Over the past month, the Senate and House have been working on changes to the law regarding teacher and administrator evaluations.  Hearings began in early October and many changes have been made to the bill along the way.  Senate Bill 395 is now before the full House for its consideration.

This bill removes the 40% growth based on the M-STEP, changes the rating levels, allows for effective teachers and administrators to be evaluated less frequently, and adds due process procedures for reviews of teachers and administrators rated as needing support.

MASB worked closely with the bill sponsor, other organizations and the committee chairs to address concerns and make sure that the superintendent evaluation process mirrored the staff process as closely as possible. Initial versions of the bill removed any growth component in the evaluation, something we felt was problematic. In conversations with our members, some level of growth was desired but also with local control over how to measure it. The House Education Committee added language to require growth to be included at 20% of the evaluation, with the criteria determined at the local level.  This change brought MASB’s support for the final version of the bill.

The House is expected to vote on SB395 later today. The Senate could concur on the changes yet this week, or early next week, sending the bill to the Governor for her expected signature.  The changes will go into effect on July 1, 2024, for the 2024/2025 school year.

The following are the major changes found in SB395:

• Change rating levels from four to three: effective, developing, needing support.
• Clarifies that a negotiated evaluation system must, at a minimum, meet the requirements in this law.
• Require 20% of the evaluation to be based on student growth and assessment data or student learning objectives. Growth and assessment data and student learning objective metrics would be determined at the local level.
• Require observations to be at least 15 minutes and feedback from observations to be given in writing. Removes the requirement that one of the observations be unannounced.
• A teacher could not be given an evaluation rating if: they have worked less than 60 days, had their evaluation vacated through the grievance process, or it is determined there are extenuating circumstances. If a rating is not given, the previous year’s rating carries forward.
• A teacher rated effective in three consecutive evaluations can be moved to biennial or triennial evaluations.
• If a teacher is rated as needing support, a review of the evaluation may be requested. If the review does not settle the issues, a teacher may request mediation.
• If a teacher is rated as needing support two evaluations in a row, they may request binding arbitration if a review is not satisfactory.
• Evaluators must complete rater reliability training every three years.
  

The changes for administrators and superintendents closely mirror the above.  A few differences include:

• A building-level administrator shall be assigned a mentor.
• The person evaluating a building-level administrator must visit the building.
• If an administrator or superintendent is not given an evaluation rating, the previous year’s rating only applies if they are in the same position with the same district.
• If an administrator or superintendent receives an effective rating three consecutive times, they may move to biennial evaluations. It also clarifies that consecutive ratings means within the same district.
• Building-level administrators have the same due process as teachers. Superintendent employment contracts that entered into, renewed or extended after July 1, 2024, must include an appeals process for evaluations.