of two required observations for a teacher must be conducted in any given school year; however, all observations must be completed prior to the finalization of the teacher’s annual year-end evaluation. Evaluators should follow the recommendations and/or requirements of the district-adopted observation tool(s) related to the timing and frequency of observations.
Yes. Observations are not required to be done in-person. Observers should follow the recommendations and/or requirements of the district-adopted observation tool(s) related to the use of technology to conduct observations. Additionally, administrators conducting observations should review their district’s collective bargaining agreement for stipulations and process clarification.
Yes. The observations would have to be done within the virtual instruction and learning environment.
MDE will continue to maintain a list of state approved tools. The current tools on the state approved list meet the requirements of the law language of “reliability, validity, and efficacy.” Any additional tools that apply to be added to the list would have to meet these same requirements in the review and approval process.
The state-approved evaluation tools for teachers are Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model, the Thoughtful Classroom, and the 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning.
The state-approved evaluation tools for administrators are MASA’s School ADvance Administrator Evaluation Instrument and the Multi-Dimensional Leadership Performance System.
The evaluation tools will not need to be modified to meet the changes in requirements of the new law. The current tools on the state approved list meet the requirements of the law language of “reliability, validity, and efficacy.” Districts will need to modify the “cut scores” within their evaluation systems to ensure that when performance data from the evaluation tool is combined with required student growth data, a rating (needing support, developing, or effective) can be calculated.
The state-approved evaluation systems are copyrighted and owned by private companies. Vendors provide support to districts about the specific content of each evaluation tool.
MDE has promulgated rules creating the process to submit candidate tools for inclusion on the state-approved list. The Michigan Educator Evaluation Tool Scoring Guide provides the framework and mechanism through which the applications for educator evaluation tools will be evaluated for potential inclusion on the list of state-approved tools.
Yes. Districts may use tools that are not on the state-approved list, provided the district publicly reports the tool’s research base on their districts’ transparency reporting site within their Postings & Assurances section, including the reliability, validity, and efficacy of the tool as required by law.
Yes. The district must ensure that information about their tool, including the process for collecting evidence to be used in the evaluation, is reported publicly on their website as required by law.
No. A district is not required to submit the tool(s) it uses for evaluations to the MDE for approval and inclusion on the state-approved list.
Any tool, or modification thereof, must meet the requirements of state law. Local districts determine whether or not any degree of modification to a tool changes the tool and thus requires additional assurances that the modification does not compromise the tool’s research base and/or “reliability, validity, and efficacy.”
Districts that use mathematical averages to conduct ratings should consider that the “needing support” rating is equivalent to the former “ineffective” rating, the “developing” rating is equivalent to the former “minimally effective” rating, and the new “effective” rating would be equivalent to the range of scores for the former “effective” and “highly effective” ratings.
Districts are advised to continue to use all four levels of the evaluation tool rubrics when providing feedback to teachers for several reasons. The highest performance level of the rubrics describes the optimal implementation of the research-backed strategies to impact student learning. Additionally, districts will continue to be able to use the data from evaluations to determine instructional strengths of teachers for purposes of recognizing instructional excellence, establishing mentors, identifying teacher leaders, and establishing goals and exemplary teachers to lead professional learning.
The year-end evaluation must include specific performance goals that will assist in improving effectiveness for the next school year and are developed by the school administrator or the school administrator’s designee conducting the evaluation, in consultation with the teacher, and any recommended training identified by the school administrator or designee, in consultation with the teacher, that would assist the teacher in meeting these goals.
The performance evaluation system must include a midyear progress report for a teacher who is in the first year of the probationary period, or who received a rating of minimally effective, ineffective, needing support, or developing in the teacher’s most recent year-end evaluation. The midyear progress report must be used as a supplemental tool to gauge a teacher’s improvement from the preceding school year and to assist a teacher to improve.
The midyear progress report must be aligned with the teacher’s individualized development plan. The midyear progress report must include specific performance goals for the remainder of the school year that are developed by the school administrator conducting the year-end evaluation or the school administrator’s designee and any recommended training identified by the school administrator or designee that would assist the teacher in meeting these goals. At the midyear progress report, the school administrator or designee shall develop, in consultation with the teacher, a written improvement plan that includes these goals and training and is designed to assist the teacher to improve the teacher’s rating. The midyear progress report must not take the place of a year-end evaluation.
The school district, intermediate school district (ISD), or public school academy (PSA) must provide training to all of its teachers, administrators, evaluators, and observers on the adopted evaluation tool(s) pertinent to individuals in each of these roles as well as how each tool is used. Teachers and others being evaluated must receive training on the tool and how it is used. Evaluators and observers must receive training from experts in the evaluation tool(s) on how the evaluation tool should be implemented with fidelity.
Effective July 1, 2024: By not later than September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, each individual who conducts evaluations shall complete a rater reliability training provided by the school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or the entity that employs the individual. The training must include at least all of the following:
There is no other statutory requirement for a prescribed recurrence of training. The MDE recommends that all participants in the evaluation process receive ongoing training as needed to continuously improve the local evaluation system.
The training shall be provided by an individual who has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools, which may include either a consultant on that evaluation tool or framework or an individual who has been trained to train others in the use of the evaluation tool or tools. A school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or consortium consisting of 2 or more of these, may provide the training in the use of the evaluation tool or tools if the trainer has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools.
The school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy has the authority to determine who has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools. Accordingly, it is in the district’s best interest to ensure training is being implemented by an individual with a significant level of experience and knowledge in order to meet the legislative expectation for “expertise” in the evaluation tool or tools.
Ongoing educator evaluation tool training has been occurring since 2015, and districts have taken different approaches to meet the requirements. Some districts have relied on the tool vendor to provide all of the training, some districts and regions have partnered together through their local ISD/RESA to coordinate and provide trainings for the region, and other districts have provided the training with their own in-district staff.
The law sets requirements for frequency of training and the components that must be included within the training. The law does not set requirements for the delivery format, length of time, or entity that will provide the training. Therefore, districts may choose to work with their evaluation tool vendor, local districts, or ISD/RESA to coordinate training.
The law does not require districts to report to MDE the completion of the required rater reliability training. However, districts are encouraged to maintain documentation of meeting this requirement along with evidence of compliance with all aspects of the evaluation law in case of future audits. Previously when the educator evaluation law was passed, the legislature provided grant funding to support local efforts to provide training to teachers and administrators. There has not been funding established to support the new training requirements in law.
Until the effective date of July 1, 2024, districts had not previously been required by law to provide rater reliability training to administrators. However, some districts went above and beyond the previous requirements to provide rater reliability training to maintain and improve the quality of their evaluation systems. Any rater reliability trainings that included the components described in the new law would satisfy the training requirements set by the new law and districts would not need to provide an updated training prior to September 1, 2024, provided the prior training has occurred within the past 3 years and any new evaluators are provided the training. Districts would then be responsible for ensuring recurring training is documented for all evaluators every 3 years moving forward.
Effective through June 30, 2024: Student growth and assessment data must account for 40% of the annual year-end teacher evaluation. For teachers of grades and content areas measured by state assessment with student growth data available for use, half of the student growth portion (20% of the total evaluation) must be determined by state assessment student growth data.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, 20% of the year-end evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics, which must be collectively bargained, if applicable.
Effective through June 30, 2024: Student growth and assessment data must account for 40% of the annual year-end administrator evaluation. The student growth component of the evaluation must be an aggregate of all of the student growth and assessment data used in teacher evaluations in the school or district.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, 20% of the year-end administrator evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics.
“Student learning objectives” means 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.
The MDE Student Learning Objective FAQ provides an overview of commonly asked questions and answers.
Effective through June 30, 2024: MDE recommends that districts require state assessments to be used within educator evaluations for teachers of record in subjects ELA or/and math in grades 4 through 8. If a teacher is not a teacher of record for ELA or math in grades 4 through 8, 40% of their summative evaluation rating is based on growth from locally selected assessments using multiple research-based growth measures or alternative assessments that are rigorous and comparable across schools. PSAT 8/9 in 9th Grade, PSAT 10, and SAT assessment student growth data may be used within educator evaluations as one of the multiple measures used to determine summative ratings, but are not interpreted as being required for use in determining ratings.
No. Districts must determine if their student growth measures meet statutory requirements. However, the MDE will provide guidance to districts on how to choose these assessments and/or tools and may share information about assessments and tools in accordance with statutory requirements.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, 20% of the year-end evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics, which must be collectively bargained, if applicable.
Effective through June 30, 2024:
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, 20% of the year-end evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics, which must be collectively bargained, if applicable.
Effective through June 30, 2024: State law requires that the student growth and assessment data used in an administrator’s evaluation be the aggregate student growth data that are used in all of the teachers’ year-end evaluations in each school for a building-level administrator, or in the entire district for district-level administrators. This means that the portion of the administrator’s evaluation based on student growth and assessment data must include all students and measures included in the evaluation of all teachers in the building or district, but does not require that all students and measures be weighted equally.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning in the 2024-25 school year, 20% of the year-end evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics.
Effective through June 30, 2024: Current-year, Spring testing data will not be available when schools and districts are finalizing their end-of-year evaluations. Thus, the state assessment data in educator evaluations will be based on prior years’ assessments. Many schools, districts, ISDs, and PSAs will find ways to balance summative state data from prior years with timely local assessment data to derive the student growth component of educator evaluations. This can be accomplished by averaging state assessment results for the prior three test years to represent performance over time.
Yes. Student growth percentiles (SGP) will be provided for individual students with valid scores on consecutive state assessments of the same type in a content area. These SGPs are included in data files available to schools.
Districts or PSAs using SGP data for teacher and administrator evaluations will be responsible for tracking which student SGPs should be linked to individual teachers and aggregating those SGPs. The recommended method for aggregating SGPs is to average all SGPs for the educator to calculate a mean SGP.
Before July 1, 2024, the performance evaluation system must assign a rating to each teacher of highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective, based on the teacher’s year-end evaluation.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning July 1, 2024, the performance evaluation system must assign a rating to each teacher of effective, developing, or needing support based on the teacher’s year-end evaluation.
Effective July 1, 2024: An evaluation and feedback concerning the evaluation must be provided, in writing, to the teacher being evaluated. However, if a written evaluation is not provided, the teacher is deemed effective.
Effective July 1, 2024: A teacher must not be assigned an evaluation rating and must be designated as unevaluated for a school year if the teacher worked less than 60 days in that school year, or the teacher’s evaluation results were vacated through the grievance procedure, or there were extenuating circumstances and the teacher and the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy agree to designate the teacher as unevaluated because of the extenuating circumstances.
Effective July 1, 2024: If a teacher receives an unevaluated designation, the teacher’s rating from the school year immediately before that designation must be used for consecutive purposes under this section.
Yes. The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a teacher is rated as ineffective or needing support on 3 consecutive year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall dismiss the teacher from the teacher’s employment.
Effective through June 30, 2024:
Effective July 1, 2024: If a teacher has been rated as effective on or after July 1, 2024, or highly effective before July 1, 2024, on 3 consecutive year-end performance evaluations under MCL 380.1249, and has completed at least 4 full school years of employment in a probationary period, the teacher is considered to have successfully completed the probationary period.
The school district shall provide the teacher with an individualized development plan developed by appropriate administrative personnel in consultation with the individual teacher.
The individualized development plan must require the teacher to make progress toward individual development goals within a specified time period, not to exceed 180 days.
The year-end performance evaluation must be based on multiple classroom observations conducted during the period covered by the evaluation and must include, in addition to the factors required under MCL 380.1249, at least an assessment of the teacher’s progress in meeting the goals of the teacher’s individualized development plan. The controlling board shall determine the format and number of the classroom observations in consultation with teachers and school administrators.
As part of the performance evaluation system, and in addition to the requirements of MCL 380.1526, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall assign a mentor or coach to each teacher who is in the first year of the probationary period, or who received a rating of minimally effective, ineffective, needing support, or developing in the teacher’s most recent year-end evaluation. This does not affect the ability of a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to dismiss a teacher from the teacher’s employment regardless of whether the teacher is rated as ineffective or needing support on 3 consecutive year-end evaluations.
It is up to the local district to determine who will be responsible for the evaluation of teachers in unique circumstances, such as those who deliver instruction in more than one building and/or under the supervision of more than one building principal.
The local district or public school academy may develop policy on how to adapt teacher observation schedules to determine the observation portion of educator evaluations.
Effective July 1, 2024: A teacher must not be assigned an evaluation rating and must be designated as unevaluated for a school year if the teacher worked less than 60 days in that school year, or the teacher’s evaluation results were vacated through the grievance procedure, or there were extenuating circumstances and the teacher and the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy agree to designate the teacher as unevaluated because of the extenuating circumstances.
Effective through June 30, 2024: The law states that the appeals process applies only for a teacher who is not in a probationary period and who is “rated as ineffective on an annual year-end evaluation”. However, local district policy may allow a teacher to appeal ratings other than “ineffective.”
Effective July 1, 2024: The following options must be made available for a teacher who is not in a probationary period:
Effective July 1, 2024: If a teacher receives 2 consecutive ratings of needing support, the teacher may demand to use the grievance procedure of an applicable collective bargaining agreement or employment contract that concerns the teacher’s second evaluation rating and the evaluation process.
The MDE does not have the authority to grant and/or hear an appeal of the outcome of a local appeals process. There is no statutory process for an appeal beyond that defined in PA 224 of 2023.
A district must post the following information on its website:
Templates for these reporting requirements are available.
Districts should post the required information and documentation as part of the budget and salary compensation transparency reporting (the “transparency mitten”) on their district homepage.
Law requires that district must notify parents in writing with an explanation about why they have been unable to meet the requirement that a student shall not be assigned to teachers in the same content area for two consecutive years who have been rated “ineffective” or "needing support" on their two most recent evaluations. This notification must be delivered to parents or guardians by July 15 preceding the beginning of the school year.
Effective July 1, 2024: However, if the teacher requested a review of the teacher’s evaluation rating under section 380.1249, the board of the school district or intermediate school district must not issue the notification described in this subsection until the review process under section 380.1249 is complete.
No. Notification of parents/guardians is required when a student has been assigned for two consecutive years to teachers in the same content area who have been rated as “ineffective” or "needing support" on their two most recent evaluations. No notification is required the first time, or in non-consecutive years, that a student has been assigned to an individual teacher who has received two consecutive “ineffective” or "needing support" ratings.
The performance evaluation system must include an annual evaluation for all school administrators by the school district superintendent or the school district superintendent’s designee, intermediate superintendent or the intermediate superintendent’s designee, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable.
A superintendent or chief administrator must be evaluated by the board or board of directors or, if the superintendent or chief administrator is not employed directly by the board or board of directors, by the designee of the board or board of directors.
Before the 2024-2025 school year, 40% of the annual evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data.
Effective July 1, 2024:
Before July 1, 2024, the performance evaluation system must assign a rating to each school administrator of highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective.
Effective July 1, 2024: Beginning July 1, 2024, the performance evaluation system must assign a rating to each school administrator of effective, developing, or needing support.
Yes. The performance evaluation system must provide that, if an administrator is rated as ineffective or needing support on 3 consecutive year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall dismiss the teacher from the teacher’s employment.
Effective July 1, 2024: An evaluation and feedback concerning the evaluation must be provided, in writing, to the school administrator being evaluated. However, if a written evaluation is not provided, the school administrator is deemed effective.
Effective July 1, 2024: For a building-level school administrator’s evaluation, the individual conducting the evaluation shall visit the school building where the building-level school administrator works, review the building-level school administrator’s school improvement plan, and observe classrooms with the building-level school administrator to collect evidence of the school improvement plan strategies being implemented and the impact the school improvement plan has on learning.
Effective July 1, 2024: Yes. In a 100% virtual instructional setting; these observations would have to be conducted by observing the virtual learning environments.
Effective July 1, 2024: A school administrator must not be assigned an evaluation rating and must be designated as unevaluated for a school year if the administrator worked less than 60 days in that school year, or the administrator’s evaluation results were vacated through the grievance procedure, or there were extenuating circumstances and the administrator and the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy agree to designate the administrator as unevaluated because of the extenuating circumstances.
Effective July 1, 2024: If an administrator receives an unevaluated designation, the administrator’s rating from the school year immediately before that designation must be used for consecutive purposes under this section if the school administrator continues to be employed in the same position that the school administrator was employed in the year before the school administrator received the unevaluated designation, and the school administrator continues to be employed by the same school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy that employed the school administrator in the year before the school administrator received the unevaluated designation.
Effective July 1, 2024:
Effective July 1, 2024: The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a school administrator is rated as highly effective or effective on the 3 most recent consecutive year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may conduct a year-end evaluation biennially instead of annually. However, if an administrator is not rated as effective on 1 of these biennial year-end evaluations, the administrator must again be provided with year-end evaluations.
An administrator must be evaluated annually if any of the following occur:
Effective July 1, 2024: The performance evaluation system must include a midyear progress report for a school administrator each year that the school administrator is evaluated. The midyear progress report must be used as a supplemental tool to gauge a school administrator’s improvement from the preceding evaluation and to assist a school administrator to improve.
Effective July 1, 2024: The mid-year progress report must include specific performance goals for the remainder of the school year for building-level school administrators, or for the remainder of the calendar year for all other school administrators, that are developed by the individual conducting the annual evaluation or the individual’s designee and any recommended training identified by the individual or designee that would assist the school administrator in meeting these goals.
Effective July 1, 2024: At the mid-year progress report, the individual conducting the annual evaluation or the individual’s designee shall develop, in consultation with the school administrator, a written improvement plan that includes these goals and training and is designed to assist the school administrator to improve the school administrator’s rating.
The mid-year progress report must not take the place of an annual evaluation.
Effective July 1, 2024: As part of the performance evaluation system, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall assign a mentor or coach to each school administrator, not including a school district superintendent, an intermediate superintendent, or a chief administrator, for the first 3 years in which the school administrator is in a new administrative position.
The law states that districts must assign a mentor for an administrator for the first 3 years in which the school administrator is in a new administrative position. The inclusion of the word “new” implies that the requirement is applicable to any time an administrator moves into a new position; meaning that an administrator may have multiple mentor assignments if the administrator transitions through more than one administrative position (i.e., curriculum director, then assistant superintendent).
Effective July 1, 2024: The following options must be made available for an administrator:
Effective July 1, 2024: The contract governing the employment of a school district superintendent or intermediate superintendent must include an appeal process concerning the evaluation process and rating received. This subdivision applies only to a contract that is entered into, extended, renewed, or modified on or after July 1, 2024.
