HVEA

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS, SHAPING THE FUTURE

TO: Nancy Coratti, Deputy Superintendent

FROM: Joshua Gignac, HVEA President

SUBJECT: Teacher Evaluation in Huron Valley Schools

In Huron Valley Schools, as well as most every school district in the state of Michigan, district leadership is charged with
the task of adapting, altering, or abandoning their current Teacher Evaluation Tool for one of four models as
recommended to the state by the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness. The four MCEE recommended models
include:
Charlotte Danielsons Framework for Teaching
Marzano Teacher Evaluation model
The Thoughtful Classroom
5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning.

Although the MCEE has provided their recommendations to the state, no decision has been made as to what model the
state will choose to mandate. Further complicating the issue is the fact that funding will likely be tied to the states
preferred evaluation model(s).

Currently, Huron Valley Schools use the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, however, the state has mandated
that, in 2015-2016, 50% of a teachers effectiveness rating be based on Student Growth. Of this 50%, at least half of the
teachers student growth component (so 25% of the total evaluation) should be based on state provided Value Added
Model scores and the other half (25% of the total evaluation) on local measures and evidence. The remaining 50% of the
teachers year end evaluation will be based on practice as observed using the adopted model.

Presently, Huron Valley Schools evaluation model does not include the student growth component in rating teacher
effectiveness. With the Collective Bargaining Agreement set to expire on July 21, 2015, both the HVEA, and the Board
have agreed to pilot a program in 2014-2015 that specifically focuses on measuring student growth. The issue looming is
how we locally implement a one year pilot without knowing the direction the state will choose. Moreover, the question
of whether or not it is wise to attach evaluation percentages (linked to student growth) to effectiveness ratings before
the state has rolled out their implementation plan for the evaluation model they will decide on and, ultimately fund
weighs heavy. The possible collateral damage of our decision includes: decreasing teacher morale, incomplete
implementation models, inconsistency with administration, and guessing if our model will match the states. The
overwhelming benefit is that growing the conversation on student growth provides our teachers a year of preparation
and readiness prior to the state mandate.

This issue and the possible effects of its implementation will be viewed and analyzed through Bolman and Deals four
organizational frames.

Attachments: Key Recommendations for Teacher Evaluation in HVS, December 2013.