1

Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey:Overview and Update

Camden County Superintendents’ Roundtable

June 8th 2012Voorhees Township

2

Evaluation System Reform: Origin and Trends

Current evaluations are subjective and fail to impact teaching practice

NEW JERSEY

Troubling achievement gaps

50% of community college students never graduate

NATIONALLY

Abundance of research cites teacher effectiveness as the most important in-school factor for improving student achievement

The Widget Effect exposes failure of schools to distinguish among and recognize the effectiveness of their teachers:

Nearly all teachers are rated good or greatExcellence goes unrecognizedInadequate professional developmentNo special attention to novicesPoor performance goes unaddressed

The Obama administration highlights evaluation reform as a key commitment tied to federal policy and funding opportunities

At least 32 states have recently changed their evaluation systems

Summary of Lessons Learned from Cohort 1 Pilots Stakeholder engagement is critical for ensuring buy-in during initial

implementation phase

District Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (DEPAC) meetings that are open to additional staff members help build a culture of trust, transparency, and two-way communication

Selection and procurement of a teaching practice observation instrument requires buy-in from stakeholders and a process taking 4-8 weeks

Quality observer and teacher training is critical to help ensure teacher understanding, the quality of observer feedback, and the reliability and accuracy of observer judgements

Capacity challenges exist for administrators in completing the increased number of observations, so these must be prioritized

Identifying and/or developing measures of student achievement for teachers of Non-Tested Grades and Subjects presents a significant challenge

3

4

Plan for 2012-2013 School Year, Option 1

Based on lessons learned from pilot districts, EPAC, and national research and models, DOE will offer two options to districts in 2012-13:

Option 1: Participate in a new pilot of the evaluation systemFunding available for up to 20 districtsNew pilot districts to help DOE continue to refine plans for a

strong statewide systemNotice of Grant Opportunity posted March 28, 2012 with

full details and application process; applications now under review

Current pilots may participate for an extended year through separate funding process

5

Plan for 2012-2013 School Year, Option 2

Option 2: Take steps to prepare for full implementation in 2013-14

Pilot the new system in some or all schools, if desired

At a minimum, meet the following milestones in 2012-13:Form District Advisory Committee to ensure stakeholder

engagement by November 2012Adopt a research-based observation framework and rubric

with at least four differentiated levels of performance by January 2013

Test frameworks/rubrics from January-August 2013Thoroughly train teachers by June 2013Thoroughly train observers by August 2013Complete progress reports on milestones in January and July

2013

6

Initial Considerations for Districts State-wide

Budget implications

Creation of

District Advisory Commit

tee

Communication

and Outreac

h to Stakehol

ders

Selection of

Teacher Practice

Evaluation

Framework

Pilot Teacher Training Evaluator Training

Selection/Development of

Measures of Student Achievement

• Grant for selected Cohort 2 Pilot Districts• General fund unreserved surplus in the original 2012-13 budget;• Title IIA funds

– See EE4NJ FAQ website for guidance• Race to the Top funds (for those participating and designating evaluation

as an activity in their Scope of Work)• Title I

– Title I, Part A funds may be used only for schools with school-wide Title I programs• Title I, Part A funds must supplement and not supplant state/local funds; if any

components of the district’s teacher evaluation system become a state and/or local requirement, the district may no longer use Title I funds to support the system

– School Improvement Funds (for those eligible)• SIA Part A

– FY 2011 carryover funds used for this purpose must be encumbered prior to August 31, 2012

• School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds

Funding Sources for Evaluation Work

• NJDOE is developing a process to approve observation instruments; districts and stakeholders will be able to submit instruments for review – There is NO one state-mandated model

• The only difference between pilot and non-pilot district instrument selection in 2012-13 is that non-pilot districts may use a “home-grown” instrument– Creating or modifying an instrument intended to inform high-stakes

decisions requires technical expertise and significant resources to develop an evidence base

– Districts that adopt a home-grown or modified instrument must develop their evidence base over the course of the first year of implementation

– NJDOE is developing a reporting and auditing process to ensure districts’ selected instruments meet all specifications

Selecting the Teaching Practice Observation Instrument

• Instrument must have an evidence base documenting that it meets the following specifications and practices:– Produces scores or classifications of practice that shown (in practice or research

studies) to differentiate a range of teaching performance– Has objective validity evidence on construct and concurrent validity– Aligns to 2011 InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and provides rubrics for

assessing teaching practice in at least the following domains of professional practice: • learning environment• planning and preparation• instructional practice/classroom strategies and behaviors• professional responsibilities and collegiality, including collaborative practice and

ethical professional behavior– Provides scales or dimensions that capture multiple and varied aspects of

teaching performance– Includes rubrics for assessing teaching practice that have a minimum of four

levels of performance scores or classifications– Is implemented using classroom observations as a major component

Specifications for Evaluation Instrument (by 1/13 for non-pilots)

– Has resources, which may be provided by an entity other than the instrument developer, that: • Provide applied examples of teaching performance across a wide range

of skills and performance levels to be used for training teachers and observers and for observer certification or proof of mastery

• Provide at least one skills assessment sufficient to determine that an observer is scoring at acceptably high levels of accuracy and consistency as compared to expert judgment, to allow certification or proof of mastery for observers applying the instrument– Certification or proof of mastery designation would be conferred on candidates

who have successfully completed training and achieved a high level of accuracy as defined for that instrument and rubric

• Permit calibration of observers’ application of the instrument at least once per year,

• Provide ongoing support to teachers and observers, such as exemplar videos of teaching practice measured by the instrument

• Support the district in building observer capacity, such as train-the trainer modules and video banks of teaching practice exemplars

Specifications for Evaluation Instrument (cont.)

• Goal: Ensure stakeholder engagement in evaluation reform• Requirements:

– Convene committee no later than November 2012• NJDOE strongly advises committee be formed ASAP, as it will oversee

and guide planning and implementation of the district’s evaluation policies and procedures

– Ensure committee is composed of:• Teachers from each school level in the district• Central office administrators overseeing evaluation process• Administrators conducting evaluations• Superintendent• Special education administrator• Parent• Member of the district board of education• Additional members at the discretion of the superintendent

Non-Pilot Participants: Forming an Advisory Committee

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

Cohort 1 (2011-12)Funding: $1.2M

Participants: 11 districts and 19 SIG schools

Observations:• Informal observations required• No unannounced observations required• Set duration and number• No differentiation between minimum number for teachers of core and non-core subjects• No requirements related to inter-rater agreement, use of external observers, double-scoring

Cohort 2 (2012-13)Funding: $2.2M

Participants: Approximately 20 new districts and Cohort 1 districts that opt to continue

Observations: • Some unannounced observations required• More flexibility on duration and number • Minimum number differs for teachers of core and non-core subjects• New processes required to ensure inter-rater agreement and accuracy, including use of external observers and double-scoring of some sessions

• External researcher engaged• Stakeholder advisory committees required at state and district level• Communication plan and collaboration with NJDOE

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2• Aligned professional development plan• Comprehensive training for evaluators and teachers• Commitment to develop and test measures of student performance

Observation Requirement Changes: 2011-12 to 2012-13

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Observation Requirements

FORMAL OBSERVATIONS* Non-Tenured Teachers Tenured Teachers CORE

CONTENT AREA***

TEACHERS

NON-CORE CONTENT

AREA TEACHERS***

CORE CONTENT

AREA TEACHERS

Subject Teachers

NON-CORE CONTENT AREA

TEACHERS

Minimum number of formal observations with post-conference input and feedback (Post conference must occur within 10 days of formal observation)**

5 3 4 2

Minimum number of formal observations requiring a pre-conference

1 1 1 1

Minimum number of unannounced formal observations

2 1 2 1

Minimum number of formal observations conducted by an external evaluator

2 1 2 1

Minimum number of formal observations that must be a minimum of 30 minutes

2 1 2 1

Minimum number of double scored observations** 1 0 1 0 TOTAL MINIMUM NUMBER OF MINUTES FOR OBSERVATIONS

105 60 90 45

2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Components

Min % Max %New Jersey State Assessments (currently NJASK) 35 45School-wide Performance Measure 5 10Other Performance Measures 0 10

Allowable Student Achievement Percentages

Min % Max %Classroom Observation 40 45Other Measures of Practice 5 10

Allowable Teacher Practice Percentages

Min % Max %Student Assessments or Performance-based Measures 10 45School-wide Performance Measure 5 10

Other Performance Measures

Allowable Student Achievement Percentages 15 50Min % Max %

Classroom Observation 45 80Other Measures of Practice 5 10 Allowable Teacher Practice Percentages 50 85

Required Total: Teacher Practice and Student Achievement Percentages

Teacher Practice*

For these teachers, this is now included within Student

Assessment portion above.

2012/13 Pilot ExpansionEE4NJ Cohort 2

Student Achievement Subtotal must equal 50%

FRAMEWORK - Building Block Requirements

Teacher Practice Subtotal Must equal 50%

100 NOTE: All percentages are to be

expressed in whole numbers, with a minimum of 5 percentage

points.

Teac

hers

in N

on-t

este

d Gr

ades

/Sub

ject

s

Student Achievement*

Teacher Practice

Teac

hers

in N

JASK

gra

des (

4th

- 8th

, LA

& M

ath)

Student Achievement

• Annual teacher evaluations based on standards of effective teaching practices; every teacher, regardless of experience, deserves meaningful feedback on teaching performance on an annual basis

• Multiple measures of teaching performance and student performance, with student academic progress or growth as a key measure

• A summative rating that combines the scores of all the measures of teaching practice and student achievement

• Four summative rating categories (highly effective, effective, partially effective, ineffective) that clearly differentiate levels of performance

• A link from the evaluation to professional development that meets the needs of educators at all levels of practice

2012-13 Pilot Requirements for Evaluation System

17

EE4NJ Website and Contact Information

Website: http://www.state.nj.us/education/EE4NJ/

Contact information:– For general questions, please email

ee4nj@doe.state.nj.us– Phone: 609-341-3306