1. 2013-14 Median Student Growth Percentile Reports: An Overview January 2015

2. 2 Bottom Line Up Front All districts received secure access to their 2013-14 teacher and principal/AP/VP Median Student Growth Percentile (mSGP) data on January 8, 2015. Teachers and school leaders have the highest impact on student achievement of any in-school factor. NJDOE has worked with NJ educators in taking a long and thoughtful approach to implementing both evaluations and mSGP. mSGP data is an important part, but only one part of an educator’s evaluation. These scores will be used to finalize 2013-14 evaluations and to inform educators’ ongoing professional development. By statute, mSGPs (like all aspects of an individual’s evaluation) are confidential and should not be shared publicly.

3. 3 Context for SGPs in New Jersey Student Growth Percentile (SGP) methodology is not new; SGP was adopted in the 2009-2010 school year and first used for school accountability in the 2011-2012 annual performance reports. TEACHNJ Act requires use of at least one measure of student growth in evaluations (18A:6-123: “Standardized assessments shall be used as a measure of student progress…”). – AchieveNJ incorporates 2 measures of growth for teachers: mSGP and SGOs and 3 measures for principals: mSGP, SGO Average, Administrator Goals. NJDOE has been building capacity to share mSGP for over 4 years, including distribution of 2011-12 teacher data to pilot districts and 2012- 13 teacher data to all districts. mSGP data is derived from roster and staff submission data provided by districts through a submission process in place for many years.

4. 4 Timeline of SGP Development in New Jersey A thoughtful, multi-year approach to ensure data is accurate and usable 2014 2015 2011 201220132010 Federal Mandate for Stimulus Funds: States Must Calculate “Student Growth”; Link Teachers to Students Student SGPs Provided to All Districts in NJ SMART NJ Adopts SGP Methodology for Calculating Student Growth SGP Training Begins for Districts; SGP Video Released TEACHNJ Act Passed; Growth Measures Required for Evaluation District SGP Profile Reports Deployed via NJ SMART School SGPs Used in School Performance Reports per NJ’s Federal ESEA Waiver 2012-13 Teacher mSGP Reports Provided to All Districts for Learning Purposes and Data Preview 2011-12 Teacher Median SGP (mSGP) Reports Provided to Pilot Districts for Learning Purposes 2013-14 Teacher & Principal mSGP Reports Provided to All Districts for Use in Evaluations; Score Verification Process Announced Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee Provides Feedback on Usefulness of SGP Data 2013-14 mSGP Score Verification & Certification Process Completed by Districts

5. 5 2013-14 mSGP Data The 2013-14 mSGP data counts for 30% of qualifying teachers’ and 20 or 30% of qualifying principals’ 2013-14 evaluations. Evaluation data of a particular employee shall be confidential in accordance with the TEACHNJ Act and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-120.d and 121.d. – Educator mSGP data should be handled in the secure manner one would treat, handle, and store any part of a confidential personnel record and should not be released to the public. While a dry run for teacher mSGP data was conducted last year to improve roster verification processes, if educators identify a problem with the 2013-14 mSGP score, the Department is offering options for addressing the issue.

6. 6 Student Growth Percentile Student Growth Objectives mSGP Qualification and Weighting: Teachers 1.Teach a 4 th –8 th grade Math or Language Arts Literacy (LAL) class, and 2.Be the teacher of record for at least 60% of the course prior to the NJ ASK assessment, and 3.Have at least 20 students with valid SGP scores who are enrolled in the class for at least 70% of the school year before they take the NJ ASK. To receive an mSGP score, teachers must: Teacher Practice

7. 7 mSGP Qualification and Weighting: Principals 1.Be assigned to schools attended by more than 20 separate students who took the 4th- to 8 th - grade Mathematics or Language Arts NJ ASK; and 1.Be assigned to qualifying students reported as having attended the school for one full year prior to the administration of the NJ ASK, according to the data submitted by the district in its State Submission. To receive an mSGP score, principals/APs/VPs must: Principal Practice Evaluation Leadership SGO Average Administrator Goals School SGP 2013-14

8. 8 Individual mSGP Report Individual mSGP reports provide: Background information about SGPs and mSGPs The educator’s mSGP score for 2013-14; Chart depicting an example of a teacher’s score is displayed below Suggestions for how to interpret and utilize the data, as well as access to additional resources TEACHERMSGP # STUDENTS ASSIGNED MSGP SCORE (1.0-4.0) Language Arts Literacy4622 Mathematics6822 Overall52223.0

9. 9 Addressing Data Issues The accuracy of mSGP Data is dependent on course roster and staff submission data by the school district. Districts may expect to receive mSGP scores for educators who ended up not qualifying – and vice versa. Incorrect district data submissions may have led to errors in mSGP scores for individual educators. Guided by feedback from last year’s practice release, the Department has created mSGP score verification and correction procedures. Depending on the issue and the district’s ability to document evidence for a given error, the mSGP score may be recalculated or removed from an educator’s summative rating. Detailed guidance has been posted here.here

10. 10 Potential Data Issues Educators expecting but not receiving the mSGP score – Option A: For a teacher with 2 SGOs for 2013-14 OR for a principal/AP/VP, recalculate summative rating using other component scores – Option B: For a teacher with 1 SGO, eliminate summative rating Educators seeking to correct the mSGP score – Option A: Provide documentation of errors, correct mSGP score, and recalculate summative rating – Option B: Remove mSGP score for a teacher with 2 SGOs OR for a principal/AP/VP, and recalculate summative rating – Option C: Remove mSGP score for a teacher with 1 SGO, eliminate summative rating. Note: State law requires multiple measures of student achievement; thus, if district data errors result in the need to negate the mSGP score for a teacher – and that teacher did not set 2 SGOs – then the teacher cannot receive a final summative rating for 2013-14. This scenario does not apply to principals, whose evaluations already include both Administrator Goals and the SGO Average in addition to potential mSGP scores.

11. 11 Evaluation Score Certification Tool Districts will have an opportunity to certify that all 2013-14 evaluation data is correct or to make changes where necessary. – The Department will release the 2013-14 Evaluation Score Certification Tool, a new electronic application for districts to use in certifying final 2013-14 summative ratings for all educators, in late January. – This interface will allow districts to review data, correct any errors that occurred in the original NJ SMART submission, and certify the accuracy of each staff member’s final score. – Districts will have approximately one month to complete this process after release of the tool.

12. 12 Next Steps Districts: download secure mSGP reports and provide individual educator reports confidentially, ideally through one-on-one conference – Department resources: http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/percentile.shtmlhttp://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/percentile.shtml Educators: review data, share questions/feedback with supervisor Districts Identifying Data Issues: consult Department guidance: http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/resources/1314mSGPdataprocedures.pdf http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/resources/1314mSGPdataprocedures.pdf Department: release 2013-14 Evaluation Score Certification Tool in coming weeks Districts: certify all 2013-14 evaluation scores within 4 weeks of Tool access

13. 13 Implementation Timeline: Common Core, State Assessments, and Student Growth Data 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 ‘10-’11‘12-’13 ‘13-’14 ‘14-’15 ‘11-’12 Setting the Context

14. 14 SGP and the PARCC Transition Multi-Year Preparation CCSS adopted 4 years ago NJ ASK incrementally aligned to CCSS in content and rigor 2014 NJ ASK scores show little change compared to prior years despite increased rigor 81% of schools who will use PARCC engaged in pilot testing technology Growth, Not Proficiency To calculate SGP, student growth is compared with growth of academic peers taking the same assessments statewide SGP does not depend on tests having a consistent scale and is not a criterion- reference metric Multiple Measures, Lower Stakes mSGP is one of multiple measures for the educators in tested grades and subjects; others include educator practice, SGOs, and additional goals and evaluation leadership for principals mSGP weight reduced to 10% for all educators for 2014-15 to recognize adjustment to new assessment

15. 15 Appendix: Calculating SGP and mSGP The following slides depict and explain how SGP and mSGP scores are calculated. For a video overview of SGP calculation, please access http://survey.pcgus.com/njgrowth/player.html. http://survey.pcgus.com/njgrowth/player.html

16. 16   Calculating Student Growth Percentiles Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) measure how much a student has learned from one year to the next compared to students with a similar NJ ASK performance history from across the state (“academic peers”). SGP scores range from 1 to 99 All students can show growth.      

17. 17 Why Student Growth? A student’s NJ ASK score does not tell the whole story. Partially Proficient Gr. 3 Gr. 4Gr. 5 100 200 250 150 160 165 NJ ASK Scale Score by Grade NJ ASK Scale Proficient Advanced Proficient 230 205 220  Albert  Maria Under our current system, schools and parents might only notice that Maria is “Proficient” and that Albert is “Partially Proficient.”

18. 18 SGP Considers Growth, Not Proficiency Albert’s Prior Scores  Academic Peers’ Prior Scores    Albert has taken the 5 th -grade NJ ASK. How does his score compare to those of his academic peers? 3 rd Gr.150 4 th Gr.160 5 th Gr.165 3 rd Gr.≈150 4 th Gr.≈160 5 th Gr.???                                                     

19. 19 Understanding Academic Peers Multiple consecutive years of data are required to calculate SGP. – Since 3 rd grade is the first year of the NJ ASK, 4 th grade is the first year for which we can calculate SGP. The more years of data available, the more precise an academic peer group is. – By 8 th grade, we have up to 6 years of scores for the calculation (as long as students have taken the same assessments). – If a student does not have an NJ ASK score for a given year, an SGP cannot be calculated until he/she has 2 consecutive years of scores. The peer group includes all students in a grade cohort who have taken the exact same assessments, i.e., all 7 th graders who took the 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th -grade Math NJ ASK and the 7 th -grade Math NJ ASK Academic peer groups are recalculated every year, considering all assessment data for a given cohort of students.

20. 20 Determining an SGP NJ ASK Score Partially Proficient 100 200 150 160 165 Proficient Advanced Proficient 250 Gr.3 Gr.5Gr.4 Partially Proficient 100 200 150 160 200 Proficient Advanced Proficient 110 250 Gr.3Gr.5Gr.4 Albert’s 5 th -Grade NJ ASK Score Albert’s Academic Peers’ NJ ASK Scores Albert scored 165. His academic peers scored between 110 and 200. How did Albert do in comparison to them? 29% 70% 165

21. 21 Determining an SGP A comparison to his academic peers allows us to see that Albert actually outperformed 70% of students who, up until this year, performed in a similar manner to Albert. Albert’s SGP score would be 70. 1%99% 70% Albert’s Score  Academic Peers’ Scores    5 th Gr.165 5 th Gr. 110 - 200        SGP

22. 22 Determining a Teacher’s mSGP Rating 22 Albert’s teacher would receive a median SGP score of 51.         Albert’s SGP is arranged along with the SGPs of all his teacher’s students from low to high.          StudentSGP Score Hugh12 Eve16 Clarence22 Clayton24 Earnestine25 Helen31 Clinton35 Tim39 Jennifer44 Jaquelyn46 Lance51 Roxie53 Laura57 Julio61 Selena65 Ashlee66 Albert70 Mathew72 Marcus85 Charles89 Milton97   

23. 23 mSGP Technical Rules In future years, teachers should know that: If two or three years of data are available, the Department will use the best available score — either the teacher’s median score of their current roster or the median of all student scores over the years available. The mSGP score, along with the observation and SGO scores, will be placed on a 1.0 - 4.0 scale and weighted appropriately to determine a summative evaluation rating. StudentSGP Score Hugh12 Eve16 Clarence22 Clayton24 Earnestine25 Helen31 Clinton35 Tim39 Jennifer44 Jaquelyn46 Lance51 Roxie53 Laura57 Julio61 Selena65 Ashlee66 Albert70 Mathew72 Marcus85 Charles89 Milton97 Mel56 Laura57 Regina58 Marissa60 Julio61 Faye63 Selena65 Ashlee66 Jackie67 Courtney68 Albert70 Matthew72 Laura77 Jack78 Jared80 Rick84 Marcus85 Charles89 Michelle92 Molly95 Milton97 StudentSGP Score Hugh12 Eve16 John16 Charles20 Annie20 Clarence22 Clayton24 Earnestine25 Jake27 Helen31 Rachel33 Clinton35 Tim39 George41 Amber42 Jennifer44 Jaquelyn46 Bobby50 Lance51 Roxie53 Mike55 Median over 2 years = 56Median this Year = 51

24. 24 mSGP Conversion from 1 - 99 to 1.0 - 4.0 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 1 – 201 211.1 221.2 231.3 241.4 251.5 261.6 271.7 281.8 291.9 302 312.1 322.2 332.3 342.4 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 653.5 663.5 673.5 683.6 693.6 703.6 713.7 723.7 733.7 743.8 753.8 763.8 773.9 783.9 793.9 80 - 994 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 352.5 362.5 372.6 382.6 392.7 402.7 412.8 422.8 432.9 442.9 453 463 473 483 493 mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 503 513 523 533 543 553 563.1 573.1 583.2 593.2 603.3 613.3 623.4 633.4 643.4 Based on the mSGP score, Albert’s teacher receives a rating of 3 for this component, which is then combined with other evaluation components to get a summative rating.

25. 25 SGP Conversion Chart Explained mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 352.5 362.5 372.6 382.6 392.7 402.7 412.8 422.8 432.9 442.9 453.0 463.0 473.0 483.0 493.0 503.0 513.0 523.0 533.0 543.0 553.0 563.1 573.1 583.2 593.2 603.3 613.3 623.4 633.4 643.4 Why are all the values between 45 and 55 set to the same score (3.0)? The Department believes that educators in the middle of the mSGP distribution are driving significant academic growth in their students. Educators whose students achieve scores in this range should be recognized by receiving a rating on par with their impact.

26. 26 SGP Conversion Chart Explained mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 1 – 201.0 211.1 221.2 231.3 241.4 251.5 261.6 271.7 281.8 291.9 302.0 312.1 322.2 332.3 342.4 Why are the values at the extreme ends of the distribution, 1-20 = 1 in this case (and 80-99 = 4), set to the same score? When more than half of a teacher's students are in the top 20 percentile points on the SGP scale it is an indication of very high growth. When more than half of a teacher's students are in the bottom percentile points this is an indicator of low growth to be considered with other evidence. mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 653.5 663.5 673.5 683.6 693.6 703.6 713.7 723.7 733.7 743.8 753.8 763.8 773.9 783.9 793.9 80 - 994.0

27. 27 SGP Conversion Chart Explained mSGP Score Evaluation Rating 653.5 663.5 673.5 683.6 693.6 703.6 713.7 723.7 733.7 743.8 753.8 763.8 773.9 783.9 793.9 80 - 994.0 Why Decimals? Why Tenths? The use of decimals instead of whole numbers enables the scale to increase/decrease gradually, improving the statistical efficiency of the conversion. This prevents large rating differences that may not accurately reflect significant differences in student learning.