Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ): November Update by E0sMP6M


									Educator Evaluation
   in New Jersey

 School Year 2012-13
The Case for Reforming Teacher Evaluation Systems: Impact

       Nothing schools can do for their students matters
          more than giving them effective educators

• Principal and teacher quality account for nearly 60% of a school’s total
  impact on student achievement1

• The effect of increases in teacher quality swamps the impact of any other
  educational investment, such as reductions in class size2

• Replacing one poor teacher with an average one increases a classroom’s
  lifetime earnings by ~$266,0003

                                  Top educators have a lasting impact
                          on their students’ success – in academics   and in life
1. Marzano et al., 2005
2. Goldhaber, 2009                                                                  2
3. Chetty et al., 2011
The Case for Reforming Teacher Evaluation Systems: Proximity





      Everyone in this circle is essential, but students are at the core –
                    and teachers are closest to students
Evolution of Evaluation Reform in New Jersey
                                                           Teacher evaluation pilot opportunity
  NJ Educator Effectiveness Task Force work

                                                       Capacity-building requirements announced for
      Teacher evaluation pilot in progress
                                                              all districts to follow in 2012-13

Cohort 2 teacher evaluation/new principal evaluation
    pilots in progress; districts building capacity
                                                              New tenure legislation in effect

                    Statewide Implementation of New Evaluation System
Teacher Evaluation System Goals
  Improve the effectiveness of all New Jersey educators by emphasizing:
  • A universal vision of highly effective teaching based on a
    common language and clear expectations
  • Teacher practice measures that yield accurate and
    differentiated levels of performance
  • Timely, actionable and data-driven feedback for teachers
  • Aligned and targeted professional development
    opportunities that support teacher growth
  • Use of multiple measures to inform personnel decisions

                   The ultimate goal is to increase achievement
           for all students by ensuring that every New Jersey student
                      has access to a highly effective teacher

Key Elements of an Effective Teacher Evaluation System

                                                                  Alignment to
                                           Four Summative
 Annual Evaluations   Multiple Measures                           Professional
                                           Rating Categories
 • Standards of       • Teaching and      • Clearly            • Meaningful
   effective            student             differentiated       opportunities
   teaching             performance         levels of            for educators
   practices as         measures            performance:         at all levels to
   basis              • Emphasis on       • Highly               improve
 • Meaningful           student             Effective,
   feedback for         academic            Effective,
   every teacher,       progress            Partially
   every year                               Effective,

 Cohort 1 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Districts
                                    • Cramer College Preparatory Lab School (Camden)
• Alexandria Township (Hunterdon)   • U.S. Wiggins College Preparatory Lab School
• Bergenfield (Bergen)               (Camden)
• Elizabeth (Union)                 • Camden High School (Camden)
                                    • Essex Vocational West Caldwell (Essex)
• Monroe Township (Middlesex)
                                    • Cicely Tyson High School (East Orange)
• Newark (Essex)                    • Lincoln High School (Jersey City)
• Haddonfield Borough (Camden)      • Fred Martin School of Performing Arts (Jersey City)
• Ocean City (Cape May)             • Snyder High School (Jersey City)
                                    • Lakewood High School (Lakewood)
• Pemberton Township (Burlington)   • Newark Central High School (Newark)
• Red Bank Borough (Monmouth)       • Dayton Street School (Newark)
• Secaucus(Hudson)                  • Newark Vocational High School (Newark)
                                    • Malcolm X. Shabazz High School (Newark)
• West Deptford Township
                                    • Brick Avon Academy (Newark)
 (Gloucester)                       • Barringer High School (Newark)
• Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional     • West Side High School (Newark)
 (Salem)                            • Dr. Frank Napier School of Technology (Paterson)
                                    • School Number 10 (Paterson)
                                    • Abraham Clark High School (Roselle)

Summary of Lessons Learned from Cohort 1 Pilots
                                 engagement is critical;
                                 open district advisory
                                  committee meetings
                                 facilitate transparency
                                         and trust

      Developing measures                                        comprehensive, and
      for non-tested grades                                        quality training of
          and subjects is                                           educators and
           challenging                                            evaluators must be

                                                    Selection of a teaching
                                                      practice instrument
                 Administrators face
                                                    takes time and should
                 capacity challenges
                                                      include stakeholder
Impact of Cohort 1 Pilot: West Deptford
  “The feedback I received after each of the observations allowed me
     to reflect upon and investigate ways to improve my skills as a
    teacher…Having the same observer was also helpful because she
   helped me make interdisciplinary connections and facilitated goal-
                           setting strategies.”

     Andrea Kappre, High School Math Teacher

            “The conversations between teachers and administrators have been
            nothing short of inspiring. The new evaluation framework aligned all
            of our district initiatives and centered our focus on student learning
            objectives, smart goals, and supporting one another through peer
            professional support. While the shift to the new system has required
            hard work and there have been challenges, the end results have
            made it all worthwhile.”

                    Kristin O’Neil, Director of Curriculum
Capacity-building Requirements: Non-Pilot Districts
 According to new tenure legislation and proposed regulations,
  all New Jersey districts must meet the following milestones:
 1. Form a District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) to ensure
    stakeholder engagement by October 31, 2012
 2. Adopt educator evaluation rubrics that include state-approved
    teacher and principal practice evaluation instruments by
    December 31, 2012
 3. Begin to test and refine evaluation rubrics by January 31, 2013
 4. Form School Improvement Panel to oversee evaluation activities
    by February 1, 2013
 5. Thoroughly train teachers by July 1, 2013
 6. Thoroughly train evaluators by August 31, 2013
 • All districts must complete progress reports on these milestones by February 28, 2013
   and August 31, 2013                                                                     10
   Cohort 2 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Participants

                                   • All districts that received state funding in the 2011-12
                  10 Districts
                                     pilot (“Cohort 1”) have chosen to continue their
                from Cohort 1        evaluation pilot during the 2012-13 school year

                 10 Districts
                receiving first-    • Among 49 applications, the top 10 districts were
                 round grant          selected to receive grant awards totaling $1 million
Cohort 2
                  2 Districts
                                    • NJDOE sought to engage more districts through a
                                      second competitive grant opportunity; 2 awards were
                second-round          made
                grant awards

                  Additional        • After allocation of all grant funds, un-funded districts with
                  qualifying          qualifying scores may voluntarily choose to participate in
                   districts          the pilot

       During the 2012-13 school year approximately 25 – 30 districts will be piloting
                                 new evaluation systems                                         11
2012-13 Funded Teacher Evaluation Pilot Districts
   NEWLY SELECTED COHORT 2                                         CONTINUING COHORT 1
• Bordentown Regional (Burlington)
• Consortium of Collingswood                              • Alexandria Township (Hunterdon)
  Borough, Audubon, and                                   • Bergenfield (Bergen)
  Merchantville (Camden)                                  • Elizabeth (Union)
• Cranford Township (Union)                               • Monroe Township (Middlesex)
•*Freehold Borough (Monmouth)                             • Ocean City (Cape May)
• *Gloucester City (Camden)                               • Pemberton Township (Burlington)
• Haddonfield Borough (Camden)                            • Red Bank Borough (Monmouth)
• Consortium of Lenape Valley                             • Secaucus (Hudson)
  Regional and Stanhope (Sussex)                          • West Deptford Township
• Middlesex County Vocational                              (Gloucester)
  (Middlesex)                                             • Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional
• Piscataway Township (Middlesex)                          (Salem)
• Rockaway Township (Morris)
• Teaneck (Bergen)
• Woodbury City (Gloucester)
      * These districts are pre-awardees pending final review procedures
      • Districts in red are also participating in the 2012-13 principal evaluation pilot     12
2012-13 (Cohort 2) Teacher Evaluation Pilot Goals

                            Build on
                          Cohort 1 pilot

                        Refine system      learning from
                        for statewide       research and
          in system
                       implementation           state

                           work with

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Changes from First Cohort

          Based on learning from 2011-12 pilots and national best
                   practices, the 2012-13 pilot includes:

   Flexibility in           Fewer required
minimum duration           observations for               Use of double-
  for classroom            teachers of non-                  scoring
  observations               core subjects

                                                           Flexibility in
  Unannounced               Use of external            weighting for tested
  observations                evaluators                 and non-tested
                                                       grades and subjects

Pilot Requirements: District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC)

  Districts must convene DEACs by October 31, comprised of the following:
      •   Teachers from each school level represented in the district
      •   School administrators conducting evaluations (this must include one
          administrator who participates on the School Improvement Panel and
          one special education administrator)
      •   Central office administrators overseeing the teacher evaluation process
      •   Supervisor
      •   Superintendent
      •   Parent
      •   Member of the district board of education

  The mission of the DEAC is to:

      •   Solicit input from stakeholders
      •   Share information
      •   Guide and inform evaluation activities
      •   Generate buy-in
Pilot Requirements: School Improvement Panel

      Charge                   Composition                         Duties

                                  School principal or          Oversee mentoring,
     Establish in each
                                       designee,               Conduct evaluations,
     school in district
                                Assistant/vice principal,      Identify professional
    by February 1, 2013
                                        Teacher             development opportunities

                                                                 Conduct mid-year
                                Note: teacher will not
                                                             evaluation of any teacher
                               participate in evaluation
 Ensure effectiveness of the                                rated ineffective or partially
                                activities except with
     school’s teachers                                        effective in most recent
                                 approval of majority
                                                                 annual summative

Comparison of 2011-12 and 2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilots

 Cohort 1 (2011-12)                              Cohort 2 (2012-13)
 Funding: $1.2M                                  Funding: $2.2M
 Participants: 11 districts, 19 SIG schools      Participants: 20 new districts plus Cohort 1
 Observations:                               Observations:
 • Informal observations required            • Some unannounced observations required
 • No unannounced observations required      • More flexibility on duration and number
 • Set duration and number                   • Minimum number differs for core and non-
 • No differentiation between minimum        core
 number for core and non-core                • New processes required to ensure inter-
 • No requirements related to inter-rater    rater agreement and accuracy
 agreement, use of external observers,            • Use of external observers
 double-scoring                                   • Double-scoring of some sessions
                               Cohort 1 and Cohort 2
 • External researcher engaged                  • Aligned professional development plan
 • State and district stakeholder               • Comprehensive training for evaluators
   advisory committees                        D and teachers
 • Communication plan and                     d • Commitment to develop and test
   collaboration with NJDOE                   D measures of student performance
2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Participation Benefits

             Financial and resource support
             • Grant funding
             • Implementation and communications guidance

             Opportunity to involve educators
             • Teachers and administrators can help shape system
             • District-level feedback cycles built in

             Ability to determine how to use results
             • Decisions about consequences left to local officials
             • Opportunity to pilot prior to statewide requirements

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Funding

 $2.2 million for new pilot districts
  • Amount split between Title I and non-
    Title I districts
 $200,000 for Cohort 1 districts
  • Supplemental funds split among districts

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot General Requirements

  Collaborate               Implement                Communicate

                               Secure evaluation
     Convene district                                        Execute
                             instrument, conduct
  advisory committee to                               communications plan
     actively engage                                  to involve and inform
                                training, link to
      educators and                                    stakeholders and the
       community                                              public

                                                        Maintain ongoing
    Work with NJDOE,         Develop measures for
                                                      feedback cycles with
   other pilot districts,   teachers of non-tested
                                                        educators, pilot
   external researcher        grades and subjects
                                                      districts, and NJDOE

  2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Weights
Tested Grades and Subjects – equal weighting
                                                              Student Achievement (SA) includes
  Teaching Practice (TP) includes                             the following components,
  the following components,                                   totaling 50% of the pie:
  totaling 50% of the pie:                                     • Growth on NJ Assessments as
   • Teaching Practice Evaluation                                measured by SGP (35% - 45%)
     Framework (40% - 45%)
                                                               • School-Wide Performance Measure
   • Other Measures of Teaching                                  (5%-10%)
     Practice (5% - 10%)
                                                               • Other Performance Measures
                                                                 optional (0% - 10%)

Non-Tested Grades and Subjects – variable weighting (districts have discretion)
 Teaching Practice (TP) includes                                 Student Achievement (SA)
 the following components,                                       includes the following
 totaling 50-85% of the pie:                                     components,
  • Teaching Practice Evaluation                                 totaling 15-50% of the pie:
    Framework (45% - 80%)                                         • Student Achievement Goals
                                                                    (10% - 45%)
  • Other Measures of Teaching
    Practice (5% - 10%)                                           • School-Wide Performance
                                                                    Measure (5%-10%)

                            Districts determine how much of remaining
                            35% of pie is allocated to TP and/or SA                             21
  2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Observations: Overview

                                           Components             Post-Conference
· Establish purpose/focus for observation            · Share analysis of/feedback with teacher
· Discuss lesson, orientation of students            · Discuss specific strengths, areas of
· Determine data to be collected                       improvement
· Schedule observation and post conference           · Develop plan to improve instruction, including
                                                       professional development

                             · At least 15 minutes
                             · Counts toward summative evaluation

              Double-Scored                     Types                   External
· More than one evaluator independently              · Performed by thoroughly trained educators
 scoring same lesson on same rubric                   not serving in direct supervisory capacity in
· Can occur in classroom or via video capture         teacher’s school
· Required to promote/analyze inter-rater            · Required to reduce bias (positive or negative)
   agreement                                           and increase reliability/quality of feedback

                  Note: Informal observations less than 15 minutes (walkthroughs)
                             are encouraged but not required by NJDOE
2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Observation Requirements

          Minimum Formal Observation Requirements Set by NJDOE:

                           Non-Tenured   Non-Tenured   Tenured    Tenured
                              Core        Non-Core       Core     Non-Core

  Total                        5             3           4           2
  At Least 30 Minutes          2             1           2           1
  With Pre-Conference          1             1           1           1
  Unannounced                  2             1           2           1
  External Evaluator           2             1           2           1
  Double-Scored                1             0           1           0

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot District Commitment

                                Ensure full support of
        Provide resources for
                                    teachers and
         full implementation

           Support a stable     Employ a web-based
       learning environment        performance
         focused on student      management data
            achievement               system

                     Engage the District
                    Evaluation Advisory

2012-13 Principal Evaluation Pilot Districts
 •    Consortium of Alexandria Township and
      North Hunterdon-Voorhees RHS
 •    Bergenfield (Bergen)
 •    Edison Township (Middlesex)
 •    Elizabeth (Union)
 •    Lawrence Township (Mercer)
 •    Monmouth County Vocational
 •    Morris (Morris)
 •    Newark (Essex)
 •    North Brunswick Township (Middlesex)
 •    Paterson (Passaic)
 •    Pemberton Township (Burlington)
 •    Rockaway Township (Morris)
 •    Spotswood (Middlesex)
 •    Stafford Township (Ocean)

• Districts in red are also participating in the 2012-13 teacher
                          evaluation pilot
Principal and Teacher Effectiveness Parallel Structure

2012-13 Evaluation Pilot Feedback Loops

         Sources of Feedback                         Outcomes
• State Evaluation Pilot Advisory                Assess impact of
  Committee (EPAC) provides                       new observation
  recommendations on pilot and                    and evaluation
  statewide implementation                        protocols
• Each pilot district convenes District          Convey best
  Evaluation Advisory Committee                   practices and
  (DEAC)                                          lessons learned for
   – DEACs meet monthly to discuss pilot          rest of the State
     challenges, provide feedback
   – Districts convene one DEAC to cover both    Inform proposed
     teacher and principal evaluation work        regulations for
• External evaluator (Rutgers for 2011-           2013-14 and
  12) studies pilot activity and provides         subsequent school
  reports                                         years

Website and Contact Information


Contact information:
  – For general questions, please email
  – Phone: 609-777-3788


To top