How will we get there from here? Educator Evaluations in Michigan

I attended the Michigan Department of Education Educator Evaluation Best Practices Conference on Friday.  Michigan is one of the 10 states that adopted legislation for new educator evaluations tied to student data in response to the Race to the Top competition.  Michigan's law calls for student growth to be a significant factor in a teacher's and administrator's evaluation decision.  The definitions of both "student growth" and "significant" are to be determined by the local districts, which in this state means bargained with the local unions.

There were a number of helpful presentations for districts looking for evaluation models to implement.  If you are looking for resources on this topic, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality has a list of teacher evaluation programs: www.tqsource.org  The Education Alliance of Michigan is coming out with a document in a few weeks recommending a process for engaging in the necessary negotiations and providing information about possible data sources on student growth other than state tests.  It promises to be good.

I thought the most interesting information was shared by Venessa Keesler from the Michigan Department of Education about the myths that are circulating around the state about the changes and the encouragement about the significant changes being made by the Department in a time of severe economic hardship in Michigan.  The state is proposing cutting the per pupil allotment between $470 to $700 dollars next year.  Our average student funding is around $7200.  Since I study teacher discipline, here's my favorite myth: 

Myth #1:  The purpose of this policy is to fire all the bad teachers.

•          Reality: The goal is NOT to fire teachers but to provide timely and reasonable feedback to help them develop goals and measure progress.  This ultimately will help improve the educational system.

I doubt this is entirely true, especially in light of the presentation that followed by Lisa Lachlan-Hache of the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality who pointed out that 59% of teachers say they know of someone in their building who is doing a bad job.  Her implication was that these tools will allow us to address that problem.  Of course, she could have meant through targeted professional development, not firing.

In the end, though, I'm a sucker for a happy ending, so I like Superintendent Mike Flanagan's claim that in Michigan "we are bottoming out," and "we have nowhere to go but up."  He says that Michigan is going to be an economic and academic international success story soon.  Although I'm skeptical, I really want to believe him.

Comments

[Justin B.]

I want to believe him too, for what it is worth.

The definition of "significant" is going to be a hell of a fight. Student growth is going to be a fight also, but the significant part is what scares me. As soon as I read the legislation worded that way, I immediately thought significant could be as little as 1% or as much as 51%. That is going to be one tough fight because the union is going to want major trade-offs for that provision, and the districts have little to trade at the moment (a 5% raise might get a 25% factor for student growth, but a 5% raise is not possible - nor is any healthcare concessions). I'd say get ready for some more strikes in Michigan if schools are seriously committed to implementing this law.