Today s Ambitious Agenda

Transcription

1 UPDATE of 2011 School Reforms & TEACHER/ADMIN EVALUATIONS: - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly Barbara A. Ruga & John L. Gierak (616) /(248) bruga@clarkhill.com/jgierak@clarkhill.com Today s Ambitious Agenda Evaluating 2011 School Reforms The Good The Bad The Ugly Teacher Evaluations Administrator Evaluations Current Law Possible Law 1

2 The Good Laws give school employers wide latitude and more control of staffing academic programs & greater control of expenditures at time of minimal funding. The Best Reforms 2011 PA 54 In a climate of low state funding, the ability to hold expenditure levels at contract expiration has been a necessary tool. Created intense pressure to settle contracts within a window of time PA 152, as amended December 2013 Although there was initial confusion on some aspects, holding the line on insurance costs has greatly contributed to a new simplicity in bargaining insurance Just in time for the ACA! 2

3 The Good Collective bargaining agreements with fewer pages, i.e., restrictions on employer action. MERC Prohibited Subjects Out! Calhoun ISD v. Calhoun EA, 2013 ULP to grieve PS to arbitration! Pontiac Schools v. Pontiac EA, 2014 Broad definition of teacher placement filling vacancies (Ionia Public Schools v. Ionia EA) reassignments and transfers covered as well as posting (Pontiac Schools v. Pontiac EA) More Good Tenure Commission Applies Not Arbitrary and Capricious Standard Cona v. Avondale teacher goes to jail rather than extend probation and through ex-spouse, lies about reason for absence; underlying conduct off work Whitley v. Cadillac drunk driving conviction plus evidence of adverse impact, off work conduct Goulooze v. Hudsonville intoxication at work (also notable for implementation of new 103(3) of Tenure Act permitting escrow of salary when charged with a crime) 3

4 still Good Retail fraud conviction supports dismissal Koppy v. Plymouth Canton Threatening violence after adverse evaluation Towns v. Chesaning Union Schools Changing test answers supports dismissal Schisler v. Bay City Demeaning, belittling and racist statements to students Halliburton v. River Rouge Rapping student on head with two books, in light of prior discipline, warranted dismissal Lafayette v. Grosse Ile Probationary teachers may be dismissed at any time for misconduct Cross v. Grosse Pointe but not for pedagogical deficiencies which are subject to non-renewal Good Layoff & Recall Decisions While still unknown whether Tenure Commission has any remaining jurisdiction, such as over subterfuge claims, Tenure Commission rules that reinstatement is only remedy and individual teachers and not their unions must file suits under section 1248 Garden City EA v. Garden City Some circuit courts have agreed with this analysis and held there is no right to jury trial, and courts will defer to school district judgments. If Tenure Commission has jurisdiction, heavy burden on teacher to prove subterfuge Gadille v. Atlanta Schools (Teacher has to show bad faith, or that district overlooked important evidence, relied on impermissible evidence or failed to appreciate the significance of evidence) Wandrie v. Atherton Schools (i.e., negative evaluation or criticism is not subterfuge ) Wiedendorf v. Bloomfield School District (not arbitrary or capricious to deny recall to minimally effective tenured teacher who never taught subject of vacancy) 4

5 Good Evaluation Decisions Wide latitude to school employers in fashioning evaluation system District may unilaterally include student feedback without committing ULP Pontiac Schools v. Pontiac EA Dismissal can occur without an IDP, as long as prior notice of deficiencies (teacher not rated ME or I in year prior to dismissal) Douglas v. Bridgeport-Spaulding This is important case as sustained dismissal after one bad year with no documented problems the prior school year. The Bad Unanticipated Consequences, i.e., The road to hell is paved with good intentions! 5

6 The Bad Prohibited Subjects Disparate treatment within same bargaining unit (teachers vs. ancillary staff) creates operational confusion, complexity Sometimes, infrequently, union leaders want ancillary staff to be treated the same Uniqueness of ancillary staff positions may mitigate the disparity Increased focus on non-prohibited subjects More grievances Grievances on prohibited subjects Grievances impacting prohibited subjects The Bad: Unanticipated Consequences Evaluations Reactions to not being rated Highly Effective Evaluators rating whole buildings as HE Delays in identification of valid student growth measures and confusion about fair and rigorous interim measures Time consuming Is merit pay (performance based compensation) productive? Is it not productive because it is often not significant (declining funding) or because the available measures of performance are not viewed as valid and reliable? 6

7 The Bad Layoff & Recall Complex More time consuming than seniority & certification Confusion about how to differentiate among employees in a fair and consistent manner Don t have student growth measures in time to make layoff decisions before year ends Disparate impact? Greater concern about non-contractual exposure Circuit court litigation versus agency rulings Dues Deductions Loss of bargaining tool: cannot refuse to withhold deductions to create leverage when contract expires Unsure of level of union support Intra-unit dissension, some levels of harassment and retaliation Some efforts to nullify the law in practice Forced to be at odds with those with whom we would prefer to collaborate and create ill will on issue unimportant to many school employers 7

8 Right To Work Increased advocacy on minor and/or frivolous issues Some pockets of harassment and retaliation Loss of moderate voting members of bargaining unit Cannot vote at ratification Cannot vote for officers Increased resort to local pressure tactics to create appearance of need for union Increased scrutiny on non-contractual rights of employees greater use of outside legal counsel to advise individual employees Time will tell The UGLY? The Evolving And Elusive Laws Affecting Teacher & Administrator Evaluations 8

9 LEGISLATIVE GOAL Making staffing decisions based on merit and performance encourages good teachers to keep doing what they are doing and helps ensure students receive the highest quality education.protect outstanding teachers who are enthusiastic about the material and able to connect with students in a way that makes them want to learn. Governor Snyder, upon signing 2011 PA Clark Hill PLC Copyright 2012 PEDAGOGY BEHIND REFORMS THE WIDGET EFFECT (2009) Our schools are indifferent to instructional effectiveness except when it comes time to remove a teacher. REVERSING THE WIDGET EFFECT D. Weisberg, March 9, 2010 (NAEN) Clark Hill PLC Copyright

10 Simply removing the very lowest-performing teachers would put the average U.S. student near the top of the developed world. This improvement in student achievement would add as much as $30 billion per year to U.S. GDP. The New Teacher Project 2009 Source: Hanushek in Creating a New Teaching Profession, 2009 Impact of Effective Teachers is Ten Points The New Teacher Project

11 This new evaluation framework will achieve significantly improved outcomes over current systems. Current systems TNTP framework Student outcomes Teacher ratings Nearly all teachers get the top ratings and ratings do not correlate with student outcomes. Ratings produce a bell curve that closely correlates with student outcomes. The New Teacher Project 2009 X Ratings provide a single snapshot in time and cannot be used to drive decision making. Time Ratings provide a view of growth over time and are suited to driving critical decisions. WHAT AUTHENTIC PROGRESS HAVE WE MADE? Designing a better system is a critical first step. States will need to change the culture of many schools in order to sustain rigorous, honest conversations about instruction. Smart Spending For Better Teacher Evaluation Systems. TNTP. Clark Hill PLC Copyright

12 MI Effectiveness Ratings* Ineffective Teachers & Administrators : 0.8% (1%) : 0.6% (0%) Minimally Effective Teachers : 2.0% (1.76%) : 2.4% (2.24%) Effective Teachers : 74.6% (74%) : 64.4% (68%) * Source: MDE/CEPI Website Staffing Reports Increase in Highly Effective Educators Highly Effective Teachers : 23% : 33% Highly Effective Administrators : 23% : 29% 97% Effective or Highly Effective 12

13 Probability of T being rated HE Female Senior in district MA or higher ELA and art Elementary Math, science, social studies, special ed and world languages Minority teachers more likely than white to be rated HE Source: CEPI/MDE based on and Link Between Effectiveness & Student Growth? Not yet but different metrics Ineffective and minimally effective teachers more likely to be in Priority Schools than is their share in the overall teacher pool, however, the same is true for Rewards Schools. Conversely, while Ineffective and Minimally effective administrators are disproportionately likely to be at Priority Schools, there are no Ineffective and few ME at Reward Schools. 13

14 THE LAW Where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we going? IMPORTANT DATES MDE WEBSITE

15 REQUIREMENTS Annual evaluation using 4 rating categories developed with involvement of teachers IDP if rated ME or I and for each probationary T, developed in consultation with teacher Multiple observations (review lesson plan and curriculum standard and pupil engagement) Mid-Year Progress Report 25% student growth 13-14; 40% student growth Final evaluation must assess progress towards IDP goals IDP for to be developed at year end REQUIREMENTS Annual Evaluation Four Multiple Rating Categories HE, E, ME, I (Mandated by law) Student Growth A significant part Satisfy Tenure Act requirements (See subsequent slides) 15

16 student growth factor A significant factor Could be 25% as in Could be 40% as was projected to be Could be 50% as it may be in under current law, 2014 PA 257 Up to district to decide student growth measures Student Growth = Significant Factor At least in part using state assessments in grades and subjects where state exam administered Where state assessments not administered, must be locally determined Student growth measures must be rigorous and comparable across similarly situated schools If have three years of student growth data, must use it 16

17 TENURE ACT REMAINS THE SAME Comply with section 1249 IDP for all probationary teachers and for tenured teachers rated ME or I Developed in consultation with teacher IDP shall require progress within a specified period of time not to exceed 180 calendar days Final evaluation = multiple observations & must assess progress on IDP goals. BASED ON CURRENT LAW 50% student growth in using any state mandated measures ( ) All the prior requirements and options are reinstated, including: MYPR classroom observation parameters review lesson plan, measure pupil engagement, link to curriculum standard IDP at end of year for following year Same Tenure Act requirements 17

18 Current law Annual evaluations, unless If Teacher rated HE 3 consecutive years, may evaluate every other year instead of annually, provided T maintains HE rating. If rated E or HE for two years, only one observation needed. Teacher rated Ineffective may appeal to Superintendent within 20 calendar days of receipt of rating. Remember, in , district must notify parents when students assigned to teachers rated Ineffective for two consecutive years. Requirements If HB 5223 Passes Four rating categories required: HE, E, ME, I One of 4 piloted tools must be used in , unless meet statutory exemption At least 2 observations one must be unscheduled Feedback within 30 days to teacher at least one done by primary evaluator Evaluators must be trained by vendor at least once every three years There may be funding Coaching, providing feedback Rater reliability 18

19 If HB 5223 Passes (continued) Reinstates other requirements, such as midyear progress report (MYPR). Tenured teacher rated Ineffective three consecutive years, using same tool, shall be dismissed. May dismiss earlier All similarly situated teachers must be evaluated using same tool. Student Growth If HB 5223 Passes 25% student growth until and then 40% (Could 40% be extended to ?) At least half of 40% student growth will be measured by state assessment for core content teachers in grades and subjects for which state assessment exists and balance will be locally determined. Locally determined may include SLO, IEP goals, locally developed, or created by a vendor (state or national). Up to 5% may be a school-level growth goal, if core content is reasonably connected to teacher s actual assignment. If no state assessment, 100% may be locally determined. If have 3 years, must use 3 years of student growth data. 19

20 If and when HB 5223 Passes August 1, 2018 MDE must submit a report to Legislature measuring impact of the section 1249 performance evaluation system on: third grade reading proficiency graduation rates student growth college entrance exam scores scores on MME (?) for years 15-16, and If HB 5223 Passes: New Requirement! Beginning , schools shall not assign a student to be taught in the same subject area for 2 consecutive years by teacher rated Ineffective on 2 most recent annual evaluations. School has until July 15 prior to the second year to send letter to parents explaining why they cannot comply with this new requirement. 20

21 If HB 5224 Passes Annual evaluation Same 4 rating categories Same student growth percentages Student Growth measures: 50% shall be state growth measures, except, Students with IEPs may either use state growth measures for up to 50% or may use locally determined measures such as IEP goals. other 50% is locally determined in same manner as defined for teachers. similarly situated administrators must have same student growth measures. HB 5224 Evaluation Content Portion not dealing with student growth, shall assess: training and proficiency using section 1249 tool random sample to assess quality of your input progress on school improvement goals student attendance student, parent and teacher feedback demonstrated effective management and development of instructional staff 21

22 HB 5224 Mandated Tools School Advance Administrator Evaluation System by P. Reeves and P. MacNeil D. Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric Marzano School and District Leadership Evaluation May apply for waiver or modified tool Training once every three years of evaluators of administrators SENATE SUBSTITUTE BILL In early December 2014, contrary to rumors that HB 5223 and 5224 would be adopted, the Senate proposed two substitute bills. With respect to teacher evaluations, the substitute bill: Increases % of student growth to 45% in , retaining the % at current undefined level of a significant part until that date; 50% of student growth measures must be based on state assessments where they exist; reinstates the components of evaluation systems in ; specifies that one observation must be done by evaluating administrators, others can be done by persons trained in the system including a teacher leader; does not mandate use of any specific evaluation tool, but mandates notice to teachers of the system and posting specific information about the system on the District s website. 22

23 MORE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE BILL RE TEACHERS Beginning in , must notify parents if students assigned to teacher rated Ineffective for two consecutive years; Beginning in , district shall not assign a student to be taught in the same subject area for 2 consecutive years by a teacher rated Ineffective on most recent 2 consecutive evaluations, unless Board explains in writing to parent why it cannot comply with this restriction. SENATE SUBSTITUTE BILL ADMINISTRATORS 45% STUDENT GROWTH AS OF ; SAME DEFINITION OF MEASURES AS IN CURRENT LAW (I.E. AGGREGATE OF TEACHER MEASURES) SAME FACTORS FOR REMAINING CRITERIA AS IN LAW; MEASURES MUST BE USED CONSISTENTLY FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED INSTRUCTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS; IF RATED ME OR I, MUST BE GIVEN A PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT; IF RATED I ON THREE CONSECUTIVE EVALUATIONS, MUST DISMISS BUT MAY DISMISS IN ANY EVENT; IF RATED HE FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE EVALUATIONS MAY EVALUATE EVERY OTHER YEAR, PROVIDED REMAINS HE; NO SPECIFIC TOOL MANDATED, BUT CERTAIN CRITERIA MUST BE MET; MUST POST SPECIFIED DATA ON WEBSITE. 23

24 WHAT TO DO NOW? Assuming you were compliant in , keep as much like as feasible If not compliant, then upgrade to be compliant with requirements Maintain same % of student growth in unless confident with validity and reliability of your student growth measures Train, Train, Train The Basics of the Law on Probationary and Tenure Evaluations Work on Consistency Work on IDP Development Work on Coaching, Instructional Support, PD Review final evaluations of ME and Ineffective teachers Use probationary period effectively 24

25 BEST PRACTICES Review and update Board policies layoff and recall comply with section 1248 of the Michigan Revised School Code evaluations discipline Be careful about administrative procedures/regulations Note: This document is not intended to give legal advice in any specific situation. It is comprised of general information. School employers facing specific issues should seek the assistance of an attorney. 25

26 QUESTIONS? Barbara A. Ruga (616) John L. Gierak (248)

27 MUNICIPAL FINANCE UPDATE January 10, 2015 Presented by: James M. Crowley Clark Hill PLC (248) What s New on the School Bond Front? 2 Need for capital projects remains strong. Size and scope of projects have shifted from space addition to renovation, technology and buses. Security, Security, Security! Energy conservation improvements. Tax base recovery making it possible in some cases to bond within existing debt millage. Multiple bond proposals considered. Negative credit pressures? Proposed changes to the School Bond Qualification and Loan Program. 1

28 Election Date Options 3 A school district may submit a ballot question, such as a bond proposal, to the school electors on one of the following dates: One of the four fixed election dates; A date when a city or township within the school district s jurisdiction is holding an election; or A floater election date. Ballot question must be submitted to the school district s Election Coordinator no later than 4 p.m. on the twelfth Tuesday before the election date. Four Fixed Election Dates 4 The four fixed election dates are as follows: Fourth Tuesday in February; First Tuesday after the first Monday in May; First Tuesday after the first Monday in August; First Tuesday after the first Monday in November.* *The November election date, even-years only, is the school district s Regular School Election date. 2

29 Upcoming Election Date Options Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Tuesday, February 23, 2016 Tuesday, May 5, 2015* Tuesday, May 3, 2016 Tuesday, August 4, 2015 Tuesday, August 2, 2016 Tuesday, November 3, 2015 Tuesday, November 8, 2016** *State-Wide Election Date **Regular School Election Date Floater Election Date 6 Any Tuesday that falls more than 30 days before or 35 days after one of the four fixed regular election dates. Requires initiative petition signatures or 10% of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. 3

30 Choosing a Bond Election Date: Considerations 7 Millage Increase? Cost. Turn-out/ballot fatigue/other ballot issues. Stealth Election. Coordination with construction timetable. Recent Bond Election Results 8 Bond Election Results for Bonds qualified under the School Bond Qualification and Loan Program: February 2014 May 2014 August 2014 November Bond Elections 27 Bond Elections 7 Bond Elections 11 Bond Elections 5 Passed 22 Passed 5 Passed 6 Passed 2 Failed 5 Failed 2 Failed 5 Failed 71% Success Rate 81% Success Rate 71% Success Rate 55% Success Rate 87% Success Rate for bond proposals with 0 mill increase. 4

31 Operating Millage Renewal 9 Timing of renewal election. Renewal v. Increase. Headlee rollback. Consider a renewal term to allow for a future renewal at a Regular School Election date (i.e., November even-years only). Michigan Campaign Finance Act 10 School districts are prohibited from spending public funds or using other resources for campaign activities, including the election or defeat of candidates or ballot proposals. School districts cannot advocate for a ballot proposal but may use its resources to inform (i.e. factual information). Do not use language like: This will really help our kids. This will benefit everyone in the district. We need your help. However, you may say: The ballot proposal is intended to benefit every child in the district. Make an informed decision. There is a lot of information available. (Indicate location, school, website, newsletter, etc.) Read this issue of It contains information about the proposal. 5