RIS-Page 3
C. What is the desired outcome?
The desired outcome is that the rules will not include an arbitrary and unrealistic 90-day timeline for responding to
requests to add evaluation tools to the statutorily required lists of those tools.
7. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.
There is no need for a 90-day timeline to respond to requests to add evaluation tools to the statutorily required lists of
such tools. The timeline was set arbitrarily when the Department of Education had had no experience with the process
set in place by 2015 PA 173 or with similar processes. The Department of Education has received only 2 such requests
and has responded to those requests as expeditiously as possible. Evaluation tools must comply with many specific
legislative requirements and must meet standards of reliability, validity, and efficacy. Review of applications to add
tools to the lists may involve detailed conversations with applicants and review of extensive documentation relevant to
statutory requirements. Removal of the 90-day timeline will recognize the need for flexibility in the event that
adequate review of a request takes longer than 90 days and will recognize that some requests merit heightened
scrutiny. A review period that exceeds 90 days has not and will not result in harm to any entity or individual. Under
MCL 380.1249 and 380.1249b, school districts are not limited to using teacher and school administrator evaluation
tools that are included on the Department of Education’s lists.
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?
The 90-day timeline was arbitrarily set several years ago and has proven to be unrealistic. The Department of
Education has responded as expeditiously as possible to all requests to add evaluation tools to the statutorily required
lists, with responses ranging from 13 days to 204 days. Removal of the 90-day timeline will recognize the need for
flexibility in the event that adequate review of a request takes longer than 90 days, as has proven true for some
requests. Review may involve, for example, detailed conversations with applicants and gathering and review of
documentation as it relates to extensive statutory requirements. A review period that exceeds 90 days has not and will
not result in harm to any entity or individual. Under MCL 380.1249 and 380.1249b, school districts are not limited to
using evaluation tools that are included on the Department of Education’s lists.
8. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting a
regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.
The proposed rules do not directly affect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens as they only set forth
procedures for placement of educator evaluation tools on lists maintained by the Department of Education as required
by statute. The legislative mandate for the rules is part of the comprehensive package of legislative reforms designed
to ensure a quality educator work force. The proposed deletion of a 90-day timeline for responding to requests to add
evaluation tools to the statutorily required lists of such tools would not harm the health, safety, or welfare of Michigan
citizens.
9. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.
There are no rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded. The 90-day timeline
in R 380.22(5) is unnecessary.
Fiscal Impact on the Agency
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring additional staff,
higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and above what is currently
expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such as opportunity costs, the value of
time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on expenditures.
10. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings
for the agency promulgating the rule).
No fiscal impact on the Department of Education is anticipated.
11. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.
There has been no agency appropriation made or funding source provided for expenditures associated with the
proposed rules. No Department of Education expenditures associated with the proposed rules are anticipated.
MCL 24.245(3)