Governor Christie’s Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report March 1, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
School Based Assessment and Reporting Unit Curriculum Directorate
Advertisements

North Carolina Educator Evaluation System. Future-Ready Students For the 21st Century The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education.
Freehold Borough Teacher Evaluation System Freehold Intermediate School Friday – February 15, 2013 Rich Pepe Director of Curriculum & Instruction.
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Title I Schoolwide Providing the Tools for Change Presented by Education Service Center Region XI February 2008.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
NJDOE TALENT DIVISION OVERVIEW prepared for: NJPSA ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE CONFRENCE AND MEMBERSHIP MEETING March 30,
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER RENEWAL Overview of Proposed Renewal March 6, 2015 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
POSTER TEMPLATE BY: Increasing Student Growth and Achievement A Systems Approach: Improving Our Teacher Evaluation System Dawn.
Student Learning Targets (SLT) You Can Do This! Getting Ready for the School Year.
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO EDUCATORS’ EVALUATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH Compiled by the MOU Evaluation Subcommittee September, 2011 The DESE oversees the educators’
Evaluating principal effectiveness Focal Point 2012.
1 GENERAL OVERVIEW. “…if this work is approached systematically and strategically, it has the potential to dramatically change how teachers think about.
Educator Effectiveness in Colorado State Policy Framework & Approach October 2014.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
Meeting of the Staff and Curriculum Development Network December 2, 2010 Implementing Race to the Top Delivering the Regents Reform Agenda with Measured.
Administrative Evaluation Committee – Orientation Meeting Dr. Christine Carver, Associate Superintendent of Human Capital Development Mr. Stephen Foresi,
June 19 th – PLC Day June 19 th – PLC Day Year In Review – Year In Preview District Road Map District Road Map TPEP Early Release Collaboration Early Release.
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
Hanmer School – Margaret Zacchei Highcrest School – Maresa Harvey Webb School – Michael Verderame Emerson-Williams School – Neela Thakur Charles Wright.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
PRESENTED BY THERESA RICHARDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AUGUST 2012 Overview of the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and.
CONNECT WITH CAEP | Transitioning from NCATE and TEAC to CAEP: How? Patty Garvin, Senior Director,
STATE CONSORTIUM ON EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS September 10, 2013.
Georgia Association of School Personnel Administrators May 30,
Evaluation Team Progress Collaboration Grant 252.
Leadership Team Meeting March 24,  Project Based Approach  Cross Functional Project Teams  Projects Support Multiple Operational Expectations.
The Instructional Decision-Making Process 1 hour presentation.
DRAFT 4.0 PRESENTED TO THE OREGON STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 17, 2012 Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems.
WW Why Evaluation?. Evaluation formalizes the shared responsibility of state and LEAs to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap in.
HEE Hui For Excellence in Education June 6, 2012
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Cathy Pine, Ph.D., Director Office of Professional Development New Jersey Dept. of Education December 6, 2011.
PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEMS How We Help Our Staff Become More Effective Margie Simineo – June, 2010.
1. Housekeeping Items June 8 th and 9 th put on calendar for 2 nd round of Iowa Core ***Shenandoah participants*** Module 6 training on March 24 th will.
RHODE ISLAND’S RACE TO THE TOP PRESENTATION TO THE RACE TO THE TOP REVIEW PANEL MARCH 17, 2010 Honorable Donald L. Carcieri, Governor Deborah A. Gist,
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
April 29, 2011 Developing Effective Leaders: Principal Evaluation Systems CCSSO – National Summit on Educator Effectiveness.
Reform Model for Change Board of Education presentation by Superintendent: Dr. Kimberly Tooley.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System. Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System (Background) Senate Bill 1: Standards for teachers, principals and professional.
Building World-Class Schools for Iowa Iowa Department of Education.
Connecticut PEAC meeting Today’s meeting Discussion of draft principal evaluation guidelines (1 hour) Evaluation and support system document.
PGES: The Final 10% i21: Navigating the 21 st Century Highway to Top Ten.
March 23, NYSCSS Annual Conference Crossroads of Change: The Common Core in Social Studies.
Ohio Department of Education March 2011 Ohio Educator Evaluation Systems.
ESEA, TAP, and Charter handouts-- 3 per page with notes and cover of one page.
Learning More About Oregon’s ESEA Waiver Plan January 23, 2013.
ANNOOR ISLAMIC SCHOOL AdvancEd Survey PURPOSE AND DIRECTION.
Educator Evaluation and Support System Basics. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Alignment of State and Federal.
Staff All Surveys Questions 1-27 n=45 surveys Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree The relative sizes of the colored bars in the chart.
APRIL 2, 2012 EDUCATOR PREPARATION POLICY & PRACTICE UPDATE.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
Teacher Incentive Fund U.S. Department of Education.
Helping Teachers Help All Students: The Imperative for High-Quality Professional Development Report of the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Advisory.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
Educator Effectiveness Process Introduction to the Grant and Guide to the Unit Meeting.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation and Observation Minnesota Teacher Evaluation Requirements Develop, improve and support qualified teachers and effective.
School Improvement Needs Assessment – © Iowa Association of School Boards Assessment Conducted by the Iowa Association of School Boards.
Education.state.mn.us Principal Evaluation Components in Legislation Work Plan for Meeting Rose Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: June 2012.
World’s Best Workforce (WBWF)
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Five Required Elements
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Implementing Race to the Top
Administrator Evaluation Orientation
Presentation transcript:

Governor Christie’s Educator Effectiveness Task Force Report March 1, 2011

1 Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school factor for improving student achievement. “ Having a top-quartile teacher rather than a bottom-quartile teacher four years in a row could be enough to close the black-white test score gap.” Gordon, Kane and Staiger, 2006  “ The effect of increases in teacher quality swamps the impact of any other educational investment, such as reductions in class size.” Goldhaber, 2009 Research

2  Achievement gap and global rankings  “The Widget Effect” and other research  From teaching to learning environment  “Race to the Top” and focus on educator effectiveness  Governor’s Executive Order No. 42 Contextual Background

3  9 members  Design a framework to measure teacher and leader effectiveness, based on two parameters: – multiple measures of student achievement that represent at least 50% of the teacher/school leader evaluation – practices of effective teachers and school leaders that comprise the remaining basis for such evaluations Executive Order No. 42

4  High-quality evaluation systems will enable districts and the state to: improve personnel decisions  awarding of tenure  setting of compensation levels identify and address professional development needs  and therefore drive significant improvements in student learning. Governor Christie’s Education Reform Plan

5

6  The framework must include: – Definition of an effective teacher/leader (clear standards that describe the characteristics of effective and ineffective teaching) – What measures should be used to evaluate effectiveness – What components and tools are needed to conduct the evaluations (e.g., rubrics, student surveys, documentation logs, etc.) – What activities are needed to support the implementation of the evaluation system (e.g., training, professional development, development of multiple assessments, student growth data) Task Force Goals

7  #1: The needs of students are paramount  public education is society’s means of ensuring that all children have the chance to reach their full potential and lead healthy, productive, and satisfying lives  when the interests of adults and children don’t align it is our duty to side with the latter Task Force Guiding Principles

8  #2: All children can achieve at the highest levels  a child’s neighborhood, race, and family income do not have to determine destiny  the purpose of public education is to lead all students to high levels of achievement no matter where they begin Task Force Guiding Principles

9  #3: Educators have the power to inspire, engage, and broaden the life opportunities of students  they must be equipped with the right skills, knowledge, and dispositions and given the proper supports  They must be held accountable for their students’ learning Task Force Guiding Principles

10  A high-quality evaluation system assesses the effectiveness of educators and differentiates between those excelling and those struggling.  A strong evaluation system helps educators become more effective:  Clear expectations  Meaningful feedback  Facilitate collaboration  Linked to professional development Purpose of an Educator Evaluation System

11 Multiple measures, rigorous, standardized, flexible  The NJ Commissioner should develop a list of approved observation protocols and measurement tools.  Districts may submit for approval measurement tools that have not yet been accepted by the state. Requirements:  standards-based  rigorous  valid and reliable Task Force Recommendations: Essential Features

12 Summative Rating Categories  Four summative categories:  Highly Effective  Effective  Partially Effective  Ineffective Task Force Recommendations: Essential Features

13 Recommended Framework for the New Teacher Evaluation System Task Force Recommendations

14 Measures of Teacher Practice: 50%  Use the new national core standards (INTASC) as the basis for teacher evaluations.  Use state-approved measurement tools to collect and review evidence:  One classroom observation protocol: 25%-48%  At least one additional tool to assess teacher practice: 2.5%-25% Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Teachers

15 Measures of Student Achievement: 50% Direct measures of student achievement as demonstrated by assessments and other evaluations of student work.  Use measures of student growth--they account for a teacher’s contribution to his/her students’ progress  give credit for progress made during the school year  Include pre- and post-tests  NJ capacity to provide growth scores:  generate growth scores in fall 2011  tie growth scores to teachers by fall 2012  only LA and math statewide assessments in grades 3-8, 11  Task Force recommends the state approve assessments or performance tasks that generate growth scores in all subjects and grades. Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Teachers

16 Measures of Student Achievement: 50%  Two required components:  students’ growth on state-approved assessments or performance-based evaluations: 35% - 45%  state-approved schoolwide performance measure: 5% - aggregation of all students’ growth - a school- specific goal based on an area of need (e.g., graduation rates, promotion rates, college matriculation rates)  One optional measure of performance: 0%-10% - nationally normed tests, supplemental assessments, end of course tests Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Teachers

17 Measures of Student Achievement: 50% Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Teachers

18  Measures of effective practice based on ISLLC: 40%  Differential retention of effective teachers (hiring and retaining effective teachers and exiting poor performers): 10%  Measures of student achievement: 50% Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

19 Measures of Leadership Practice: 40%  Standards: Adopt the updated Educational Leadership Policy Standards (ISLLC 2008) as the basis for principal evaluations.  Performance indicators: Commissioner should develop or adopt statewide performance indicators to establish clear and consistent expectations for all principals. (Performance indicators describe the types of performance that will occur if a standard is being met successfully.)  Evidence of Performance: include multiple data sources for gathering evidence of performance.  Evaluation Tools Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

20 Measures of Leadership Practice: 40%  Districts should be able to choose the data sources and tools they wish to use from a list of state-approved rubrics, templates, and tools.  Develop a waiver process for districts to submit locally developed tools for approval. Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

21 Differential Retention of Effective Teachers: 10%  The principal’s success in building and maintaining a high-quality faculty is critical to school success.  Indices used to measure differential retention:  Principal’s effectiveness in improving teacher effectiveness (growth of teachers’ ratings)  Principal’s effectiveness in recruiting and retaining effective teachers  Principal’s effectiveness in exiting ineffective teachers  Note: principals can only be judged against this measure if they are given a clear role in teacher hiring, organizing professional development, dismissing ineffective teachers. Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

22 Measures of Student Achievement: 50%  A principal’s evaluation should be based substantially on empirical measures of student learning.  Two different measures of achievement that should be included in the principal’s evaluation:  aggregated student growth: 35%  “school-specific goals:” 15%  An area of need identified by the school or district Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

23 Measures of Student Achievement: 50%  Examples of “School-specific goals:”  High school graduation rate increase  Promotion rates from 9th to 10 grade  College matriculation rate increase  Proficiency level increases for an underserved subgroup  Advanced level increases for the school or subgroups  Student attainment level or proficiency increase on nationally normed or supplemental assessments [e.g., Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Stanford 9, International Baccalaureate, APA, SAT, ACT, early childhood] Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

24 Measures of Student Achievement Task Force Recommendations: Evaluation of Principals

25  The conditions for success will lay the foundation and build the support structure for this new system.  Engaging teachers and principals  Training observers and educators  Supporting educators in their mastery of their craft  Developing high-quality data systems  Developing high-quality assessments  Reconsidering Priorities  Developing additional observers  Continuous improvement  Increased principal autonomy  Teachers of special populations  Superintendent evaluation  Evaluations for all  Continuously monitoring the system’s effects Task Force Recommendations: Conditions for Success

26  Next Steps  1. Solicit feedback from the State Board of Education and other education experts and stakeholders  2. Further study of appropriate performance measures for teachers of special populations and non-tested subjects and grades  3. Develop recommendations for implementing the new evaluation system, including the possible use of pilots Task Force Recommendations: Next Steps

27  Questions and comments??? Task Force Recommendations