In 2015, Public Act 173 was signed into law governing educator evaluations in Michigan. Below, please find Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Educator Evaluation Law.
The state-approved observation tools for teachers are Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model, the Thoughtful Classroom, the 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning, and the Michigan Transformational Evaluation Model.
The state-approved evaluation tools for administrators are MASA’s School ADvance Administrator Evaluation Instrument and the Multi-Dimensional Leadership Performance System.
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 380.1249(3) and 380.1249b(2).
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 380.1249(3) and/or 380.1249b(2).
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 (380.1249(3) and/or 380.1249b(2)). 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.”
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.
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.
Yes. Observers are required to be trained in the observation tool(s) used by the district but are not required by legislation to be employees of the district.
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.
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.
State law requires that a teacher receive feedback within 30 days following an observation. Although not specifically required by law, the MDE recommends that the feedback be provided in writing with an opportunity for discussion. Administrators conducting observations should follow the recommendations and/or requirements of the district-adopted observation tool(s) related to observation feedback.
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.
Teachers must be observed at least two times per year. At least one observation must be conducted by the person who is responsible for the teacher’s annual year-end evaluation. 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” (380.1249(2) (e)(ii)). 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.
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 observation 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 observation tool(s) on how the observation tool should be implemented with fidelity.
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.
There is no 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.
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.
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.
MDE recommends that districts interpret 380.1249(2)(a)(ii) as requiring 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.
For teachers of non-tested grades and subjects, and for the portion of the student growth component not measured by state assessments for teachers of tested grades and subjects, student growth must be measured by “multiple research-based growth measures or alternative assessments that are rigorous and comparable across schools within the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy” (380.1249(2)(a)(ii)).
Districts may also measure student growth using student learning objectives (SLO), “nationally normed or locally adopted assessments that are aligned to state standards,” or the achievement of individualized education program (IEP) goals.
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.
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.
The MDE recommends the use of individually attributable student growth data as the predominant determinant for state assessment and LEA assessment student growth when that data is available. The use of individually attributable student growth data best facilitates continuous improvement of the educator and promotes fair and transparent evaluation systems. Group attributable scores (scores aggregated at the grade or subject levels) may be used to facilitate alignment to school and district improvement goals.
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” (380.1249(2)(l)). However, local district policy may allow a teacher to appeal ratings other than “ineffective.”
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 380.1249(2)(l).
There is no appeals process required by law by which building and/or district administrators may appeal an annual year-end evaluation rating. A district may develop its own appeals process for building and district-level administrators.
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.
Legislation 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” 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.
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” 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” ratings.
Educator Effectiveness ratings are not required for renewal of the Standard and Professional teaching certificate. Effectiveness ratings are required to progress from the Standard to the Professional, and from the Professional to the Advanced Professional; ratings are also required to renew the Advanced Professional certificate.
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.
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. For the measurement of student growth, 380.1249(2)(b) states, “If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher...” and “shall be based on all student growth and assessment data that are available for the teacher”.
