NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to s.
115.415 (3), Stats., and interpreting s.
115.415 (3), Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider emergency and permanent rules to create Chapter
PI 47, relating to the equivalency process for educator effectiveness.
Hearing Information
Date: Thursday, June 6, 2013
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Location: GEF 3 Building, Room 041
125 South Webster St.
Madison, WI
The hearing site is fully accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access the meeting, please call Katie Schumacher at (608) 267-9127, or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427, at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Proposed Rule, Fiscal Estimate, and Economic Impact Analysis
The proposed administrative rule, fiscal estimate, and economic impact analysis are available at
http://pb.dpi.wi.gov/pb_rulespg. A copy of the proposed rule, fiscal estimate, and economic impact analysis may also be obtained at no cost by contacting Katie Schumacher using the contact information near the end of the notice.
Place Where Comments Are to Be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
The proposed administrative rule is available to review and make comments on at
http://pb.dpi.wi.gov/pb_rulespg. Comments can be made by accessing this website or by directly submitting comments to Katie Schumacher using the contact information near the end of the notice. Written comments on the proposed rules received by Katie Schumacher no later than June 17, 2013, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
115.415 (3), Stats., requires the department to promulgate an equivalency process for measuring alternative models for evaluating educator practice.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
Section
115.415 (3), Stats., requires the department to establish a process for determining whether alternative models for evaluating educator practice are equivalent to the state standards for educator effectiveness.
The proposed rule establishes the necessary criteria and guidelines for approving an alternative model for evaluating educator practice. This rule lays out the framework for the equivalency review process, what is needed by applicants, and a timeline of implementation.
The statewide implementation of the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System begins in the 2014-15 school year, with a pilot program in the 2013-14 school year. Any district, consortium of districts, or charter school established under s.
118.40 (2r), Stats., planning to submit an application for Equivalency Review must provide written notification to the department of the district's intention on or before January 15 of the school year preceding the planned implementation. All applications must be submitted on or before March 15 of the school year preceding the planned implementation.
The department will
notify applicants of Equivalency Status on or before April 15 of the school year preceding the planned implementation.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states: Focus on equivalency processes:
Illinois has established a similar educator effectiveness system, the Performance Evaluation Reform Act. Under the Illinois system, teachers and principals may be evaluated by any person who successfully completes training and a pre-qualification. Unlike Wisconsin's state system, Illinois is requiring all districts to design and implement systems to measure teacher and principal performance. Districts then have two options for adopting a new system that incorporates student growth measures into teacher evaluations: a school district can develop its own system that meets minimum standards mandated by state rules, or it can choose to use all or portions of a state-designed optional model. A special advisory group, the Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee, provides input on rules for districts wanting to develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems, and provides recommendations for a statewide model for principal evaluation and a default/optional model for teacher evaluation.
Iowa allows school districts to design educator evaluation systems as long as they align with the state teaching standards. School districts are required to determine what policies, procedures, and processes are needed to support state teaching standards. Further, teacher evaluation systems must be built around a range of sources of data and information that encourage and support the demonstration of teacher mastery of the state teaching standards.
Michigan is currently in the process of developing an educator evaluation system. The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness will develop a fair, transparent, and feasible evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. The system will be based on rigorous standards of professional practice and of measurement. The goal of this system is to contribute to enhanced instruction, improve student achievement, and support ongoing professional learning. Currently, Michigan is in the process of piloting over 800 different systems designed by school districts.
Minnesota has a voluntary educator evaluation system, the Quality Compensation, which allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain for a plan incorporating career ladder/advancement options, job-embedded professional development, teacher evaluation, performance pay, and an alternative salary schedule.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
2011 Wisconsin Act 166 created s.
115.415, Stats., regarding the educator effectiveness evaluation system and the ability to have equivalent models.
Section
115.415 (3), Stats., mandates the promulgation of an equivalency process to review alternative educator evaluation models for use by public school districts and charter schools established under s.
118.40 (2r), Stats. The equivalency process shall be based on the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
The proposed rules will indirectly benefit some small businesses involved in creating alternative educator evaluation programs since these have the potential to be approved and used throughout the state.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
There are no required costs associated with implementing this rule. It provides an opportunity for different businesses and parties which may come with their own costs, but the implementation of the rule itself does not create significant costs.
Effect on small business
The rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency contact person
The agency person to be contacted if there are substantive questions on the rules:
Sheila Briggs, Assistant State Superintendent, Division for Academic Excellence,
sheila.briggs@dpi.wi.gov, (608) 266-3361.
The agency person to be contacted for the agency's internal processing of rules:
Agency procedure for promulgation
A public hearing will be held under ss.
227.17 and
227.18, Wis. Stats.
Description of any forms
The Equivalency Review Process Application form is the form that districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools must fill out to apply for approval for their Equivalent Models. The Equivalency Review Process Application form may be obtained at no charge from the Department of Public Instruction, Educator Effectiveness Team, P.O. Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule will impact local government units and specific businesses/sectors. To receive a copy of the complete fiscal estimate, please contact Katie Schumacher using the contact information below.
Economic Impact Analysis
This rule provides school districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools established under s.
118.40(2r), Stats., with the opportunity to develop and submit a new model for evaluating educator practice. The application for approval of an equivalency model takes time to complete. Thus, the rule will require some staff time from the applicants during the application process. To receive a copy of the complete economic impact analysis, contact Katie Schumacher using the contact information below.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher, Administrative Rules Coordinator and Small Business Regulatory Coordinator,
Katie.Schumacher@dpi.wi.gov, Department of Public Instruction, 125 South Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI Chapter 47: Educator Effectiveness Equivalency Process
|
3. Subject
|
Educator Effectiveness Equivalency Process
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO X PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽SEG-S
|
20.255 (1) (hg)
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
X Increase Costs
X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽ State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
|
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
|
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
This rule recognizes the state's model for evaluating educator practice within the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System might not suit every district's unique needs. As such, this rule allows a school district, consortium of districts, or charter school established under s. 118.40 (2r), Stats., to submit a new model for evaluating educator practice for review to the department. The equivalency process applies only to the educator practice component within the state system; the student outcomes component is not subject to equivalency.
|
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
|
School districts and the organization developing their equivalent model were asked about any possible compliance or implementation costs. For this economic impact analysis, the department contacted those school districts and organizations that notified the department of their intention to apply for an equivalent model for the 2013-14 school year.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
School districts that notified the department of their intention to apply for an equivalent model for the 2013-14 school year were asked to notify the department of any possible compliance or implementation costs.
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
This rule provides school districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools established under s. 118.40 (2r), Stats., with the opportunity to develop and submit a new model for evaluating educator practice. The application for approval of an equivalency model takes time to complete. Thus, the rule will require some staff time from the applicants during the application process.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
Benefits of implementing this rule include giving districts more local control in selecting the model for evaluating educator practice that best meets their unique needs. Alternatives include having every district across the state implement the state's model for evaluating educator practice set forth within the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Recognizing each district has unique needs, this rule would allow districts the flexibility to develop or choose an alternative model for evaluating educator practice which best meets those needs.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
NA.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Illinois has established a similar educator effectiveness system, the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) to address the needs of effective educator evaluations. Teachers and principals may be evaluated by any person who successfully completes training and a pre-qualification. Unlike Wisconsin's state model, Illinois is requiring all districts to design and implement systems to measure teacher and principal performance. Districts then have two options for adopting a new system that incorporates student growth measures into teacher evaluations. A school district can develop its own system that meets minimum standards mandated by state rules; or it can choose to use all or portions of a state-designed optional model. A special advisory group, the Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee (PEAC) will provide input on rules for districts wanting to develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems; and recommendations for a statewide model for principal evaluation and a default/optional model for teacher evaluation.
Iowa allows districts to design educator evaluation systems as long as they align with the state teaching standards. School districts are required to determine what policies, procedures and processes are needed to support Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria. A teacher evaluation system should be built around a range of sources of data and information that will encourage and support the demonstration of teacher mastery of the Iowa Teaching Standards.
Michigan is currently in the process of developing an educator evaluation system. The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness (MCEE) will develop a fair, transparent, and feasible evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. The system will be based on rigorous standards of professional practice and of measurement. The goal of this system is to contribute to enhanced instruction, improve student achievement, and support ongoing professional learning. Currently Michigan is in the process of piloting over 800 different systems designed by school districts.
Minnesota has a voluntary program, Quality Compensation, or Q Comp, that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain for a plan incorporating career ladder/advancement options, job-embedded professional development, teacher evaluation, performance pay, and an alternative salary schedule.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Sheila Briggs
|
(608) 266-3361
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request
Notice of Hearing
Public Service Commission
(PSC Docket # 1-AC-227)
The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal s.
PSC 113.0921 (1) (g); renumber ss.
PSC 113.0923 and (title) and
185.78 and (title); renumber and amend s.
PSC 185.77; amend ss.
PSC 113.0614,
113.0921 (1) (e) and
(f),
113.0922 (title),
134.20,
134.31 (3),
185.19 (1),
185.73 (2),
185.73 (4), and
185.77 (title); repeal and recreate ss.
PSC 113.0919 (1) and
(2),
134.19 (1) and
(2), and
185.46 (1) and
(2); and create ss.
113.0919 (1) (title),
(2) (title),
(3) (title) and
(4) (title),
113.0922 (1) (title),
113.0922 (3),
113.0922 (6),
134.19 (1) (title),
(2) (title) and
(3) (title),
134.31 (4) and
(6),
185.46 (1) (title),
(2) (title) and
(3) (title), a note following 185.76 (6), 185.761 (2) and 185.77 (3) and (5), regarding the retention of customer meters so that they are available for testing.
Hearing Information
Pursuant to s.
227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rule changes.
Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way
Madison, WI
This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.
The Commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to obtain this document in a different format should contact the docket coordinator listed below.
Written Comments
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Thursday, June 13, 2013, at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-227. File by one mode only.
Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website (
http://psc.wi.gov).
Members of the Public: Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:
•Electronic Comment: Go to the commission's website at
http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on “Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.
•Web Comment: Go to the commission's website at
http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the “File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-227.
•Mail Comment: All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase, “Docket 1-AC-227 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:
Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707-7854
The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's website. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.
Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at (608) 266-5814, or via e-mail at
anne.vandervort@wisconsin.gov. Media questions should be directed to Matt Pagel, Acting Communications Director, at (608) 266-9600. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number: if calling from Wisconsin, (800) 251-8345; if calling from outside Wisconsin, (608) 267-1479.
Analysis Prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Statutory authority and explanation of authority
Section
227.11 authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section
196.02 (1) authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section
196.02 (3) grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section
196.06 (3) allows the commission to prescribe the manner and form in which utilities keep records. Section
196.17 (1) requires the commission to provide for meter testing.
Statute interpreted
Related statutes or rules
Sections
PSC 113.0922,
113.0923,
134.31,
185.77, and
185.78 deal with customer-requested and commission-refereed tests. This rulemaking deals with how long to retain meters after such tests so that they are available should further tests be requested. Sections
PSC 113.0614,
134.20, and
185.19 deal with the retention of records.
Brief summary of rule
This rule establishes retention periods for meter test records. It also ensures that meters remain available for a reasonable period of time for subsequent testing, if necessary, to resolve a customer dispute. Further, it ensures that referee-tested meters are retained long enough that they are available should further testing or review be needed. It also requires that meters being retired from service must either be tested or stored so that they are available should a customer or the commission request testing. Finally, the rule ensures that when meters are tested for other reasons, and the test results in either a back-billing or a credit, the meters are retained long enough that they are available should further testing or review be needed.
The proposed rule changes are slightly different for the water industry than those for the electric and gas industries, due to unique concerns about maintaining the integrity of the meters during storage. Specifically, water meters must be kept in a “wet" condition because a meter may test differently if the internal mechanism is allowed to dry out.1 Like other industries, water utilities are given the option of testing all retired meters and disposing of those that are accurate, or retaining all meters. The options are provided to give individual utilities the flexibility to make the economic choice that makes sense for them: retaining all meters or testing all meters.
