RIS-Page 3
The rules currently require the Department of Education to respond within 90 days to requests to add evaluation
tools to the statutorily required lists of such tools. This timeline is not enforced or enforceable and is
unnecessary. The proposed rules remove the timeline, which was arbitrarily set during the rule drafting process
in 2016, before the Department of Education had any experience with such reviews and when grant funds were
available to employ an external entity to conduct the reviews. The timeline has proven unrealistic in light of the
extensive criteria set forth in MCL 380.1249 and 380.1249b and the expiration of relevant grant funding.
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).
MCL 24.245(3)