1. Achievenj in 2016 and beyond
Peter Shulman
Deputy Commissioner
Carl Blanchard
Director, Office of Evaluation
May 4, 2016

2. Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 data will be certified this spring.
Includes 2015 and programs.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

18. 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.

19. Agenda
Background and Context
Proposed Changes
Next Steps

20. 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 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