Michigan Educator Evaluation Tool Application and Scoring Guide

The Michigan Educator Evaluation Tool Scoring Guide provides the framework for educator evaluation tools to be evaluated for inclusion on the list of state-approved tools. 

MCL 380.1249(4) of Michigan’s educator evaluation law prescribes that:

The department shall establish and maintain a list of teacher evaluation tools that have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and that may be used for the purposes of this section. The list must include a statement indicating that school districts, intermediate school districts, and public school academies are not limited to only using the evaluation tools that are included on the list. A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy is not required to use an evaluation tool for teacher evaluations that is the same as it uses for school administrator evaluations or that has the same author or authors as the evaluation tool it uses for school administrator evaluations. The department shall promulgate rules establishing standards and procedures for adding an evaluation tool to or removing an evaluation tool from the list. These rules must include a process for a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to submit its own evaluation tool for review for placement on the list. 

Accordingly, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has promulgated rules creating the process by which school districts, intermediate school districts, public school academies, or private organizations may submit evaluation tools for inclusion on the state-approved list, provided they meet required criteria.  

External stakeholder input derived from multiple publicly held feedback sessions informed the rules promulgation process which directly guided the development of this guide and application. Additionally, the application and scoring guide was reviewed by a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of numerous independent experts prior to public release and implementation.

1. Reliability: the extent to which an evaluation tool is consistent and stable in yielding similar results under varying conditions, including, but not limited to, different evaluators and observers or different observation windows.
2. Validity: the extent to which an evaluation tool measures what it is intended to measure.
3. Efficacy: the extent to which an evaluation tool provides information that improves professional practice.

School Districts, Intermediate School Districts, and Public School Academies may complete an application for an evaluation tool it has adopted for use to be placed on the state-approved list by completing the application and sending to: MDE-EdEvals@Michigan.gov. An application is not complete until all required forms (A-L) and all supporting materials have been submitted.

Public or private organizations may complete an application for an evaluation tool to be placed on the state-approved list by completing the application and sending to: MDE-EdEvals@Michigan.gov. An application is not complete until all required forms (A-L) and all supporting materials have been submitted.

• Additionally, public or private organizations seeking tool approval must provide either of the following: 
  • Evidence that the evaluation tool has been approved or adopted for use by at least two state education entities.
  • Evidence that no fewer than ten local education agencies, ISDs, PSAs, etc. in this state will consider adopting the evaluation tool if it is added to the list.

MDE will review applications on a continuous and ongoing basis. 

To assist with the application review process, MDE contracts with a third party testing and evaluation research center to evaluate the reliability, validity, and efficacy of applicant’s evaluation tools. The cost for the third-party review is the responsibility of the applicant; estimated cost is $8,000-$10,000.

Reviewers will use the scoring rubric and criteria specified within this application guidance document. Applications must meet all minimum requirements to be considered for full approval. 

Following the review process, the department shall notify the district or organization if the evaluation tool will be placed on the list as an approved tool. 

Based on rubric scores in the areas of reliability, validity and efficacy, an application may receive conditional approval. Applications accepted on a conditional basis may be revised to satisfactorily address the required improvements. Any resubmissions must be received within one calendar year of initial submission to be reconsidered for full approval.

If the department determines that the evaluation tool will not be placed on the list, or shall be allowed probationary placement on the list, the notice shall include the reasons for probationary placement or denial of the request. The applicant may use the feedback and resubmit its application.

Approval of a tool for inclusion on the state-approved list may be withdrawn for just cause, which could include, but is not limited to, a determination made by the MDE that the tool is not compliant with one or more of the criteria set forth in this scoring guide or is not compliant with legislative requirements. 
A previously approved tool may be removed from the state-approved list for any of the following reasons: 

1. The department modifies the scoring guide and an evaluation tool on the list does not satisfy the minimum requirements set forth in the scoring guide as modified. 
2. An evaluation tool on the list is modified and as modified, it does not satisfy the minimum requirements set forth in the scoring guide. 
3. The department determines that the decision to place the evaluation tool on the list was based on incorrect information and that the evaluation tool does not satisfy the minimum requirements set forth in the scoring guide. Removal of an evaluation tool from the list does not preclude placement of the evaluation tool on the list later.

Application Cover Page (Form A)

• Applicant will provide identifying and other relevant information demonstrating eligibility
• Applicant will summarize rationale for requesting inclusion of tool on the state approved list 

Research Base and Author Identity and Qualifications (Form B)

• Applicant will provide a narrative description of the evaluation tool’s research base (Attach evidence and other relevant documentation as pdf attachments in form L)
• Applicant will provide the identity and qualifications of the evaluation tool author(s)
• Applicant will attach curriculum vitae (CV) of all authors

Teacher or Principal Practice Rubric Narrative (Form C)

• Detailed narrative description of the teacher or principal practice rubric with thoughtful representation of performance level indicators and key summative indicators (Attach all rubrics and relevant accompanying documentation as pdf attachments in form L) 

Evidence of Reliability (Form D)

• Applicant will provide a narrative description of the evaluation tool’s reliability (Attach evidence and other relevant documentation as pdf attachments in form L) 

Evidence of Validity (Form E)

• Applicant will provide a statement of the intended score interpretation(s) that the instrument is intended to yield, a narrative description of the evaluation tool’s validity evidence and a summary synthesis of that evidence. Additionally, applicant will provide a crosswalk from their proposed tool to: 

• InTASC standards - if submitting a teacher evaluation tool

• PSEL standards (formerly ISLLC) - if submitting an administrator evaluation tool

• (Attach evidence and appropriate crosswalk documents as pdf attachments in form L) 

Evidence of Efficacy (Form F)

• Applicant will provide a narrative description of the evaluation tool’s efficacy (Attach evidence and other relevant documentation as pdf attachments in form L) 

Observation and Evaluation Protocol Detail (Form G)

• Applicant will provide a detailed description of the processes for conducting observations, collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing performance improvement plans (Attach protocols and relevant accompanying documentation as pdf attachments in form L)

Professional Development Plan Detail (Form H)

• Applicant will provide a detailed description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training in the use of the evaluation tool (Attach all relevant accompanying documentation as pdf attachments in form L) 

Assurances and signature page (Form I)

• Applicant will provide the required assurances and will provide appropriate signatures representative of the proper level of authority for the entity submitting the application (Attach all relevant accompanying documentation as pdf attachments in form L)

Cultural Competency Detail (Form J) *Not required, but requested

• Applicant is asked to provide a statement detailing how cultural competency is addressed in the proposed evaluation tool.

Cost Model Description (Form K) *Not required, but requested

• Applicant is asked to provide a cost-model description for expenses a district may expect to incur annually if the proposed tool is selected and implemented with fidelity o Applicant is asked to provide detailed educator evaluation tool and implementation expenses

Table of Contents - Appendices/Attachments (Form L)

• Applicant will provide a description and filename of all attachments following the form submission sequence