1. Cathy Pine, Ph.D., Director Office of Professional Development New Jersey Dept. of Education December 6, 2011

2.  National and state context for creating a principal evaluation system  NJ DOE work to date and proposed timeline  Challenges  Questions and feedback 2

3. 3

4.  Need to prepare students for a changing world ◦ “21 st century skills” ◦ “college and career ready”  Recognition that the achievement gap persists – US global rankings and closer to home  RTTT opportunity and NCLB waiver option put emphasis on the importance of educator effectiveness  2010 NJ Governor’s Executive Order No. 42 and the creation of the Educator Evaluation Task Force 4

5.  Enhanced expectations for students mean enhanced expectations for educators, e.g., Common Core State Standards & assessments and revised InTASC professional teaching standards  States are being challenged to build a coherent educator effectiveness system across the continuum of practice – evaluation is a key component 5

6. Improving the effectiveness of the principal will improve student outcomes ◦ Fostering a rigorous curriculum ◦ Supporting teachers in delivering high-quality instruction ◦ Connecting with the external community 6

7. Principal’s effectiveness is critical to retaining effective teachers ◦ Influence on working conditions ◦ Influence on school culture focused on collaboration, student learning, and educator learning ◦ Role in developing staff and exiting ineffective teachers 7

8. A common understanding and set of expectations around effective leadership practice is necessary to improve effectiveness and inform professional development ◦ Goals of evaluation are to assess in order to develop professional practice ◦ Assessment of current performance is necessary to provide feedback on practice and to support a continuous cycle of improvement 8

9.  The existence of a system to evaluate performance reinforces the importance of principal effectiveness  “What gets measured gets done.” -Peter Drucker 9

10.  Most systems still result in a binary judgment – satisfactory/unsatisfactory  Critical behaviors related to improving student learning are not emphasized  Most systems are not aligned with professional growth and development plans  Principal evaluation is not seen as a high priority for district leaders 10

11. 11

12.  To create a high-quality evaluation system that enables districts and the state to: ◦ Identify and address professional development needs ◦ Recognize excellence and inform hiring, retention, and, where applicable, separation ◦ Address inequitable distribution of effective teachers across schools and subject areas  With the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement for all the state’s 1.4 million students 12

13.  The needs of students are paramount.  All children can achieve at the highest levels.  Educators have the power to inspire, engage, and broaden the opportunities of all students. 13

14.  Multiple measures of student achievement that represent at least 50% of the evaluation and  Measures of practice that would account for the remaining 50% of the evaluation. 14

15.  Required components of principal evaluations  Four levels of performance: highly effective, effective, partially effective, ineffective  Use of multiple sources of evidence Measures of practice 40% Differential retention of effective teachers 10% Measures of student achievement 50% Aligned with 2008 ISLLC professional standards for school leaders Hiring and retaining effective teachers and exiting poor performers 35% aggregate performance 15% school goals 15

16.  Vision-building and change  Leading learning  Management and operations  Ethical behavior  Family and community engagement  Advocacy and policy 16

17.  Examination of commercial systems and state- developed systems ◦ Domains of practice ◦ Rubrics ◦ Types of evidence ◦ Weightings of components ◦ Procedural details ◦ Links to professional development  Conversations with higher ed representatives, the Professional Development Advisory Committee for School Leaders, PSA critical friends group, and the Evaluation Pilot Advisory Committee 17

18. 18 Leadership practices Organizational capacity and effectiveness Teacher capacity and effectiveness Other school outcomes Student achievement gains Other student outcomes Margaret Terry Orr Bank Street College of Education New York, NY

19.  Who is included?  What is assessed within the different “lanes”, i.e. components  What sources of evidence are used?  Who makes the value judgments on the evidence?  Are contextual factors taken into consideration? How?  How are the pieces weighted when combined?  How is the evaluation conducted? Margaret Terry Orr Bank Street College of Education New York, NY 19

20.  Application had to address three principles, including: Supporting effective instruction and leadership by developing and implementing state teacher and principal evaluation systems that take into account both student outcomes and practice.  Application included details about the principal evaluation system components (as set forth in the EETF report), guidelines for the assessment of principal practice, and a timeline for statewide implementation. 20

21.  Be research-based and shown to be valid and reliable;  Be based on multiple sources of evidence collected throughout the year;  Encompass domains of practice aligned to the NJ Professional Standards for School Leaders;  Include at least two observations of principal performance;  Include a measure of progress on at least one individual, school and/or district performance goal; 21

22.  Incorporate feedback from teachers;  Incorporate feedback from any other stakeholder groups (such as parents or students) if deemed appropriate based on designated performance goals;  Include an assessment of the quality of the principal’s evaluations of teachers;  Include evidence of the principal’s leadership for implementing a rigorous curriculum and assessments aligned to content standards;  Include evidence of the principal’s leadership for high-quality instruction; and  Include rubrics for assessing practice that have a minimum of 4 levels of performance. 22

23.  2011-12 SIG schools will begin to implement their principal evaluation systems – training is beginning next week  2011-12 Mini-pilot in a few interested districts (2-3)  2012-13 SIGS continue with implementation; Larger pilot with volunteer districts (20-25?)  2013-14 Statewide rollout 23

24. 24

25.  Evaluation of assistant principals and supervisors  Determining valid measures for the minimum recommended components  Contextual considerations related to time in the position, school and district characteristics (e.g., size of teaching staff, number of administrative support staff, DFG)  Weighting of components, within the practice measures or between practice and student achievement – should these differ according to context and/or over time?  Incorporation of student achievement results in non-tested subjects and grades. 25

26.  Timeline for pilot year - getting information out quickly so that districts can make an informed decision about participation  Funding availability for pilot – not sure yet  Creating and communicating the necessary guidance to districts  Lack of an evaluation system for superintendents 26

27.  Sharing information/templates on commercial systems to support districts in making informed choices  Communicating expectations and preparing more detailed guidance  Adoption of 2008 ISLLC standards to update our professional standards for school leaders  Building a technical assistance team 27

28.  We can do a better job of developing systems to evaluate principals in order to: ◦ Provide more focused feedback based on evidence ◦ Reward excellence and identify areas for improvement ◦ Provide the necessary leverage to dismiss ineffective practitioners; and ◦ Support relevant and practical professional development plans and activities.  We have to create and perfect this system together 28

29.  “Leaders … will be explorers, adventurers, trailblazers … leaders of leaders … They will gather around them people who have the future in their bones.” -Rowan Gibson, 2008, Rethinking the Future 29

30.  NJDOE staff members: Eileen Aviss-Spedding Bernadette (Bobbi) Newman Carol Albritton Victoria Duff Jessani Gordon 30

31.  Email: cathy.pine@doe.state.nj.uscathy.pine@doe.state.nj.us  Email: ee4nj@doe.state.nj.us 31