1 / 14

Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey

Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey. November 16, 2012. The Case for Reforming Teacher Evaluation Systems: Impact. Nothing schools can do for their students matters more than giving them effective educators

alyn
Download Presentation

Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey November 16, 2012

  2. 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 • Marzano et al., 2005 • Goldhaber, 2009 • Chetty et al., 2011

  3. Evolution of Evaluation Reform in New Jersey

  4. 2012-13 Teacher Evaluation Pilot Weights Tested Grades and Subjects – equal weighting • Student Achievement (SA) includes the following components, • totaling 50% of the pie: • Growth on NJ Assessments as measured by SGP (35% - 45%) • School-Wide Performance Measure (5%-10%) • Other Performance Measures optional (0% - 10%) • Teaching Practice (TP) includes the following components, totaling 50% of the pie: • Teaching Practice Evaluation Framework (40% - 45%) • Other Measures of Teaching Practice (5% - 10%) Non-Tested Grades and Subjects – variable weighting (districts have discretion) • Student Achievement (SA) includes the following components, • totaling 15-50% of the pie: • Student Achievement Goals (10% - 45%) • School-Wide Performance Measure (5%-10%) • Teaching Practice (TP) includes the following components, • totaling 50-85% of the pie: • Teaching Practice Evaluation Framework (45% - 80%) • Other Measures of Teaching Practice (5% - 10%) Districts determine how much of remaining 35% of pie is allocated to TP and/or SA

  5. 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:

  6. Importance of Training “Training of evaluators is key! Training was ongoing and included an eclectic approach: whole group that included teacher leaders, coaching by Superintendent, and instrument provider. Ongoing debriefing and double-scoring for training purposes were key strategies to support the learning of all administrators. The alignment between curriculum, lesson planning, assessment was essential in guiding our work.” Cohort 1 Survey Response Many districts are also using turnkey training to save time and money, and to engage educators in the process

  7. 2012-13 Evaluation Pilot Feedback Loops • Outcomes • Assess impact of new observation and evaluation protocols • Convey best practices and lessons learned for rest of the State • Inform proposed regulations for 2013-14 and subsequent school years Sources of Feedback • State Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee (EPAC) provides recommendations on pilot and statewide implementation • Each pilot district convenes District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) • DEACs meet monthly to discuss pilot challenges, provide feedback • Districts convene one DEAC to cover both teacher and principal evaluation work • External evaluator (Rutgers for 2011-12) studies pilot activity and provides reports

  8. DEAC Impact: Cohort 1 Pilot Survey “Having a balanced representation of parents, teachers, administrators, and community members has allowed us to address the needs and ideas from every stakeholder in the district. Parents were able to cite students' positive reaction to the evaluators in the classroom. Parents were happy to know that we were using student achievement a part of the teacher evaluation system. The DEAC process enabled stakeholders to share information.” Cohort 1 Survey Response

  9. DEACs: Required for ALL New Jersey Districts 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 • Solicit input from stakeholders • Share information • Guide and inform evaluation activities • Generate buy-in The mission of the DEAC is to:

  10. School Improvement Panel: Required for all Districts

  11. Summary of Lessons Learned from Cohort 1 Pilots

  12. Lessons Learned from Cohort 1: End of Year Reports

  13. Future Pathways for Evaluation

  14. Website and Contact Information Website: http://www.state.nj.us/education/evaluation Contact information: • For general questions, please email educatorevaluation@doe.state.nj.us • Phone: 609-777-3788

More Related