educator effectiveness evaluation updates n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates– PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates–

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates– - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates–. MASPA December 2013 Conference December 5, 2013 Lansing, Michigan. Overview. Michigan State Law requires evaluation of Teachers School administrators Evaluation systems Established and implemented locally Ratings reported to state

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation – Updates–

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
educator effectiveness evaluation updates

Educator Effectiveness & Evaluation –Updates–

MASPA December 2013 Conference

December 5, 2013

Lansing, Michigan


Michigan State Law requires evaluation of

  • Teachers
  • School administrators

Evaluation systems

  • Established and implemented locally
  • Ratings reported to state

Legislature to review recommendations made by Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness (MCEE)

current model
Current Model
  • Evaluate teachers annually
    • Conducted by school administrator or other designee
    • Year-end evaluation (at minimum) and mid-year progress reports for educators in probationary period
    • Based on most recent 3 consecutive years of student growth and assessment data -OR- all available data measures when 3 consecutive years not present
  • Student growth and assessment data included in evaluation
    • 25% for the 2013-14 school year
    • Multiple growth measures recommended for best practice
  • Four evaluation ratings:
    • Ineffective
    • Minimally effective
    • Effective
    • Highly effective
current model1
Current Model
  • Evaluate administrators annually
    • Conducted by superintendent or district designee, school board or designee
  • Student growth included in evaluation
    • Multiple growth measures recommended for best practice
    • Aggregate building-level data for administrators
    • Aggregate district-level data for the superintendent
  • Proficiency with evaluation tool to be part of admin’s evaluation
  • Include progress toward school or district improvement plans
  • Four evaluation ratings:
    • Ineffective
    • Minimally effective
    • Effective
    • Highly effective
current year end evaluations
Current Year-End Evaluations
  • What constitutes the year-end evaluation?
    • Many districts have asked if the effectiveness label can only be determined by the year-end evaluation.
      • Local authority can define the year-end evaluation as one that includes other evaluation outcomes from throughout the school year.
      • Ultimately, local school boards should ensure the evaluation system complies with state law as outlined in MCL 380.1249
  • Who conducts the year-end evaluations?
    • School principals/administrators or others as designated by the school or district for educators
    • District superintendent or other designee determined by the superintendent or local school board for school principals
    • Local school boards or other designee determined by the local school board
year end evaluation results
Year-End Evaluation Results
  • Should be shared by the district with their educators and administrators. MDE does not provide individual effectiveness ratings.
  • Should be reviewed and appealed within the district before the closeout of the end-of-year REP collection so that effectiveness ratings reported in the REP reflect the outcome of in district evaluation appeals.
  • MDE does not update or correct effectiveness ratings beyond the close of the REP collections. Any further changes to effectiveness ratings should be documented by the district and staff.
  • Currently, effectiveness outcomes not monitored for consecutive ineffective ratings of individuals and associated HR actions.
2011 12 survey growth measures
2011-12 Survey: Growth Measures

Number of districts

Other ways growth data are measured include: Combination of data from multiple assessments, pre/post test data, combination of local, state, and national measures, benchmark testing, and several sources as agreed upon in the professional growth plan

2011 12 statewide evaluation effectiveness ratings
2011-12 Statewide EvaluationEffectiveness Ratings
  • Based on the labels as determined by the local evaluation system; rigor of label designation is not consistent across districts
  • THERE is differentiation in label reporting  now, 22% of teachers are reported as “highly effective”  moving away from a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system
  • We do not believe that 1% of teachers labeled as “ineffective” is unreasonable in the first year
2011 12 survey decisions informed
2011-12 Survey: Decisions Informed

Number of districts

Others types of decisions include: Assignment to committees or roles beyond the classroom, classroom support and assistance, layoff/recall/transfer, mentoring, staff placement, scheduling, setting improvement goals, and merit pay

2012 13 survey
2012-13 Survey
  • Results currently being analyzed and compiled.
  • Will be provided on with educator and administrator effectiveness results for the 2012-13 school year.
  • Effectiveness reports will sport a new look and download functionality like other areas of
  • Individual staff ratings will not be displayed, even to logged in users.
2012 13 statewide evaluation effectiveness ratings
2012-13 Statewide Evaluation Effectiveness Ratings
  • Distribution of results very similar to that of the 11-12 school year.
  • Slightly more highly effective, less effective and other labels roughly the same.
  • Detailed results and policy briefing to come soon!
mcee recommendation overview
MCEE Recommendation Overview
  • More comparable system across schools and districts
    • Use of analogous observation tools
    • More similar weighting of evaluation components
  • Greater emphasis on value added growth models
  • Training and support for implementation
  • Stronger consequences for ineffective educators
mcee recommendation overview1
MCEE Recommendation Overview

Professional Practice



3 consecutive = advanced role (teachers only)

3 consecutive = may be evaluated biennially


3 consecutive = counseled out of role

Student Growth/VAM



2 consecutive = terminated from role in LEA

timeline on mcee recommendation
Timeline on MCEE Recommendation

2013-14 school year

  • Legislation and RFP/contract development

2014-15 school year

  • Systems and training development

2015-16 school year

  • Implementation of the new statewide system

Continue existing local systems until 2015-16

key take aways
Key Take Aways

Support districts in refining system

  • Observations
  • Growth measures

Promote the use of evaluation data in decision making

    • Professional development
    • Rewards and recognition
    • Career planning
  • Stay tuned! Legislature expected to take up initiative in April of 2014!
teacher student linked assessment data files tsdl files
Teacher-Student Linked Assessment Data Files (“TSDL” Files)
  • Formerly provided to authorized individuals in the old BAA Secure Site.
  • New TSDL file download functionality will be developed and provided to authorized users of the new BAA Secure Site or MISchoolData portal (contract permitting).
  • Data reporting and download functionality a requirement of ARRA.
  • OESRA will be announcing that we will be able to provide secure TSDL files manually via emails until new website functionality is developed.
principal training grants
Principal Training Grants
  • Memo will soon be sent to superintendents and the Education Alliance requesting groups to apply for their principal training programs to be approved for grant use.
  • Groups will have roughly a month to apply for their program to be approved for principals to use grant funds with them.
  • After approved training programs are determined, principal training grants will open up in MEGS+ to schools and districts.
  • Schools and district MEGS+ users should submit PIC codes (from REP) for principals they wish to receive training grant funds.
principal training grants1
Principal Training Grants
  • Applications for principals in MEGS+ will be available in January.
  • OESRA will process applications, giving preference to principals that have not previously received training grant funds.
  • We encourage all districts to apply for each of their principals! Last year we had a large portion of the training funds not awarded or returned.
  • Only administrators with “principal” or “assistant principal” type assignment codes in REP can be awarded the training funds. This assures that only principals receive the training as it is defined in 2012 PA 201.
  • Grants will be awarded in February or March state aid payments.

Michigan Department of Education

Educator Evaluations Website

MI School Data Portal

Michigan Council on Educator Effectiveness Website


Matt Gleason or Jacqueline Dannis

Office of Evaluation, Strategic Research, and Accountability