Education: teachers and administrators; performance evaluation systems for public school teachers and school administrators; modify. Amends secs. 1248, 1249, 1249a, 1249b & 1280f of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1248 et seq.) & adds secs. 1250a, 1531l & 1531m. TIE BAR WITH: SB 380'25
SB 379 would substantially revise Michigan’s Revised School Code provisions governing teacher and school administrator evaluation, retention, and compensation, while also expanding reading and dyslexia-related requirements for K-12 schools. The bill updates the performance evaluation framework for teachers and administrators to require rigorous, transparent systems that rely heavily on student growth data, classroom observations, and other objective criteria. It changes rating categories beginning in 2024-25, adds midyear progress reports, training requirements for evaluators, public website posting requirements for evaluation tools, and procedures for review, mediation, grievance, and in some cases binding arbitration. It also creates new certificate-eligibility standards tied to prior evaluation ratings for initial professional and advanced professional education certificates.
For teachers, the bill would prohibit personnel decisions from being based primarily on seniority or tenure and instead require districts to base staffing, recall, and hiring decisions on retaining effective teachers, with effectiveness measured through the evaluation system. Teachers rated ineffective or needing support for three consecutive year-end evaluations could be dismissed, while highly effective or effective teachers could be evaluated less frequently. For school administrators, the bill imposes parallel evaluation rules, improvement plans, dismissal standards, and optional biennial evaluations for consistently strong performers. The bill also adds a new compensation section requiring teacher and administrator pay systems to treat job performance and accomplishments as significant factors.
A major portion of the bill rewrites section 1280f to strengthen early literacy policy. It directs the Department of Education to approve screening and progress-monitoring assessments, develop and update dyslexia guidance, publish evidence-based reading curricula and intervention resources, and support literacy coaches with specialized training. Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, districts and public school academies would have to screen K-3 pupils for dyslexia-related indicators, provide multi-tiered reading interventions, use evidence-based and structured literacy approaches, and create individual reading improvement plans for students with reading deficiencies. The bill also adds requirements for English learners, staffing plans when qualified teachers are unavailable, and accommodations consistent with federal disability laws.
The bill’s impact on state law would be broad: it amends multiple sections of the school code, changes how districts evaluate and manage teachers and administrators, affects collective bargaining over evaluation systems, and creates new state-level oversight and reporting obligations. It would also influence teacher certification by tying initial and advanced certification to prior evaluation performance or equivalent successful experience. In practice, the bill would affect school districts, intermediate school districts, public school academies, teachers, administrators, parents, and students—especially early elementary pupils and students with reading difficulties or dyslexia.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded discussion to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the policy direction appears strongly performance- and literacy-focused, with an emphasis on accountability, structured reading instruction, and intervention. Likely points of contention include the reduced role of seniority in staffing decisions, the use of student growth in evaluations, the dismissal and certification consequences tied to evaluation ratings, and the detailed reading-instruction mandates and screening requirements. The bill also contains a tie-bar to SB 380, meaning it would not take effect unless that related bill is enacted.
SB 379 would amend the Revised School Code to impose new statewide standards for teacher and administrator evaluations, staffing decisions, compensation systems, and certification eligibility, while also expanding state requirements for literacy screening, dyslexia identification, intervention, and reading instruction. It would require districts and public school academies to adopt evaluation tools, publish evaluation information, train evaluators, and use student growth and objective criteria in personnel decisions. It would also add new obligations for the Department of Education to approve assessments, maintain evaluation-tool lists, and provide dyslexia and literacy guidance. The bill affects school districts, intermediate school districts, public school academies, teachers, administrators, students, parents, and the state education department.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or roll calls. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as an accountability and literacy-improvement proposal, with a strong emphasis on evidence-based instruction, performance-based evaluation, and intervention for struggling readers. The absence of discussion prevents a reliable assessment of support or opposition in committee, but the bill’s detailed mandates suggest it is likely to draw both support from reform advocates and concern from labor and local-control stakeholders.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s limits on seniority and tenure as factors in staffing and recall decisions, the heavy reliance on student growth data in evaluations, and the consequences tied to repeated low ratings, including dismissal and certification restrictions. Teachers’ unions and some school employees may object to the reduced role of collective bargaining in practice, the arbitration and grievance structure, and the use of evaluation outcomes in certification decisions. Districts may also raise implementation concerns about the extensive reading-screening, dyslexia, staffing, training, and reporting requirements, especially where staffing shortages or assessment burdens make compliance difficult.