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

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 best- practices, and promote innovation.

Educator Evaluation and Support System TEACHNJ Act Ownership Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report Quality Compliance Evaluation Pilots 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee AchieveNJ Advisory Committee

Performance Initiative 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 140 500 Innovation Pilot 1 20 200 Statewide Outreach 100s 1000s

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 Based on analysis of LEA data submitted in 2014 and 2015. 2015 data will be certified this spring. Includes 2015 and 2016 programs.

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.” Based on survey of 2908 teachers from 79 LEAs, Aug-Dec 2015. Taken from sources including teacher/administrator focus groups 2015, ANJAC feedback.

Challenges Appropriately, administrators are spending more time evaluating and supporting their teachers, but educators are telling us: There’s too much time spent on scheduling, logistics, and paperwork, and not enough on feedback conferences and working with novice and struggling teachers; A one-size-fits-all evaluation for Highly Effective teachers is often not efficient or effective; Deadlines for goal setting are misaligned and/or too tight; 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.

Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

Proposals to Address Challenges 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

Current State/Background Teacher Evaluation Proposal 1 Simplify requirements to allow more time to work with teachers Current State/Background Teacher Status Number/Length of Observations Non-tenured (1-2 yrs) 2 x 40 min 1 x 20 min (3-4 yrs) 1 x 40 min 2 x 20 min Tenured 3 x 20 min Corrective Action Plan Plus One Average Minutes for an Observation of a Tenured Teacher 1 Current Minimum Requirements for Observations 1. Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall 2015. raft for internal use only

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) 2 x 40 min 1 x 20 min (3-4 yrs) 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. Districts always have the option to exceed these minimum requirements, particularly in cases where their systems are working well already. Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall 2015. Confidential draft for internal use only

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.

Proposal 3 Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines Current State/Background Professional Development Plan Corrective Action Plan Student Growth Objectives June Sep 15 Oct 31 All teachers set professional development goals for coming year Teachers rated partially effective or ineffective develop specific practice improvement goals and deadlines All teachers set learning goals for their students

Proposal 3 Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines Professional Development Plan Corrective Action Plan Student Growth Objectives Proposal 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.

Proposal 4 Align administrator training and develop local policies for SGOs 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.

Proposal 5 Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation Proposed 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.

Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation Proposed Proposal 5 Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation Proposed 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.

Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

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