DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION  
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION  
TEACHER AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION TOOLS  
Filed with the secretary of state on June 27, 2024  
These rules become effective immediately after filing with the secretary of state unless  
adopted under section 33, 44, or 45a(9) of the administrative procedures act of 1969,  
1969 PA 306, MCL 24.233, 24.244, or 24.245a. Rules adopted under these sections  
become effective 7 days after filing with the secretary of state.  
(By authority conferred on the superintendent of public instruction by sections 1249 and  
1249b of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1249 and 380.1249b, and  
Executive Reorganization Order No. 1996-6, MCL 388.993)  
R 380.21 and R 380.22 of the Michigan Administrative Code are amended, as follows:  
R 380.21 Definitions.  
Rule 1. As used in these rules:  
(a) “Act” means the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852.  
(b) “Department” means the department of education.  
(c) “District” means a school district, intermediate school district, or public school  
academy as defined in the act.  
(d) “Educator” means a teacher or school administrator whose performance is evaluated  
as required by the act.  
(e) “Efficacy” means the extent to which an evaluation tool provides information that  
improves professional practice.  
(f) “Evaluation tool” means a written instrument used to assess the performance of  
educators as required by the act.  
(g) “List” means the compilation of evaluation tools by the department as required by the  
act and maintained on the department’s website.  
(h) “Reliability” means 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.  
(i) “Scoring guide” means the scoring instrument developed by the department and  
reviewed by the department’s technical advisory committee before initial implementation  
and subsequent modification that is available on the department’s website and that defines  
the minimum requirements for placement of an evaluation tool on the list using the  
following criteria: research base, qualifications of the author or authors, reliability, validity,  
and efficacy.  
(j) “Validity” means the extent to which an evaluation tool measures what it is intended  
to measure.  
R 380.22 Placement of evaluation tool on list.  
January 4, 2024  
2
Rule 2. (1) The department may place an evaluation tool on the list under this rule.  
(2) A district may request placement of an evaluation tool that it has adopted for use on  
the list by submitting an online application available on the department’s website and all  
of the following:  
(a) Evidence of the evaluation tool’s research base.  
(b) The identity and qualifications of the author or authors of the evaluation tool.  
(c) Evidence of the evaluation tool’s reliability, validity, and efficacy.  
(d) All frameworks and rubrics used with the evaluation tool, with detailed descriptors  
for each performance level on key summative indicators.  
(e) A description of the processes for conducting observations, collecting evidence,  
conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing  
performance improvement plans.  
(f) A description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training in the  
use of the evaluation tool.  
(3) A public or private organization other than a district may request placement of an  
evaluation tool on the list by submitting an online application available on the department’s  
website and all of the following:  
(a) One of the following:  
(i) Evidence that at least 2 state education agencies have approved or adopted the  
evaluation tool.  
(ii) Evidence that not less than 10 districts in this state will consider adopting the  
evaluation tool if the department adds it to the list.  
(b) Evidence of the evaluation tool’s research base.  
(c) The identity and qualifications of the author or authors of the evaluation tool.  
(d) Evidence of the evaluation tool’s reliability, validity, and efficacy.  
(e) All frameworks and rubrics used with the evaluation tool, with detailed descriptors  
for each performance level on key summative indicators.  
(f) A description of the processes for conducting observations, collecting evidence,  
conducting evaluation conferences, developing performance ratings, and developing  
performance improvement plans.  
(g) A description of the plan for providing evaluators and observers with training in the  
use of the evaluation tool.  
(4) The department shall review an evaluation tool submitted under this rule using the  
scoring guide and examining all information required under subrule (2) or (3) of this rule.  
(5) After receiving a request under this rule, the department shall notify the district or  
organization if the department will place the evaluation tool on the list. If the department  
determines that it will not place the evaluation tool on the list, the notice must include the  
reasons for denial of the request.  
(6) The department shall place an evaluation tool submitted under this rule on the list if it  
satisfies the minimum requirements set forth in the scoring guide.  
;