Where We Were Going 2012-13 Growth as a “significant factor” System must be rigorous, “transparent, and fair” Used to inform decisions on promotion/reten tion 2013-14 25% growth based on state growth test Multiple observations using a state- approved framework Mid-year evals 3 consecutive ineffective ratings = termination 2014-15 40% growth using state data All of the requirements from the previous year continue
Where We Are Going Now 2014-15 (current law) Growth as a “significant factor” measured using both state and local data System must be “rigorous, transparent, and fair” Used to inform decisions on promotion/retenti on 2014-15 (HB 5223-24) 25% growth, not required to use state data Pick a framework & start training Other requirements of 380.1249 remain the same Multiple observations Mid-year evals for ineffect./min. effect. teachers Etc. 2015-16 25% growth, first required use of state data Research-based evaluation framework fully implemented. All of the other requirements from the previous year continue.
What’s the Road Block? We have the votes in the Senate The only opposition to the bill is from members of the Senate Education Committee, and that is loosening. The perceived problems: State assessment Loss of local control Cost to the state The level of support likely means that the bills will move with or without the committee, but we prefer WITH.
Lame Duck 2014 Bills likely to be amended to push out timeline for using state assessment data for 1 year (until 2016-17). Bills already allow districts until the end of 2015-16 to: Choose a framework Get trained Fully implement the new system MDE must develop a spending plan before the money is released.
What Will Things Look Like? Breakdown for 2014-15 and 2015-16 the same. 25% student growth, no more, no less. Have through 2015-16 to implement framework Sec 1249 provisions you are familiar with take effect: Multiple observations At least 1 unscheduled Mid-year progress report for ME/I T’s
Punchlist for 2014-15 Ignore the BandAid and continue moving forward: Multiple observations (at least one unscheduled) Mid-year progress reports for less than effective teachers Growth measures used consistently for “similarly situated educators” Build robust local growth measures: Student Learning Objectives Locally-developed assessments Vendor-Developed assessments
A Few Thoughts on Growth Following the law… Current law: growth must be based “at least in part” on state assessments. HB 5223: no requirement to use state assessment data until 2016-17 The Result: local districts have almost complete autonomy to choose how to apply state growth data. Some Practical Recommendations Keep the % small…very small… Apply it consistently or even identically for all teachers Don’t let it become a decision making factor An example: use building-wide scores to inform your building level literacy goal and hold all teacher accountable equally at 1% of their total evaluation
You Don’t Want This Legislated! As introduced by the bill sponsor What schools actually needed As implemented by the Department As passed by the Legislature As recommended by the committee As amended by the lobbyists
What’s Next? Nov or Dec 2014: Senate passes HB 5223-24 SY 2014-15: Districts adopt & begin training/impleme ntation of new eval. systems SY 2015-16: 1 st 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: 2 nd year w/ system, evaluators fully trained, growth moves to 40%
Help Us Help You! THE PUSH STARTS NOW!!! Help MASSP get HB 5223-24 passed into law!!! http://cqrcengage.com/massp
Summarized Requirements: Public Act 196 of 2014 Must measure student achievement & growth on current state standards in grades 3-10. ELA & Math grades 3-10, science in grades 4 & 7, social studies in grades 5 & 8. Transparent educator review of test questions for quality, bias, & sensitive issues. Availability of representative questions from tests or retired tests for public review. Individual student reports on proficiency & growth available to students, parents, & teachers. Aggregate proficiency & growth reports by teacher, grade, school, & district to be publicly available. Reports/data capable of supporting educator evaluations. Reports available within 60 days after the end of the assessment. Student data privacy protection. Pilot tested before implementation. Testing time limited to lesser of previous recommendations or 9 hours. Cost not to exceed 2X existing contracts. (Covers summative assessment only)
The RFP Timeline Timeline: Issued – August 29, 2014 Bid Window Closed – October 10, 2014 MDE Interviews Bidders – January 2014 Final Contract Awarded – March 2014. What We Know: ACT no longer lobbying (RFP prohibits it) NWEA is not going to bid on the contract (they say the RFP is clearly biased toward Smarter Balanced) Smarter Balanced did not submit a big
Spring 2015 Testing Dates 6 th Grade: May 19-20 and 26-28 (7.5 hours) 7 th Grade: April 28-29 and May 5-7 (9 hours) 8 th Grade: April 14-15 and 21-23 (9 hours) 11 th Grade – State Assessment: April 14-16 and 21-23 (10.5 hours) ACT Plus Writing: Initial test date March 3, makeup date March 17, accommodations testing window March 3-17. WorkKeys: Initial test date March 4, makeup date March 18, accommodations testing window March 4-18.
Core MMC Requirements Algebra II: Students may fulfill this requirement w/ a course or courses which cover the MME assessed benchmarks of Algebra II World Language: 2 credits of grade-appropriate language anytime during grades K-12. Classes of 2015-2020: May fulfill 1 credit of the 2 credits by successfully completing a formal CTE program or an additional arts course. 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 formal CTE program (regardless of content) for 3 rd 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.
Two Great Resources Understanding the Recent Changes to Teacher/Admin Certification Rules http://mymassp.com/content/understanding_recent_changes _teacheradmin_certification_rules http://mymassp.com/content/understanding_recent_changes _teacheradmin_certification_rules July 17, 2014 MDE Holds Review of Teacher/Admin Cert Requirements/Rules http://mymassp.com/content/mde_holds_review_teacheradm in_cert_requirementsrules http://mymassp.com/content/mde_holds_review_teacheradm in_cert_requirementsrules September 29, 2014
Things You May Not Know… Teachers may renew a Professional certificate using district provided professional development (DPPD), but not a provisional certificate. You must accumulate either 6 credit hours or 150 state continuing education clock hours (SCECHs) to renew of provisional certificate. The continuing education requirements for administrators to renew their certification are: 6 semester credit hours or 150 SCECHs every 5 years, OR hold a valid professional teaching certificate. NOTE: Administrators cannot use DPPD to renew a certificate, even a teaching certificate. MDE has ruled that only teachers are eligible to use DPPD for certificate renewals.
Election Post-Mortem It’s kinda like CSI, but with sausage…
Recapping the Major Results Governor: Rick Snyder reelected House: R’s unseated 2 D’s & won 2 open seats for a 63-47 majority New Speaker of the House Kevin Cotter (R-Mt. Pleasant), who was the more conservative choice. Senate: R’s turned a 26-12 supermajority into a 27-11 übermajority, State Board: D’s kept both open seats to retain a 6-2 majority Supreme Court: Richard Bernstein won & both current justices reelected, giving R’s a 4-3 majority.
Implications Governor Snyder sees this election as a mandate to push forward with his "reinvention" agenda. The next Republican legislature is going to be more conservative in its leanings than the last, BUT… Huge margins mean the Republicans can, and thus have to, govern. The massive scope of the Republican victories could ironically moderate their governance. The Dems are Expect the Dems to vocally oppose pretty much everything the Republicans do for the next two years.
Specific Issues for 2015 Career Preparation/Education Content Standards and the Common Core School Accountability Systems State Assessment EAA/Detroit Schools "Reinvention” Third Grade Reading Truancy/Zero Tolerance
MASSP Legislative Day “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ~Thomas Jefferson FEB 24, 2014
Where’s My 3%?!? The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case on October 9, 2014. No ruling has yet been made. MASSP will keep you updated as this moves forward. If you really want to, you can keep track of the case on the Michigan Courts website (search docket # 148748). The case is AFT Michigan v State of Michigan. Here's a direct link: http://courts.mi.gov/opinions_orders/case_search/pages/default.asp x?SearchType=1&CaseNumber=148748&CourtType_CaseNumber= 1
Bob Kefgen Assistant Director for Government Relations firstname.lastname@example.org Questions?