GROWTH AND ASSESSMENT DATA

IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

Senate Bills 122 (S-2) and 202 (S-2) as passed by the Senate

Sponsor:  Sen. Kenneth Horn

House Committee:  Education

Senate Committee:  Education and Career Readiness

Complete to 4-22-19

SUMMARY:

Senate Bill 122 would amend the Revised School Code to suspend for one year the scheduled increase in the percentage of annual year-end teacher evaluations based on student growth and assessment data from 25% to 40%.

Currently, the Code specifies that school district and intermediate school district (ISD) boards and public school academy (PSA, or charter school) boards of directors must ensure that student growth and assessment data account for 25% of year-end teacher evaluations for the school years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. That percentage is slated to increase to 40% of the evaluation beginning with the 2018-19 school year.

The bill would delay the increase until 2019-20.

MCL 380.1249

Senate Bill 202 would likewise reflect a delayed increase—from 2018-19 to 2019-20—for building-level school administrators and central-office-level school administrators who are regularly involved in instructional matters.

MCL 380.1249b

Each bill would take effect 90 days after its enactment.

BACKGROUND:

The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 eliminated the requirement that states adopt an evaluation system significantly based on student growth. It also prevented the U.S. Department of Education from prescribing specific measures for evaluations. Under the purview of ESSA, states could determine how much student growth data would be used in educator evaluations.

In response, 2015 PA 173[1] made several changes to the Revised School Code, one of which was to reduce the overall weight of student growth data in evaluations from 50% of the annual year-end teacher and administrator evaluation to 25% until the 2018-2019 school year, when it was slated to increase to 40%.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bills would have no fiscal impact on the state or local units of government.

                                                                                        Legislative Analyst:   Jenny McInerney

                                                                                               Fiscal Analysts:   Samuel Christensen

                                                                                                                           Jacqueline Mullen

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.

---