Presentation on Evaluations by Mr. Whiston, Ms. Sipperley, and Dr

Teacher and Administrator
Evaluation Update
Before The Board of Education
By Ms. Christine Sipperley, Mr. Brian
Whiston, and Dr. Glenn Maleyko.
February 24, 2014
Important Changes
 2005 Dearborn brought in a researched based
model and abandoned the checklist
evaluation system
 2010 State Law Changed requiring all
teachers to receive evaluations
 2011 Major Changes to the State Law on
Evaluations. Student Growth Data included
for teachers and administrators. Went to a
four category scale:
 Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally
Effective, and Ineffective.
Teacher Evaluation
Committee








Bill Tucker
Jill Chochol
Andrew Denison
Fatme Faraj
Hassane Jaafar
Julia Maconochie
Wyatt David
Glenn Maleyko
Mark Palise
Shannon Peterson
Linda Salamey
Robert Seeterlin
Gail Shenkman
Chris Sipperley
Steve Salah
Nicole Chubb
A High Level of
Collaboration
 A High Level of Collaboration among
the teacher evaluation committee as
well as the administrator evaluation
committee. The union is part of both
committees
Teachscape
 We are ahead of the game and leaders with
the training that we have been providing
 We are requiring all administrators that
evaluate teachers to take the teachscape
class and Test.
 Average about 20-30 practice hours on-line
 The assessment takes between 5-7 hours to
complete
 14 started in a new cohort this year.
Weighted Formula
 75% will be based on Observation Protocol and
the 5 Standards for Effective Teaching.
 This includes observations (formal and not
formal), walkthroughs, other performance
measures that are related to the teacher
evaluation rubric which includes all 5
standards. Professional Responsibilities are
included as one of the standards.
25% Growth Data
 5% District growth based on state
accountability measures
 10% Building Growth
 10% Classroom Growth
10% Building Growth Data
 Elementary -SRI, DRA & DRA task analysis, Star
Math, 6 plus 1 traits, Building/District Common
Assessments, NWEA, MEAP, Art, Music and & PE
common Assessments.
 Middle School -SRI, DRA, Star Math, 6 plus 1
traits, Building/District Common Assessments,
NWEA, MEAP, Art, Music and & PE common
Assessments, and Explore.
 High School- Explore, Plan, MME, MEAP, SRI,
Star Math, Common Assessments, AP exams, and
Departmental Assessments.
10% Classroom Growth Data
 10% Classroom Growth based on State
Assessments, District Common Assessments or
Classroom Assessments (ex. Performance or
product measures or other formative
assessments, pre and post tests are required).
Proposed Legislation in
Lansing To Administrator and
Teacher Evaluations
 House Bill 5223 (MCL 380.1249 &
380.1531j)
 Would revise current evaluation
requirements for teachers, and require
that school districts meet new
requirements for school administrator
evaluations, as described in detail in
House Bill 5224.
Other Proposed Requirements
 A teacher be must observed at least
two times each year, unless the
teacher had received a rating of
effective or highly effective on the two
most recent evaluations. Using the
same evaluation tool.
Student Growth and
Assessment Component
 House Bill 5223 requires that the
student growth and assessment
component of a teacher's evaluation
consist of the state student growth and
assessment measurement standards
 40% of the teacher Growth Data
Component would be based on state
provided data
Proposed Growth Data
Continued
 Assuming that the state-provided
growth data was available in the
content areas and in the grades where
the teachers provide instruction.
 A local student growth assessment can
be included and must be where state
data is not available
 School Level Aggregate Data can be
part of the evaluation.
Student Growth Data
Included in Evaluations by
State Mandate
March 1st, 2014 Deadline
 Under the bill, the Michigan
Department of Education would be
required to develop state student
growth and assessment measurement
standards not later than March 1, 2014.
The measurement standards would
have to meet all of the following
requirements:
4 Tools To Choose From
 Council for Educator Effectiveness,
including:
 1. Charlotte Danielson's Framework for
 Teaching;
 2. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation
 3. Five Dimensions
 4. Thoughtful Classroom
HB 5224 Administrator
Evaluation
 Schools may use one of the following
frameworks:
 1. The school advance administrator
evaluation instrument developed by
Reeves and McNeill for the Michigan
Association of School Administrators;
 2. The Reeves Leadership Performance
Rubric;
 3. The Marzano tool
Questions or Comments?
 Thank you for your support.