[PPT] - Ed Educ ucat ator or Ef Effect ectiv iveness eness Updated PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Ac Achie ieveNJ eNJ: : Inc ncre reasing asing St Student ent Ac Achie ieveme ement nt through ugh Ed Educ ucat ator

r Ef

Effect ectiv iveness eness

Updated August 2015

SLIDE 2 2

Age genda nda

Setting the Context AchieveNJ Evaluation System Teach: h: Overview of Teacher Evaluation Lead: : Overview of Principal Evaluation Grow: w: Looking Ahead

2

SLIDE 3 3

What at is is Achie ieveNJ eNJ?

Teach: Help educators better understand their impact

and ultimately improve student outcomes.

Lead: Align leadership responsibilities with practices

that we know have the greatest influence on learning.

Grow: Foster an environment of continual growth for

all students and educators in New Jersey.

AchieveNJ is a comprehensive educator evaluation and support system.

Set etti ting the Context xt

SLIDE 4 4

Our r Go Goal al: : Im Improved ed St Student dent Achie ieveme ement nt

4 Set etti ting the Context xt

Instr structional uctional Leadersh ship ip Effecti ective Teachi ching ng Studen ent t Ac Achie ievemen ement State e and Local Assess ssmen ments ts New Jersey y Core Curricul ulum m Conten ent t Standar ards ds

SLIDE 5 5

Ef Effecti ctive e Teac acher hers s Mak ake e a S a Sig ignif ificant icant Dif ifference erence

1. For more information see: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Met Project 2. A Harvard Graduate School of Education math assessment series. Click here for more information.

3. The Stanford Achievement Test Series. Click here for more information.

+4.8 months +2.9 months +1.4 months +5 months

2.7

months

3.2

months

1.4 months
5.8

months Top 25% of Teachers Bottom 25% of Teachers State e Math Test Balan lanced ced Asses essmen ment of Mathema ematics ics2 State e ELA Test SAT9/ 9/Open Open-End nded ed Reading ing3 Average Teacher 5

The difference ence betwee etween an effective and ineffect ctiv ive teacher can approach ach 11 months s of learning ing for a student nt in one year.1

Set etti ting the Context xt

SLIDE 6 6

Vision

Effecti ctive e Le Lead ader ers s Mak ake e a a Sig ignif ifican icant t Dif ifference erence

“Highly

ly effectiv ective e leader ers s raise the achieveme ement nt of a typical l stud uden ent t in their ir schools by 2 to 7 months of learning in a single year.”*

Culture Professional Development Teacher Retention

*Branch, Hunushek, and Rivkin, 2013. Principals of high-achieving schools have a clear vision and communicate to all that learning is the most important mission. Cotton, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004 There is a positive relationship between school climate and leadership, which affects overall school effectiveness. Barth, 2002; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Villani, 1997 Effective administrators provide the time, resources, and structure for meaningful professional development. Blasé & Blasé, 2001; Cotton, 2003; Drago- Severson, 2004; Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004 Principals who help in problem solving and provide actionable feedback are more likely to empower and retain teachers. Blasé & Blasé, 2001; Charlotte Advocates for Education, 2004 Set etti ting the Context xt

SLIDE 7 7

In Increas creasing ing St Student udent Achie ievement ment: : An Ali lign gned ed Approac

ach

Set etti ting the Context xt

to increase se student nt achieveme ement nt. Effective Teaching Instructional Leadership we imp mpact ct teach chers ers and leaders ACADEMI DEMIC STANDARDS ARDS PARCC CC ACHIEVE E NJ With fewer, cleare arer and more rigorous s standa ndards ds… aligne ned d assessm essmen ents ts providing timely, accurate data… and an evalua uati tion

n

system em that emp mpha hasizes sizes feedb dback ack and suppo port… Studen ent t Ac Achie ievemen ement

SLIDE 8 8

Im Implem lementati entation

n Tim

imeli line: ne: Aca cademic demic St Stan andards dards, , St Stat ate e Ass ssessme ssment nts, s, an and St Stude dent nt Gro Growth Dat ata

CCSS curriculum alignment begins (K-2 math)

CCSS curriculum alignment continues (K- 12 ELA, additional math) CCSS aligned questions piloted in NJ ASK All curriculum aligned to CCSS NJ ASK aligned to CCSS in ELA (3-8) and Math (3-5) 2011-12 median Student Growth Percentiles (mSGPs) released to pilot districts NJ ASK completely aligned to CCSS PARCC piloted in classrooms across 1,276 schools 2012-13 mSGPs released to all districts as practice exercise Full PARCC Implementation 2013-14 mSGP data released Standards review; use of current standards until further announcement PARCC Year 2 2014-15 mSGP data released

10-11 12-13 13-14 14-15 11-12

Set etti ting the Context xt

15-16

SLIDE 9 9

Age genda nda

Setting the Context AchieveN eNJ Evaluation uation Syst stem em Teach: h: Overview of Teacher Evaluation Lead: : Overview of Principal Evaluation Grow: w: Looking Ahead

9

SLIDE 10 10

Es Essen sentia tial l El Eleme ments nts of

f Achie

ieveNJ eNJ

10

Suppor

rt
Required training on the evaluation system
Targeted feedback to drive professional development
School Improvement Panel ensures evaluation procedures are in

place and followed, leads mentoring for new teachers, and identifies professional development opportunities

Corrective Action Plans for Ineffective/Partially Effective rating

Evalua uati tion

n
Four levels of summative ratings
Educator practice instruments used for multiple observations
Multiple objective measures of student learning for teachers,

principals, VPs/APs Tenure re

Teachers earn tenure after 4 years based on effectiveness
Effective ratings required to maintain tenure
Dismissal decisions decided by arbitrators

Intr troductio duction n to Ac AchieveNJ NJ

SLIDE 11 11

Achie ieveNJ eNJ: : A Car areful eful, , Deli liberat berate e Pat ath

2010 20 2011 20 2012 20 2013 2014 2015

Educat ator

r

Effect ectiv iven enes ess Task Forc rce e formed Task Forc rce e releases es recom

mmen

endat dations ions State e Advis isor

ry

Commit ittee, ee, Pilot

t 1

launche hed $38 million ion Race to to the Top award for NJ Pilot 2 launched hed TEACHNJ CHNJ Act passed 2nd round of eva valuat luation ion regula ulati tions

ns

propos

sed

ed All l distric icts launch h improved ed eva valuat luations ions 11 State e Advis isor

ry

Commit ittee ee and external al Rutgers reports issued 1st round of eva valuat luation ion regula ulati tions

ns

propos

sed

ed Intr troductio duction n to Ac AchieveNJ NJ Interim rim implemen enta tati tion

n

report releas ased; ed; 3rd rd round

f eva

valuat ation ion regulat ations ions propos

sed

ed Inp nput ut and conti tinu nuous

us

improvem emen ent

SLIDE 12 12

2011 11-Pres Present ent: : Succe uccesse sses s an and Chal allenges lenges

Successes

Substantive shifts in conversations about effective instruction and instructional leadership Better, more frequent observations and feedback for teachers from administrators Increased alignment in instruction, assessments, professional development and PLCs Transformation of DOE practice from monitoring and compliance to support and accountability

Challenges

Simplifying and streamlining communication while maintaining depth to support implementation Providing guidance and support to myriad educator specializations and unique circumstances Timeline for availability of SGP data to districts Shifting administrator time given importance and demands of observations and feedback Intr troductio duction n to Ac AchieveNJ NJ

SLIDE 13 13

Age genda nda

Setting the Context AchieveNJ Evaluation System Teach: h: Overview of Teacher Evaluation Lead: : Overview of Principal Evaluation Grow: w: Looking Ahead

13

SLIDE 14 14

Ev Eval alua uatio tions ns Us Use e Mu Mult ltip iple le Me Meas asur ures es*

*The TEACHNJ Act requires evaluations to include multiple measures of student progress and multiple data sources.

Teacher cher Practice ice Stude udent nt Growth wth Percentil entile e (SGP) Stude udent nt Growth wth Objecti ective (SGO) O) Sum umma mati tive e Rating ng

All l Teacher ers Eligib gible le Teacher hers TEACH CHER ERS

Practi ctice ce St Student udent Ac Achi hievem ement ent

SLIDE 15 15

Dis istricts tricts Choo

ose

se Their ir Own wn Prac actic ice e In Instr strumen ument

42% 16% 11% 9% 9% 7% 1% 5% Danielson (2011/2013) Danielson (2007) Stronge McREL Marzano Marshall Rhode Island Model Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Teacher her Practice ice Inst strum ument nts s Chose sen

TEACH CHER ERS: S: PRACTICE CE Other: r: Instruments that have been approved but are being used in fewer than 5 districts, including approved “homegrown” models. Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

SLIDE 16 16

Dif ifferenti erentiat ated ed Teac acher her Obser servat ations ions

Teacher her Categ egories es Tot

tal # of
f

Obser servations ations Obser server ers Non-Tenur nured Years 1–2 3 (2 long, 1 short) Multiple Observers Required Years 3–4 3 (1 long, 2 short) Tenure ured 3 (0 long, 3 short) Multiple Observers Recommended Not

tes:

s:

Corrective Action Plans: Teachers rated Ineffective or Partially Effective are required to

have one additional observation; multiple observers are required.

All teachers must have at least one unannounced and one announced observation.
Teachers present for less than 40% of school year must have at least two observations.

TEACH CHER ERS: S: PRACTICE CE Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

Long: 40 minutes with post-conference Short: t: 20 minutes with post-conference

SLIDE 17 17

Em Emphasi hasis s on n Wel ell-Tra rained ined Obse server ers

Staff f Member Trainin ing All teaching ing staff f member mbers Must be trained on all components of the evaluation rubric prior to being observed All observer ers Must be trained in the practice instrument before observing for the purpose of evaluation Must participate in two “co-observations” (double-scored

bservations)

Must participate in yearly refresher training Superint inten ende dent nts/ s/Chief Chief school

ol administrat

istrator

rs

s (CSAs) As) Must t certify fy every year that observers have been trained

TEACH CHER ERS: S: PRACTICE CE Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

SLIDE 18 18

Unde derstanding standing Student udent Gro rowt wth Object jectiv ives s (S (SGO GOs) s)

Teacher cher Practice ice Stude udent nt Growth wth Percentil entile e (SGP) Stude udent nt Growth wth Objecti ective (SGO) Sum umma mati tive e Rating ng

All l Teacher ers Eligib gible le Teacher hers

Practi ctice ce St Student udent Ac Achi hievem ement ent

TEACH CHER ERS

SLIDE 19 19

SGOs s ar are long-term erm learn arning ing tar arget ets s set set for gro roups s of st stud udent nts. s.

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

St Studen udent Gro Growt wth Obje jecti ctives es

Specific and measurable Ambitious and achievable Includes significant proportion of students and curriculum Assessments aligned to learning objectives

What Why Who How

SLIDE 20 20 TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

1. Provide a us useful ul and transparen arent t student- achievement performance measure for ever ery y teache her 2. Promote reflect ective e and collaborati aborative e teaching practice 3. Promote alignment ment of standards, curriculum and assessment 4. Are flexible ible and can be used in any teaching circumstance

St Student udent Gro Growth Obje jecti ctives es

What Why Who How

SLIDE 21 21 TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive 80% 20% Teacher Practice Student Growth Objectives

Teache chers s without

ut an

mSGP set et two SGOs

70% 10% 20%

Teache chers s with an mSGP set et

ne or two SGOs

St Student udent Gro Growth Obje jecti ctives es

All teachers set SGOs: 20% of summative rating

Teacher Practice Student Growth Percentile Student Growth Objectives Teacher Practice Student Growth Objectives

What Why Who How

SLIDE 22 22 TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

Step 1 Choose or develop a quality assessment aligned to the standards Step 2 Determine students’ starting points Step 3 Set ambitious and achievable SGOs with the approval of the principal Step 4 Track progress, refine instruction Step 5 Review results and score in consultation with your principal/supervisor

St Student udent Gro Growth Obje jecti ctives es

Sept eptem ember er By By O Oct.

ct. 31

1 By Feb. 15 By end of school year Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Adjustments to SGOs can be made with approval

What Why Who How

SLIDE 23 23 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

d

Step 1

Choose hoose or develop elop a q a qual ality ty as assessm ssmen ent t al aligned ned to th the sta tandar ards: ds: 3 option tions

Begin… …with the end in mind *Assessments can include a variety of measures of learning such as unit exams, benchmark assessments, portfolios, performance assessments, modified final exams, etc.

SLIDE 24 24

Assessment quality is key: Quality assessments, administration, scoring and analysis

Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

d

Determine students’ starting points

Multiple measures enable teachers to triangulate student starting points To measure growth, teachers need to know where students begin Step 2

SLIDE 25 25 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

d Set et am ambi biti tious us an and ac achievab able le SGOs Os wi with th th the ap approval al of th the principal cipal

 A comprehensive and quality assessment aligned to standards  Multiple data sources used for baseline information  Includes a significant proportion of students and curriculum.  Scoring plan consistent with SGO; a logical four point scale.  Differentiated targets; ambitious and achievable for all students.  Specific and measurable.

Componen ponents ts of a high qualit ity SGO

Step 3

SLIDE 26 26

Exampl Example e of

f a

a Hi High gh Qua uali lity y SGO GO

Specifi ecific c an and Meas asurable urable Objectiv ective/Dif e/Differ eren entiat ated ed Tar argets gets

Stude udent nt Growth h Objective At least 70% (45/65) of my students will attain a score as described in the scoring plan and set according to their preparedness level. Scori ring ng Plan Preparedness Group Target Score on Final Assessment Objective Attainment Level Based on Percent and Number of Students Achieving Target Score Exceptional Attainment (4) Full Attainment (3) Partial Attainment (2) Insufficient Attainment (1) Low 70 >85% students (31-36) ≥70% students (25-30) ≥55% students (18-24) <55% students (0-17) Medium 80 >85% students (19-21) ≥70% students (15-18) ≥55% students (11-14) <55% students (0-10) High 90 >85% students (8) ≥70 % students (6-7) ≥55% students (4-5) <55% students (0-3) Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

SLIDE 27 27 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

Track ack progress, ess, refine ne instr truction uction

SGO: Long- term goal

Plan Teach Assess Analyze

This is what effective teachers have always done Step 4

SLIDE 28 28 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SG0

d Teache eachers s review w results lts an and sco core e in co consult nsultation ation wi with th th the principal cipal/super /supervisor visor

1. Collect SGO

performance data

2. Teachers consult

with their evaluator to determine your 1- 4 SGO rating

3. Teachers meet with

the evaluator/ supervisor for the Annual Conference

Step 5

SLIDE 29 29

Und Under erstanding standing St Stud udent ent Growt wth h Perc ercentil entiles es

Teacher cher Practice ice Stude udent nt Growth wth Percentil entile e (SGP) Stude udent nt Growth wth Objecti ective (SGO) Sum umma mati tive e Rating ng

All l Teacher ers Eligib gible le Teacher hers

Practi ctice ce St Student udent Ac Achi hievem ement ent

TEACH CHER ERS

SLIDE 30 30

Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) measure how much a student has learned from one year to the next compared to peers with similar academic history from across the state in 4th-8th grade Language Arts and 4th-7th-grade* Math.



All students ts can show growth. h.



TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

What Why Who How

*SGP will not be calculated for 8th-grade math for 2014-15.

SLIDE 31 31 Partially Proficient

Gr. 3
Gr. 4
Gr. 5

100 200 250

150 160 165 NJ ASK Scale Score by Grade

NJ ASK Scale

Proficient Advanced Proficient 230 205 220

Albert Maria

Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

Effective teaching results in learning growth which can go unnoticed if only looking at proficiency; SGP is one of multiple measures to focus on growth.

What Why Who How

SLIDE 32 32 Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

Teachers have at least 20 separate students on the roster taking the test

(Up to three years to accrue 20 students for teachers without 20 students in year 1)

Teachers have worked at least 60% of the time before the test Students are enrolled in class at least 70% of the time before the test

20 60 70

What Why Who How

SLIDE 33 33

Albert’s Prior Scores  Academic Peers’ Prior Scores      

Al Alber ert t has taken n the 5th

th grade

e NJ AS ASK. How w does es his score re compare are to those se

f his

s academic emic peers? ?

3rd Gr. 150 4th Gr. 160 5th Gr. 165 3rd Gr. ≈150 4th Gr. ≈160 5th Gr. ???

                                                     

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

What Why Who How

SLIDE 34 34

NJ ASK Score

Partially Proficient 100 200 150 160 165 Proficient Advanced Proficient 250 Gr.3 Gr.5 Gr.4 Partially Proficient 100 200 150 160 200 Proficient Advanced Proficient 110 250 Gr.3 Gr.5 Gr.4

Albert’s 5th

th Grade NJ ASK Score

Albert’s Academic Peers’ NJ ASK Scores

Al Alber ert t sc scored red 165. Hi His s academic emic peers sc scored ed bet etwee een n 110 and 200.

0. How did Al

Albert t do in comparison arison to them? m?

29% 29% 70% 70%

Det etermi rmining ning SGPs

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

What Why Who How

SLIDE 35 35

A compar mparison ison to his academi emic c peers allows s us to see that Albert t actual ally y

utpe

perfor

rmed

med 70% of student nts s who, up until this year, performed med in a similar ar manner er to Albert. t.

1% 99% 70%

Albert’s Score  Academic Peers’ Scores       5th Gr. 165 5th Gr.

110 - 200

                     

SGP

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

What Why Who How

SLIDE 36 36 36

Albert’s teacher receives a median an SGP score of 51. 1.

       

Albert’s SGP along g with the SGPs s of all his teacher’s studen dents ts are re arranged ed from low to high.

        

Median an SGP Score



Student SGP Score Hugh 12 Eve 16 Clarence 22 Clayton 24 Earnestine 25 Helen 31 Clinton 35 Tim 39 Jennifer 44 Jaquelyn 46 Lance 51 Roxie 53 Laura 57 Julio 61 Selena 65 Ashlee 66 Albert 70 Mathew 72 Marcus 85 Charles 89 Milton 97

   St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

What Why Who How

SLIDE 37 37 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 1 1 – 20 20 1 21 21 1.1 22 22 1.2 23 23 1.3 24 24 1.4 25 25 1.5 26 26 1.6 27 27 1.7 28 28 1.8 29 29 1.9 30 30 2 31 31 2.1 32 32 2.2 33 33 2.3 34 34 2.4 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 65 65 3.5 66 66 3.5 67 67 3.5 68 68 3.6 69 69 3.6 70 70 3.6 71 71 3.7 72 72 3.7 73 73 3.7 74 74 3.8 75 75 3.8 76 76 3.8 77 77 3.9 78 78 3.9 79 79 3.9 80 80 - 99 99 4 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 35 35 2.5 36 36 2.5 37 37 2.6 38 38 2.6 39 39 2.7 40 40 2.7 41 41 2.8 42 42 2.8 43 43 2.9 44 44 2.9 45 45 3 46 46 3 47 47 3 48 48 3 49 49 3 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 50 50 3 51 51 3 52 52 3 53 53 3 54 54 3 55 55 3 56 56 3.1 57 57 3.1 58 58 3.2 59 59 3.2 60 60 3.3 61 61 3.3 62 62 3.4 63 63 3.4 64 64 3.4

Based ed on her mSGP score, Albert’s teacher receives an mSGP evaluat ation ion rating g of 3. This s is combine ned with ot

ther evalua

uati tion n comp mpone

nent

nts in a summa mati tive e rating. g.

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

TEACH CHER ERS: S: SGP

What Why Who How

SLIDE 38 38 2014 2016 2011 2012 2013 2010 Fede dera ral l Manda date: e: States es Must Calculate “Student Growth”; Link Teachers to Studen dents Studen dent SGPs Provi vided ed to All Distr tric icts ts NJ Ad Adop

pts

ts SGP Met ethodo hodolo logy SGP Train ining ing Begins ins for Distr tric icts; ts; SGP Vide deo

Relea

eased sed TEA EACHNJ CHNJ Ac Act Passed; sed; Growt wth h Measu asures s Requir ired d for Evaluation aluation Distr tric ict t SGP Prof

file

ile Repor

rts

ts Deplo loyed Schoo hool l SGPs Used d in Schoo hool l Perfor

rma

mance Repor

rts

ts per NJ’s Fede deral l ESEA EA Waiver SY12 12-13 3 Teac acher her Media dian SGP Repor

rts

s to All District icts s for Lear arnin ing and Data a Previ view SY11-12 12 Teac acher her Media dian SGP Repor

rts

ts Provi vide ded to Pilot

t Distric

icts ts SY13-14 Median dian SGP Repor

rts

ts Provi vide ded to All District icts s for Use in Evaluation aluations Evaluation aluation Pilot

t

Adv Advisor isory Comm mmitt ttee ee Provi vides es SGP Feed edba back

St Stude dent nt Gro rowt wth Perc rcentiles ntiles

What Why Who How

2015 SY15-16 Media dian SGP Repor

rts

ts Provi vided ed to All Distr tric icts ts for Use in Eva valuations luations

SLIDE 39 39

Summat ummativ ive Rat atin ing g Over vervi view

Teacher cher Practice ice Stude udent nt Growth wth Percentil entile e (SGP) Stude udent nt Growth wth Objecti ective (SGO) Sum umma mati tive e Rating ng

All l Teacher ers Eligib gible le Teacher hers

Practi ctice ce St Student udent Ac Achi hievem ement ent

TEACH CHER ERS

SLIDE 40 40 Ineffectiv tive Partial tially ly Effec ectiv ive Effec ectiv tive Highly ly Effec ectiv ive 1.0 1.85 2.65 3.5

Teachers’ Summative Ratings

Compon ponen ent Raw Score Weight ht Weight hted ed Score Teacher Practice 3.0 x 70% 2.1 Student Growth Percentile 2.2 x 10% .22 Student Growth Objective 3.0 x 20% .6 Sum of the Weighted d Scores 2.92

2.92- TEACH CHER ERS: S: SUMMATIVE IVE RATING Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive NJ Educator Effectiveness Scale

The summative rating is a weighted score using teacher practice and student achievement components.

SLIDE 41 41

Teachers’ Summative Rating Timeline

Ju June ne July/A July/August ugust Novemb ember/Decemb er/December er January

Annual summary conference includes ava vaila ilable ble component measures: teacher practice and SGO results. Summative ratings recorded for non-mSGP teachers. Department collects all other component measures for teachers with mSGP. NJASK scores released. Department calculates student level SGP data Department sends districts the mSGP and summative rating of each mSGP teacher. Summative rating added to personnel file. Practi tice SGP SGO Summat ativ ive TEACH CHER ERS: S: SUMMATIVE IVE RATING Districts submit course rosters to DOE

SLIDE 42 42

Age genda nda

Setting the Context AchieveNJ Evaluation System Teach: h: Overview of Teacher Evaluation Lead: : Overview of Principal Evaluation Grow: w: Looking Ahead

42

SLIDE 43 43

Mu Mult ltipl iple e Me Meas asur ures es for r Prin rincip ipals als

Princip ipal Practi tice ce School

l

SGP Ad Admin in. Goals SGO Average age Summa mati tive e Ratin ing

Eva valua uati tion

n

Leadersh ship

Practi ctice ce St Student udent Ac Achi hievem ement ent

All l princip ipals als Only princip ipals als of schools

ls with SGP

grades es receiv ive e this score PRINCIPALS

SLIDE 44 44

Prin rincipal ipal Pra ractice ice

PRINCIPALS: S: PRACTICE CE Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

Obser servat atio ions ns Pra racti tice ce Instr strume ument nts Data a Sources ces Tenured Principals: 2 Observations Non-Tenured Principals 3 Observations Locally selected and adopted from State approved instruments Locally determined from a range of sources including:

School walk-throughs
Case studies
Staff meeting observations
School assembly observations
Teacher conference observations
Parent conference observations

SLIDE 45 45

Ev Eval alua uatio tion n Lea eader ership ship

Principals are rated on their effectiveness in implementing the evaluation system using a state instrument with two domains:

Domai ain 1: Buildin ing g Knowled edge ge and Collabor aborat atio ion Domai ain 2: Execut uting ing the Evalua uati tion n System m Success cessful fully

Compone nent nt 1a: Preparing teachers for success Comp mponen nent t 1b: Building collaboration Compone nent nt 2a: Fulfilling requirements of the evaluation system Comp mponen nent t 2b: Providing feedback, coaching, and planning for growth Comp mponen nent t 2c: Ensuring reliable, valid observation results Compone nent nt 2d: Ensuring high-quality SGOs PRINCIPALS: S: EVALUATION ON LEADERSHI SHIP Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

Assistant/vice principals are rated on a similar instrument, which includes each of the components in Domain 2 above.

SLIDE 46 46

SGO GO Avera verage ge for

r Prin

inci cipal pals s

PRINCIPALS: S: AVERAGE SGO

SGO Average age for Principa incipal: l: 76/28 = 2.71

#SGOs x Individual Score = Aggregate for School

Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

SGO Score re Number mber of SGOs s in School Aggregat egate e for School

l

1 2 2 2 8 16 3 14 42 4 4 16 Tot

tal

als 28 76

SLIDE 47 47

Ad Admi ministrat nistrator

r Go

Goal als

In consultation with the superintendent, principals and vice principals set 1-4 student achievement goals

PRINCIPALS: S: ADMINISTRATOR OR GOALS Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

Developmental Reading Assessment
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
Advanced Placement scores
SAT, ACT scores
College acceptance rates
Annual measurable objectives (AMOs)
Graduation rates (in schools under 80

percent)

Nationally norm-referenced tests

POSSIBLE MEASURES

SLIDE 48 48

Scho hool

l SGP

GP for

r Prin

incipals cipals

School SGPs are the median student level SGP for the school, where this measure applies

PRINCIPALS: S: SGP Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

SGP Schools Non-SGP GP Schools

At least 1 SGP grade/subject in the school 0 SGP grades in the school

10% 0% 0% 0%

SLIDE 49 49

Components

Non-SGP Schools SGP Schools

Principal Practice Instrument

30% 30%

Evaluation Leadership

20% 20%

SGO Average

10% 10%

School SGP

0% 10%

Administrator Goals

40% 30%

Total Percentage

100% 100% Inputs Student/ Teacher Outcomes

Weight ights s for

r Prin

incipals cipals in in 2015 15-16 16

PRINCIPALS Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip

SLIDE 50 50

Weight ights s for

r Prin

incipals cipals in in 2015 15-16 16

Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip PRINCIPALS 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 30% 10% 0% 0% 50% Studen ent Ac Achie hieveme ment 50% Principal ipal Prac actic tice 50% Studen ent Ac Achie hieveme ment 50% Principal ipal Prac actic tice School SGP Administrator Goals SGO Average Principal Practice Evaluation Leadership

SGP Principal als

Principals with SGP grades or subjects

Non-SGP SGP Principa pals

Principals who have no SGP grades or subjects 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 40% 40%

SLIDE 51 51

Calculating Principals’ Summative Ratings

Component ponent Raw Score (1 (1–4 Scale) e) Weight ht Weight hted ed Score re Principal Practice 3.4 x 30% 1.02 Evaluation Leadership 3.0 x 20% .60 Student Growth Percentile 3.1 x 10% .31 Student Growth Objective 3.7 x 10% .37 Administrator Goals 3.6 x 30% 1.08 Sum of the Weighted d Scores 3.38

3.38 Practic ice School l SGP Admin.

in. Goals

als SGO Averag age Summat ativ ive Leadership hip PRINCIPALS Ineffectiv tive Partial tially ly Effec ectiv ive Effec ectiv tive Highly ly Effec ectiv ive 1.0 1.85 2.65 3.5 NJ Educator Effectiveness Scale

SLIDE 52 52

Age genda nda

Setting the Context AchieveNJ Evaluation System Teach: h: Overview of Teacher Evaluation Lead: : Overview of Principal Evaluation Grow: w: Looking Ahead

52

SLIDE 53 53

Meaning aningful ful Feedbac edback k an and Sup uppor port

TEACH. LEAD. GROW.

AchieveN eNJ provides des for:

Increased and better professional conversations
More opportunities for feedback and reflection
More accurate understanding of teaching impact
n learning
Tailored professional development based on data
Corrective action plans with clear improvement goals

and timelines for teachers rated ineffective or partially effective

SLIDE 54 54

He Helping lping al all st l stud uden ents s ac achie ieve

54

New Jersey wants to compete with the best education systems in the world. All New Jersey students deserve a world-class education.

SLIDE 55

FI FIND ND OU OUT MOR ORE:

www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ educatorevaluation@doe.state.nj.us 609-777-3788