You are on page 1of 40

Educator Evaluation Reform in New Jersey

An Overview of WTPS’ Implementation of EE4NJ

Washington Township Public Schools District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) 2012-2013

Key Concepts
Overview of EE4NJ at the State Level:
– Transforming Teacher Evaluation Systems – Evaluation Implementation Responsibilities & Timelines – Tenure Legislation

Overview of EE4NJ at the Local Level:
– Washington Township’s District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) Teacher Evaluation Model Selection Process – Selection of Principal Evaluation Model

Overview of the Domains and Structure of the Marzano Evaluation Frameworks:
– Teacher Evaluation Model – Principal Evaluation Model – Next Steps


Overview of EE4NJ at the State Level


Transforming Teacher Evaluation Systems


The Case for Reforming Teacher Evaluation Systems: Impact

Nothing schools can do for their students matters more than giving them effective educators
• Principal and teacher quality account for nearly 60% of a school’s total impact on student achievement1
• The effect of increases in teacher quality swamps the impact of any other educational investment, such as reductions in class size2

Top educators have a lasting impact

on their students’ success – in academics

and in life

1. Marzano et al., 2005 2. Goldhaber, 2009


The Case for Reforming Teacher Evaluation Systems: Proximity





Everyone in this circle is essential, but students are at the core – and teachers are closest to students


Evaluation System Reform: Across the Nation
In the 2010-12 legislative sessions: 21 states enacted major legislative or regulatory evaluation reform

Source: Bellwether Education Partners, 2012

Education Reform: Four Pillars of USDOE Reform
In recent years the Federal Government has pushed an education agenda based on the following goals which states must adopt in order to secure federal funding (for example: Race to the Top Grant, ESEA Waiver, School Improvement Grants, etc.).

• Adoption of robust statewide student information data system (NJSMART) • Adoption and implementation of College and Career Readiness Standards, including more rigorous academic standards (CCSS) and rigorous student achievement assessment systems (future PARCC Assessments) • Close the achievement gaps and turn around lowest performing schools (Priority/Focus Schools) • Ensure great teachers and great leaders (EE4NJ)

Evaluation Responsibilities & Timelines


Evolution of Evaluation Reform in New Jersey
NJ Educator Effectiveness Task Force work
Teacher evaluation pilot opportunity announced

Cohort 1 teacher evaluation pilot Capacity-building requirements announced for all districts to follow in 2012-13

Cohort 2 teacher evaluation & Cohort 1 of new principal evaluation pilots in progress; districts building capacity

New tenure legislation in effect

2013-14 Statewide Implementation of New Evaluation System for teachers and principals

2012-13 Capacity-building Requirements: Non-Pilot Districts
According to new tenure legislation and proposed regulations, all New Jersey districts must meet the following milestones:
1. Form a District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC) to ensure stakeholder engagement 2. Adopt educator evaluation rubrics that include state-approved teacher and principal practice evaluation instruments 3. Begin to test and refine evaluation rubrics 4. Form School Improvement Panel (ScIP) to ensure teacher effectiveness at the building level including mentoring, professional development, and support for new and/or struggling teachers 5. Train teachers (training will be ongoing) 6. Train evaluators (must address inter-rater reliability)
Notes • All districts must complete progress reports on these milestones by February 28, 2013 and August 31, 2013


District Evaluation Advisory Committee (DEAC)
Districts must develop DEACs by Fall 2012, comprised of the following: • • Teachers from each school level represented in the district School administrators conducting evaluations (this must include one administrator who participates on the School Improvement Panel and one special education administrator) Central office administrators overseeing the teacher evaluation process Supervisor Superintendent Parent Member of the district board of education

• • • • •

The mission of the DEAC is to: • • • • Solicit input from stakeholders Share information Recommend evaluation model for BOE consideration Guide and inform evaluation activities

Generate buy-in


Tenure Legislation: TeachNJ Act


Tenure Legislation
 For all certificated staff members employed after the effective date of the new tenure law: • Attainment of tenure occurs after four consecutive calendar years (for any certificated staff member BOEapproved for employment after August 6, 2012)
o Year 1: District Mentorship o Year 2-4: “Receive rating of effective or highly effective in two annual summative evaluations within the first three years of employment after the initial year of employment in which the teacher completes the district mentorship program.” o Evaluation rating scale includes the following four rating categories (for all certificated staff members regardless of date of employment), effective for the 2013-2014 school year:
Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective

 Each school must establish a School Improvement Panel (ScIP) by February 2013

Evaluation Requirements of Cohort 1 (2011-2012 SY)
Composed of equal parts teacher practice (inputs) and direct measures of student achievement (outputs).

Teacher Evaluation System
Teacher Practice (inputs associated with learning) 50% of total evaluation system
Largely based on the evaluation framework/model selected by the district

Student Achievement (outputs of learning) 50% of total evaluation system
NJDOE regulations are being developed. More details to follow (March, 2013)

Components of the Principal Evaluation System













School Improvement Panel (ScIP)
Purpose: to ensure teacher effectiveness at the building level

School principal or designee, Assistant/vice principal, Teacher Note: The teaching staff member serving on the ScIP will not participate in evaluation activities***

Selection Process
The teaching staff member serving on the ScIP shall be a person with a demonstrated record of success in the classroom who shall be selected in consultation with the majority representative * In the event an assistant or vice principal is not available, the principal shall appoint an additional member to the panel who is serving the district in a supervisory capacity **

- Oversee mentoring - Identify professional development opportunities - Conduct evaluations, including mid-year evaluation of any teacher rated ineffective or partially ineffective on most recent annual summative evaluation***

* An individual teacher shall not serve more than three consecutive years on any one ScIP. ** The administrator selected must possess a school administrator certificate, principal certificate or supervisor certificate. *** In accordance with the NJEA guidance as it relates to the teaching staff member who serves on the ScIP, “the role of the teacher is not to conduct or give input into any teacher evaluations, but to ensure the integrity and consistency of the process.” (, 1/3/13) 17

Overview of EE4NJ at the Local Level


District Evaluation Advisory Committee’s (DEAC) Model Selection Process


Washington Township DEAC Members
Name 1. Goldschmidt, Robert 2. Zachowski, Candice 3. Vandenberg, Joseph 4. Marciano, Barbara 5. McGee, Jack 6. Jorgensen, Patricia 7. Miller, Annette 8. Ebner, Mark 9. Bollendorf, Joseph 10. Moore, Ann 11. A’ndrea Bair-Oates 12. Rose, Jessica 13. Hughes, Patricia 14. Frampton, Robert 15. Andreas, Susan 16. Abbott, Eileen Position Superintendent Board Member Asst. Superintendent (Instruction) Director of Elementary Education Director of Secondary Education Director of Elem. Special Education Principal (Birches ES) Principal (BHMS) Principal (WTHS) Executive Asst. Principal (WTHS) Assistant Principal (OVMS) Supervisor Elem. Ed./Dist. BSI Coord. Dept. Supervisor (Science) Dept. Supervisor (Visual/Perf. Arts) Parent Community Member

Washington Township DEAC Members (cont.)
Name 17. Blome, Patricia 18. Brolly, Christine 19. Clark, Adam 20. Cline, Valerie 21. Wolf, Richard 22. Bathurst, Lori 23. Casale, Tina 24. Choma, Adrienne 25. Kobylinski, Camy 26. Mercogliano, Maureen 27. Ambacher, Richard 28. Dagostino, Cheryl 29. Morris, Thomas 30. Parker, Kevin 31. Hughes, William Level, Area, ST, NST, Grade, School (Kindergarten) GTECC (Grade 5/Math Concentration) Hurffville Grades 1-5/Health/PE) Whitman (Grade 3) Birches (Art), NST (Gr. 1-5), WW (Social Studies/G&T) CRMS (Special Education) BHMS (English & Reading) OVMS (Special Education/CST/WTEA) CRMS (Math) ST (Gr. 7), CRMS (Technology Education) WTHS (World Language) High school (Social Studies) WTHS (English) ST (GR. 9-10), WTHS (English) High School

DEAC Meeting Dates & Focus for Review and Selection of Teacher Evaluation Models

November 27,2012 November 30, 2012

Introduction to EE4NJ and the Evaluation Requirements (with Bob Fisicaro, NJDOE) Model: McREL Vendor Presentation: Tom Schulte and Joyce Stumpo District Presentation: Kristin O’Neil, West Deptford Model: James Stronge Vendor Presentation: Matt Jennings, Alexandria District Presentation: Matt Jennings, Alexandria Model: Robert Marzano Vendor Presentation: Beth Carr District Presentation: Joe Jones, Woodbury Model: Charlotte Danielson Vendor Presentation: Marna Matthews District Presentation: John Mazzei, Pemberton

December 6, 2012

December 10, 2012

December 13, 2012

December 17, 2012
January 18, 2013

Final Selection of Model (Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model)
Review and Selection of Principal Evaluation Model (Marzano Leadership Evaluation Model)

DEAC Meeting Template Agenda for Review of Teacher Evaluation Models

1. Vendor Presentation of Specific Teacher Evaluation Framework with Q & A

2. Break/Debriefing
3. Pilot School District Presentation of their Implementation Experience/Process for the Specific Teacher Evaluation Framework with Q & A 4. Debriefing and Review of Small Groups’ Analysis and Discussion Assignments 5. Small Group Review of Specific Model 6. Reports/Feedback from Small Group Discussion

Agenda for Final Selection
1. 2. Development of “What We Value” Document Review of each Model in Accordance with “What We Value” Document and Identification of each Model’s Strengths and Weaknesses Each Group Posts Consensus of Strengths and Weaknesses for each Model Straw Vote via Paper Ballot Completed by each Individual DEAC Member Discuss Results of the Straw Vote and Ascertain if any Models can be Eliminated Large Group Discussion to Determine Final Recommended Model

3. 4. 5. 6.

Why Marzano?
Committee Developed List of Strengths in Accordance with “What We Value Document”

• • • • • •
• • • • • •

Research-based Designed as a growth model Clearly designed Point system/quantitative Consistent in descriptions on rating scale rubric i-Observation (secure online evaluation data preparation and collection system) Emphasis on students’ involvement in the learning process Provides a road map for effective teaching Teacher and student evidence of learning Multiple content areas Everyone is part of training process Availability of supportive resources


Why Marzano? (cont.)
• “Innovative” rating is attainable on the scale • Professional development on the model and on effective instruction is available • Ability to differentiate evaluations based on the lesson context • Everyone becomes a mentor, everyone is mentored • Weighting of domains can be determined by district • Teacher receives a rating at the time of the observation • Evaluation is based upon a philosophy described in the book, “The Art and Science of Teaching” • Strong research base/some familiarity with Marzano’s work • Clear expectations • The model gives greater weight to the teaching/learning domain than to the other domains • Differentiated regarding lesson context • “Targeted” evaluation

Overview of the Domains and Structure of the Marzano Evaluation Frameworks


Marzano Teacher Evaluation Framework

Domain #1: Classroom Strategies & Behaviors Domain #3: Reflecting on Teaching

Domain #2: Planning & Preparing

Domain #4: Collegiality & Professionalism


Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors
Lesson Segments Involving Routine Events
Communicating Learning Goals and Feedback – 3 elements Establishing Rules and Procedures – 2 elements

Lesson Segments Addressing Content
Helping Students Interact with New Knowledge – 8 elements Helping Students Practice and Deepen New Knowledge – 7 elements Helping Students Generate and Test Hypotheses – 3 elements

Lesson Segments Enacted on the Spot
Engaging Students – 9 elements Recognizing Adherence to Rules and Procedures – 3 elements Establishing and Maintaining Effective Relationships with Students – 3 elements Communicating High Expectations for All Students – 3 elements


Domain 2:
Planning and Preparing
Planning and Preparing for Lessons and Units – 3 elements Planning and Preparing for Use of Resources and Technology – 2 elements Planning and Preparing for the Needs of English Language Learners – 1 element Planning and Preparing for the Needs of Students Receiving Special Education – 1 element Planning and Preparing for the Needs of Students Who Lack Support for Schooling – 1 element

Domain 3:
Reflecting on Teaching
Evaluating Personal Performance – 3 elements Developing and Implementing a Professional Growth Plan – 2 elements

Domain 4:
Collegiality and Professionalism
Promoting a Positive Environment – 2 elements Promoting Exchange of Ideas and Strategies – 2 elements Promoting District and School Development – 2 elements

Marzano Teacher Formative Evaluation Framework Rubric

Not Using 0 Strategy is called for, but not used.

Beginning 1 Strategy is used but pieces or components are missing.

Developing 2 Strategy is used correctly but the majority of students are not monitored for the desired effect of the strategy.

Applying 3 Strategy is used and monitored to see if it has desired effect with the majority of students.

Innovating 4 New strategies are created to meet needs of specific students or class as a whole in order for the desired effect to be evident in all students.

The Principal’s Formative Evaluation Framework utilizes the same 5 point rubric.

EXAMPLE of Possible Conversion of Marzano’s 5 Point Formative Scale to NJDOE’s 4 Point Summative Scale
Formative Rating Scale (Marzano)
Not Using 0 Beginning 1 Developing 2 Applying 3 Innovating 4

If most indicators in the formative data are between:

0 and 1 <1.0 to 1.4

1 and 2 1.5 to 2.4

2 and 3 2.5 to 3.4

3 and 4 3.5 to 4.0

The mean formative ratings would be:


Partially Effective


Highly Effective

Summative Rating Scale (TeachNJ)
This is an example of how formative ratings on Marzano’s 5 point rating scale equates to the NJDOE’s 4 point summative rating scale. The final ratings will be determined by the DEAC later this year.

Principal Evaluation Model


DEAC Meeting Template Agenda for Review and Selection of Principal Evaluation Models

1. 2. 3.

Review of Accomplishments to Date Feedback and Questions Power Point Presentation of NJDOE Principal Evaluation Pilot 2012-2013 Requirements

5. 6. 7. 8.

Small Group Review of Principal Evaluation Models
Debriefing of Findings from Small Group Review Small Group Review of Marzano Principal Evaluation Model Large Group Discussion of Findings for all Models Large Group Consensus and Final Recommendation of Model

Marzano Principal Evaluation Framework
Domain #1: Data Driven Focus on Student Achievement Domain #2: Continuous Improvement of Instruction

Domain #3: Guaranteed & Viable Curriculum

Domain #4: Cooperation & Collaboration

Domain #5: School Climate


Overview of Principal Evaluation Domains
Domain 1: A Data Driven Focus on Student Achievement
The school leader ensures: • establishment of clear goals focused on improvement of overall student achievement at the school level as well as individual student achievement • data are regularly analyzed, interpreted, and used to monitor progress toward school achievement goals as well as achievement goals for individual students • that appropriate school-level and classroom-level programs and practices are in place to help all students meet individual achievement goals when data indicates interventions are needed

Domain 2: Continuous Improvement of Instruction
The school leader: • provides a clear vision as to how instruction should be addressed in the school and is aware of predominant instructional practices throughout the school

effectively supports and retains teachers who continually enhance their pedagogical skills through reflection and professional growth plans
that teachers are provided with clear, ongoing evaluations of their pedagogical strengths and weaknesses that are based on multiple sources of data (including student achievement data) as well as job- embedded professional development that is directly related to their instructional growth goals

Domain 3: A Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
The school leader ensures that: • the school curriculum and accompanying assessments adhere to state and district standards and can be adequately addressed in the time available to teachers • all students have the opportunity to learn the critical content of the curriculum

Domain 4: Cooperation and Collaboration
The school leader ensures that: • teachers have opportunities to observe and discuss effective teaching • teachers have formal roles in the decision-making process regarding school initiatives • teacher teams and collaborative groups regularly interact to address common issues regarding curriculum, assessment, instruction, and the achievement of all students • teachers and staff, as well as students, parents and community, have formal ways to provide input regarding the optimal functioning of the school and delegates responsibilities appropriately

Domain 5: School Climate
The school leader: • is recognized as the leader of the school who continually improves his or her professional practice • has the trust of the faculty and staff that his or her actions are guided by what is best for all student populations • ensures that faculty and staff, as well as students, parents, and the community, perceive the school environment as safe and orderly • manages the fiscal, operational, and technological resources of the school in a way that focuses on effective instruction and the achievement of all students • acknowledges the success of the whole school, as well as individuals within the school

Next Steps


Next Steps…
• • • • Issuance of Request for Proposal (RFP) as required by law for the purchase of the evaluation system Communication of model and selection process to all staff members Development of training and implementation plan on Marzano evaluation model and use of i-Observation Purchase and scheduling of professional development trainings and resources Unpacking, review and clarification of language in Marzano Model, as necessary Review and refinement of artifact identification Building-level PLC’s on Marzano’s teaching framework as outlined in the book: The Art and Science of Teaching Practice implementation of Marzano evaluation model Refinement of evaluation language and protocols as necessary, based on practice.

• •

• •