Teacher Evaluation Protocols

Elk Rapids Schools

2018-2019

Teacher Evaluation will be comprised of 60% weighting from selected elements in the Marzano
Focused Teacher Evaluation Model. There are 23 elements categorized into 4 different
domains from which “target” elements may be chosen. The administration will choose the
target elements with input from the teaching staff in each building. The following domains are
recognized:

● Standards-Based Planning: Elements 1-3

● Standards-Based Instruction: Elements 4-13
● Conditions for Learning: Elements 14-20
● Professional Responsibilities: Elements 21-23

The remaining 40% of weighting toward the annual teacher evaluation process will be derived
from student growth and achievement data. The State of Michigan requires that at least 20%
of teacher evaluation must be determined by state approved standardized assessments
including PSAT, SAT, M-STEP, etc. As determined by law and/or recommended by TBAISD,
the following percentages will be used for this year:

Teachers that instruct in subject areas and/or grade levels tested through a state assessment;
20% (½ of 40%) of annual evaluation will be directly tied to ​adequate yearly growth​ for tested
populations. The remaining 20% for those teachers will be derived from pre-test/post-test
data from teacher selected/developed SLO’s (Student Learner Objectives).

Teachers that instruct in subject areas (electives) and/or grade levels NOT tested through a
state assessment; 10% (¼ of 40%) of annual evaluation will be directly tied to ​adequate yearly
growth​ by applying either English/Literacy score data or Math score data or an average of
both. The remaining 30% (¾ of 40%) for those teachers will be derived from pre-test/post-test
data from teacher selected/developed SLO’s (Student Learner Objectives). Henceforth we will
refer to teachers as either “20/20” or “10/30” teachers.

State Assessment Data (20% or 10%)

TBAISD will annually calculate ​Adequate Yearly Growth​ percentages for local
districts/buildings in the state mandated assessments. Note: Per MDE, students are given
credit for achieving AYG if their proficiency score in the second testing is within +/- 4
percentage points of the first testing (this is a very generous 8 point window)

MDE is recommending the following growth percentages:

80-100% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Highly Effective

60-80% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Effective
40-60% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Minimally Effective
Below 40% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Ineffective
However, this is NOT required and ERS Administrators propose quartiles as follows for both
State Assessed Data and SLO’s:

AYG Scale for ERS

75-100% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Highly Effective (3.0)
62.5-74.9% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Effective 2 (2.5)
50-62.4% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Effective 1 (2.0)
25-49.9% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Minimally Effective (1.0)
0-24.9% of tested students demonstrate AYG = Ineffective (0.0)

Note: Ranges are wider than MDE recommendations and the Effective Range is differentiated
to allow for an extra half point….this is huge when 40% of a teacher’s evaluation comes from
assessment data.

Student Learner Objectives (SLOs) (20% or 30%)

For SLO’s to determine a student’s (group of students) growth, ​Simple Average Growth
Calculation​ will be used as follows (see TBAISD slide):

“Based on pre-assessment score, students will score halfway between the baseline score and
to 100%. Therefore if a student scores 50% on the pre-test, his target would be 75% on the
post-test. In another example, a student that scores 40% on the pre-test would have a target
of 70% on the post-test”. We intend to also apply the +/= 4% window to determine if a student
has made AYG. Therefore in the examples above, the first student would meet AYG with a
score of 71-79%+. The second student would meet AYG with a score of 66-74%+.

To determine a teacher’s effectiveness score using the SLO, the teacher would average the
AYG for the entire class, course, subgroup, defined in SLO. The class/course/subgroup
average would be applied to the ​AYG Scale for ERS​ (see above). So for a teacher with an SLO
average where 63% of students met AYG, she/he would receive a 3.5 on the scale for ​SLO
Growth Metric.

However, additionally we propose using the TBAISD recommendation of an ​SLO Reflection ​as
well (see rubric). At the conclusion of the SLO, the teacher would be expected to type/submit
a reflection on the SLO that addresses the bullet points detailed on the rubric. The
administrator would review the reflection and assign an effectiveness rating of between 1 and
4. We are proposing to give equal weights to the ​SLO Reflection​ and the ​SLO Growth Metric​.
Therefore it would look as follows:
20/20 Teachers:
60% - Marzano Teacher Observation Data
20% - State Mandated AYG Data
10% SLO Growth Metric
10% SLO Reflection
= 100%

10/30 Teachers:
60% - Marzano Teacher Observation Data
10% - State Mandated AYG Data
20% SLO Growth Metric
10% SLO Reflection
= 100%