ACHIEVENJ IN 2016 AND BEYOND PROPOSAL LEVEL Peter Shulman Deputy Commissioner Kristen Brown Chief Talent Officer Carl Blanchard Director, Office of Evaluation July 13, 2016

2 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

3 Summary AchieveNJ, developed collaboratively, has finished its third year. In May, we proposed enhancements that will address some common challenges. These proposals are intended to clarify, align and simplify evaluation process while providing districts increased flexibility to engage in high impact best-practices, and promote innovation. Having completed a two-month listening tour across the state, we propose several small amendments to the proposed regulatory changes that will further enhance rules around educator effectiveness.

4 Educator Evaluation and Support System Compliance Quality Ownership TEACHNJ Act Evaluation Pilots Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee AchieveNJ Advisory Committee Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report 16-17

5 Positive Response from Stakeholders Feedback from District Leaders 1 The proposed changes seem extremely helpful and beneficial to admins, teachers, and districts. I appreciate that the department listens to practitioners in the field. I think the revisions were an answer to many cries from the practitioners. NICE WORK! Thank you for listening to educators and suggesting the changes outlined in the PowerPoint presentation. I appreciate that the DOE is streamlining the evaluation process while keeping it relevant to teachers and administrators. Thank you for moving in the right direction, allowing us to focus on meaningful PD experiences that will lead to a change in practice. I appreciate the user friendly approach to the new proposals for teacher/principal observation/evaluation. The NJDOE should be commended for listening to the field & amending the processes to support educators across the state. I'm please that the DOE has been and continues to be quite responsive to concerns about the process. I appreciate the proposed changes and would be grateful for any training/support that will improve student outcomes. I especially appreciate the modifications to the Principal Evaluation model. June 1 Public Testimony 2 T eachers, administrators and educational group representatives spoke in favor of the proposed changes. 1.Sample of survey comments following county superintendent round table presentations, May-June Source – State Board website

6 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes and Amendments Next Steps

7 Six Amendments at Proposal Level 1 st Discussion Simplify observation requirements to allow more time to work with teachers (min. of 2 observations for tenured teachers; min. of 20 minutes of observations for all teachers) Provide extra flexibility for evaluating Highly Effective teachers Align PDP, CAP, and SGO deadlines Align administrator training/develop local policies for SGOs Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation Amendments at Proposal Level 1.Clarify post-observation process 2.Clarify purpose of co-observation process 3. Clarify need for mutual agreement between teacher and supervisor 4. Clarify language and provide safeguards No changes 5. Extend DEAC requirement an additional year for research purposes 6. Ensure security of Annual Performance Reports

8 1. Clarify Post-Observation Process Teachers sometimes receive an observation prior to having a post- observation conference 1 for their last observation  This practice does not fulfill the intent of the requirement for multiple observations – to create a cycle of observation and feedback that leads to teacher improvement 1. A post-observation conference must occur within 15 working days following an observation Proposal A post-observation conference for one observation must occur prior to another observation occurring

9 2. Clarify Purpose Of Co-Observation Confusion surrounding the purpose of co-observations and their relationship to multiple observer requirement for non-tenured teachers  Co-observations required for training of observers  Multiple observer requirement cannot be satisfied by the co- observation requirement Proposal Clarify that co-observations can count for up to one observation for a teacher at the discretion of the supervisor, who also determines the final score Clarify the distinct reasons for co-observation and multiple observer requirements

10 3. Clarify Need for Mutual Agreement The Department did not state in proposed regulations that there must be agreement between teacher and supervisor to use the Highly Effective teacher evaluation option  Mutual agreement should be required Proposal Add the requirement for mutual agreement in this section

11 4. Clarify Language and Provide Safeguards PDPs Concern that Oct 31 deadline will be restrictive and cause some confusion in districts around start and stop dates and PD hours  PDPs are living documents that must take into account evaluation data and school and district goals and should be updated regularly 1 CAPs Concern that with Oct 31 deadline, support comes too late, and observations may occur prior to implementation of CAP  CAPs should provide extra support for teachers and observations and post-observation conferences should form part of this support Proposals Adjust PDP language to clarify PDPs are living documents, with no start or stop date, but must be updated annually at least once by Oct 31 Adjust CAP language so that observations may not occur between summative rating and implementation of CAP 1.Guidance will be updated to further communicate best practices regarding PDP development and the flexibility afforded districts through the proposed October 31 deadline.

12 5. Extend DEAC DEACs have proven valuable in many school districts but they are no longer required by the state after the school year  The Department wishes to conduct research on the value of DEACs to determine whether there should be a mandate to continue their use after the current sunset date Proposal Extend DEAC requirement into

13 6. Ensure Security Concern that new language, which enables digital as well as written annual performance reports, is not subject to the same confidentiality rules  All evaluation-related should be subject to confidentiality rules Proposal Specify that all information contained in annual performance reports, including, but not limited to, digital records, shall be confidential

14 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

15 Regulations and Guidance Today’s proposed regulatory changes will go through the regular cycle of public feedback, with a potential effective date of December 2016 In the meantime, the Department continues to support districts through: – Updated AchieveNJ guidance – Regional workshops in July – Expanded Achievement Coaches professional development sessions

16 APPENDIX

ACHIEVENJ IN 2016 AND BEYOND FIRST DISCUSSION Peter Shulman Deputy Commissioner Carl Blanchard Director, Office of Evaluation May 4, 2016

18 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.

19 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

20 Educator Evaluation and Support System Compliance Quality Ownership TEACHNJ Act Evaluation Pilots Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee AchieveNJ Advisory Committee Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report 16-17

21 Learning by Listening Learning Opportunity YearsDistrictsEducators Pilots and EPAC2307,000 ANJAC Performance Initiative Innovation Pilot Statewide Outreach 3100s1000s AchieveNJ was developed and continues to be informed by collaboration with educators.

22 Successes – 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 data will be certified this spring. 2.Includes 2015 and 2016 programs. AchieveNJ has enabled districts to identify the lowest and highest performing teachers, setting the stage for next steps for these educators.

23 Successes 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 Taken from sources including teacher/administrator focus groups 2015, ANJAC feedback. 75% of teachers state that they are satisfied with the educator evaluation and support system in their school districts. 1

24 Challenges 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. Appropriately, administrators are spending more time evaluating and supporting their teachers, but educators are telling us: 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.

25 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

26 Proposals to Address Challenges ChallengeProposal 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 deadlinesAlign 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

27 1. Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall raft for internal use only Teacher Evaluation Current State/Background Average Minutes for an Observation of a Tenured Teacher 1 Current Minimum Requirements for Observations Teacher Status Number/Length of Observations Non-tenured (1-2 yrs) 2 x 40 min 1 x 20 min Non-tenured (3-4 yrs) 1 x 40 min 2 x 20 min Tenured3 x 20 min Corrective Action PlanPlus One Proposal 1 Simplify requirements to allow more time to work with teachers

28 Confidential draft for internal use only Teacher Evaluation 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. 2.Based on time survey of 341 administrators in Fall Teacher Status Minimum Observations (at least 20 minutes each) Non-tenured 3 Tenured 2 Corrective Action Plan Plus One Teacher Status Minimum Observations Non-tenured (1-2 yrs) 2 x 40 min 1 x 20 min Non-tenured (3-4 yrs) 1 x 40 min 2 x 20 min Tenured3 x 20 min Corrective Action Plan Plus One Current Proposal 1 ` Proposal 1 Simplify requirements to allow more time to work with teachers 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.

29 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 Robust guidance will be published in the next few months to assist districts who choose this option. 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. Proposal 2 Provide extra flexibility for evaluating Highly Effective teachers

30 Professional Development Plan Corrective Action Plan Student Growth Objectives 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 June Oct 31 Sep 15 Current State/Background Proposal 3 Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines

31 Districts may choose to set goals before this date if that is their preference. 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. Proposal 3 Align PDP, CAP and SGO deadlines Proposal

32 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. The Department will provide specific training materials that districts may use to fulfill aligned training requirements. 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. Proposal 4 Align administrator training and develop local policies for SGOs

33 The weights shown in these graphics reflect Weights for will be published before the beginning of the next school year. Proposed Option 1 Principal Evaluation Current State/Background Proposal 5 Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation

34 Districts will be required to report annually whether they are choosing to use this option in the evaluations of their principals. Proposed Option 1 Principal Evaluation Benefits Making the Evaluation Leadership Rubric optional provides increased flexibility to help districts improve quality of principal evaluation. Proposal 5 Simplify and increase flexibility in principal evaluation Proposal

35 Agenda Background and Context Proposed Changes Next Steps

36 Regulations and Guidance Today’s proposed regulatory changes will go through the regular cycle of public feedback, with a potential effective date of Fall Evaluation weights for 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 evaluation results following district certification of all scores – Greater focus on principal evaluation