SCORE: 3

Wisconsin has adopted a meaningful evaluation model for teachers. 50% of the evaluation must be based on indicators of student growth, 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. Classroom observations of teacher practice make up the other 50% of the evaluation. Teachers are evaluated annually and rated in one of four performance levels. Implementation is phased, with a statewide pilot beginning 2013 and full implementation in the 2014-2015 school year. Wisconsin could improve its evaluation system by adding student surveys as a factor.

SCORE: 4

Wisconsin requires meaningful evaluation of principals. 50% of the evaluation must be based on indicators of student growth, 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. Leadership practice makes up the other 50% of the evaluation. The department has not yet adopted a full model, but principals are to be rated among multiple performance levels. Implementation is phased, with a statewide pilot beginning 2013 and full implementation in the 2014-2015 school year.

SCORE: 4

In 2011, Wisconsin repealed the statutory provision requiring evaluation to be subject to collective bargaining.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin law is silent regarding forced placement, and there are no triggers in place for exiting ineffective teachers from the system. Though the state has evaluations in place to measure educator effectiveness, there are no named consequences for being rated as ineffective. To ensure that only the most effective teachers are placed in its classrooms, Wisconsin should exit ineffective teachers from the system after no more than two consecutive "ineffective" ratings.

SCORE: 0

In Wisconsin, seniority is the driving factory in making personnel decisions. Layoffs are made in the inverse order of the appointment of teachers. To ensure effective teachers are retained, Wisconsin should require that effectiveness, assessed significantly by student academic growth, be the basis for layoffs, and prohibit seniority from being a factor in layoff decisions, except in the case of a tie-breaker of similarly rated teachers.

SCORE: 0

In Wisconsin, seniority is the driving factory in making personnel decisions. Layoffs are made in the inverse order of the appointment of teachers. To ensure effective teachers are retained, Wisconsin should require that effectiveness, assessed significantly by student academic growth, be the basis for layoffs, and prohibit seniority from being a factor in layoff decisions, except in the case of a tie-breaker of similarly rated teachers.

SCORE: 1

Wisconsin law is essentially silent in regard to the type of compensation systems school districts must implement. However, the school boards of school districts located in "First Class" cities are required to establish a salary schedules or all classroom teachers, not including principals and vice principals, in the schools of the city. To strengthen teacher compensation systems across the state, Wisconsin should require all districts to implement pay for performance systems that prioritize student outcomes.

SCORE: 2

Wisconsin state law is silent in regard to whether additional pay must be provided for master's degrees or additional education credits. To ensure flexibility in the resource allocation process is maintained, the state should specifically prohibit teacher compensation systems that mandate salary increases for advanced degrees.

SCORE: 1

Wisconsin offers an alternative certification program that is run by the state superintendent for individuals who will teach music, art, foreign language, computer science, mathematics, and science. The program consists of 100 hours of formal instruction, is available to individuals who hold bachelor's degrees in the subject and have at least five years of experience in the subject area they aim to teach. In addition to these requirements, candidates must demonstrate competency in the subject area that meets the satisfaction of the state superintendent. The permit issued through the alternative teacher training program is valid for two years, and renewable for five-year periods. The initial two years of teaching involves supervision from a teacher who holds a regular teaching license. No regularly licensed teacher shall be removed from his or her position as a result of the employment of persons holding permits from the alternative program. To expand its alternative certification offerings, Wisconsin should remove the limitations on the subjects that can be taught by an alternatively certified teacher. Additionally, Wisconsin should require demonstration of knowledge through a content area exam in lieu of a degree in the subject to be taught. Finally, the state should remove the prohibition on hiring alternatively certified teachers when traditionally certified teachers are available for hire. This limitation implies that an alternatively certified teacher is not considered equal to a traditionally certified teacher, which could deter qualified individuals from entering the teaching profession.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin recently adopted a requirement that the department of education develop clear performance accountability standards for teacher preparation programs. Programs will be required to submit data regarding program graduates that the state could then link to teacher performance data, but there is no established process for this yet. The state also has not defined the process for reviewing and decommissioning poor-performing programs. In order to increase the quality of its alternative certification programs, Wisconsin should require that the programs are continually evaluated based on teacher effectiveness data and evaluations, and programs that do not produce effective teachers should be decommissioned.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin has a school and school district report issued by the state superintendent, which measures academic achievement, performance of pupils on standardized tests, dropout rates, attendance rates, retention in grade rates, graduation rates, percentage of habitual truants, percentage of pupils participating in extracurricular activities, percentage of graduates enrolled in postsecondary educational programs, and percentage of graduates entering the workforce. It also reflects staffing and financial data. If this information was presented in letter grade form, Wisconsin could move from a 0 to 3. If it also included achievement gap data, it would move to a 4.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin law is silent on the matter of parental notification regarding teacher effectiveness. The section of code requiring evaluations does not require that a rating of "ineffective" trigger parental notification. In order to empower parents, Wisconsin must require that parents are notified when their student is placed with an ineffective teacher.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin does not have an established parent trigger law. Wisconsin does allow parents to petition to establish a charter school, but this is regarding establishment -- not conversion. In order to raise its score from a 0 to a 1, Wisconsin needs to establish a parent trigger law that permits a majority of parents to petition to turnaround a low-performing school, with local education agency implementation, and limited turnaround options and a specific timeline for implementation.

SCORE: 4

Wisconsin lacks a statewide program; students in Milwaukee and Racine may participate in specific programs if their household income does not exceed three times the federal poverty limit. The state currently hosts one of the most well-utilized scholarship programs in the nation -- however this program is limited to specific geographic areas. The program has strong accountability measures, including baseline test scores required for private school participation and the administration of state tests to all scholarship students. To increase the availability of quality school choices, the state should establish a publicly funded student scholarship program that is limited to low-income students in low-performing schools or districts throughout the state.

SCORE: 1

Charter authorizers in Wisconsin are limited to local districts, and, in Milwaukee, the Milwaukee city council, the University of Washington, and the Milwaukee technical college district board. While the state does not have a cap on charter establishment, petitions submitted to local district boards require teacher signatures (10% of the teachers in the district or 50% of teachers in a school). There is no fast-track process in place for high-performing charters, nor is there a high threshold for replication/expansion of schools. Wisconsin could create more high-quality options for students by allowing multiple authorizers and setting a clear performance standard for replication/expansion of schools.

SCORE: 1

Charter accountability in Wisconsin is defined through a 5-year contract between the authorizer and the school. Such contracts are required to have academic goals and clear processes for measuring student and school progress. Authorizers are empowered to revoke charters if the school has failed to make sufficient progress toward attaining its educational goals or failed to comply with generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management. The charter contract must contain provisions regarding annual audits as well, but there is no similar requirement for authorizers to conduct annual performance reviews or to report publicly on the performance of schools within the authorizer's portfolio. Wisconsin should strengthen its charter accountability policies by requiring authorizers to perform annual reviews of each school and to submit these performance reviews to an oversight body. Likewise, the oversight body must be required to perform an annual review of each authorizer and subject low-performing authorizers to sanctions or suspension.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin funds charter schools using a separate appropriation from traditional public schools that results in inequity. The state can strengthen this provision by allocating funding on a per-pupil basis to its students, regardless of their school type. The law should also be strengthened to prohibit skimming and the mandatory purchase of services from the authorizer.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin law does not provide the first right of refusal to charter schools or provide access to excess public space. In order to improve support for its students by providing school choice, the state should establish a robust charter program that provides charters with access to facilities, including the first right of refusal, co-location options, and preference with regards to facilities for high-achieving charter schools.

SCORE: 1

State law is silent in regards to charter access to facilities; charters have access to alternative financing through the Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority. The law should be strengthened to provide a per-pupil facilities allowance and alternative financing such as dedicated grants or loans.

SCORE: 1

In Wisconsin, the state superintendent has limited authority to direct interventions in schools and districts that have been in need of improvement for four consecutive years. In the case of a district, the superintendent can direct the local school board to implement curriculum, change school hours and services, implement professional development programs, adopt fiscal accountability measures, and implement changes in administrative and personnel structures. In the case of a low-performing school, the superintendent can direct implementation of a new instructional model, including extended school time, and creation of a school improvement council that makes recommendations for improving the school. Directives must include a system of support and improvement, including technical assistance, to the school board, but they do not enable the state superintendent with full operational authority. The state could enhance the state's authority to intervene by creating a model that fully authorizes the state department to operate low-performing schools. Further, the state could empower mayors to take control when their local districts fail to meet objectives.

SCORE: 2

Wisconsin law requires annual reporting of budgets and expenditures all school districts to the Department of Education. The State Superintendent has the authority to promulgate rules to implement and administer these reporting requirements. The Superintendent should use this authority to further strengthen the state’s transparency and accountability system. Schools should be required to link expenditure and student achievement data in a way that allows policymakers and the public to understand the impact of their spending decisions. Additionally, the state should develop an easy-to-understand assessment system for fiscal performance and permit the state to make governance changes when resources are mismanaged.

SCORE: 3

Wisconsin law establishes cooperative educational service agencies (ESA) that may provide among other things - educational services to students. The ESA's also serve as a link between school districts and then between school districts and the state and as such are able to enter it contractual agreements with school districts, University of Wisconsin System institutions, technical colleges district boards, private schools, tribal schools, and agencies or organizations that provide services to pupils. A school board of a common or high school district may also enter into agreements, including leases, with a school board, technical college district board, city, village, town, county or the state or any department or agency in order to purchase, operate and/or maintain land, buildings and equipment for educational purposes, including contracts for the construction or repair of school driveways, roadways and parking areas or for the operation of any school program authorized by law. To allow for further efficiencies, Wisconsin should expressly permit its public schools to create Joint Powers Authorities and to make purchases from current county or state contracts.

SCORE: 4

Wisconsin, pursuant to s. 118.43, does not restrict class size beyond the 3rd grade.

SCORE: 0

Wisconsin provides teachers with a defined benefit plan through the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS). Depending on a school board's decision at the time of authorization, charter school teachers may be considered employees of the school district. If so, then these teachers are required to participate in WRS. If not, then the charter school teachers are not eligible. To provide teachers with the most flexibility and to ensure sustainability of the system, the state should provide a defined contribution or cash balance plan to all employees of traditional public schools, and should allow charter schools to opt into the plan if desired.