Transcript Educator Effectiveness Power Point_FD

ACHIEVENJ IN 2016 AND BEYOND
Peter Shulman
Deputy Commissioner
Carl Blanchard
Director, Office of Evaluation
May 4, 2016
Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps
2
Summary
• AchieveNJ, developed collaboratively, is currently in its third year.
• We now have a clearer picture of educator effectiveness and have seen
significant positive shifts in educational quality.
• We remain committed to improving the accuracy and value of the
system through listening and learning.
• We are proposing enhancements that will address some common
challenges, provide increased flexibility to engage in high impact bestpractices, and promote innovation.
3
Educator Evaluation and Support System
TEACHNJ Act
Ownership
Educator
Effectiveness
Task Force
Report
Quality
Compliance
Evaluation Pilots
10-11
11-12
12-13
Evaluation Pilot
Advisory Committee
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
AchieveNJ Advisory
Committee
4
Learning by Listening
AchieveNJ was developed and continues to be informed by
collaboration with educators.
Learning
Opportunity
Years
Districts
Educators
Pilots and EPAC
2
30
7,000
ANJAC
3
85
180
Performance
Initiative
2
140
500
Innovation Pilot
1
20
200
Statewide
Outreach
3
100s
1000s
5
Successes
AchieveNJ has enabled districts to identify the lowest and highest performing
teachers, setting the stage for next steps for these educators.
– 2/3 of teachers identified as less than effective have improved their
practice through targeted coaching.
 The remaining 1/3 no longer teach in New Jersey schools.1
– New Jersey has retained over 90% of Highly Effective teachers since
the launch of AchieveNJ.1
 $2M in stipends awarded to 250 Highly Effective educators from
28 school districts to further develop as teacher leaders through
the Achievement Coach Program.2
1. Based on analysis of LEA data submitted in 2014 and 2015. 2015 data will be certified this spring.
2. Includes 2015 and 2016 programs.
6
Successes
75% of teachers state that they are satisfied with the educator evaluation and
support system in their school districts.1
• A common vision of high expectations for all students and a shared
understanding around what good teaching is.
• Increased collaboration and focus on student growth and achievement
using better data and standards-aligned assessment.2

“I have been forced to look hard at my teaching and how my kids grow.”

“There is more collaboration between teachers.”

“Developing my SGO helped me focus my instruction on producing
student achievement.”
1. Based on survey of 2908 teachers from 79 LEAs, Aug-Dec 2015.
2. Taken from sources including teacher/administrator focus groups 2015, ANJAC feedback.
7
Challenges
Appropriately, administrators are spending more time evaluating and
supporting their teachers, but educators are telling us:
1. There’s too much time spent on scheduling, logistics, and paperwork, and
not enough on feedback conferences and working with novice and
struggling teachers;
2. A one-size-fits-all evaluation for Highly Effective teachers is often not
efficient or effective;
3. Deadlines for goal setting are misaligned and/or too tight;
4. Setting high quality Student Growth Objectives still poses a challenge; and,
5. Principal evaluation is complicated and can be too restrictive.
Challenges were identified through outreach activities over past two and half years, including observation time
survey of 341 administrators (Fall 2015) and time survey of 222 administrators in Winter 2016.
8
Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps
9
Proposals to Address Challenges
Challenge
Proposal
1. Balancing time between paperwork
and working directly with teachers
Simplify requirements to allow more
time to work with teachers
2. Prescriptive evaluation of Highly
Effective teachers
Provide extra flexibility for evaluating
Highly Effective teachers
3. Misaligned and tight deadlines
Align PDP, CAP, and SGO deadlines
4. Developing high quality SGOs
Align administrator training/develop
local policies for SGOs
5. Complicated/restrictive principal
evaluation
Simplify and increase flexibility in
principal evaluation
10
Teacher Evaluation
Proposal 1
Simplify requirements to allow more time to work with teachers
Current State/Background
Non-tenured
(1-2 yrs)
Non-tenured
(3-4 yrs)
Number/Length of
Observations
2 x 40 min
1 x 20 min
1 x 40 min
2 x 20 min
Tenured
3 x 20 min
Corrective Action Plan
Plus One
Teacher Status
Current Minimum Requirements for Observations
1. Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall 2015.
30
Classroom
Observation
33
26
Paperwork
Pre-conference
66
Post-conference
Average Minutes for an Observation of a
Tenured Teacher 1
11
Teacher Evaluation
Proposal 1
`Simplify requirements to allow more time to work with teachers
Current
Proposal1
Teacher Status
Minimum Observations
Non-tenured
(1-2 yrs)
Non-tenured
(3-4 yrs)
2 x 40 min
1 x 20 min
1 x 40 min
2 x 20 min
Tenured
3 x 20 min
Corrective Action
Plan
Plus One
Teacher Status
Minimum Observations
(at least 20 minutes each)
Non-tenured
3
Tenured
2
Corrective Action
Plan
Plus One
At least one face-to-face post-observation conference
would be required for tenured teachers. Face-to-face
conferences are already required for non-tenured
teachers.
Benefits
• Administrators will save an average of at least 35 hours 2 a year through this
differentiated approach and will have the flexibility to spend more time;
• working with novice teachers and others who need extra support;
• engaging in collaborative team work; and,
• having more targeted professional dialog.
1. Districts always have the option to exceed these minimum requirements, particularly in cases where their systems are
working well
already.
Confidential
draft
for internal use only
2. Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall 2015.
12
Proposal 2
Provide extra flexibility for evaluating Highly Effective teachers
• Successful year-long Innovation Pilot with 18 districts informs this proposal
• Highly Effective teachers may have one observation based on a portfolio of
practice chosen from a Commissioner-approved list including:
– Reflective educator practice (videos, student surveys, etc.)
– Work with student teachers
– National Board Certification process
• Optional approach must be agreed to by both teachers and administrators
Benefits
• Increased flexibility provides more room to innovate and differentiate evaluations for
teachers at varying points in their practice.
• Encourages teachers to take a more active role in their evaluations and develop their
practice to even higher levels.
Robust guidance will be published in the next few months to assist districts who choose this
option.
13
Proposal 3
Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines
Current State/Background
Professional
Development Plan
June
All teachers set
professional
development goals for
coming year
Corrective Action
Plan
Sep 15
Teachers rated partially
effective or ineffective
develop specific
practice improvement
goals and deadlines
Student Growth
Objectives
Oct 31
All teachers set
learning goals for their
students
14
Proposal 3
Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines
Proposal
Professional
Development Plan
Corrective Action
Plan
Student Growth
Objectives
Oct 31
Benefits
•
•
•
Teachers gain extra time and information to finalize high quality professional
goals for themselves.
There is increased flexibility for goal-setting conferences to occur
Professional goals and student goals would now be due on one date, simplifying
schedules.
Districts may choose to set goals before this date if that is their preference.
15
Proposal 4
Align administrator training and develop local policies for SGOs
Proposal
• All administrators receive training on all components of the evaluation
rubric prior to conducting evaluations, including on the SGO process.
• Districts develop policies and procedures describing the process of
developing and scoring SGOs.
Benefits
•
•
All educators better understand each component of the evaluation rubric prior
to the start of the evaluation cycle.
Coupled with more flexibility offered in the observation process, increased focus
on the SGO process will help increase the quality of goals set and support given
to teachers.
The Department will provide specific training materials that districts may use to fulfill
aligned training requirements.
16
Principal Evaluation
Proposal 5
Proposed
Simplify and increase flexibility
in
principal
evaluation
Option 1
Current State/Background
The weights shown in these graphics reflect 2015-16. Weights for 2016-17 will be
published before the beginning of the next school year.
17
Principal Evaluation
Proposal 5
Proposed
Simplify and increase flexibility
in
principal
evaluation
Option 1
Proposal
Benefits
•
Making the Evaluation Leadership Rubric optional provides increased flexibility
to help districts improve quality of principal evaluation.
Districts will be required to report annually whether they are choosing to use this option in
the evaluations of their principals.
18
Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps
19
Regulations and Guidance
• Today’s proposed regulatory changes will go through the regular cycle of
public feedback, with a potential effective date of Fall 2016.
• Evaluation weights for 2016-17 are not yet set and will be announced by
August 31.
• In the meantime, the Department continues to support districts through:
– Updated SGO guidance and videos
– Guidance and video on high quality post-observation conferences
– Expanded Achievement Coaches professional development sessions
– A report on 2014-15 evaluation results following district certification
of all scores
– Greater focus on principal evaluation
20