SENATE BILL NO. 941

March 02, 2022, Introduced by Senators BAYER, THEIS, POLEHANKI, BRINKS, IRWIN, MCMORROW, WOJNO, HERTEL, MOSS, ALEXANDER, MCCANN, HOLLIER and GEISS and referred to the Committee on Education and Career Readiness.

"The revised school code,"

by amending sections 1249, 1249b, 1279g, and 1280g (MCL 380.1249, 380.1249b, 380.1279g, and 380.1280g), section 1249 as amended by 2019 PA 6, section 1249b as amended by 2019 PA 5, section 1279g as amended by 2016 PA 170, and section 1280g as added by 2018 PA 601, and by adding section 1280h.

the people of the state of michigan enact:

Sec. 1249. (1) Subject to subsection subsections (4) and (8), with the involvement of teachers and school administrators, the board of a school district or intermediate school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall adopt and implement for all teachers and school administrators a rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system that does all of the following:

(a) Evaluates the teacher's or school administrator's job performance at least annually while providing timely and constructive feedback.

(b) Establishes clear approaches to measuring student growth and provides teachers and school administrators with relevant data on student growth.

(c) Evaluates a teacher's or school administrator's job performance, using multiple rating categories that take into account student growth and assessment data. Student growth must be measured using multiple measures that may include student learning objectives, achievement of individualized education program goals, nationally normed or locally developed assessments that are aligned to state standards, research-based growth measures, or alternative assessments that are rigorous and comparable across schools within the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy. If the performance evaluation system implemented by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy under this section does not already include the rating of teachers as highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective, then the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall revise the performance evaluation system not later than September 19, 2011 to ensure that it rates teachers as highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective.

(d) Uses the evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding all of the following:

(i) The effectiveness of teachers and school administrators, ensuring that they are given ample opportunities for improvement.

(ii) Promotion, retention, and development of teachers and school administrators, including providing relevant coaching, instruction support, or professional development.

(iii) Whether to grant tenure or full certification, or both, to teachers and school administrators using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.

(iv) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and school administrators after they have had ample opportunities to improve, and ensuring that these decisions are made using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.

(2) The Subject to subsection (8), the board of a school district or intermediate school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall ensure that the performance evaluation system for teachers meets all of the following:

(a) The performance evaluation system must include at least an annual year-end evaluation for all teachers. An annual year-end evaluation must meet all of the following:

(i) For the 2018-2019 school year, 25% of the annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data. Beginning with the 2019-2020 school year, 40% Forty percent of the annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data.

(ii) For core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 50% of student growth must be measured using the state assessments, and the portion of student growth not measured using state assessments must be measured using multiple research-based growth measures or alternative assessments that are rigorous and comparable across schools within the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy. Student growth also may be measured by student learning objectives or nationally normed or locally adopted assessments that are aligned to state standards, or based on achievement of individualized education program goals.

(iii) The portion of a teacher's annual year-end evaluation that is not based on student growth and assessment data, as described under subparagraph (i), must be based primarily on a teacher's performance as measured by the evaluation tool developed or adopted by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy under subdivision (f).

(iv) The portion of a teacher's evaluation that is not measured using student growth and assessment data, as described under subparagraph (i), or using the evaluation tool developed or adopted by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, as described under subparagraph (iii), must incorporate criteria enumerated in section 1248(1)(b)(i) to (iii) that are not otherwise evaluated under subparagraph (i) or (iii).

(b) If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation must be based on the student growth and assessment data for the most recent 3-consecutive-school-year period. If there are not student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation must be based on all student growth and assessment data that are available for the teacher.

(c) The annual year-end evaluation must include specific performance goals that will assist in improving effectiveness for the next school year and are developed by the school administrator or his or her designee conducting the evaluation, in consultation with the teacher, and any recommended training identified by the school administrator or designee, in consultation with the teacher, that would assist the teacher in meeting these goals. For a teacher described in subdivision (d), the school administrator or designee shall develop, in consultation with the teacher, an individualized development plan that includes these goals and training and is designed to assist the teacher to improve his or her effectiveness.

(d) The performance evaluation system must include a midyear progress report for a teacher who is in the first year of the probationary period prescribed by under section 1 of article II of 1937 (Ex Sess) PA 4, MCL 38.81, or who received a rating of minimally effective or ineffective in his or her most recent annual year-end evaluation. The midyear progress report must be used as a supplemental tool to gauge a teacher's improvement from the preceding school year and to assist a teacher to improve. All of the following apply to the midyear progress report:

(i) The midyear progress report must be based at least in part on student achievement.

(ii) The midyear progress report must be aligned with the teacher's individualized development plan under subdivision (c).

(iii) The midyear progress report must include specific performance goals for the remainder of the school year that are developed by the school administrator conducting the annual year-end evaluation or his or her designee and any recommended training identified by the school administrator or designee that would assist the teacher in meeting these goals. At the midyear progress report, the school administrator or designee shall develop, in consultation with the teacher, a written improvement plan that includes these goals and training and is designed to assist the teacher to improve his or her rating.

(iv) The midyear progress report must not take the place of an annual year-end evaluation.

(e) The performance evaluation system must include classroom observations to assist in the performance evaluations. All of the following apply to these classroom observations:

(i) A classroom observation must include a review of the teacher's lesson plan and the state curriculum standard being used in the lesson and a review of pupil engagement in the lesson.

(ii) A classroom observation does not have to be for an entire class period.

(iii) Unless a teacher has received a rating of effective or highly effective on his or her 2 most recent annual year-end evaluations, there must be at least 2 classroom observations of the teacher each school year. At least 1 observation must be unscheduled.

(iv) The school administrator responsible for the teacher's performance evaluation shall conduct at least 1 of the observations. Other observations may be conducted by other observers who are trained in the use of the evaluation tool that is used under subdivision (f). These other observers may be teacher leaders.

(v) A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall ensure that, within 30 days after each observation, the teacher is provided with feedback from the observation.

(f) For the purposes of conducting annual year-end evaluations under the performance evaluation system, by the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall adopt and implement 1 or more of the evaluation tools for teachers that are included on the list under subsection (5). However, if a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy has 1 or more local evaluation tools for teachers or modifications of an evaluation tool on the list under subsection (5), and the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy complies with subsection (3), the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may conduct annual year-end evaluations for teachers using 1 or more local evaluation tools or modifications. The evaluation tools must be used consistently among the schools operated by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy so that all similarly situated teachers are evaluated using the same evaluation tool.

(g) The performance evaluation system must assign an effectiveness rating to each teacher of highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective, based on his or her score on the annual year-end evaluation described in this subsection.

(h) As part of the performance evaluation system, and in addition to the requirements of section 1526, a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy is encouraged to assign a mentor or coach to each teacher who is described in subdivision (d).

(i) The performance evaluation system may allow for exemption of student growth data for a particular pupil for a school year upon the recommendation of the school administrator conducting the annual year-end evaluation or his or her designee and approval of the school district superintendent or his or her designee, intermediate superintendent or his or her designee, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable.

(j) The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a teacher is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall dismiss the teacher from his or her employment. This subdivision does not affect the ability of a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to dismiss a teacher from his or her employment regardless of whether the teacher is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations.

(k) The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a teacher is rated as highly effective on 3 consecutive annual year-end evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may choose to conduct a year-end evaluation biennially instead of annually. However, if a teacher is not rated as highly effective on 1 of these biennial year-end evaluations, the teacher shall must again be provided with annual year-end evaluations.

(l) The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a teacher who is not in a probationary period prescribed by under section 1 of article II of 1937 (Ex Sess) PA 4, MCL 38.81, is rated as ineffective on an annual year-end evaluation, the teacher may request a review of the evaluation and the rating by the school district superintendent, intermediate superintendent, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable. The request for a review must be submitted in writing within 20 days after the teacher is informed of the rating. Upon receipt of the request, the school district superintendent, intermediate superintendent, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable, shall review the evaluation and rating and may make any modifications as appropriate based on his or her review. However, the performance evaluation system must not allow for a review as described in this subdivision more than twice in a 3-school-year period.

(m) The school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall provide training to teachers on the evaluation tool or tools used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy in its performance evaluation system and on how each evaluation tool is used. This training may be provided by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, or by a consortium consisting of 2 or more of these.

(n) A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall ensure that training is provided to all evaluators and observers. The training must be provided by an individual who has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, which may include either a consultant on that evaluation tool or framework or an individual who has been trained to train others in the use of the evaluation tool or tools. This subdivision does not prohibit a school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or consortium consisting of 2 or more of these, from providing the training in the use of the evaluation tool or tools if the trainer has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools.

(3) A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall post on its public website all of the following information about the evaluation tool or tools it uses for its performance evaluation system for teachers:

(a) The research base for the evaluation framework, instrument, and process or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (5), the research base for the listed evaluation tool and an assurance that the adaptations or modifications do not compromise the validity of that research base.

(b) The identity and qualifications of the author or authors or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (5), the identity and qualifications of a person with expertise in teacher evaluations who has reviewed the adapted or modified evaluation tool.

(c) Either evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (5), an assurance that the adaptations or modifications do not compromise the reliability, validity, or efficacy of the evaluation tool or the evaluation process.

(d) The evaluation frameworks and rubrics with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators.

(e) A description of the processes for conducting classroom 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.

(4) If a collective bargaining agreement was in effect for teachers or school administrators of a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy as of July 19, 2011, if that same collective bargaining agreement is still in effect as of November 5, 2015, and if that collective bargaining agreement prevents compliance with subsection (1), then subsection (1) does not apply to that school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy until after the expiration of that collective bargaining agreement.

(5) The department shall establish and maintain a list of teacher evaluation tools that have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and that may be used for the purposes of this section. That list initially must include at least the evaluation models recommended in the final recommendations released by the Michigan council on educator effectiveness in July 2013. The list must include a statement indicating that school districts, intermediate school districts, and public school academies are not limited to only using the evaluation tools that are included on the list. A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy is not required to use an evaluation tool for teacher evaluations that is the same as it uses for school administrator evaluations or that has the same author or authors as the evaluation tool it uses for school administrator evaluations. The department shall promulgate rules establishing standards and procedures for adding an evaluation tool to or removing an evaluation tool from the list. These rules must include a process for a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to submit its own evaluation tool for review for placement on the list.

(6) The training required under subsection (2) must be paid for from the funds available in the educator evaluation reserve fund created under section 95a of the state school aid act of 1979, MCL 388.1695a.

(7) This section does not affect the operation or applicability of section 1248.

(7) (8) As used in this section: , "teacher"

(a) "Eligible school district" means a school district to which both of the following apply:

(i) It has not less than 7,000 but not greater than 7,100 pupils in membership.

(ii) It is located in an intermediate school district that has not less than 170,000 and not greater than 190,000 pupils in membership.

(b) "Teacher" means an individual who has a valid Michigan teaching certificate or authorization or who is engaged to teach under section 1233b; who is employed, or contracted for, by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy; and who is assigned by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to deliver direct instruction to pupils in any of grades K to 12 as a teacher of record.

(8) An eligible school district is not required to evaluate the performance of any teacher under this section for the 2021-2022 school year.

Sec. 1249b. (1) The Subject to subsection (4), the board of a school district or intermediate school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall ensure that the performance evaluation system for building-level school administrators and for central-office-level school administrators who are regularly involved in instructional matters meets all of the following:

(a) The performance evaluation system must include at least an annual evaluation for all school administrators described in this subsection by the school district superintendent or his or her designee, intermediate superintendent or his or her designee, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable. However, a superintendent or chief administrator shall must be evaluated by the board or board of directors or, if the superintendent or chief administrator is not employed directly by the board or board of directors, by the designee of the board or board of directors.

(b) For the 2018-2019 school year, 25% of the annual evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data. Beginning with the 2019-2020 school year, 40% Forty percent of the annual evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data. The student growth and assessment data to be used for the school administrator annual evaluation are the aggregate student growth and assessment data that are used in teacher annual year-end evaluations in each school in which the school administrator works as an administrator or, for a central-office-level school administrator, for the entire school district or intermediate school district.

(c) For the purposes of conducting annual evaluations under the performance evaluation system, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall develop or adopt and implement an evaluation tool for school administrators. The portion of a school administrator's annual evaluation that is not based on student growth must be based primarily on the school administrator's performance as measured by this evaluation tool.

(d) The portion of the annual evaluation that is not based on student growth and assessment data as provided under subdivision (b) or on an evaluation tool as provided under subdivision (c) must be based on at least the following for each school in which the school administrator works as an administrator or, for a central-office-level school administrator, for the entire school district or intermediate school district:

(i) If the school administrator conducts teacher performance evaluations, the school administrator's proficiency in using the evaluation tool for teachers used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy under section 1249. If the school administrator designates another person to conduct teacher performance evaluations, the evaluation of the school administrator on this factor must be based on the designee's proficiency in using the evaluation tool for teachers used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy under section 1249, with the designee's performance to be counted as if it were the school administrator personally conducting the teacher performance evaluations.

(ii) The progress made by the school or school district in meeting the goals set forth in the school's school improvement plan or the school district's school improvement plans.

(iii) Pupil attendance in the school or school district.

(iv) Student, parent, and teacher feedback, as available, and other information considered pertinent by the superintendent or other school administrator conducting the performance evaluation or the board or board of directors.

(e) For the purposes of conducting annual evaluations under the performance evaluation system, by the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall adopt and implement 1 or more of the evaluation tools for school administrators that are included on the list under subsection (3). However, if a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy has 1 or more local evaluation tools for school administrators or modifications of an evaluation tool on the list under subsection (3), and the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy complies with subsection (2), the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may conduct annual year-end evaluations for school administrators using 1 or more local evaluation tools or modifications.

(f) The evaluation tool and other measures used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy in its performance evaluation system for school administrators must be used consistently across the schools operated by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy so that all similarly situated school administrators are evaluated using the same measures.

(g) The performance evaluation system must assign an effectiveness rating to each school administrator described in this subsection of highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective.

(h) The performance evaluation system must ensure that if a school administrator described in this subsection is rated as minimally effective or ineffective, the person or persons conducting the evaluation shall develop and require the school administrator to implement an improvement plan to correct the deficiencies. The improvement plan must recommend professional development opportunities and other actions designed to improve the rating of the school administrator on his or her next annual evaluation.

(i) The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a school administrator described in this subsection is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall dismiss the school administrator from his or her employment. This subdivision does not affect the ability of a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to dismiss a school administrator from his or her employment regardless of whether the school administrator is rated as ineffective on 3 consecutive annual evaluations.

(j) The performance evaluation system must provide that, if a school administrator is rated as highly effective on 3 consecutive annual evaluations, the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy may choose to conduct an evaluation biennially instead of annually. However, if a school administrator is not rated as highly effective on 1 of these biennial evaluations, the school administrator shall must again be provided with annual evaluations.

(k) The school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall provide training to school administrators on the measures used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy in its performance evaluation system for school administrators and on how each of the measures is used. This training may be provided by a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, or by a consortium consisting of 2 or more of these.

(l) A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall ensure that training is provided to all evaluators and observers. The training must be provided by an individual who has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools used by the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy, which may include either a consultant on that evaluation tool or framework or an individual who has been trained to train others in the use of the evaluation tool or tools. This subdivision does not prohibit a school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or consortium consisting of 2 or more of these, from providing the training in the use of the evaluation tool or tools if the trainer has expertise in the evaluation tool or tools.

(2) A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy shall post on its public website all of the following information about the measures it uses for its performance evaluation system for school administrators:

(a) The research base for the evaluation framework, instrument, and process or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (3), the research base for the listed evaluation tool and an assurance that the adaptations or modifications do not compromise the validity of that research base.

(b) The identity and qualifications of the author or authors or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (3), the identity and qualifications of a person with expertise in teacher evaluations who has reviewed the adapted or modified evaluation tool.

(c) Either evidence of reliability, validity, and efficacy or a plan for developing that evidence or, if the school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy adapts or modifies an evaluation tool from the list under subsection (3), an assurance that the adaptations or modifications do not compromise the reliability, validity, or efficacy of the evaluation tool or the evaluation process.

(d) The evaluation frameworks and rubrics, with detailed descriptors for each performance level on key summative indicators.

(e) A description of the processes for 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.

(3) The department shall establish and maintain a list of school administrator evaluation tools that have demonstrated evidence of efficacy and that may be used for the purposes of this section. That list initially must include at least the 2 evaluation models recommended in the final recommendations released by the Michigan council on educator effectiveness in July 2013. The list must include a statement indicating that school districts, intermediate school districts, and public school academies are not limited to only using the evaluation tools that are included on the list. A school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy is not required to use an evaluation tool for school administrator evaluations that is the same as it uses for teacher evaluations or that has the same author or authors as the evaluation tool it uses for teacher evaluations. The department shall promulgate rules establishing standards and procedures for adding an evaluation tool to or removing an evaluation tool from the list. These rules must include a process for a school district, intermediate school district, or public school academy to submit its own evaluation tool for review for placement on the list.

(4) The training required under subsection (1) must be paid for from the funds available in the educator evaluation reserve fund created under section 95a of the state school aid act of 1979, MCL 388.1695a.For an eligible school district, performance evaluations of building-level school administrators and of central-office-level school administrators who are regularly involved in instructional matters are not required under this section for the 2021-2022 school year.

(5) As used in this section, "eligible school district" means that term as defined in section 1249.

Sec. 1279g. (1) The Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the board of a school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall comply with this section and shall administer the Michigan merit examination to pupils in grade 11, and to pupils in grade 12 who did not take the complete Michigan merit examination in grade 11, as provided in this section. However, if the department receives a waiver from assessment requirements under federal law from the United States Department of Education, the board of an eligible school district is not required to administer the Michigan merit examination as described in this subsection for the 2021-2022 school year.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the department of technology, management, and budget shall contract with 1 or more providers to develop, supply, and score the Michigan merit examination. The Michigan merit examination shall must consist of all of the following:

(a) Assessment instruments that measure English language arts, mathematics, reading, and science and are used by colleges and universities in this state for entrance or placement purposes. This shall must include a writing component in which the pupil produces an extended writing sample. The Michigan merit examination shall must not require any other extended writing sample.

(b) One or more tests from 1 or more test developers that assess a pupil's ability to apply at least reading and mathematics skills in a manner that is intended to allow employers to use the results in making employment decisions. The department of technology, management, and budget and the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any test or tests selected under this subdivision have all the components necessary to allow a pupil to be eligible to receive the results of a nationally recognized evaluation of workforce readiness if the pupil's test performance is adequate.

(d) Any other component that is necessary to obtain the approval of the United States Department of Education to use the Michigan merit examination for the purposes of the no child left behind act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, or the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95.

(3) In addition to all other requirements of this section, all of the following apply to the Michigan merit examination:

(a) The department of technology, management, and budget and the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any contractor used for scoring the Michigan merit examination supplies an individual report for each pupil that will identify for the pupil's parents and teachers whether the pupil met expectations or failed to meet expectations for each standard, to allow the pupil's parents and teachers to assess and remedy problems before the pupil moves to the next grade.

(b) The department of technology, management, and budget and the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any contractor used for scoring, developing, or processing the Michigan merit examination meets quality management standards commonly used in the assessment industry, including at least meeting level 2 of the capability maturity model developed by the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University for the first year the Michigan merit examination is offered to all grade 11 pupils and at least meeting level 3 of the capability maturity model for subsequent years.

(c) The department of technology, management, and budget and the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any contract for scoring, administering, or developing the Michigan merit examination includes specific deadlines for all steps of the assessment process, including, but not limited to, deadlines for the correct testing materials to be supplied to schools and for the correct results to be returned to schools, and includes penalties for noncompliance with these deadlines.

(d) The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the Michigan merit examination meets all of the following:

(i) Is designed to test pupils on grade level content expectations or course content expectations, as appropriate, in all subjects tested.

(ii) Complies with requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, or the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95, as applicable.

(iii) Is consistent with the code of fair testing practices in education prepared by the joint committee on testing practices of the American Psychological Association.

(iv) Is factually accurate. If the superintendent of public instruction determines that a question is not factually accurate and should be excluded from scoring, the state board and the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the question is excluded from scoring.

(4) A school district or public school academy that operates a high school shall include on each pupil's high school transcript all of the following:

(a) For each high school graduate who has completed the Michigan merit examination under this section, the pupil's scaled score on each subject area component of the Michigan merit examination.

(b) The number of school days the pupil was in attendance at school each school year during high school and the total number of school days in session for each of those school years.

(5) The superintendent of public instruction shall work with the provider or providers of the Michigan merit examination to produce Michigan merit examination subject area scores for each pupil participating in the Michigan merit examination, including scaling and merging of test items for the different subject area components. The superintendent of public instruction shall design and distribute to school districts, public school academies, intermediate school districts, and nonpublic schools a simple and concise document that describes the scoring for each subject area and indicates the scaled score ranges for each subject area.

(6) The Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Michigan merit examination shall must be administered each year after March 1 and before June 1 to pupils in grade 11. The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the Michigan merit examination is scored and the scores are returned to pupils, their parents or legal guardians, and schools not later than the beginning of the pupil's first semester of grade 12. The returned scores shall must indicate at least the pupil's scaled score for each subject area component and the range of scaled scores for each subject area. In reporting the scores to pupils, parents, and schools, the superintendent of public instruction shall provide standards-specific, meaningful, and timely feedback on the pupil's performance on the Michigan merit examination.

(7) A school district or public school academy shall administer the complete Michigan merit examination to a pupil only once and shall not administer the complete Michigan merit examination to the same pupil more than once. If Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a pupil does not take the complete Michigan merit examination in grade 11, the school district or public school academy shall administer the complete Michigan merit examination to the pupil in grade 12. If a pupil chooses to retake the college entrance examination component of the Michigan merit examination, as described in subsection (2)(a), the pupil may do so through the provider of the college entrance examination component and the cost of the retake is the responsibility of the pupil unless all of the following are met:

(a) The pupil has taken the complete Michigan merit examination.

(b) The pupil meets the income eligibility criteria for free breakfast, lunch, or milk, as determined under the Richard B. Russell national school lunch act, 42 USC 1751 to 1769j.

(c) The pupil has applied to the provider of the college entrance examination component for a scholarship or fee waiver to cover the cost of the retake and that application has been denied.

(d) After taking the complete Michigan merit examination, the pupil has not already received a free retake of the college entrance examination component paid for either by this state or through a scholarship or fee waiver by the provider.

(8) The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the length of the Michigan merit examination and the combined total time necessary to administer all of the components of the Michigan merit examination are the shortest possible that will still maintain the degree of reliability and validity of the Michigan merit examination results determined necessary by the superintendent of public instruction. The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the maximum total combined length of time that schools are required to set aside for pupils to answer all test questions on the Michigan merit examination does not exceed 8 hours if the superintendent of public instruction determines that sufficient alignment to applicable Michigan merit curriculum content standards can be achieved within that time limit.

(9) A school district or public school academy shall provide accommodations to a pupil with disabilities for the Michigan merit examination, as provided under section 504 of title V of the rehabilitation act of 1973, 29 USC 794; subtitle part A of title subchapter II of the Americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 USC 12131 to 12134; the individuals with disabilities education act amendments of 1997, Public Law 105-17; and the implementing regulations for those statutes. The provider or providers of the Michigan merit examination and the superintendent of public instruction shall mutually agree upon the accommodations to be provided under this subsection.

(10) To the greatest extent possible, the Michigan merit examination shall must be based on grade level content expectations or course content expectations, as appropriate. Not later than July 1, 2008, the department shall identify specific grade level content expectations to be taught before and after the middle of grade 11, so that teachers will know what content will be covered within the Michigan merit examination.

(11) A child who is a student in a nonpublic school or home school may take the Michigan merit examination under this section. To Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, to take the Michigan merit examination, a child who is a student in a home school shall contact the school district in which the child resides, and that school district shall administer the Michigan merit examination, or the child may take the Michigan merit examination at a nonpublic school if allowed by the nonpublic school. If an eligible school district is contacted by a child who is a student in a home school as described in the immediately preceding sentence, the eligible school district is not required to administer the Michigan merit examination to the child if the eligible school district is not administering the Michigan merit examination to pupils enrolled in the eligible school district for the 2021-2022 school year. Upon request from a nonpublic school, the superintendent of public instruction shall direct the provider or providers to supply the Michigan merit examination to the nonpublic school and the nonpublic school may administer the Michigan merit examination. If a school district administers the Michigan merit examination under this subsection to a child who is not enrolled in the school district, the scores for that child are not considered for any purpose to be scores of a pupil of the school district.

(12) In contracting under subsection (2), the department of technology, management, and budget shall consider a contractor that provides electronically-scored electronically scored essays with the ability to score constructed response feedback in multiple languages and provide ongoing instruction and feedback.

(13) The purpose of the Michigan merit examination is to assess pupil performance in mathematics, science, social studies, and English language arts for the purpose of improving academic achievement and establishing a statewide standard of competency. The assessment under this section provides a common measure of data that will contribute to the improvement of Michigan schools' curriculum and instruction by encouraging alignment with Michigan's curriculum framework standards and promotes pupil participation in higher level mathematics, science, social studies, and English language arts courses. These standards are based upon the expectations of what pupils should learn through high school and are aligned with national standards.

(14) In addition to the other requirements of this section and the requirements of 1970 PA 38, MCL 388.1081 to 388.1086, beginning with assessments conducted during the 2016-2017 school year, the superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that the Michigan merit examination social studies component and the M-STEP and any successor state assessment for social studies, as appropriate, include questions related to the learning objectives in the state board recommended model core academic curriculum standards concerning genocide, including, but not limited to, the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.

(15) As used in this section:

(a) "Armenian Genocide", "genocide", and "Holocaust" mean those terms as defined in section 1168.

(b) "Eligible school district" means that term as defined in section 1249.

(d) (c) "Social studies" means United States history, world history, world geography, economics, and American government.

Sec. 1280g. (1) Not later than August 1, 2019, the department shall develop a statewide system of accountability measurements to improve the national educational ranking of this state. All of the following apply to the statewide system of accountability measurements:

(a) Not Subject to section 1280h, not later than September 1, 2019, and not later than September 1 of each subsequent year, the department shall assign a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F for each of the following indicators for each public school:

(i) Pupil proficiency in mathematics and English language arts, as measured by the percentage of all pupils who achieve proficiency on the applicable state assessment, as determined by the department.

(ii) Pupils who achieve adequate growth in mathematics and English language arts on the applicable state assessment. The measure of adequate growth under this subdivision may incorporate reporting of pupil growth measures, as reported by the model value-added growth and projection analytics system implemented by the department, and shall must be based on any of the following, as determined by the department:

(A) Pupil growth measured from fall to spring of the same school year or from the spring of one 1 school year to the spring of the next school year, as appropriate based on the timing of applicable state assessments.

(B) Pupils who scored proficient on the immediately preceding applicable state assessment and who at least maintained a score of proficient on the most recent applicable state assessment.

(C) Pupils who scored less than proficient on the immediately preceding applicable state assessment and who demonstrate growth sufficient to reach proficiency in 3 school years.

(iii) Pupils who are English language learners and who achieve adequate growth toward proficiency in the English language, as determined by the department and as required under the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95.

(iv) The graduation rate of pupils enrolled in high school, as applicable and as defined by and reported to CEPI.

(v) The academic performance of the public school's pupils on the applicable state assessment compared to pupil performance on the applicable state assessment for all public schools serving a similar pupil population. The department shall determine similar pupil population using demographic factors that the commission department considers to have a strong correlation to academic achievement.

(b) Not Subject to section 1280h, not later than September 1, 2019, and not later than September 1 of each subsequent year, the department shall assign a ranking of significantly above average, above average, average, below average, or significantly below average to each public school for each of the following indicators:

(i) The rate of pupils who are chronically absent as defined by and reported to CEPI.

(ii) The participation rate for each applicable state assessment, based on pupils who are assigned to take each applicable state assessment. For purposes of this subparagraph, the department shall not consider a pupil who meets both of the following:

(A) Is eligible for special education programs and services according to statute or rule or is a child with disabilities, as defined under the individuals with disabilities education act, Public Law 108-446.

(B) Is not required to participate in a state assessment.

(iii) Pupil subgroup performance compared to pupils in the same subgroup statewide, as required under the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95.

(c) Letter grades and rankings under subdivisions (a) and (b) shall must be reported in a form and manner prescribed by the department.

(d) The department shall develop standards for identifying public schools as falling into categories of performance and adequate achievement. The standards developed under this subdivision must meet all of the following:

(i) The department shall develop standards for identifying the lowest achieving public schools as comprehensive support and improvement schools, as required under the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95. Subject to subdivision (ii), a public school that meets any of the following shall must be identified as a comprehensive support and improvement school:

(A) Is a high school that graduates less than 2/3 of its pupils.

(B) Receives the lowest grade on all of the indicators under subdivision (a)(i), (ii), and (v).

(C) Meets any other criteria for a comprehensive support and improvement school under the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95, as determined by the department.

(ii) The number of public schools in this state identified as comprehensive support and improvement schools shall must not exceed a number equal to 5% of all public schools in this state.

(iii) The department shall develop standards for identifying high achieving public schools as reward schools. A public school that meets any of the following shall must be identified as a reward school:

(A) Is a high school that graduates at least 99% of its pupils.

(B) Receives the highest grade on any of the indicators under subdivision (a)(i), (ii), or (v).

(iv) The department shall also develop standards for all of the following:

(A) Identifying public schools in which 1 or more groups of pupils are consistently underperforming as targeted support and improvement schools, as described in the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95.

(B) Identifying public schools in which the performance of 1 or more groups of pupils would place those pupils schools in the bottom 5% of Title I schools, as described in the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95.

(C) Identifying public schools in any other categorization required under the every student succeeds act, Public Law 114-95, as determined by the department.

(e) The department shall monitor the effectiveness of the statewide system of accountability measurements developed under this subsection and shall make changes to the system as the department determines necessary to make the system more effective and to ensure compliance with the requirements under this section. As part of this monitoring process, the department shall develop and implement processes for receiving and considering input from the public and the educational community.

(f) Not later than December 1, 2019, the department shall develop accountability measures to impose on public schools that have been identified as comprehensive support and improvement schools under this section. For the purposes of the accountability measures developed under this section, a public school that was included on the list of the lowest achieving 5% of public schools in this state under former section 1280c(1) is considered to have been identified as a comprehensive support and improvement school for that school year.

(g) Not later than July 1, 2020, the department shall implement the accountability measures developed under subdivision (f).

(2) Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, the The department shall implement and administer the statewide system of accountability measurements under subsection (1).

(3) Not later than September 1, 2019, and not later than September 1 every 3 years thereafter, the superintendent of public instruction shall publish a list of the public schools in this state that the department has identified as comprehensive support and improvement schools under this section for that school year, and a list of the public schools that the department has identified as reward schools under this section for that school year. A public school identified as a comprehensive support and improvement school under this section is considered to be among the lowest achieving public schools in this state.

(4) The department shall designate a public school as an alternative education campus and shall not assign grades or rankings under subsection (1) for the public school if the public school meets at least 1 of the following:

(a) Is a center program.

(b) Is a strict discipline academy established under sections 1311b to 1311m.

(d) Serves any other specialized pupil population with special needs, as determined by the department.

(5) Beginning September 1, 2019, and not Not later than September 1 of each subsequent year, the department shall issue a summary status for each public school designated as an alternative education campus under subsection (4). The summary status shall must indicate whether the public school is in compliance with applicable law and whether pupils enrolled in the public school are making meaningful, measurable academic progress toward educational goals established by the governing body of the public school and approved by the superintendent of public instruction.

(6) The accountability system developed under this section replaces the accountability system under former section 390.

(7) Not later than August 1, 2019, the department shall submit its proposed standards for determining letter grades and rankings under this section to a peer review panel consisting of 5 individuals with expertise in school accountability systems. Not later than August 15, 2019, the peer review panel shall submit its findings to the department and to the standing committees of the senate and house of representatives having jurisdiction over education legislation. The peer review panel must consist of the following 5 members:

(a) Three members appointed by the governor.

(b) One member appointed by the senate majority leader.

(8) At least annually, the department shall present to the standing committees of the senate and house of representatives having jurisdiction over education legislation, in the form and manner prescribed by those committees, a status update on the statewide system of accountability measurements under this section.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) "Center program" means that term as defined in section 6 of the state school aid act of 1979, MCL 388.1606.

(b) "CEPI" means the center for educational performance and information created in section 94a of the state school aid act of 1979, MCL 388.1694a.

Sec. 1280h. (1) The department shall not assign a letter grade for each of the indicators under section 1280g(1)(a) for the 2021-2022 school year and the department shall not assign a ranking for each of the indicators under section 1280g(1)(b) for the 2021-2022 school year for an eligible school district.

(2) As used in this section, "eligible school district" means that term as defined in section 1249.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 940 of the 101st Legislature is enacted into law.