Wrapping Up Teacher Evaluations: Incorporating Data & Avoiding Common Mistakes

As the school year winds down, school officials should review the legal requirements and best practices for incorporating student growth and assessment data into teacher evaluations to avoid common evaluation mistakes.

Student Growth and Assessment Data

Revised School Code (RSC) Section 1249 requires school officials to consider student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives in a teacher’s year-end evaluation. Section 1249 defines “student learning objectives” as “measurable, long-term, academic goals, informed by available data, that a teacher or teacher team sets at the beginning of the year for all students.” This portion of the year-end evaluation must be based on locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics, which must be collectively bargained if the teachers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives must account for 20% of a teacher’s performance evaluation.

To assist school officials with Section 1249’s implementation, the Michigan Department of Education published Educator Evaluations FAQs.

School officials should note that, while student growth and assessment data may be a factor in determining a teacher’s ability to impart knowledge, such data cannot, by itself, prove that a tenured teacher is incompetent, and schools are prohibited from discharging a tenured teacher solely due to poor student growth and assessment data. To discharge a tenured teacher for incompetency, school officials must base their decision on five factors, a deficiency in any one of which may support a finding of incompetence: (1) the teacher’s knowledge of the subject; (2) the teacher’s ability to impart it; (3) the manner and efficacy of the teacher’s discipline over students; (4) the teacher’s rapport with parents, students, and other faculty; and (5) the teacher’s physical and mental ability to withstand the strains of teaching.

Common Mistakes

School officials should avoid the following common mistakes when conducting teacher evaluations:

• Failing to recognize which teachers need an Individualized Development Plan (IDP). The Teachers’ Tenure Act broadly requires that all probationary teachers receive an IDP, and the RSC requires that all first-year probationary teachers and any teacher rated “minimally effective,” “ineffective,” “needing support,” or “developing” on their most recent annual year-end evaluation receive an IDP. Schools must comply with both the Teachers’ Tenure Act and the RSC, meaning all probationary teachers should receive an IDP. School officials also may place an “effective” teacher on an IDP to address a specific performance-related issue or simply to improve performance.
• Failing to identify performance goals for the next school year in the year-end evaluation. The RSC requires that all annual year-end teacher evaluations include specific performance goals that: (1) assist the teacher with improving effectiveness for the next school year; (2) are developed by the school official conducting the evaluation in consultation with the teacher; and (3) include recommended training, in consultation with the teacher, to assist the teacher with meeting performance goals.
• Failing to give a teacher notice of deficiencies and ample opportunities to improve. It is a best practice to provide written deficiency notices and to observe or monitor the teacher’s progress often to determine whether the teacher’s performance has improved. School officials should provide teachers with notice of deficient performance and opportunities to improve throughout the school year to ensure compliance with Section 1249. In addition, school officials should assist with the teacher’s development by identifying relevant coaching, instructional support, and professional development.
• Failing to do observation “homework.” Section 1249 requires observers and evaluators to review the teacher’s lesson plan, the state curriculum standard used in the lesson, and student engagement in the lesson during an observation. All classroom observations must be discussed during a post-observation meeting between the evaluator and the teacher.
• Failing to conduct and complete mid-year progress reports. A mid-year progress report is required for all first-year probationary teachers and any teacher rated “minimally effective,” “ineffective,” “needing support, or “developing” on their most recent year-end evaluation. The mid-year progress report must: (1) gauge the teacher’s improvement from the preceding year or set a benchmark for first-year teachers; (2) assist the teacher with improving; (3) align with the teacher’s IDP; (4) include specific performance goals for the remainder of the year; and (5) recommend training designed to assist the teacher with meeting goals. At the mid-year progress report, a school administrator must develop, in consultation with the teacher, a written improvement plan that includes these goals and training designed to help the teacher improve their rating.

Importantly, since teacher evaluation is no longer a prohibited bargaining subject, school officials must also comply with relevant provisions in the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Failing to follow Section 1249’s requirements may undermine a school’s subsequent layoff, nonrenewal, or termination decision. School officials should (1) review their performance evaluation system and applicable collective bargaining agreement to ensure they comply with the RSC and the Teachers’ Tenure Act, and (2) prepare a list of all teacher IDPs at the beginning of the school year to ensure observations and mid-year progress reports are calendared and completed, and that nonrenewal timelines will be followed.