FAQs Regarding Administrator Evaluation

No. Evaluation ratings that occurred before July 1, 2024, will still be used when determining if an administrator’s evaluation satisfies a consecutive requirement under the amended MCL 380.1249b. For example, a “highly effective” rating that was received in 2023 will still be considered when determining if an administrator may be evaluated on a biennial basis (See Question #26).

This phrase is undefined in the evaluation law. Until precedent is set that defines these terms beyond their commonly used meanings, MASB encourages districts to utilize existing evaluation systems that have an established track record of holding up under scrutiny and that any necessary modifications be minimal, measured and uphold the generally understood notions of rigor, transparency and fairness. Examples of evaluation tools for superintendents that support a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system include MASB’s superintendent evaluation instrument and the School ADvance evaluation tool.

Ultimately, which evaluations systems are adopted and how they may be modified is within the discretion of each district. However, if administrators have organized into a union and have a collective bargaining agreement, the topic of performance evaluations is subject to collective bargaining. If collective bargaining isn’t required, administrator input should still occur along the way. Input should be solicited anytime a change to how the system will be used or implemented is considered.

Unlike the teacher portion of the evaluation law, the administrator portion stresses that the evaluations must take place “annually” instead of being a “ year-end” evaluation. Historically, superintendent evaluations often occur near the end of the calendar year while other administrator evaluations are conducted towards the end of the school year (March-May). In order to align with a superintendent’s midyear progress report (which requires performance goals covering the remainder of the “calendar year”), an evaluation cycle based a November or December annual evaluation is recommended.

Timely feedback will generally occur within a few weeks of the final evaluation score being compiled. Maintaining a somewhat tight schedule as it relates to compiling the various evaluation components, arriving at the final evaluation score, and meeting with the administrator will normally minimize any argument that feedback wasn’t provided in a “timely” manner.

In addition, feedback should be professional and constructive; i.e., it should cover the positives and the negatives with respect to an individual’s performance and score while providing specific paths toward improving upon the deficiencies. The statute commands that evaluators recommend professional development opportunities that may help the administrator to improve before their next evaluation.

Yes, feedback concerning an administrator’s evaluation must be provided in writing.

School districts should strive to make sure that any student growth data that is used as part of its overall performance evaluation system is uniform throughout the district and is incorporated into the evaluation score in a straightforward manner. Districts are advised to rely upon systems that are already available.

In some cases, the evaluator will be another administrator, such as the superintendent or designee and, of course, when it comes to the superintendent’s evaluation, the evaluator is the school board.

Yes, an evaluation must be provided in writing to the administrator being evaluated. If a written evaluation is not provided, the administrator is deemed “effective.”

No. The evaluation requirements only apply to administrators who hold a valid Michigan administrator’s certificate (unless exempted by MCL 380.1536), are employed (or contracted) and assigned by a school district or charter school to administer instructional programs and are regularly involved in instructional matters. Examples of school administrators who are not subject to the evaluation requirements of MCL 380.1249b include, but are not limited to, Chief Financial Officers, Athletic Directors and Human Resource Directors.

For the first three years in which an administrator is in a new administrative position in the same or a different school district, the administrator, if covered by the district’s evaluation system, must be assigned a mentor or coach. This requirement under the evaluation law specifically excludes superintendents. Even though it isn’t a legal requirement, school boards should still consider having first time superintendents consult with a mentor or coach during their initial years of their superintendencies as a recommended best practice.

A proper performance evaluation system will combine:

• A percentage of student growth and assessment data, or student learning objectives.
• An administrator evaluation tool.

Student growth and assessment data, or student learning objectives included in administrator evaluations must be measured using metrics agreed upon through collective bargaining, if applicable.

Yes, beginning in the 2024-2025 school year, 20 percent of an administrator’s annual evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives.

Yes, but the portion of the evaluation that is not based on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives must be based on objective criteria.

The amended MCL 380.1249b does not define “objective criteria.” The common understanding of the term is that it is a standard based on factual measurements, in the absence of a biased judgement or analysis. Objective criteria can be independently verified. Different people measuring the criteria will reach the same results because they are clearly defined or quantifiable in nature.

Yes. An individual conducting the evaluation of a building-level administrator must do all of the following:

1. Visit the school building where the building-level administrator works.
2. Review the building-level administrator’s school improvement plan.
3. Observe classrooms with the building-level administrator to collect evidence of the school improvement plan strategies being implemented and the impact the school improvement plan has on learning.
   

There are eight “exceptions” to the general rule that all school board matters must be heard or conducted during an open meeting. Only one of those eight exceptions relates to evaluations (MCL 15.268(a)) as follows:

Sec. 8.

A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: 

to consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open session.

In short, when it comes to evaluations, a school board can only go into closed session to actually conduct the evaluation itself or possibly hear an appeal of an evaluation rating, and only if the individual who is the subject of the evaluation requests a closed meeting. Hence:

• A board cannot call for a closed session in order to set, or otherwise discuss, the criteria upon which an administrator will be evaluated. This includes an outline or discussion regarding the goals and objectives that may ultimately become part of the evaluation.
• A board cannot call for a closed session simply to confer with one another, in private, regarding a pending administrator evaluation.
• A board cannot conduct the evaluation of an administrator via closed session if that individual did not request such.
• If an administrator initially requests that their evaluation be conducted via closed session, but later rescinds the request before the evaluation takes place, the evaluation must take place in an open session.

The Department of Education must establish and maintain a list of school administrator evaluation tools that have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and that may be used to conduct evaluations under amended MCL 380.1249b.

No. In fact, the evaluation law requires the list to include a statement indicating that school districts are not limited to only using the evaluation tools that are included on the list.

The following information about the measures the school district uses for its performance evaluation system for administrators must be posted on the school district’s website:

1. The research base for the evaluation framework, instrument, and process.
2. The identity and qualifications of the author or authors of the evaluation tool.
3. Either evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence of the evaluation tool or the evaluation process.
4. The evaluation framework and rubrics, with detailed descriptors for each performance level of key summative indicators.
5. A description of the process for collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing performance improvement plans.
6. A description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training.

No. Districts are not required to use the same tools for administrator evaluations that are used for teacher evaluations. The tools need not come from the same company and need not share authors. Independently, each tool must simply meet all of the requirements of the statute.

Administrators who are rated as developing or needing support must be provided with an improvement plan that is designed to correct their deficiencies. It is the evaluator’s responsibility to develop this plan, presumably with input from the administrator, and the administrator is required to implement it. The law also requires that professional development opportunities be recommended as part of the improvement plan along with “other actions” which are specifically designed to improve the administrator’s rating by their next evaluation.

Administrators must be dismissed under the law if they receive a needing support rating (after July 1, 2024) on three consecutive evaluations, or a combination of an ineffective rating (before July 1, 2024) and needing support rating on three consecutive evaluations. This provision underscores the importance of developing an improvement plan after an administrator’s first negative evaluation and continuing to monitor that individual’s progress.

No. The fact that an administrator must be fired after three consecutive ineffective or needing support ratings does not affect a district’s ability to terminate an administrator earlier or for some other reason at any time.

In addition to any other rewards a district might implement for employees with good evaluations, school districts may elect to evaluate administrators every other year (biennially) as compared to every year (annually) if they rate highly effective (before July 1, 2024) or effective (before or after July 1, 2024) on their three most recent consecutive evaluations. This means that any combination of effective or highly effective ratings on their three most recent consecutive evaluations also triggers the biennial evaluation option for administrators.

The “school district” may choose to conduct an evaluation biennially. Thus, for example, even if a superintendent has been rated “effective” in 2022, 2023, and 2024, a school board may still continue the annual evaluation cycle by evaluating its superintendent in 2025 and opting not to utilize the biennial evaluation option. For administrators other than the superintendent, a school board may wish to address the decision of conducting biennial evaluations in policy.

If any of the following occur during biennial evaluations, a school administrator’s evaluation will be conducted annually:

1. The school board votes to return to annually evaluating the superintendent.
2. The administrator is not rated as effective on a biennial evaluation.
3. The administrator obtains employment with a different school district.
4. The supervisor or evaluator for a building-level administrator is a different person.

An administrator will not be assigned an evaluation rating and will be designated as “unevaluated” for a year if any of the following apply:

1. The administrator worked less than 60 days in that year.
2. The administrator’s evaluation results were vacated through a grievance procedure or arbitration following an appeal of the evaluation and rating.
3. There are extenuating circumstances and the administrator and school district agree to designate the administrator as unevaluated due to the extenuating circumstances.

The law doesn’t define the phrase and examples of what could constitute extenuating circumstances are not provided. Deference will likely be given to school districts in establishing what type of local situations constitute extenuating circumstances. However, because the law already includes a days worked threshold of 60 days for being evaluated, school boards and superintendents should avoid using criteria that takes into account number of days worked to define extenuating circumstances.

The administrator’s rating from the year immediately before the unevaluated designation must be used for consecutive purposes if the administrator continues to be employed by the same school district and in the same position that the administrator served in the previous year before receiving the unevaluated designation. So, for example, if a superintendent remains in the same school district and is rated as “effective” in 2023 and 2024, but then is unevaluated in 2025 due to extenuating circumstances, the superintendent will receive an “effective” rating for 2025 and will have three consecutive “effective” ratings, which would allow transitioning to biennial evaluations if approved by the school board.

Yes. For administrators who are superintendents, the contract of the superintendent must include a process concerning the evaluation process and rating received. For administrators who are not superintendents, the performance evaluation system must include options that permit the administrator to have “needing support” evaluation ratings reviewed.

The appeal process must be included in contracts that are entered into, extended, renewed, or modified on or after July 1, 2024.

School boards should consult their retained legal counsel or the legal department of the Michigan Association of School Boards for guidance on crafting an appeal process provision.  Generally, including language that permits evaluation appeals to proceed to binding arbitration is not advisable. In lieu of arbitration, school boards and superintendents should consider using an agreed upon neutral third party to hear and assist with the disposition of evaluation appeals. Further, language limiting appeals to evaluation ratings of “needing support” is recommended.

The administrator may request a review of the evaluation and the rating by the superintendent. The request for a review must be submitted in writing within 30 calendar days after the administrator is informed of the rating. Upon receiving the request, the superintendent shall review the evaluation and rating and may make any modifications as appropriate based on the review. A written response regarding the superintendent’s findings must be provided to the administrator who requested the review by not later than 30 calendar days after the receipt of the request for a review and before making any modifications. 

If the written response from the superintendent review does not resolve the matter, the administrator or a collective bargaining representative (if applicable) may request mediation. The request for mediation must be submitted in writing within 30 calendar days after the administrator receives the written response from the superintendent. Within 15 days of receipt of the request, the superintendent must provide a written response to the administrator or collective bargaining representative (if applicable) stating that the mediation will be scheduled as appropriate.

If the administrator receives two consecutive ratings of needing support, the administrator may demand to use the grievance procedure of an applicable collective bargaining agreement or a contract governing the administrator’s employment that concerns the school administrator’s second evaluation rating and the evaluation process. If a collective bargaining agreement or a contract governing the administrator’s employment does not contain a grievance procedure that ends in binding arbitration, the administrator may request binding arbitration by filing a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) within 30 calendar days after the administrator receives the written response from the superintendent.

The arbitrator must be selected through procedures administered by the AAA in accordance with its rules and must have the authority to issue any appropriate remedy.

Yes. The amended MCL 380.1249b requires school districts’ performance evaluation systems to include a midyear progress report for a school administrator.

No. A midyear progress report must only be completed in the years when an administrator is evaluated.

No. The midyear progress report is a supplemental tool to gauge an administrator’s improvement from the preceding evaluation and to assist an administrator to improve.

A midyear progress report must include specific performance goals that are developed by the individuals conducting the evaluations (or designees) and any recommended training identified by the evaluated administrators in meeting the goals. The goals cover the remainder of the school year for building-level administrators and the remainder of the calendar year for all other administrators, including superintendents.

The individuals conducting the evaluation (or designees) must also develop a written improvement plan that includes the above goals and training and is designed to assist administrators in improving their evaluation ratings.

Evaluator Training – The district is responsible for providing training to anyone who will be conducting any portion of the evaluation process. For those who conduct administrator evaluations, including school board members as it relates to superintendent evaluations, this means having a full understanding of the performance evaluation system’s metrics (student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives) and the evaluation tool component.

Evaluatee Training – Those being evaluated must also be trained as it relates to the overall performance evaluation system. For administrators who are also evaluators, any training on how to conduct evaluations will most likely suffice as training on how they, themselves, will be evaluated. Furthermore, in most circumstances, administrators collaborate with their superiors with respect to how they will be evaluated. This should continue, not only to comply with the law (which demands that the performance evaluation system be developed “with the involvement of teachers and school administrators”), but also as part of this training process.

Rater Reliability Training – By not later than September 1, 2024, and every 3 years thereafter, each individual who conducts an evaluation of an administrator shall complete a rater reliability training provided by the school district.

No. Two or more districts (including charter schools) can create a consortium to provide the necessary training. ISDs, RESAs and other entities can also organize this kind of training.

An individual with expertise in the evaluation tool or tools being used must actually perform the evaluator training and should conduct the rater reliability training as well. This can be a consultant or some other individual who has been trained to train others as it relates to the evaluation tool(s) at issue.  Best practices would suggest that these same individuals also provide the evaluatee training, for continuity reasons, but anyone trained to perform such evaluations is probably capable of providing this particular training.

For school board members, the training must include at least all of the following:

1. A clear and consistent set of evaluation criteria that all evaluators can use when assessing performance.
2. Clear expectations for what evaluators should look for when assessing performance, including identifying key behaviors and practices that are associated with the effective performance of a superintendent.
3. Training on the evaluation process itself, including how to collect data and analyze results.
4. Calibration exercises that help evaluators practice using the evaluation criteria and establish consistency in the evaluator’s evaluations.
5. Ongoing support for evaluators, including feedback and coaching to help the evaluators improve their skills and ensure they are consistently applying the evaluation criteria. 

More than just informing district leaders of a particular administrator’s job performance, these evaluations are meant to identify where an administrator may be deficient and develop an improvement plan to address those deficiencies. Ultimately, the district is supposed to rely upon the ratings this system produces in order to inform decisions concerning promotion, retention and ongoing development.

Yes. A school district must post on their website all of the following information about the measures it uses for its evaluation system for school administrators:

• The research base for the evaluation system.
• The identity and qualifications of the author or authors.
• Either evidence of reliability, validity and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence.
• The evaluation frameworks and rubrics with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators.
• A description of the process for collecting evidence, conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings and developing performance improvement plans.
• A description of the plan for providing evaluators with training.

If a school district uses a modified tool from the Michigan Department of Education evaluation tool list, it must also post the following:

• Assurance that the modifications do not compromise the validity of that research base.
• Identity and qualifications of a person with expertise in teacher evaluations who has reviewed the adapted or modified evaluation.
• Assurance that the adaptions or modifications do not compromise the reliability, validity or efficacy of the evaluation tool or the evaluation process.