The evaluation system for educator performance was previously determined by local school districts and teachers' unions. In many cases, this meant there was no standardized evaluation system at all. The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is the first systematic statewide attempt to evaluate teacher performance. In addition to having the standard evaluation model, DPI is also allowing school districts to submit an alternative model to DPI if the school district feels that an alternative model would better measure educator performance in that particular district.
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System is an innovative program that is designed to measure teacher and principal performance by balancing assessment of educator practice and student outcomes. DPI is proposing a process that would allow school districts to design their own assessment model for educator practice. However, these alternative models must still reflect the valuable principles underlying the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System. Thus, school districts must still evaluate the performance of teachers in the areas of planning and preparation; the classroom environment; instruction; and professional responsibilities and development. Additionally, the evaluation process must reflect the criteria in the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.
Without this rule, there would not be a process to approve alternative models and school districts would not be allowed to use alternative models. This is undesirable because the option to use an alternative model allows school districts the flexibility to meet their local needs. Additionally, DPI will ensure that all alternative models meet certain standards. Without including DPI in this review and approval process, school districts could minimize or even avoid implementing the EE System and their students would not benefit from the program's results. Thus, the Wisconsin State Legislature has statutorily required that DPI develop a process to approve equivalent, alternative models.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
115.415 Educator effectiveness.
(1) The department shall develop an educator effectiveness evaluation system and an equivalency process aligned with the department's evaluation system for the evaluation of teachers and principals of public schools, including teachers and principals of a charter school established under s.
118.40(2r), as provided in this section. Each school board and the governing body of each charter school established under s.
118.40(2r) shall evaluate teachers and principals in the school district or charter school beginning in the 2014-15 school year.
(2) The department shall develop an educator effectiveness evaluation system according to the following framework:
(a) Fifty percent of the total evaluation score assigned to a teacher or principal shall be based upon measures of student performance, including performance on state assessments, district-wide assessments, student learning objectives, school-wide reading at the elementary and middle-school levels, and graduation rates at the high school level.
(b) Fifty percent of the total evaluation score assigned to a teacher or principal shall be based upon one of the following:
1. For a teacher, the extent to which the teacher's practice meets the core teaching standards adopted by the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium.
2. For a principal, the extent to which the principal's practice meets the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.
(c) A teacher or principal evaluated under this subsection shall be placed in one of multiple performance categories.
(3) (a) The department shall promulgate by rule an equivalency process aligned with the evaluation system established under sub. (2) for a school district or a charter school established under s.
118.40(2r) seeking to utilize an alternative process for the evaluation of teacher and principal practice. The process under this subsection shall be based on the criteria established in the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards, and a school district or charter school established under s.
118.40(2r) that uses the process under this subsection shall evaluate the performance of teachers in the following domains:
1. Planning and preparation.
2. The classroom environment.
3. Instruction.
4. Professional responsibilities and development.
(b) A teacher or principal evaluated under this subsection shall be placed in one of multiple performance categories.
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The amount of time needed for rule development by department staff and the amount of other resources necessary are indeterminable. The time needed to create the rule language itself will be minimal. However, the time involved with developing a process to implement the rule will be fairly significant.
List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Local educational agencies, such as school districts and CESAs, will be affected by the proposed rule.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that Is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
N/A
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule Is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rules will indirectly benefit some small businesses and educational entities involved in creating alternative educator evaluation programs since these programs have the potential to be approved and used throughout the state. However, the rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Contact Person
Revenue
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on January 17, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Public utility taxation, investment and local impact fund, and real estate transfer fee.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objectives of the rule are to:
• Amend s.
Tax 6.50 (4) (b) to be consistent with national unit valuation standards.
• Update department contact and form references throughout Chapter
Tax 6.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
2012 Executive Order 61 and
2011 Wisconsin Act 46 requires state agencies to work with the Small Business Regulatory Review Committee to review the agency's administrative rules that may be particularly onerous to small businesses in Wisconsin. In response, the department initiated a comprehensive review of all of its administrative rules. The changes described above were identified as part of that review. If the rules are not changed, they will be incorrect in that they will not reflect current law or current department policy.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
The Investment and Local Impact Fund Board, as created by s.
15.435, Stats., and attached to the department under s.
15.03, Stats., is required under s.
70.395 (2) (hg), Stats., to “
…by rule, establish fiscal guidelines and accounting procedures for the use of payments under pars. (d), (f), (fm) and (g), sub. (3) and s.
293.65 (5)." These provisions apply to the proposed revision to s.
Tax 13.05 (1) (b).
Section
76.07 (5) (b), Stats., provides “[t]he department shall promulgate rules relating to the general principles of the indicators of value..." This provision applies to the proposed changes to Chapter
Tax 6.
Section
77.30, Stats., provides “[t]he secretary of revenue may adopt, pursuant to ch.
227, such rules as the secretary deems necessary in the administration of this subchapter
…" This provision applies to the proposed repeal of ss.
Tax 15.03 (2) (b) and
(c) and
15.05 (5).
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates it will take approximately 100 hours to develop the rule.
List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Local governments, businesses, and individuals who rely on clear, current, and concise rules.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that Is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule Is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
No economic impact is anticipated.
Contact Person
Dale Kleven, (608) 266-8253.
Revenue
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on January 17, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Property tax and assessment of agricultural property.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objectives of the rule are to:
• Amend s.
Tax 12.06 to eliminate redundancy with the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual.
• Revise s.
Tax 12.07 to provide for more frequent update of assessment districts through the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual.
• Repeal subchapter I of Chapter
Tax 18 and remove other references throughout the chapter to an agricultural assessment transitional period that lasted from 1996 to 1997.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
2012 Executive Order 61 and
2011 Wisconsin Act 46 requires state agencies to work with the Small Business Regulatory Review Committee to review the agency's administrative rules that may be particularly onerous to small businesses in Wisconsin. In response, the department initiated a comprehensive review of all of its administrative rules. The changes described above were identified as part of that review. If the rules are not changed, they will be incorrect in that they will not reflect current law or current department policy.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
70.32 (2) (c) 1i. Stats., provides that agricultural use “means agricultural use as defined by the department of revenue by rule
…" This provision applies to ch.
Tax 18.
Section
73.09 (1), Stats., provides “[t]he department of revenue shall establish by rule the level of certification under sub. (3), the continuing education requirements under sub. (4), examinations under sub. (5), and the requirements for and responsibilities associated with temporary certification under sub. (6) for all assessors and assessment personnel of each local unit of government and for county assessor systems under s.
70.99." This provision applies to ch.
Tax 12.
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates it will take approximately 100 hours to develop the rule.
List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Local assessors, local governments, businesses, and individuals who rely on clear, current, and concise rules
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that Is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
