michigan council for educator effectiveness toward an improvement-focused system of educator...

Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness

Toward an Improvement-Focused System of

Educator Evaluation

Jennifer HammondOCTE Meeting

November 7, 2013


Today’s Presentation

•Review of Charge of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness•Review Specific Recommendations•Answer Questions


Membership of MCEE• Deborah Loewenberg Ball (chair)Dean, University of Michigan School of Education• Jennifer HammondPrincipal, Grand Blanc High School• Joseph Martineau (non-voting member)Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability,

Michigan Department of Education• Mark ReckaseProfessor, Michigan State University• Nicholas SheltrownDirector of Measurement, Research, and Accountability,

National Heritage Academies• David VenselPrincipal, Jefferson High School (Monroe, MI)


MCEE ChargeThe MCEE will submit to the State Board of Education, the Governor, and the state legislature a report that identifies and recommends all of the following: 1.A student growth and assessment tool.2.A state evaluation tool for teachers.3.A state evaluation tool for school administrators. 4.Changes to the requirements for a professional teaching certificate.5.A process for evaluating and approving local evaluation tools for teachers and administrators that are consistent with the state evaluation tool for teachers and administrators.


MCEE VisionThe Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness will develop a fair, transparent, and feasible evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. The system will be based on rigorous standards of professional practice and of measurement. The goal of this system is to contribute to enhanced instruction, improve student achievement, and support ongoing professional learning.


Implementation Recommendations

• July 2013: MCEE submits final recommendations• Early fall 2013: Legislature acts on recommendations• 2013-14 school year: State and school districts focus

on developing the necessary training as well as the required systems, processes, and vendor contracts

• 2014-15 school year: New educator evaluation system launches across the state

This staging is crucial in order to fulfill our charge to build an ethical, transparent, and fair system of evaluating educators, dedicated to educational improvement in the state.


Framework for evaluating teachers


Categorizing Educators

Professional–Competent OR extraordinary–All performance can be improved–Must have specific feedback for development–Three years to advance roles/leadership–Three years to alternating evaluation years



Provisional–Some knowledge and skill–Specific substantial weaknesses–Beginning teachers/administrators –Experienced teachers/administrators with areas of improvement–Warning category–Three years provisional, counseled out of role



Ineffective–Specific critical identified weaknesses–Urgent notice –Significant improvement needed–Two years ineffective, terminated from employment


State Evaluation Tool for Teachers

Observation Tools Required:– Danielson– 5 Dimensions–Marzano– Thoughtful Classroom

Districts must use tool with fidelity



• State to conduct RFP• State to provide technical support

and training• LEAs to pay for costs above State

supported tool



• Observer training required• Training provided by vendor• Multiple observations required• One observation unannounced• Qualified peers can conduct

observations



• Administrator must conduct 1 observation

• Must include other observations in final determination

• Observers must be trained in coaching and providing feedback


Student Growth and Assessment Tool

• Student Growth vs. Value-Added

– Full Service Assessments–Model Assessments– Local Assessments– Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)



• State to develop assessments in core content AND high-volume, non-core areas

• State provided guidelines for local assessments and third party assessments

• State to provide training on student learning objectives



• State to provide VAM for core areas• Half of student growth is to be VAM• Non-core teachers may use VAM, this

is determined by LEA– Examples:• Art teacher, math results• Music teacher, reading results



• School-level VAM will be provided and use to be determined by LEAs, not to exceed10% of student growth


Example: Proportion of data


Example: Combining scores


State Evaluation Tool for Administrators

Select one tool:–MASA’s School Advance–Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric

State to conduct RFPSupport and train for one toolEvaluated based on practice and student growth


State Evaluation Tool for Administrators

Administrators–Directly related to instruction/student learning–Determined by LEA

Other Items–Proficiency on teacher evaluations–Progress on SIP–Attendance rates–Student, Parent and Teacher feedback–Other items determined by LEA


Changes to the Requirements for a

Professional Teaching CertificateProvisional Certification to Professional

Certification: –Require successive professional rating for 3 years–If not, then Provisional Certificate renewal


Local District Waivers

Demonstrate local system quality and rigorVendor tools cannot be adjusted or LEA must prove validityPlan for gathering validity and reliability within 3 yearsState to create an office for coordinating waiver process


Thank you!Questions?

www.mcede.org

[email protected]

michigan council for educator effectiveness toward an improvement-focused system of educator...

Documents