politics for principals edcon 2014. educator evaluation hb 5223-24, sec. 1249 & mcee
TRANSCRIPT
S
Politics for PrincipalsEdCon 2014
S
Educator EvaluationHB 5223-24, Sec. 1249 & MCEE
How We Got Here
July 2011: Gov. Snyder Signs tenure reform law
Jan 2014: First Draft of HB 5223-24 Introduced
Sept 2011 – June 2013: MCEE Works to Develop Recommendations
June 2012–June 2013: MCEE Pilot Study
Sept 2013–April 2014: Stakeholders group meets to develop bills
Aug 2014: MCEE Recommendation Released
June 2014: K-12 budget funds evals pending bills becoming law
May 2014: House passes HB 5223-24
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…
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
Teacher Evaluation
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.
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
SEC 1249 HB 5223-24
2014-15
Ob-serva-tion Framewor
k Data
38-75%
Other
Measures of Practice0-
37%
Other
Measures of Growth20-25%
Building-Level Growth0-5%
Tested Grades & Sub-jects
Obser-vation Frame-work Data
38-75%
Other Measures of Practice
0-37%
Other Measures of Growth20-25%
Building-Level Growth0-5%
Non-Tested Grades & Subjects
2015-16 through 2016-17
Obser-vation Frame-work Data
38-75%
Other Measures of Practice
0-37%
Other Measures of Growth7.5-12.5%
Building-Level
Growth0-5%
State Growth Data12.5%
Tested Grades & Sub-jects
Obser-vation Frame-work Data
38-75%
Other Measures of Practice
0-37%
Other Measures of Growth20-25%
Building-Level Growth0-5%
Non-Tested Grades & Subjects
2017-18 and Beyond
Obser-vation Framework Data
31-60%
Other Measures of Practice
0-29%
Other Mea-
sures of Growth15-20%
Building-Level
Growth0-5%
State Growth
Data20%
Tested Grades & Sub-jects
Ob-ser-va-tion Fra
mework
Data31-60%
Other Measures of Practice0-29%
Other
Measures of Growth35-40%
Building-Level Growth0-5%
Non-Tested Grades/Sub-jects
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
Other Mea-sures
of Growt
h15-20%
Build-ing-
Level Growt
h0-5%
State Growt
h Data20%
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.
Ob-ser-va-tion Framewor
k Data
31-60%
Thoughtful Classroom; or
5 Dimensions.
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.
Other Measures of Practice
0-29%
Administrator Evaluation
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.
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
SEC 1249 HB 5223-24
2014-15
Evaluation Tool Data
38-75%
Other Mea-sures of Practice0-37%
Other Measures of Growth
25%
PRACTICE(75%)
GROWTH(25%)
2015-16 through 2016-17
Evaluation Tool Data38-75%
Other Mea-sures of Practice0-37%
Other Measures of Growth
12.5%
State Growth Data12.5%
PRACTICE(75%)
GROWTH(25%)
2017-18 and Beyond
Evaluation Tool Data31-60%
Other Measures of Practice0-29%
Other Measures of Growth
20%
State Growth Data20%
PRACTICE(60%)
GROWTH(40%)
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 district level 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.
Other Measures of
Growth20%
State
Growth Data
20%
Administrator Practice
Portion of eval not 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.
Evalu-ation Too
l Data
31-60%
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.
Other Measures of Practice
0-29%
Local Decisions
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 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.
What’s Next?Sept 2014: Senate passes HB 5223-24
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
Beginning of SY 15-16: Districts have fully or partially implemented new frameworks & training
SY 2016-17: 1st full year w/ eval. systems in place, last year of 25% growth
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%
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)
S
MI’s Next State Assessment
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 3-10 in 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
S
Michigan Merit Curriculum Changes
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, ag science, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Bob KefgenAssistant Director for Government Relations
Questions?