Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
AMEND TEACHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bill 395 (H-2) as reported from House committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Dayna Polehanki http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Senate Bill 396 as reported from House committee
Sponsor: Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet
(Enacted as Public Acts 224 and 225 of 2023)
House Committee: Education
Senate Committee: Education
Complete to 11-1-23
BRIEF SUMMARY: Senate Bill 395 would amend the Revised School Code to change the way
required evaluations of public school educators (teachers and administrators) are conducted.
Senate Bill 396 would amend 1937 (Ex Sess) PA 4 to reflect changes in SB 395 regarding
educator evaluations and to lower, from five to four, the number of years that a probationary
teacher must receive an adequate evaluation rating to successfully complete the probationary
period.
FISCAL IMPACT: The bills would have a minimal fiscal impact on the state and an indeterminate
fiscal impact on districts, intermediate school districts (ISDs), and public school academies
(PSAs, commonly referred to as charter schools). (Please see Fiscal Information, below, for
more information.)
THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS:
Under current law, educators who work as teachers and administrators in school districts, ISDs,
and PSAs are required to receive annual performance evaluations in accordance with Revised
School Code.
Senate Bill 395 would make several changes to the components that must be a part of a
school’s evaluation system, including the criteria that an educator is evaluated on, the rating
labels assigned based on the outcome of the evaluation, and what actions may or must be taken
as the result of a specific rating, and would eliminate other requirements relating to evaluations
or rating labels that would be renamed or removed. Generally speaking, provisions relating to
teacher evaluations are contained in section 1249 of the code, while section 1249b covers
school administrator evaluations.
Except as it would apply to review of an evaluation rating, teacher means an individual
who has a valid Michigan teaching certificate or authorization or an individual teaching
under section 1233b authorization; who is employed, or contracted for, by a school
district, ISD, or PSA; and who is assigned by the school district, ISD, or PSA to deliver
direct instruction to pupils in any of grades K to 12 as a teacher of record.
Rating labels
Presently, an educator is assigned a rating of “highly effective,” “effective,” “minimally
effective,” or “ineffective,” based on the outcome of their performance evaluation. The bill
would change these labels to “effective,” “developing,” or “needing support.”
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 10
 Requirements of an evaluation system
Senate Bill 395 would modify the required components and uses of the evaluation system
adopted by a school district, ISD, or PSA. Under the bill:
• The system would no longer have to be performed annually (if other criteria are met).
• Evaluations would no longer have to inform decisions about any of the following:
o Promotion and retention of teachers and administrators.
o Granting of tenure or full certification.
o Removal of ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and administrators.
• The system would still have to include rating categories that take into account student
growth and assessment data. The bill would modify this by allowing student growth
and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics. Both student growth and
learning objectives would be measured using metrics agreed upon through collective
bargaining, if applicable.
• An evaluation system could only be adopted by a school’s board or board of directors
after collective bargaining, if applicable, with any collective bargaining representative
of teachers and school administrators.
Student learning objectives would mean measurable, long-term, academic goals,
informed by available data, that a teacher or teacher team sets at the beginning of the
year for all students.
The bill would retain a requirement that a school use one of the teacher evaluation tools on a
list approved by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), unless it has a compliant local
evaluation tool or modification to an MDE-approved tool. However, the bill would remove a
requirement that MDE include on its approved tools list teacher evaluation models (Charlotte
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, The Thoughtful
Classroom, or 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning) recommended by the Michigan
Council on Educator Effectiveness in a July 2013 report. 1
Weighting of evaluation
The code contains requirements for what must be a part of an educator’s evaluation, as well as
how each must be weighted. The current breakdown is as follows:
• 40% of the evaluation is based on student growth and assessment data. Of this 40%,
for teachers who teach a core content area measured by a state assessment, half of the
student growth must be measured using the state assessment and the other half using
other methods that are research-based or meet other criteria.
• The remaining 60% is based on the evaluation tool developed or adopted by the school.
The bill would eliminate the language concerning percentages for core content areas and,
starting with the 2024-2025 school year, require that 20% of the evaluation be based on student
growth and assessment data or student learning objectives metrics. The bill also requires the
year-end evaluation to include locally agreed-on student growth and assessment data or student
learning objectives metrics. The data or metrics would have to be determined through collective
bargaining, if applicable. However, the bill does not offer a definition for “locally agreed-on,”
making it unclear how schools without a collective bargaining unit would proceed in
determining who would participate in the process of agreeing on the data or metrics used.
1
https://goschooladvance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/midnightreport_july24_2013.pdf
House Fiscal Agency SBs 395 and 396 as reported from House committee Page 2 of 10
 The bill would also specify that the percentage not dedicated to data or objectives, or that is
not allocated by the evaluation tool adopted by the school, must be based on objective criteria.
The percentage that data and learning objectives would be used in both teacher and
administrator evaluations would be set at 20%.
Student growth and assessment data and student learning objectives metrics
The bill retains a current requirement that the performance evaluation tool for teachers and
school administrators must take into account student growth and assessment data and would
add the option of using student learning objectives metrics. What constitutes data or metrics
for purposes of the bill would be determined through collective bargaining, if applicable.
The bill would eliminate a current requirement that student growth and assessment data for the
three most recent school years be included in the evaluation (or two most recent, or most recent,
if three are not available), along with a provision that allows the evaluation system to have a
student growth exemption if certain criteria are met.
Frequency of evaluation
Under current law, educators who receive three consecutive “highly effective” ratings can
move to a biennial evaluation if they continue to meet certain criteria. A midyear progress
report is a required part of the evaluation for a teacher who is in the first year of their
probationary period or has received a minimally effective or ineffective rating on their most
recent annual evaluation. Provisions regarding the midyear evaluation of school administrators
would also be added.
A midyear progress report must be done each year that the school administrator is evaluated.
The midyear progress report must be used as a supplemental tool to gauge a school
administrator’s improvement from the preceding evaluation and to assist a school administrator
to improve. The midyear report would have to include specific performance goals for the
remainder of the school year for building-level school administrators, or for the remainder of
the calendar year for all other school administrators, that are developed by the individual
conducting the annual evaluation or the individual’s designee, as well as any recommended
training identified by the individual or designee that would assist the school administrator in
meeting these goals. At the midyear progress report, the individual conducting the annual
evaluation or the individual’s designee must develop, in consultation with the school
administrator, a written improvement plan that includes these goals and training and is
designed to assist the school administrator to improve the school administrator’s rating.
Senate Bill 395 would extend this ability to those teachers receiving three consecutive ratings
of effective (reflecting the bill’s elimination of the highly effective label), while also giving
those who meet the three-consecutive-year requirement the ability to move to evaluations once
every three years. However, if one of their biennial or triennial evaluations does not result in a
rating of effective, then they would revert back to regular year-end evaluations. Probationary
teachers would remain ineligible for the exemption from annual evaluations.
Senate Bill 395 would also require teachers who received a rating of needing support or
developing to receive a midyear progress report while eliminating a requirement that the
progress report be based, at least in part, on student achievement. Midyear progress reports
cannot take the place of a year end evaluation for any educator.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 395 and 396 as reported from House committee Page 3 of 10
 School administrators would not be eligible to move to triennial evaluations, and an
administrator would need to receive annual evaluations if any of the following apply:
• They receive a rating other than effective on a biennial evaluation.
• For a building-level school administrator, their supervisor or evaluator changes.
• For an individual employed as a school district or ISD superintendent or as a chief
administrator, the individual obtains employment with a different school district, ISD,
or PSA.
Classroom and building observations
A classroom observation is a required part of a teacher’s evaluation. The bill would make
changes to how the observation is conducted for teachers and add requirements for the
observation of school administrators.
The bill would add a requirement that the teacher and school administrator conducting the
observation discuss the teacher’s lesson plan and corresponding state curriculum standard for
that lesson and a review of pupil engagement during the lesson during a post-observation
meeting. Presently, those topics must be reviewed as part of the evaluation, but it is not required
that they be discussed during a post-observation meeting.
For a building-level school administrator, the individual conducting the evaluation would be
required to visit the school building where that administrator works, review the administrator’s
school improvement plan, and observe classrooms with the building-level school administrator
to collect evidence of the school improvement plan strategies being implemented and the
impact the school improvement plan has on learning.
Requirements about frequency and duration of observation would be modified. Currently, if a
teacher has received a rating of highly effective or effective during their two most recent annual
year-end evaluations, they do not have to have two classroom observations. The bill would
require at least two observations in each year a teacher is evaluated and require each
observation to last at least 15 minutes. Presently, there is no minimum time definition for what
constitutes an observation, other than to state that an observation does not need to last the entire
class period. The bill would also change an existing provision that states at least one
observation must be unscheduled by making optional that one of the observations be
unscheduled.
Finally, SB 395 would require written feedback be provided with 30 calendar days of each
observation (italics reflect language added by the bill).
Assignment of evaluation ratings and exemptions
Beginning July 1, 2024, the new rating labels would be used for evaluation purposes. An
evaluation and feedback must be provided in writing to the evaluated educator, and if the
evaluation is not provided in writing, then that educator would be deemed effective.
If one of the following applied to a teacher or school administrator, then an evaluation rating
could not be assigned, and the designation of “unevaluated” used instead:
• The individual worked less than 60 days in that school year.
• The individual’s evaluation results were vacated through the grievance process
established by the bill.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 395 and 396 as reported from House committee Page 4 of 10
 • There were extenuating circumstances and the teacher or administrator and their
employing school district, ISD, or PSA agree to use the unevaluated designation as a
result.
If a teacher receives the unevaluated designation, then the rating received immediately
preceding the designation would be used for purposes of determining applicability of
provisions that use consecutive ratings in section 1249. For a school administrator, the rating
from the year immediately prior to the unevaluated designation could be used if both apply:
• The school administrator continues to be employed in the same position that the school
administrator was employed in the year before receiving the designation.
• The school administrator continues to be employed by the same school district, ISD,
or PSA that employed them in the year before they received the designation.
Ineffective and Needing Support Ratings and Review Process
Under current law, a teacher or administrator receiving three consecutive ratings of ineffective
is dismissed from employment. The bill would add “needing support” to this requirement so
three consecutive ratings of either label would result in dismissal, subject to 1937 PA 4, which
governs teachers’ tenure and the procedures that must be followed in order to discharge or
demote a teacher with tenure. The reference to the teachers’ tenure act would be added by the
bill, along with specifying that the definition of teacher as it applies to who is eligible to pursue
several options laid out by the bill if they receive a rating of needing support would have the
same meaning as it does in section 1 of the teachers’ tenure act (MCL 38.71): “A certificated
individual employed for a full school year by any board of education or controlling board.”
Also under current law, a teacher who is not in their probationary period and receives an
ineffective rating can request a review of the evaluation by the district or ISD superintendent
or the PSA chief administrator within 20 days of being informed of the rating. That
superintendent or administrator then reviews the assigned rating and make any modifications
as appropriate. This review can be requested no more than twice in a three-year period.
The bill would remove chief administrator as the person that receives a request for rating
review. This would have the effect of making the bill’s changes regarding rating review not
applicable to a teacher at a public school academy. A rating review requested by a teacher or
administrator at a PSA would instead be done in accordance with whatever policies that school
puts in place, in accordance with any contracts with its teachers or administrators and state law.
Senate Bill 395 would make this review available to a teacher who receives a needing support
rating, revising the window for making a review request so it is 30 calendar days from time of
being informed of the rating. It would also eliminate the maximum of two requests in three
years. The bill would also require a written response of findings from the superintendent to the
requesting teacher within 30 calendar days of receiving the review request, prior to any
modifications being made to the teacher’s rating.
The bill would establish additional actions for a teacher who receives a rating of needing
support. If the written response does not resolve the matter, the teacher or collective bargaining
representative may request mediation as provided fo